Clinton Challenged On Denial Of Epstein Flights and Knowledge Of Crimes

225px-Bill_ClintonMany people were surprised yesterday when former President Bill Clinton finally made a public statement after over a decade on his relationship with convicted felon and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.  Epstein was charged this week with sex trafficking and conspiracy.  Clinton has long been connected with over two dozen flights on Epstein’s place, often called the “Lolita Express” for its reputation for underaged girls and orgies.  Clinton also reportedly told the Secret Service not to accompany him on some flights with Epstein.  Clinton now denies ever traveling without the Secret Service and claims that he only flew with Epstein four times on routine flights. Various people are challenging that account including the journalist, Conchita Sarnoff, who previously wrote on the flight logs and records showing Clinton’s trip.

Clinton’s spokesman, Angel Ureña, made the statement in a post on Twitter.

Sarnoff is now the executive director of Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking and the author of her book “Trafficking.”  She directly called Clinton as “not telling the truth” on national television and said that flight logs directly contradict him: “I know from the pilot logs and these are pilot logs that you know were written by different pilots and at different times that Clinton went, he was a guest of Epstein’s 27 times . . . many of those times Clinton had his Secret Service with him and many times he did not.”

That leaves a starkly different factual account. This is not a matter of opinion.  The question is whether Clinton, who has previously lied about his sexual controversies, will now sue for defamation.  Either he took these flights with a known sexual predator or he did not.  Either he knew of Epstein’s preying on young girls or he did not.

In this case, both Clinton and Sarnoff would be viewed a public figures under the “Actual Malice” standard.  Over 50 years ago, the Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan set the governing standard for public officials (and later extended to public figures) in suing critics.  The Supreme Court recognized the danger of such civil liability in creating a chilling effect on reporters and their companies in the coverage of political figures. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Justice William Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system. The “actual malice” standard requires a showing that the newspaper published a false report with either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

In the past, logs have been shown with notations for Clinton and the Secret Service has refused to answer questions about those flights that do not list Secret Service agents onboard.  Past accounts do not show trip to Epstein’s island home, which has been called “orgy island” by critics.

The much-delayed statement from Clinton could allow for the resolution of this question. It would be an easy thing to confirm the trips and particularly any exclusion of the Secret Service detail. If Clinton is telling the truth, it is bizarre that he would wait this long after widespread accounts of these trips.  If he is not, the public should know the truth.


98 thoughts on “Clinton Challenged On Denial Of Epstein Flights and Knowledge Of Crimes”

  1. Epstein better be careful. He might become the victim of “suicide.”

  2. As noted by Natacha, down-thread:

    Barr Won’t Recuse Himself From New Case Against Jeffrey Epstein

    By Chris Strohm

    July 9, 2019, 10:00 AM CDT Updated on July 9, 2019, 12:25 PM CDT


    Attorney General William Barr won’t recuse himself from involvement in the new charges filed against alleged sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein by federal prosecutors in New York, according to a Justice Department official.

    Barr made the decision on Tuesday after consulting with career ethics officials at the department, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive matter.

      1. Anthony, that is Peter Hill. Sometimes posting as Hill and PH; he initially used his full name when posting here.
        He’s not trying to hide his identity, but for some reason has used different “labels” for his comments.
        (HHHNN is short for “Hollywood Hill’s Headline News Network”, a name I came up with because of his frequent use of blaring, ALL- capitalized headlines for his “news updates” here).

    1. It also begs the question “Why haven’t other publications covered this issue?”

      Bill Clinton would do the world a favor by suing for Sarnoff and Fox News for defamation. If Sarnoff and/or Fox News were provably wrong and malicious in their coverage of this story, it needs to be aired in court.

      If Fox News and Sarnoff were shown in court to have lacked actual malice in their statements about Bill Clinton, this doesn’t just make Mr. Clinton look bad. It would be strong evidence that the rest of the press were prevented by their ideological bias from reporting evidence of lies and of Clinton’s complicity with a human trafficker who was slapped firmly on both wrists by the Federal government because he was rich and well-connected.

      If liberals are sincere in opposing wealth, privilege and sexual exploitation of teenage children, Vox, “Huffington Post, the <Washington Post and <New York Times would at least have run something on this story. They did not. If there was nothing to report, what a great expose of Fox News and a persistent Bill Clinton Critic. But they didn’t cover the story, even to debunk it.

      Liberals, like the rest of us, have comfort zones. Bill Clinton tilted the table of government to benefit their side, so they have always been willing to overlook things like rape accusations and a long and documented record of sexual harassment and exploitation of women while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States.

      Liberals and their preferred news media ignore anything pointing to Bill Clinton’s long record as a sexual predator. Even when liberalism was eating its own during #metoo, Clinton was untouchable. It’s time to examine just how much else the mainstream media hasn’t covered because it was outside of their editors’ comfort zones.

  3. If they reopened Epstein, there’s a chance they will reopen Hillary.

    Wait. Andrew McCarthy said that if Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.

