The Onion officially gives up!

[True Dough]

[surfered]

1. I understand completely

Trump claims it’s a Democratic hoax while, simultaneously, being an informant in the case. That’s quite the plot twist.

[Skittles]

2. DEMOCRAT hoax

yes INDEED

[MadameButterfly]

12. Correct. Trump would never call it a Democratic hoax

That's not mean enough.
It has to be a Democrat hoax.

[Skittles]

19. I don't think they realize how stupid they sound, all parroting each other

ya know?

[Kablooie]

24. Doesn't matter.

All the Republican voters accept everything they say no matter how stupid or contradictory.

[mdbl]

38. Like a bunch of bobble heads

Sitting there nodding yup yup yup.

[Skittles]

50. kind of.......proving my point

[FakeNoose]

7. Pretzel logic

[PCIntern]

33. My favorite:

[IronLionZion]

15. So he's part of the hoax

He is informing lies to the FBI to protect criminals that he doesn't want named because they are hoax names

[SunSeeker]

43. At the time Trump informed on Epstein, the criminals were not Trump's donors yet, so he had no reason to protect them.

The first prosecution of Epstein began right after he and Trump had their falling out over a 2004 real estate deal. Epstein, who wanted the Florida property Trump scooped up, had threatened to sue Trump over the shady machinations Trump used in scooping up the property out from under Epstein.

Trump was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of his property purchase and it would have been next to impossible for him to get a loan from a bank at that time, yet somehow he came up with $41.35 million to purchase the property. He turned around and sold the property to Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev in 2008 for over $50 million more than he bought it for, strongly indicating it was a Russian money laundering operation all along. This ugly info on Trump would have come out in Epstein’s lawsuit. A child sex trafficking investigation would blunt Epstein’s credibility, and distract him from filing a lawsuit against Trump altogether. 

The investigation of Epstein began in 2005 and led to his arrest and indictment on a state charge in July 2006.  The case was concluded with that controversial Acosta plea deal in June 2008, where Epstein pleaded guilty to two state prostitution charges and served only 13 months of an 18-month sentence. Federal prosecutors secretly agreed not to file their own charges. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/local/2025/07/08/jeffrey-epstein-timeline-florida-case-led-to-15-years-of-sex-abuse/84510353007/#:~:text=Epstein%20pleads%20guilty%20to%20the,he's%20back%20in%2024%20hours

Looks like the criminals had their own ability to protect themselves from the prosecution in 2005-2008, they didn't need Trump.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

3. Lol

[Tetrachloride]

4. links please. if i forward to others, a worthwhile link

is polite and substantive.

otherwise its just rumor

[MadameButterfly]

13. it will come up quickly in a google search

[Tetrachloride]

17. not my job to google every rumor

[MadameButterfly]

26. This was not a rumor

and while links are helpful, the subject matter here is the Onion post, not the underlying issue.
These days googling what is humor and what is real is a thing.
You could just skip this thread if it's too much work for you

[Tetrachloride]

37. i skip unsubstantiated claims

[Torchlight]

41. okay

[C Moon]

23. I always look up (google) info and have no problem with it. :/ It's not really a job.

[brakester]

35. I love googling!

I learn so many new and intriguing things!

[Tetrachloride]

49. i allow myself excursions into wikipedia

[Tetrachloride]

48. in the past when i had no life, i had time to spare

now time is shorter especially for reading

[summer_in_TX]

16. Trump fbi snitch?

Is this the link you were asking about? Several came up in my Google search just now.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-epstein-fbi-snitch-house-speaker-confusion-1235422703/

[Kaleva]

20. It's a joke

Look at this announcement made in 2020:

https://covid-19archive.org/s/archive/item/23363

[thesquanderer]

25. Link for which? FBI informant claim? (Fact.) Onion closing claim? (Joke.) n/t

[Celerity]

34. It is satire.

[In It to Win It]

5. LOL

Who needs satire anymore with this administration?

[MadameButterfly]

14. Well, actually we do, to maintain our sanity,

searching ever for some humour in the situation.

