Trump’s name is circled. The circled individuals are the ones involved in the trafficking ring according to the person who originally released the book. These people would be “The List“ Here is the story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsiKUXrlcac
Jeffrey Epstein and Israel both have the same lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz says he's building 'legal dream team' to defend Israel in court and on international stage | The Times of Israel https://share.google/Lb9hDOduBWG4Elpid
—————————other Trump information:
-Here's Trump admitting to peeping on 14-15 year old girls at around 1:40 on the Howard Stern Radio Show: https://youtu.be/iFaQL_kv_QY
“I have a deal with her. She’s 17 and doing great ― Ivanka. She made me promise, swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her,” Trump said. “So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited.”
Here’s a refined Master Index to help you navigate the key repositories of publicly available documents related to Jeffrey Epstein—beyond what you already know (Giuffre v. Maxwell, the Black Books, flight logs):
1. Miami Herald — Perversion of Justice Archive
A landmark investigative series that reignited public scrutiny of Epstein’s 2008 plea deal and broader trafficking network (Miami Herald).
The Herald has amassed a vast DocumentCloud library of relevant court filings, affidavits, deposition transcripts, and investigative materials labeled collectively as “Epstein Docs” (over 2,000 pages) (DocumentCloud).
Notable standalone items include a 943-page “Epstein documents” collection, likely containing deposition excerpts or investigative reports (DocumentCloud).
2. DocumentCloud
A powerful public platform used by journalists and researchers, hosting voluminous Epstein-related materials:
Specific entries like “1.3.24 Epstein documents – 943 pages” — useful deep dives into particular filings, likely unsealed depositions or reports (DocumentCloud).
Individual legal documents such as “Reiter Depo Vol. I” (transcript of former Palm Beach PD Chief Michael Reiter’s deposition from 2009) (DocumentCloud).
You can explore additional DocumentCloud searches using terms like “Epstein,” “Epstein deposition,” or “Reiter Epstein” to uncover more.
3. Court Filings & Litigation Beyond Giuffre v. Maxwell
Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation): Victims challenged the constitutionality of Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement. Derived court documents partially available via DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility reports (Department of Justice).
Other defamation or tax-related filings: DocumentCloud hosts other relevant case files, like Jean Robert Saint Jean v. Emigrant — though tangential, they reflect broader legal entanglements (DocumentCloud, DocumentCloud).
4. FBI / DOJ & FOIA Materials
The FBI Vault has released over 2,000 pages of documents, including agent logs, interviews, and summary reports.
Ongoing FOIA requests and investigative efforts (like those by MuckRock or POGO) continue to yield internal DOJ/FBI communications, evidence inventories, and case summaries. Miami Herald coverage frequently references such documents (Miami Herald, Vanity Fair).
A DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (from February 2019) details how federal prosecutors handled the Epstein plea deal and victim notifications, offering excerpts and legal findings (Department of Justice).
5. DOJ Special Releases — “Epstein Files”
In 2025, a partial release of “Epstein Files” occurred, including court motions, witness lists, subpoenas, and witness depositions — albeit with minimal new revelations (Vanity Fair, People.com).
DOJ has now announced it will cease releasing further files, holding back grand jury materials, digital media, financial records, and more (Business Insider).
Legislative and congressional developments around the disclosure remain in flux, with some documents currently being reviewed and redacted before possible release to the House Oversight Committee (AP News, The Guardian).
6. Service of Justice, FOIA, & Broader Reporting
FOIA and watchdog projects (e.g., MuckRock, POGO) have surfaced internal correspondence, government review processes, and release decisions concerning Epstein investigations (Department of Justice, Vanity Fair).
All of Julie K. Brown’s reporting and companion materials around Perversion of Justice are publicly available, with archives in both the MLB site and print formats (Miami Herald, Wikipedia).
Summary Table
Repository / Category
Contents & Highlights
Miami Herald / DocumentCloud
Large “Epstein Docs” collections, depositions, investigative filings
Specific DocumentCloud files
943-page doc, Reiter deposition, others
Court filings (CVRA & others)
Victim litigation vs. DOJ, deposition and motion documents
Miami Herald site: Visit their Perversion of Justice topic page to access articles and DocumentCloud links (Miami Herald).
