Words such as "rape," "murder," and "forcing oral sex" are directed toward President Donald Trump in claims from the DOJ's Jeffrey Epstein document dump

(Instagram)

Donald Trump twice is accused of taking actions that meet the legal definition of rape in documents from last Friday's Department of Justice (DOJ) release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump also was accused of being present for the murder of a newborn, according to a report from Mediaite. The complaints come in the form of uncorroborated tips to the FBI.

Writer Zachary Leeman notes that after their initial appearance, the complaints mentioning Trump were removed from the DOJ website with a “page not found” message being given to people trying to search for them. The complaints, however, have been widely copied and shared on social media. As of last night, a search still produces a "page not found" message. 

As for the allegations against Trump, Leeman reports under the headline "Latest Epstein Files Include  Wild Trump Allegations, including rape":

In a complaint made by a friend, the president was accused of forcing a 13-14-year-old to perform oral sex on him.

“[Redacted] reported an unidentified female friend who was forced to perform oral sex on President Trump approximately 35 years ago in NJ. The friend told Alexis that she was approximately 13-14 years old when this occurred, and the friend allegedly bit President Trump while performing oral sex. The friend was allegedly hit in the face after she laughed about biting President Trump. The friend said she was also abused by Epstein,” the complaint reads. In the “response” column, it is noted that an investigator was sent to Washington to conduct an interview.

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, acts of rape include "oral sex forced upon a victim." All of the claims against Trump are disturbing, but on a scale of depravity, the following would get my vote to be at the top:

Another complaint — for which there was no contact information provided — alleged that “calendar girls” parties at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago involved genital measurements for children.

“Jeffrey Epstein would bring the children in, and Trump would auction them off. He measured the children’s vulva and vaginas by entering a finger and rated the children on tightness,” the complaint reads.

The person alleged people like Elon Musk, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump were present at these parties.

The word "sickos" comes to mind as a descriptor for any person who would directly engage in, or be present for, such behavior. Per the FBI, acts of rape include "vaginal or anal penetration without consent."

Reading about other incidents involving Donald Trump does not get any more pleasant. Leeman writes:

Another in Epstein’s orbit made allegations of “sex trafficking” and murder. The unidentified person was following up on a tip given to the NYPD in which the person said they were raped at 13. The person also alleged Trump regularly paid them to perform sexual acts and claimed he was present when her newborn child was murdered.

“Complainant reported Donald Trump participated regularly in paying money to force her to perform sex acts with him and alleged Trump was present when her uncle murdered her newborn child,” notes on the complaint read.

According to the paperwork, there was “no contact made.” That apparently means no investigation was conducted. 

Another incident involved a famed figure in the world of television. From the Mediaite report:

One complainant claimed they witnessed a “sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf Course” in Rancho Palo Verdes, California between 1995 and 1996. The person alleged Ghislaine Maxwell, a former Epstein associate now serving 20 years for sex trafficking, was a “madam” and “broker” for deals involving girls.

The person claimed they witnessed Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous host Robin Leach “strangle a young girl” at a party. The person also told of a threat from Trump’s head of security if she “ever talked.” She claimed he said she would “end up as fertilizer for the back nine holes like the other c*nts” if she spoke about what she had seen. 

We are left with the following question: Who are the worst people in all of this -- Trump himself or the people he has been known to hang out with? Either way, it's a grim scenario, especially with the president of the United States involved.

Trump threatens to sue somebody, anybody for something, anything regarding release of Epstein files -- proving his ignorance on the rule of law is boundless

(Instagram)

Donald Trump says he intends to sue over his name being prominently featured in the Epstein files, proving he is too ignorant to hold any public office, much less the presidency. How did we come to that conclusion? We will address that question in a bit, but first, let's take a look at this article from Raw Story under the headline "'We'll certainly sue: Trump vows vengeance after being named 3,000 times in Epstein files." Alexander Willis writes:

President Donald Trump was named more than 3,000 times in the Justice Department’s release Friday of around 3.5 million files on Jeffrey Epstein, and on Saturday, Trump vowed vengeance against author Michael Wolff and potentially the Epstein’s estate for what the president alleged was a conspiratorial effort to damage him politically.

“Wolff, who’s a third-rate writer, was conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to hurt me politically or otherwise and that came through loud and clear,” Trump told reporters Saturday, The Independent reported. “So we’ll probably sue Wolf on that… maybe the Epstein estate, I guess. I don’t know. But we’ll certainly sue Wolff.” 

