Bill Clinton's spokesman is demanding the release of all photos of him in the Epstein files:
We need no such protection.
Accordingly, we call on President Trump to direct Attorney General Bondi to immediately release any remaining materials referring to, mentioning, or containing a photograph of Bill Clinton.
What's he playing at? Do you think Trump will follow suit?
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I know this isn’t popular a popular opinion because it goes against everyone’s inclination towards conspiracy theories, especially pertaining those they don’t like, but I don’t think Bill Clinton has done anything illegal, at least when it comes to Epstein. Perhaps this is his way of saying he’s got nothing to hide?
Certainly.
Clinton is a womanizer in a power couple open marriage who's probably slept with every escort in the DC area, but he doesn't diddle kids (or walk into their changing rooms).
or sniff them
Honestly I do agree that he hasn’t done anything illegal.
Do I think Clinton has done some immoral stuff? Yes, but I don’t think it’s children level as much as cheating on Hillary with younger (legal) women level. And his public person matters less now - he should be fine either way.
I think he has likely done illegal things. Definitely immoral. But I think it’s less likely that those things involved children.
It seems like Occam's razor would show that, coupled with the Occam's razor of trump's actions which is basically the opposite. Would you think trump has anything to hide?
I think there is reasonable evidence that he raped someone (Juanita Broaddrick) in a semi date rape situation. She's been pretty consistent on that story for like 40+ years.
It does seem likely his proclivities are closer to Trump than Epstein.
Yeah, whatever womanizing happened, Trump was a rich kid playboy but Clinton was in office as an elected official. Why do politicians think they can get away with affairs like anyone else who isn’t under a microscope?
Not sure if you are saying Trump was someone born rich who did this stuff or someone who did this stuff only as a younger person but he was doing this stuff into his 50s.
As for Clinton I suspect it's the same as any charismatic politician, regardless of party.
They feel like they have a superpower and they use it to get what a lot of people want, which is power and sex.
Trump had affairs before office, even before seriously considering it, whatever his age.
Even more unpopular opinion. Clinton may be implicated in doing some illegal things but knows Trump will never expose him because it would most likely expose Trump. The whole mutual destruction thing. If Clinton gets indicted and stands trial you know for a fact he’s going to mention Trumps name under oath…
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
He knows there is nothing insane in there as Trump would have released it already and he is probably not dumb enough to have taken any incriminating photos.
Bill Clinton was there to have a good time. Epstein had him there because hanging out with an ex president made him look like a big deal. The dude got $170 million in fees from Leon Black for dodgy financial services. Having a former president hanging around is probably pretty helpful in convincing people you are legit enough to trust with multi-billion dollar tax projects. If you are a piece of shit looking for tax evasion and money laundering, also helpful to have Bill around.
He tells it is not him on the photos.
There’s a chance that Bill was just there to party and have affairs with adult women. All the girls in Bill’s photos were redacted so we don’t know. Definitely smells like a red herring to make him look worse than Trump
Or better than Trump is more like it. He’s doing the exact opposite of Trump who is acting as if there is something in the files that he is terrified of getting out.
Hopefully some of the victims seen in the photos with these turds will come forward and corroborate the context of the situation that was being photographed.
Because BJ (Bill Jefferson) Clinton thinks the worst of the photographic evidence that impugns him is now out, so anything further released beyond this can only serve to dilute the current attention on him.
He probably correctly calculates that the public already know he’s a horn dog, while new unexpected names and revelations will be surprising and steal the spotlight.
IDK, seems pretty straightforward.
What does the "worst of the photographic evidence" that impugns him?
Sitting in hot tubs with a young girl on his lap?
Gotta link? I see "Bill Clinton with bathing suit on in hot tub with redacted face nearby" and "Bill Clinton in a hotel pool in Brunei" - is it one of those?
Well, either the girl’s young, or it’s a woman with great skin.
Can I see the picture of him with a young girl on his lap? I still have not found the photo you're referencing.
And - to be clear - if Clinton is a pedophile, let him spend the rest of his life in prison. I am not loyal to the Clintons. It's just funny to see the internet parade around a photo of him in a hotel pool and one where he's clothed in a hot tub next to a redacted face and pretend it's the same as the mountains on Trump.
