BREAKING: Donald Trump Named In Latest Epstein Files Drop — Not Just For Business!

I told you today’s Epstein Documents drop was a big one….

We just got done covering this:

UNSEALED: Pictures Of Young Girls/Women On Epstein Island Emerge In Latest Batch of Documents

But now we move on to the big bombshell of the day, and I do mean a bombshell -- President Trump has been named in the Epstein Documents.

We cover the news here good, bad and ugly and you can always trust us to shoot it to you straight.

So allow me to do that and I'll give you the straight scoop about what was said regarding President Trump in the latest drop of documents.

First, I want to reiterate this important disclaimer that I've put in nearly every article we've covered on the Epstein documents.

Please read it again:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Now, simply being named in the Epstein court documents does not implicate anyone being involved in the billionaire pedophile's shady dealings. After all, even Donald Trump was mentioned, but with no connection to any illegal activities.

Allow me to explain that a bit....

First, you have to understand what these documents are.

I think most people thought the "Epstein List" was simply going to be one standalone list or flight log of everyone who visited Epstein Island and/or perhaps even more detailed than that -- perhaps straight out of Epstein's Little Black Book, right along with notes from Epstein about each encounter of abuse or sex trafficking.

That is NOT what we're getting.

What we're getting are unsealed court documents which often take the form of emails entered into evidence and deposition testimony.

Hundreds and thousands of pages of court documents.

And what you have to understand about each piece of "evidence" is that it's not necessary Gospel truth.

In fact, it may be completely wrong.

It may be one "witnesses" opinion of what happened or perhaps somebody with an ax to grind.

That applies to ALL names mentioned in here, not just President Trump.

That's why when you have a trial in court, both sides present all their evidence and then the "Fact Finder" (Judge or Jury) has to weight that evidence and see what is credible and what is not.

As we now comb through these documents, we are now playing the role of that Fact Finder.

Some things may be very credible, others not so much -- each of us will have to make those decisions as we go.

Now let's get directly into the details of what we learned today....

From my friend MeetKevin's eHack website, here is a short summary:

✅ Case Lookup: 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
✅ Jen (Jenna or Jen Araoz – unclear): Possibly sexual involved with Trump, alleged by Sarah Ransome.
✅ Ransome apparently worked for Epstein in 2006.
✅ Jenna would have been 22-23 around 2006.
✅ Jen Araoz would have been around 19 in 2006 (1987 birthdate).
✅ Ransome alleges she has video of Clinton, Richard Branson, and Prince Andrews having intercourse.
✅ Ransome lashes out at reporters for not running with her story.

Case Documents Annotated [Courtesy of eHack]

Ok, so today we meet a new character in this whole saga named "Sarah Ransome".

Really?

Her name is "Ransome"?

Sorry but I don't buy that.

What is going on with these people and their names?

What, was Sarah "Blackmail" taken?

And while we're on the topic of names, why isn't anyone pointing out that it's really creepy that Richard Branson (who was also named in today's drop with some NASTY allegations and alleged video evidence that exists somewhere) decided to name his company "Virgin".

Anyone else ever stopped to think that's a little "off"?

Oh wait, I know....he just really loves Extra Virgin Olive Oil, right?

My bad.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the little girls he is accused of having sex with on that Island.....ALLEGEDLY!

But now back to Trump.

The first (and only so far) mention of Donald Trump which is in any way connected to anything related to sex is now made by this Sarah Ransome character.

She claims that President Trump had sex with a girl named Jen in Epstein's New York apartment.

I'm skeptical...

So far there is no corroborating evidence and many are questioning whether Ransome is credible.

More on that below in just a moment.

Also, not that it would be a great look, but even if that allegation is accurate, "Jen" would have been 22-23 at the time and President Trump likely would have been unmarried.

I'll reiterate, not that it makes it great, but there would be nothing illegal in that arrangement.

But I have serious doubts about the credibility of Ransome's testimony.

Why?

Well, just watch this.

This is an excellent 20 minute summary of all we learned today and I think it explains why even MeetKevin is skeptical of "Ransome":

What do you think?