When Bill Clinton Goes on His Book Tour, Will Anyone Ask Him about Jeffrey Epstein?

On the menu today: Former president Bill Clinton announces he’s going to publish another autobiography, this one covering his post-presidential years, which will likely give reporters a chance to ask Clinton questions he’s been dodging for half a decade now. In Nebraska, an effort to change the state’s laws for electoral votes to winner-take-all falls short, for now. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who six months ago touted Mike Johnson as a solid conservative, now insists the House speaker is as liberal as Nancy Pelosi. And the Washington Post concurs with the conclusion of yesterday’s newsletter, that Biden’s recent rhetoric on Israel is a lot harsher and more critical than his actual policies and decisions.

The Question 42 Should Be Asked

This November, former president Bill Clinton will publish a new memoir called Citizen, describing “his personal and political life after Jan. 20, 2001.”

I hope Clinton is willing to do a lot of interviews during his book tour. And I hope during that book tour, some interviewer grills him for details about his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.

Sure, Clinton is likely to repeat his claim that he knew nothing about Epstein’s crimes.

But Clinton rarely does interviews anymore, which is why he’s never been pressed about his written statement issued in July 2019 claiming that he only traveled on Epstein’s private plane, nicknamed “the Lolita Express,” four times. Subsequently released flight records indicated that Clinton joined Epstein on the plane on at least 26 flights between 2001 and 2003. For the first few years that Bill Clinton was president, visitor logs indicated that Epstein visited the White House 17 times. “Most of the visits were to the West Wing, making it likely that he met with the president.” In 2020, a photo emerged showing the former president having his shoulders massaged by one of Epstein’s accusers, during a 2002 stopover for refueling of Epstein’s jet.

The line from Bill Clinton has always been that he barely knew the guy, which is just not consistent with the documentary evidence of their longtime friendship, meetings, and travels. I just find it exceptionally hard to believe that Epstein’s plane, private island, and everything else in his life constituted a nonstop diabolical cavalcade of exploitation and abuse of naïve and vulnerable young and often underage women, but that whenever Epstein was around Bill Clinton, he suddenly chose to live a life purer than driven snow.

I periodically marvel that a former U.S. president hung around with a notorious sex trafficker for years, that sex trafficker committed suicide under suspicious circumstances, and that former U.S. president . . . never got asked about it in interviews for years afterward.

Because if there’s anything history can teach us, it’s that Bill Clinton would never lie about inappropriate sexual relations with much younger women.

Will Trump Win Four Electoral Votes in Nebraska, or Five?

When I was adding up the numbers in the Electoral College projection earlier this week, I wasn’t sure whether to give Donald Trump four electoral votes in Nebraska or five. Nebraska and Maine are the two states that allocate their electoral votes in part on which candidate wins the state’s congressional districts.

Nebraska’s second congressional district, encompassing Omaha, is more Democrat-leaning than the rest of the state, and Maine’s second congressional district is more Republican-leaning than the first district.

In 2016, Trump won all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes, but he only won Nebraska’s second district by a narrow margin, 47 percent to 45 percent. In 2020, Trump won Nebraska statewide by 19 percentage points, but Biden won Nebraska’s second district, 52 percent to 45 percent.

There are some Republicans who want to switch to a winner-takes-all system before November, including Nebraska governor Jim Pillen. “It would bring Nebraska into line with 48 of our fellow states, better reflect the founders’ intent, and ensure our state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections,” Pillen said in a written statement Tuesday. “I call upon fellow Republicans in the Legislature to pass this bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.”

That effort fell short Wednesday night — in part because lawmakers concluded that the proposal, as an amendment, was not germane to the bill before them:

Republican State Sen. Brad von Gillern, serving as president of the Legislature at the time, ruled that [State Sen. Julie] Slama’s amendment did not fit with the rest of the bill. Slama sought to overrule von Gillern’s decision, arguing that the Legislature can make “germaneness” mean whatever senators want it to mean, if they have the votes. She said the Legislature had not always seriously enforced the rule limiting bills to a single subject.

“If you want winner-take-all in Nebraska, this is it,” she said. “This is the last train out of the station. . . . Odds are this is the best chance we will have in several years (to come).”