    Guess they won’t do that then.

  4. Whatever WordMess and/ or the revisions to this site did about a year ago, it’s turned these threads into a damn joke.
    Why not put all of the comments into a hat, mix them up, and just post them in the order that they shake out?

    1. Quoting a blogger about the importance of his own blog’s court victories wouldn’t even fly in wikipedia.

      1. He paid for the lawsuit that got the file and case reopened

        It cost him 50 k

        Why didn’t any real news organizations do that?

        1. Good question. The New York Times (to cite one example) has spent more money on FOIA litigation for less effect.

          It doesn’t change the fact that Mike Cernovich couldn’t get the Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to do anything with his information unless they were ready to use it to complicate Donald Trump’s life. They got Labor Secretary Acosta to resign rather than be a leftist talking point because of any complicity he had in Epstein’s ridiculous sweetheart plea deal.

          At most, Cernovich’s suit moved a pebble from under a huge boulder now rumbling down a steep cliff toward anyone who’s accepted largesse from Jeffrey Epstein.

  5. Somewhat off topic, but I like the way a comment might ( or might not ) be posted in 5 or 10 minutes, then disappear, then re-appear in an entirely different place far removed from its intitial placement .
    That gives that nice ” lottery feel” to these comment threads.

  6. One of the worst shills here wrote: “Who cares what Bill Clinton did years ago or whether he lied about it?”

    That’s a sick statement from a sick mind: Who cares if Bill Clinton maybe engaged in sex with minors? Anyone with any sense of morality cares.

    1. Who cares if Bill Clinton maybe engaged in sex with minors?

      Who cares if he raped women?

      Not democrats.

      Bill Clinton even talked Trump into running as a Republican.Trump hasnt been a republican since 1999,Trump was Clinton’s pied piper.Only Hillary could cheat and still lose to her own pied piper.

      Donald Trump talked politics with Bill Clinton weeks before launching 2016 bid

      Report: Bill Clinton May Have Encouraged Donald Trump to Run for President

      What if the Clintons were playing chess … against themselves?!

      it was former president and candidate spouse Bill Clinton all along.

      According to several Trump sources (and one Clinton source) who spoke to the Post, the two men spoke over the phone in late May, shortly before Trump announced his run in June. During the call, the Trump sources said, Clinton “encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party” and “analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the G.O.P. base.”

      Get that?

      “Clinton “encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party” and “analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the G.O.P. base.”

      This Trump

      Trump in 2008: Hillary Clinton would make a “great” president – CBS ……/trump-in-2008-hillary-clinton-would-make-a-great-preside…
      Video for trump hillary would make a great president
      ▶ 5:48
      Dec 29, 2015
      Donald Trump wrote in a blog post during the 2008 presidential campaign that Hillary Clinton would make a …

      1. Vanity Fair? Really? The ghost of Abe Lincoln called Barack Obama and told him to run too, everybody knows that! Facts

    2. Most sensible people care more about the crimes of the current occupant of the White House and his appointees and now the fact that Barr has unrecused himself from this case. Most sensible people are concerned that this Epstein matter is being investigated and prosecuted by the public corruption unit of the NY federal prosecutor’s office rather than the sex crimes division. Acosta was a public servant when he declined to prosecute Epstein for federal crimes, failed to notify the victims and allowed Epstein and his lawyer to label them as “prostitutes” in state court proceedings that were designed to make it difficult for the victims to participate in seeking justice or making victim impact statements. Barr later worked for the law firm that got Epstein the sweetheart deal, and his father employed Epstein to “teach” at a tony private school that he was in charge of, despite the fact that Epstein doesn’t even have a college degree. Pivoting to point the finger of blame toward Bill Clinton and playing up this angle, as if this is the main story, does not excuse Trump or Acosta, which is the point.

  7. Trump on Acosta today sounds like he did on Kushner’s shylock, Prince MBS:

    “President Trump praised Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta on Tuesday and said he felt “very badly” for him, as calls mounted for his Cabinet member to resign over his handling, as a U.S. attorney, of an earlier sex crimes case involving financier Jeffrey Epstein.

    Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump also said the White House would look closely at the circumstances surrounding a 2007 plea deal overseen by Acosta that a growing number of Democrats argued Tuesday was far too lenient on Epstein.

