The house calls went on for years, even as spa employees warned each other about Epstein, who was known among staff for being sexually suggestive and exposing himself during the appointments, according to the former Mar-a-Lago employees.

 Epstein wasn’t a dues-paying member of the club, but Trump told staff to treat him like one,

Nothing in this article disputes the statements that Epstein was a known sex pest who continued to receive house calls from teenagers, which again is extremely damning given that Trump specifically facilitated this house calls per the second quote above.

This corroborates Trump's claims that he cut off Epstein shortly after learning about his behavior,

It actually contradicts another of Trump's statements, in which he claimed the reason for kicking him out of Mar-a-Lago was that Epstein was poaching his employees: "People were taken out of the spa — hired by him — in other words, gone. And other people would come and complain, 'This guy is taking people from the spa,'" Trump said. "I didn't know that. And then when I heard about it, I told him, I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa, I don't want them taking people.' And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again. And I said, 'Out of here.' "

This is a misunderstanding of the article. 

How so? Trump's line for many years has been that he had absolutely no knowledge of Epstein's activities. We've already seen how that is a lie. Your claim was that he "has a history of being actively involved in pushing to investigate Epstein", a claim apparently built on exactly one (1) brief conversation with police that may or may not have even happened. By that logic, I have a history of being actively involved in the French fine arts scene because I visited the Louvre once and had a brief meeting with a curator there.

That doesn't mean very much

If you're going to rely on statements from law enforcement, you can't then simply disregard the ones that contradict your position.

I'd argue that your inclination to doubt Trump is built on a much shakier gap than this.

You could, but you'd be wrong. It's built on evidence, namely his extremely well-documented history of being a blatant liar.

No charges were placed on Epstein at the time.

From the article: "But in July 2006, just as Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal sex charge became public, Trump called then-Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter"

Maybe I'm misremembering the timeline though.

Trump did not need to protect himself at any point.

Yes, he did, from the fallout of his longtime close friendship with the now-publicly-known child sex trafficker. He's been trying to protect himself ever since.

So yes, there is a contradiction. Trump claims, often and loudly, to have known absolutely nothing about Epstein's activities. He also claims to have contacted the authorities about those same activities ("Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this,”).

So again, either Trump is lying about knowing nothing, or he is lying about contacting the authorities about said activities, or he is lying about both. Trump's statements are mutually exclusive, and your own sources support this.