DocumentCloud: Search for “Epstein Docs,” “Epstein deposition,” or similar to explore indexed documents (DocumentCloud).
PACER (federal court filings): Look up DOJ or Virgin Islands civil dockets (e.g., CVRA or estate litigation).
FBI Vault online: Search “Jeffrey Epstein” to find uploaded documents.
News updates / watchdog sites: Use Business Insider, Guardian, Politico, etc., to track new releases or legal developments (Business Insider, The Guardian, People.com).
Let me know if you'd like me to compile direct links to some of these key files (e.g., the Reiter deposition, the “943-page document,” or OPR filings), or build an annotated directory of the most critical documents in each category.
At this point, can we even trust anything that comes from them - even if unredacted?
I mean they send Blanche to interview her and she basically gives them the answers they want then gets moved to a “better” prison with less security. Who does that unless you’re hiding something. We need an independent counsel but that will never happen because Trump is guilty.
Love the whole Bolton distraction to try to change the narrative lol. Oh the irony.
Friendly reminder that this is unproven. The only allegation that approximates this comes from a series of lawsuits that were withdrawn before they went through further court proceedings. This means that there was no discovery process, depositions or cross-examinations to verify these claims:
Here is the first lawsuit, filed on April 26, 2016, under the pseudonym of Katie Johnson. It does not contain an affidavit, only the complaint. It was dismissed by the court a few days later, not due to anything related to the factuality of the allegations, but because it was misfiled.
The second lawsuit was filed on June 20, 2016, under the pseudonym of Jane Doe, and contains the complaint and two affidavit declarations, one by Jane Doe, and another one by a Tiffany Doe, claiming to have worked for Epstein and have been a witness to what Jane Doe is alleging. Both Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were summoned, but Jane Doe never filed the affidavits confirming their servicing, before withdrawing the lawsuit on September 16, 2016
The third lawsuit was filed on September 30, 2016, again under the pseudonym of Jane Doe, containing the two declarations of the second lawsuit, plus a third one by a Joan Doe claiming to be a friend of Jane Doe who was told about what happened at the time. Again, Trump and Epstein were summoned, but Jane Doe never filed the affidavits of service. She then withdrew the lawsuit on November 4 of 2016.
I don't mean to say that these cases are trivial, they should be taken into consideration as they are, but they remain short-lived lawsuits that simply do not constitute enough evidence to claim what you are claiming with certainty. This is also not saying anything about any other of the allegations against him, this is related only to the claim that he "raped a child" (a 13 year old, according to the declarations of Jane Doe/Katie Johnson).
The only thing we know as to why the lawsuits were withdrawn is that the lawyer of this anonymous person stated that the claimant did so because she was receiving threats. This is of course a possibility, but it is not the only thing that would explain this. You can of course take what you know and build your own conclusions, but remember that there are steps in your reasoning that are speculation.
As it stands today, the evidence in favor of this claim is inconclusive It might be true, it might not be.
Reddit isn’t a courtroom. You can call OJ a murderer even without a conviction. These allegations and other circumstantial evidence including Trump’s complicity in Epstein’s sex trafficking and Trump’s own words regarding his daughter or his child beauty pageant contestants among other things have led people to make their own conclusions that Trump is a child predator.
There is far less evidence that Donald Trump had raped a child than there is for OJ to have murdered his ex-wife. That is independent of there being a trial. If there had been a trial for this and Trump has been acquired, but in the process substantial evidence had been made public, then that would serve as public evidence regardless of the decision of the court.
Of course Reddit is not a court room, it is a public forum. I can say that Bill Nye the Science Guy kills neighbourhood dogs to cook in a stew dressed as a clown, and I can also point out that there is no conclusive evidence to claim with certainty that Donald Trump has raped any children.
Reddit is also not a place to convince anyone of anything, particularly. Multi-paragraph comments don't stand a chance against cute one-sentence zingers.
