379
‘What the hell?’ House Speaker confuses White House with claim Trump was an FBI snitch
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2025
379 points (99.2% liked)
politics
25651 readers
2280 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You didn't actually answer the question and just repeated yourself. How does implicating Trump in a new set of crimes without absolving him of the existing ones qualify as damage control?
Setting that aside, the second paragraph basically has nothing to do with the rest of this, that's an entirely different claim. Your argument is basically that the CIA and FBI knew about all of this and were in fact involved in it. That the only reason Epstein was eventually arrested was because the Miami Herald made too much noise for them to sweep it under the rug. That may or may not be true, but doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim that Trump told the cops in an attempt to silence Epstein.
There are a bunch of different angles you could come at this, but damage control by Trumps allies doesn't make a bit of sense. Damage control by foreign agents, maybe, although how sacrificing Trump provides any benefit to them I can't see. The only person I see getting any possible benefit in this scenario is the author making the claim and that's mostly just in exposure, literally everyone else involved comes off worse. It exposes Trump as a Russian agent, implicates him just as much if not more in Epstein's crimes, and paints his turning on Epstein as a self serving attempt to save his own skin. Nothing at all about this situation makes things better for Trump.
The FBI was going out of their way not to see this Epstein thing they weren't looking for informants.
And they would have already known and been ignoring it purposefully.
It makes the president look better as if he informed on the guy doing the exact same thing he does himself, blackmail other people.
It is their wonderful secret they're such enigmas. I do not see what there is not to understand here.
It is bs that he informed on epstein, and he would have already told us this if it was true. They would have spun him into quite the hero if they could back it up in the slightest and twist it.
The only reason Epstein went down was because the Miami Herald dogged them for years and years with the help of some of the victims.
OK, in isolation saying it makes him look better if he informed on Epstein is true, but that ignores the larger story where the reason he did that was because of all the crimes he (being Trump) was committing. The rest of this is plausible, the thing I'm saying makes no sense is that this is somehow a pro-Trump move. This is like saying that you blew up a hospital with thousands of people in it because there was a serial killer in it as well. Sure it might slightly reduce how bad it makes him look, but it still makes him look worse than he currently does.
There's also the fact that Trump is currently doing literally anything he can think of to get people talking about literally anything but Epstein. The very last thing he'd want is to bring him up again even if it was somehow supposed to make him look better.
Seeing as Speaker Johnson is now pushing this narrative that he was an FBI informant on Epstein, it seems like they are trying that line out, and his surrogates and or Allies have been pushing that for a couple months.
If that was the case in any way shape or form they would have already pulled it out and painted him as the Great Hero. No matter the real story, if he informed on Epstein in any way shape or form they would have went public a long time ago taking sole credit for taking him down and such.
The Narrative also takes away the real credit which is due solely to the Miami Herald and the victims that followed him for years and years. That kept pushing even after the feds bailed him out with that sweetheart deal.
Really whether he did or didn't inform on Epstein is the least interesting and important part of the entire story. The more important question is whether the part about him outbidding Epstein on a mansion to money launder for Russia is true or not, and likewise on whether Epstein tried to blackmail him. The accusation that Trump informed on him was based entirely on Epstein believing he had from the sounds of it entirely based on the timing of his arrest. If we assume Epstein was wrong about that and it wasn't Trump that turned him in I don't think that really fundamentally changes anything at all. You still have Trump and Epstein having a falling out over Trumps other crimes, and events still play out in exactly the same fashion.
That the president was in bed with the Russian mob and by extension Russian intelligence has long been known. They were neck deep in all sorts of his ventures, like signing up pre-lease agreements for different buildings so he could get financing, all sorts of money laundering at his casinos, propublica did a whole podcast and all this stuff in detail in the first term. Partially with information fed to him by the Russian mob as well to take out their rivals.
That birthday letter from the president is basically saying both he and Epstein were blackmailers. And the Russians as much as said that the Israelis are not the only ones with the Epstein info now and insinuated it is on the president as well, via press conference medvedickhead gave a month or so back.
What seems clear is he is so thoroughly implicated in all of this that even with total control of the FBI he cannot write himself out.