Tag: Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton Denies Knowledge of Epstein Crimes in House Deposition: ‘I Did Nothing Wrong’
Former President Bill Clinton, long dogged by scandals involving his personal conduct and questionable associations, faced a grueling six-hour deposition before the House Oversight Committee on Friday, where he repeatedly denied any awareness of Jeffrey Epstein’s heinous sex trafficking operations.
In a performance that Republicans praised as cooperative but critics dismissed as evasive, Clinton insisted he “saw nothing that gave me pause” during his multiple interactions with the disgraced financier, whose crimes against underage girls have shocked the nation and exposed a web of elite enablers.
“I did nothing wrong,” Clinton declared, a refrain that echoes his past defenses amid allegations of misconduct, but one that rings hollow to many given the mounting evidence of his proximity to Epstein’s predatory world.
The closed-door session, held in Chappaqua, New York, near the Clintons’ residence to avoid a public spectacle in Washington, marked a historic low for a former commander-in-chief: the first time a ex-president has been compelled to testify under subpoena before Congress.
This came after months of negotiations and threats of contempt charges, underscoring the gravity of the committee’s probe into Epstein’s network—a sordid empire built on exploitation, manipulation, and connections to powerful figures, including those in influential financial circles that Epstein navigated with ease. Republicans, led by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), hailed Clinton’s appearance as a step toward transparency, while Democrats accused the GOP of partisan gamesmanship aimed at shielding President Donald Trump from similar scrutiny.
Clinton’s testimony followed that of his wife, Hillary Clinton, who appeared the day before and claimed she never met Epstein—a stark contrast to her husband’s documented ties. In his opening statement, released publicly, Clinton portrayed his relationship with Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” that ended well before the financier’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
“I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing,” he said. “I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn’t see. I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn’t do.” Yet, skeptics point to flight logs showing Clinton aboard Epstein’s infamous “Lolita Express” private jet at least 26 times between 2001 and 2003, often without Secret Service detail, raising questions about what exactly transpired on those trips to destinations including Epstein’s private island, Little St. James.
Lawmakers grilled Clinton on a trove of recently unsealed documents from the Department of Justice, including photographs depicting him in compromising settings with redacted women—images that have fueled speculation about his involvement.

Jeffrey Epstein (left) and Bill Clinton (center) in a photo released by the justice department on Friday. (Department Of Justice/Zuma Press Wire/Shutterstock)
One particularly infamous photo showed Clinton in a jacuzzi with an unidentified woman, her face obscured. Sources familiar with the deposition told outlets that Clinton denied knowing her or engaging in any sexual activity, a response he repeated for each image presented. “No matter how many photos you show me,” he stated, “it won’t change the fact that I saw nothing wrong and did nothing wrong.”
But these denials do little to dispel the cloud of suspicion, especially given Epstein’s modus operandi of using his wealth and connections—often within elite, predominantly Jewish social networks—to lure and abuse vulnerable girls, all while hobnobbing with global leaders like Clinton.
The committee also probed Epstein’s donations to the Clinton Foundation, a charitable entity that has faced its own controversies over foreign influence and opaque finances. Epstein contributed tens of thousands of dollars, and records show him visiting the White House multiple times during Clinton’s presidency.
Clinton maintained that these interactions were innocuous, focused on philanthropy, but critics argue they exemplify how Epstein ingratiated himself with power brokers to mask his criminal enterprise. “We are only here because he hid it from everyone so well for so long,” Clinton said in his prepared remarks, shifting blame squarely onto Epstein—a convenient narrative that ignores the red flags many believe should have alerted someone of Clinton’s stature.
Republicans on the panel, including Comer, described Clinton as “charming” and “very cooperative,” noting he answered every question without invoking the Fifth Amendment. “He’s a charming individual, obviously,” Comer remarked, adding that the testimony “exonerated President Trump” by recounting a early-2000s golf tournament conversation where Trump allegedly told Clinton he severed ties with Epstein over a land deal dispute. This anecdote, volunteered by Clinton, aligns with Trump’s longstanding claim that he distanced himself from Epstein before the 2008 charges.
Trump himself weighed in from the White House, expressing reluctance about the deposition: “I like Bill Clinton, and I don’t like seeing him deposed.” Yet, Democrats seized on the moment to demand Trump testify, pointing to his own extensive socializing with Epstein in the 1990s and 2000s, as well as mentions in Epstein-related files.

