The Silence That Says It All – Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, and an Unanswered Question

It is a video that speaks more through what remains unspoken than through any words. Jeffrey Epstein, being questioned under oath for the first time since his initial conviction, sits in a room whose silence is weighted by the gravity of the questions. A lawyer representing one of Epstein’s alleged underage victims poses a series of questions. Epstein answers the first few – formally, briefly, routinely. But then comes one that makes him pause. “Have you ever spent time with Donald Trump while underage girls were present?” The camera lingers on Epstein’s face. Seconds pass. He finally lifts his gaze, slightly tilts his head – and says nothing. Instead, Epstein replies: “Though I’d like to answer that question, at least today I’m going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, sir.” It is the year 2010. Epstein is already a convicted sex offender. But his network, his influence, and his silence continue to reverberate. The scene comes from a sworn deposition in a civil case. The lawyer is trying to find out how close the ties really were between Epstein and high-level public figures. At the time, Trump was a frequent guest at Epstein’s properties in Palm Beach and New York. Photos, flight logs, party guests – the traces are numerous, yet rarely conclusive. The truth, it seems, often lies between the lines – or in their total absence.

Epstein does in fact answer some of the questions:

Question: “Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?”

Answer: “What do you mean by ‘personal relationship,’ sir?”

Frage: „Haben Sie mit ihm verkehrt?“

Answer: “Yes, sir.”

Question: “Yes?”

Answer: “Yes, sir.”

Question: “Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?”

Answer: “Though I’d like to answer that question, at least today I’m going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, sir.”

Epstein could certainly have said, “I’m not aware of anything involving Donald Trump,” and then invoked his right to remain silent to avoid further questions. Such responses are common under U.S. law when a witness wants to limit their testimony without remaining entirely silent. But Epstein chose not to say anything at all—even to the specific question of whether he had ever been in Trump’s presence with underage girls—and instead invoked the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This indicates that he either could not or would not offer a legally harmless answer. Legally, this is considered a “non-denial,” which leaves room for potential criminal relevance. It’s precisely this deliberate silence that makes his response so explosive.

Those who remain silent say nothing. But how they remain silent matters, too. In American law, pleading the Fifth is done for a reason: to avoid self-incrimination. That Epstein explicitly invokes these rights – the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments – is no coincidence. The Fifth protects against self-incrimination. The Sixth guarantees a fair trial. The Fourteenth ensures equal protection under the law. It is a legal shield that, in that moment, raises more questions than it answers. Donald Trump has always insisted he had nothing to do with Epstein’s crimes. “I was never a fan of his,” he said in 2019. But old quotes paint a different picture. In an interview with New York Magazine in 2002, Trump said: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do. And many of them are on the younger side.”

In the years that followed, this sentence would be quoted again and again – as an example of a closeness that was later downplayed or denied from all sides. But the silence in Epstein’s deposition remains.

Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Many of his secrets died with him. Others, it seems, are only slowly coming to light – in unredacted files, resurfaced videos, or unanswered questions under oath. What remains is a disturbing image: a man who knew too much, a network that was too powerful – and a question that remains unanswered to this day.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.