On Wednesday morning, the Democrats’ Committee on Oversight released a “tranche of correspondence” from the Epstein Estate, claiming to “strike a blow against the White House’s Epstein cover-up.” The three unrelated emails range in dates from 2011 through 2019.In response to the release, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told FOX News Digital, “The Democrats selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump.”BREAKING: White House slams House Democrats’ ‘bad-faith’ Epstein document release about Trump https://t.co/kwDtxWC0MC— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 12, 2025Email 1: My Dear, Watson…The first email from 2011 was a correspondence between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell from April 2, 2011. Epstein wrote to Maxwell a little after 2pm:i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.. [REDACTED VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% thereMaxwell responds almost five hours later by saying, “I have been thinking about that…”.The redacted victim, according to the House GOP Oversight Committee, is Virginia Giuffre, who tragically is reported to have taken her own life in April 2025.“Why did Democrats cover up the name when the Estate didn’t redact it in the redacted documents…? It’s because the victim, Virginia Giuffre, publicly stated that she never witnessed wrongdoing by President Trump.” In fact, Giuffre’s sworn testimony in her lawsuit against Epstein exonerates President Trump from any wrongdoing that she’s aware of.Why did Democrats cover up the name when the Estate didn’t redact it in the redacted documents provided to the committee?It’s because this victim, Virginia Giuffre, publicly said that she never witnessed wrongdoing by President Trump.Democrats are trying to create a fake… https://t.co/vd7gw3kJl0— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) November 12, 2025Giuffre’s testimony stated that President Trump “didn’t partake in any sex with us” and that “Donald Trump never flirted with me.”These Epstein/Maxwell emails reference Virginia Giuffre.Giuffre’s testimony contradicts them:She never saw Trump and Epstein together.Trump never acted inappropriately towards her (no sex and no flirting).She was never at Epstein’s house with Trump. https://t.co/obTvvQbh8g pic.twitter.com/zOQRQHep7r— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 12, 2025But besides deceptively redacting Giuffre, who exonerated President Trump, this email could also shed some light on the duo’s concern about a potential confidential informant within their network.In March 2011, just before the email was sent, the BBC reported that Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, “came in for a steady stream of criticism over his friendship with US tycoon Jeffrey Epstein,” which may have concerned Epstein and Maxwell.The “dog that hasn’t barked” comparison is a common phrase derived from Sherlock Holmes’ “The Adventure of Silver Blaze,” one of the most popular short stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.In that story, a champion racehorse killed its trainer in self-defense, thwarting a plot to sabotage the horse. Sherlock Holmes deduced that the dog didn’t bark at the intruder trying to steal the horse because it was someone familiar to the stables that the dog recognized. The saying suggests the absence of an expected event and that a lack of action is itself a significant clue.Given that Epstein goes on to mention that Trump has “never once been mentioned” by the “police chief, etc.” and that Epstein is “75% there,” it suggests that Epstein believed Trump may be an informant, the “dog that didn’t bark,” and is therefore not mentioned by law enforcement out of confidentiality.This speculation is supported by the attorney who represented Virginia Giuffre in 2018, Bradley Edwards, who gave an interview that acknowledged Trump as the “only person” who volunteered to talk with Edwards regarding Epstein.In the interview, Edwards said:“The only thing that I can say about President Trump is that he is the only person who, in 2009 when I served a lot of subpoenas on a lot of people, or at least gave notice to some pretty connected people that I wanted to talk to them…he was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “Lets just talk. I’ll give you as much time as you want. I’ll tell you what you need to know.”And [he] was very helpful in the information that he gave and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information that checked out and that helped us. And we didn’t have to take a deposition of him.”Speaker Mike Johnson claimed that President Trump “was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down” in regards to Epstein’s crimes. Days later, Speaker Johnson walked back that statement and claimed he was just echoing Bradley Edwards. Edwards never mentioned the FBI when he mentioned that President Trump cooperated with his investigation back in 2009.Speaker Johnson claims that Trump was an FBI informant for the Epstein case.This collaborates with the fact that the lawyer behind the Epstein victims says that Trump was the only person who helped him in 2009 and that his information was very helpful.He’s reiterated this… pic.twitter.com/lhM3RlXzTo— Green Lives Matter (@Ultrafrog17) September 5, 2025Without the entire context of the conversation between Maxwell and Epstein, it is difficult to know for certain, however, given previous statements by the Speaker and Giuffre’s former attorney, it is an evidence based hypothesis.Email 2 and 3: The WolffEmail #2 released by the Oversight Dems was dated January 31, 2019. Jeffrey Epstein writes author Michael Wolff:“[REDACTED VICTIM] mara lago. [REDACTED SENTENCE] . trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. . of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop —Prior to January, 2019, the references to this claim were sparse. Most of them claim that Trump “kicked him out” or “banned him,” not that he asked him “to resign”. Mar a Lago is a private club, however, not all patrons are members. There is a distinct difference between “banned” and “asked…to resign”.Email #3 is the most interesting. In a series of correspondence between Epstein and Wolff on December 15, 2015, the day of a GOP Presidential Debate, Wolff tips off Epstein that Trump may be asked “about his relationship with you – either on air or in a scrum afterwards.”Epstein responds, “if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?”Wolff, the day after the debate, responded:I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.Wolff had conducted hours upon hours of interviews with Epstein regarding President Trump and other powerful figures. However, this exchange is quite concerning. Wolff suggests potentially using Trump’s denials of being on the plane or in the house as “political currency” and “hanging him in a way” that he could benefit.He then suggests that if Trump won, he could “save him” and then use that as “a debt”.Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-CA) stated: “The more Donald Trump tries to cover up the Epstein files, the more we uncover. These latest emails and correspondence raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President.”Perhaps the “glaring questions” these emails raise revolve around why Giuffre’s name was conveniently redacted and why Michael Wolff is conspiring with a known-pedophile to collect “valuable PR and political currency” or generate “a debt” against a potential President of the United States?The post Oversight Dems Release New Epstein Emails That Mention “Trump” – Instantly Backfires on Them! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.