Bill Clinton “threatened” a prominent magazine and told staff not to publish articles about Jeffrey Epstein, newly unsealed court documents suggest.
The claim is made in an email that was written by Virginia Giuffre – Epstein’s first public accuser – in 2011.
In the message to a journalist, Ms Giuffre alleges that the former US president had walked into the offices of Vanity Fair, and said stories about his “good friend” should not be written.
Graydon Carter, a former Vanity Fair editor, told The Daily Telegraph: “This categorically did not happen.”
Ms Giuffre was preparing to release a new book at the time – and describes being worried about what the magazine might publish about her.
Mr Clinton is among several high-profile figures who have been named in court filings relating to Ghislaine Maxwell, her relationship with Epstein and alleged victims of sexual abuse.
More on Bill Clinton
Related Topics:
In documents released on Wednesday, it was claimed that Epstein had said Clinton “likes them young, referring to girls”.
Back in 2019, a spokesperson for the former president said he had “not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade” and “knows nothing about the terrible crimes”.
Advertisement
There is no indication of any wrongdoing by Mr Clinton, and Sky News has contacted his foundation for a response to the latest court documents.
Epstein – a disgraced financier – had been accused of abusing underage girls as young as 14. In 2019, he killed himself in prison as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges.
Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being convicted of helping recruit and groom teenagers for Epstein to molest.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:44
Prince Andrew named in court files
Prince Andrew reported to police
Allegations of sexual assault made against the Duke of York have also re-emerged in the unsealed court documents.
Republic, a pressure group calling for the abolition of the monarchy, has reported Prince Andrew to the police after the filings were made public.
The group’s chief executive, Graham Smith, is urging the Met to reopen its investigations – and has called on the King to make a public statement on the matter.
Mr Smith said: “To date, there appears to have been no serious criminal investigation, no interview of the accused or other witnesses, and no clear justification for taking no action.”
There will be sleepless nights for some wealthy and high-profile individuals
When Judge Loretta Preska ruled that these documents, relating to the many crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, be unsealed, she said it was because there is a public interest in doing so.
But she also said it was because much of the information contained within them, and many of the names of Epstein’s associates, were already in the public domain. That has proven to be accurate.
Social media has been alive with chatter about a list of Epstein “clients” or co-conspirators being released imminently and conspiracy theories about celebrity paedophiles. But, as with the first tranche of documents, there was no bombshell revelation to be found anywhere in these 327 pages.
There were no allegations of new third parties being involved in sexual abuse. The documents included 19 different exhibits, from legal arguments to depositions recounting alleged crimes. The details were mostly already known because of how extensive the reporting around Epstein’s offending has been and years of evidence and testimony contained in connected criminal and civil cases.
Nevertheless, there are fascinating nuggets to be found among them about the circles Epstein moved in. Epstein allegedly boasted about his association with two former presidents, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. Both men are mentioned numerous times in the documents but neither is accused of any wrongdoing.
About 240 files are expected to be unsealed in total so this gradual release, day by day, could last well into next week. Judge Preska is also weighing arguments from additional Does who are seeking to have their names withheld from future disclosures.
Even though many of those named in the documents are not accused of wrongdoing, there will still be a lot of sleepless nights for some wealthy and high-profile individuals, sweating over what is contained on these pages.
Prince Andrew has strenuously denied the allegations against him in the past.
In 2022, he settled a civil case out of court with Virginia Giuffre after she claimed she was sexually assaulted by the prince when she was 17 years old.
That settlement, which was reported to be as much as £12m, carried no admission of guilt.
Buckingham Palace, which no longer speaks on behalf of the duke after he stepped down as a working royal in 2019 over his friendship with Epstein, has not commented on the documents.
Among the unsealed filings was evidence given by Johanna Sjoberg, who had worked for Epstein as a masseuse.
She alleged that Prince Andrew had touched her breast while sitting on a couch inside Epstein’s Manhattan apartment in 2001.
In other court documents, Ms Giuffre alleges she was sex trafficked to the duke and “two of the world’s most respected politicians” – but their names remain redacted.
Another filing shows that Ghislaine Maxwell claimed a journalist helped “concoct” the allegations against Prince Andrew and knew them to be “false”.
More documents to emerge
The court documents being unsealed relate to a 2015 civil lawsuit filed by Ms Giuffre against Maxwell, who was Epstein’s former girlfriend and household manager.
Ms Giuffre was suing Maxwell for defamation after her spokesperson issued a statement describing her allegations as “obvious lies”.
