Transcription: Former state attorney attorney Dave Aronberg took aim at the Trump administration on Sunday over its explanation as to why a series of accusations against President Donald Trump were withheld from the DOJ’s recent release of files on Jeffrey Epstein, an explanation he called “unlikely.”In February, it was discovered that several records from a woman who accused both Trump and Epstein of sexual assault were missing from the DOJ’s release of files on Epstein. Last Friday, the DOJ released the records in question, claiming that they had been withheld due to being mistakenly labeled as duplicates.Appearing on MS NOW’s “Alex Witt Reports” Sunday, Aronberg – a former state attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida – was asked what he thought of the DOJ’s explanation, and whether he thought it was \”plausible.\”“It is unlikely that they were duplicates or they thought they were duplicates,” Aronberg said bluntly.“Remember, this 13-year-old girl who came forward and made these allegations, she had four separate interviews with the FBI. The releases were of the first interview, when she pointed the finger at Epstein but did not accuse Trump of anything. The second, third and fourth interviews where she accused Trump, those were the ones that were not released.”The newly released records include several interviews with a woman accusing Trump of sexual assault in an incident that ended with Trump reportedly hitting her and pulling her hair. According to records, the woman, whose name is redacted, indicated she was between 13 and 15 years old at the time of the incident.Aronberg claimed that today, the accuser is “apparently 55 years old,” another detail he said raised more questions as to why the records were withheld in the first place, and whether Trump and Epstein had become friends earlier than in the late 1980s as previously reported.“The decisions on releasing these documents are clearly, in my mind, being made out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s the guy whose picture is on the banner outside the Department of Justice,” Aronberg said.“This issue is not going away. Those allegations were before, apparently, Trump had met Epstein, so that’s where another layer of questions come in. So there still needs to be more digging here.”Due to the sheer volume of Epstein-related materials released by the DOJ, many of the documents contain unverified, uncorroborated allegations that do not constitute evidence, and do not establish wrongdoing. Trump is not facing any criminal charges or investigations related to the allegation.

Our Analysis:

Analyzing the Shadows: The DOJ’s Dubious Handling of Trump-Epstein Allegations

In a recent revelation that seems to come straight out of a political thriller, former state attorney Dave Aronberg has cast a long shadow over the Trump administration’s handling of accusations linking Donald Trump to the late, notorious Jeffrey Epstein. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) latest stumble—mislabeling crucial records as \”duplicates\” and subsequently withholding them—reeks of more than just administrative error. It smells distinctly of deliberate obfuscation.

The \”Duplicate\” Excuse: Unlikely at Best

Aronberg’s blunt dismissal of the DOJ’s \”duplicate\” explanation cuts through the bureaucratic doublespeak with the precision of Occam’s Razor. The likelihood of such a mistake, especially considering the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations, stretches credulity to its breaking point. The narrative being sold here—that of an innocent clerical error—fails to hold up under even the most lenient scrutiny.

Consider the context: a 13-year-old girl, now apparently 55, bravely came forward with allegations of sexual assault against two of the most powerful figures of our time, Trump and Epstein. Her testimony spanned four separate interviews with the FBI, yet only the initial interview, which did not implicate Trump, saw the light of day until recently. The omission of the subsequent interviews, precisely those accusing Trump, from the DOJ’s release is a glaring red flag. It suggests a selective transparency that serves more to protect reputations than to disclose the truth.

A Friendship Shrouded in Questions

Aronberg’s insinuations about the timeline of Trump and Epstein’s friendship add another layer of intrigue. The allegations predate the late 1980s, the previously understood beginning of their association. This revelation not only calls into question the depth and nature of their relationship but also the extent to which it may have been shielded from public scrutiny.

The Spectre of Influence

Aronberg points a damning finger at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, suggesting that the decisions regarding the release of these documents were influenced by the highest levels of political power. This is a grave assertion, hinting at a corruption of justice that transcends individual departments and seeps into the very core of our governing institutions. If true, it represents a systemic manipulation of legal mechanisms to serve personal or political ends, undermining public trust in the very foundations of our democratic system.

The Need for Further Digging

While it’s important to note that many of the Epstein-related materials contain unverified allegations, the selective withholding of certain records necessitates further investigation. The fact that Trump is not currently facing any criminal charges related to these allegations does not absolve the DOJ of its duty to maintain transparency and impartiality in its proceedings.

Conclusion: A Systemic Error

The handling of the accusations against Trump in relation to Epstein is emblematic of a larger, more insidious problem within our political and judicial systems. The apparent attempt to obscure incriminating evidence, whether through incompetence or intentional deceit, is a systemic error that demands correction. It’s not just about the potential crimes of individuals; it’s about the integrity of our institutions.

As we continue to unravel the complex web of connections and allegations surrounding Epstein and those in his orbit, it is imperative that we demand accountability, transparency, and justice. Anything less would be a disservice to the victims and a dereliction of our collective responsibility as a society.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com