The Clintons Have Testified about Jeffrey Epstein: Will Trump be Next?

Ving firar 70 år av resor, och det gör vi med massor av erbjudanden som är omöjliga att motstå. Bästa jubileumserbjudanden på ving.se. De bästa resorna försvinner först.

Hey everyone, Ellie here, wishing you a happy Friday. Well, a lot has changed since last Friday. We are now at war with Iran. And the number one question I've been getting asked by listeners and viewers alike is is this legal? Is this constitutional? I know Preet and Joyce addressed this earlier in the week, and I largely subscribe to their view. I think the short answer is probably not. One really important thing I want to add and accentuate though.

Even if this is an unconstitutional war, and it probably is. There is no courtroom based remedy for it. There is no lawsuit to be brought. There is no federal judge in the country who would issue a TRO, a temporary restraining order, saying you must stop. this action in Iran. That is simply not the way things work. There was a similar instance, actually, semi-recently in Minnesota, when there were all these lawsuits brought by the Minnesota AG to

expel ice and bar them from conducting operations in Minneapolis, in Minnesota. I told you at the time, I said on air at the time, those lawsuits will fail. There's no way for a federal judge to kick ice. out of a certain city or state. Instead, the only thing that's gonna do it, and the thing that did do it in Minnesota, is political pressure. And the same applies here on perhaps a larger scale. The only thing that's going to

impose any accountability or any consequences if this is indeed an unconstitutional war are going to come from the political powers that be. What do I mean by that? I mean the American public. I mean protests. I mean polling results that may be ugly for the president or the Republican Party. I mean the market. You know, Donald Trump will respond if the markets start taking a beating. And first and foremost, I mean Congress. Congress has the power to hold hearings, to demand accountability.

to ultimately, theoretically, to impeach. And so if your answer to that is, well, Congress isn't gonna do any of that, then my response is, well, there's your answer. Then you need to elect different people to Congress if you feel that Congress is not doing the job. But the bottom line point I want to make is

This won't be fixed through judges or lawyers or courts. This can only be addressed and remedied through the political process. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave up to you. We could made it, but I think that's clearly the way that this system was set up by our framers. Okay, on to this week and other issues. As always, hope you enjoy the piece and love to hear your thoughts, questions, and comments. Keep them coming to letters at cafe.com.

After a prolonged legal standoff, Bill and Hillary Clinton testified last week to Congress about Jeffrey Epstein. Predictably, nothing much of substance came from either deposition. Hillary plainly had no relevant information, and Bill admitted nothing, even if he did. But the testimony from the former first couple tees up a higher stakes showdown ahead. Will the current president be next? Hillary Clinton's testimony was entirely, unsurprisingly, pointless.

The House Oversight Committee's subpoena to the former Secretary of State was an unserious bit of political showboating by Republican Committee Chairman James Comer and others bent on settling decades-old grudges and creating sizzle with a bold-face name. Hillary Clinton told the committee in advance that she had never even met him.

Epstein, and knew nothing about his misdeeds. She said precisely the same at her deposition, and the committee members essentially nodded along, asked her about space aliens and pizzagate, and thanked her for serving as a shiny prop to draw media attention. The most memorable moment came when Hillary eviscerated Representative Lauren Boebert for leaking a photo from inside the deposition room, violating her own party's procedural rules.

Even conservatives praised Hillary for putting the thirsty buffoon Bobert in her place. Bill Clinton is a different story. His testimony to the committee was downright Clintonian, defined by the Urban Dictionary as a statement that, quote, typically skirts the issue or spins words. The former president began by congratulating himself for coming forward out of a sense of patriotic duty and a deep moral obligation to protect Epstein's victims.

Never mind that Clinton defied the committee's subpoena for months, no showed for his original testimony date, and then relented only after a bipartisan group of committee members, including nine Democrats, voted to hold him in contempt. Clinton testified that at bottom, and I quote, I saw nothing and I did nothing wrong. The former president said, quote, if I had any inkling of what he was doing, meaning Epstein, I would have turned him in myself. Any inkling?

Let's assume the truth of Clinton's claim that he did nothing wrong. Fine, there's no evidence to the contrary. But the saw nothing part of his testimony, the no-inkling part of his testimony is open to reasonable questioning. Consider first that Clinton's friendship with Epstein peaked in the early two thousands.

