What Did The Secret Service Know About Clinton and Epstein
Dan Bongino Told A Story via 2nd Party ...
Clinton and Epstein:
Dan Bongino is the current Assistant FBI Director. Before that he had a Podcast and a show on FOX News. Before that he was a NYPD Cop, then on Obama’s Secret Service Detail. He said once "When Obama got a few Heinekens in him he would tell what he thought about Joe Biden."
Anyway, Bongino explained on his Podcast a conversation he had with a friend who was a younger Secret Service Agent. This Agent didn't really know much about Bill Clinton. He referred to him as 'This Guy' - being Clinton. So he was assigned to Clinton's detail on Epstein’s plane to 'the island'. He told Bongino that after takeoff 'This Guy' goes to the back of the plane with two young girls and they were giggling about something. They made a stop. The young Agent found the Detail Supervisor and told him what he saw. He told the Supervisor "I am not getting back on that plane." They had to fly that Agent home on a separate flight.
Clinton flew over 25 times on that plane. Trump has his own plane that he paid for with his own money and not money stolen from Haitian Disaster Relief ... JUST SAYIN' ...
OPINION
The Two Planes: A Tale of Elite Corruption and the Smokescreen of "Whataboutism"
In the annals of American political corruption, certain stories cut through the partisan noise to reveal a deeper, more unsettling truth about the powerful. The account of Bill Clinton’s travels on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express,” punctuated by the moral revulsion of a young Secret Service agent, is one such story. It is not merely a salacious anecdote from a bygone era; it is a stark emblem of a permanent political class that operates by a separate set of rules, insulated by its own institutions and protected by a media willing to look the other way. The contrast drawn—between a former president cavorting with a convicted sex trafficker on a plane synonymous with depravity, and a political opponent who used his own, privately-funded aircraft—is about more than just the men involved. It is about the fundamental difference between a system of unaccountable elitism and one of transparent, if flawed, populism.
The story, as relayed by Dan Bongino—a former Secret Service agent with an unimpeachable law enforcement pedigree—is damning in its specifics. A young agent, so new to the detail he referred to the former President of the United States as “this guy,” witnesses behavior so alarming on a flight to a known pedophile’s private island that he refuses to continue the assignment. He risks his career rather than be complicit in the scene unfolding around him. This is not a hearsay rumor from a political opponent; this is the testimony of a sworn federal officer, one trained to observe and protect. His instinctual recoil speaks volumes. It tells us that what he saw violated not just protocol, but basic human decency. The fact that Clinton took over two dozen such flights, developing a long-standing association with Epstein long after his initial conviction, paints a picture of a man who believed himself to be above the moral and legal constraints that bind ordinary citizens.
This pattern of alleged behavior points to a culture of impunity that surrounds the political left’s elite. For decades, Bill Clinton has been shielded by a protective carapace of political power, legal maneuvering, and media complicity. From the scandal with Monica Lewinsky, where he was credibly accused of abusing a power dynamic with a young intern, to the numerous allegations of sexual assault and harassment that have followed him, he has consistently been given a pass. His friendship with Epstein is the most grotesque chapter in this long narrative. The media, which rightly pursues allegations of misconduct with relentless vigor when they involve conservative figures, has often treated the Clinton-Epstein connection as a tangential, secondary story. The message is clear: for the right kind of powerful person, with the right kind of political affiliations, the rules are different. The guardrails of accountability are removed.
This brings us to the crucial counterpoint: the case of Donald Trump. The post’s comparison is instructive. It is true that Trump flew on Epstein’s plane on a handful of occasions, a fact he has never denied and one that his opponents cite in a desperate attempt to create a false moral equivalence. But the equivalence is shattered by the details. Trump owned his own plane, the famed “Trump Force One,” a symbol of his private sector success and personal brand. He had no recurring need to hitch a ride on a predator’s jet. More importantly, when Epstein’s crimes came into full view, Trump cooperated with authorities and publicly banned Epstein from his properties. The relationship ended. This stands in stark contrast to Clinton, who continued his association and, according to flight logs, took multiple trips *after* Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
The attempt to blur these lines is a classic tactic of “whataboutism,” designed not to defend Trump, but to provide cover for Clinton by muddying the waters. It is a smokescreen. The conservative perspective here is not that any association with a bad person is automatically disqualifying; it is about the nature, duration, and context of that association. A handful of flights a decade before Epstein’s first conviction, followed by a clean and public break, is not the same as two dozen flights, including many after the world knew Epstein was a criminal, to an island specifically designed for the exploitation of young girls.
Furthermore, the post’s jab about “money stolen from Haitian Disaster Relief” touches on another key conservative grievance: the Clinton Foundation. For years, serious questions have been raised about the foundation’s operations, with allegations that it functioned as a de facto slush fund, trading access and influence for donations from foreign governments and entities with business before the State Department. The perception, whether proven in a court of law or not, is that the Clintons leveraged public office for vast private enrichment, operating in the grey areas between philanthropy, diplomacy, and personal gain. This stands in contrast to a figure like Trump, whose wealth was accrued in the private sector, and whose assets were placed in a blind trust upon taking office.
The story of the two planes is a metaphor for the choice facing America. On one side is the “Lolita Express”—a symbol of a corrupt, unaccountable, and decaying establishment that believes power grants it license. It is a world of hidden dealings, compromised principles, and a profound contempt for the citizenry it purports to serve. On the other side is a privately-owned plane—a symbol of brash, transparent, and self-made success. It may be gaudy and controversial, but its ownership is clear, its funding is known, and its trajectory is not hidden in the flight logs of a sex offender.
The young Secret Service agent who refused to get back on that plane represents the conscience of a nation that is slowly awakening to the corruption of its ruling class. His instinct was to distance himself from the stench of decay. Conservatives understand this instinct. It is the same impulse that drives the movement to drain the swamp, to challenge the media narrative, and to hold the powerful accountable, regardless of their party affiliation. The Clinton-Epstein story is not a partisan issue; it is a test of our nation’s character. Will we continue to excuse the grotesque behavior of the elite, or will we, like that young agent, finally declare, “I am not getting back on that plane”? The future of the Republic may depend on the answer.
#DanBonjino #Epstein #JeffreyEpstein #BillClinton