����vlog

We got more Jeffrey Epstein documents from the House Oversight Committee late Monday. And unlike last week, these actually contained some real news.The big news is that we finally are able to see the letter signed in now-President Donald Trump’s name for Epstein’s 50th birthday back in 2003, which the Wall Street Journal first reported back in July.Despite Trump’s claim that the lewd letter is a fake – he’s suing the Journal over the matter – two new factors appear to lend legitimacy to it. For one, it was turned over by Epstein’s estate, meaning it had apparently been in Epstein’s possession. For another, it features a “Donald” signature that seems to match contemporaneous documents circulating online from that period.But that’s not the only thing we learned from the documents themselves and the reactions.Below are some takeaways.1. Trump’s claims come into question — againTrump has made a series of seemingly bizarre statements and decisions vis-a-vis Epstein.These include his administration’s sudden and abrupt reversal on releasing the documents, his false denial that Attorney General Pam Bondi had told him his name appeared in them, his slow disclosure on Epstein having recruited a girl who worked at Mar-a-Lago, and a number of easily disproven claims about Epstein and his personal ties to him.Video below: Speaker Johnson's press gaggle on EpsteinBut the letter, part of a collection of letters compiled into a “birthday book” for Epstein, is looking like it could be up there with the rest of them.We don’t know for certain that Trump wrote or signed the letter. But as noted above, plenty of signs are pointing in that direction. Trump previously rested his denials on the false claim that he didn’t ever draw pictures (the letter includes a drawing of a female silhouette), when in fact there are plenty Trump doodles in the public record. It might never be proven that Trump himself drew the picture. And there remains no evidence Trump has done anything wrong. 2. The other intriguing documentAnother document in the “birthday book” section caught more than a few people’s attention and was highlighted by Democrats.It’s a letter with a photo of Epstein holding an oversized, novelty $22,500 check made to look like a payment from Trump to Epstein.“Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women!” the text reads. “Sells ‘fully depreciated’ to Donald Trump for $22,500. … Even though I handled the deal I didn’t bet any of the money on the girl!”The redacted portion appears to be a woman’s name.We don’t know the full context of the photo – CNN has reached out to the White House and those identified related to the photo. It could just be a crude joke, and one Trump didn’t have anything to do with aside from being mentioned. But the letter reinforces how Trump’s name could appear in the documents in ways the White House would prefer not to have to address.3. An inauspicious kneejerk reaction from pro-Trump influencersThe developments Monday night seemed to affirm something we probably already knew: that lots of people are going to rather blindly toe Trump’s line.It didn’t take long after the birthday letter was released for pro-Trump influencers to quickly embrace his talking points. A top White House aide claimed the signature on the Trump birthday letter was fake, comparing it to Trump’s signature on more-recent official documents. And plenty of people jumped on board quickly.“Is this really the best they could do? Trump has the most famous signature in the world,” pro-Trump influencer Benny Johnson said. “Time to sue into the oblivion.”“Does the below from the WSJ look like this actual signature from the President? I don’t think so at all. Fake,” fellow pro-Trump influencer Charlie Kirk said.Some House Republicans echoed the talking point, with Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee telling CNN he thought the signature could be forged.None of them seemed to care to check Trump’s signatures on other documents circulating online from the period in question. Many of them look quite similar to the one on the Epstein birthday letter – from the loopier cursive to the long tail at the end of the final “d.”That doesn’t mean that Trump definitely wrote the letter. But the signature wouldn’t seem to be any reason to doubt that he did.It suggests that some people are going to say pretty much anything to seed doubt and defend Trump on this.4. Democrats suddenly played hardballThe release of the documents in and of themselves is an interesting political storyline.That’s because House Oversight Committee Democrats decided to get ahead of their release on Monday afternoon by posting an image on X of Trump’s apparent birthday letter.House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer criticized them for selectively releasing materials before the rest of the tranche was released.“It’s appalling Democrats on the Oversight Committee are cherry-picking documents and politicizing information received from the Epstein Estate today,” Comer said.A couple points on that. One is that the letter was obviously already the subject of plenty of intrigue, dating back to the Journal’s July story. The other is that Comer and Republicans have in the past released plenty of partial evidence, particularly in their investigations of the Bidens last Congress.But it’s still interesting that Democrats chose to do this.It could suggest that Democrats are intending to play more hardball with the Epstein files. But this issue has been somewhat bipartisan, with some House Republicans supporting the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas of these documents and in some cases signing a discharge petition to force the documents’ release.There could be some danger in making it all look more partisan.5. What the rest of the documents showThe rest of the documents don’t necessarily tell us a lot. Many of them are lewd and make reference to sex and Epstein’s escapades with women, but not in ways that would necessarily shed light on the crimes he was convicted of.But a couple points stand out:The documents reinforce that Epstein had many powerful friends, aside from Trump. Letters for his birthday also came bearing the names of former President Bill Clinton and prominent lawyer Alan Dershowitz. (A Clinton spokesman referred to a previous statement that Clinton cut ties before Epstein’s arrest on federal charges in 2019 and had no knowledge of his crimes. Dershowitz told the Journal: “It’s been a long time and I don’t recall the content of what I may have written.”)We found out Epstein’s lawyers told the committee that they “are not aware of the existence” of an Epstein client list. (Bondi seemed to indicate such a list existed earlier this year, before the Justice Department said one did not, in fact, exist.)