Why would anyone think Clinton is a pedophile? I don’t think anyone has alleged young children were at Epstein’s island.
/u/ZarBandit implied it. When I asked what that meant, you replied with:
which also definitely implies pedophilia given the context. But as of yet you have not shared that photo.
“Young girl” (as Trump told us a while ago that Epstein seemed to enjoy the company of) includes a range of ages that don’t involve pedophilia. And no, I did not say Clinton was a pedophile.
Ok, well come back with the photo and I can explain why using "young girl" in the context of of a thread about Epstein and pedophila implies "underage".
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Probably because he is not implicated in any crimes in the files
Likely because they know the info can't be legally released and it helps temper any attempts for the right to use a narrative that there is damning info against him in there to make the Democrats look bad.
Realistically there probably isn't.
why couldn't the info be legally released? anything short of unredacted victim names, faces and CSAM can and must be released.
The law permits withholding of any information that relates to either an active investigation or, basically, anything POTUS wants classifies.
See § 2(c)(1) (C) & (E) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text
see my other comment. C is temporary, E has strong checks:
and there's a report to be issued to Congress:
also, the EFTA treats segregable portions separately. it would be difficult to justify redaction of a segregable portion of Clinton, and any such photo must be identified and given an unclassified summary and justification.
and specifically, §2(b)(1) specifically forbids Trump from classifying files due to reputational fallout:
recall that the Executive's power to classify documents is not inherent nor plenary, but statutory. §2(b)(1) of EFTA thus restricts his ability to classify intelligence, concerning these files.
Ok, that's your interpretation.
The Trump administration—the actual government here—is going to take the opposite view with pretty broad authority to withhold, redact, etc. Including constitutional objections against the statute's language itself, let alone interpreting the meaning of the statute.
I'm assuming that either the full House or a subcommittee votes to get legislative standing to sue, and whoever that is runs to federal district court and seeks mandamus. That's basically recreating a Motion to Compel in normal discovery, and it'll go back and forth.
But the constitutional arguments against the statute need to go up on appeals! Welcome to the shadow docket land...
And so on.
do you think there's any leg for the Executive to stand on? I'm not a National Security lawyer, but I thought Congress's right to compel disclosure of information was held to be a core Article I function. and I don't see anything in Article II that would privilege facts from disclosure. I thought the Nixon tapes put that argument to bed, and that the last gasp would be 5A - and (ironically) the Court reaffirmed the power of Congress to subpoena the Executive for information in Trump v. United States, on the very logic that the President's criminal immunity made it not a 5A violation.
I am also unaware of any history and tradition of the Executive successfully ignoring a Congressional subpoena, which the EFTA most closely resembles.
maybe he can resist a while, but I just don't see him winning this case.
[removed]
Warning: Rule 5.
The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.
It's basically impossible to answer because it entirely depends on how they go about doing it.
For example, your reading of Nixon is commonly repeated, but it's entirely wrong lol
Nixon was a loss for Pres. Nixon himself, but the presidency won. The Court blessed executive privilege for the first time (although it's been raised, in some form, all the way back to the Washington admin).
However, the reasoning of the case was that the unique interests of a criminal grand jury subpoena outweighed POTUS' interests in confidentiality. Importantly, the Grand Jury was conducted by the special prosecutor who was still under the AG. So the Executive branch was speaking out of two mouths. On the one hand, you had the Special Prosecutor subpoenaing the EEOP and then the EEOP running to the district court with a Motion to Quash.
In le affair Epstein, there is no criminal grand jury, and the USG is speaking with one voice—no release.
However, the other side of the coin is unclear. Who and how are trying to get the USG to disclose the files?
I would suggest that they get legislative standing and directly mandamus the AG to disclose it all. Because that's the proper writ, and the Court will review whether or not they have that duty in the first instance.
Yes, I suppose they could just send another congressional subpoena for the same documents. But then the USG moves to quash, and the Epstein Transparency Act is merely a secondary argument that the government can't have any interest in shielding information that they're legally required to release anyway.
