Would expect nothing different

Jack Smith Accused of Concealing Evidence, Colluding With Biden Admin

 Story by Claire O'Hare    • 19h... State Of The Union  

Donald Trump’s lawyers alleged that special counsel Jack Smith concealed evidence of collaboration with the Biden administration in the case concerning Trump’s handling of classified documents.

They claim that redacted documents from a FOIA request reveal politically motivated efforts by operatives in the Biden administration and the National Archives and Records Administration to push the investigation.

Trump’s lawyers claimed there are “politically motivated operatives in the Biden administration and the National Archives and Records Administration.”

The former president’s lawyers said all evidence “should have been disclosed by the [special counsel’s] Office, in unredacted form, at the outset of the case.”

“The Special Counsel’s Office has disregarded basic discovery obligations and DOJ policies in an effort to support the Biden administration’s egregious efforts to weaponize the criminal justice system in pursuit of an objective that President Biden cannot achieve on the campaign trail: slowing down President Trump’s leading campaign in the 2024 presidential election,” Trump’s lawyers argued.

Trump’s lawyers argue that the special counsel’s office disregarded discovery obligations and DOJ policies to support Biden’s alleged efforts to hinder Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

READ HERE

JUST IN: Trump Attorneys File “Bombshell” Motion to EXPOSE Biden’s Collusion With Jack Smith   by Kaley 4 hours ago4 hours ago

President Trump’s lawyers have just filed a ‘bombshell’ motion that seeks to uncover suspected collusion between the Biden White House and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution team.

The motion would compel the discovery of documents that could expose an alleged cover-up scheme by the federal government.

“These revelations are disturbing but not surprising,” Trump’s legal team states in the official filing.

President Donald Trump’s legal team has filed a motion to compel the discovery of documents that allegedly expose collusion at the upper echelons of the federal government.
Trump’s attorneys filed the “bombshell” motion to uncover a potential cover-up between Special Counsel Jack…

— TheTexasOne (@TexasRepublic71) January 17, 2024

The motion filing was originally reported by Real Clear Investigations reporter Julie Kelly on Tuesday evening.

Check it out:

Joined by attorneys representing his 2 co-defendants, Team Trump again asks for records related to Biden’s DOE attempting to retroactively remove Trump’s security clearance AFTER Smith’s indictment. pic.twitter.com/5et1iNheaY

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) January 17, 2024

Oh and the little story about how the totally not political archivists found classified files in the 15 boxes Trump turned over to NARA and send criminal referral to FBI?

Ya that isn’t true, either. In the works for months beforehand btw Biden WH and NARA… pic.twitter.com/DHjmxs81iF

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) January 17, 2024

Slay News has more details on the motion filing and context surrounding it:

READ MORE

Sometimes you can get answers,you just have to ask the RIGHT people !!

Former Navy SEAL: Trump was right every time  14 hours ago Fox News

Former FBI agent and Navy SEAL Jonathan Gilliam weighs in on the Biden administration's foreign policy and how two Navy SEALs went missing after a covert mission on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.'

Does anyone REALLY think the demoRats will try to rig the upcoming election? Don't you think ALL eyes will be on this one. EVERYWHERE !!

Biden Wins the GOP Iowa Caucus

Opinion by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr19h The Wall Street Journal

The Iowa GOP held its first-in-the-nation caucus on Monday and you know the result: an unprecedentedly large win for the man Joe Biden said he would be “very fortunate” to have for his 2024 opponent. I guess this makes Mr. Biden a winner too.

Here are some dates to add to your 2024 election timeline: May 23, 2022, and Nov. 18, 2022. On these days, an outside ringer hired by a Georgia prosecutor to help with her election case against Mr. Trump met with the Biden White House, according to newly released billing records.

The first meeting came 59 days after Mr. Biden’s unprecedented comments instructing the opposing party who he wanted for his 2024 opponent. It came 51 days after the White House leaked the president’s demand that his own attorney general stop acting like a “ponderous judge” and indict Mr. Trump.

