Jeffrey Epstein’s sordid past continues to haunt the Democratic elite. In the latest stunning development, an unearthed email from 2016 has surfaced, allegedly linking Hillary Clinton to a sexual relationship with the late Vince Foster, a longtime Clinton confidant who died under circumstances that have long aroused suspicion.
The email, discovered among the trove of Epstein communications released by House Republicans, includes a message to disgraced journalist Michael Wolff that cryptically states, “hillary doing naughties with Vince.”
The email, dated May 25, 2016, was in response to Wolff’s request for a “thumbnail” summary on “Nussbaum/Foster,” referencing Bernard Nussbaum, the former White House Counsel, and Vince Foster, who served as Deputy White House Counsel before his untimely death in 1993. Epstein’s response strongly implies that Hillary Clinton had an inappropriate relationship with Foster while serving in the White House.
Whether salacious gossip or a glimpse into the moral depravity of Washington’s elite, the implications are deeply troubling.
Foster was a key figure in the Clinton White House and a close friend of both Hillary and Bill Clinton. His death in Fort Marcy Park, officially ruled a suicide, has been questioned for decades by conservative watchdogs and independent investigators.
For many, the lack of clarity, the inconsistencies at the crime scene, and the political proximity to the Clintons make the official story difficult to accept.
Now, with Epstein’s name in the mix, the situation becomes far more sinister. Epstein, a convicted sex offender with a web of connections spanning global elites, appears to have possessed insider knowledge of highly sensitive matters. The idea that he would so casually reference Hillary Clinton’s alleged “naughties” with Foster suggests he knew more than he was ever willing—or able—to say publicly.
Foster’s death was originally described by investigators as a textbook suicide. Yet the physical evidence told another story. Paramedics who arrived at the scene reported the body was found in an odd position, inconsistent with the force and recoil of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The bullet was never recovered. There were no fingerprints on the gun. No brain matter at the scene. No blood pooling under his head, even though he was supposedly shot in the mouth.
Experts have long questioned how a high-powered .38 caliber revolver could leave so little evidence at the scene. Foster was reportedly found with the gun in his right hand and his thumb jammed in the trigger guard—an anatomically awkward position given the trauma his body would have sustained from the blast. Yet the media accepted the explanation without serious challenge.
Journalist Christopher Ruddy, among others, raised alarms in the 1990s, pointing out these glaring inconsistencies. He argued the crime scene looked staged and the body had been moved. Ruddy’s analysis was dismissed by the media, labeled a conspiracy theory by liberal pundits, and buried under waves of Clintonian spin. But now, with Epstein’s email casting a new light, those old questions demand new answers.
The Clinton machine is known for its ability to deflect, deny, and destroy opposition. This wouldn’t be the first time a Clinton scandal was wiped from the headlines. But this time, the accusation isn’t coming from political rivals or disgruntled former staffers. It’s coming from Epstein—a man with deep ties to the most powerful figures in the world, including the Clintons themselves.
Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet multiple times, often without Secret Service detail. These weren’t just random trips. They were carefully orchestrated visits to Epstein’s properties, including the now-infamous “Lolita Express.” The Clintons have denied any impropriety, but flight logs and pilot testimony have repeatedly contradicted those claims.
If Epstein did indeed possess damaging knowledge about the Clintons, it stands to reason he would have kept records, emails, and communications as leverage. The email in question may be just one piece of a much larger puzzle—a puzzle that establishment Democrats and their media allies have no interest in solving.
The implications of Hillary Clinton engaging in an affair with Vince Foster are not just personal—they’re political. They speak to questions of judgment, character, and motive. Foster’s suicide—or murder, as some believe—occurred in the middle of several brewing scandals in the Clinton White House, including the Whitewater controversy and early whispers of misconduct.
The public deserves to know whether Hillary Clinton had a role in manipulating the narrative around Foster’s death. We already know that Bernard Nussbaum, the man referenced in Epstein’s email, physically blocked FBI agents from entering Foster’s office after his death, allowing Clinton aides to remove documents without oversight. That is not speculation. That is fact.
The pattern is clear: stonewalling investigators, intimidating witnesses, and relying on a complicit press corps to bury stories. The Clintons have operated this way for decades. They hide behind the media firewall and allow friendly outlets like The New York Times and CNN to do their dirty work.
Contrast that with how the press treats President Trump. Every comment he makes is twisted into a scandal. Every associate is hounded, indicted, or imprisoned. But when Hillary Clinton is implicated in a suspicious death and a potential extramarital affair, the media suddenly loses its appetite for truth.
If the roles were reversed—if Donald Trump had been linked to a deceased female staffer under suspicious circumstances—you can be sure the press would have already launched a thousand hit pieces, accompanied by round-the-clock coverage on MSNBC and CNN. But because it’s Hillary Clinton, the story is treated like a footnote.