From left, Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, Epstein and Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida on February 12, 2000 [File: Davidoff Studios/Getty Images]
The broader investigation stems from Epstein’s 2019 death in custody—ruled a suicide but mired in conspiracy theories—and the subsequent conviction of his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, for sex trafficking. Epstein’s crimes, which involved grooming and abusing dozens of underage girls, often at his lavish properties, have implicated a roster of high-profile names, from British royalty to Wall Street titans.
The House probe, launched amid calls for accountability, has drawn bipartisan support but devolved into partisan sniping. Democrats accuse Republicans of selective outrage, noting the Justice Department’s reluctance under Trump to release records on allegations against him, including a claim of sexual abuse of a minor—which the department is reviewing.
Clinton’s spokesperson has reiterated that he cut ties with Epstein before the 2006 charges and was unaware of the crimes, denying any visits to Little St. James. However, a 2025 FBI document lists Clinton among figures with unverified sexual assault allegations tied to Epstein’s orbit, though no charges have been filed. This deposition, while not accusing Clinton of wrongdoing, revives painful memories of his own impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair and allegations of sexual misconduct from women like Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones—patterns that, for detractors, make his Epstein denials less credible.
As transcripts from both Clintons’ testimonies are expected to be released soon—possibly as early as this weekend—the political fallout intensifies. Republicans frame the sessions as vindication for Trump, with Comer slamming Democrats for “weaponizing” the probe.
Democrats, like top panel member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), counter that the precedent now demands Trump’s appearance, along with others like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who admitted visiting Epstein’s island.
February 27, 2026
Lawmakers Warn $30 Billion Welfare Program Is Vulnerable to Abuse
More than $30 billion in taxpayer-funded welfare money intended to help America’s poorest families has instead beeen used as a ‘slush fund’ – diverted into programs ranging from college scholarships to government budget backfills.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, known as TANF, was created nearly three decades ago to provide direct financial support and services to struggling families.
Today, the program distributes about $16.5 billion annually in federal funds, supplemented by roughly $15 billion in state contributions.
But federal auditors and analysts say the program’s structure, which gives states broad control over spending with limited reporting requirements, has made it difficult to track how billions of dollars are ultimately used.
States often use TANF money to finance programs with only indirect connections to helping poor families, said Hayden Dublois of the Foundation for Government Accountability. He described the system’s lack of oversight as ‘fraud by design.’
‘There are very little, if any, safeguards,’ Dublois told the Wall Street Journal.
He estimates that roughly one in five TANF dollars, or about $6 billion each year, is misspent.

Then President Bill Clinton prepares to sign legislation in the Rose Garden of the White House overhauling America’s welfare system on Aug. 22, 1996. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Despite the program’s size, fewer families now receive direct cash assistance than in previous decades.
Federal data shows that about 849,000 families received monthly TANF payments in fiscal year 2025, down from approximately 1.9 million families in 2010.
Instead, states have increasingly directed funds to contractors, nonprofits and other government programs.
Nick Gwyn, a policy expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the shift reflects a broader transformation in how the program operates.
‘The program has drifted away from the core purpose of supporting families with very little income,’ Gwyn told the WSJ.
Audits conducted in multiple states have uncovered persistent problems with oversight and financial reporting.
In Louisiana, auditors found in 2024 that state officials failed to verify required work participation hours tied to TANF eligibility – the 13th straight year auditors flagged the same issue.
The audit also found gaps in documentation showing how TANF funds were distributed to contractors.

Even though employment numbers are back up, many people are worse off now because the government is no longer providing the cushion it did in 2020 and 2021. Rick Bowmer/AP
Louisiana officials said they agreed with the findings and would improve oversight.
In Connecticut, auditors reported that the state did not adequately review financial reports from more than 130 subcontractors receiving $53.6 million in TANF funds, making it difficult to confirm whether the money was spent on approved purposes.
Connecticut officials said they would strengthen compliance procedures.
Auditors also identified oversight problems in Florida, underscoring how weaknesses in TANF spending controls extended across states regardless of political leadership.
In Oklahoma, state auditor Cindy Byrd said her office has similarly found weak documentation tracking TANF expenditures.
State and federal records show TANF money has been used for a wide range of programs critics say fall outside the program’s intended mission.
These include college scholarship programs benefiting students from middle-income families, payments to antiabortion pregnancy centers, and child welfare programs already supported by other federal funding sources.
In Michigan, more than $750 million in TANF funds were directed into scholarship programs between 2011 and 2024, according to the Michigan League for Public Policy.
