Finally Friday Reads: He Said, She Said

“It might happen sooner.” John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

It’s one of those days where I really wonder if I should actually get up, even though today Temple and I beat the garbage collectors to the street for a walk. We usually manage to shadow the postman. I saw a question on C-SPAN’s Facebook page that’s really worth asking. “Are you better off financially today than a year ago?” The answer for everyone I know is absolutely no. Our democracy and ability to get justice are getting worse by the minute, also.

So, yesterday, Hillary Clinton testified in a closed session about her complete lack of a relationship with Epstein, which she framed as a basic waste of everyone’s time and money. She stated that, to her knowledge, she’d never even met the guy, then told them to ask Bill. Meanwhile, we’re getting more calls for an investigation into Trump’s obvious associations. This headline from Bill Sher writing at the Washington Monthly says it all. “It’s Time for the Media to Press Trump on Allegations of Abusing a Minor. The president should be scrutinized with the same intensity as others in the Epstein Files.”

I was skeptical that the Jeffrey Epstein files would implicate President Donald Trump in illegal sexual abuse of a minor. It’s not that one cannot imagine Trump being untoward; on the contrary, a jury found him to be liable for sexual abuse. But Trump committing sex crimes against underage girls seemed dubious.

Yet inconclusive but tantalizing evidence exists in a 21-slide presentation, apparently created last summer by two joint Federal Bureau of Investigation-New York Police Department task forces, summarizing four “Jeffrey Epstein Investigations.”

A “Timeline” slide of developments in the case, from July 24, 2006, to July 22, 2025, spanning the initial Epstein investigation through Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction and appeal, indicates that the presentation was created after that date. To put it in context, the allegations against Trump appear to come from a single witness and don’t include physical evidence, such as notes or texts.

One slide titled “Prominent Names” dishes allegations against several famous people and leads with two regarding Trump:

1. [REDACTED] stated Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. (date range 1983-1985, [REDACTED] would have been 13- 15)

2. [REDACTED] remember Epstein introduced her to Trump saying “This is a good one, huh” and Trump responded “Yes”. (date range roughly 1984, [REDACTED] would have been 14)

An email thread from July 24, 2025, circulating in the FBI’s New York field office, appears to include a draft of the “Prominent Names” slide text. The Trump text, which has a typo, is identical to what is in a slightly different, probably draft, slideshow.

When the latest Epstein files were released on January 30, the allegations against Trump immediately drew attention. For example, that same day, the progressive MeidasTouch Network posted the email thread on X and CNN’s Jake Tapper, among others, highlighted an email thread covering August 6 and 7, 2025, about “NTOC Names,” which refers to tips collected by the National Threat Operations Center, the bureau’s hub for receiving and vetting public tips regarding federal crimes. The thread includes Epstein-related tips and, in some cases, how federal authorities responded. One emailer notes that in one document, some rows have “yellow highlighting … for the salacious piece,” which appears to refer to the “Prominent Names” slide. (An emailer in July asks for “a sentence or two” for each of the names with “salacious statements.”)

Several tips mention that federal authorities were unable to follow up with the tipsters or verify their stories; those items were not on the “Prominent Names” slide. But one entry on Trump tracks what’s in the slide:

[REDACTED] reported an unidentified female friend who was forced to perform oral sex on President Trump approximately 35 years ago in NJ. The friend told [REDACTED] that she was approximately 13-14 years old when this occurred, and the friend allegedly bit President Trump while performing oral sex. The friend was allegedly hit in the face after she laughed about biting President Trump. The friend said she was also abused by Epstein.

The table’s “Response” column notes, “Spoke with caller who identified [REDACTED] as friend. Lead was sent to Washington Office to conduct interview.”

Some media outlets, including The Mirror, The Telegraph, The Daily Beast, and Mediaite, covered the allegation. But most reporters elided the bit-penis-hit-in-the-face allegation in favor of vague references to multiple unsubstantiated claims while the Justice Department sought to inoculate the president by stating, “Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump.” The media’s attention gravitated to other famous names mentioned in the Epstein files, regardless of whether the files contained evidence of sexual misconduct. Several prominent figures have since resigned from their positions due to their associations with Epstein.

Then, starting on February 15,  Roger Sollenberger, the independent journalist, pieced together information indicating that the FBI interviewed the accuser four times in 2019. Sollenberger suggests this means that the FBI found her “credible.” Furthermore, records of three of those interviews were not in the Epstein Files release. He also found a “Jane Doe 4” in a lawsuit against Epstein with similar biographical details, making similar allegations against an unnamed Epstein friend. Jane Doe 4 was deemed ineligible for the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, but the suit nonetheless appears to have led to a settlement for her from Epstein.

Bolstering the case that the FBI found the accuser credible, Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth, the independent journalists, noted that, uniquely, her redacted name is routinely followed by the phrase, “PROTECT SOURCE,” which is “typically used for high-risk informants such as mafia rats.”

There is so much more to this story that I hope you take the time to read it all. The Guardian also has more information on the claim. “Epstein files contain explicit but unsubstantiated claim that Trump abused minor. Department of Justice did not release FBI memos when it uploaded millions of pages of files beginning in December.”

Three memos that describe four interviews conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2019 contain explicit but unsubstantiated claims that Donald Trump sexually abused a woman when she was a minor in the early 1980s with the assistance of Jeffrey Epstein, according to a Guardian review of those documents.

The Department of Justice did not release those records when it uploaded millions of pages of files related to Epstein beginning in December. The existence of the missing documents was first reported by independent journalist Roger Sollenberger and subsequently confirmed by NPR, causing outrage in Washington and sparking an investigation from congressional Democrats.

The Guardian obtained the missing FBI Form 302 reports, which memorialize 25 pages of agents’ notes from the four interviews conducted in the summer and fall of 2019. The notes describe how the woman came forward to tell agents she recognized Epstein from a photo sent by a childhood friend. Only the first session, in which she did not name Trump, made it into the public release. The Guardian has chosen not to publish the woman’s name.

All we know about the Hillary Testimony comes from Clinton herself. This is from the New York Times and reported by Annie Karni. “In Tense Deposition, Hillary Clinton Denies Knowing Epstein or His Crimes. After resisting testifying for months, the former secretary of state entered the session defiant and grew irate after a Republican leaked a photo from inside the room.”

In a lengthy opening statement her aides distributed in advance, Mrs. Clinton accused House Republicans of using her as a prop in “partisan political theater” and excoriated their investigation as “designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors.”

“You have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers,” she said.

She added: “You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files,” noting that not a single Republican had attended a closed-door session last week in Ohio to depose Leslie Wexner, the retail billionaire and prolific G.O.P. donor who helped Mr. Epstein build his wealth.

In a day’s worth of questioning that she later called “repetitive” and unproductive, Mrs. Clinton told the committee that she did not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein and “never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices.”

“I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein,” she told reporters after the session had ended. “It’s on the record numerous times.”

The deposition briefly went off the rails when, as Republicans questioned her, Mr. Johnson’s post of the photograph showing Mrs. Clinton’s testifying while wearing a weary expression prompted an eruption in the room. Her lawyers vociferously objected and called for journalists to be allowed inside to document the proceedings. House Democrats noted that Republicans had refused to grant the Clintons’ request for a public hearing.

“We are sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition,” Representative Yassamin Ansari, Democrat of Arizona, said, claiming Republicans were “more concerned with getting their photo op” than with holding anyone accountable.

This is from the Washington Examiner.  It’s reported by David Zimmermann. “Clinton says she was asked about UFOs and Pizzagate at ‘unusual’ Epstein deposition.”

After exiting her deposition on Thursday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested some members of Congress were more concerned with UFOs and Pizzagate instead of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell in their questions.

The high-profile witness called the House oversight committee deposition “quite unusual” as it concluded.

“I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet, that was serving as the basis of a member’s questions to me,” Clinton said in Chappaqua, New York, where the closed-door deposition hearing was held.

It’s unclear why Clinton was questioned on extraterrestrial life, as UFOs have nothing to do with the late convicted sex offender’s crimes. Last week, President Donald Trump said he would start declassifying government files related to the existence of aliens.

The Pizzagate conspiracy theory refers to a child sex ring linked to members of the Democratic Party, and it went viral during the 2016 presidential election cycle when Clinton was running against Trump for president. At one point, a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., named Comet Ping Pong was caught up in the right-wing conspiracy theory.

Clinton did not name the member who asked the unusual questions, nor whether the lawmaker was a Republican or a Democrat.

The hearing was disrupted earlier when Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) shared a photo of Clinton with conservative commentator Benny Johnson, who then posted the image on social media. As a result of the stunt, the hearing was paused for about 30 minutes. Closed-door hearings forbid unauthorized photography as it could violate House rules and confidentiality agreements.

Clinton denied she ever met Epstein and claimed to never have “any connection or communication” with the convicted sex offender, although she admitted knowing Maxwell “casually as an acquaintance.”

She criticized the GOP-led committee’s decision to reject her and her husband’s bid for public hearings.

“It was disappointing that they refused to hold a public hearing, so I wouldn’t have to be out here characterizing it for you. You could have seen it for yourself,” she told reporters. “We had asked for that. We think it would have been better for the committee and its efforts to gather whatever information they are seeking.”

The former Cabinet secretary also slammed oversight committee Republicans for skipping the recent deposition of former Victoria’s Secret CEO Les Wexner, whom the FBI labeled a co-conspirator of Epstein. Chairman James Comer (R-KY) did not attend that deposition due to an already scheduled medical procedure.

