Bill Clinton reportedly sent Jeffrey Epstein note for birthday album
Last week, the Journal reported that Trump had authored a 'bawdy' letter to Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 after he was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges. The letter was included in an album Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell compiled on the occasion of his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump has sued Rupert Murdoch, two Wall Street Journal newspaper reporters and the newspaper's publisher Dow Jones for libel and slander over the reporting.
In Thursday's article, the Wall Street Journal provided additional details on the album, including names of some of the nearly 50 people who wrote to Epstein. They reportedly include billionaire investor Leon Black, fashion designer Vera Wang, billionaire media owner Mortimer Zuckerman, billionaire former Victoria's Secret owner Les Wexner, attorney Alan Dershowitz, model scout Jean-Luc Brunel and billionaire former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold.
It also includes the British ambassador to the United States and Labour party politician Peter Mandelson in a section titled 'friends'. Epstein's former co-workers, Alan 'Ace' Greenberg and James 'Jimmy' Cayne, who he worked with at the investment firm Bear Stearns in the 1970s, also sent letters.
The New York Times confirmed the Wall Street Journal's reporting on Thursday evening.
'The professionally bound birthday book had multiple volumes and included a table of contents,' the Journal reported.
According to the newspaper, Clinton's note to Epstein read: 'It's reassuring isn't it, to have lasted as long, across all the years of learning and knowing, adventures and [illegible word], and also to have your childlike curiosity, the drive to make a difference and the solace of friends.'
A Clinton spokesperson declined to comment to the Journal, instead referring the paper to a previous statement from the ex-president, saying he had cut ties with Epstein more than a decade before his arrest and was not aware of Epstein's crimes.
Trump's letter to Epstein was far from the only note that was sexual in nature, according to documents the Journal reviewed.
It describes a poem signed by Black that read 'Blonde, Red or Brunette, spread out geographically / With this net of fish, Jeff's now 'The Old Man and The Sea'', and a note from Wexner that included 'a line drawing of what appeared to be a woman's breasts'. Spokespersons for Black and Wexner declined the Journal's request for comment.
A letter from Wang suggested Epstein star on The Bachelor. Wang did not respond to the Journal's requests for comment.
And a note from Myhrvold promised photographs from a recent trip to Africa: 'They seemed more appropriate than anything I could put in words.' The images included 'a monkey screaming, lions and zebras mating, and a zebra with its penis visible', the Journal reported.
A spokesperson for Myhrvold told the Journal the former Microsoft executive did not recall the submission, only knew Epstein as a donor to scientific research, and that he 'regularly shares photos of and writes about animal behavior'.
The letter from Mandelson 'included photos of whiskey and a tropical island', the Journal reported. Mandelson referred to Epstein as 'my best pal' in the note. A spokesperson for Mandelson declined to comment to the Journal.
As for the relationship between Trump and Epstein, the Times found that at least once before, Trump had written Epstein an admiring note.
'To Jeff — You are the greatest!' reads an inscription in a copy of Trump's book Trump: the Art of the Comeback, which belonged to Epstein.
The message, reviewed by the Times, is signed 'Donald' and dated 'Oct 97' – the month the book came out.
