Clinton Drops Bombshell Under Oath: Illinois Governor JB Pritzker Flew on Epstein’s Plane—Then Frantically Backtracks
Former President Bill Clinton testified under oath that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker joined him on Jeffrey Epstein’s private aircraft—a stunning revelation that sent both political camps into immediate damage control mode before the video testimony even stopped circulating online.
The bombshell dropped during a House Oversight Committee deposition when Wisconsin Republican Representative Glenn Grothman pressed Clinton on who accompanied him during flights aboard the convicted sex trafficker’s notorious plane. Clinton’s answer was unequivocal and specific.
“I think that I had my first trip for the man who’s now the governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker and his wife,” Clinton stated clearly. “They gave me, they helped me get started.”
This wasn’t vague recollection. This was sworn testimony naming names.
Within hours of the video’s release Monday, Clinton’s damage control team scrambled to walk back what the former president said on record. Spokesman Angel Urena issued a carefully worded statement claiming Clinton was “simply giving an example” and insisting Pritzker traveled with Clinton in 2008—but “not on Epstein’s plane. Not with Epstein. Not with Maxwell.”
That’s quite the distinction to make after Clinton himself just said otherwise under penalty of perjury.
Pritzker’s campaign deployed its own spin operation immediately. Spokesman Alex Gough confirmed the Democratic governor traveled with Clinton twice—in 2008 and 2013—but categorically denied these trips involved Epstein’s aircraft or the presence of Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.
Then came the predictable partisan deflection. Gough claimed Republicans are “desperate to deflect from the heinous accusations against President Trump in the Epstein Files.” A classic misdirection play when your candidate gets caught in an inconvenient association.
Notice what Gough didn’t address: whether Pritzker ever had any other interactions with Epstein beyond these alleged flights. That silence speaks volumes.
The Pritzker family’s Epstein connections run deeper than one governor’s questionable travel arrangements. Thomas Pritzker—JB’s cousin and executive chairman of the Hyatt hotel empire—resigned last month specifically because of his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.
“I exercised terrible judgment in maintaining contact with them, and there is no excuse for failing to distance myself sooner,” Thomas Pritzker admitted in his resignation statement. He didn’t just meet these monsters once. He maintained contact over time.
The billionaire Pritzker family’s entanglement with America’s most notorious sex trafficker raises questions that demand answers, not spin. When did these associations begin? How deep did they run? What did the Pritzkers know and when did they know it?
Clinton’s sworn testimony identified JB Pritzker by name when discussing Epstein’s plane. The former president didn’t stumble over words or express uncertainty. He remembered Pritzker and his wife clearly enough to cite them as examples during questioning about his travel companions.
Now both camps want Americans to believe Clinton misspoke under oath about something as memorable as who accompanied him on flights with a man later convicted of sex trafficking minors. They’re asking us to accept that pure coincidence placed Pritzker on Clinton Foundation trips during the exact timeframe Clinton regularly flew on Epstein’s aircraft—but somehow never the two together.
The American people deserve better than coordinated spin and partisan finger-pointing. They deserve transparency about who associated with Jeffrey Epstein, when those associations occurred, and what transpired during them.
Pritzker governs one of America’s largest states. His cousin just resigned in disgrace from a major corporation over Epstein ties. And now sworn testimony from a former president places the governor in Epstein’s orbit during the height of the predator’s operation.
These are facts. The only questions remaining are what Pritzker and his defenders plan to do about them—and whether Illinois voters will accept vague denials and political deflection as sufficient answers.
