Epstein Part 3: Why the WSJ Birthday Card Report Moves the Trump‑Epstein Needle Into the Red

Trump's Epstein Headache Just Got a Lot Worse

[Author’s Note: A week ago I would have been skeptical I would ever write one Epstein post, much less three. But here we are. This has roiled the MAGA waters unlike anything else, and now the whole furor went up another notch. So we continue with Part 3. In Parts 1 and 2, we focused on the forensic ambiguities of Epstein’s death and the many failures at MCC. Now we turn to something arguably more combustible: new evidence of Trump’s ties to Epstein, published last night by The Wall Street Journal. This isn’t just another blurry photo or offhand quote. It’s a document—allegedly written and signed by Trump implying knowledge and possible complicity—contained in DOJ case files. And it’s causing more fallout than anything Epstein-related in years. It’s worth a deeper look to try and understand exactly what the implications are and assess how much it does or does not matter.]

Summary of the WSJ Report

On July 17, The Wall Street Journal published a report revealing that Donald Trump had contributed a page to a birthday tribute book created by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. The page allegedly included a typewritten exchange, a nude female figure drawn in marker, and a stylized signature reading “Donald” written just beneath the waistline of the sketch.

The dialogue printed in the card was as follows:

Voice Over: “There must be more to life than having everything.”
Donald: “Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.”
Jeffrey: “Nor will I, since I also know what it is.”
Donald: “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.”
Jeffrey: “Yes, we do, come to think of it.”
Donald: “Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?”
Jeffrey: “As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.”
Donald: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

According to the Journal, this card was recovered by federal investigators and reviewed as part of the DOJ’s case files related to Epstein and Maxwell. Trump immediately denied authoring it, called it a hoax, threatened to sue the Journal, and demanded that Attorney General Pamela Bondi unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein.

Why This Is More Important Than It First Appears

Trump's connection to Epstein has long been public knowledge. What makes this different is that it’s not just a photograph or an offhand remark—it’s a documented, physical artifact from before Epstein was publicly exposed. And it appears to celebrate their shared “secrets.”

Why this matters:

1. Contextual Weight

The message is cryptic on the surface, but in light of what we now know about Epstein’s behavior, it lands differently. “We have certain things in common,” followed by “may every day be another wonderful secret,” isn’t harmless birthday banter when directed at a serial sex trafficker of underage girls. The addition of a nude sketch—and the location of the signature—pushes it into territory that is, at best, grotesquely tone-deaf. At worst, it sounds like tacit approval.

2. “From DOJ Files” Isn’t a Throwaway Line

The Journal didn’t say this letter came from a source or a leak. They said it was in DOJ files.

That phrase signals that the letter was:

• Collected by federal investigators during the Epstein-Maxwell investigation,

• Preserved under DOJ chain-of-custody,

• Considered relevant enough to retain as part of the federal case archive.

But it’s important not to overrate this either: “in DOJ files” doesn’t automatically mean it was authenticated or verified. It means it was taken seriously enough to catalog, but not necessarily proven to be written by Trump. That said, a major outlet like The Wall Street Journal wouldn’t run with this story unless it had extremely high confidence in the document’s provenance.

3. Trump’s Response Wasn’t Casual—It Was Defensive and Strategic

Trump’s reaction wasn’t just to call it fake. He (predictably) threatened legal action, and (also predictably) mobilized allies to attack the story’s legitimacy. Less predictably, he also called for unsealing of grand jury records in an apparent effort to appease his base. That kind of intense, i multi-layered response isn’t usually triggered by a false document that could easily be debunked.

He also introduced ambiguity into his denial. Rather than saying outright “I never wrote that,” he went with:

“I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,”
“It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

That phrasing is not a flat denial of authorship—it’s a distancing technique. He’s not saying “I didn’t write it,” but rather “I don’t draw pictures of women,” implying the content doesn’t fit his image or style. That suggests his team knows that admitting he wrote it, if proven, could have serious political repercussions.

4. The Political Optics Are Poisonous

Whatever legal risk this document might or might not carry, the political optics are significant. This isn’t 2016 Trump, laughing off his Playboy past. This is 2025 Trump, trying to present himself as the savior of American families and the moral counterweight to Democratic decadence. He’s positioned in 2025 as the patriarch, a grand historic figure, and the visual of a nude sketch paired with cryptic birthday code language, addressed to a now-infamous pedophile, undercuts that image in a way few other stories have.

It’s not a smoking gun—but it’s the first tangible artifact that seems to capture the ethos of Trump and Epstein’s friendship in their own words and drawings, and it portrays a closeness that goes beyond casual mutual appearances at functions.

Final Thought

The story reveals that as of 2003, Trump and Epstein were exchanging cryptic, sexually charged “inside jokes” in writing—and that federal investigators took it seriously enough to preserve it in DOJ files.

If the Journal publishes the full scan of the card—or if DOJ confirms its presence and authenticity—this moment could mark a turning point in how Trump’s Epstein connection is viewed. Not just as guilt by association, but as something closer to documented participation in the orbit of Epstein’s private world.