Or, they could start an impeachment inquiry in the House of AG Bondi, citing a lack of compliance with this law. That would work fine too. The problem is that it's really unclear how courts respond to impeachment hearings when subpoenas and whatnot come up. Some courts implied that it makes it a political question and they don't take sides. Others implied that they will back up Congress on going nuclear. That's uncertain.
I expect legislative standing for a motion to compel, yes. alternatively Congress could just go ahead and exercise its inherent contempt authority, but there's no reason for them to resort to that yet.
but, United States v. Nixon affirmed executive privilege in the context of a Court order for discovery, not for an order to comply with the law, and certainly not for a Congressional subpoena. and again, subpoena isn't Congress's only option. they could dispatch the sergeant-at-arms to detain Bondi and try her on the Senate floor for contempt of congress. again, highly unusual, but the Court has upheld this - see Jurney v. MacCracken (1935.)
I agree that mandamus is the proper wit to go with at first.
[removed]
Warning: Rule 5.
The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.
I've seen a lot of fan fiction around the inherent contempt route with dramatic arrests... IRL the AG just says no, and the SoA can't get into the building and then has to sue in federal district court on a much weaker posture.
In all the cases that I remember from researching this (a long time ago) defendants filed for Habeas after being detained, and courts reviewed Congress's inherent power—generally blessed it off so long as it was a core legislative function and didn't violate other rights, etc.
Here, its the sitting AG inside DOJ. Congress will say I have inherent power to arrest you! Executive will say I have inherent power to arrest you! And the part about "inherent" is there is no judges involved. Plus, everyone is forgetting Trump is still around as the sitting President. If some legislative police force broke into the DOJ with guns to get the AG, Trump would send in the army lol.
A lot of that stuff is just getting implausible or extremely dangerous territory. The admin has already shown they don't want to be seen as defying federal judges—and especially the Supreme Court—so go through mandamus instead of rounding up a posse to try and get the AG. Because that's Congress + Courts vs POTUS (who will probably stab his AG in the back).
the more likely sequence of events would be that Bondi appears in Congress to testify, mouths off and displays open contempt for the questions she's to answer, and in response a rep proposes a motion for contempt. the motion passes, and the SoA takes her into custody. again, I'm not saying this will happen, just that it's Constitutional.
do you share the same concerns about Impeachment? no judges are involved in that procedure. I don't see what's so different about it - if anything this is less powerful, since contempt is temporary.
that's known as a Constitutional crisis. if Trump sent in the army, that's known as a power struggle or self-coup. it would end in impeachment or a civil war. South Korea is the most recent example; fortunately that ended peacefully. I doubt Bondi is that important to him.
I think it's dangerous, but I think it's also dangerous for the Executive to shirk its duties to Take Care that the law be faithfully executed, and to show such contempt for the other two branches. especially so, since so much power is concentrated in one man.
hard disagree here. a few months ago, the administration was bordering on outright contempt for TROs and injunctions. there was a pervasive pattern of legalistic noncompliance/willful misunderstanding of court orders.
look into their history of compliance with DHS v. D.V.D. for a "worst hits" collection.
recently, yes. but I wouldn't categorize the admin's reaction to Trump v. J.G.G. and Trump v. A.A.R.P. as particularly obedient, re: Bukele and CECOT, the midnight planes taking off, the shell games with shuffling prisoners around to evade habeas jurisdiction, etc.
again, I agree with you. Sauer's concession to obey the Court's precedent in Trump v. CASA was critical. I expect everyone involved to act like adults, in practice, and go the mandamus route. but I find the other avenues legally interesting to think about, and useful as backup plans.
You’re wrong, Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna are already impeaching Bondi on the basis of breaching this law, by not adhering to all of the mandates put in place. It is not just “MAGA’s interpretation”, it is an exhaustive legal framework that has been implemented in such a way to deliberately mitigate malicious interpretations. Besides, Massie and Khanna are responsible for bringing this to the house, congress, and even had Trump signed off on it, and they made it very clear what exactly they were demanding following these definitions.
