Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "bill clinton"

This GOP farce just proved the net is closing on Trump

For the better part of 40 years, the Republican Party has chased Bill and Hillary Clinton with fervor bordering on obsession. From Whitewater to Benghazi, from emails to impeachment, the pursuit has been relentless, and always ridiculous.

After Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College in 2016 (while winning the popular vote), it seemed possible the GOP might finally loosen its grip.

Nope. This week, the GOP tried to light the Clintons on fire again. And as usual, the Clintons proved flame retardant.

In the Epstein affair, James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, tried to use closed-door depositions to make the former first couple look guilty — or at least more guilty than Donald Trump.

But if Comer and his allies believed they would finally corner the Clintons, they miscalculated badly. The depositions produced no bombshells, no dramatic unravelings — nothing, unless you count the bizarre spectacle of a bunch of clowns asking Hillary about UFOs, and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) managing to torpedo the whole thing by leaking photos to the press.

If this two-day Chappaqua farce did anything, it made it more obvious that the current president and first lady should testify.

Anyone with documented ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and that includes Bill Clinton, should answer questions under oath. He did. Survivors deserve nothing less than full transparency. All this innuendo and all these flimsy excuses — “bad judgment,” “mistake,” “just business” — need to end. Now.

But if Republicans insist on dragging Hillary Clinton into the room, despite zero evidence she ever met or interacted with Epstein, then fairness demands the standard apply to Melania Trump.

Melania moved in overlapping social circles with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She was photographed at events where Epstein was present. Maxwell reportedly referred to her affectionately — as “sweet pea.”

If Hillary Clinton can be questioned to eliminate doubt, Melania should be too. But don’t bet on it. She’ll hide under her shady hats, and refuse to step forward in her five-inch stilettos.

It shouldn’t stop there. It’s time to pick up the pace. Honestly, if Republicans want to stop Epstein haunting the entire midterms campaign, they need to get down to business.

Why has there been so little urgency to pursue testimony from figures far more substantively tied to Epstein than the Clintons? It’s starting to bother voters, and it’s only going to get worse.

Les Wexner, the billionaire who financed Epstein, did testify — and not a single GOP member of Comer’s committee dared participate in full.

Wexner said he was “deceived,” that Epstein “misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family.”

Speaking of money, what the hell did Bill Gates need Epstein for?

The Microsoft founder has called meetings with Epstein after his 2008 conviction for child prostitution a “huge mistake” and a “serious error in judgment.”

But a “mistake” is not enough. Epstein was a registered sex offender. His crimes were public knowledge. Why continue meeting with him?

What was so valuable that it justified the reputational and moral risk? Gates has more money than God. It doesn’t make sense. That’s why Gates should testify under oath, and answer questions from the FBI.

So should Alex Acosta, the U.S. Attorney who approved Epstein’s 2008 Florida plea deal, then later became Trump’s secretary of labor.

Acosta later claimed he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence.”

The full context of how Epstein secured such an extraordinary deal remains disturbingly unresolved.

The lawyer Alan Dershowitz needs to be grilled. He strenuously denies wrongdoing, stating, “I never had sex with any of Epstein’s accusers,” calling allegations “fabricated.”

So why did he hang out with Epstein? Seriously.

Then there’s Woody Allen. In light of all the allegations that have dogged the comic and director, his association with Epstein remains extremely dubious. As recently as September, Allen defended his attendance at Epstein’s dinners, saying Epstein "couldn't have been nicer" and was "charming and personable". And that he “told us he’d been in jail.”

Woody. You of all people should have run for the hills.

Steve Bannon, who spent hours interviewing Epstein after his conviction, says Epstein was “trying to rehabilitate his image.”

Can’t someone subpoena Bannon’s tapes? We’re talking about serious crimes.

And what of figures in proximity to Epstein who overlap directly with Trumpworld — including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick?

Above all, if Bill Clinton can be compelled to testify a quarter-century after leaving office, then Donald Trump must be called to testify under oath and to be interviewed by the FBI. He was in way deeper.

It is not enough for Trump to toss half-answers at press gaggles or dismiss legitimate questions as “old news” or a “hoax.” Trump once called Epstein a “terrific guy” who liked women “on the younger side.”

