I mean, why is it so unbelievable? This is exactly the sort of behavior for which Epstein and Maxwell were convicted. What the woman describes seems pretty believable to me:

“The woman who directly named Trump in her abuse allegation claimed that around 1983, when she was around 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, “who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out.”https://martinplaut.com/2026/02/25/the-trump-files-withheld-by-the-us-justice-department-showing-abuse-of-minors/#:~:text=United%20States-,The%20Epstein%20files%20withheld%20by%20the%20US%20Justice%20Department%20showing,head%20and%20kicked%20her%20out.%E2%80%9D

Is it "unbelievable " because the alleged perp happens to be Donald Trump?


The only things the Guardian offers as contradictory facts aren't contradictory at all:

to another city with an adult male?

I am NOT defending the pedophiles or in any way excusing them or blaming the parents. I also am not discounting what the survivors have said. It just stood out to me when the statement said thar the 13 year old child flew from SC to NY. The parents didn't know? They did know and let her go?

Sorting through details for patterns of behavior might help in the investigations. Example: Did Epstein focus on girls whose parents were indifferent to the girls' activities and friends? Or, is there some way that Epstein and her parents were acquainted?

One would think after 1 time a person of that age would come back severely traumatized and the parent would pick up on it and never let them go again. Minimum I'd think a girl who could totally hide that would be a very rare case, which makes me think it's a little uncanny he could be hitting the pedo lottery (to his sick mind) as often he seems to. 15-17 year old's being plied by money seems more his MO on average and I don't recall other victims saying he got them wasted himself.

I generally try to take a very "I believe what they said" attitude but the circumstances and details of the claims do matter. There was (and is) a lot of money on the table, $300,000,000+ (to victims, after lawyers fees) has been paid out, with more lawsuits ongoing. One should logically allow you'd see SOME people make up or embellish stories to try to claim a share in those circumstances, and IMHO we should consider that because we want to see the legit truth-tellers get the fairest share of the pot possible.

some of our questions would be answered.

For example, the FBI found something in what she told them that made them interview her a few times. And those interviews are missing, so it sure looks like Trump had something to hide.

When I was 13, my best friend and I did some risky things because we were too young to realize just how risky they were. One of them was to accept a ride from two older boys that we had never met. We looked older than our age and thought it was "cool" that two 18 year old boys were interested in us. We rode around with them for a couple hours on a summer afternoon and gave them our phone numbers.

When one of them called me the next day, my mother answered the phone and, after giving it to me, she waited nearby until I finished talking. She asked who the boy was, where and how did we meet and how old was he. I told her and she asked didn't I know better than to get into a car alone with strange boys. I said I wasn't alone. She dismissed that and said that it was not normal for 18 years olds to cruise for girls 5 years younger. She said that they were taking advantage of our younger lack of experience and I should stick to kids my age. She then mentioned a few things that could have happened to us and said to stay away from those guys.

I was lucky to have a parent looking out for me. Also, she explained the reason why what we did was a bad idea and persuaded me instead of just coming down hard with, "Don't do it."

But what about 13 year old girls in a single parent family where the mother (or father) is working long hours and unaware of what the girls are doing? Or alcoholic or drug addicted parents who are not sober enough to pay attention or care?

A 13 year old girl who feels neglected might be flattered by attention from an adult man. Or, a girl who has already been sexually harrassed or molested? Her perspective is already skewed. What if a slimeball like Epstein threatened a girl if she did not comply and return when he demanded?

There are so many factors that could be involved that we just don't know about because the details are being hidden. We need more info, which means that the hidden records need to be released.

I'm inclined to believe they're thinking the claims aren't super positively incriminating for Trump, or their tone would be different. This is "our side" here with the Guardian

Also we really don't know WHY there were 4 interviews, but one possibility is simply "due diligence", getting all the claims documented. Maybe there was a plan for that many interviews from the start, maybe she felt she could only do 1 hour per interview for instance.

The REST of us do need to see them, and it does seem sketchy they were not released initially/until people noticed they're missing, but I'm not holding out a ton of hope based on the Guardian's tone that the facts are going to be all that damaging to IQ47. I hope I'm wrong.

The fact the she was rejected by the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund is not a very encouraging point either AFA how believable her story sounds overall. It was known to be pretty generous re: its inclusiveness, fwiw.

I used to post there several years ago. That's where I first noticed the Britishism of saying "uni" for university.

In the OP, we are only seeing their interpretation. We need to see the actual forms

I consider it slightly more likely The Guardian would downplay how sketchy the account is vs. overplay that aspect, but once we see them, I guess we'll know then

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2026, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

What does "substantiation" even mean? Ultimately that is established in a court of law with rules of evidence, a jury, etc.

And to get to that point, you need investigation, that can lead to prosecution. The fact that the investigation documents are being hidden suggests very strongly that there was indeed substantiation.

This is just terrible "journalism." The headline should have read,

Epstein files contain explicit claim that Trump RAPED minor and the documents of the FBI investigation are hidden by DoJ

we think...

it is very obvious IT HAPPENED

It's almost like he wishes the name itself would disappear.....