OJ was found liable of murder in a civil court as much as Trump was liable guilty of rape—oh sorry, SEXUAL ABUSE VIA PENETRATION WITH HIS FINGERS—in a civil court.
Not to mention… birds of a feather flock together. The flight logs, pictures, etc. while all are circumstantial evidence… circumstantial evidence is no less or more valuable than direct evidence.
I am talking specifically, as explicitly stated in my first comment, about the claim "Donald Trump raped a child", you are confusing cases. This is a very specific accusation I see in Reddit all the time stated as fact, and after looking it up, I found that it is not something that there is enough concrete evidence for to state it with such certainty.
I also said in that same comment that I understand that everyone is free to take the information they have and build their own conclusions. In this case, they should know that if they are claiming this, that they are making significant leaps of speculation between what is known and the conclusions they are reaching. Even as circumstantial evidence, what is known is inconclusive. Being acquainted or being friends with a child rapist is not evidence for you being one. There are many people in the flight logs, it is still not clear to what extend that log correlates to people involved with the sexual exploitation. If this really happened, hopefully we will get more information eventually about it, but as it stands, the very serious claim that this person raped a 13 year old is inconclusive.
He has already raped a grown woman and he is friends, specially very close friends, with child predators. If you’re shown to be willing to do one sexual crime, theres a slippery slope where you’re likely to commit more.
Making trips to an island where sexual predation occurs certainly doesn’t imply no wrong doing.
It frankly implicates you. I mean you were visiting the island while it was filled with young girls where there was a single purpose.
But you see? You have not studied the publicly known information enough to even be making any of these claims. There is no record of Donald Trump having travelled to Little Saint James Island. The logs of Epstein's plane that we have access to show Trump travelling back and forth between Teterboro, NJ and Palm Beach, FL, with one instance of a flight from Palm Beach to Teterboro with a stop on Washington D.C. and an instance of a flight from Palm Beach to Newark, NJ.
This does not mean he was not ever there, it means we don't know. If you believe he was, it is your own speculation, it is not based in the information we currently have access to.
Also, it is quite crude to talk about this, but the claim itself is quite crude already, specially given the fact that is being stated without any strong evidence, so it opens the door to crude discussion anyway. Raping a person that is 13 years old or younger (use of word "child" here) requires different proclivities than sexual misconduct with grown people. You don't assume every rapist is a paedophile, right? There is a reason acting on paedophilia is seen as a different, and even more wicked act.
There is an asymmetry in terms of this question. There is no clear way to prove Donald Trump did not rape a child. We can talk about the specific Jane Doe case which I discussed earlier, which is the only known legal claim against him related to someone that could be considered a child, and which I hold that is inconclusive given that the lawsuits were dropped or withdrawn too quickly to enter a discovery phase. But if that does not satisfy you and you now speculate on the broader relationship with Epstein, it becomes very difficult to produce evidence in favor of his innocence because the claim is very general and spread over a long period of time, without specific occurrences and events being pointed to. On the other hand, you could easily prove that he did, if you had the evidence pointing to specific claims, events or situations involving him, which simply does not exist or is not public at the moment.
Again, given what we know, it is inconclusive, and it is incorrect to make this claim with full certainty as the original post I replied to did.
GM has zero credibility; shes an unreliable and compromised criminal witness. its weird the government thinks her statements would carry any weight at all, without corroboration. but then i read reddit comments and remember why the trump administration releases the transcript of her interview with the justice dept, but not the unredacted list of men and women who traveled to his island and engaged in raping, trafficking, intimidating, and exploiting children.
Only a full on regard would think Trump isn’t 100% guilty.
He has more pictures with Epstein than anyone alive.
Flown on the plane at least seven times. Was best friends for years.
Hung out at parties all the time with Epstein. Called him a “great guy”. Wished Maxwell “luck” and bragged about sexually assaulting women.
Or you can be stolid and believe the person in prison for child rape and perjury.
4.1k
u/copperblood 1d ago
Friendly reminder that Trump is a child rapist. Release the Epstein files.