In Texas, federal data shows the state spent about $251 million in TANF funds in fiscal year 2023 on foster care and child welfare programs, while just 1.9 percent of TANF spending went directly to basic assistance payments.
Ann Flagg, who oversaw TANF at the federal level during the Biden administration, said the program’s layered structure made it difficult for federal officials to monitor spending.
‘Knowing that there were so many layers between the activity on the ground and the federal perch, there were many, many instances, I am sure, that funds were used in crazy ways,’ Flagg said.
The biggest scandal involving TANF funds took place in Mississippi. The embezzlement scheme saw at least $77 million of taxpayers’ money go toward frivolous things instead of helping those in need in America’s poorest state, according to authorities.
Instead of helping the less fortunate, cash was splurged on a lavish home in Jackson, cars, paying off a non-profit leader’s speeding ticket, and funding a new $5 million volleyball stadium at Mississippi University, among other items, authorities said.
A total of seven people have pleaded guilty to state or federal charges related to the fraud case, but former WWE wrestler Ted DiBiase Jr decided to plead not guilty and stand trial.
Concerns about misuse of public welfare funds have been amplified by a series of major fraud scandals in Minnesota, where federal and state investigators uncovered schemes involving millions of taxpayer dollars intended for child care and food programs.
Trump’s fraud crackdown was ignited by issues in Minnesota, but the state’s cases are unrelated to TANF.
In one case dating back to the 2010s, authorities found the operators of several daycare centers billed the government for services that were never provided, with surveillance footage appearing to show parents briefly bringing children to facilities before leaving immediately.
Prosecutors later said the scheme allowed providers to collect reimbursement payments despite not delivering actual care, and several individuals pleaded guilty to felony theft by swindling.

More recently, federal authorities have investigated what they described as a vast fraud network involving federally funded child nutrition programs.
FBI Director Kash Patel said the bureau had ‘surged personnel and investigative resources to Minnesota’ to dismantle fraud schemes exploiting federal assistance programs.
Patel warned that such activity may represent ‘the tip of a very large iceberg,’ adding that ‘fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide.’
Federal watchdog agencies have also repeatedly warned about weaknesses in TANF oversight.
The Government Accountability Office found that audits in 37 states identified 162 deficiencies in financial oversight, including 56 considered severe.
The agency criticized what it described as ‘opaque accounting practices’ among groups receiving TANF funds.
The GAO has recommended since at least 2012 that Congress strengthen reporting requirements and expand federal oversight.
Those recommendations have not been enacted.

The ongoing fraud scandal in Minnesota dates back a decade as a 2015 video shows parents appearing to pretend to drop their children off at a phony daycare center
In testimony to Congress, GAO official Kathy Larin said states often use TANF funds precisely because of their flexibility.
‘States told us they use TANF because it’s more flexible and can cover costs not eligible’ under other federal programs, she said.
TANF was created in 1996 as part of sweeping welfare reform legislation signed by President Bill Clinton, who described the measure as ‘ending welfare as we know it.’
The reforms replaced an open-ended federal entitlement with block grants, giving states significant authority over spending decisions.
Supporters credited the program with reducing welfare dependency, but critics say the system created incentives for states to redirect funds away from direct aid.
Robert Rector, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who helped draft the legislation, said the program has drifted from its original goals.

TANF Trends and Its Oversight—Welfare Assistance Continues to Shift Away from Cash Assistance
‘Today all states are in de facto violation of the law’ because they aren’t spending all TANF funds on the intended purposes outlined in the original law, Rector said.
He added that both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for failing to enforce stricter oversight.
The Trump administration has recently moved to freeze billions in federal welfare-related grants to several states over concerns about fraud and misuse, including funds tied to TANF.
Several states challenged the move in court, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze.
Despite growing scrutiny and repeated warnings from auditors and watchdog agencies, Congress has not enacted any comprehensive reforms.
February 8, 2026
Biden Faces Challenges Turning Presidency Into Post-Office Influence
Europeans are worried about U.S. President Joe Biden. © Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Joe Biden, the doddering architect of America’s near-collapse under socialist policies and endless scandals, is now reaping what he sowed in the form of a post-presidency that’s as bankrupt as his administration’s border strategy. Eight months after handing the White House back to a resurgent Donald Trump, Biden finds himself persona non grata among the elite circles that once propped him up. Corporate boards won’t touch him, speaking gigs are evaporating faster than his poll numbers, and donors are treating his presidential library like a toxic asset. This isn’t just bad karma; it’s a market correction on a failed leader whose unpopularity and the looming shadow of Trump’s retribution have turned “Diamond Joe” into fool’s gold.
