Ask A Genius 1463: MAGA Battles Over Epstein Evidence, Trump, and Power Dynamics
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Amid MAGA factions’ debate over Jeffrey Epstein evidence suppression, Rick Rosner considers the conflicting loyalties emerge around Trump’s past ties, Pam Bondi’s role, and commentary from figures like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel. Analysis of under‑18 trafficking as leverage, contrasting power‑based abuse by Trump and Clinton, underscores ongoing blackmail dynamics and public moral dissonance.
Rick Rosner: I do not know if you are aware of this, since you are in Lithuania right now, but there is an ongoing debate within U.S. MAGA circles about Jeffrey Epstein and the suppression of related evidence. Much of the material related to Epstein’s network—particularly names in the flight logs and sealed court documents—remains undisclosed to the public. Some of Trump’s former allies, like Pam Bondi, have faced criticism in broader discussions; however, it is essential to clarify that Pam Bondi was the Attorney General of Florida, not the U.S. Attorney General. She later joined Trump’s impeachment defence team but has no documented role in suppressing Epstein-related evidence. MAGA supporters are conflicted. During the 2016 campaign, Trump claimed he would expose elite pedophiles, fueling QAnon-adjacent theories. At the same time, Trump had a known social relationship with Epstein in the early 2000s. He was photographed with him and made public remarks, but reportedly cut ties with Epstein years before Epstein’s first arrest in 2007. However, critics have pointed out that Trump has not delivered on promises of transparency or accountability regarding Epstein, and this has created dissonance among his base.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the main ways that MAGA supporters are interpreting or responding to this?
Rosner: What do you mean—do you mean their general attitudes?
Jacobsen: Yes, because there was a time when some of the public outrage about Epstein seemed to align with calls for broader accountability.
Rosner: There is Dan Bongino—he is a former Secret Service agent and now a prominent conservative commentator. Contrary to some claims online, he was not part of the FBI and certainly not “second in command.” He has been critical of both Democratic and Republican leadership, but has not taken a clear stand on Epstein in recent months. Kash Patel, another figure often mentioned in MAGA spaces, is a former Trump administration official who held roles on the National Security Council and at the Department of Defence. He has voiced distrust in federal agencies, but again, there is no verified report that he is involved in any internal protest or resignation related to Epstein. Pam Bondi has been criticized in the past, particularly for accepting campaign donations from Trump-affiliated organizations while serving as Attorney General in Florida, around the time her office decided not to pursue a fraud case against Trump University. However, there is no publicly confirmed evidence linking her directly to suppressing Epstein materials. Currently, we are primarily facing a fragmented landscape. Some conservatives are angry at what they see as cover-ups across the board, while others remain loyal to Trump and rationalize his silence or past associations. Liberals, meanwhile, are watching this unfold and hoping that more information will be released. There is a general expectation that sealed documents—such as those connected to Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial—might still expose influential people, possibly including Trump. However, to date, no charges have been brought against him in connection with Epstein.
Here is a theory I was discussing with Carole last night. Legally, the difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is enormous: 18 is the age of majority in most jurisdictions, meaning someone can legally consent to sex. Under 18, especially under 16, depending on the jurisdiction, it becomes statutory rape—even if the minor agrees. This raises the question: if Epstein had wanted to reduce legal exposure, why didn’t he use 18-year-olds or older women? From what has been reported—including victim testimony and law enforcement records—many of the girls Epstein trafficked were between 14 and 17 years old. The reason, it seems, is that for Epstein and many of the people in his network, the illicitness of youth was part of the appeal. It was not just about sex—it was about dominance, secrecy, and violating social and legal taboos. That is why they preferred minors despite the increased risk. It reflects a pattern of calculated abuse rather than accidental boundary crossing.
But—and I do not mean “fine” in any moral sense—it makes some internal sense if Epstein’s perversion involved underage girls. What is more puzzling is why he was trafficking these girls to other powerful men. Maybe it was because their being underage that made it illegal, and that gave Epstein leverage—blackmail material.
