[Incoming wall of text] The more I think about the specific claims here, the more it seems that Democrats have their implications exactly backwards. Not only is Epstein himself not incriminating Trump, he's essentially clearing him of the worst accusations. Let's look at the highlighted emails that are supposedly bombshells:
1. Wolff and Epstein are discussing what's basically a perjury trap. There's no notion that Trump had sex with any of Epstein's victims and evidence of it dooming him. Instead, the gist of their conversation is about whether or not Trump will deny he visited Epstein at any point or went on a flight.
Perjury traps are common because there's a natural human impulse to deny guilt in a way that doesn't rely on people trusting your character. So, instead of saying, "No, I didn't do that awful thing. Please believe that I'm not like that.", it becomes, "I couldn't have done that because I was out of town that day."
Even when a person is innocent, their desire to be believed by others in a more definitive way can lead them to lie and be guilty of a lie, though not of the underlying crime. Notice that the extent of their speculation is not, "Will any of the victims speak up about Trump?", it's just "Will he lie about visiting?".
2. Trump is the dog that hasn't barked according to Epstein. I'd never heard this before, but looking it up says it's a reference to Sherlock Holmes realizing that the guard dog didn't bark because the thief was its owner in disguise. So, the dog would've call attention to the crime normally, but the perpetrator was its comrade.
Well, that certainly doesn't sound like the dog is the one committing the crime, does it? It sounds like the dog is one that could've blabbed, but didn't out of loyalty. Apparently, Epstein thinks that Trump has kept his mouth shut and therefore isn't coming up in the investigation, in spite of being around Virginia Giuffre for "hours".
This is crucial because Giuffre herself testified that Trump did not have sex with her and was, instead, very nice to her. So, neither she nor Epstein nor, of course, Trump, have said that they had sex. It's also telling that the one and only Epstein victim that he himself associates with Trump is Giuffre, so the idea of others falls flat.
3. In another conversation with Wolff, Epstein says that Trump knew about the girls, obviously, because he asked Ghislaine to stop... something. Other context indicates this is probably about poaching employees from Mara Lago, as opposed to being about anything sexual. But, let's consider it even as such because it doesn't help their case.
If Epstein means that Trump asked Ghislaine to stop prostituting underage girls, well, uh, that definitely doesn't support the notion that Trump was having sex with these girls, right? It's actually the polar opposite of that, in fact. So, the worst interpretation of this turns out to be that Trump is opposed to underage prostitution even in private.
Lastly, we can reiterate the idea from the first point that it's extremely significant what Epstein does not say. If he provided underage girls to Trump to have sex with, he would say that and not the much lesser claim that Trump merely "knew about" it happening. It'd make zero sense to relegate him to a passive knower if he was an active doer.
