Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Become a member

Become a member

Unsubstantiated claim that Trump abused minor in Epstein Files

Unreleased FBI Memos Detail Unverified Trump Claim

Three FBI memos from 2019 contain explicit but unsubstantiated allegations that President Donald Trump sexually abused a minor with the assistance of Jeffrey Epstein, according to a review by The Guardian. The documents were not included when the Department of Justice began releasing millions of Epstein-related files in December.

Get the latest headlines in your email subscribe.png

The memos describe four FBI interviews conducted on 24 July, 7 August, 22 August and 16 October 2019 at the Washington state law offices of attorney Barry Brandenburg. The Guardian obtained the missing FBI form 302 reports, which total 25 pages of agents’ notes. Only the first interview, in which Trump was not named, was included in the public release.

An administration official confirmed the three missing reports are authentic. The Department of Justice told NPR that “nothing has been deleted” and said withheld material was duplicative or privileged. The same explanation was given to Breitbart.

In a statement to The Guardian, an administration official said the accusations were listed as duplicative files in the SDNY records and were not legally required to be released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The official said the Department of Justice is continuing its review. The department did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

According to the memos, the woman told agents she was sexually abused by Epstein from about 1983, when she was 13 and living in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. She alleged that when she was between 13 and 15, Epstein took her to a building in New York or New Jersey, where she met Trump and others.

She claimed that when alone with Trump, he attempted to sexually assault her after making a remark about teaching her “how little girls are supposed to be”. She said she bit him and that he struck her and had her removed from the room. She also alleged that she heard Trump discuss blackmail and “washing money through casinos” with Epstein.

The allegations have not been verified. The FBI did not bring charges related to her claims, and parts of her account contradict known details of Epstein’s life in the early 1980s. Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing related to Epstein and said last week, “I did nothing.”

Mark Epstein told The Guardian he had no knowledge of his brother spending summers in Hilton Head in the early 1980s. There is no evidence that Trump and Epstein knew each other in 1983. Trump told New York magazine in 2002 that he had met Epstein 15 years earlier.

The woman also alleged Epstein gave her alcohol, drugs and forced her to perform sexual acts. She claimed Epstein blackmailed her mother with explicit photographs, leading to embezzlement and a prison term in South Carolina. The Guardian said it was unable to corroborate the claimed prison case.

In 2020, a Jane Doe with matching biographical details joined a lawsuit against Epstein’s estate but later dropped her claims. It is not known if a settlement was reached. Her lawyer in that case, Lisa Bloom, declined to comment.

US Representative Robert Garcia said he reviewed unredacted files at the Department of Justice and could not find the reports. House Oversight Committee chair James Comer said lawmakers would examine claims that the allegations were removed from the database.

Garcia wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking a full explanation for the withheld files. He said the Department of Justice had “illegally withheld” FBI interviews containing serious accusations.

Join the discussion? creat-account.png

Already a member? comment on this.png


image.png
  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 26 Feb 2026

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
11 hours ago, ASEAN NOW News said:

Three FBI memos from 2019 contain explicit but unsubstantiated allegations

Unsubstantiated. Bit of a key word this but it doesn't and wont stop those with an irrational hatred toward one person from going into a frenzy of equally unsubstantiated claims.

diceman Explorer Member

diceman

Member
8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Save your pitiful defence. Release the files unredacted. He is in charge now.

'pitiful defense' by saying if he's guilty then hang him?

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
Just now, diceman said:

'pitiful defense' by saying if he's guilty then hang him?

Remember it was: "Release the files!

Then it was: "Oh the incompetent Trump DOJ release unredacted files!

Now it's: "Release the unredacted files!

unblocktheplanet Diamond Member

unblocktheplanet

Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump

I don't know that you can say the "Biden DOJ" investigated those files. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. In any case, it may have been a case of decorum which Biden had & Trump does not.

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I don't know that you can say the "Biden DOJ" investigated those files. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. In any case, it may have been a case of decorum which Biden had & Trump does not.

They had to investigate the files to prosecute Maxwell.

Biden and most everyone in his administration called Trump a fascist, and we are supposed to believe that the Biden DOJ would go through his wife's underwear looking for documents he removed legally, but that the Biden DOJ would not evidence showing Trump guilty of raping a child, because of decorum?

If Trump is guilty of raping a child, I hope they hang him in public, and let the highest bidder pull the handle.

GroveHillWanderer Platinum Member

GroveHillWanderer

Advanced Member

I am probably the furthest thing you could find from a Trump supporter and there is plenty of despicable behaviour involving women and young girls that Trump is known to have been involved in (some of which he's even bragged about) but I have to say, this particular allegation does not, on the face of it, appear credible.