Suppose he had someone like Alan Dershowitz, for example, receiving a massage from a 17-year-old. In that case, Dershowitz has admitted to getting massages but denies any sexual misconduct, and said, “Nothing bad happened because I kept my underwear on.” That is still disturbing. However, if the girl were 18 instead of 17, then it would have been legal, albeit still creepy. That age difference may have been Epstein’s key to control. By keeping the girls underage, he could maintain kompromat—blackmail—on influential people.
Moreover, we know Epstein had leverage. He kept avoiding serious prosecution. The first time he was charged, he secured a plea deal in 2008 in Florida that gave him an extremely lenient sentence—13 months in a county jail with work release—while avoiding federal charges, despite extensive allegations.
Okay, so that is one theory. The second thing I was thinking about was Bill Clinton. Clinton has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, and we know he was involved in a highly publicized sexual scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. He sought sexual gratification—there is DNA evidence on the infamous blue dress.
Now, in women’s studies courses I took back in the 1980s, we were taught that rape is not primarily about sex—it is about power. It is about asserting control over another person. Moreover, I still think that is mostly true. I am not aware of how academic thinking has evolved since then, but it remains a framework that applies here.
Clinton—if the accusations are to be believed—seemed to be a coercive, schmoozing type. He would allegedly charm or pressure women into sex. Many women walked away from encounters with him feeling violated and confused. Some later accused him of sexual assault or harassment.
Trump, on the other hand, fits more into the “power-over” model. At least 26 women have publicly accused him of sexual assault or misconduct. In the case of E. Jean Carroll, a federal jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. While he was not found liable for rape under New York’s legal definition at the time, the jury did find that he forcibly digitally penetrated her.
According to Carroll’s account, Trump pushed her into a dressing room in a New York department store in the mid-1990s, turned her around, shoved her face into a wall, and assaulted her. She was unsure of exactly what penetrated her because of the violence of the encounter. However, the jury concluded it was his fingers, which under New York law constitutes sexual abuse rather than rape.
The pattern continues with other cases and his own words. On the Access Hollywood tape, Trump said, “When you are a star, they let you do it. You can grab them by the pussy.” That is not about sexual gratification in any ordinary sense—it is about dominance, about humiliation. There is no orgasm from that act—it is an assertion of power, which matches what many of his accusers describe: control, intimidation, degradation.
So, the evidence and the accusations suggest that Trump’s behaviour is less about sex and more about power. That dressing room incident, the Access Hollywood remarks, and the repeated pattern of accusations all support this. He was not, it seems, doing it for pleasure. He was doing it to demonstrate control, to dominate and humiliate women.
And that also makes it reasonable to imagine what Trump might have done on Epstein’s island. We know the girls were often made to give massages. Based on survivor testimony, it is reasonable to assume many of these men received what are often euphemistically called “happy endings”—in other words, sexual acts during massages. The documentaries on Epstein allude to this, though they often avoid graphic specifics. However, the pattern is there.
So, I guess what I am saying is: one can construct a fairly credible picture of what might have gone on with Trump on Epstein Island—namely, some form of statutory rape or sexual misconduct. Trump has publicly admitted to entering dressing rooms at his beauty pageants, including Miss Teen USA, which he owned and operated. He said he was allowed to walk in while the contestants—some of whom were minors—were changing, because he “owned the pageant.” He left a verbal trail of disturbing comments and also a long trail of accusers.
Taking that into account, alongside what we know of how Epstein operated, it is not a stretch to imagine that Trump may have engaged in similar conduct while on Epstein’s properties. I do not need to go into graphic speculation, but it is not unreasonable to think he had sexual encounters with underage girls there. Maybe it was not penetrative rape—maybe it was some other form of abuse or coercion. However, it fits with a broader pattern of power-based sexual exploitation.
So, yeah. Rotten tomatoes to that. What is troubling is that the American public—especially those concerned with the moral character of their presidents—are being asked to suppress these imaginings. Even if they do not want to entertain the full extent of it, they are still confronted with the question: What kind of man is Trump?
We already know he is a sexual abuser. He has been found liable for sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case. Moreover, regarding Ivana Trump, his first wife, she once described in a sworn deposition that he became violently angry after a painful scalp-reduction surgery to address his bald spot. She stated that he grabbed her, tore out her hair, and raped her in a fit of rage. Though she later softened her language under legal pressure, that deposition is part of the public record.
That is all I have to say on that.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 