A top legal expert says Donald Trump may have just admitted to knowing about Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls—and the implications are serious.
Legal scholar Ryan Goodman, a former special counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense, appeared visibly shaken Thursday night on CNN’s OutFront as he reacted to Trump’s latest defense for cutting ties with Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump has long claimed his friendship with Epstein ended over a real estate dispute. But this week, he offered a very different explanation: Epstein was a “creep” toward female employees at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.
That’s not just a bad look—it could point to knowledge of serious criminal behavior, according to Goodman.
“If he kicked him out because of sexual predation toward the employees, then it means he had knowledge,” Goodman said. “It does seem as though he’s admitting to knowledge of a grotesque crime against minors. That’s the problem.”
CNN anchor Erin Burnett also questioned the shifting story.
“The hiring-away was two years before Trump was continuing to say wonderful things about Epstein—and seven years before he kicked him out of the club,” she noted.
The White House has backed Trump’s claim, saying he removed Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for being “a creep” toward female staff. But that timeline doesn’t add up with earlier public statements or legal records.
A Trump Organization lawyer has previously said Epstein was banned in 2007 after his 2006 arrest in Florida for sex crimes involving minors. But Trump’s new version suggests he took action earlier—and because of behavior he personally witnessed.
That’s a big shift, Goodman pointed out.
“Seven years after Virginia Giuffre is hired—is stolen—seven years after that?” Burnett asked, referring to one of Epstein’s most well-known accusers.
“Seven years after that,” Goodman confirmed. “So it’s not a good look for them, at the least.”
Still, the legal consequences for Trump are likely minimal. When Burnett asked if Trump could face charges for knowing about Epstein’s behavior, Goodman explained the limits of the law.
“If it’s just knowledge, there’s only one situation in which there would actually be legal obligations. And that’s if somebody is a mandatory reporter,” he said. “Not just a friend or anything like that.”
Watch the exchange in the video below from CNN:
