MS NOW95%

Trump flew on Epstein’s jet at least 8 times in the 1990s, according to latest Epstein files release0%

By Clarissa-Jan Lim71% Sydney Carruth0%

12/23/2025, 9:42:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anchoring Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.4% saturation with 192 hits. Analysis detected 661 faulty-reasoning hits from 859 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Update: This story has been updated to include the Justice Department's statement on a purported 2019 letter from Jeffrey Epstein to sex offender Larry Nassar. 
DOJ said in a social media post that the FBI has determined the letter is "FAKE." 
Donald Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet at least eight times in the mid-1990s, according to an email the Justice Department released late Monday as part of its rolling disclosure of documents in its Epstein investigation. 
The email from Jan. 7, 2020, appears to refer to the related investigation into Epstein's longtime companion Ghislaine Maxwell, now in prison for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse girls. 
The unidentified federal prosecutor who sent the email cites flight records that show Trump as having "traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported (or that we were aware), including during the period we would expect to charge in a Maxwell case. 
"In particular, he is listed as a passenger on at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996, including at least four flights on which Maxwell was also present. 
On one flight in 1993, he and Epstein are the only two listed passengers; on another, the only three passengers are Epstein, Trump, and then-20-year-old [redacted]," the prosecutor wrote. 
"On two other flights, two of the passengers, respectively, were women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case." 
The email does not include details about the 20-year-old whose identity was redacted, including their gender. 
Trump has long stated that he and Epstein had a falling-out decades ago and has since sought to distance himself from the convicted sex offender. 
He has claimed that the controversy over the DOJ documents was a Democratic-spun "hoax." 
The Justice Department said in a statement Tuesday morning that some of the documents it released the night before "contain untrue and sensationalist claims" against Trump that the FBI received before the 2020 election. 
"To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already," the agency said. 
The latest tranche of documents also includes a handwritten letter ostensibly from Epstein to Larry Nassar, a convicted sex offender who abused hundreds of girls during his time as a Team USA gymnastics doctor. 
The card refers to Trump, but the envelope is marked "return to sender" and stamped with the date Aug. 13, 2019  three days after Epstein's jailhouse death by suicide. 
The Justice Department said on Tuesday afternoon in a social media posting to X that the FBI "has confirmed this alleged letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar is FAKE." 
"The fake letter was received by the jail, and flagged for the FBI at the time," the DOJ wrote. 
The department cited what it said was writing that didn't resemble Epstein's; the postmark from three days after Epstein died from a different state than the one in which he was jailed; and a return address that omitted the jail address and Epstein's inmate number, which is required. 
"This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual. 
Nevertheless, the DOJ will continue to release all material required by law," the DOJ wrote. 
The White House referred questions about the flight logs and the Nassar card to the Justice Department's earlier statement. 
The documents also included heavily redacted internal Justice Department emails indicating that investigators were looking into 10 potential Epstein co-conspirators. 
A July 7, 2019, email from someone with the FBI in New York asks for an update on "the status of the CO conspirators." 
A response later that day mentioned: 
Maxwell 
"Brunel," likely French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, an Epstein associate who died by suicide in a Paris jail while under investigation on allegations that he trafficked minors for sex 
"Wexner" in Ohio, likely L Brands (formerly Limited Brands) founder and billionaire Les Wexner, for whom Epstein served as a financial adviser before a falling-out. 
A Wexner spokesperson told The New York Times this week that Wexner was not a target of the Epstein investigation or considered a co-conspirator. 
That email does not specify whether Maxwell, Brunel and Wexner were among the 10 people the Justice Department was considering to be co-conspirators. 
Two days later, someone from the Justice Department's human-trafficking unit sent an email asking for "an update on the 10 co-conspirators by COB today." 
A response from an unidentified person notes that six of the 10 had been served subpoenas, at locations in Florida, Connecticut, Boston and New York. 
The others, including one in Ohio, remained "out of pocket." 
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called on the Justice Department to release further details on the alleged co-conspirators. 
"The Department of Justice needs to shed more light on who was on the list, how they were involved, and why they chose not to prosecute," Schumer said Tuesday. 
"Protecting possible co-conspirators is not the transparency the American people and Congress are demanding." 
This is a developing story. 
Please check back for updates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.1%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.5%This article: 3.5%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 6.2%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 22.4%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 14.4%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect22.4%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 1.5%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 4.6%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 13.3%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 18.2%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.6%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.6%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 4.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.2%MS NOW: 3.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 3.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 3.3%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem1.6%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.1%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 3.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 5.4%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 7.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 5.1%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 10.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion5.1%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.6%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon1.6%This article: 5.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question5.0%This article: 3.5%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof3.5%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 6.1%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization3.3%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 3.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 3.4%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring3.4%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa-Jan Lim: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

859 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.