Listen to the article
Hillary Clinton took the stand Wednesday in a civil case related to Jeffrey Epstein, firmly stating she had no information about the late financier’s sex trafficking operations and could not recall ever meeting him.
The former Secretary of State and presidential candidate testified for approximately 90 minutes behind closed doors at a Manhattan courthouse. The deposition came as part of a defamation lawsuit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre against Clinton’s former aide, Doug Band.
“I have no information about any alleged criminal conduct by Jeffrey Epstein and don’t recall ever meeting him,” Clinton said in a brief statement released by her spokesperson after the deposition. She added that she had cooperated fully with the legal proceedings and answered all questions to the best of her knowledge.
Giuffre, who has become one of the most prominent accusers in the Epstein case, claims Band defamed her when he disputed her assertions about connections between Clinton and Epstein. Her lawsuit contends that Band’s statements damaged her reputation and credibility as a victim advocate.
The case represents yet another legal proceeding stemming from Epstein’s extensive sex trafficking network, which continues to reverberate through legal and political circles years after his 2019 death in federal custody. Epstein, a wealthy financier with connections to numerous high-profile figures, died while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges in what authorities ruled a suicide.
Clinton’s testimony marks a significant moment in the ongoing fallout from the Epstein scandal. While no evidence has emerged linking the former president and first lady to Epstein’s criminal activities, flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled on Epstein’s private jet multiple times. These connections have fueled speculation and conspiracy theories across the political spectrum.
Legal experts note that Clinton’s testimony could have broader implications beyond this specific case. “High-profile testimonies like this often serve multiple purposes in complex litigation networks,” said Rebecca Thompson, a former federal prosecutor specializing in sex trafficking cases. “While Clinton isn’t a defendant, her statements become part of the official record and could potentially influence other Epstein-related proceedings.”
The deposition occurred amid heightened security at the courthouse. A small group of protesters gathered outside, highlighting the enduring public interest in Epstein-related cases and the demand for accountability from those who had connections to him.
Giuffre has previously settled a lawsuit against Prince Andrew, another high-profile figure she accused of sexual abuse through his association with Epstein. That settlement, reportedly worth millions of dollars, came after years of the British royal denying her allegations.
The legal team representing Band declined to comment on Clinton’s testimony, citing the ongoing nature of the proceedings. Band, who served as a close advisor to Bill Clinton for years, has consistently denied Giuffre’s allegations regarding any facilitation or knowledge of improper activities.
Several victims’ rights advocates have emphasized the importance of continuing to pursue Epstein-related cases despite his death. “The victims deserve answers and accountability from everyone in Epstein’s circle, regardless of their status or power,” said Maria Gonzalez of the Survivor Justice Coalition. “Each testimony brings us closer to understanding the full extent of his crimes and who enabled them.”
Court documents indicate the defamation case is expected to continue for several months, with additional high-profile witnesses potentially being called to testify. The judge has implemented strict confidentiality measures regarding much of the testimony, limiting what can be disclosed publicly.
As the case proceeds, it underscores how the Epstein scandal continues to cast a long shadow over American public life, touching political figures, business leaders, and celebrities who had contact with him before his crimes became widely known. For Clinton, the testimony represents an attempt to clearly separate herself from Epstein’s criminal activities while fulfilling her legal obligations in a case that connects, however tangentially, to her political orbit.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
This case seems to raise more questions than answers at this stage. I’ll be interested to see what additional information or evidence emerges as the legal process unfolds.
Clinton’s testimony seems fairly straightforward – she claims no knowledge of Epstein’s activities. However, given the seriousness of the allegations, I hope the investigation leaves no stone unturned in seeking the full truth.
You raise a fair point. Even if Clinton is found to have no direct involvement, there may still be questions around what she knew or should have known about Epstein’s misdeeds.
This case highlights the complex web of relationships and potential conflicts of interest in high-level political circles. I hope the legal process can cut through the noise and provide clarity, wherever the evidence leads.
It’s troubling to see these types of allegations leveled against prominent public figures. While Clinton denies any knowledge, the public deserves a thorough, impartial investigation to determine the facts.
I agree, the truth is what matters most here, regardless of political affiliations or high-profile status. A fair and comprehensive investigation is essential.
This is a very complex case with many conflicting accounts. It’s important to hear from all parties and let the facts speak for themselves. I’m curious to see what other evidence may emerge as the investigation continues.
I agree, the details around Epstein’s crimes and connections are still murky. Thorough investigation is crucial to uncover the truth, regardless of political affiliations.