Jimmy Kimmel blasts Republican ‘sycophants’ defending Trump over Epstein birthday book
Kimmel taunted Republicans questioning the authenticity of Trump’s signature in the disgraced financier’s birthday book.
Jimmy Kimmel wasted no time Tuesday night in skewering President Donald Trump and his allies over their defense of his alleged signature appearing in a book of tributes given to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday.
One note that appeared in the book, released by the House Oversight Committee on Monday, was framed by a hand-drawn sketch of a naked woman’s silhouette. It was allegedly signed by Trump, though the White House and president have denied the signature is his.
Jimmy Kimmel Live! kicked off Tuesday with the host saying that Trump’s “sycophants” have been left to defend him after he initially refused to comment on the note.
He then played a clip of Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett suggesting the signature on the letter is fake and that he’s “never known Trump to be much of an artist.”
“Oh well, then he couldn’t have done it, right?” said Kimmel. “Not much of an artist, what are you talking about? He’s an amazing artist, he’s a con artist, he’s a bulls*** artist… he paints his whole face orange every day.”
Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with the Epstein case and vehemently denies authoring the note to the disgraced financier.
Kimmel went on to show a comparison of Trump’s signatures over the years with the one in Epstein’s book, as some Republicans have claimed the signature is fake or the work of an autopen.
“They’re saying it doesn’t look like his signature and it could’ve been an autopen, which is a device that makes an exact replica of your signature,” Kimmel pointed out.
“Which one is it? Is it exactly his signature, or is it not his signature at all? It can’t be both. And here’s the other thing — this book is 22 years old. Who would’ve been faking Donald Trump’s signature in a private birthday book in January of 2003? The Apprentice wasn’t even on the air yet. This would’ve required an extraordinary amount of planning.”
