Donald Trump’s behavior is so far outside the norm that many people (including mental health professionals) have suggested that he is mentally ill. The most common suggestions I’ve seen are that he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial personality disorder (ASPD, also known as sociopathy), or a combination of the two (known as malignant narcissism). There is also widespread concern about cognitive decline.
I looked up the diagnostic criteria for NPD and ASPD, and it’s shocking how many of the boxes Trump ticks. Here are the criteria for NPD according to the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-5-TR:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (301.81 [F60.81])
Diagnostic Criteria
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
- Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
- Requires excessive admiration.
- Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
- Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
- Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
- Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
- Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
I would argue that Trump meets all 9 of those criteria. Only 5 are required for an NPD diagnosis.
Here are the criteria for ASPD:
Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7 [F60.2])
Diagnostic Criteria
A. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
- Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
- Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
- Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
- Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
- Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
- Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
B. The individual is at least age 18 years.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a manic episode.
I’d say that Trump meets all of the numbered criteria except #4. Only 3 are needed for an ASPD diagnosis. He’s certainly irritable and aggressive, but I haven’t heard reports of any physical altercations. He meets criteria B and D, but I don’t know enough about his early life to comment on criterion C, which is Conduct Disorder.
Anyway, the point is not whether Trump would qualify for a formal diagnosis. Diagnosis or no, any person who meets that many criteria for both NPD and ASPD is manifestly unfit for office.
There might be some concern about embarrassing key Republican donors, especially those who are donating directly to Trump personally.
We already know that at least one of Trump’s cabinet members violated my dictum that no one had any excuse for associating with Epstein after 2008.
I have difficulty assessing what crimes were committed. Almost certainly there was trafficking of underage girls, but as crimes go, that’s rather tame. The emails refer to things that rival the court of Caligula.
It seems rather obvious that Epstein courted people across the political spectrum. I can’t fathom how they thought it was safe. For some time I’ve speculated that Epstein was explicitly protected by the FBI. Or other agencies. If he worked for a foreign agency, then American ones would have to be complicit.
It seems reasonable to admit that we simply don’t know the details.
A friend of mine has dived deep into the conspiracies re: Epstein – blood-drinking, Satanic cults, sacrifice. She reassures me that she isn’t buying into any other conspiracies, but she has got quite upset about this one, and adopts the familiar strategies of confirmation bias, over-interpretation of weak evidence, and equivocation. Conspiracists are trying to retrofit this as a victory – and yet, they contributed absolutely nothing. It’s a genuine conspiracy that they failed to theorise about. You had one job, guys. Claiming validation of Pizzagate is just squid ink – there are references to pizza in Epstein, but this seems a genuine liking for pizza. There is certainly no way Alex Jones is going to be right on this having been wrong on every other issue. Epstein was uncovered by investigative journalism, not by a talking bollock with a 4 hour daily show to fill and no incentive to be accurate.
When Pizzagate was around, petrushka was upset due to the potential crimes committed (yes, I looked it up in this forum). We can deduce the reason: Pizzagate was directed against Dems. But now with Epstein files petrushka sees no specific crimes, no criminals (forgets even about Epstein and Maxwell) hears nothing, and is adamant that nobody can know better than him. Reason: Epstein files do not care about party affiliation and this is unfathomable for petrushka. He forgets that when Epstein and Trump were friends, Trump was a Dem much of the time – more accurately, this fact fails to connect with his brain because he sees Trump as Messiah and Messiah can only be Repub. Hyperpartisan hypocrisy is at petrushka’s core.
Tame? Actually, that’s a very severe crime (worse than trafficking of migrants which seems to decide elections in USA lately).
So, I agree, you have difficulty assessing crimes, extreme difficulty.
The Trump administration is covering up their own sex trafficking and pedo activities.
Coverups like this are normal in USA on all levels, as also self-admitted by petrushka, worth quoting again
In his sick mind, petrushka probably thought he was making a point à la “lots of claims of sexual abuse floating around, zero value in them for judicial purposes”. But it actually comes across as “lots of claims of sexual abuse, we did nothing with any of them, suppressed them all”. Clearly a description of institutional coverup culture.