In December, New York district judge Loretta Preska ruled papers related to the case should no longer remain secret as many of the individuals mentioned have already given media interviews.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:11
Who is Ghislaine Maxwell?
About 60 documents have been released so far, and approximately 190 more are set to enter the public domain in the coming days.
Dozens of Epstein’s associates are being named as a result, although many of them are not accused of wrongdoing.
Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz are among those referred to in the filings.
The UK economy grew by 0.1% between July and September, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
However, despite the small positive GDP growth recorded in the third quarter, the economy shrank by 0.1% in September, dragging down overall growth for the quarter.
The growth was also slower than what had been expected by experts and a drop from the 0.5% growth between April and June, the ONS said.
Economists polled by Reuters and the Bank of England had forecast an expansion of 0.2%, slowing from the rapid growth seen over the first half of 2024 when the economy was rebounding from last year’s shallow recession.
And the metric that Labour has said it is most focused on – the GDP per capita, or the economic output divided by the number of people in the country – also fell by 0.1%.
Reacting to the figures, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said: “Improving economic growth is at the heart of everything I am seeking to achieve, which is why I am not satisfied with these numbers.
“At my budget, I took the difficult choices to fix the foundations and stabilise our public finances.
“Now we are going to deliver growth through investment and reform to create more jobs and more money in people’s pockets, get the NHS back on its feet, rebuild Britain and secure our borders in a decade of national renewal,” Ms Reeves added.
The sluggish services sector – which makes up the bulk of the British economy – was a particular drag on growth over the past three months. It expanded by 0.1%, cancelling out the 0.8% growth in the construction sector.
Advertisement
The UK’s GDP for the most recent quarter is lower than the 0.7% growth in the US and 0.4% in the Eurozone.
The figures have pushed the UK towards the bottom of the G7 growth table for the third quarter of the year.
It was expected to meet the same 0.2% growth figures reported in Germany and Japan – but fell below that after a slow September.
The pound remained stable following the news, hovering around $1.267. The FTSE 100, meanwhile, opened the day down by 0.4%.
The Bank of England last week predicted that Ms Reeves’s first budget as chancellor will increase inflation by up to half a percentage point over the next two years, contributing to a slower decline in interest rates than previously thought.
Announcing a widely anticipated 0.25 percentage point cut in the base rate to 4.75%, the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) forecast that inflation will return “sustainably” to its target of 2% in the first half of 2027, a year later than at its last meeting.
The Bank’s quarterly report found Ms Reeves’s £70bn package of tax and borrowing measures will place upward pressure on prices, as well as delivering a three-quarter point increase to GDP next year.
“If you are a member of something, it means you’ve accepted membership. Anything with ‘ship’ on the end, it’s giving you a clue: it’s telling you that’s maritime law. That means you’ve entered into a contract.”
This isn’t your standard legal argument and it is becoming clear that I am dealing with an unusual way of looking at the world.
I’m in the library of a hotel in Leicestershire, a wood-panelled room with warm lighting, and Pete Stone, better known as Sovereign Pete, is explaining how “the system” works. Mr Stone is in his mid-50, bald with a goatee beard and wearing, as he always does for public appearances, a black T-shirt and black jeans.
With us are six other people, mainly dressed in neat jumpers. They’re members of the Sovereign Project (SP), an organisation Mr Stone founded in 2020, which, he says, now has more than 20,000 paying members.
As arcane as this may sound, it represents a worldview that is becoming more influential – and causing problems for authorities. Loosely, they’re defined as “sovereign citizens” or “freemen on the land”.
Their fundamental point is that nobody is required to obey laws they have not specifically consented to – especially when it comes to tax. They have hundreds of thousands of followers in the UK across platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Telegram.
Increasingly, they are coming into conflict with governments and the law. Sovereign citizens have ended up in the High Court in recent months, challenging the legalities of tax bills and losing on both occasions.
More on Leicestershire
Related Topics:
In October, four people were sentenced to prison for the attempted kidnapping of an Essex coroner, who they saw as acting unlawfully. The self-appointed “sheriffs” attempted to force entry to the court, one of them demanding: “You guys have been practising fraud!”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
Moment ‘cult’ tries to kidnap coroner
The Sovereign Project is not connected to any of those cases, nor does it promote any sort of political action, let alone violence.
Advertisement
Instead, they are focused on issues like questioning the obligation to pay taxes, as Mr Stone explains, referencing the feudal system that operated in the Middle Ages.
“Do you know about the feudal system when people were slaves and were forced to pay tax?” he asks.
“Now, unless the feudal system still operates today, and we still have serfs and slaves, then the only way that you can pay taxes is to have a contract, you have to agree to it and consent to it.”