READ ON)

maybe not legally but ethically, Stormy Daniels violated her contract by TAKING the money then SPEAKING OUT anyhow.

So, let me see if I've got this right.....SUPPOSEDLY, Trump paid Stormy Daniels "hush money" to SHUT HER UP! So he is being investigated and charged for doing that by the NY Grand jury.  AND He is currently in court after being sued by E. Jean Carroll for sexual assault and is being forced by the court to "Pay her "hush money" to SHUT HER UP (for the 2nd time) Which sounds to  me like Double Jeapardy....All because he still insists that he didn't do it, doesn't even know her.....

The New York hush-money probe of Donald Trump explained

BY MICHAEL R. SISAK, March 10, 2023 AP News

NEW YORK (AP) — In the final weeks of the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump’s lawyer tried to buy the silence of a porn actress who said she had a sexual encounter with the Republican during his days as a reality TV star.

More than six years later, New York prosecutors appear to be close to deciding whether Trump should face charges in connection with that payoff, in what could become the first criminal case ever brought against a former president.

Thursday’s news that the Manhattan district attorney invited Trump to testify before a grand jury next week suggested prosecutors were serious about bringing charges in a probe that looked like yesterday’s news just a few months ago.

Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, now a key prosecution witness, is scheduled to testify before the grand jury on Monday, according to two people familiar with the matter. The people were not authorized to speak publicly about grand jury proceedings and did so on condition of anonymity.

READ HERE

This reeks loudly of "DOUBLE JEAPARDY". What now?? Every time he utters her name, it's back to court for more money?????

Donald Trump Judge's Unusual Instructions to Jury Raise Eyebrows

Story by Kate Plummer • 3h Newsweek

A decision by the judge in Donald Trump's E. Jean Carroll case to make jurors in the case remain anonymous has caught the attention of commentators.

Jury selection has started in the former president's second defamation trial in New York.

In May 2023 Carroll, a journalist, was awarded $5 million in damages in May following a ruling that Trump had sexually assaulted her and was civilly liable for defamation.

Carroll's lawyers are seeking another $10 million in compensatory damages and "substantially more" after the former president continued to deny the accusations that he assaulted her in a New York City department store changing room in the mid-1990s, claiming he has no idea who she is and that Carroll was not his "type." Trump also called Carroll's account "fake" and labeled her a "whack job" during a CNN town hall broadcast. In early September, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Trump's comments against Carroll were defamatory.

Judge Kaplan said Trump will face an anonymous nine-person jury, with the names, addresses and places of employment of prospective jurors kept secret, saying he found "strong reason" to provide special protections for jurors at the civil trial.

He cited the Republican criticizing Carroll in public and the "extensive media coverage" of her case as well, as his conduct in New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud lawsuit against him, where Trump has been fined twice for violating a gag order with comments about his clerk.

READ MORE

Bombshell Hits Trump's Georgia Trial as Jim Jordan Opens House Investigation: 'Politically Motivated ... Misuse of Federal Funds'
What's happening at the Fulton County DA's office is now being brought to light
By Jack Gist January 13, 2024 THE WESTERN LOURNAL

Politically coordinated hit jobs aren’t just the stuff of movies and television shows. These days the news cycles are filled with rumors and denials about progressives coordinating attacks on former President Donald Trump to prevent him from running for president in 2024.

Politicians have agendas, and they’ll do anything to achieve them. It’s only natural that progressive politicians — with their beehive mentality — coordinate their efforts.

In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has long been suspected of trumping up charges against Trump. GOP House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has suspected as much from the get-go. Jordan is like a bloodhound trained to sniff out the truth. Once he catches the scent, getting him off the trail is almost impossible.

Jordan’s never left the trail of Fani Willis.

On Tuesday, Jordan sent a letter to Nathan Wade, an associate of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, “demanding documents and information about the coordination of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office (FCDAO) with other politically motivated investigations and the potential misuse of federal funds,” according to a news release from the Judiciary Committee.