That remark has no expiration date. There are photos, footage, flight logs, and overlapping Palm Beach connections. If Congress and the Justice Department truly believe no one is above scrutiny, that principle must begin with the man at the center of their universe.

Here is a starting point: anyone who chose to associate with Epstein after his 2008 conviction should testify. Period. No exceptions. Everyone. If you were really innocent, you should be jumping forward.

Ask yourself a simple question. If you were running a business and a man who had served time for sex crimes against minors offered to help, would you welcome him in? Would you schedule meetings? Would you board his plane? Would you strategize about philanthropy or public image?

Most Americans would recoil.

Yet an astonishing number of powerful people did not. They proceeded as if the conviction were a small inconvenience. And some are lying now.

Why?

The path forward is not complicated. Call everyone who associated with Epstein after his conviction. Put them under oath. Follow the money. Release the files, clean. Apply the same standard to Democrats and Republicans, billionaires and celebrities, former presidents and private citizens alike.

The survivors have waited long enough. And they deserve far better than they’re getting.

Bill Clinton claims Trump shared vastly different Epstein 'falling out' story: House Dem

Former President Bill Clinton revealed to lawmakers Friday that he had a previous conversation with President Donald Trump about what really caused the rift between him and Jeffrey Epstein years ago.

Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL) described what Clinton said during a closed-door House Oversight Committee deposition in Chappaqua, New York, over his relationship with Epstein.

"I’m happy to clarify. President Clinton brought up a conversation he had with Trump in NYC re: Epstein," Frost wrote on X. "President Clinton said that Trump told him that he had a falling out with Epstein due to a land dispute. This directly refutes Trump’s claims about why he fell out with Epstein."

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) told CNN additional details about what Clinton said in the testimony.

"Since Chairman [James] Comer (R-KY) did bring that up I can specifically address that, which is basically President Clinton was asked about well, he brought up the fact that he spoke with President Trump at a golf event, and President Trump had told him that they, he and Epstein had had a falling out, and it was because of a land dispute," Subramanyam said.

"It wasn't because of what Epstein was doing to girls who were working at Mar-a-Lago, so it absolutely does dispute something that President Trump has said," Subramanyam added. "I think Congressman Comer, Chairman Comer had mentioned that President Clinton cleared or absolved President Trump of of anything. But that's not true. The reality is all President Clinton said was that any of all the things he heard from President Trump himself, nothing he heard would indicate that President Trump was involved in wrongdoing. Again, the transcripts will come out but I can't confirm that that's what was said."

The president has previously said that his falling out with Epstein was related to the late financier and convicted child sex offender hiring away Trump's workers at his Mar-a-Lago spa.

Trump has maintained that he did not have any ties to Epstein, despite his name appearing throughout the Department of Justice's 3 million documents, with him mentioned about 38,000 times.

"I don't know anything about the Epstein files. I've been fully exonerated," Trump said.

Former President Clinton delivered his opening statements Friday under oath and shared a statement on his social media.

"I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong," Clinton said.

Neither the Clintons nor Trump has been accused of any wrongdoing.

Lawmakers have indicated that a transcript would be released and include testimony from the Clintons. No date or deadline has been announced.

Trump defends Bill Clinton in Epstein probe: 'I don't like seeing him deposed'

President Donald Trump defended former President Bill Clinton Friday as Clinton began his sworn deposition before the House Oversight Committee about his relationship with late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump was preparing to head to Corpus Christi, Texas, for an election event when reporters asked him what he thought of Clinton testifying before lawmakers in a closed-door deposition about his connection to Epstein.

"I don't like seeing him deposed," Trump said. "But you know, they certainly went after me a lot more than that... I like him, and I don't like seeing him deposed."

Trump was also asked if he thinks Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick should also be deposed over his ties to Epstein and questions about their relationship. Republicans have signaled this week that they could also question Lutnick in the ongoing Epstein probe.

"Well, Howard would go in and do whatever he has to say. He's a very innocent guy. He's doing a good job," Trump said.

Trump maintained that he did not have any ties to Epstein, despite his name appearing throughout the Department of Justice's 3 million documents, with him mentioned about 38,000 times.

"I don't know anything about the Epstein files. I've been fully exonerated," Trump said.

Former President Clinton delivered his opening statements Friday under oath and shared a statement on his social media.