Right as Epstein was running his massive international child sex trafficking ring, according to the Justice Department's indictment of Epstein, which charged criminal conduct up until 2005. Nor was this some passing relationship, some casual glad handing of a potential donor. Clinton flew on Epstein's plane at least sixteen times, sent a warm note to Epstein on his fiftieth birthday in two thousand three.

gave a glowing quote to New York magazine for a two thousand two Epstein profile, and is shown in a series of photographs, partying and smiling and swimming and receiving massages, and jacuzing With Epstein, Golane Maxwell, and others, including women whose identities have been redacted. Clinton testified that he did not know and did not have sex with his pictured hot tub partner.

Yet through it all, Clinton, Yale-trained lawyer, reputed possessor of a genius-level IQ, two-term US president, had no idea at all of anything that might have been awry. Nothing, not even in English.

Oversight Committee Democrats didn't wait for the depositions to end before they started calling for testimony from the current president, who also had a substantial relationship with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s. Democratic Representative Roe Connor announced, quote, a new precedent has been set in America today. Now we have the Clinton rule, which is that presidents and their families have to testify when Congress issues a subpoena.

And that means that Donald Trump needs to come before our committee and explain what he knew about Epstein. End quote. Of course, unlike legal precedent, which is technically binding within the courts, congressional precedent only goes so far as whoever holds the majority and the subpoena power at any given moment.

And if, likely when, Democrats flip the House in the 2024 midterms, they'll hold the power to subpoena the sitting president. House Republicans, already anticipating this turnabout, have offered three reasons why Trump should not have to comply. Two of them are ridiculous, the third less so. Republicans claim first that Trump should not have to testify because he has already been, and I quote, exonerated.

Comer gloated that Bill Clinton's testimony quote exonerated President Trump because Clinton, quote, stated that he has no information that President Trump did anything wrong, and that President Trump never said anything to Clinton to make him think that he was involved with Epstein, end quote. What on earth?

Would Bill Clinton know about Donald Trump's activities over many years and largely or entirely outside of Clinton's presence with Jeffrey Epstein? Trump never openly admitted criminality to Clinton. So what? What does that prove or disprove? And even if we knew conclusively that Trump had never done anything wrong, that's no response to a subpoena, which calls for testimony from a witness even absent wrongdoing. See, for example, Hillary Clinton, though she barely even qualified as a wit.

Second, House Republicans speaker Mike Johnson protested that Trump, quote, submits to questions every day from the media. Johnson's response is so ridiculous it's hard to tell if he actually meant it or was just being snarky. Of course, questioning by the media doesn't get any person out of testifying in an official proceeding under oath. They're two entirely different things. Third and more substantially, Republicans argue that if Democrats take the House majority after midterms in early 2027,

Trump will still be the sitting president and therefore beyond the reach of a subpoena. Indeed, the courts do give various immunities and privileges to sitting presidents that don't necessarily accrue to former presidents. And a congressional subpoena of a sitting president plainly would present more substantial separation of powers issues than a subpoena of a prior president. But it's not clear that Trump's status as sitting president would shield him in this case.

In a 2020 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's effort to dodge a subpoena from the Manhattan District Attorney, with Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joining the liberal justices in the majority. On the other hand, that case involved a criminal grand jury subpoena, which courts tend to enforce more aggressively than congressional subpoenas, and the district attorney's subpoena called only for documents.

Not live testimony, which would present a more substantial intrusion on the president and the executive branch. Even if Democrats subpoena Trump in 2027 and lose an ensuing legal battle for his testimony, he'll be out of office by early 2029. The question then, if Democrats take and hold the House, will be whether anyone still cares enough. Yes, the Epstein scandal has stayed with us for the better part of a decade now, and if anything, is gaining strength.

But a lot can happen in two and a half years, and it's possible we've already seen the apex or nadir of the scandal. If the public no longer cares by 2029, Congress won't have the will to pick up the fight. Perhaps Trump will have his day before the committee eventually.

But it's more likely Democrats will wind up frustrated. The new precedent, such as it is, seems clear enough. Presidents now must testify when called. But when one side is so deeply dug in, the political and legal reality is far more complex. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed.