An editor once asked me President Donald Trump’s position on an issue I was writing about. “On which day?” I replied.
Since he burst onto the political scene in 2015, Trump has made claims, dropped them, adopted a new argument that contradicts the old one, casually admitted something he long denied, changed the subject and generally just thrown every possible argument at the wall to see what would stick.
He spent years arguing that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States, then simply admitted that wasn’t true and falsely blamed Hillary Clinton for starting the rumor. He swore his 2016 campaign had only low-level contacts with Russia; then admitted his son, son-in-law and campaign head met at Trump Tower with a Russian woman claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton — and argued that anyone would do the same.
Even his defense attorneys adopted this tactic, arguing during his impeachment trial over the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that he could be tried instead on criminal charges, then claiming when he faced criminal charges that he had presidential immunity.
It’s all reminiscent of Bart Simpson’s infamous defense when confronted with a note from school: “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.”
Faced with controversy over the release of any records related to the late pedophile and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Trump has again tried the same defenses, but they don’t seem to be working as well.
By his own admission, Trump had a long history with Epstein that included socializing with him at a Mar-a-Lago party, attending a Victoria’s Secret party together and flying on his private jet. (Trump has denied allegations of sexual misconduct and has denied any impropriety related to Epstein’s crimes.)
But after spreading a conspiracy theory related to Epstein’s death in 2019, suggesting that his death may not have been a suicide in 2020 and promising in 2024 that he would declassify the Epstein files if re-elected, Trump has found himself in a bit of a pickle. The Department of Justice and FBI released a memo on July 7 concluding that there was no evidence of an “incriminating ‘client list,’” but that just fanned the flames.
Trump then tried out several different arguments in succession:
There’s nothing interesting in the files: “I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It’s pretty boring stuff.”
Epstein is old news: “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy has been talked about for years.”
This is a bad time to talk about it: “I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we’re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy, with what happened in Texas, too.”
If there was anything incriminating about Trump in the files, the Biden administration would have released it: “If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn’t they use it?” The Biden administration might have added false information to the files: “You know, the Biden administration ran that for four years. I can imagine what they put into files.” Or maybe the Obama administration: “These files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden.” It’s all a hoax: “I call it the Epstein hoax.” Either the files are boring but true, or they are salacious but a hoax. As before, these arguments abound with contradictions. Either there’s incriminating information in the Epstein files, or there isn’t. Either the files are boring but true, or they are salacious but a hoax. He can’t simultaneously argue that the files are not very interesting but also hint that a secret cabal of Democrats planted explosive information in them. (At one point, he literally said of the records “it’s sordid, but it’s boring.”) Trump put birtherism to rest by admitting he was wrong. It worked because as its chief proponent, he could effectively exonerate Obama of his baseless claims. Once again, Trump was one of the superspreaders of the Epstein conspiracy theories. But this time, he can’t exonerate himself, and there’s no one else who has the credibility to do it either. If we wait a few days, he may even have a new argument.
Ryan Teague Beckwith is a newsletter editor for MS NOW. He has previously worked for such outlets as Time magazine and Bloomberg News. He teaches journalism at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies and is the creator of Your First Byline. 
