I Am Not A Handwriting Expert ...

... nor have I viewed multiple provably authentic Donald Trump signatures from the time period around the creation of the  supposed "Epstein birthday book" note/drawing released by the US House Oversight Committee such that I could even pretend to be qualified to assess the similarities, differences, and likelihood or unlikelihood that it's authentic.

I think I'm qualified to at least ask a question, though, to those claiming it's obviously fake:

If Rupert Murdoch / the Wall Street Journal / someone trying to fool Rupert Murdoch and/or the Wall Street Journal wanted to fake up a Donald Trump document with a Donald Trump signature, why would they use a signature that just might plausibly be open to question on authenticity grounds, when there are probably, at a minimum, thousands of easily found, easily authenticated Donald Trump signatures from the time period in question that they could produce a convincing forgery of?

If I'm reading the various accounts correctly, this thing was provided to Congress -- and, previously, shown to WSJ's reporters -- by Epstein's own estate.

So, a hypothesis:

If the note/signature are fake, they weren't faked by WSJ recently. They were faked in 2003 by someone who wanted Jeffrey Epstein to believe that Donald Trump cared enough to contribute a note to the "birthday book," but didn't want that badly enough to do a really professional job. That might have been a Trump staffer trying to cover his boss's ass, or an Epstein associate who thought Epstein would be crushed if "The Donald" wasn't represented in the book, or whatever.

And if that's the case, Murdoch and WSJ are off the "defamation" hook -- they can just claim that they were fooled and that no "actual malice" was involved.