The Times also reviewed a previously undisclosed photo of Trump and Epstein with the singer James Brown. It is not clear where the photo was taken. Brown frequently performed in Atlantic City, New Jersey, where Trump owned the Taj Mahal casino.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a few seconds ago
- The Guardian
All the way with Donald J? Albanese's second term will be defined by how he handles the elephant in the room
The 47th parliament of Australia is upon us and, amid the shiny new Labor faces, ashen opposition, bemused independents and solitary Green, there's a giant elephant in the middle of the chamber. The second Albanese government that will lead Australia over the next three years will do so in parallel to the Trump White House. How the PM manages this mammoth task will go a long way to determining his legacy. We know Australians have little love for Trump; the recent election was a clear vote for stability against the chaos of the reactive, populist politics he embodies. But while the people have spoken, turbulence is inevitable when coexisting with such a large and unpredictable beast. This week's Guardian Essential Report suggests that Albanese is hitting the right notes so far; neither kowtowing nor cock-strutting, seeking sober engagement with the US while modelling a more constructive relationship with our largest trading partner, China. Trump's tariff torpedoes have been a first test of Australian resolve and, while the beef over biosecurity was resolved while our poll was in the field, there is still strong appetite for drawing lines around pharmaceuticals, media and tech, all potential battlefields to maintain our democratic sovereignty. But even if Albanese can manage the trade maze and maybe even pare back some of the impost on steel and aluminium, this is just the pointy end of our relationship with the elephant. The trunk is the Aukus defence agreement forged, we should remember, by Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and 'that fella down under', before the 2022 federal election. That deal was to allow Australia to access US-UK nuclear technology delivering long-range submarines as a part of a broader defence integration with the dominant colonial powers of the previous two centuries. In return we pay eye-watering sums of money to retool British ship-making and provide regular (shake) downpayments to the US (we delivered another $800m last week). In opposition, the Labor leadership made the snap decision to back in Aukus, making the totally rational short-term calculation that they did not want to allow an unpopular incumbent to run a drums of war election. But Australians are now shackled to this agreement as it begins to unravel, with growing doubts emerging as to whether it will ever deliver a single submarine and suspicions it is more about expanding the US nuclear footprint in the region. And it's not just the weapons. Aukus will also see the integration of the American model of surveillance technology, designed and delivered by the same overlords and hucksters who have integrated their interests into the US military-industrial complex. The elephant in the room is about more than Trump. US power has been exercised so fully for the last 80 years that Australia's interests have become synonymous (apart from Gough Whitlam's ultimately futile crack at independence in the 1970s). In the name of the alliance, we gratefully accepted US protection in the second world war, cheered them on through the cold war, absorbed American culture and values while turning a blind eye to the overthrow of scores of democratically elected governments from Chile to Iran. But as defence analyst Hugh White argues in his recent Quarterly Essay, the times are a-changing; Biden had already moved to a more isolationist posture and 'in a strange, sad way Trump is doing us a favour' by saying this out loud. 'That makes it even more urgent now for Australia to work out how to make our way, for the first time in our history in an Asia no longer made safe for us by a great and powerful friend,' White writes. Even as Trump dominates our attention, diplomatic separation is occurring in real time with Australia inching, far too slowly, towards more decisive action with other middle powers in recognising the ongoing slaughter and starvation in Gaza. A final question in this week's report suggests voters sense this recalibration is under way, with a significant turnaround in the numbers who see our fortunes more closely tied to China. So how do you eat an elephant? As the great South African freedom leader Bishop Desmond Tutu used to say: 'One bite at a time.' With the US and UK already reviewing the Aukus agreement to see how much more they can squeeze out of us, convening our own review and asking own pointed questions seems to be the least we should do. What are the benefits and costs? Are we seeking (to quote Paul Keating) security in Asia or from Asia? And is it really in our interests to become more fully integrated into the US industrial-military-tech complex? Once we've set those parameters we can confront the more fundamental question about our US relationship: are we a member of the family, a trusted partner, a valued client or just somebody they used to know? Maybe the answer will indeed be 'All the Way with Donald J'; but if so, let's do it with open eyes (and open wallets) and a clear understanding of the opportunities and risks inherent in taking this path. The PM begins his second term with an overwhelming majority and capacity to do great things on energy transition, health services, economic equality and so much more. But until he addresses the elephant in the room the government will never truly be his own. Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential, a progressive strategic communications and research company that undertook research for Labor in the 2025 election and conducts qualitative research for Guardian Australia. He is the host of Per Capita's Burning Platforms podcast
Daily Mail
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mail
Ghislaine Maxwell's request for immunity in exchange for testimony DENIED in stunning twist
