Report: Bill Clinton Flew on Jeffrey Epstein's Jet Without Secret Service Detail

Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.

“Bill Clinton … associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile,” said Conchita Sarnoff, of the Washington, D.C. based non-profit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, and author of an upcoming book on the Epstein case called “TrafficKing.” “Why would a former president associate with a man like that?”
Report: Bill Clinton Flew on Jeffrey Epstein's Jet Without Secret Service Detail

If anyone tries to defend the above, that will tell me all need to know about them.

Why is so much bad news about the Clinton's coming out all at once? Does anyone else think it could be coming to a crescendo?

I watched the film "Street Kings" for the first time recently. The plot is so telling concerning how the world works. The evil powers above will cover up the corruption of those below them, as long as they're useful. When you cease to be useful, that's when you're in trouble.

The scene below is emblematic of how I believe the entire world essentially works.


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Profusion

Do former presidents still get secret service detail?

Not defending it, just curious.

a reply to: Vector99

Yes. As far as I know they get SS detail until their death.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Is it required? And is it common for them to use it? I know i know, I can do the looking myself, but not my thread

Wiki says this

By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection.

Emphasis mine.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Is it required? And is it common for them to use it? I know i know, I can do the looking myself, but not my thread

Wiki says this

By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection.

Emphasis mine.

They are entitled to it, but they are not forced to have it.
I believe point here is that the Secret Service was not welcome on the flights, for obvious reasons.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Profusion

Do former presidents still get secret service detail?

Not defending it, just curious.

Yes they do. They have a guard shack/ building at their McMansion in Chappaqua, NY. (where the servers were) The Clintons charge the Secret Service rent of course, which incidentally covers any mortgage that they might have. So the taxpayer is paying the Clintons mortgage.

Check it out for yourself. Amazing.

a reply to: HUMBLEONE

This is from 2008, so not sure if it's still accurate

Secret Service Payments: It claims that "[t]he Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent" for the quarters used by the Secret Service at the couple’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y. This is false. The Clintons legally would have been entitled to receive $1,100 per month (not $10,000) but refused the money.

link

What I'm wondering the most about this, is how often do the Clinton's actually use their entitlement to secret service protection?

Do they have it on every flight though? They obviously fly privately. I would think bringing the secret service to a party involving prostitution and illicit sex really wouldn't be too much of an issue.

originally posted by: Profusion

fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names,l[/url]

If anyone tries to defend the above, that will tell me all need to know about them.

challenge accepted !!!

do you have better evidence than initials or first names on a manifest ?

a reply to: Profusion

If anyone tries to defend the above, that will tell me all need to know about them.

Oh please, enough with the intimidating - it is an ignorant stance, and you know what we say about ignorance around here. Also, surely the case can stand on its own merits and can survive a critical look, right?

Right?

Well, the trips all took place years before the investigation into the now convicted child abuser, and if I read the Fox article that Breibart sites correctly all but one trip that Clinton attended included up to 10 Secret Service agents.

Call me naive, but I would think that you would not bring Secret Service agents one single time, if you were going to engage in pedophielia.

As to why Clinton would be associated with a man like this?

Well, at the time Epstein's science foundation was on the rise and Clinton, a proponent of science, would have good reason to associate with the man - which, by the way, men such as Larry Krauss and Stephen Hawking also did at the time.

Also remember this was long before the investigation started, and I have to sceptical that "everybody knew", since that makes no sense. Given society's view on child abuse and epsically pedophelia, he likely went to great length to keep it secret, and it did after all take a year long undercover operation to convict him of prostitution from girls as young as 14.

I am not at all defending Epstein - he should have been charged with much more severe crimes, in my opinion - but I think that the above goes to show that it is hard to substantiate the claim that "everybody knew" 15 years ago. Or for that matter that there WAS anything to know at the time. The charge and the conviction deals with later events.

To me there is simply way too little evidence to support the notion that Clinton should have joined Epstein in his crimes to make the allegation. I am not saying that he have not, but it is a very serious accusation, and the Fox article simple is not nearly enough.

All the money Hillary paid for Trolls on the Internet. Is their job also to protect Bill too? It seems to be

a reply to: syrinx high priest

I believe she's actually calling an ex president a pedophile. I guess if you're hated you can be accused of any manner of crimes. Doesn't matter if there's evidence or not.
One thing we do know however is the Bill liked grown women all his life and all of a sudden he's a pedophile? Not only that but by defending him I'm somehow revealing some serious character flaw within myself that the OP will now judge.

a reply to: Profusion

Crescendo? No.

But this story does demonstrate the unbelievable "privilege" of the wealthy and powerful.

I seriously doubt anything will come of it.

a reply to: Sillyolme
Bill certainly didn't "like" grown women, if you go by their word on how he treated them. He simply enjoyed dominating them. I've followed the case, and I imagine Bill would have found billionaires with older tastes, if he truly preferred it.

a reply to: Profusion

This along with Dennis Hastert gives the Franklin Cover up far more legitimacy.

I hope all these scumbags rot in their coming jail cells!

a reply to: SargonThrall

Women who mess around with other women's husbands don't really deserve respect do they?

If I was president and COULDN'T have hookers on a plane... I would be vexed.

Bill is a hound and buddy with the plane probably has good bitches. I dont see anything out of place here.

I dont want to be the guy that walks into a sex-addict meeting and tells them they will never be president. Thats mean.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

This is from 2008, so not sure if it's still accurate

Secret Service Payments: It claims that "[t]he Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent" for the quarters used by the Secret Service at the couple’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y. This is false. The Clintons legally would have been entitled to receive $1,100 per month (not $10,000) but refused the money.

link

What I'm wondering the most about this, is how often do the Clinton's actually use their entitlement to secret service protection?

Do they have it on every flight though? They obviously fly privately. I would think bringing the secret service to a party involving prostitution and illicit sex really wouldn't be too much of an issue.

Is it accurate? Who knows? Do they get a pay off from the Clinton Foundation? Who knows?