“Although Fani Willis has so far refused to cooperate with the Committee’s oversight, invoices that Nathan Wade submitted for payment by the FCDAO, and made public as part of a court filing, highlight this collusion.”

READ MORE

Copied this from R** Sc*****z facebook page...He's a cousin

GOVERNMENT

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine

Government, in theory, is supposed to serve those it governs, yet it ALWAYS, if left unchecked, ends up becoming the master of those it was created to serve.

Government rarely begins in a full-blown tyranny; the tyranny creeps up incrementally; like a predator stalking its prey. It gives the people time to become accustomed to being governed before it takes its first steps towards tyranny; responding to crises; either real or imagined, to increase its powers.

It then sits back and watches; to see if what it has done has arisen the suspicions of the governed. If it has, then it patiently waits and tries again later. If it hasn’t, then it repeats the process; growing ever bigger, ever stronger, until the time arrives that its power cannot be resisted without a full-blown revolution.

One of the greatest threats to tyranny is the individual, and the absolute greatest threat to tyrants is a society filled with free-thinking individuals.
A free-thinking individual is one who takes the information presented to them, and then examines it to see if it conforms to reality; to fact. An indoctrinated individual takes that information, and accepts it as truth without question.

America is filled with the latter; people who are so thoroughly programmed they will react negatively in response to anyone who threatens what they have been programmed to believe; their minds are simply not capable of dealing with facts; with the truth.

The best government, if there is such a thing, is one whose powers are narrowly limited to a few specific functions; functions that serve to defend and protect every member of society equally; such as providing for the defense of the nation.

The moment you introduce the idea that the powers of government can be used to benefit one class, or one group, of people, then the people will divide themselves into factions (political parties) who seek to use the power of government to benefit themselves; before the other factions can gain control of the system to benefit themselves.

Lysander Spooner spoke of this in 1870, stating, “…it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave.”
Br'er Rabbit

“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries
BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”
Thomas Paine

Did You Notice What's Wrong With the Biden White House's MLK Day Tweet?  Spencer Brown January 15, 2024 1:00 PM

President Joe Biden's connection to reality and truth has been tenuous at best...for years. His habit of lying about events in his own life — a disastrous kitchen fire, growing up in the Puerto Rican community, starting the civil rights movement at a black church in Delaware, etc. — in order to pander to his audiences has earned him a mountain of Pinocchios from the Washington Post.

Now, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the White House is taking up Biden's habit of telling untruths with a post about MLK. More specifically a bust of the civil rights leader, featured in a post on social media from the White House, that's just another attempt at making stuff up in an attempt to signal virtue and score political points.

"Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s bust sits inside the Oval Office — handpicked by President Biden — as a reflection of President Biden's promise to America: to restore the soul of America, to rebuild this country from the bottom up and the middle out, and to unite it," reads the White House's caption on social media outlets including X and Instagram.

READ MORE

What was the cause of the "Civil War" ??

What Was the War About?By H.V. Traywick, Jr.December 11, 202   LINK----What Was the War About? – Abbeville Institute

Names tell a lot, and that conflict had many names. The one that seems to have stuck is “The Civil War.” But is this an accurate description? Civil wars by definition are wars waged between two or more factions within a country struggling for control of the government (1). But Robert E. Lee was not fighting to take over the government of Abraham Lincoln any more than George

Washington was fighting to take over the government of George III. Quite to the contrary, both were fighting to get out from under those governments, and Lincoln and George III were fighting to prevent them from doing so. Why?

Did the North wage war against the South because the South fired the first shot? South Carolina – with far more provocation (2) – did no more than Massachusetts did when she seceded from the British Empire and fired on the British troops at Lexington and Concord.