Here’s a small list of world highups affected by the fallout from the Epstein files. Many of those outside USA already lost their position.
Epstein-Skandal: Rücktritte prominenter Politiker und Royals
petrushka, you better hope you’re redacted like other worst co-conspirators https://www.justice.gov/epstein/search
You really need to consider the consequences of calling me a “worst co-conspirator”.
Putting you on notice that this is defamation. And screen shoting it.
I think the typical IQ here is high enough to discern that I have not declared anyone innocent or guilty.
My estimates of probability differ from yours.
I am genuinely puzzled by odd terminology in the Epstein emails.
In some countries a 14 year old could have been married for five years. I find this horrifying, but some governments would sanction me for saying that.
Oh, this has consequences? But Epstein files do not, according to you. Or at least, you care deeply if you are in them, but not whether e.g. Trump is and in what context. I noticed your mindset looong ago 🙂
You have with utmost clarity demonstrated that you don’t know and don’t care how serious a crime trafficking is. You think there is no sexual abuse going on, there are even no victims and nobody has been convicted of any crimes (khm, Epstein and Maxwell?). “At least the claim that [Trump] ratted on Epstein has been debunked.” You’re consistently wrong on absolutely everything very safely, without any legal consequences. So what if I’m wrong regarding whether you are in the Epstein files? What’s the matter with you? 🙂
ETA:
The issue, for me, is that *you* – apart from your IQ – do not have the typical grasp of moral and legal norms, and of obvious facts. You have certainly declared Trump not guilty of any crime that you could name. But Trump is the number one guy in the Epstein files after Epstein and Maxwell. Setting aside your IQ, this tells that your perception of reality is very warped. And it is warped along clear American partisan lines.
And you’re not improving. You keep behaving as if your contempt for reality and obvious facts did not matter. colewd has the sense to take pauses. You don’t have any sense.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I have no insider knowledge regarding Trump’s guilt or innocence.
What I believe is that he has legions of enemies, in and out of government, who, would come forward, if they had something.
But this is early days, and who knows what is coming?
This is true, but the typical IQ here is also high enough to recognize that the trafficking of underage girls is not a “tame” crime.
ETA: rephrasing
I see claims that some countries arrest the girls. I don’t know if this is true, but it’s disturbing.
My claim, which you have truncated, is that trafficking mid teens is tame when compared to murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, torture of children and infants.
All of which are alleged.
The simple fact is, all the claims are allegations, unsupported by anything that could be used in court.
The lack of prosecution did not begin in 2025.
There was no disclosure of anything until Trump gave people hope that he might be toppled. Just my opinion, but I think you’ve been gamed.
This was brought up in a previous thread and ridiculed, but so far, the body count is about 25 to one, favoring Trump.
If I were forced to speculate on the future, I would guess interest in Epstein by mainstream media will vanish in a week or two. Unless Trump and Bondi can maintain the appearance of hiding something detrimental to Trump. Even better if there is something.
When I watched Eyes Wide Shut it bothered me that there was so much secrecy and fear mongering surrounding a rich people’s social club, when nothing depicted was particularly illegal or more disturbing than the key party in The Ice Storm.
I do not understand rich and powerful people. What attracts them to this kind of networking? If nothing illegal is going on, why the fear of disclosure? If things are illegal, why participate? And why, after 2008, was there no hesitation?
Just a random thought:
Brunhilde burned down Valhalla, including herself.
It all started because a contractor got stiffed.
Epics sometimes have humble beginnings.
petrushka, to Corneel:
No, you said that trafficking is “rather tame” “as crimes go”:
Also, you keep focusing on whether Trump committed any crimes, when the importance of the files goes far beyond that. Criminal or not, what’s in the files is so damaging to Trump, so much worse than what’s already been released, that he’s continuing the coverup.
