The stature that comes with occupying
(and even having occupied) public office, whether elected or appointed and
especially if high office, combined with the ability to attract the attention
of the media such that the (former) official’s statements have the credibility
of pronouncements, and thus of being true rather than false statements, is
rarely examined for what the stature and societal “mouth-piece” imply (i.e.,
veracity). A very high former elected representative who has even admitted lying
under oath in a court proceeding back while in office can very easily be assumed
decades later to be making a true statement by the public even though that
statement is practically identical to the statement known (and admitted) to have
been false. Even published photos that are strong evidence that the second
statement is false can be dismissed by a public too liable to being beguiled by
clever political birds of prey. I have in mind here the twin statements of Bill
Clinton, who was the U.S. President for two terms in the 1990s and went on to
associate with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous head of the child-prostitute sex-ring,
and at least one of his paid girls.
At least three compromising
photos of Clinton with girls in close proximity were released by the FBI to my knowledge
in 2026. In one photo, Clinton is situated between Maxwell, who was Epstein’s accomplice,
and an under-aged girl in an indoor pool at a resort (not in the U.S.). Maxwell
would later be convicted (and imprisoned) for her role in arranging girls for Epstein’s
clients. In another photo, Clinton is sitting in a hot-tub with an underaged
girl. In a third photo, he is seated with one arm (and hand) low around the
waist of a girl in what appears to be Epstein’s private jet. To be sure, even though
the positioning of Clinton’s arm (and his hand) low around the girl’s waist
connotes sexual rather than paternal interest, and that a girl is with Clinton
in the hot-tub photo (and the pool photo) are together highly suggestive, none
of those photos is evidence that Clinton raped (i.e., had sex with) one or more
of Epstein’s girls. Moreover, anyone accused of a crime is assumed to be
innocent in any of the United States unless or until the accused is convicted
in a court of law of having broken a law.
Even though the arm being around
a girl’s waist and being in a pool with an under-aged girl and an adult whom we
can now say definitely arranged Epstein’s girls for sex may bring to mind the old
phrase, “where there is smoke, there is fire,” I bring up the matter of the
photos merely as context to show just how misguided it was for the American public
to assume that Clinton was testifying honestly before a Congressional
committee in 2026 on his relationships with Epstein and the child-prostitutes.
That Clinton was recognizable (i.e., fame) and had political stature as a
former U.S. president are not sufficient for the default-assumption to be that
even what he has said under oath is truthful rather than mendacious. This is
the idea.
Asked under oath while
testifying before a Congressional committee if he had had “sexual relations”
with the woman in the hot-tub photo, Clinton answered, “No.”[1]
Even if the photos make his answer difficult to believe, that he also “denied
knowledge of Epstein’s crimes” may be so incredulous that a person could reasonably
toss out all of Clinton’s testimony for being deceitful throughout.[2]
It is possible that he rationalized lying because, as he had claimed, he believed
that the Congressional subpoena, which he had unlawfully ignored, had
been politically motivated. Because
Clinton claimed to have been unaware of Epstein’s business (i.e., prostituting
girls to the rich and/or famous) in spite of spending leisure time with the
criminal and his accomplice, and because Clinton knowingly violated the
law by ignoring a Congressional subpoena, a rational basis can be laid for leaning
at the very least toward concluding that Clinton lied under oath about having
committed statutory rape.
Clinton being asked whether he
had had sexual relations with a child-prostitute ought to ring a bell
for anyone who was following U.S. politics toward the end of Clinton’s time in
the White House. Back in January, 2001, the media reported that in “an 11-hour
deal to avoid criminal charges over his sex-and-lies fling with Monica
Lewinsky, President Clinton . . . admitted ‘knowingly’ lying under oath.”[3]
Clinton had to surrender his Arkansas law license and pay a $25,000 fine. Stating,
“certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,” on his
last day in office, Clinton was referring to his responses made under oath in
a deposition to questions including, “Did you have sexual relations”
with Lewinsky? His answer under oath was a perjurious “No.” Sound familiar? Why
would anyone lend any credence to Clinton’s answer to the same question decades
later in regard to a child-prostitute? Why would his answer be reported as
though his earlier answer to the same question in regard to another woman were truthful?
I contend that a person who
has admitted to having lied, under oath, in answering a question of having had inappropriate
sexual relations (with an intern) and is asked the same exact question (regarding
a child-prostitute) should at the very least be viewed as questionable
in terms of whether his second answer can be believed to be true. At the very
least, the media should have inserted a footnote to remind readers that Clinton
had lied, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” in speaking to the
American people about Lewinsky’s “oral” contact with Clinton in the Oval Office.
To the extent that the American public’s reaction to reports of Clinton’s
Congressional testimony in 2026 was muted rather than publicly raising the
obvious point that especially on the matter of sexual relations, Clinton was
not to be believed, the undue credit that is implied or inherent in holding (or
having held) public office and having a mouthpiece in the established, “main-stream”
media can be surmised and judged to be problematic in themselves.
Societal credibility enjoys
a certain default that, even if dislodged once as in the case of Clinton, can exist
without any real foundation based in the character of the office-holder
celebrities. This is not to say that if
they are caught “red-handed,” such as U.S. President Nixon was, and members of
Congress have been more commonly, societal credibility can be difficult to
regain. My point is that the public tends to swallow too easily that which
should at the very least be held as suspect in terms of veracity. That Clinton
lied under oath and to the American people about having had sexual relations
with Lewinsky in the 1990s should have registered on the media’s radar screen
and in popular reaction to Clinton’s answer, again under oath, to the same
question, to Congress in 2026. An old dog can indeed learn new tricks, but personal
ethical development should not be assumed as if the proverbial dog had not
done the old, sordid deed once already.