Did the North wage war against the South to preserve democracy? Notwithstanding Lincoln’s stirring rhetoric in his Gettysburg Address (3), government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” did not “perish from the earth” when the Southern States withdrew from the Union. It perished when they were driven back into it at the point of the bayonet. Furthermore, while Lincoln was issuing this stirring address, his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus had been in effect for ten months (4) and up to 38,000 of his critics and political enemies had been languishing in his dungeons without trial from one end of his domain to the other (5). At home, opposition printing presses had been destroyed by Mr. Lincoln’s Army and editors threatened with death, while Lincoln was conducting total war against a Southern people who only wished to be let alone, and whose attempt to peacefully withdraw from a voluntary Union would not have in any way prevented the North from having all the democracy it desired.

We are very often told the War was fought over slavery. “Just look at the Ordinances of Secession,” we are told. “They had slavery written all over them.” A little research will show that this generality did not apply to all of them – such as Virginia’s. But even if it did, so what? The Ordinances of Secession were not Declarations of War. They were Declarations of Independence. However, one will notice that this is never mentioned in the National narratives, because it would directly repudiate the National legacy of the Declaration of Independence that the thirteen slaveholding (6) colonies signed in 1776. So to cloud the issue, the contention that slavery caused the war is emphatically and always implied – but never explained! Lincoln himself could not even explain it. In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln said of slavery:

“All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.” (7)

Let us take another look at this. “All knew,” Lincoln claims, that “somehow” slavery was the cause of the war. We see here in Lincoln not some infallible Oracle of Truth, but merely an obfuscating lawyer arguing his case by pointedly ignoring the question of “How?” – the very question whose answer was fundamental to his accusation.

The fallacies of Lincoln’s accusations are readily apparent. The Southern States – far from withdrawing from the Union in order to expand the territorial limits of slavery – essentially gave up their claims to the territories rather than live under a Northern despotism, and thereby restricted their avenues for the expansion slavery! This not only brought about what Lincoln said was the Federal Government’s sole object – to restrict slavery’s expansion – it went most of the way towards peacefully removing slavery from the United States altogether! As for rending the Union, “even by war,” I would ask: Who rebuffed Southern diplomatic overtures of peace from December 1860 to April 1861? Whose garrison committed the first act of war by spiking the guns at Ft. Moultrie and slipping into Ft. Sumter in the dark of night in direct violation of the truce then in effect? And who deceived the South diplomatically until he could send a powerfully armed armada to Charleston to provoke the South into firing the first shot?

If the North was fighting a Crusade of Liberation, why didn’t she wage war on New York and Boston, the largest African Slave-trading ports in the world in 1861 (8)? Or on Africa herself and her slave-raiders – such as the Kingdom of Dahomey – the largest exporters of African slaves in the world (9)? Or on New England and her manufacturing profits gleaned from slave-picked cotton, and from rum manufactured from slave-harvested sugar cane and distilled for trading along the African coast for more slaves (10)? Why? Because slavery was not the issue of the “Irrepressible Conflict,” as William Seward contended (11). The “Irrepressible Conflict” was between the “opposing and enduring forces” of an agrarian economy and an industrial economy. The respective labor systems of the antagonists were just as irrelevant in this conflict as in any other war of conquest.

Why did Northerners abolish slavery in the first place? Was it because of their superior morality? Or was it because in an industrialized economy a free-labor system is more profitable to an employer than a slave-labor system? Adam Smith – in his classic treatise on economics entitled The Wealth of Nations – explained it all in 1776 and set the Abolition ball rolling (12). And if abolishing slavery in their States was because of the Northerners’ superior morality, why did they first sell their slaves “down the river” before the abolition laws went into effect? Did they wish merely to rid themselves of a troublesome and unprofitable labor system, or to rid themselves of their African population as well? Alexis de Tocqueville makes some interesting observations on this in his classic work, Democracy in America (13).

But did the North in fact abolish slavery? Or did she merely transform it into something a little more discreet and a lot more profitable? Slavery is as old as Egypt, and the Preacher tells us there is no new thing under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). If the borrower is the servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7), then some of us have voluntarily sold ourselves into indentured servitude to our mortgage bankers, but our children have been sold into involuntary servitude with a thirty-four trillion dollar national debt. And when did this happen? It was all inaugurated during Reconstruction. Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor, CSA, son of President Zachary Taylor, described the carpetbagger as being worse than Attila the Hun, for Attila could only steal existing wealth, while the carpetbaggers stole the labor of unborn children with their invention of public credit (14). And they are still waxing fat on the backs of our enslaved children.

No, the North was not fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln said so himself. He specifically stated that he was fighting to save the Union (15). What he neglected to add, however, was that he was fighting to save the Union for Northern financial and industrial interests! And what were some of these interests? The industrializing North, with her sectional majority, was rapidly gaining control of the Federal Government and wielding it to accomplish her political ambitions to centralize its power, and use her control of that power to accomplish her industrial ambitions for high protective tariffs, bounties for transcontinental railroads, and the creation of national banks to manage it all, all at the South’s expense, turning the Southern States into her agricultural colonies – of the sort that England had earlier created with her thirteen Colonies. With the election of Lincoln and the triumph of his strictly Northern sectional party, the Cotton States saw it all coming and got out from under the North’s control once and for all.

So what was the War all about? Quite simply, it was the North’s war against the South’s secession. Secession is an Imperialist’s worst nightmare. When the thirteen Colonies rebelled against England’s economic exploitation by seceding from the Empire, England sent in the Redcoats. When the Southern States rebelled against Yankee economic exploitation by seceding from the Union, the Yankees sent in the Bluecoats.

With the secession of the Southern States, the North lost her largest source of tariff revenues, her source of cotton for her mills, a large portion of her markets for her manufactured goods, and control of the mouth of the Mississippi. If the South were to be allowed to leave the Union and get out from under the control of the North and her sectional majorities, the Northern economy would wither on the vine (16).

So the North provoked the South into firing the first shot, blockaded the Confederate coasts, and marched her armies across the South to the tune of the Puritanical and militantly intolerant Battle Hymn of the Republic – burning and pillaging and raping and killing – until she drove the Southern States back into the Union. Then – by the Reconstruction Acts that dis-franchised Southern intelligence and enfranchised Southern ignorance under the control of unscrupulous and predatory Northern carpetbaggers and demagogues propped up by Federal bayonets – the North passed Amendments that effectively gutted the Constitution of its federative nature, and put the Federal Government under her unlimited control (17). With the stumbling blocks of the South and the Constitution finally out of the way of her ambitions, the North then sent Sherman, Sheridan and Custer out to the Great Plains to tend to the Indians, who were in the way of her transcontinental railroads. (The South’s accounts of these genocidal incendiaries are underscored ten-fold by the Indians’ subsequent accounts in Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (18).) But this doesn’t look too good on the pages of a fourth grade history book or in a National Park Service film presentation, so the North’s war of conquest must be cloaked in robes of morality and turned into a war of liberation. To the victor belong the spoils, and the “Official History Book” – written by “Court Historians,” taught in public schools, and romanticized endlessly on the TV and movie screens – is one of the spoils of war.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the South has been made the nation’s foil, the scapegoat, the traitor, the guilty one, fighting not to defend herself from invasion, conquest, and coerced political allegiance, but fighting to defend slavery. And it should come as no surprise that the North has been made the righteous one, the “good guys,” fighting not a war of imperialism and conquest, but fighting a noble war of liberation under the tragic benevolence of “Father Abraham.” But the truth is that when Abraham Lincoln got the war he wanted, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, secured for himself dictatorial powers, and – with the collaboration of his political party – implemented the very usurpation that the Founders had struggled to prevent.

With the possibility of secession and nullification destroyed by force of arms in 1865, the States – who created the Federal Government in the first place (19) – are no longer the final arbiters of the limits of Federal power granted by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is. But the Supreme Court is part of the Federal Government. Therefore the Federal Government is the final arbiter of the limits of its own power – and that is the very definition of despotism. This, then – the exact opposite of Emancipation – is the true legacy of Abraham Lincoln and his War to Prevent Southern Independence. The Confederacy – the last remnant of the Republic of sovereign States bequeathed us by the Revolutionary Founders – was the American Empire’s first conquest.

