Men are known by the company they keep, right? And is it a ‘big deal’ that Clinton may owe favors to a Billionaire Pedophile?
Here’s a picture:
Bill Clinton’s relationship with a billionaire pedophile will be thrust into the spotlight once again in a major book by a bestselling author released just weeks before the presidential election.
The former president will face renewed questions over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, a registered sex offender who was jailed for 13 months in 2008 for soliciting girls for underage prostitution. [emphasis added]
The book, to be published on Monday, the day after Hillary Clinton will face off with Donald Trump in the second presidential debate, will address how Epstein flew Clinton around the world on his private jet to speak about his charitable work.
Titled Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him, and All the Justice that Money Can Buy, the book is written by veteran investigative journalist John Connolly and James Patterson, the best selling author.
Book industry insiders say that the initial print run is 500,000 – they expect it to be a best seller.
Epstein, a former friend of Prince Andrew, may have served just 13 months but dozens of women came forward claiming he abused them at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida.
DailyMail.com has learned that ‘Filthy Rich’ will discuss how Epstein flew Clinton to Africa on his personal Boeing 727 so that the former president could give a talk about AIDS.
…Between 2002 and 2005 Clinton took numerous trips including to Epstein’s Caribbean island Little St James where young girls were supposedly kept as sex slaves.
Clinton was deemed to be so close to Epstein that he was nearly deposed during the investigation into his pedophilia, legal documents have shown.
A phone transcript filed in a lawsuit includes references to ‘favors’ that Clinton owed Epstein.v [emphais added]
Read the rest of the sordid tale at DailyMail
Hillary has spent a lot of time and energy trying to build up a narrative that Trump ‘might’ owe some unspecified favors to some unspecified Russian powerbroker. That’s called ‘innuendo’. Or a ‘whisper campaign’. Or ‘slander’.
Meanwhile, we have phone transcripts referencing FAVORS owed to a billionaire by a family within striking distance of the White House.
If they portrayed the suspicion of an unestablished connection as something that should disqualify Trump… doesn’t an ESTABLISHED connection of ACTUAL favors owed to an ACTUAL person disqualify her?