Another member, Karl Deans, a 43-year-old property developer who runs the SP’s social media, says: “We’re not here to dodge tax.”
Local government tends to be a target beyond just demands for tax. Mr Stone speaks of “council employee crimes”.
I ask whether, considering the attempted kidnapping in Essex, there is a danger that people will listen to these accusations of crimes by councils and act on them.
“Well that’s proved,” Mr Stone says. “We only deal with facts.”
Evidence suggests this approach is becoming an issue for councils across the UK, as people search online for ways to avoid paying tax.
Sky News analysis shows that out of 374 council websites covering Great Britain, at least 172 (46%) have pages responding to sovereign citizen arguments around avoiding paying council tax. They point out that liability for council tax is not dependent on consent, or a contract, and instead relies on the Local Government Finance Act 1992, voted on by Parliament.
But the Sovereign Project’s worldview extends beyond council tax. It is deeply anti-establishment, at times conspiratorial. Stone suggests the summer riots may have been organised by the government.
“The sovereign fraternity operates above all of this,” he says. “We look down at the world like a chessboard. We see what’s going on.”
He explains that, really, the UK government isn’t actually in control: there is a shadow government above them.
“These are the people who control government,” he explains.
“A lot of people say this could be the crown council of 13, this could be a series of Italian families.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Professor Christine Sarteschi, an expert in sovereign citizens at Chatham University, Pittsburgh, says she’s worried about the threat sovereign citizens may pose to the rule of law, especially in the US where guns are readily available.
“The movement is growing and that’s evidenced by seeing it in different countries and hearing about different cases. The concern is that they will become emboldened and commit acts of violence,” she says.
“Because sovereigns truly believe in their ideas and if they feel very aggrieved by, you know, the government or whomever they think is oppressing them or controlling them… they can become emotionally involved.
“That emotional involvement sometimes leads to violence in some cases, or the belief that they have the power to attempt to overthrow a government in some capacity.”
Much of this seems to be based on an underlying and familiar frustration at the state of this country and of the world.
Mr Stone echoes some of the characteristic arguments also made by the right, that there is “two-tier policing”, that refugees arriving in the UK are “young men of fighting age”, that the government is using “forced immigration to destroy the country”.
Another SP member, retired investment banker David Hopgood, 61, says: “I firmly believe it is the true Englishman – and woman – of this country – that has the power to unlock this madness that’s happening in the West.
“We’ve got the Magna Carta – all these checks and balances. We just need to pack up, go down to Parliament and say: It’s time to dismiss you. You’re not fit for purpose.”
The members of the Sovereign Project are unfailingly patient and polite in explaining their understanding of the world.
But there is no doubt they hold a deeply radical view, one that is apparently growing in popularity.
Wes Streeting “crossed the line” by opposing assisted dying in public and the argument shouldn’t “come down to resources”, a Labour peer has said.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunctionpodcast, Baroness Harriet Harman criticised the health secretary for revealing how he is going to vote on the matter when it comes before parliament later this month.
MPs are being given a free vote, meaning they can side with their conscience and not party lines, so the government is supposed to be staying neutral.
But Mr Streeting has made clear he will vote against legalising assisted dying, citing concerns end-of-life care is not good enough for people to make an informed choice, and that some could feel pressured into the decision to save the NHS money.
Baroness Harman said Mr Streeting has “crossed the line in two ways”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
“He should not have said how he was going to vote, because that breaches neutrality and sends a signal,” she said.
“And secondly… he’s said the problem is that it will cost money to bring in an assisted dying measure, and therefore he will have to cut other services.
Advertisement
“But paradoxically, he also said it would be a slippery slope because people will be forced to bring about their own death in order to save the NHS money. Well, it can’t be doing both things.
“It can’t be both costing the NHS money and saving the NHS money.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Review into assisted dying costs
Baroness Harman said the argument “should not come down to resources” as it is a “huge moral issue” affecting “only a tiny number of people”.
She added that people should not mistake Mr Streeting for being “a kind of proxy for Keir Starmer”.
“The government is genuinely neutral and all of those backbenchers, they can vote whichever way they want,” she added.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously expressed support for assisted dying, but it is not clear how he intends to vote on the issue or if he will make his decision public ahead of time.
The cabinet has varying views on the topic, with the likes of Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood siding with Mr Streeting in her opposition but Energy Secretary Ed Miliband being for it.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being championed by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater, who wants to give people with six months left to live the choice to end their lives.
Under her proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill
The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.
MPs will debate and vote on the legislation on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015, when the proposal was defeated.