Let’s face it: Ex-presidents typically glide into golden parachutes, cashing in on their Oval Office stint with seven-figure speaking fees, cushy board seats, and memoir deals that could fund small nations. Bill Clinton turned influence-peddling into an art form, raking in $200 million post-White House. Barack Obama? He and Michelle scored a $60 million book bonanza and Netflix gigs while hobnobbing with billionaires. Even George W. Bush paints his way to quiet millions. But Biden? At 82, battling a severe prostate cancer diagnosis that’s metastasized, he’s reduced to haggling over scraps. The Wall Street Journal lays it bare: No corporate sinecures for old Joe, thanks to his glaring cognitive decline—evident in that fateful 2024 debate that sealed his fate—and the baggage of a presidency marred by inflation, crime waves, and foreign policy blunders.
Speaking fees? Sure, he’s quoting $300,000 to $500,000 a pop, but the invites are scarce, and bookers are lowballing him like a yard sale find. Why? Fear of Trump’s wrath. With the 47th president vowing to drain the swamp deeper than ever, companies dread audits, investigations, or lost contracts if they align with the man who weaponized the DOJ against conservatives. As one insider whispered to The Journal, “Who’s going to risk it for Biden?” Instead of jet-setting on private planes—avoiding those pesky “unsavory flight logs” à la Epstein—Biden’s slumming it in coach on American Airlines or breaking Amtrak quiet car rules with his endless chatter. His Fourth of July? Holed up in a luxury trailer in Malibu, courtesy of Hunter’s pal Moby. Nice, but hardly the Hamptons elite circuit where real power brokers summer.
The real kicker is the Biden Presidential Library—or lack thereof. NBC News reports a donor drought that’s turned the project into a punchline. John Morgan, the Florida lawyer who funneled $800,000 to Biden’s doomed reelection, scoffed: “I don’t believe a library will ever be built unless it’s a bookmobile from the old days.” Another top bundler? A flat “Me? No way.” Over a dozen major Democratic funders are sitting on their wallets, blaming Biden’s ego-driven refusal to bow out gracefully, which gifted Trump a landslide. The projected $200-300 million price tag? Forget it; they’re saving for the party’s post-Biden rebuild. Contrast that with Trump’s library plans, already flush with MAGA millions and set to be a monument to American greatness in Florida.
Biden’s not destitute—far from it. His $250,600 presidential pension, plus $166,000 from Senate and VP annuities, keeps the lights on. A $10 million Hachette book deal for his memoirs will pad the nest, though it’s a pittance next to the Obamas’ haul—ego bruise alert. But obligations mount: He’s bankrolling Hunter’s post-pardon legal circus (despite the get-out-of-jail-free card, debts linger) and supporting Ashley amid her divorce woes. Then there’s the $800,000 mortgage on his Rehoboth Beach mansion, compounded by a 20% property tax spike this year. For a guy whose “lifestyle” screams modest (read: boring), these hits sting, especially as Trump’s economy booms, lifting all boats except Biden’s leaky dinghy.
This financial flop isn’t misfortune; it’s market justice. Biden’s presidency was a disaster: Skyrocketing costs from “Bidenomics,” an open border inviting chaos, and a foreign policy that emboldened adversaries from Beijing to Tehran. Voters rejected it resoundingly, and now the donor class is following suit. Trump’s shadow looms large—his promises of accountability have executives thinking twice about associating with the Biden brand, synonymous with corruption and incompetence. As the Journal notes, even universities are wary after the Penn Biden Center’s classified docs fiasco. The cold shoulder? It’s conservatives’ quiet revenge, proving that in Trump’s America, failure has consequences.
Biden’s diminished twilight serves as a cautionary tale for the left: Peddle radical agendas, ignore the will of the people, and watch your legacy evaporate. While Trump builds empires and rallies crowds, Biden fades into irrelevance, a footnote in the history of American resurgence. If he’s lucky, that bookmobile library might tour nursing homes—fitting for a president who put the nation to sleep.
September 16, 2025
Trump may live to regret suing Murdoch for libel regarding Epstein’s birthday card
Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and Rupert Murdoch in New York County Supreme edit. © Alan Woodward/The NewYorkBudgets
Donald Trump has never shied away from a fight. In fact, it’s practically his brand. But in launching a $10 billion libel lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, and two Wall Street Journal reporters over a birthday card allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump may have walked into a legal minefield of his own making.
