I'm not sure who (Victim) in the email was, but I think the GQP's claim it was Virginia Guiffre is BS!
And here is why:
She recanted earlier public statements implying Trump was present with girls at Epstein’s.
She stated: “I do not believe [Trump] had any knowledge of Epstein’s misconduct with underage girls.”
She denied seeing Trump act inappropriately or with any of Epstein’s victims.
So far so good for the regime, right? This all makes saying " (Victim) was Virginia Guiffre" sound like a brilliant strategy for them. Like yeah, he spent hours with her there, but it was sunshine and rainbows! And conveniently for them, she cannot be contacted to confirm nor deny this assertion
Here's the problem for these liars, though, from the same deposition:
These excerpts are from her court deposition during the 2015 Maxwell defamation trial, and represent her sworn account on the record
She cannot simultaneously have "spent hours at (Epstein's) place with (Trump) ", per the email, yet "never see him at any of Epstein's properties" per her testimony. These are mutually exclusive.
I think House Republicans were quick to blurt out Guiffre's name because they knew she had said exonerating things about Trump under oath. Leadership probably knew of the existence of these emails a long time ago, and had this angle prepared if they did come out.
But I bet they thought we'd all miss the part where she also testified, explicitly, under oath, and even in the very same sitting, that she was NEVER WITH TRUMP at Epstein's place!
Which leads to the question ... WHO IS (VICTIM), in actuality? Perhaps someone who could still be spoken to? Someone who does NOT have such exonerating words to share about him?
This particular enquiring mind wants to know. Why are they LYING about who (Victim) is?
= new reply since forum marked as read
But she was freaking FEARLESS, man. She's the one that went out and held everyone to account!
The ENTIRE "Epstein List"? That's her list, in fact it is all from this very trial (Maxwell, 2015):
The list of people Virginia Giuffre named, under oath in the 2015 Maxwell defamation lawsuit deposition and subsequent legal filings, as those Epstein ordered her to “give massages” (which, by her testimony, was a euphemism for sexual acts) includes:
George Mitchell – Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader and Special Envoy to the Middle East
Jean-Luc Brunel – French modeling agent and scout
Alan Dershowitz – Harvard Law professor and attorney (a Trump legal ally at times)
Prince Andrew, Duke of York – British royal
Glenn Dubin – Billionaire hedge fund owner (Highbridge Capital)
Marvin Minsky – MIT computer scientist and AI pioneer
By Description (from Giuffre’s testimony where she could not recall or did not give a name):
Another prince, whose name she did not know (distinct from Prince Andrew)
A “prominent head of state” (not specifically identified)
High-profile businessmen and academics (some named, others described generally in testimony)
Prominent figures in fashion and modeling
So these are powerful people, rich people, and she went and named names, so I don't see a strong reason to suspect that in the one particular case of Donald Trump, she turns tail and runs? About even SEEING him there at his place? I judge this to be unlikely. I think she'd have told whoever tried to "get to her" to go pound sand, but I could be wrong.
In the event I am, then we'd take the whole THING to be false, in which case, (Victim) COULD be Guiffre, however, that means she did NOT exonerate Trump under oath, so the GQP has a different problem because Giuffre provides no cover for them.
I thought this all through before I posted
Here's AI overview if you don't care/have time to read it all (although I always click through to the real article when I use AI like this, so the content creators make a little ad money
).
The plaintiff "Katie Johnson" ( also used "Jane Doe" ) was anonymous and never appeared publicly, even at a scheduled press conference, citing fear from death threats.
The case featured two anonymous witnesses whom the press couldn’t interview, and was promoted by two highly dubious characters—an ex-reality TV producer known as "Al Taylor" and a conservative activist, Steve Baer—with an obvious anti-Trump agenda. They shopped the story to various outlets aggressively but few covered it due to credibility concerns.
Journalists couldn’t verify Johnson’s identity or the details of her claims. The only journalist who said they interviewed her left largely confused and doubting her existence.
Documents listed a foreclosed, abandoned address and disconnected phone number for Johnson, creating more suspicion.
The allegations themselves—violent rape at age 13 involving Trump and Epstein—were described as “almost cinematic in their depravity.” Some initial claims were omitted from later filings, like Trump supposedly giving money for an abortion and using anti-Semitic slurs against Epstein.
Vox points out the case was promoted in bizarre ways, including attempts to sell videotaped testimony for $1 million.
Elements like volatile promoters, inconsistent communications, and questions raised even by journalists and investigators made it one of the most suspicious and contested cases among the Trump allegations.
Summary: The Vox article highlights why Katie Johnson's case was both uniquely disturbing and deeply suspicious, with many details unverifiable and promoted via questionable actors, making it an outlier among the Trump-related lawsuits
(Victim) being Virginia Guiffre in this context is the best possible 'answer' for Trump, because, under oath in 2015, she says she never saw Trump do anything wrong. She is like the ONE PERSON who has basically exonerated him from doing anything wrong (in relation to herself).
However, as I said in the OP, in that SAME testimony, she explicitly said she never saw Trump at an Epstein property. Whereas if she is (Victim), then Epstein's email is clearly saying Virginia was, in fact, with Trump for hours at his house. They can't both be true. That is the one and only point to what I'm saying, nothing to do with any 'blanket exoneration' for Trump. Of course she's only 1 person out of innumerable possible others 
So the fact they didn't dispute the GOP claim didn't seem important. Well then this revelation brings question to her entire exculpatory testimony regarding Trump to my mind, because as I mentioned she said all these nice things but those included never having seen him at an Epstein property. Now that we know she DID spend hours with him, what else about the way she covered for him was false, I wonder? And was she paid off to make that testimony does make sense as a question to ask I have to sadly admit