Ok, but impeaching Bondi doesn't release the files. It's just (very unlikely) punishment of removal from office for not doing so.
Mandmus is a writ from a federal judge ordering the officer to do XYZ under threat of contempt.
When did I say it does? I’m pointing out that what you said about the aforementioned law being subjective is factually incorrect. Massie has gone to great lengths to articulate why this is not the case.
You can impeach for anything. So what?
Overall, you're not making any sense, other than I understand that you really agree with Massie's arguments—that's cool!
The drafters of the legislation are/were lawyers and cribbed from civil discovery orders. These are basic civil discovery terms, and anyone (including me!) who litigates cases even a little bit knows how this stuff goes.
I understand that normies or inexperienced lawyers see stuff on the page that seems pretty clear, and they think that's the end of the story. But unless and until you can achieve a remedy, it doesn't really matter what you think.
(I would also recommend basically never saying an interpretation of law is "factually" XYZ lol)
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. I have made it very clear, the reason I brought that up was to point out that the statement you made earlier was incorrect.
Trump is the one who signed the law. Why sign it if he’s going to challenge it?
Terrible optics if he were to veto it, and he had lawyers reading the statute and tell him stuff similar to what I'm typing out now—there's enough slop and holes in the law and they can gore this thing out for a loooooonnnggg time.
You'll have to look that up yourself. Let me know if you find anything interesting.
I've read the full text of the Epstein Files Transparency Act multiple times now. there are exactly five permissible reasons for redaction:
tl;dr A) victim names/faces, B) CSAM, C) evidence in an active investigation, D) snuff, E) national security.
any files that don't match one of those five exceptions must be released.
B, A and D are easy to partially redact, so I won't consider them, leaving C and E.
C is temporary. once the investigation concludes the information must be released.
E is subject to strict Congressional oversight, and justifications for each decision not to declassify each photo.
and C and E notwithstanding, Trump must report on which photos featured Clinton to Congress in 12 days, per §3(3) (with no redactions permitted.)
Ok. What do you think?
several hypotheses:
Clinton isn't a child molester, and he's demanding the photos be released to clear his name.
Clinton is a child molester, but he knows some powerful Republicans are too, so it's mutually assured destruction if his files come out.
Clinton wants to build pressure on Trump or other powerful Republicans to do the same. even if the photos destroy his reputation. the Samson option.
I meant what do you think about if it's actually legal to release any and all Clinton related material? And would Clinton need to give legally binding authorization or would it matter?
My gut feeling here is there's probably a lot of stuff in all the collected information that make a lot of well known people look like assholes or degenerates, a few questionably look like human garbage, some things that make the government look bad for not acting on it, and vanishingly few actual criminals most of whom were dealt with or couldn't be for some reason.
My guess is Clinton would be in the first group.
more than legal, it's required under the EFTA. the Trump Administration has violated the law by missing the deadline for releasing all the files, by over-redacting a lot of material and by not releasing the accompanying justifications for redactions.
Clinton's authorization is symbolic. all the Clinton photos must be released, just like all the rest of the photos. he's putting pressure on the government to comply.
So, you made a wild statement based on nothing?
Threw out an opinion. Like the description of the sub says will happen here.
So then do you admit you have no a basis for your opinion?
Um yeah?? Like it's just my opinion man.
You might be interested in this comment chain though. It gets into the weeds.
The dirty little secret is that at the base level ( at least from what ive seen and heard) is that most lefty folks are like fuck Clinton. Send his ass to jail if he did fucked up shit.
I see an occasional right winger throw out something about Bill Clinton every once in awhile like he still has any effect on the Democratic Party brand or current politics. In tribal terms of course the Dems would be willing to sacrifice both Clintons to take down Trump. It would need to be someone like SCOTUS Justice Jackson or a D Senator or 3 to not be worth it.
Lol i like how were talking about these people like there playing cards or something. Sorry that just gave a small chuckle. Like the standard should be hey you do fucked up shit you go to jail or get punished.
