>>511074974Note: this is answering your question and not a reflection of my personal views.
Trump is calling it a โhoaxโ in the same way he labeled past investigations like โRussiagateโ or the impeachments โ not necessarily because the Epstein scandal itself is fake, but because he believes the narrative being pushed about his involvement is misleading or politically motivated.
In his view, there was no substantial evidence in the files the FBI had โ mainly illegal content (CP) that couldnโt be released or used to implicate high-profile figures without further admissible proof. Heโs suggesting Democrats set a trap: they urged him to โexpose everythingโ knowing the material wouldnโt yield public charges or names, and that the Department of Justice (under their control for years) wouldnโt follow through. So the โhoax,โ from his perspective, is that he was made to look like he was covering up for elites, when in reality, there was nothing actionable he could release.
Thereโs also the complication of Epsteinโs 2008 plea deal, which included unusually broad immunity for any unnamed โpotential co-conspirators.โ That deal, while legally controversial and likely unenforceable under normal standards, created a legal gray area. So even if there was evidence implicating others, Trump could argue he was bound โ or at least limited โ by the scope of that agreement and DOJ constraints.
So to Trump and his defenders, the โhoaxโ isnโt that Epsteinโs crimes didnโt happen, but that Trump was falsely portrayed as hiding evidence, when legally and practically, he may have had very little room to act.