Epstein Files Part 3: Strategic Releases and Emerging Evidence

An update to “Epstein Files Update: Comey Firing Coincides with Trump’s Hoax Claims” published July 17, 2025

Catch up:

---

The Epstein controversy took several dramatic turns Thursday, with developments that suggest President Trump may be executing a calculated strategy to expose what he calls a “Democrat hoax.” Instead of simply defending against allegations, the pattern of actions points to a more sophisticated approach: show the public the real evidence first, then let them see how different the fake materials are.

The strategy appears deliberate. President Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to release grand jury transcripts from Epstein’s 2006 Florida case. These are the original court records from when Epstein was first prosecuted, many have already been released in years past. Bondi immediately agreed, saying she’s “ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts.” These documents would show exactly what happened back then—and importantly, who was actually involved.

At the same time, President Trump announced he’s suing The Wall Street Journal over what he calls a fake 2003 birthday letter to Epstein. The letter shows a hand-drawn naked woman and suggestive text that the president says isn’t his writing style. He claims his team warned the Journal the letter was fake, but they published it anyway. Critics point out that if real damaging evidence existed, it would have surfaced during the 2024 election, not months after President Trump won.

The House also moved Thursday on a resolution demanding all “credible” Epstein documents be released within 30 days. The resolution has an important detail: it allows excluding “demonstrably false or unauthenticated” materials while requiring explanations for any redactions. This creates a framework to separate real evidence from fabricated materials.

Here’s where it gets interesting. If President Trump releases the authentic historical records first—grand jury testimony that, based on available indications, shows his name nowhere in victim statements—then exposes suspicious materials similar to the Journal letter, the contrast would be stark. The real evidence would establish who the actual perpetrators were, making any fake materials targeting the president obvious by comparison.