That's what politics has been for most of my life with few exceptions. It's a a bunch of PR, lawyers, and strategy wonks in back rooms running numbers, making calculated decisions, and telling their guy what to say and do to keep a seat. Trump being an exception - he broke that game and is popular because of it. Instead his people are on the back end trying to clean up and sanitize the mess.
I think about becoming one of those shadowy strategists or lawyers in the back rooms, when I'm feeling cynical. I have the legal and analytical chops for it. but I'd have to abandon my principles to climb the ranks in such an environment. better for my spiritual welfare to just post legal analysis on Reddit where I have absolutely no power and can stay (hopefully) relatively neutral.
IMO, to be a successful politician you have to be a mix of amoral, oppurtunistic, and narcissistic. Or you become that over time. It's most of the reason Trump has done so well - he triple checks the boxes.
The people behind the scenes are possibly worse.
I don’t think it would be much of a sacrifice. Most on the left would “sacrifice” the Clintons if there was any evidence of serious crime whether or not it weakens Trump. No one on the left has Clinton hats or lifted trucks flying Clinton flags or cardboard Clinton cutouts all over their garage/man cave.
I understand you believe the left is better than those people but I was talking from the view of party strategists.
I understood your point, I was just quipping about “sacrifice”.
I wonder if there could be any interesting photos with Trump in them as well?
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
I doubt there is any damning info other than against a few random people. I don't think there's any smoking guns just a bunch of political grapeshot.
No I meant to reply to you. I was merely suggesting an alternate possibility of why he would want any photos with him in it released.
Ok. The question was about Clinton.
And the question was why would he demand the release of any photo with him and Epstein. Well what if doing that exposed someone being protected by the DOJ?
Ah, I get ya now. I don't buy it though. I think this is all a bunch of nothing. At worst a bunch of near dead once important people had good suspicion Epstein was a pedo and didn't do anything. Basically Harvey Weinstein or Jimmy Savile type shit where everybody knew but nobody did anything.
Reminds me of Gary Hart telling reporters to follow him around thinking it made him look innocent.
Until they caught him with Donna Rice on a boat called Monkey Business. You can't make this stuff up. Seems almost quaint that folks cared about that stuff 30 years ago...
Not to be pedantic, but the Monkey Business pic was released after he dropped out. It wasn't so much that people cared, but that it was after a period of him repeatedly denying womanizing rumors after his announcement to run for president.
It's because neither Clinton nor Trump have done anything illegal. All either side has is "look, he's in the same picture with Epstein". Or "look, there were women photographed with Clinton/Trump". Wooptee doo.
The innuendo is everywhere, incessant, relentless and pathetic. And working, because most of the public wants to believe the fantasies and not reality. But that's where we have gotten to.
Honestly, this has always been my belief since the dawn of the Epstein Files conspiracies, too. I know the Biden administration had a very hands off policy with the DOJ, but surely the people who aligned with his administration would have jumped on an opportunity to investigate if there was something worth pursuing. I never believed they were afraid of exposing Democrats in the process because they could have easily redacted anything that wasn’t pertinent to their case. I don’t think there is anything legally actionable in the files, and it’s mostly political reputation assassination fodder.
The only time I started getting riled up about this whole mess was when Trump made it a major campaign promise, had his administration make a big show about having the files, and then started calling Republicans stupid for wanting the files released. That was the point I dug my heels in about it being released; not because I really expected anything, but because he insulted his followers for wanting him to honor his word about something he knew was important to them. I’m sick and tired of Trump gaslighting and demeaning anyone who has legitimate concerns.
Look at the stupid "gotcha" stuff released today:
but: also
Big nothing.
I mean. Seriously. Is there ANYTHING in these "files" other than innuendo? So far - nothing.
Exactly! My opinion is that it has always primarily been dangled to excite voters and make blind accusations. Even if every page was exposed, I would be stunned if there was anything viable enough to hold up in court. Every theory is mostly people projecting whatever they want to create a narrative that suits their political biases.
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Why do you think Trump is sweating the files so hard?
It's embarrassing. But nothing criminal.
Embarrassing to the point where he'd black out hundreds of consecutive pages of documents unless it was related to Clinton or gates?
He didn't "black out hundreds of consecutive pages of documents". DOJ did, and they claim they did it because of lawful reasons.