The lawsuit centers around a Journal story detailing a bizarre 2003 birthday card supposedly authored by Trump to Epstein. According to the article, the note contained several typed lines framed by the outline of a naked woman, hand-drawn in thick marker. The letter reportedly included a third-person conversation between “Trump” and Epstein, with enigmatic phrases such as “enigmas never age” and the cryptic sign-off: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump has vehemently denied authorship of the card. In a furious social media post, he declared: “These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.” He further asserted the note was a forgery fabricated by “unnamed Democrats,” and called the Journal a “useless rag,” promising “a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved.”
For Murdoch, 93, and Trump, 78, this isn’t their first confrontation. The media mogul’s outlets — most prominently Fox News and the Journal — were skeptical of Trump during the 2016 primaries before eventually aiding his path to the presidency. Their relationship has since oscillated between strategic alliance and mutual contempt. But this lawsuit could mark a definitive rupture.
The legal hurdles Trump faces are towering. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) still stands — despite Justice Clarence Thomas’s wish to revisit it. Under Sullivan, public figures suing for libel must prove “actual malice” — that the publisher knowingly printed falsehoods or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a near-impossible standard to meet when the defendant is The Wall Street Journal, not a tabloid like the National Enquirer.
Moreover, reports suggest the card came from Department of Justice archives. If so, the Journal’s sourcing may have been both legitimate and well-documented. Dow Jones has vowed to “vigorously defend” its reporting, stating, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our journalism.”
If Trump hoped to intimidate Murdoch into silence or submission, he may have miscalculated. Libel suits, historically, are double-edged swords — especially for the plaintiff. They often invite forensic dissection of the very allegations the plaintiff seeks to bury. Legal legend Roy Cohn, Trump’s onetime mentor, famously advised clients: “Never sue for libel.” The reasons are obvious. Oscar Wilde, Alger Hiss, Gen. William Westmoreland, and Ariel Sharon all sued — and saw their reputations battered further. Some even ended up in prison.
Trump’s reputation is already uniquely impervious to additional tarnish. A New York jury found him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll. He’s been convicted of 34 felony counts related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His boasts about women and his own sexuality — including in the notorious Access Hollywood tape — are publicly etched in American memory.
So what’s the damage here, really?
Legal analysts suspect Trump’s motivations may have more to do with uncovering sources through discovery than restoring his name. His lawyers have already requested that Murdoch be deposed quickly, citing his advanced age and reported health concerns. “I hope Rupert and his ‘friends’ are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies,” Trump posted. That may sound like bravado, but it betrays an ulterior aim: flushing out who leaked the card and what else they may know.
But discovery cuts both ways. Murdoch’s attorneys will be free to interrogate the origins and nature of Trump’s long, checkered relationship with Epstein — one that spanned at least 15 years. How close were they? Did Trump know about Epstein’s illegal activities? Did he ever participate, enable, or turn a blind eye? Why did their relationship allegedly sour in 2004 over a Palm Beach mansion? Was that really the end?
Those depositions may expose far more than Trump bargained for — not just about his ties to Epstein, but about his broader conduct and associations.
Trump has filed and settled media lawsuits before. He reportedly reached a $15 million agreement with ABC after George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said he had been “convicted of rape.” A recent $16 million CBS settlement over a 60 Minutes segment seemed more about easing Paramount’s merger path than Trump’s legal merit. But those cases were relatively tame compared to what this Journal suit could unleash.
Murdoch’s legal team is not likely to blink. While The Wall Street Journal ran a curious follow-up story on Epstein’s “Birthday Book” that included letters from Bill Clinton and billionaire Leon Black, it offered little new insight — possibly a strategic nod or an effort to show editorial balance. But sources close to the matter insist Murdoch has no intention of settling.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein with President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993. © THE WILLIAM J. CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY/MEGA
And perhaps he shouldn’t. Trump is often at his most reckless when wounded. Peggy Noonan aptly observed that “he fights even when he will hurt himself, because the fight is all.” But in this case, the fight may well invite ruin. Trump could inadvertently open the floodgates to evidence, testimony, and revelations far more damaging than a birthday card.
He may soon learn what every good trial lawyer knows: In libel litigation, the courtroom is often the last place you want your secrets to surface.
July 29, 2025