Unpublished Photos Reveal Epstein Attended Trump’s Wedding as Legal Pressure Mounts

Breaking News from CNN & KFile

CNN has released exclusive, never-before-seen photographs of Jeffrey Epstein that shed new light on his relationship with former President Donald Trump, at a moment when Trump is facing growing backlash — including from his own political base — over how his Justice Department handled the so-called Epstein files.

The images, uncovered by CNN’s investigative unit KFile, directly contradict Trump’s long-standing efforts to distance himself from Epstein.

Proof Epstein Attended Trump’s Wedding

One newly published photo confirms that Jeffrey Epstein attended Donald Trump’s wedding to Marla Maples on December 20, 1993, held at the Plaza Hotel in New York City.

This image has never been published or circulated on social media before. It shows Epstein entering the Plaza Hotel during the wedding festivities — placing him physically present at one of the most high-profile personal events of Trump’s life.

A second photograph from the same event captures Epstein lingering in the background behind Howard Stern and Robin Leach, appearing to casually photobomb the scene.

While the wedding occurred more than a decade before Epstein’s first sex-trafficking charges, the images undermine Trump’s repeated claims that his relationship with Epstein was minimal or insignificant.

A Stark Contrast: Prosecutors vs. Trump’s Response

As these revelations emerged, another major legal development unfolded.

Jack Smith, the former special counsel who investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, delivered sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, publicly laying out the criminal case against Trump.

Smith methodically explained:

• Why Trump was charged

• What evidence prosecutors uncovered

• How the law applies to Trump’s actions

• Why prosecutors believe Trump committed crimes

He testified calmly, professionally, and under oath — answering every question in detail.

Trump’s Reaction: Rage Posting, Not Rebuttal

Trump, meanwhile, was nowhere near the hearing room.

Instead of rebutting the evidence in person or through legal filings, Trump spent the day rage-posting on Truth Social, attacking Smith personally, calling him “a sick man,” and demanding that the prosecutor himself be investigated.

There was no factual defense.
No legal counterargument.
No explanation addressing the evidence.

Only attacks.

🚨 Courtroom Chaos: Defense Team Tries to Walk Out

Just days earlier, Trump’s legal team made a move that stunned legal observers.

During a court hearing, Trump’s attorneys attempted to physically walk out of the courtroom while a judge questioned them about evidence and procedure.

The judge immediately intervened, ordering U.S. Marshals to secure the exits, warning that anyone leaving could be held in contempt and arrested.

Legal analysts described the attempted walkout as a clear sign of desperation, not confidence.

What Jack Smith Testified Under Oath

In sworn testimony released publicly in December 2025 and again during a January 22, 2026 House Judiciary hearing, Smith stated that his investigation uncovered evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump:

• Participated in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election

• Obstructed justice

• Mishandled classified documents

• Knowingly violated laws he swore to uphold

Smith cited:

• Recorded phone calls (including Trump asking Georgia officials to “find votes”)

• Phone records from January 6

• Insider witnesses from Trump’s own inner circle

• Emails, texts, and surveillance footage

• Trump’s own recorded words

This is the highest standard of proof in American criminal law.

What This Means for Trump

Smith’s sworn testimony locks the prosecution’s case into the public record. It confirms:

• Cooperating witnesses from inside Trump’s circle

• Documentary and recorded evidence

• A detailed legal theory prosecutors believe can convict

Trump’s response — personal attacks, social-media meltdowns, and courtroom theatrics — suggests he lacks a substantive legal defense to the evidence being presented.

Strong defenses argue facts.
Weak ones attack prosecutors.

The Bigger Picture

One side presented evidence, law, and testimony under oath.
The other responded with insults, rage posts, and attempted walkouts.

That contrast tells a clear story about the relative strength of each position.

Trump is facing serious federal criminal exposure — and the pressure is visibly mounting.