Lawmakers have denied Ghislaine Maxwell 's request for congressional immunity in exchange for her testimony, the Daily Mail has learned. Maxwell, the longtime partner of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is currently serving a 20-year-sentence for sex trafficking and has been in talks with the Trump administration and Congress about dishing on the disgraced financier and his relationships. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced last week that Maxwell is set to testify before the panel on August 11 at the Tallahassee facility where she is serving her prison sentence. He issued her a subpoena for her testimony one day after lawmakers voted to have her reveal more about her case and the crimes committed by Epstein. However, after Maxwell's lawyer David Markus sent a document with conditions for her testimony, the committee has said they won't accept them. 'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,' a spokesperson for the panel told the Daily Mail. The letter from Markus to the committee - which was obtained by the Daily Mail - contains a list of conditions for her to testify, including immunity. 'Public reports—including your own statements—indicate that the committee intends to question Ms. Maxwell in prison and without a grant of immunity. Those are non-starters,' the letter states. 'Ms. Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity. Nor is a prison setting conducive to eliciting truthful and complete testimony. The potential for leaks from such a setting creates real security risks and undermines the integrity of the process.' Markus further requests that the committee provide Maxwell with their questions in advance of their sit-down. He also asked to push their meeting until after Maxwell's pending case before the Supreme Court in which she's alleging wrongful legal treatment and until after a subsequent secondary challenge so that her testimony does not sway those cases. Maxwell may want to talk, according to a source who told the Daily Mail last week 'she would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story.' But there were always going to be strings attached to testimony from such a notorious target. The rush to hear from Epstein's protege comes as some lawmakers have raised concern about her protection. 'I requested that she be placed immediately into protective custody and monitored - by guards as well as working surveillance equipment - around the clock, so that our justice system does not again fail the survivors of this Epstein nightmare,' Republican Rep. Scott Perry posted on X. Trump's closest allies and rank-and-file members - including House Oversight Chairman James Comer, Anna Paulina Luna, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene - backed the subpoena for Maxwell. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has met multiple times with Maxwell at the behest of Trump to discuss what she knows about the Epstein files. Blanche offered Maxwell a limited form of immunity during her two days of questioning over former lover and billionaire pedophile Epstein last week. She apparently requested what's known as 'proffer immunity' so that anything she revealed couldn't be used against her at a later date. This form of immunity is specifically provided to people under investigation or facing charges to determine the value of a possible witness. Maxwell has already been tried and convicted. However, Maxwell's lawyer David Oscar Markus said after her questioning: 'There have been no asks and no promises.'
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has no plan for Middle East peace
The Prime Minister's statement to Cabinet included several valuable steps to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He is to be commended for sending food supplies, for delivering them by air drops if necessary, and for offering treatment to Palestinian children with serious medical conditions in the UK. The British public is always generous in such dire circumstances and on this front Sir Keir will have the nation's support. But his promise to recognise a State of Palestine in September unless Israel fulfils a series of improbable conditions is neither realistic nor justifiable. In Jerusalem, Sir Keir's demands will be met with cynicism: they look like an ultimatum addressed only to one side, dictated by the arbitrary deadline of the UN General Assembly. Indeed, the Prime Minister appears to be falling in line with Emmanuel Macron, rather than paying attention to Donald Trump, who has already indicated that he will veto any such recognition of Palestine. There is, moreover, a contradiction at the heart of Sir Keir's strategy. He insists that 'there would be no role for Hamas in future governance', but demands that Israel desist from removing Hamas by force. Yet the West has no leverage over this terrorist organisation and his plan offers no practical way to exclude Hamas from control of Gaza – a key part of the proposed Palestinian state. While Hamas – which began the war with its hideous massacre on October 7 2023 – is let off lightly, Israel is made to bear all the responsibility for bringing it to an end. Yet it takes both sides to end hostilities – and Hamas refuses even to release its hostages, let alone surrender. Israel must acquiesce forthwith in the creation of a potentially hostile neighbouring state, the territories and military status of which are not even vaguely specified by Sir Keir's peace plan. He calls on Hamas to 'disarm', but imposes no such condition on a future Palestinian state. Yet after the shock of October 7, not only the present Israeli government, but any future one would only countenance a two-state solution with a demilitarised Palestine. The Starmer peace plan looks at best a naive bid for a seat at the negotiating table, at worst a calculated attempt to appease Labour's pro-Gaza faction and to stave off the threat of Jeremy Corbyn's new far-Left party. Sir Keir is likely to fail on both fronts. He would have done better to focus on sending aid and steer a cautious, moderate course towards Israel.
