36
Yeah, this is the South Carolina victim from the early 80s. It is known.
Also, this may come as a surprise for some, but the fact of the Epstein settlement itself is not that important in terms of trying to establish or eliminate the credibility of a given victim in regard to Trump. It's a factor, not a bombshell, lol.
In order to try to preserve some of the Epstein estate, as early as 2019 a probate judge in the USVI and the estate were working on a victim compensation plan to quickly resolve victim claims through a private application and review process, where a victim could receive a payout in exchange for not suing the estate directly.
This is actually a win/win for all sides. The estate isn't drained by never-ending litigation, all the victims have access to the estate as opposed to one or two big suits draining it for the rest, the executors and trustees can free up funds for the ongoing maintenance of assets and properties, the governments get their estate taxes, and so forth.
Thus many such claims specifically against the Epstein estate have been settled without what we would consider ABSOLUTE proof. But some proof, including circumstantial, was always involved.
So what can be known from an Epstein estate settlement through the victim compensation plan(s), or a private lawsuit against Epstein or his estate -- all of which the word "settlement" can be referring to -- is that a victim was at the very least able to prove through various means that as a young woman she was in Epstein's personal orbit, at the time she says her abuse occurred, and usually without any other plausible reason for her presence.
Individually, a victim may have proved far more than that: each claim was weighed independently. But a victim proved at least that much, so they would settle with her to insulate the estate, specifically, against any future lawsuit from her.
It was a business decision made in part because what a victim is unable to prove today, that evidence and much worse may come to light tomorrow and completely drain whatever assets remain. Or to put it another way, the estate and the USVI probate court were trading the much higher courtroom requirements of proof -- which many of these victims can't ever provide anyway -- in exchange for being able to ensure that all the victims, the various governments involved, plus the beneficiaries of the eventual trust, all get their share of the estate.
And even then, a settlement with Epstein or his estate doesn't mean jack in regard to Trump.
It sounds simple enough, but I swear I think some people don't get this. Trump is not Epstein, he is not attached to the Epstein estate or named in it, and no Epstein settlements were awarded on the basis of non-Epstein offenses. If a settlement was made, Epstein was the offender. Maybe not the sole offender, but he was the offender. And so it is with this South Carolina victim: her primary abuser, and the one through whom she became known to the FBI, was Epstein.
But what does give this victim credibility in regard to Trump, IMO, is that in her first interview with the FBI Trump was mentioned in regard to a photo, and then this victim was quickly interviewed three more times in July-August 2019 by the FBI for a total of FOUR direct interviews; the FBI 302 records of these interviews indicate "protect source" in bold across the top (here's an example); and then later the DoJ went out of their way to obscure her existence and remove any evidence of her from the files until a reporter on Substack, Roger Sollenberger, found evidence that they'd been removed from a source the DoJ didn't think to scrub.
As Hillary Clinton said in her House Oversight Committee deposition, "The FBI interviewed that witness four times. You don’t interview a non-credible witness four times. You don’t put into the FBI reporting 'protect this source' if you think there is nothing to it."