The DOJ’s lame excuse for not releasing the remaining 3 million files is that they are “duplicative” of what’s already come out, as if that were a legitimate and believable reason not to release them. They’ve been violating the law ever since Trump signed it. They were supposed to release the files by December 19, but they didn’t. They are supposed to release all the files, but they haven’t. They were supposed to fully redact the names of the victims, but they didn’t. They weren’t supposed to redact the names of anyone else, but they did. They are desperately covering something up.
They haven’t merely been “maintaining the appearance” of hiding something. They are hiding something, and they’ve been doing it for a full year. Otherwise they would release the files and make the problem go away. Why on earth do you think they might end the coverup in the next couple of weeks?
You continue to truncate my statement: “ I have difficulty assessing what crimes were committed. Almost certainly there was trafficking of underage girls, but as crimes go, that’s rather tame. The emails refer to things that rival the court of Caligula.”
I have seven years in the system that deals with sexual abuse. No police department in the world routinely prosecutes people for having sex with teenage girls. It happens, but it requires a rare set of circumstances, and independent evidence. Why is it newsworthy when someone is prosecuted? Because it’s an exception.
I could cite a case that happened during my employment. A minister was accused of having an affair with a girl in his congregation, and the entire congregation, including the girl’s parents, came to his defense and blamed the girl.
Now, read about the Epstein victims, and their reluctance to come forward, and tell me I’m wrong about the dynamics.
Spoiler: I’ve read dozens of internet posts by “influencers” that blame the victims.
In USA the IQ may be adjusted differently. A pertinent example follows.
To exacerbate the perception of invasion of immigrants, Greg Abbot, the governor of Texas (the state most affected by migration from south), got into his head (in 2022 or so, Biden era) to bus asylum seekers to Washington DC and Dem-dominated states. Also DeSantis of Florida participated in the bussing, except he did it with Texas migrants, because Florida does not have such migrants readily handy.
This in European terms is clearly human trafficking with obvious criminal intent, Abbott moving migrants into places not under his jurisdiction and DeSantis moving migrants who were not under his jurisdiction in the first place. Was it prosecuted in USA as human trafficking? No. Since it was governors who did it, it was not prosecuted at all.
Read where? In QAnon newsletter?
This week during the hearing of Pam Bondi in front of Oversight Committee, the victims were present and made it clear that the FBI and DOJ are actively evading them. The last video I posted is, among other things, about that, but if you want “the full context” (as if you understood anything about context) you can watch the complete hearings on Youtube, very easily available.
You’re a pedo defender, petrushka. If you do not want to be called such, stop self-snitching. You’re so depraved you are not even realising how self-incriminating you are.
ETA:
The deaths/killings were off screen, therefore nothing particularly illegal. Geeeez!
petrushka:
I didn’t truncate it. I quoted it exactly the way you just did.
Shoplifting is rather tame “as crimes go”. Sex trafficking of underage girls is not. That’s independent of whatever else is in the files.
I have firsthand knowledge of how people think about teenage girls and wealthy, powerful men. Or ordinary men, for that matter.
There’s a famous film director who cannot enter the United States, but got a standing ovation at the Academy Awards. Because it wasn’t rape rape. He travels freely in Europe, and Europeans think Americans are puritanical.
petrushka,
Which is it? You originally said that sex trafficking of underage girls was “rather tame” “as crimes go”. Then you bristled when Corneel pointed out that it isn’t tame, complaining that he cut your statement short. Now you appear to be arguing that it is tame, after all, because Roman Polanski got a standing ovation and travels freely in Europe.
By the way, Polanski didn’t merely have sex with his 13-year-old victim, he raped her. And it wasn’t just statutory — he forced her despite her protests, according to her testimony. Do you think that’s tame, or that it isn’t “rape rape”?
Yes, Europeans tend to think Americans are puritanical, but that doesn’t mean that they think that underage sex trafficking is “tame”. Witness the fallout for prominent Europeans who have been linked to Epstein. And of course Corneel is a European who doesn’t think it’s tame.