And you don't believe trump had anything to do with that right?
"Believe". That's what all this Epstein hysteria is based on.
Well what else can we do? "The DOJ" blacked everything out
You also "believe" that Biden's DOJ had all these files that proved Trump committed crimes but refused to prosecute him.
People said the DOJ was being weaponized from day 1 of his administration (j6 rioters). MAGA people wanted Trump to be president from jail. If they'd have prosecuted him, they'd have turned him into a martyr
He gets a jail cell away from Hillary.
Maybe he believes that Comey and Wray had all the actual evidence of crimes destroyed?
Don’t know. Don’t care
I think both Clinton and trump dabbled with Epstein girls, whom were over 18!! People seem to fail to realize, most Epsteins were of age.
transparency, i assume.
Probably.
How Bill is not in jail is beyond me.
For what?
Haven't you seen all the pictures and evidence released? We need to change the name to the Clinton files.
I have, and was leaning towards lock him up, but based on the above demand, it's sounding more like they have nothing on him.
If Biden not using the Epstein files to lock up Trump means Trump is innocent here, wouldn't the same be true for Clinton?
In any case, they should release all the files and lock up the pedos.
I don't get your comment? Trump hasn't been implicated at all and Bill has. You are really coming off like this is a political whitchhunt instead of about prosecution of the pedophiles.
What was Bill implicated for in these files?
Trump has so far been implicated more than Clinton. For example, the comments about keeping children away from Trump, perverse sexual behavior, obsession with girls, etc. Not to mention his name was referenced more than anyone else in the recent email release. He also seeminly had his own drawer in Epsteins desk - seemed very important dont you think?
[removed]
Can you tell us what Bill was implicated for and the evidence that you have for it? You keep saying it but haven't provided any source so far
I don't understand what your question means, but no, absolutely not. I want all the files released, and if Bill is doing anything illegal: arrest him, if he's doing anything sus: investigate him. Same for Trump. Don't you agree?
Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.
Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
My comment is mainly about how people keep saying if Trump were implicated, Biden would have used that, but since he didn't, Trump must be innocent.
That said, the images of Clinton do not show a crime, and Clinton welcoming the release of additional photos/files about him suggests none will actually implicate him.
We won't know until they are all released, and at the moment it still feels like Trump/DOJ is either holding that up or being misleading (see Clinton/Jackson/Ross photo).
This is not a political witchhunt for me. I have a feeling Trump is guilty here, but am totally ok with everyone else who's guilty going down as well.
What specific crime did he commit if it's all right there?
Which picture can be used to put him in jail?
Which pictures?
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Me too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations
I don't think there's anybody objecting to him being hauled through this as well.
My best guess as to why he wants to be 'open' is there's somebody else mentioned alongside him who really is not 'being open' - and Clinton at least has the intellect to imagine what we're all thinking.
I don't know I think Bill is just going down hard....he is likely just trying to string along the democrat base.
I don't think the base has not been on team Clinton for at least a decade.
The mainstream neoliberal base is pretty much still on the Clinton/Obama/Biden train that started 30 years ago. The progressive “squad” faction is not.
Obama yes.
Clinton has been pretty persona non grata for 10 years now.
Biden is going to go down as the most hated Democrat, nobody thinks much of him as anything any more.
Do you think democrats cling on to bill clinton? lol where is this happening?
Many have defended him in this very thread....
They have said nothing so far released in the Epstein files really seem conclusive of anything regarding him.
I think most Democrats would be perfectly fine with Clinton going to jail.
What should he be jailed for?
For what, exactly? Not saying I think Bill is a stand up guy,just wondering what you think he should be tried and convicted of? Wouldn't he just be able to claim immunity from prosecution if these acts occurred during his Presidency?
Are you saying what Bill did was an official act? Gross....is that what you voted for?
it certainly wouldn't have been an official act. Clinton should be tried for sex crimes if there's evidence. Trump should charge him if there's evidence in the Epstein files. if there's not, Trump should follow the law and release the files, so the American People know there's nothing incriminating.