But it's been getting harder for a while to distinguish between reality and satire. There have bee a number of Onion/Borrowitz posts that I thought were true and had to check, when in normal times you would just know.

[madashelltoo]

6. Hey, Johnson's got jokes . . . Good jokes!

The onion and most comedians can’t compete. His delivery is impeccable and oh, so believable. Our currently decomposing leader can disintegrate in peace now.

[iemanja]

8. That's been the case for a while now.

[calimary]

9. They're not serious, are they?

I’m hoping they’re pulling our legs. I’d hate to lose the Onion at a time like this.

[True Dough]

10. I think they're just having some fun,

as always.

[niyad]

51. Take a look at "a" fbi informant. .The Onion has better grammar.

[calimary]

52. Yep, the truth is in the details.

However, I’ve noticed that even in some sites and with some writers I like, it’s not always perfect.

Sister Kostka would have had a fit!

[niyad]

56. My internal editor has daily fits. A novel that I am currently reading

has used the word "prize" four times in 100 pages when it should be "prise". I have also seen, more than once, in different books, "vice" when it should be "vise". those are just a few examples. Apparently publishing houses no longer employ proof readers or copy editiors.

[calimary]

57. Spelling was always a thing for me.

Maybe just a weirdness but it really still is something always lurking in the back of my mind. Maybe I just always wanted to look smart on paper!

[niyad]

61. Well, you are smart. Between bad grammar, poor spelling, and whatever

passes for communication from social media on, trying to read these days is a constant exercise in frustration.

[Buddyzbuddy]

11. Classic, reality is stranger than fiction.

[Solly Mack]

18. No shit.

[Blue Owl]

21. Mike Johnson has jumped The Onion

[rubbersole]

28. Preferable to jumping the couch.

[SunSeeker]

22. Trump was more a snitch than an informant. He snitched after Epstein threatened to sue him over a land deal.

From Heather Cox Richardson today:

Yesterday, talking to reporters about the Epstein files, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said that Trump was “an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.” The idea that Trump was secretly working to bring Epstein down is common fare among conspiracy theorists, but as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo suggests, Johnson’s embrace of it might well be an attempt to spin material in the files before it becomes public.

Marshall notes that journalist Michael Wolff, who interviewed Epstein at length during Trump’s first presidency, says that Epstein suspected it was Trump who told the authorities about his systemic sexual assault of girls. But if so, Marshall explains, this is damning rather than exonerating.

It’s pretty well known that Trump and Epstein had a falling out in 2004 after Trump went behind Epstein’s back to buy an estate in South Florida that Epstein wanted. But at the time, Trump was headed toward bankruptcy, and it was not clear where he was getting the money to buy the estate.

Marshall calls attention to a recent interview in which Wolff said that Epstein suspected Trump was laundering money for a Russian oligarch—and indeed, Trump did flip the property to a Russian oligarch for a profit of more than $50 million a few years after buying it—and threatened to sue Trump, bringing the money laundering to light. At that point, the Epstein investigation began.

According to Wolff, Epstein believed Trump had notified the police about what was going on at Epstein’s house, which he knew because he was a frequent visitor. Marshall speculates that Johnson mentioned that Trump was an informant because that information could well be in the files the Department of Justice has, and they’re trying to spin it ahead of time to make it sound like Trump was a hero.

But both Wolff and Marshall note that if indeed Trump turned the FBI onto Epstein, it shows he knew what was taking place at Epstein’s properties.

Johnson’s claim that Trump was an FBI informant suggests Trump’s team is worried that as more and more people get access to the files, it will be increasingly difficult to hide what’s in them. Trump's demand for Republicans’ loyalty suggests that at least some of them are starting to recalculate it. And that, in turn, might have something to do with why he is putting troops in the streets.

https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/september-6-2025?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

[Wiz Imp]

31. There is absolutely zero evidence to support this "theory"

[soldierant]

36. Since when does MAGA need evidence?

[Wiz Imp]

39. My comment was directed at Josh Marshall who seemed to endorse this theory but should know better.

[SunSeeker]

40. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. People get convicted with it all the time.

The evidence:

1. Johnson says Trump informed on Epstein to the FBI. Trump does not dispute that.

2. The first prosecution of Epstein began right after he and Trump had their falling out over the real estate deal. This is undisputed.

3. The motivation: Epstein, who wanted the Florida property Trump scooped up, threatened to sue Trump. This is undisputed.

4. More motivation: Trump was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of his property purchase and it would have been next to impossible for him to get a loan from a bank at that time. Yet somehow he came up with the money. He turned around and sold the property to a Russian oligarch for $50 million more than he bought it for, strongly indicating it was a Russian money laundering operation all along. This ugly info on Trump would have come out in Epstein’s lawsuit. An FBI child sex trafficking investigation would blunt Epstein’s credibility, and distract him from filing a lawsuit against Trump altogether. That is what actually happened.

Those are some pretty solid circumstances.

[Wiz Imp]

42. Weak "evidence"

1) Why would anyone believe anything Trump says? He lies about everything.
2) Um, No. The "falling out" over the real estate deal happened in 2004. The prosecution of Epstein didn't start until 2006. And the FBI was not involved in the investigation until 2006 when the Palm Beach Police asked them to get involved due to the Palm Beach State Attorney not seeming to take the case seriously enough. The investigation started by the Palm Beach Police in March 2005 when the mother of one of the victims called police. The FBI investigation failed to result in any Federal charges against Epstein.
3) I have found zero evidence that Epstein threatened to sue Trump. Do you have a link for that?
4) This depends on the claim in 3) which I can find no evidence for.

You want circumstantial evidence? This guy nails exactly why the idea of Trump informing on Epstein is a ludicrous idea. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/X3WE9meINu4

[SunSeeker]

44. The real estate deal was in 2004. The investigation of Epstein began in 2005.

The investigation of Epstein began in 2005 and led to his arrest and indictment on a state charge in July 2006.  The case was concluded with that controversial Acosta plea deal in June 2008, where Epstein pleaded guilty to two state prostitution charges and served only 13 months of an 18-month sentence. Federal prosecutors secretly agreed not to file their own charges. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/local/2025/07/08/jeffrey-epstein-timeline-florida-case-led-to-15-years-of-sex-abuse/84510353007/#:~:text=Epstein%20pleads%20guilty%20to%20the,he's%20back%20in%2024%20hours

Epstein told biographer Michael Wolff in interviews that he threatened to sue Trump over that real estate deal. https://www.al.com/politics/2025/07/trump-biographer-claims-presidents-betrayal-is-real-reason-for-falling-out-with-epstein.html
Those Wolff interviews are on tape. https://washingtonmonthly.com/tag/michael-wolff-epstein-tapes/

The YouTuber you link to says Trump would never inform on a co-conspirator. But if Trump thought Epstein had no hard evidence on him (videos, etc), he'd inform on Epstein to smear Epstein, thus blunting the lawsuit and ruining Epstein’s credibility. Plus, Trump kinda sucks at thinking things through, which I'm sure you've noticed.

And yes, the evidence may be "weak," but it's certainly not "zero."

[MorbidButterflyTat]

60. Then why the

"Democrat hoax"?

But maybe the pathological liar, convicted felon, Russian BFF is really a ploy to fool people when he's really an FBI informant and totally legit!!

[SunSeeker]

63. Trump doesn't care about consistency.

He claims to be pro police and law and order, but pardoned all the J6ers who bashed cops' heads in.

[Wiz Imp]

64. OK. I should have said there is zero "hard" evidence

Now first, I would like to thank you for the link about Epstein threatening to sue Trump. I could not find anything through many internet and AI searches. Every single link i found said there was no evidence of Epstein ever threatening to sue Trump. So Michael Wolff did actually say it, but based on recent things from him, I'm beginning to not trust everything Wolff says. He has contradicted himself in interviews numerous times recently. He comes across as completely self-serving and not completely honest. At this point I don't think I'll believe anything he says about Epstein unless he would play the actual audio of Epstein saying it.

As for the you tube link I sent, it appears you didn't listen to it. He didn't say anything about Trump never informing on a co-conspirator. I have no idea how you got that from the video. His point was if Trump actually was an informant Trump would be shouting it all over that he was responsible for taking down the worst sexual predator in US history. If that were true and the files showed that, he'd want the files released immediately because they would paint Trump as a hero. Now add in the fact that even the White House is now saying they have no idea what Johnson was talking about

According to five Trump administration officials and others close to the president, Johnson’s “informant” claim on Thursday sparked widespread confusion within the ranks of Trump’s government, with several senior officials blindsided or just completely perplexed by what the Trump-aligned House speaker could have possibly meant.

. Sorry, but the whole idea is just insane.

[SunSeeker]

65. Tapes are hard evidence. What are the instances where Wolff has contradicted himself?

Last edited Mon Sep 8, 2025, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

But Epstein threatening to sue Trump is not direct evidence that Trump called the FBI. It is circumstancial evidence. The only direct evidence we have that Trump called the FBI is Johnson’s hearsay, which isn't admissable evidence in a trial, of course.

And I did watch your video, that Youtuber did say that, watch it again.

Marshall didn't suggest he was an informant, he suggested Trump just snitched on Epstein to ruin Epstein’s reputation. Snitching and being an informant are two very different things. Johnson saying Trump was an informant implies Trump kept feeding the FBI info while on the inside hanging out with Epstein. What Marshall is suggesting is after they had their falling out and Epstein threatened to sue Trump over the land deal and expose the money laundering, Trump called the authorities on Epstein.

But Johnson is most definitely a liar, and a stupid one at that. We are in agreement on that. It was really stupid for Johnson to say Trump was an informant because that implies Trump knew what Epstein was doing, which contradicts the official White House position that Trump had no idea what Epstein was doing (hence the 5 White House staffers saying they didn't know what Johnson was talking about).

[OverBurn]

27. Hilarious and Terrifying. Never seen this before. FUCKING NEVER.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

29. This made me smile

[GreenWave]

30. A vs. an. Pay atterntion "the Onion"!

Ironically, AI has the very situation you describe.

examples of "An"
Example Phrase Explanation
an apple "apple" starts with a vowel sound (a).
an hour "hour" has a silent "h," starting with a vowel sound.
an FBI agent "FBI" is pronounced starting with a vowel sound (eff-bee-eye).

[niyad]

32. Thank you.

[LAS14]

53. Indeed, indeed.

This mistake is getting all to prevalent. I think I heard Obama make it once.

[ClickClack]

59. Maybe NOT The Onion -- and YOU should pay "atterntion" (eom)

[malaise]

45. Too good

😂

[Paladin]

46. That's alright, "Onion." Take a few days off. Rest up.

We'll need you back in good shape in a few days when Mike Johnson returns, trying to convince everybody that Jesus Christ is still his Lord and Savior---rather than the guy he's worshipping at the moment. No retreat, no surrender, no prisoners...

[JanMichael]

47. I forget who did it but a reporter called 2,000 people in the black book

A PDF it was available right after Epstein died in the cell.

One woman, an actress who is not named, was a friend of his through the 90s. She told the reporter quite a bit.

During the time of the cloned sheep Dolly, Epstein said that he had a human cloning facility in Mexico.

What if the person killed in the cell was not Epstein? But a clone?

Now that could make a good thriller book. Like The boys from Brazil but Epstein, a prolific rapist.

Where would he be now Russia?

[red dog 1]

54. The Onion didn't fold.

(From today's Onion)
https://theonion.com/trump-boys-beg-father-to-let-them-keep-homeless-man-as-pet/

[True Dough]

55. It was The Onion

being cheeky, as it is wont to do.

[ClickClack]

58. Funny, but not actually on The Onion website?

I just went to The Onion (dot com) and looked for this, but did not see it.

Are you sure that's where you found that?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

62. I didn't see it there, either.