"I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong," Clinton said.

Neither the Clintons nor Trump has been accused of any wrongdoing.


Clinton spokesperson curses in reply to Nancy Mace’s ‘unhinged’ and ‘screaming’ claims

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's spokesperson had a sharp response Friday after Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) tried to claim that the former First lady was "unhinged" and "screaming" during her testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

During a press conference Friday, just before Clinton's husband and former President Bill Clinton was set to testify before the committee about his relationship with late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Mace made several claims about Clinton's reactions to the lawmakers' questions on Thursday. The former First lady was asked a series of questions — including some related to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and aliens — during a closed-door deposition in Chappaqua, New York.

Her spokesperson Nick Merrill told CNN that Mace was lying about what she told reporters and that wasn't what happened.

"Clearly, the sparks have been flying," said MJ Lee, CNN senior national enterprise correspondent.

"The political theater has been on full display as it pertains to Hillary Clinton's deposition, including Congresswoman Nancy Mace this morning saying that Hillary Clinton had been screaming and was unhinged as a part of the deposition yesterday," Lee said. "When I asked the Hillary Clinton spokesperson, Nick Merrill, about this. This is what he said. He said 'she is full of s---.' This is talking about Congresswoman Mace and that Hillary Clinton was actually just appalled that the congresswoman wouldn't let the former secretary of state answer a question about 9/11. Obviously, this is all completely out of context, and we're not going to know the context until we get the transcript and the full videos of the deposition."

GOP lawmakers put on notice to 'be careful what they wish for' as Epstein reckoning begins

CNN host Michael Smerconish had a warning Friday for Republicans focusing on Democrats and their ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Smerconish revealed that the House Oversight Committee's GOP lawmakers should remember that once the midterms hit and if Republicans lose majority power — which polls have indicated they could — then they should be ready for Democrats to change the direction of the investigation with a deeper look into the late financier and convicted child sex offender's ties to conservative leaders and public figures. He also raised concerns over forcing the Clintons to testify behind closed doors and the ramifications of the move.

"I think that we're in a realm of a very careful balancing now where people's reputations are being tarnished because of association and not necessarily based on conduct," Smerconish said during a conversation with anchor Wolf Blitzer.

"Candidly, I think it was ridiculous that Secretary Clinton was hauled before the Oversight Committee yesterday, less so, relative to President Bill Clinton. But I thought that that was an excess," Smerconish said. "And Republicans better be careful what they wish for here, because if there's a change in the guard in the midterms, as the polls suggest there will be, that subpoena power is now going to be in the hands of Democrats. And I think there's there's going to be a response that will be in kind."

Smerconish suggested that Republicans targeting the Clintons in the Epstein probe could now have to request that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testify.

"That is the precedent that has just been set," Smerconish said. "I mean, how can you justify bringing the Clintons before this committee yesterday and today and not respond in kind for Republicans who are similarly represented in the Epstein files? I think fairness demands that. And by the way, I don't think it was a good precedent to set for the reasons that I've already stated. But now that that door has been opened, I think it would be hypocritical to say, well, it will only be the Clintons that we call before the committee."

New Epstein testimony set to 'backfire on GOP' and 'discomfort Trump's inner circle': CNN

Testimony given by Hillary Clinton, and a further statement to be given by former president Bill Clinton on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, may worry Donald Trump's close allies.

The 42nd President of the United States is set to testify later today (February 27), and it may give Trump and his team something more to worry over when it comes to the Epstein files. While Trump has tried to defer the Epstein files issue onto the matter of Clinton's mention in documents, it could backfire, according to CNN political analyst Stephen Collinson.

The analyst suggests the gamble made by the president, to hone in on the Clintons and their relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, could backfire.

He wrote, "The battle by Trump’s allies to draw the Clintons into their investigation was always destined to create bitter political theater, given their enormously high profiles and decades-long histories of fierce duels with Republicans.

"But their arrival before the committee also has the potential to backfire on the GOP. First, their involvement is offering new fuel to the Epstein saga, which the White House has been trying unsuccessfully to quell for months.

"And the testimony of the Clintons is raising uncomfortable parallels that will discomfit Trump and his inner orbit. For instance, if the standard for required testimony is being mentioned in the Epstein files, why are prominent Republicans also mentioned in the files not being hauled before the committee?

"Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s descriptions of his past interactions with Epstein were undercut by files released by the DOJ — but he has not so far received a subpoena to match those sent to the Clintons. There is no allegation of criminal wrongdoing against Lutnick."

Collinson went on to observe the clear double standard set by the committee, and says it could pull Trump further into a formal hearing, rather than away.

The analyst added, "Bill Clinton’s past contact with Epstein will surely interest the committee. But isn’t there a double standard if Trump, who was mentioned in the files numerous times, is not also put under oath?

"And former Secretary Clinton’s appearance — although, in her telling, she had no information about Epstein’s conduct — creates a model of a spouse being asked about her husband’s links to the accused sex trafficker.

"Some observers might wonder whether first lady Melania Trump might have similar insight about the times her husband and Epstein moved in similar orbits before and after their marriage in 2005."

Hillary Clinton pulls plug on deposition after Lauren Boebert leaked pic from it

A closed-door deposition for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was paused after a photo was leaked online by Lauren Boebert.

Clinton, who arrived to meet with House Oversight Committee members in Chappaqua, New York, to answer questions, was about an hour into the questioning with Congressional leaders when Clinton's spokesperson said a photo was taken, which violated the rules of the testimony, CNN reported.

Clinton delivered her opening statement before the committee investigating ties between the Clintons and late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was slated to testify Friday before the committee.

"I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island home or offices," she said, which she also posted on X.

Neither of the Clintons have been accused of any wrongdoing.

Ghislaine Maxwell clams up as new video released by DOJ reveals her life behind bars

Ghislaine Maxwell, co-conspirator to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, decided to invoke her 5th Amendment rights and refused to answer any questions Monday as the Department of Justice released a new video revealing her life behind bars.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said that Maxwell declined to answer lawmakers' questions when she came before the committee Monday, and has asked for clemency from President Donald Trump. Her attorney said in his opening statement that neither Trump nor former President Bill Clinton were blameless in Epstein's crimes. Her attorney also told lawmakers that she has a habeas corpus petition pending.

Comer told reporters he did not think Maxwell should be granted any clemency, pointing to comments from Epstein survivors who had called her a "very bad person."

In the new prison video released by the DOJ on Monday and filmed on July 5 2020, Maxwell was seen in an orange jumpsuit exercising in her cell, and eating lunch on her bed with her legs crossed, according to the BBC.

Epstein accomplice's crude compliment to Bill Clinton emerges: 'Couldn't help myself'

A new batch of released documents associated with late financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has revealed an unusual email correspondence between Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, and former President Bill Clinton.

Maxwell paid a crude compliment in an email allegedly associated in the past with Clinton, a Trump official who was familiar with the recent Epstein material release told Axios.

The message from Maxwell was dated "Sat, 01 Jan 4501." The email receipt name was redacted in the public files and included an email address with the "WJC" initials, the person familiar with the documents told Axios.

"Sorry to hear that the Belzburg stuff is bad … I could not help myself — there was one juicy little tit bit I did let out — The one about what a supper stud you are and how I have a crush on you and how you are hung like a horse and — well you get the picture. Hope you don't mind," Maxwell wrote.

The comment was reportedly tied to allegations after a series of tabloid stories about Clinton's relationship with New York socialite Lisa Belzberg.

"The controversy stemmed from a Newsweek photo that showed the two 'in an intimate pose' in her kitchen, according to an April 12, 2002, report from the Scotsman," according to Axios.

"The Belzberg reference is notable because it reinforces the close ties between Clinton, Maxwell and Epstein," Axios reported.

Clinton has denied any wrongdoing in his social association with Epstein during the 1990s and early 2000s, as President Donald Trump has also asserted the same. Neither Clinton nor Trump has been formally charged with any misconduct.

Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have called for the full release of the Epstein files.

Last week, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee voted to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas to testify about their knowledge of Epstein. Democrats have accused Republicans of having a double standard by focusing on the Clintons.

This GOP Epstein gambit is plain hypocritical — and can't shield Trump for long

You’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. The hypocrisy they practice daily is truly world class, and never more so than as it applies to the Epstein Files.