 

 - Somebody Alert Al Gore.- 

Global warming is about to freeze us to death!

 

Absolutely bananas': Ashley St Clair blasts Biden’s 'plan to allow non-citizens to vote in elections'   Story by Gabrielle Wilde  • 1d G B NEWS

Ashley St Clair has blasted US President Joe Biden's "plan to allow non-citizens to vote in elections" as "absolutely bananas" in a chat with GB America.

The journalist and broadcaster spoke to Mark Dolan about the migrant crisis in the US after it was revealed that more than two million people crossed the US-Mexico border in 2023.

Biden has previously said he "cannot stop" migrants crossing into the United States, but requires all those who wish to enter "to do so under US law".

Speaking to Mark Dolan, Ashley said: "If you look at the record of Donald Trump, this is very administration specific.

Ashley St Clair© GB News (CA)

"We did not see this issue this severe under either Obama or President Trump. As most people know, President Trump has a very hard-line stance on immigration, as he should in my opinion.

"This is still at the forefront of his policy for his 2024 run. Most candidates care about this.

"But for some reason, the Biden administration seems to be wanting to import these people who, on record and on-camera, have said they love Joe Biden and they would vote for Joe Biden.

"We have bills all across the United States attempting to be passed. One was passed here in New York and then struck down by a higher court to allow noncitizens to vote in our local elections.

"There are some areas where they're trying to pass bills to allow them to vote in federal elections. It is absolutely bananas."

US Customs and Border Protection said they will continue to prioritize border security "as necessary".

St Clair said of the impact on the November 5 election: "This is the top issue for the Republicans in America. I don't know if I'm hopeful that they're going to do anything substantial.

"We need to hold the Biden administration accountable because this is a very administration-specific issue. They are allowing anybody who comes here and claims asylum to stay here."

St Clair also revealed that some asylum seekers are being given court dates for their claims dating forward to 2030 and later.

Sharing her thoughts on the efforts of border security, St Clair said: "We do not have the infrastructure for this.

If you go down to any of the border states or what they call sanctuary cities here now, like New York City, they are completely overwhelmed.

"Our hospitals are overwhelmed. They are now using high schools to house illegal migrants who come here because there's nowhere else to put them."

Clinton Library Deletes Post Asking People To Guess Who Ex-POTUS Sent His First Email To: ‘Jeffrey Epstein?’
ByJoseph Ellis Published5 days ago

The Clinton Presidential Center faced social media mockery after a post commemorating World Typing Day led to an onslaught of responses linking Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein.

The post was eventually deleted.

This incident coincided with newly-unsealed documents from Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit, in which Epstein’s associate mentioned Clinton. (Trending: Fox News Star Accused Of Major Scandal)

Julio Rosas

@Julio_Rosas11S

The Clinton Presidential Center just deleted this post:

“On November 7, 1998, Pres. @BillClinton typed out and sent his first-ever email! Can you guess who it was to?” wrote Clinton on X.

“#WorldTypingDay,” celebrated the former president.

During an interview with Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, Johanna Sjoberg said, “I knew he [Epstein] had dealings with Bill Clinton.”

“I did not know they were friends until I read the Vanity Fair article about them going to Africa together,” she continued.

“Did Jeffrey ever talk to you about Bill Clinton?” asked McCawley.

“He said one time that Clinton likes them young, referring to girls,” replied Sjoberg.

The former president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.

Nonetheless, a motion by Giuffre to depose further witnesses justified calling Clinton due to his “close personal relationship” with Epstein.

Clinton’s spokesperson denied a close personal relationship, citing a lack of contact in the past 20 years.

Clinton was among the names unsealed in documents related to Epstein, who had died in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking.