‘She Wasn’t Stolen, She Was Preyed Upon’: Giuffre’s Family Rebukes President’s Dehumanizing Language

In a clumsy and self-serving attempt to rewrite his history with the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, President Felonious Punk this week offered a new narrative. He had a falling out with his “onetime friend,” he claimed, because Epstein was “poaching” employees from his Mar-a-Lago club. When asked if Virginia Giuffre—the Epstein accuser who died by suicide in April—was one of them, the President casually agreed, stating that Epstein “stole her.”

It was a word choice that was both profoundly dehumanizing and, perhaps, unintentionally revealing. The President’s callous remark was immediately and forcefully corrected by Giuffre’s grieving family. “She wasn’t stolen, she was preyed upon at his property, at President Trump’s property,” her brother, Sky Roberts, said in a raw, emotional interview. “Stolen seems very impersonal. It feels very much like an object, and the survivors are not objects, women are not objects.” This powerful rebuttal has shattered the President’s cynical spin, reopening a painful wound for a family and raising damning new questions about what, exactly, the President knew about the predatory crimes being committed at his own club.

Part I: A Self-Serving History

The President’s version of events is a transparent attempt to cast himself as a hero in a story of which he has long been a peripheral, but deeply unsettling, character. He claims he got upset with Epstein’s behavior and personally told him, “Listen, we don’t want you taking our people… Outta here.” He presents the situation as a simple dispute between two powerful men over “employees.” It is a narrative designed to portray him as a vigilant and protective boss, a man with firm moral boundaries who acted decisively to kick a “creep” out of his establishment. It is a narrative that carefully and completely erases the horrific reality of what was actually happening.

Part II: The Dehumanizing Reality

For the family of Virginia Giuffre, the President’s language is a grotesque distortion of the truth. Their sister was not an object to be “stolen” or an employee to be “poached.” She was a teenage girl who, while working a summer job at Mar-a-Lago, was systematically groomed, abused, and trafficked into an international sex ring by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. As her brother so powerfully stated, “She was preyed upon.”

The President’s choice of the word “stole” is not just a careless gaffe; it is a profound insight into a worldview that sees women as property. It reduces a human being who endured years of unimaginable trauma to the status of an asset that was illicitly transferred from one powerful man to another. It is this act of erasure—the deliberate substitution of a comfortable story about an employment squabble for a horrifying story about child sex trafficking—that has spurred the family to speak out, even in the midst of their grief.

Part III: The Unanswered Question

Beyond the callousness of the language, the President’s statement raises a critical and damning question that has long lingered at the edges of the Epstein scandal. As the Giuffre family’s statement put it, “It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal actions.”

By casually admitting that he was aware of Epstein “taking” young women from his club, the President may have inadvertently admitted to having a direct, contemporaneous awareness of Epstein’s predatory recruitment methods—methods that were unfolding on his own property. This new statement, combined with his infamous 2002 quote that Epstein was a “terrific guy” who “likes women on the younger side… no doubt about it,” paints a picture of a man who was, at best, willfully blind to the crimes being committed in his orbit, and at worst, something far more sinister. In his clumsy attempt to create distance, the President may have placed himself closer to the crime than ever before.

Believe the Women

For years, the public discourse around the Epstein case has been consumed by a cynical and often conspiratorial obsession with a “client list.” The endless, frantic search for a physical document, a ledger of names, has become a distraction from the truth that has been sitting in plain sight all along. This demand for a “list” is its own form of epistemic injustice—a systemic refusal to accept the sworn testimony of women as sufficient evidence, demanding instead a piece of paper before their words are deemed credible.

The answer to the endless, cynical question of how to get to the bottom of the Epstein matter has always been brutally simple. There is no need for a fucking list. The women are telling the truth. The women can tell you the names. Believe the women. To do so is to see the powerful men they named, including the President of the United States, for exactly who they are.