    “I feel very badly, actually, for Secretary Acosta because I’ve known him as being somebody who works so hard and has done such a good job,” Trump said of Acosta’s tenure as labor secretary. “I feel very badly about that whole situation, but we’re going to be looking at that, and looking at it very closely.”…”

    1. “I feel very badly, actually, for Secretary Acosta because I’ve known him as being somebody who works so hard and has done such a good job,” Trump said of Acosta’s tenure as labor secretary. “I feel very badly about that whole situation, but we’re going to be looking at that, and looking at it very closely.”…”

      Someone needs to correct Trump’s grammar. But Trump is “a genius”…

  8. Just trying to help out the HHHNN Gossip Column, Peter.
    You reached pretty far back to tie in Trump with Epstein, so I just thought I’d give you something more recent.
    And no, liberals don’t have to “run and hide”. It’d be nice if they did, but they don’t have to.😄

  9. Turley is concerned with the truth now with a classic Kellyanne Pivot–right? Who cares what Bill Clinton did years ago or whether he lied about it? Trump lies every single day, but that doesn’t faze Turley, who mostly ignores the endless lying. Trump appointed Acosta after Acosta let Epstein off on all federal charges and agreed to allow him to plead to state prostitution charges in a sweetheart deal. The victims were never notified–in fact, it clearly appears that efforts were made to make it difficult to even know about what the disposition of Epstein was after he was charged. They would have had to hire lawyers to search Florida state court records. They never got the chance to make victim impact statements. Trump praised this pathetic excuse for a human, and is now claiming he didn’t know him well, despite commenting, on video several years ago, that Epstein loved beautiful women almost as much as he did, but he liked them a little younger.

    Labeling the underage sex trafficking victims “prostitutes” is yet another slap in their faces, but Trump had nothing to say about this either. No empathy for the fact that their virginity and innocence was stolen from them by a pervert he used to hang out and travel with. Some, as young as 14, still had braces on their teeth. l; As punishment, for a period of months, Epstein went about his daily work, but had to report to jail in the evenings. Most Senate Republicans voted in favor of Acosta’s appointment, despite knowing that he let Epstein off. Despite being prosecuted, Epstein still had a trove of photos of underage girls in his Manhattan mansion. When he cries crocodile tears of “remorse” because he’s looking at spending the rest of his useless life in prison, and when Trump argues for leniency, don’t forget this. Also, don’t forget that but for the dogged investigation by the Miami Herald newspaper, Epstein would have gotten away with it.

    The porter at the building next door to Epstein says he saw Trump there coming and going at all hours. What about that? Does that concern you at all, Turley? Trump also went on junkets to Lolita Island. Isn’t that more relevant than what Bill Clinton did years ago, or are we once again engaging in daily affirmation for the Trumpsters?

    1. Again–who cares what Bill Clinton did or didn’t do or what he did or didn’t lie about? What is relevant is what Trump has done and is doing. Did Trump express any sort of even insincere empathy for these children whose innocence was stolen? Nope. Has Trump denied going to Lolita Island or coming and going from Epstein’s Manhattan mansion festooned with kiddie porn? Nope. Just how does he know all about Epstein and his preference for youngsters? Where is the leadership? Where is the outrage over the miscarriage of justice? Why hasn’t he fired Acosta? Why does he praise Acosta for doing a good job? Who knows what facts will be uncovered about Trump and his entanglements with Epstein, but Bill Clinton is old news. Emphasizing Bill Clinton in the face of Trump’s involvement in this scandal is a Kellyanne Pivot.

      1. Christine Pelosi‏ @sfpelosi

        This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may – whether on Republicans or Democrats. #WeSaidEnough #MeToo

    2. The fact that both Clinton’s and Trump are implicated in Epstein’s Lolita island and they were both the nominee for the most powerful seat in the world and you don’t care?

      They are both disgusting

      1. I think she cares about what may have happened “years ago” in one case; not much in the other, “who cares” , case.

    3. THIS JUST IN: A mere 24 hours or so after recusing himself because he worked at the law firm that defended Epstein and got that little sweetheart deal that is being investigated by the public corruption unit, rather than sex crimes unit of the NY federal prosecutor’s office, Barr suddenly un-recused himself. Hummmmm. Wonder why? Maybe Jeff Sessions has some ideas about this. Interview the porter at the mansion next door, who has said he saw Trump coming and going at all hours at Epstein’s little palace of child porn and human trafficking. Trump never expressed any concern about the child victims, but feels badly for Acosta. Are you starting to smell it?

      Barr should also be recused due to the fact that his father hired Epstein to teach at an expensive private school he was in charge of, despite the fact that Epstein doesn’t even have a college degree. The smell is getting stronger now.

  10. Being that this is Bill Clinton, I’m guessing the usual posology of legal parsing comes into play here.

    For example, he refers to a total of four trips on “Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane”. Given that statement, I’m assuming that 1) Epstein has more than one plane and 2) that some or all of these planes are owned by an LLC or similar corporate entity.

    Thus, Clinton would technically have descriptive and legal leeway in what he may or may not be referring to as Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane.

  11. On DemocracyNow today:

    “How Investigative Reporting & Survivor Testimony Toppled Billionaire Serial Abuser Jeffrey Epstein”

    1. They have a lot of really excellent reports on Democracy Now. I noticed the local NPR station has it running on the secondary frequency. A welcome departure from the usual NPR dreck.

      of course Dem Now has a lot of preposterous Left wing editorializing but the content is often top notch on balance.

Comments are closed.