Trump does not seem terribly sure about who he would sue. And he is so clueless about what grounds he might have for the lawsuit that he doesn't even address the issue. That is in keeping with Trump's usual legal strategy of "let's file a lawsuit now and worry about the facts and the law later -- hopefully after the other side reveals a squishy backbone and writes us a nice, big check." This strategy has been remarkably successful so far, as shown in the following items:

(1) CBS News and Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to resolve a Trump lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview last summer with Kamala Harris that Trump contended was deceptively edited to make  Harris appear more favorable;

(2) YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million to Trump and several others, settling a lawsuit over YouTube’s suspension of their accounts following the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021;

(3) Meta settled for $25 million, on claims similar to those in the YouTube case;

(4) X agreed to a $10 million settlement less than a month later also for deplatforming Trump after Jan. 6;

(5) One law firm, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, reached an agreement with Trump  to commit $100 million in pro bono work to causes that both the firm and Trump champion;

(6) Milbank LLP also agreed to commit $100 million in pro bono work;

(7) Another firm, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, reached an agreement to avoid an executive order. And the Paul Weiss firm reached an agreement to have an executive order rescinded;

(8) Columbia University agreed to a $221-million resolution regarding federal investigations into allegations of discrimination;

(9) The federal government and Brown University reached an agreement with the Rhode Island institution to restore its research funding. As part of the agreement, the university will pay $50 million in grants over the next decade to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island. Brown has said it will also take steps to combat antisemitism, refrain from considering race in the admissions process, and ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

(10) In a case that so far has gone against Trump, a federal judge ruled in favor of Harvard University, finding the Trump administration illegally froze more than $2 billion in federal research funding as retaliation for protected First Amendment-related activities. The court blocked the funding freeze, and the administration has since announced an appeal of the decision;

(11) In another case that went against Trump, A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore more than $500 million in National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal research grants to UCLA. The funding, which supported hundreds of health and science projects, was initially frozen due to federal claims that UCLA failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus. U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin issued a preliminary injunction forcing the restoration of funding, ruling that the NSF violated an earlier order by cutting funds. By October 2025, UCLA successfully regained nearly all of the roughly 500 suspended grants. The Trump administration, showing its willingness to deal in glorified extortion, sought a $1.2-billion settlement, which involved demands for addressing antisemitism, potential bans on certain international students, and the hiring of an outside monitor.

As for Trump's threat to sue somebody, anybody over release of the Epstein files, the information released certainly isn't flattering, as Raw Story's Alexander Willis makes clear:

(A) In the latest batch of Epstein files, new allegations against Trump have been unearthed. One woman told the FBI in 2016 under penalty of perjury that she had personally witnessed Trump threaten to “disappear” a girl and have her entire family killed, and that she had personally witnessed Trump sexually  abuse “minor females.”

(B) Another inclusion in the files was a child sex abuse tip against Trump that was passed to the FBI for further investigation, and another, was an allegation that Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell had attempted to “effectively pimp” a young girl to Trump.

Despite the newly unearthed allegations, Trump has not, and is not, facing any criminal charges related to his past relationship with Epstein, and has denied  wrongdoing.

 How did we conclude that Trump would be stupid, moronic, brain dead (well . . . you get the idea) to sue anybody regarding release of the Epstein files? The following thoughts came to our mind:

1. Re: Item B above, the sworn statement to the FBI was signed on June 18, 2016. Trump had wrapped up the GOP primary by that point and went on to defeat Hillary Clinton under curious circumstances in that year's general election. How does he prove that a conspiracy hurt him politically? How does he prove damages? After all, he "won" at every step along the way;

2. Is Trump trying to claim defamation? How does he prove this information, given under penalty of perjury, is false? Does Trump even know the legal basis of a defamation claim?

3. What if Wolf, the Epstein estate, or some other defendant refuses to cave and fights back with a countersuit, forcing Trump into the discovery process, with the president and his allies likely having to sit for depositions under oath and engage in production of documents.

4. What if defendants go on to prevail in a bench or jury trial, allowing them to recover damages for the expense and trouble Trump put them through. They also might seek sanctions against Trump and his attorneys for pursuing a baseless lawsuit. Between damages and sanctions, it could put a significant dent in Trump's wallet.