Her attempt to overrule the chair fell 36-9, which stripped her amendment from the bill.

There will be another effort today:

This year’s sponsor of winner-take-all legislation, State Sen. Loren Lippincott of Central City, said he intends to try again Thursday by amending his proposal into LB 541. That bill by State Sen. John Lowe of Kearney would make elections for public power boards partisan. They are currently nonpartisan.

Lippincott said he had surveyed more senators by late into the evening and said winner-take-all could face a tougher path to get to 33 votes than the proposal’s actual level of support in the Legislature. A bill needs 33 votes to overcome a filibuster.

He said some senators would rather wait until after the election year.

The notion that the election could be decided by one electoral vote in Nebraska or Maine is not likely, but not crazy, either. If you put Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and one of Maine’s congressional districts in the Trump pile, and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the Biden pile, you can end up with a 269 to 269 tie.

If that were to occur, the U.S. House of Representatives would select the president, with each state delegation getting one vote. Under this scenario, the House is likely to make Donald Trump the president again. But note that “Congress is sworn in before the Electoral College votes are read out in the Senate. In the case of a tie, it will be the next Congress not the current Congress that votes on the presidency.” If Democrats won a majority of seats in the House in 2024, and enough majorities in enough state delegations, they could conceivably give Biden another term.

But the vice president would be selected by the U.S. Senate, with each senator getting a vote.

So, it is conceivable, if not likely, that we could end up with President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, or President Biden and Vice President Trump’s-Running-Mate.

For now, the question appears moot, as new polling still finds Trump with consistent leads in almost all the swing states.

MTG: There’s No Difference between Mike Johnson and Nancy Pelosi

Marjorie Taylor Greene, back in late October:

I just voted for Mike Johnson to be our next Speaker of the House! Mike has a conservative voting record and has committed to helping me move important legislation forward, like my Protect Children’s Innocence Act, to end the genital mutilation of kids.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, last night:

“We cannot get anyone more moderate than Mike Johnson,” Greene said. “I would argue Mike Johnson, we can’t get any further left than Mike Johnson. I think the Democrats might be happier with him than they are with Hakeem Jeffries. . . . There’s not even any daylight between him and Nancy Pelosi at this point.”

Six months ago, Johnson was a conservative she was proud to support, and she took a celebratory selfie with the new speaker. Now, she insists he’s as liberal as Nancy Pelosi, who has a lifetime Heritage Action score of twelve out of a possible 100. Johnson’s lifetime score is 90.

Do any of these “I’m the only one brave enough and strong enough to fight for what’s right” lawmakers ever get tired of assuring their constituents, “Trust me, this new leader is the right guy,” and with lightning speed concluding, “Oh, no, I was terribly wrong. This guy is a spineless sellout squish”?

If, by your own account, you’re constantly getting fooled and belatedly realizing that the leaders you were certain were strong and principled and resolute, always turn out to be weak and dishonest and cowardly . . . is the problem really with them? Or is the problem with you?

If, repeatedly, your message is, “This candidate for speaker completely fooled me and turned out to be the opposite of what I was absolutely convinced he was,” maybe it’s time to step aside and let somebody else pick the speaker?

ADDENDUM: Yesterday’s Morning Jolt:

A lot of people want you to believe that President Biden has turned his back on the Israelis. And in a couple of ostentatious ways that grab headlines, he has. But in the ways that Israel needs the U.S. to help it continue its war effort in Gaza, the Biden administration has quietly signed off and nodded in agreement.

This morning’s Washington Post:

There is no indication that the Monday deaths of the workers — who included one American — will result in any significant changes to the Biden administration’s unwavering support of Israel. The president’s sharp condemnation stands as the latest example in what experts, outside advisers and even some Biden officials say is an increasingly contradictory approach to Israel’s six-month assault in Gaza.

While Biden has shown a willingness over the past two months to use significantly tougher rhetoric with Israel, he has been so far unwilling to pair his criticism and calls for restraint with concrete pressure. Biden and his top aides have little appetite for imposing punitive action on Israel, such as conditioning or suspending weapons sales, despite immense frustration at how Israel is conducting the war, according to White House advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics.