A Question Congress Must Put To Bill Clinton: Why Did His Aide Work To Discredit The Farmer Sisters?

Jim Kennedy, A Clinton Aide, Worked With Epstein And Maxwell To Remove The Sisters And Their Allegations From My 2003 Vanity Fair Article. Why?

Today Bill Clinton is answering questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Unlike yesterday’s farcical hearing with Hillary Clinton, which she rightly turned into an own goal for the Republicans, given that she’d never met Epstein, this hearing matters.

Clinton has insight into how both Epstein and Maxwell wormed their way into the lives of the global elite, which wound up protecting him (consciously or not) from facing justice for decades. He needs to be pressed on all aspects of his relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell - because, based on my reporting, he was closer to the latter than the former.

However, there’s one new aspect of their relationship that is bothering me: the role of a Clinton aide, Jim Kennedy, in discrediting the Farmer sisters (and me).

I had never heard of Kennedy until a few weeks ago.

But I have discovered that in 2002, when Epstein went behind my back to my then boss Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter, the person advising him and Maxwell on strategy, and even composing “letters’ to me and the magazine was Jim Kennedy, a former aide to Clinton’s White House Counsel, who went on to work for the Clinton Foundation.

WTF? It appears from the above email it was Kennedy who drafted the letter below, then sent to me and to Vanity Fair. I don’t know if I ever received the “revision” mentioned in Maxwell’s email to him. But I do know that it was after the magazine received all these and after Epstein visited Graydon Carter in his office, that the Farmer sisters were dropped. (And, incidentally, I found this note from Epstein to Carter in the files alluding to that meeting and the photographs he provided for the article).

And also:

Congress: Please ask Bill Clinton what the heck he knew about this!

If the Farmer sisters had been included in my story, history would look very, very different.

Next week I will do a live video session for my paid subscribers where I will take questions about any of these documents and explain the context of them.

.

Meanwhile:

If you look at Ground News’ coverage page for Bill Clinton right now, you’ll see something fascinating.

In just the past three months, 337 stories have been aggregated about him. The media bias breakdown is almost evenly split — 32% from the left, 32% from the center, 36% from the right. You can also see which outlets are covering him most: Raw Story on the left, USA Today leaning left, The Hill and KMIZ in the center, and Fox News on the right.

Even the headlines tell a story. One outlet spotlights Hillary Clinton saying she has no new information about Jeffrey Epstein. Another focuses on Bill Clinton testifying before a House committee. Another shifts attention toward calls involving Donald Trump. Same ecosystem. Different emphasis.

That’s the point.

Ground News doesn’t tell you what to think — it shows you how the narrative is being constructed across the spectrum. You can compare coverage side by side, filter by political lean, see ownership structures, and quickly identify where a story is getting the most traction — and where it’s barely being touched.

On politically sensitive stories like this, that context is everything.

If you want to see not just the headlines, but the architecture behind them, Ground News is an invaluable tool.

You can get 40% off the unlimited Vantage Plan at groundnews.com/mapu or by clicking below.