(not GP, but I was too young to have voted for him, personally, and I probably would have voted for the Republican back then since I voted R in my first election.)
Haven't you seen the evidence about Clinton? How are you able to say "if" there is evidence?
there's evidence Clinton was in a hot tub with a girl who wasn't his wife. I'm not aware of evidence the girl was underaged, or evidence the girl was forced to have sex with him. that's why we need him to be charged, or to release the rest of the photos.
Weird how you guys aren't capable of that same subtlety and nuance when discussing Trump photos.
Weird...
I hold Trump to exactly the same standard, personally. no more, no less.
For quite a lot of “us”: 1. Clinton seems guilty. We’re fine with him getting the presidential version of jail if he is actually guilty. The “evidence” we’ve seen looks bad, but there’s nothing definitive. We would like to know for sure, once and for all. There’s a slight chance Trump will deliver eventually, since that aligns with Trump’s personal agenda. 2. Trump seems guilty. We’re fine with him getting the presidential version of jail, but we know it’ll never happen. Some of the actual evidence and testimony we’ve seen seems very bad indeed, but nothing is definitive or corroborated. Given Trump’s behavior, it definitely seems like he’s covering things up for himself. We would love to see the full files specifically because we know nothing currently public proves he is guilty. We know that he will use every single trick he can to prevent anything that incriminates him from going public.
What subtlety or nuance are we missing, exactly?
Your side has been posting AI, Photoshopped, and otherwise doctored pictures of Trump supposedly with underage girls for years without any subtlety or nuance, and the bulk of you genuinely think they're real.
Good chat. Merry Christmas or whatever you celebrate.
the bulk of us do not believe in photoshopped photos of trump with underage girls. thats a strawman.
You nailed it...
Did you see anything in my question that confirms that I, personally, have knowledge of any crimes committed by Slick Willy? I ASKED what people thought he did. You're jumping through so big mental hoops to arrive at a point where you determine that I KNOW [insert horrible act, alleged by others, here] and decided to vote for Bill (when I was in 3rd grade) GOOD JOB! Is this what winning feels like? So, I ask again. What, Exactly, do you accuse Bill Clinton of doing?(but for some reason absolve Trump of)
This is a great question. This circus has been going on long enough For indidtments to be made. And DT doesn't have any problem going after politicians.
Should bill be in jail? Probably. Should 50-75% of all politicians be in there with him? Also probably. But I hardly find that surprising. Politicians are scum.
What's beyond me is how so many average people can look at thousands of consecutive blacked out pages with only one or 2 guys not blacked out without thinking "man they must really think I'm dumb"
It's bizarre how Clinton being in those files isn't talked about enough on liberal subs
It's because nobody cares about Clinton anymore. For at least half of this site's userbase they weren't even adults when Clinton was president. I was 9 years old when he left office.
You'd have to be at least 47 years old now to have even voted for his second term when you were 18. Why would any of us care about Clinton when he's just some old president before our time? If he's in the file let him rot, whatever, but he's a relic of the past that has little to do with current affairs so of course there's not a lot of discussion on him.
Because most Democrats are okay with Clinton going down if he's guilty.
From a purely pragmatic side of things, Clinton is pretty irrelevant in the Democratic party and has been so for almost 10 years now.
From a more emotional/guilt side of things- I think a lot of people are ashamed of giving him a pass and going after Lewinsky instead back in the 90s.
I think that was part of why they went after Franken so hard (even though that case ended up causing regret in the opposite direction).
Not a single person I know on the left cares about Bill Clinton.
He's been irrelevant for years, he's not a sitting president, and the prevailing feeling people I know have about him is if he did something illegal throw his ass in jail.
No one on the left cares about Hillary either. The Dems made a huge mistake running her thinking the Clinton name still meant something to the average person on the left but it doesn't
What exactly do you think should be said? From what I’ve seen, when we his name comes up in liberal subs everyone is like “yeah if there’s evidence he committed a crime he should be tried and, if appropriate, jailed.” What more is there to say?
These files have been made all about Trump when Clinton was the closest to Epstein. I wonder why?
What do you mean? Trump is the sitting president and directly involved in whether the files get released. What exactly do you think people should be saying about Clinton that isn’t being said?
It's not about releasing them, it's about how it has been made like he was the only one involved. Just Search Trump pedo on this app.
I’ll ask again: what is it you think people should be saying about Bill Clinton that isn’t being said? It’s been universally agreed he’s at least in there in some capacity and should be prosecuted if appropriate. What more can or should be said?
Nothing has actually been said. All leftwing media have been focusing on one person. CNn reported nothing about clinton
That’s just clearly incorrect https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/20/us/video/clinton-epstein-digvid
You claimed liberal subs and now CNN. Which is it you're upset with? Is it redditors in liberal subreddits who express Clinton should be charged if the evidence points that way or is it that CNN isn't reporting(or not reporting enough for you I, I suppose) every hour about a known Horn dog being in a swimsuit with an unidentified woman in a pool?
So until now we have no evidence that Trump was involved right?
I'm not really seeing how Trump is relevant here. I'm more trying to understand how you're asserting the left is just ignoring this as if it's a smoking gun of a current political figure.
So liberal subs want all of the files released, and most liberal don’t GAF is Clinton is in them, every one knows he is a horn dog, he already got busted for it. So that not gonna shock anyone, but also Clinton never made a campaign promise to release the files. Trump did, and then he didn’t, and now he dosen’t want to, which makes him look pretty suspicious. Like Trump has lost the control of the narrative, and he lashing out and it makes him look more sus.
He literally signed for it to be released immediately. Why did Biden hide the files for 4 years?
You know, no one talks about how corrupt Jimmy Carter was.
There's not much to talk about. We all know about the photos, but we're not surprised or scandalised. We pretty much just shrug and say, "well, yeah." There's no need for protracted conversation about it.
it seems talked about plenty to me, also nobody really cares because A) he has not been the face of the party for 1/4 century and B) fuck that guy for all the SA he has done, epstein style or otherwise. if he went down along with a bunch of other folks nobody would bat an eye. only if it looks like there is selective prosecution would there be any kind of outcry from the left (it would be focused on the selective nature of it).
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Epstein is dead and nothing can be done to him.
Is Bill Clinton dead?
Clinton protected Epstein in the 90s when he was first accused by Maria Flower.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/21/fbi-complaint-epstein-child-pornography-1996/87854678007/
Okay.
What does Epstein’s death have to do with the topic of this post?
Bill Clinton is the one who’s asking to be put into a more vulnerable position. The question isn’t whether Epstein can be harmed, but whether Clinton can.
How would Clinton be harmed? The victims have only accused Epstein and Maxwell.
I’m quite certain you know exactly how Clinton might be harmed. What do you get out of feigning ignorance?
I gave you a link. The victims started complaining to the FBI in the 90s when Clinton had protected him. For over 30 years the victims have only accused Epstein and Maxwell. For Clinton to go to jail, he would have had to do some crime and Epstein would be the only one that would know that.
What scenario are you envisioning?
…the Epstein files contain information that the government has been withholding. Bill Clinton is obviously someone our government has been highly motivated to protect for several decades now.
It is very clearly possible that multiple administrations’ DOJs have been withholding evidence against both Clinton and Trump, and who-knows-who-else. This is the most fundamental idea behind the Epstein Files interest, which is why it cannot possibly be news to you.
And why have the victims only accused Epstein and Maxwell? The judge said this, the FBI said this, the girls themselves said this, for many decades. You realize Epstein went to jail twice and then died in jail. Maxwell is in prison now. A judge and prosecutor has heard the witnesses testimony. If the FBI had something on Clinton in the 90s, it’s clearly been destroyed.
The victims you have heard about have only accused Epstein and Maxwell. The entire justification behind these redactions — from both sides — is that there are possible investigations and many victims that the public knows nothing about.
And even though we know the DOJ had many of these files, and at this point it’s pretty much guaranteed that some have been destroyed, we also know that many of the files originated from Epstein, and the Epstein estate has their own copies.
Did you not know that there are countless victims you haven’t heard anything about? Did you not know that the Epstein estate has copies of many of the files?