5. Many of the documents in the Epstein files appear to be based on court documents, which almost certainly would be open to public review. Since Congress ordered the files to be released, they would be deemed public. (Per AI Overview: "Documents released by Congressional action are generally deemed public. Under U.S. copyright law, works created by the federal government—including Congress—as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright protection and are automatically in the public domain.") With all Trump and his DOJ (Pam Bondi and Kash Patel) have done to keep the files hidden, does the prez now want to deal with them becoming an open book.

6. Finally, in the ultimate irony, Trump seems to have forgotten that he also signed the legislation that Congress passed, forcing the files to be released. Does that mean Trump plans to sue himself for allowing the Epstein files to become public. That would be a legal first and make Trump a worldwide laughingstock in the process. Given his notoriously thin skin, it's doubtful the president could handle that.

Trump's late-night posting binge includes bogus "treason" claim against Obama, but the real story is Tulsi Gabbard's presence at FBI raid in Georgia

Why was Tulsi Gabbard at FBI raid in Georgia? (NBC News)

Any American who still doubts that a madman presides over the White House should put those qualms to rest after President Donald Trump unleashed a torrent of crazed social-media posts overnight on Thursday (1/29/26). Trump long has been known for posting online screeds in the middle of the night, so much in fact that quite a few observers have asked, in so many words, "When does this guy ever sleep?"

Yesterday's keyboard session was notable because it essentially was a rerun of "Trump's Greatest Hits," focusing on chestnuts of insanity that made their debut in May-July of 2025. Those include claims that former President Barack Obama had tapped Trump's phones, thus committing "treason" that required an arrest and prosecution; claims that China, Iran, and Italy (among others) helped Obama "install (Joe) Biden as a puppet"; and claims that his 2020 defeat to Biden was partially the result of a "crooked" election in Georgia.

By continuing to gripe about his 2020 loss in Georgia, Trump opened the door for what might become a major story involving Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. That's because Gabbard was spotted on Wednesday (1/28/29) at an election center in Fulton County, GA, where the FBI conducted a raid seeking ballots from the 2020 presidential election, which Trump has falsely claimed he won. All of this is giving off early whiffs of a scandal, raising questions such as:

(1) Was the FBI raid designed to bolster Trump's claim that he was the victim of election fraud in 2020?

(2) Was the raid designed to find evidence of wrongdoing by Obama, Biden, or other Democrats, continuing the retribution tour against perceived political opponents that has been a hallmark of Trump's  second term?

(3) Why was Gabbard present at the raid, given that her job is to track threats from foreign adversaries? In fact, Gabbard is prohibited by law from taking part in domestic law enforcement. Is she unaware of restrictions on her job?

(4) With Trump struggling to stay afloat amid self-inflicted headaches in Minnesota, Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, Denmark, and all over Europe -- where allies now seem to be distancing themselves from a "strong man" regime that appears to have shattered their trust -- will the press smell weakness and launch investigative efforts that could produce Watergate-style revelations?

As for Trump's madcap posting session, the mainstream press largely ignored it, probably because it included recycled claims he made last year -- almost all of which have been discredited. Several left-leaning online sites, however, spotlighted the story of a president whose mental health has come under growing scrutiny. Trump's latest series of rants are not likely to ease concerns that he is not all there. The following is from a HuffPost report under the headline "Trump Makes Wild Accusation Against Obama In Unhinged Evening Posting Spree." Deputy Editor Ed Mazza writes:

Many are calling on President Donald Trump to help turn down the national temperature in the wake of the violence in Minneapolis, which included federal agents shooting and killing two American citizens. Instead, Trump on Wednesday evening went on a posting spree, sharing memes, conspiracy theories and outright lies.

In one post on his Truth Social site, he accused former President Barack Obama of “treason”:

The post included a video from last summer in which Trump claimed Obama was caught “absolutely cold” trying to “rig” elections, along with former President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James Comey.

“Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader,” Trump claimed in the video.

“It’s there, he’s guilty. This was treason, this was every word you can think of,” he added.

         No such evidence has ever emerged. 

In fact, Trump frequently uses the word treason, but there is little reason to believe he knows what it means. Just because an intellectually challenged president -- who has no clue about most matters of constitutional import -- makes an outrageous claim, it does not mean Barack Obama ever came close to committing actual treason. As Pete Williams of NBC News reported in 2019:

Once again . . . President Donald Trump used the T-word, this time saying that former FBI officials who were involved in investigating his campaign committed treason.

Asked at a White House event which of his adversaries he had in mind when he accused them of treason, he said, "A number of people. They have unsuccessfully tried to take down the wrong person." He then specified former FBI director James Comey, former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and former FBI agent Peter Strzok.

"That's treason. They couldn't win the election, and that's what happened."

But that isn't what the Constitution says treason is. It doesn’t mean being disloyal to the president. And it certainly would not apply to any actions against a private citizen, which Donald Trump was as a candidate for president.

Here's what the Constitution says (Article III, Section 3): "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

"Enemy" means a country or an entity that has declared war or is in a state of open war against the US. "Aid and comfort" must be something material, not words of encouragement.

Trump's confusion about treason was not even the most bizarre claim he made in the wee hours of Thursday. Mazza writes:

In addition, Trump shared a bizarre post claiming China, Iran, Italy, Merrill Lynch, the CIA, the FBI and others all worked with Obama to “install Biden as a puppet.” There’s no evidence for any of that, either, but Trump has for years pushed conspiracy theories about the 2016 and 2020 elections.

Earlier in the day, the FBI executed a search warrant at a Georgia election office. That’s the same state where Trump infamously demanded that Georgia’s Republican secretary of state “find” enough votes for him to win during a phone call he made after losing the 2020 election.

Trump also shared two posts claiming that Walmart would be closing 250 stores in California due to the state’s minimum wage. Although that’s not true, Trump included these lies along with other attacks against California and its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028.

Newsom fired back with a response from his “Press Office” account:

In the last 60 minutes, the President has posted 56 times on Truth Social.

One post claims Walmart is closing 85% of its California stores because of our "$22 minimum wage."

Another features an AI-generated video in which a robot accuses Gov. Newsom of running a drug-money laundering scheme out of the Governor's Office with the Mexican cartel.

Just to clarify:

-- Walmart's 303 stores in California are open.

-- The AI robot is lying. Gov. Newsom is not Pablo Escobar.

We cannot believe we have to say any of this out loud.

We cannot believe this is real life.

And we truly cannot believe this man has the nuclear codes.

Deep breaths, everyone. Three more years.

What could be the fallout of Trump's visit to the "Land of Looney Tunes"? I suspect the president will come to regret the FBI raid in Georgia, especially if he ordered it? I suspect he also will regret not ordering Tulsi Gabbard to stay away from the raid. In fact, he likely will regret ever nominating her as intelligence chief because she has set herself up to become the centerpiece of an unsightly scandal.

We will explore these and related issues in upcoming posts.

Alex Pretti's broken rib in early clash with federal agents indicates feds knew of him; other developments could point to a case of premeditated murder

A new question hangs over the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis. Here is the disconcerting question that, based on my survey of social media, quite a few Americans appear to be asking: Is this a case of premeditated murder? 

New information, out in the past two days, suggests the answer might be yes. The first new info comes from a story published at CNN and Yahoo! News under the headline "Alex Pretti broke rib in confrontation with federal agents a week before death, sources say." Jeff Winter and Priscilla Alvarez write:

Federal immigration officers have been collecting personal information about protesters and agitators in Minneapolis, sources told CNN – and had documented details about Alex Pretti before he was shot to death on Saturday.

It is unclear how Pretti first came to the attention of federal authorities, but sources told CNN that about a week before his death, he suffered a broken rib when a group of federal officers tackled him while he was protesting their attempt to detain other individuals.

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said that “DHS law enforcement has no record of this incident.”

Were DHS officials telling the truth with that one? Does anyone in the Donald Trump administration ever tell the truth, especially when it is in their interest to cover something up? Here is more from Winter and  Alvarez:

A memo sent earlier this month to agents temporarily assigned to the city asked them to “capture all images, license plates, identifications, and general information on hotels, agitators, protestors, etc., so we can capture it all in one consolidated form,” according to correspondence reviewed by CNN.

Pretti’s previous encounter is another reflection of the aggressive approach federal agents are taking with observers and protesters – a philosophy underscored by the request for agents to collect information about protesters whose activities are broadly protected by the First Amendment. 

Hmmm . . . the First Amendment sounds like a reference to the U.S. Constitution, the part we know as the Bill of Rights. Have Trump officials ever let the Bill of Rights keep them from doing whatever the hell they want? I've seen no signs of that happening yet. Now we learn that DHS is gathering information on protesters:

DHS has repeatedly warned of threats against federal law enforcement officers during immigration enforcement operations—and criticized protesters who they argue are impeding those operations. On Tuesday, the department also publicized an online tip form to share information about people allegedly harassing ICE officers.

“When our law enforcement encounter a violent agitator who is breaking the law, obstructing law enforcement or assaulting them, our law enforcement make records to advance prosecution. This is not ground breaking, it is standard protocol,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a statement.

So using a cell phone to film a public event now is considered "obstructing law enforcement" and can lead to prosecution? That probably would be news to quite a few Ivy League law professors. How did Pretti get crossways with Border Patrol scoundrels roughly one week before they killed him? The CNN/Yahoo! report has answers:

The earlier incident started when [Pretti] stopped his car after observing ICE agents chasing what he described as a family on foot, and began shouting and blowing his whistle, according to a source who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution.

Pretti later told the source that five agents tackled him and one leaned on his back – an encounter that left him with a broken rib. The agents quickly released him at the scene.

“That day, he thought he was going to die,” said the source.

Pretti was later given medication consistent with treating a broken rib, according to records reviewed by CNN.

Trump officials now seem obsessed with protesters and "agitators," even those they have beaten and injured, who likely have grounds to sue them:

Earlier this month, a DHS official in Minneapolis sent a memo to Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations officers assigned to the state on temporary duty asking them to use a form to input information on protesters and agitators.

The form — titled “intel collection non-arrests” — allows agents to fill in personal information of agitators and protesters who they encounter. It’s not clear whether other agencies in Minnesota are also using the form.

Previously, agents had informally shared information about protesters and agitators with each other, the memo said.

Pretti’s name was known to federal agents, according to a source – though it’s unclear whether the new intake form was used to share his information.

It’s also not clear whether the federal agents who encountered Pretti on Saturday recognized him before they confronted him – eventually wrestling him to the ground, taking a gun from his waistband and then fatally shooting him.

Some Trump officials have spoken publicly about the idea of creating a database of protesters, though it’s not clear what ICE has done with the information collected through the form circulated to agents in Minneapolis.

“One thing I’m pushing for right now … we’re going to create a database where those people that are arrested for interference, impeding and assault, we’re going to make them famous,” Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, told Fox News earlier this month. “We’re going to put their face on TV. We’re going to let their employers, in their neighborhoods, in their schools, know who these people are.”

On Sunday, a DHS spokeswoman denied the agency was compiling a database of “domestic terrorists” after a video in Maine showed a federal agent recording the license plate of a woman observing him during an operation and telling her, “We have a nice little database and now you are considered a domestic terrorist.”

McLaughlin told CNN about the Maine incident, “There is NO database of ‘domestic terrorists’ run by DHS. We do of course monitor and investigate and refer all threats, assaults and obstruction of our officers to the appropriate law enforcement. Obstructing and assaulting law enforcement is a felony and a federal crime.”

McLaughlin seems to have some clue about the actual relevant law, but that likely cannot be said for FBI Director Kash Patel. Consider this from CNN/Yahoo!:

In her statement to CNN on Tuesday, McLaughlin reiterated there is no DHS database.

Federal officials have made clear they are investigating anti-ICE activities they allege crossed the line into violence.

On Monday, FBI Director Kash Patel said the agency was investigating Signal group chats used by observers to share information about ICE activities, warning on a conservative podcast that people cannot “create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm’s way.”

On Tuesday, DHS announced it was launching an investigation into a U.S.  citizen “who attempted to purchase a firearm on two separate occasions,” allegedly stated she wanted to “protect herself from ICE Agents, and also to kill ICE Agents.”

What is the problem with Patel's statement? It indicates he has no clue about the nature of entrapment. He suggests it would be a crime too entrap law enforcement. What's the reality? Consider this from the Law Offices of John F. Marshall, a New Jersey law firm:

You’ve probably heard of the term “entrapment” before, but you may not understand exactly what it means in the legal sense. Though you may presume that entrapment is an illegal act, it’s not a crime at all. That means that those who engage in it are not subject to prosecution or penalties.  

Entrapment is an affirmative legal defense. In the most basic sense, it occurs when a government official, such as a police officer, uses threats, fraud, or harassment to induce or coerce someone to commit a crime they wouldn’t ordinarily commit. Defendants who can prove with a preponderance of the evidence that entrapment has occurred will likely be acquitted of the charges for which they are being tried.

In short, law-enforcement officers can engage in entrapment against others, and defendants can use that to get a not-guilty verdict. But it is not a legal wrong that can be committed against officers.

It is hard to imagine anyone being as wrong about a legal subject as Kash Patel is about entrapment. And he's head of the FBI! That's the kind of "expertise" you get with the Trump administration.

As for the question of premeditated murder in the Alex Pretti shooting, we will examine that issue in an upcoming post.