A legal expert was taken aback Thursday night after watching President Donald Trump admit he knew of a "grotesque crime" when he talked about his falling out with Jeffrey Epstein.
Ryan Goodman, founding co-editor-in-chief of the legal and policy website Just Security, joined Erin Burnett on CNN's "OutFront" to weigh in on Trump's shocking remarks regarding his relationship with Epstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking allegations.
Burnett noted the White House has offered multiple explanations about the falling out, including over a real estate deal. Trump, however, has instead said their friendship blew up because Epstein hired his spa workers — a claim that, she said, "doesn’t add up, because 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."
"Now they’re saying, and Trump has used this word before, that Epstein was a 'creep,' and that the White House says, quote, 'Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.' I mean, does any of this add up legally?
Goodman was floored by the remarks.
"So I think they’ve gotten themselves in more trouble by these references, that the reason for it was that he was a creep or that he was a creep to the —
"It’s hard to say he’s a creep if you said you didn’t know what he was doing," Burnett interjected.
"Exactly," replied Goodman. "So if he kicked him out because of sexual predation toward the employees, then it means he had knowledge."
Goodman said Trump's timeline "doesn’t make sense." A Trump Organization attorney has said Epstein was booted from Mar-a-Lago in 2007 due to an arrest a year earlier in Florida. Now, the White House is claiming he took that action over what he knew.
"A year after the arrest for pedophilia. Seven years after Virginia Giuffre is hired—is stolen—seven years after that?" asked Burnett.
"Seven years after that. So it’s not a good look for them, at the least. And that’s about, in some sense, moral culpability, not legal culpability. There would have to be more for that. But it does seem as though he’s admitting to knowledge of a grotesque crime against minors. That’s the problem."
When Burnett asked whether any recourse is possible for Trump over what he knew at the time, Goodman poured cold water on the idea.
"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. But to be a mandatory reporter, they’d have to be like a schoolteacher or a medical doctor," he said.
"Not a rich friend?" Burnett clarified.
"No, not just a friend or anything like that. And that would also be under state law. And there would probably also be a statute of limitations problem for that particular offense. But otherwise, that would chalk up to moral culpability."
Watch the clip below or at this link.