Have any sworn statements, depositions, or witness testimonies tied Trump to Epstein's criminal activities or shown knowledge of them before 2019?

1. What the public documents actually show — mentions, emails, not verdicts

Congressional releases of material from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate contain emails in which Epstein mentions Trump, including a 2011 note saying Trump “spent hours at my house” with a woman Epstein identified as a victim and a later 2019 email where Epstein wrote Trump “knew about the girls,” but those are Epstein’s own statements in his correspondence — not sworn testimony that names Trump as a participant in crimes ^{[1] [7] [8]}. News outlets and House Democrats publishing these emails have emphasized they raise questions but do not by themselves establish criminal conduct by third parties mentioned in the documents ^{[8] [1]}.

2. Victim testimony that’s been cited: Giuffre and others have denied seeing Trump commit abuse

Key victim accounts in the public record, including Virginia Giuffre’s deposition made public in 2019 and her later public statements and memoir, have said she did not witness Donald Trump engage in sexual misconduct and that she did not believe he participated in Epstein’s criminal activity; multiple outlets note Giuffre has “consistently stated” that Trump was not involved in Epstein’s abuse ^{[2] [9]}. Reporting and committee releases repeatedly contrast Epstein’s emails claiming knowledge or contact with victims against victims’ own sworn statements that do not implicate Trump ^{[1] [2]}.

3. No public sworn statement or deposition tying Trump to crimes has yet been produced in the recent releases

Available sources about the recent tranche of documents and the Justice Department files pushed for by Congress do not identify any newly released sworn deposition, grand‑jury transcript, or other witness testimony that directly ties Trump to Epstein’s criminal activities prior to 2019; media coverage emphasizes emails and references rather than witness testimony proving criminal involvement ^{[10] [5] [6]}. Reports note that grand‑jury material and other transcripts remain subject to legal processes and redactions and that the new statutory requirement for DOJ disclosure contains carve‑outs for ongoing investigations ^{[10] [11]}.

4. Competing interpretations in the press and politics — motive and meaning differ

Conservative and pro‑Trump outlets and spokespeople stress that the emails “prove nothing” and point to victims’ sworn denials and to the absence of charges against Trump; they highlight that mere correspondence or mention is not a crime ^{[1] [2]}. Democrats, victim advocates and some press outlets counter that Epstein’s own words — and the pattern of contacts with powerful people — create credible grounds for more disclosure and scrutiny; House Democrats have publicly framed the releases as raising legitimate concerns about who knew what and when ^{[12] [1] [13]}. Both camps acknowledge the difference between a damaging allegation in emails and proof in sworn testimony or a legal finding ^{[8] [7]}.

5. Evidence gaps and what to watch for next

Major gaps remain: current reporting does not show public, sworn witness testimony directly asserting Trump’s criminal participation or advance knowledge beyond Epstein’s written claims ^{[1] [3]}. The Biden‑era and current Justice Department decisions, and the new congressional mandate to force DOJ to release files, could surface grand‑jury transcripts, witness declarations, or other materials — though DOJ can withhold items that would jeopardize active probes ^{[10] [11] [5]}. Watch for any released grand‑jury transcripts, victim depositions, or law‑enforcement witness statements — those would materially change the public record if they include direct allegations or admissions ^{[10] [5]}.

Conclusion: the record assembled by press and Congress so far contains provocative emails and documented associations that have spurred public demand for transparency, but available sources do not cite a sworn deposition, grand‑jury testimony, or other witness statement publicly tying Trump to Epstein’s criminal activities or proving he had knowledge of them before 2019 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The incoming release of Justice Department files — and any grand‑jury material within them — is the clearest path to resolving whether sworn testimony exists that changes that conclusion ^{[5] [6]}.