As stated in the OP, there is no evidence that Epstein ever visited Hilton Head Island at the time specified and according to the publicly available information, Trump and Epstein didn't even know each other when this is claimed to have happened.

0ffshore360 Gold Member

0ffshore360

Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Remember it was: "Release the files!

Then it was: "Oh the incompetent Trump DOJ release unredacted files!

Now it's: "Release the unredacted files!

Yes . True ! The redactions have obscured the truth the original request was intended to reveal.

Releasing selective heavily redacted files is not any form of vindication of any involved in what is now identified as a very international criminally organized participation in entrapment.

That previous administrations obviously did nothing to reveal the scope of activities does not mean much more than the international complexities assumed dealt with when Epstein was prosecuted were not closed despite best secretive bi partisan efforts.

Made worse by Trump suggesting he would declassify the files involved seemingly forgetting he was significantly mentioned.

Unsurprisingly post gaff instructions to redact or remove info entirely have now given cause to legitimately question the transparency so many dubiously accord to Trump and his administration.

In effect Trump has betrayed the elitist faction that positioned him where he is.

The flimsy cards of the seedy house he partied in are now folding and exposing other players. Eventually he too will prove himself to be that which a majority already consider him to really be.

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said:

Yes . True ! The redactions have obscured the truth the original request was intended to reveal.

Releasing selective heavily redacted files is not any form of vindication of any involved in what is now identified as a very international criminally organized participation in entrapment.

That previous administrations obviously did nothing to reveal the scope of activities does not mean much more than the international complexities assumed dealt with when Epstein was prosecuted were not closed despite best secretive bi partisan efforts.

Made worse by Trump suggesting he would declassify the files involved seemingly forgetting he was significantly mentioned.

Unsurprisingly post gaff instructions to redact or remove info entirely have now given cause to legitimately question the transparency so many dubiously accord to Trump and his administration.

In effect Trump has betrayed the elitist faction that positioned him where he is.

The flimsy cards of the seedy house he partied in are now folding and exposing other players. Eventually he too will prove himself to be that which a majority already consider him to really be.

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump


0ffshore360 Gold Member

0ffshore360

Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump


Edit : could not to did not. That may help you comprehend the implications of the geopolitical truths.

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said:

Edit : could not to did not. That may help you comprehend the implications of the geopolitical truths.

To be clear, it is your position that the Biden DOJ, with over 100,000 employees had evidence of Trump committing sex crimes with children and covered it up.

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and didn't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ did not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ did not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ did not even leak files on Trump

Is that correct?

candide Star Member

candide

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

They had to investigate the files to prosecute Maxwell.

Biden and most everyone in his administration called Trump a fascist, and we are supposed to believe that the Biden DOJ would go through his wife's underwear looking for documents he removed legally, but that the Biden DOJ would not evidence showing Trump guilty of raping a child, because of decorum?

If Trump is guilty of raping a child, I hope they hang him in public, and let the highest bidder pull the handle.

Stop lying. According to the PRA, an ex- President is not allowed to keep Presidential records after the end of his mandate. Trump refused to give them back, and that's why the NRA asked for the DOJ intervention! 😁

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, candide said:

Stop lying. According to the PRA, an ex- President is not allowed to keep Presidential records after the end of his mandate. Trump refused to give them back, and that's why the NRA asked for the DOJ intervention! 😁

I never said it was legal for him to keep them. I'd call you a liar, but I know you are not much on reading comprehension.

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump

Poor leftie, nothing in the files

candide Star Member

candide

Advanced Member
47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said it was legal for him to keep them. I'd call you a liar, but I know you are not much on reading comprehension.

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump

Poor leftie, nothing in the files

You wrote "for documents he removed legally"! 😂

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, candide said:

You wrote "for documents he removed legally"! 😂

Trump (unlike Biden) removed the documents legally, that is a fact that has never been in dispute. The dispute was Trump's retention of the documents.

I knew I would fish some simple lefty in with that. 😂😂😂


In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump

Poor leftie, nothing in the files

GoodieAfterDark Silver Member

GoodieAfterDark

Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Presnock said:

Even if she did state that but if it is true and she was a minor (below 18 years of age) then it would still be a crime. I realize that the statute of Limitations has passed but the Dems in the Congress are going to foot a bill to change the law so that the limitation date is of no consequence and the rich and powerful can still be tried in the courts even if the MAGA public don't wish that to happen. Too many victims for folks to say that they believe it is a HOAX as the president claims. Just like the "history" put out by his spouse, as that is checked, some stories just are not true. Seems the USA is behind in the world of public opinion and actions being taken by other countries against the Epstein crew. IMHO all the stories that the victims are telling are true whether they got paid for that activity or not.

The statute of limitations is probably the reason why they kept all the files hidden for so long.

metisdead Legendary Member

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

The statute of limitations is probably the reason why they kept all the files hidden for so lo

I think only six states have a statute of limitation for rape of a child, and federal law has none.

Try again.

GoodieAfterDark Silver Member

GoodieAfterDark

Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think only six states have a statute of limitation for rape of a child, and federal law has none.

Try again.

The statute of limitations for child rape in the United States varies significantly by state, with many states eliminating or greatly extending time limits due to the trauma and delayed disclosure often experienced by survivors.

Key Trends and State Examples:

  • No Statute of Limitations: Several states have eliminated time limits for child rape, especially in cases involving severe or felony offenses. These include Alaska, Delaware, Guam, Maine, Louisiana, Colorado (for offenses against children under 15), and Connecticut (for certain offenses involving minors).

  • Extended Time Limits: Many states allow civil claims to be filed well into adulthood:

    • California: Survivors can file until age 40 or within 5 years of discovering the psychological injury, whichever is later.

    • New York: The Child Victims Act allows claims until age 55.

    • New Jersey: Civil claims can be filed until the victim turns 55, or seven years after discovery of the injury, whichever is later.

    • Illinois: Civil claims can be filed at any time if the action would not have been time-barred before January 1, 2014.

    • Hawaii: Claims must be filed within eight years after the 18th birthday or three years after discovery of the abuse, whichever is later.

    • Idaho: Claims can be filed within five years of turning 18 (until age 23) or five years after discovery of the injury.

  • Discovery Rule: Some states apply a "discovery rule," allowing claims to be filed after the victim turns 18 if they only recently discovered the abuse or its effects. This applies in Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, and Colorado.

  • DNA Evidence Exception: A few states, like Georgia and Texas, eliminate the statute of limitations if DNA evidence is used to identify the perpetrator.

Federal and Legislative Developments:

  • The Statutes of Limitation for Child Sexual Abuse Reform Act (H.R.2920) is pending in Congress, which would establish a federal lookback window for child sexual abuse claims, allowing survivors to file civil lawsuits up to 20 years after turning 18.

  • States like Texas and Oklahoma have passed or are considering legislation to eliminate or extend statutes of limitations for child sex crimes.

Overall, the legal landscape is shifting toward survivor-friendly laws, with increasing numbers of states removing or extending time limits for child rape and sexual abuse cases.

candide Star Member

candide

Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Trump (unlike Biden) removed the documents legally, that is a fact that has never been in dispute. The dispute was Trump's retention of the documents.

I knew I would fish some simple lefty in with that. 😂😂😂


In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump

Poor leftie, nothing in the files

OK. Anyway, nice from you to acknowledge that he was not allowed to keep them from January 20th! 😃

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, candide said:

OK. Anyway, nice from you to acknowledge that he was not allowed to keep them from January 20! 😃

Again, you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills. What I said was, that: "Trump (unlike Biden) removed the documents legally, that is a fact that has never been in dispute. The dispute was Trump's retention of the documents."

That there was a dispute, does not mean it was illegal. That the Biden DOJ was not able to secure a conviction against Trump would indicate it was not illegal. Who do you imagine has the documents now?

Biden on the other hand, was stealing and retaining documents illegally for over twenty years, and he was given a pass by the unbiased Biden DOJ.

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump

Poor leftie, nothing in the files

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Easy solution: release the unredacted files.

And if there is video of children being abused should this be released unredacted? How about accusations that have been proven to be false? What about accusations under investigation for their veracity? Release everything unredacted? Have you thought this through?

Yellowtail Star Member

Yellowtail

Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

And if there is video of children being abused should this be released unredacted? How about accusations that have been proven to be false? What about accusations under investigation for their veracity? Release everything unredacted?

That's why he wants them released, he wants to see the naked children.

9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Have you thought this through?

He is incapable of thinking anything trough.

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He is incapable of thinking anything trough.

Same old irrational arguments that come from those on here that simply parrot the MSM propaganda. Quite frankly the sheeple seem to be well represented on here. Wonder how many believe without question what is spewed out from from the anti-Trump deranged platform The View.

pub2022 Advanced Member

pub2022

Member

If this is true, why hasn't Biden released the files to definitely eliminate Trump?

newnative Diamond Member

newnative

Advanced Member
14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Poor lefty, did you take your blood pressure meds?

I noticed you've quit lying about Trump being convicted of rape, now it's "found liable for sexual assault" of an older woman in a department store dressing room in the middle of the afternoon.

Hey, you forgot 34-time convicted felon.

Too rich! Just 'liable for sexual assault', as if that makes it all ok. Hey, our President only sexually assaulted someone, lighten up! Just ignore it and all the other bad things he has done, starting with the serial lying. Look, he's not George Washington, ok? He's the worst President in US history--twice!!! He CAN tell a lie--and absolutely loves to! Give him a break!

We're living in a Twilight Zone where Hillary Clinton, who never had any interaction with Epstein--obviously not his or Trump's type--is called to testify, but Melania and Trump, who both knew him closely, have yet to testify. Does that make any sense? And, will they ever be called to testify under oath? Or, will Trump's stooges continue to cover up his obvious involvement? The more they resist, including, of course, Trump, the guiltier he looks--and most certainly is.

JerryM Gold Member

JerryM

Advanced Member
15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

In any event why do you think it is that the Biden DOJ had the unredacted files for four years and can't find anything on Trump.

The Biden DOJ could not convict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not indict Trump

The Biden DOJ could not even leak files on Trump

In part from the below link namely that the Biden DoJ considered Trump as a political "has been"

I remember reading this NY Times article -- via Gemini AI:

A report by The New York Times (published in early 2024 and echoed in post-election retrospectives) detailed a significant miscalculation within Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice regarding Donald Trump’s political future.

According to these reports, the DOJ’s slow pace in initiating investigations into the former president was partly rooted in a belief that he was a fading political figure.

Key Findings from the NYT Report:

The "Fading Figure" Theory: Senior officials within the DOJ, and reportedly Attorney General Merrick Garland himself, initially viewed Trump as a "spent political force" after the January 6 Capitol riot. They believed he would naturally retreat from the spotlight, which contributed to a cautious, methodical approach that avoided early, direct investigations into Trump himself.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1387189-trump-complained-about-epstein/page/6/#findComment-20378462

dinsdale Star Member

dinsdale

Advanced Member
On 2/27/2026 at 6:26 AM, ASEAN NOW News said:

The allegations have not been verified. The FBI did not bring charges related to her claims, and parts of her account contradict known details of Epstein’s life in the early 1980s.

So not verified, no charges laid and inconsistent testimony. Obviously guilt must be assumed.

spidermike007 Star Member

spidermike007

Advanced Member
16 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Unsubstantiated. Bit of a key word this but it doesn't and wont stop those with an irrational hatred toward one person from going into a frenzy of equally unsubstantiated claims.

Keep giving him the protection that he most definitely does not deserve. Multiple federal agencies are doing the same right now. There is much to be covered up. After all how would MAGA supporters and the American, and the Christians public feel about their president being a serial statutory rapist?

bendejo Diamond Member

bendejo

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, newnative said:

but Melania and Trump, who both knew him closely, have yet to testify.

The grand question will arise, which just may be the one he dreads most: did you introduce Melania to Epstein, or did E introduce her to you?

No crime involved, but embarrassment beyond dimension.

bendejo Diamond Member

bendejo

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, JerryM said:

In part from the below link namely that the Biden DoJ considered Trump as a political "has been"

I remember reading this NY Times article -- via Gemini AI:

A report by The New York Times (published in early 2024 and echoed in post-election retrospectives) detailed a significant miscalculation within Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice regarding Donald Trump’s political future.

According to these reports, the DOJ’s slow pace in initiating investigations into the former president was partly rooted in a belief that he was a fading political figure.

Key Findings from the NYT Report:

The "Fading Figure" Theory: Senior officials within the DOJ, and reportedly Attorney General Merrick Garland himself, initially viewed Trump as a "spent political force" after the January 6 Capitol riot. They believed he would naturally retreat from the spotlight, which contributed to a cautious, methodical approach that avoided early, direct investigations into Trump himself.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1387189-trump-complained-about-epstein/page/6/#findComment-20378462

I had suspected there was fear of projecting a banana republic image. E.g. right around that time there was an election in Ecuador and the day after the vote the loser was jailed.

OK, so wait a year until you take care of him. But I do hold the Garland DOJ partially responsible for the re-election. DT was revved up in 1/2024. Fading force? Was he sleeping under his desk? Or was he given planted misinformation from within?

Create an account or sign in to comment

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.