Strange, that.

I hinted in various posts here I was worried about this possibility. I even emailed Sollenberger (and The Bloom Firm) to raise a concern that he might misreading the situation. I hope that was misplaced, and her credibility can be established.

Once these interviews come out, I'm hoping Sollenberger clarifies if he still believes this witness actually IS Jane Doe 4, as he seemed to claim in his 2/18/2026 article.

https://sollenbergerrc.substack.com/p/doj-removed-record-of-multiple-fbi?sort=top

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-estate-hilton-head-teen/article_a58fcca8-ba02-4303-91df-35665fd69a36.html

But this person does seem to be Jane Doe #4, who I believe won a lawsuit against the Epstein estate in 2021.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-188009135

she is anonymous and harder to nail down which documents are specifically her.

Since being forced to watch the Minnesota snuff films of two citizens there must be other snuff films .Jeffery liked his cameras.
How many girls went for a swim from the helicopter going "home"?

the of them are missing.

of the 4th that's still around, she was interviewed 4 times. three of those times she implicated the orange pedo. those three transcripts to the FBI? they are missing.

if you read the whole piece

was an actual lawsuit filed against Trump by one victim when he ran for office in 2015. Then, as the Stormy and Karen McDougall stories were disappeared, the lawsuit suddenly disappeared, too.

or substantiate the allegation? It does not appear so. Nothing in the files by themselves prove anything. The law that was passed says everything must be released. People can decide for themselves what to believe. There needs to be an in depth and complete investigation beyond releasing the files.

Evidence"??

That crimes do not often have witnesses beyond the victims?

When did the media start adding "unsubstantiated" to pre-trial allegations, in order to sow doubt and skepticism?

Then again, plenty of people denied the reality of the photos of Andrew M-W, one with his arm around a young girl's bare waist, another of him hovering over a supine young woman.

And the criminal’s was not, in the one file that was released.

Explains precisely why the other documents, where the criminal was named, no longer remain public.

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2026, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)

If it was so unsubstantiated why did the FBI do 4 separate interviews with the victim?
Somehow the truth will come out no matter how hard “they” try to hide that Trump raped
and abused girls for years as part of Epstein, Vlad, Musk, and ? international child sex
trafficking ring.

BTW Melania is no doe eyed little person who was unaware of all this sordid abuse,
rape, and maybe murders of girls.* She was a sex worker who was introduced to Trump
by Epstein.

*. “The files contain evidence of some of the “gravest crimes under international law” including sexual slavery, reproductive violence, enforced disappearances, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and femicide, the experts said in a statement earlier this week.“. U.N. human rights council
https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=21041741

If the statements had no truth to them, that orange turd would surely have demanded arrests.

She does not sound sketchy to me.

This is exactly why they choose disenfranchised people to victimize. They can blackmail them with their prior issues and they become disposable.

I saw no 'outlandish' claims as the article says. Trump is certainly capable of all of this and more.

Hundred. That's how i see this!! (maybe a thousand)

THERE is your substantiation...
But notice how the media ignores them? And Republicans? And that committee who is interviewing the Clintons?

on the Guardian too much, as they continue to be one of the few sources of relevatively decent journalism. But really! Most of the 4th Estate has perpetuated, cheered on, sane-washed and other wise echoed every effin Trump lie over the past 10 years and rarely cared about fact checking or whether an outlandish claim he makes was a breach of decorum or beneath the dignity of the Office. But when someone accuses him of a disgusting act, NOW we have to be concerned about verifying everything out of concern for propriety and decorum? I have words for that that shouldn't be posted here . . . .

unsubstantiated, why tsf and his personal revenge squad formerly known as the DOJ have worked so hard to make sure the majority of the files never be released to investigating committees containing Democratic members? They even disobeyed court orders to release the files?

Why would they try so hard to cover up something, that would prove the allegations were unsubstantiated? You'd think they'd want something that may strengthen the accused's claims of innocence released immediately and to as wide an audience as possible.

He loves to file suits at the drop of a hat. Why hasn't he done that here? Probably because he knows the media stories would keep it in the public consciousness a lot longer and the sooner he ignores it, he thinks, the better. I haven't heard that any of the WH press corps has asked him about this, but I bet he tries to brush it off.

When a person files a defamation suit, the defense is entitled to a discovery process where everyone who has evidence (including Trump in this case, as well as friends of the victim, the FBI agents conducting the interviews, and Bondi who has been obstructing) must submit to a deposition under penalty of perjury.

In my experience (I am not a lawyer but have been through a few depositions) the deposition process is less regimented than the actual trial in court. This is because, even if something is said in deposition, that does not mean it can be used as evidence at trial. So the questions can be broad and far-reaching. There can be objections, but that doesn't usually happen too much. Mainly a lawyer might advise their client not to answer a particular question.

However, it the plaintiff refuses to answer proper questions, the defense can take that back to the court and ask the judge to compel cooperation or dismiss the suit. There is no way Trump would ever go down this path, because he is guilty as hell, and it would quickly become obvious.