You may have heard that on Wednesday, the ironically named House Oversight Committee — whose unwillingness to examine any culpability from the current administration in the matter of the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein matter is quite the “oversight” — voted to charge former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with criminal contempt of Congress, over their refusal to testify in the Epstein investigation.

This would be the same Department of Justice probe that is now more than a month behind schedule in releasing more than 99 percent of the unclassified materials demanded under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Evidently, the GOP thought the legislation was called the Epstein Files Disappearing Act.

What’s the hold up? Such an excellent question. I might have overheard a few excuses:

  • “The boxes that contain them are just too heavy. We’re trying to hire some really strong guys to lift them.”
  • “We’re way behind on rent at the storage facility where they’re being housed, and they won’t let us access them until we get square.”
  • “They’re still being vetted by our crack team at the assisted living home.”
  • “We’re struggling to translate them from Latin.”

The few batches of documents the DOJ has released are just enough to paint Bill Clinton as a guy who liked to hang with Epstein and his convicted sex trafficking accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Remarkably, nearly every other name in the docs is redacted. Or perhaps they simply have odd names, spelled with thick black lines drawn through them.

Let’s face it: the excuse that more time is needed to scale the redactions and protect the victims’ identities is a complete crock. Even if we’re talking about more than two million docs and exhibits, dedicating a team of 20 or 25 (or 50 or 150) people to the task of poring over them shouldn’t take nearly this long.

It's clear this is a matter of delaying justice, and we all know what they say about justice delayed. But where is the contempt charge for Attorney General Pam Bondi? Nowhere to be found, of course.

When you’re Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the Republican Oversight chair, accountability is a one-way street, and the rule of law applies only to Democrats.

Indeed, it’s downright remarkable that this sit-on-their-hands, see no evil, hear no evil House suddenly sprang to life when the Clintons told them to get bent. Even nine Democrats awakened to advance the contempt legislation. (They were seemingly just overjoyed to be voting on something that crept forward.)

This is not at all to diminish Bill Clinton’s involvement with Epstein and Maxwell. It’s creepy at best: shameful and inexcusable. The fact he was once President of the United States shouldn’t grant him immunity, even if the Supreme Court would probably see it differently — or would if his name was Trump.

But the Clintons are correct in seeing this as the transparent piece of political retribution that it is, and the double standard it exposes could not be more stark and appalling.

Should the full House approve the contempt citations in early February, criminal referrals to the DOJ could carry fines of up to $100,000 each and a year in prison.

Oozing self-satisfaction, Comer declared this week that the Clintons “possessed information directly relevant to the investigation.”

Apparently, the 99 percent of the Epstein docs whose release is mandated by law but remain locked away are by comparison irrelevant.

It shold also be noted that Bill Clinton has offered to submit to an interview by Comer under oath, and both Clintons were prepared to present sworn statements noting what they would say in testimony.

Not good enough for Comer.

This isn’t about seeking real accountability. It’s a dog-and-pony show designed to disparage the Clintons and distract, as ever, from the incriminating horror that’s really in those files.

At the heart of going after a former president and former presidential candidate (and cabinet member) is Donald Trump’s petty and destructive attack on the Democratic Party. If this works out, you can bet he’ll come for Barack Obama next. It’s a hateful power play, nothing more.

The elephant rampaging through this room is Trump himself. Does Trump not “possess information relevant to the investigation”? By all accounts, he had a longer and closer relationship with Epstein than anyone. He’s also the guy who made sure Maxwell was transferred to the cushiest lockup imaginable, where they do everything for her short of plying her with champagne and caviar and buffing up her nails.

The delay tactics and bait-and-switch fails to address the fact that the Epstein docs are all about Trump and his pedophile buddies. This was why it hit so close to home for Trump, leading him to give a decidedly unpresidential finger, when that guy at the Ford plant shouted, “Pedophile protector!”

We should be shocked if we see 5 percent of these Epstein documents before the midterm elections. My educated guess is that as long as the Republicans are in charge of Congress, that will be just fine with the virtuous disciplinarians who claim to have suddenly located their law-and-order spines, just in relation to the Clintons.

Make no mistake, the former first couple are being punished for their willingness to address the Epstein inquiry at all, while Trump skates free. It’s the Republican way of justice.

  • Ray Richmond is a longtime journalist/author and an adjunct professor at Chapman University in Orange, CA.