Even now, the major networks are ignoring the Epstein email. They prefer to focus on Trump’s lawsuits or courtroom battles, rather than question what the Epstein documents reveal about the inner workings of the Democratic elite. It’s journalistic malpractice, plain and simple.
The email’s language may be crude, but it aligns with the darker rumors that have surrounded the Clintons for years. “Naughties with Vince” might be Epstein’s shorthand, but it suggests intimacy—possibly inappropriate, certainly scandalous, and potentially linked to a decades-old cover-up.
The FBI, for its part, has shown no interest in investigating the contents of the Epstein email trove. Despite having the full backing of the DOJ under Trump, federal law enforcement remains slow to act when elite Democrats are involved. That is the double standard we are fighting.
During his regular executive order announcements on Monday, August 25, President Donald Trump launched into familiar territory by criticizing Democratic-led cities, this time targeting Baltimore as a “horrible death bed” ridden with crime. However, his remarks took an unexpected turn when he shifted focus to Maryland Governor Wes Moore, making claims about a private interaction that would soon spark intense controversy.
According to Trump’s account, delivered with characteristic confidence from the Oval Office, Moore had approached him during a previous encounter with effusive praise despite his public criticism of the administration. The President described a scene that painted Moore as duplicitous—publicly opposing Trump while privately expressing admiration.
“He came over to me, hugged me, shook my hand and said, ‘Sir, you’re the greatest president of my lifetime,’” Trump recounted with typical dramatic flair. The President continued his narrative, claiming he had responded graciously to Moore’s alleged praise: “I said, ‘It’s really nice of you to say that, I’d love for you to say it publicly, but I don’t think you can do that so it’s OK.’”
Trump’s version of events concluded with Moore allegedly doubling down on his private praise: “‘No sir, you’re doing a fantastic job, I wanted to just shake your hand.’” This detailed account, delivered with Trump’s characteristic use of quoted dialogue and honorific “sir,” followed patterns typical of his storytelling style, which often features others addressing him with elaborate deference and praise.
The timing of these claims proved significant, coming as Trump was announcing new federal initiatives while simultaneously attacking Democratic governors as incompetent leaders. By portraying Moore as privately acknowledging Trump’s greatness while publicly maintaining opposition, the President appeared to be undermining Democratic criticism as performative rather than genuine.
Governor Wes Moore’s response to Trump’s claims was immediate, unequivocal, and strategically crafted to maximize both clarity and impact. Rather than allowing Trump’s narrative to circulate unchallenged, Moore and his communications team moved quickly to provide their own version of events.
Carter Elliott IV, a senior communications adviser to Moore, issued the initial response with bureaucratic precision: “Moore and the president met, but the governor did not say that.” This carefully worded statement acknowledged that some form of meeting had occurred while categorically denying the substance of Trump’s claims about their conversation.
Moore himself provided more extensive comments during an appearance on WBAL Radio, where he addressed both the specific claims and the broader implications for his credibility and political integrity. “I’m a person who takes my integrity very seriously, and I spent the past six months before that election campaigning as to why I did not think that he should be the next president of the United States,” Moore stated, emphasizing the contradiction between his public opposition to Trump and the alleged private praise.
The Governor’s radio comments escalated his denial with emphatic repetition: “So when I say that conversation never happened, that imaginary conversation never happened, I mean that conversation never happened.” This triple denial demonstrated Moore’s determination to leave no ambiguity about his position while characterizing Trump’s account as fabricated rather than merely misremembered.
Moore’s most memorable response came through social media, where he initially posted a simple “lol” in response to video of Trump’s claims, followed by his now-famous six-word retort: “Keep telling yourself that, Mr. President.” This concise dismissal combined mockery with condescension, suggesting that Trump’s claims represented self-deception rather than factual reporting.
Moore’s strategic use of social media to respond to Trump’s claims demonstrated sophisticated understanding of modern political communication dynamics. The initial “lol” response served multiple purposes: it conveyed dismissive amusement, suggested that Trump’s claims were too absurd to merit serious response, and used internet vernacular that would resonate with younger audiences.
The follow-up six-word response—”Keep telling yourself that, Mr. President”—proved to be a masterclass in political messaging. The brevity forced clarity while the tone conveyed both disrespect and psychological analysis, suggesting that Trump’s claims reflected internal delusions rather than external reality.
This response strategy contrasted sharply with traditional political communication approaches that might have involved lengthy statements, press conferences, or formal rebuttals. Instead, Moore chose to match Trump’s mastery of social media with his own concise, memorable messaging that would be easily shareable and quotable across digital platforms.
The effectiveness of Moore’s response was immediately apparent in its viral spread across social media platforms, with users sharing and commenting on both the content and the strategic effectiveness of his communication approach. The response demonstrated how modern political figures can use digital platforms to rapidly counter narratives and shape public discourse in real-time.