A retired FBI signature expert has raised compelling doubts about whether President Donald Trump personally signed a suggestive birthday letter to the late Jeffrey Epstein, pointing to discrepancies that challenge the narrative being pushed by some political opponents.

According to Just the News, Wayne Barnes, a 29-year veteran of the FBI with a reputation for unmasking spies through handwriting analysis, examined the letter from Epstein’s 50th birthday book and found striking inconsistencies. His analysis suggests the signature, while resembling Trump’s informal first-name style, may have been artificially placed on the document.

Democrats seized on the letter’s release by the House Oversight Committee, using its provocative content as a political cudgel, despite Trump’s firm denial of any involvement. Yet, Barnes’ expertise cuts through the noise, focusing on hard evidence rather than partisan agendas, and his findings deserve a closer look before conclusions are drawn.

Paper Color Raises Red Flags

Barnes noted a glaring clue in the paper itself, explaining that Trump’s personal correspondence typically uses off-white or beige stationery, never plain white. The Epstein letter, however, appears on white paper, which Barnes suggests could indicate a cut-and-paste job to affix a signature without revealing color mismatches.

“Whoever created the dialogue page seems to have put a good deal of thought into it, but something was overlooked,” Barnes wrote in his report. This detail, subtle to the untrained eye, undermines the authenticity of the document and hints at deliberate manipulation.

If someone did tamper with the signature, they failed to account for Trump’s consistent habits, a misstep Barnes finds telling. His analysis isn’t about political loyalties but about the facts of paper and ink, which don’t bend to anyone’s talking points.

Not Forgery, But Likely Fraudulent

Barnes clarified that this isn’t a case of forgery, where someone mimics a signature, but rather a fraudulent application of a genuine one. “It is highly unlikely that he penned... or wrote his name beneath those dialogue lines and the drawing,” he stated, suggesting someone else placed Trump’s name there without consent.

This distinction matters, as it shifts the conversation from Trump’s actions to potential deception by others. The idea that someone could exploit a signature for their own ends isn’t far-fetched in a world where political gamesmanship often trumps integrity.

Barnes admits he’d prefer to examine the original document for further evidence, but the public record already gives him significant pause. His caution reflects a professional rigor that contrasts sharply with the rush to judgment seen in some quarters.

Trump’s Habits Don’t Match the Letter

Beyond the paper, Barnes analyzed Trump’s correspondence style, noting that personal letters from the former president usually include a brief, handwritten note of warmth or thanks. The Epstein letter, with its elaborate dialogue and suggestive sketch, bears no resemblance to anything in Trump’s known history, such as letters to Hillary Clinton or Larry King.

“There is absolutely nothing in his correspondence history that smacks of anything even remotely similar to the dialogue page,” Barnes emphasized. This mismatch raises the question of why anyone would expect Trump to craft such an odd, time-intensive message for someone he reportedly distanced himself from years earlier.

Trump has stated he broke ties with Epstein in the 1990s, long before the 2003 birthday book, making even a simple greeting unlikely. Barnes’ point is clear: the letter doesn’t fit the man’s patterns, and that alone should temper the eagerness to pin it on him.

A Call for Deeper Scrutiny

In a climate where every scrap of paper can be weaponized, Barnes’ analysis offers a sobering reminder to prioritize evidence over emotion. His track record, from unmasking Soviet spies to verifying Hunter Biden’s laptop receipt, lends weight to his doubts about the Epstein letter’s authenticity.

While some may cling to this document as proof of guilt by association, the reality is messier, and rushing to condemn ignores the possibility of foul play by others. Barnes’ work isn’t a verdict, but it’s a challenge to dig deeper before letting narratives harden into assumed truth.

Ultimately, this case underscores the need for skepticism toward politically charged revelations, especially when they hinge on a single, questionable signature. Let’s hope future investigations match Barnes’ precision, rather than the haste of those eager to score points in a never-ending culture clash.