Despite her criticisms, Clinton noted the “best exchange” came toward the end of the hearing, when Comer asked a “series of significant questions” related to the investigation’s focus.

Since I’ve already mentioned polls, I think I’ll share the results of an interesting one analyzed by G. Elliott Morris in his Substack, Strength in Numbers. “New poll: Democrats’ real problem isn’t being too liberal — it’s being seen as too weak. Americans, including swing voters, see the Republican Party as 20 points more extreme than Democrats — and the Democrats as weak and ineffective. So why would the *Democrats* moderate?”

In our February poll, we asked voters whether each of 10 adjectives describes the Democratic and Republican parties. Each person was asked to rank how well each word — such as “extreme”, “elitist”, “tough”, and “weak” — described both parties on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the word described the party very well.

The Republican Party’s defining traits in voters’ minds are extreme (60% agree), elitist (57%), tough, (56%) and cruel (51%). The percentage of Americans agreeing with descriptions of positive traits is comparatively smaller: just 41% say the party is competent, 41% say principled, and only 31% — less than a third — say the GOP can be considered empathetic.

The average American sees Democrats in a much different light. The top descriptors of the party are empathetic (54%) and principled (49%). Comparatively few people think of it as “tough” (31%), and nearly half the country calls the Democrats weak (48%) and ineffective (47%). Democrats’ competence rating is 46% — five points higher than the GOP’s — but it’s the weakness and ineffectiveness labels that dominate voters’ impressions and national discourse about the party.

The chart above is ordered by the gap between the percentage of Americans who say each descriptor applies to each party — and these gaps are revealing. Democrats lead on empathetic by 23 points (54% versus 31%) and on principled by 8 (49% versus 41%). The GOP leads on exactly one positive trait: toughness (56% versus 31%). That’s it.

Being seen as tough is an advantage in a politics where voters want parties to deliver for them no matter what, but it’s likely not worth being called cruel and elitist. In our poll, Democrats lead the Republicans on the U.S. House generic ballot by 10 percentage points among registered voters. At least in the short term, that’s a worthwhile trade.

But the Democrats’ weakness problem stands out as a particularly strong signal of intra-party dissatisfaction. When we look at how each party’s own identifiers rate their own party, the weakness gap for the Democrats really jumps out. Just 53% of Democrats call their party tough, compared to 80% of Republicans. And 31% of Democrats say their own party is weak — almost three times the 13% of Republicans who say the same about theirs.

On most traits, partisans rate their own party similarly. Democrats and Republicans are within a few points of each other on being competent, principled, and cynical. But on toughness and weakness, Democrats are far more self-critical. That matters electorally: a party whose own base doubts its strength will struggle to turn out its base. And in an era of close elections, that is not a loss a party can afford.

Those results were not much of a surprise to me. Today, it’s Bill Clinton’s turn to testify in the Epstein Investigation. NBC News has live updates on its website. “Trump administration live updates: Bill Clinton testifies in House Jeffrey Epstein probe. Clinton is the first sitting or former president to testify before members of Congress in more than 40 years.” This is reported by Rebecca Shabad.

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, said this morning that Democrats have “real questions that deserve serious answers from former President Clinton” during his closed-door deposition in Chappaqua today.

“We have said from day one that Democrats want to talk to anyone, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat, no matter how powerful they are, whatever position that they’ve been in,” Garcia told reporters ahead of the deposition.

Garcia said that they don’t want to see another “sideshow” today like what happened during Hillary Clinton’s deposition yesterday, in which he said Republicans asked her about UFOs and conspiracy theories.

Because “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify,” Democrats are again demanding that Trump testify before their panel about his relationship with Epstein, Garcia said.

Trump appears in the Epstein files “almost more than anybody else,” Garcia said.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing, and authorities have not accused him of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.

They’re also reporting that lots of Diet Cokes have been brought into the building for the former President. I guess we’ll see what happens.

That’s about all I’m good for today. The entire Epstein show is getting old.  I do have a local source from WDSU, the news station I watch here in New Orleans.  At least a few of these sick, powerful pedophiles are feeling a bit of justice.  “Here’s who has faced fallout from the Epstein files. Since Congress and the Department of Justice released the Epstein files, several high-profile people have been burned by past links to convicted sex-offender.” Please note the word several. I guess that’s a start though.

Several individuals in government, private companies and universities have faced fallout over alleged links to convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The Get the Facts Data Team has created a timeline of reports on individuals who have faced professional or reputational consequences or legal action since Epstein’s arrest in 2019.

Among those who faced professional or reputational consequences were CEOs who resigned or sold their companies, faculty who were suspended and public figures who issued apologies.

You may read the list and the ‘consequences’ at the link.

What’s on your Reading, Action, and Blogging list today?