I find it rather disturbing that someone who worked in CPS should be repeatedly minimizing child rape. My best explanation goes back to this poster’s weird inability to understand what constitutes evidence, and what does not. Covid being the most impressive example.
I find it even more disturbing how everybody pretends to not notice it. It is clearly encouraging him. It should have been somebody else who pointed out that petrushka is a pedo defender, but unfortunately there is nobody.
ETA:
petrushka just can’t help but self-snitch. He is so proud of being firsthand there. In what role? In the role of a wealthy powerful man? Given his mindset, I don’t see any other way to read his claims to have worked “in the protective services” than that he was some fat board member taking a look if any of his friends were implicated – and since they were, he is proud of the outcome of zero prosecutions during his tenure.
So, petrushka, please tell the whole story. What did you decide the appropriate punishment was for the girl? I guess it was enough to tell her to shut up to avoid getting prosecuted.
Go ahead. Let’s litigate your employment in the protection services to the bottom. We’ll go over everything.
ETA: The defamation that I’m worried about here is your self-defamation. When called out on the character of pedo defender that you keep presenting here, you double down. Nobody in their right mind would do it, so you cannot be in your right mind. Then again, a serial adulterer and convicted rapist is running your country, so I guess you see nothing to worry about, but rather lots of space to triple and quadruple down.
petrushka,
You seem to be oddly tone deaf. Are you really willing to sacrifice your dignity by downplaying the severity of sexual trafficking of underage girls and sexual abuse? For defending Donald Trump?
I am not defending Trump. I have no opinion as to his guilt or innocence.
I observe results, and so far, Trump’s enemies are scoring own goals.
I suspect very few teenage girls were abducted involuntary off the street.
But if the inferences are correct, many much younger children were abused, tortured, murdered. I find this more disturbing than taking advantage of older girls.
I’m still waiting for the kind of evidence that could be presented in court.
I am not minimizing child rape. I am reporting that the world at large doesn’t give a damn.
Hollywood traffics children. Everyone knows this. Child stars are on record talking about it. No one cares. You still go to movies.
There are degrees of depravity. Agree or disagree?
Still willing to minimise the crimes? What according to you could be presented in court?
Thus far it seems that your standards are at least as off as FBI’s. Kash Patel supposedly looked at this and concluded that there is nothing to investigate, there are no perpetrators other than Epstein https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/31/uk/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-epstein-files-pictures-intl-gbr
ETA: At first the files (or the list of names) were on Pam Bondi’s desk, then there was no list, no files, then there was nothing to investigate (in the files that did not exist or that were on the desk, unclear at this point), then there are no victims, no perpetrators other than Epstein, no co-conspirators, but now there are three million files still unreleased.
Your version of the events, petrushka, has always been based on ignorance and on the most ludicrous propaganda, not on the actual evidence. So, please, surprise me with knowledge of some evidence, at least standards thereof that could apply in court of law.
ETA2: For comparison, Norwegian standards https://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/former-norway-prime-minister-charged-with-corruption-and-epstein-relation/
Fancy that. I thought he was playing cards.
That is not how that works.
That may be, but none of that makes sex trafficking “tame”. You continue to sound insensitive and callous.
I know what I am, and I don’t really care what you imagine me to be.
When the movie *MASH* came out, people were astonished that battlefield surgeons could make jokes about their situation.
I invite you to take a job trying to help people, in a system that is uncaring and corrupt, and in which the people you are trying to help are resentful and hostile. And in which all the alternatives are ineffectual.
In seven years, no one on my watch died, no parents were arrested, no kids consigned to foster care. Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Co-workers who couldn’t tolerate human imperfection sometimes made things worse, and they burned out.
You mean you’re joking in some noble way? No. Based on your track record here, you get everything wrong. Not a few small things. Everything. Everything about evidence and people – especially about Trump. Also everything about how crime and law works.
You can’t even pay attention to movies. You said you saw Eyes Wide Shut and did not notice anything particularly illegal. Perhaps you think it was a comedy, too?
And you also get wrong everything about how jobs work. You’re describing a job where you have to have strong communication/negotiation skills and at least average moral compass to be able to judge characters where needed. You completely lack these skills. How did you get that job and why did you not get out when you discovered that it’s not for you? I understand: You never discovered that. You thought you were perfect for it. Another fatal misjudgement.
You probably think Melanie was singing about roller skates.
You are right. I mean, those mid-teen girls (practically adults, right?) think they have it tough being coerced into sexual abuse, but their situation is really tame compared to all the shit you had to endure. Your story really brought tears to my eyes, man. Thank you!
You are conflating rape by a stepfather or mother’s boyfriend with seduction by rich and powerful men.
A judge in Finland just declared that sex by an adult with a ten year old girl isn’t really rape. Whoopie Goldberg said pretty much the same thing.
There are reasons why we used to discourage children from having early sex. How did this change?
Unlucky for you, I have lived in Finland and know all about it in detail. This tidbit is easy peasy: American MAGA/QAnon propaganda drivel, utter hogwash and braindead moronicity. Only American Trumpite pedo defenders think this is a thing.
petrushka:
I asked Claude about it:
Like Erik and keiths, I could not find any source confirming this claim. Are you sure this is correct?
Regardless, you seem to be missing the point: angling for our compassion after calling sex trafficking of underage girls a “tame” crime in comparison to “murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, torture of children and infants” may backfire.
ETA: keiths ninja
With his “A judge in Finland just declared that sex by an adult with a ten year old girl isn’t really rape” petrushka implies that a judge in Finland declared a general-ish rule, henceforth law of the land. This is how it works in America – legal decisions, including court rulings by judges, become so-called case law. But this is not how it works anywhere in continental Europe. In continental Europe, judges do not make law. Making law is strictly the purview of the parliament, whereas judges interpret the law in light of the evidence currently in front of them and that’s it. The law in Finland always was “it is rape given such-and-such circumstances” and the judge’s ruling that “in this instance regarding this ten-year-old cannot quite say it qualifies as rape” did not make new law.
But petrushka thinks law works everywhere the same way as in America. petrushka is a sofa potato who has apparently not moved too far from his front porch throughout his life. Such America-specific spin on this incident in Finland is only possible given an America-centric media diet. And, even more unlucky for him, I am directly familiar with the American MAGA/QAnon media space.
Keith’s:
What you describe is wack-a-mole. UK parliament just voted overwhelmingly to kill an investigation of systematic child rape.
The fact remains that we have the technical ability to shut down internet child porn, and do not. Nor is there any public outcry about this. No outcry about the child casting couch.
What we have is occasional busts, which are nothing more than PR stunts.
No one cares, unless a political enemy is in the crosshairs.
Epstein outrage will evaporate like the MeToo movement, because most of the perps are enemies of Trump.
Side note: I learned a new acronym. CSAM.
Apparently applies to stuff in the Epstein files that can never be made public.
Five hundred agents were involved in screening the Epstein files. You cannot put together that many people in an agency without having some Trump haters.
Nothing this contentious remains a secret in the government.
The only scenario in which Trump is an Epstein criminal is a Mexican standoff. I won’t deny that possibility.
This is lifted so far out of context that it has turned into the diametrical opposite of what really happened (back in January btw).
I really can’t be *rsed to correct you on this. Just Google the sentence I quoted here and do some critical reading. Get back to us when you actually understand what this was about. Hint: it has nothing at all to do with suppressing a child rape investigation.
petrushka:
You presented the judge’s decision as evidence that Finnish society is OK with adults having sex with 10-year-olds. Finnish society is not OK with that. There was national outrage and the law was changed to broaden the definition of aggravated rape. Why not take your false belief about Finnish society and replace it with a true one?
Bullshit. 90% of Britons supported Charles’ decision to strip Andrew of his royal titles. Do you think those 90% considered Andrew to be a “political enemy”?
Take your false belief — “this only matters if Trump has committed a crime” — and replace it with the correct belief: “this is a moral issue, not merely a criminal one.”
Take your false belief — that there’s nothing damaging to Trump in the Epstein files — and replace it with the correct belief: there’s something extremely damaging to Trump in those files, which is why he’s fought against their release for an entire year and why his administration is engaged in an obvious, full-blown coverup.
Here is a good illustration of why cover-ups happen – it’s because if it’s covered up, nobody knows what’s being covered up, and there is no evidence of whatever it might be, since it’s covered up. So we can say “there is no known direct evidence Trump was involved in Epstein’s operation” and it’s true – there IS no known evidence. That’s what cover-ups do. They enable plausible deniability for the guilty.
We can all see how hard Trump and the Trumpies are trying to pretend nothing happened and nothing to see here, and sure enough, all we can see is the effort to cover up. We can’t see the details of what’s covered up. Our best hope is that this effort MUST be covering up something. Some observers are wondering if the cover-up is worse than the crime – which was true in the Watergate affair.
Belief is religion. I don’t believe. I think in probabilities.
The central fact of thinking in probabilities is that one can be wrong.
In this case there can be degrees of being wrong.
Can you accept the possibility that guilt in the context of Epstein could scale from having hobnobbed with Rich and powerful people, facilitated by Epstein, or slept with prostitutes, or slept with underaged prostitutes, or raped young children and infants, or murdered and eaten infants?
Show me your facts.
petrushka,
Will you at least acknowledge that you managed to disseminate fake news twice? When you are in a hole, you really should stop digging, you know.
Also, if I were you I would sanitize my news sources by removing the channels that fed you these propaganda lies.
petrushka:
Belief is not religion, and you believe, just like the rest of us. Belief doesn’t require absolute certainty. You believe that you’re reading a blog comment from a guy who goes by ‘keiths’, but you’re not 100.0% certain of that.
Yes. Sometimes the probability is higher, sometimes lower. I believe that Donald Trump is the president, although there’s a minuscule chance that I’m wrong about that.
It depends on the assertion. Some are binary, and in those cases you’re either all wrong or all right. Other assertions may be partially right or partially wrong.
Of course! That’s why I want all of the files to be released, with only the redactions required by law. I want to know who did what, and what the administration is hiding.
Think in probabilities, petrushka. What is the probability that there is nothing damaging to Trump in the Epstein files, given the massive coverup that he and his administration are engaged in?
I’ve asked you multiple times to come up with plausible hypotheses for why Trump would engage in a coverup, at great cost to him politically, if he had nothing to hide. Come up with some, and we’ll evaluate their probability compared to the probability of my hypothesis, which is that Trump is engaged in the coverup because he thinks that whatever is in the files is worse for him than the coverup itself.
I think the probability that any politician has covered up stuff approaches one hundred percent.
I think the probability that there has been actionable evidence against Trump is very low, because he hasn’t had control of the files until recently. This has nothing to do with his integrity. It’s an inference from the custody history of the files.
petrushka:
Some coverups are a hell of a lot worse than others.
Again, this isn’t just about crimes or “actionable evidence”. It’s a moral issue. Trump knows there’s something terrible in those files and he’s trying desperately to hide it.
If you think there isn’t anything damaging to Trump in the files, why the coverup? Is he afraid that he’ll be exonerated? Does he want the American people to distrust him? Is he hoping that Republicans will lose the midterms, because he’s tired of wielding presidential power and would prefer to be a lame duck for the rest of his term? Is it because there’s something terrible about prominent Democrats in the files, and he wants to protect their reputations?
What is your explanation? Put your slogan into practice. Think in probabilities.
By now, either the Epstein files disclosures state or strongly imply that Trump was a regular customer for the girls, and possibly even helped recruit them, or else much of the public will be convinced that information is still being hidden. Probably nobody outside the cult believes Trump did nothing incriminating, and didn’t know what was going on. There will probably be a point reached where hiding the files is more politically damaging than publishing them.