How have fact-checkers evaluated claims connecting Bill Clinton and Donald Trump?

1. Travel logs vs. sensational totals: what investigators verified

FactCheck.org notes there is clear, documented evidence that Bill Clinton flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft multiple times, but it rejects Trump’s specific claim that Clinton visited Epstein’s private U.S. Virgin Islands island “28 times,” saying available records do not support that figure ^[1]. The White House and allied spokespeople continue to cite aircraft flight counts as politically potent numbers, but fact‑checking outlets treat precise trip totals as a matter of documentary proof rather than assertion ^{[1] [5]}.

2. How fact‑checkers treat Trump’s counteraccusations

When President Trump invoked Clinton’s Epstein ties while under scrutiny for his own relationship with Epstein, FactCheck.org pointed out symmetry in the public record: both men appear on Epstein flight logs, and Trump himself took at least seven flights with Epstein in the 1990s — yet flight logs do not prove island visits for either man ^[1]. Fact‑checking in this case emphasizes evidence limits and warns against weaponizing unverified numbers for political advantage ^[1].

3. Photographs: real images, exaggerated captions

Snopes found an authentic photograph from a 2000 U.S. Open moment showing Trump and then‑President Clinton laughing together, but concluded captions claiming Trump was groping Clinton misrepresented the scene; the hand was in motion and not clearly a grab ^[3]. Fact‑checkers treat still images like any documentary source: real but subject to misleading framing when context is stripped away ^[3].

4. Videos: AI amplification and new fact‑checking challenges

PolitiFact and other verifiers flagged viral clips showing Trump touching Clinton as AI creations, and Lead Stories documented that short viral clips combining a real photo with generated frames changed background details inconsistent with authenticated images ^{[2] [4]}. Fact‑checkers now routinely analyze metadata, multiple camera angles and photographer testimony to distinguish synthetic media from genuine footage ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Media outlets and official moves: fact‑checking amid political pressure

Reuters, Newsweek and The New York Times reported the Justice Department and political actors responding to Trump’s calls for probes into Epstein ties, including an instruction to investigate Clinton among others — an action that fact‑checkers and mainstream outlets framed as politically consequential and requiring careful separation of allegation from proof ^{[6] [7] [8]}. Fact‑checking organizations emphasize that official investigations do not equate to established guilt and that their role is to test public claims against available records ^{[1] [8]}.

6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas

The White House pushed narratives about Clinton’s aircraft travel counts and alleged island sightings in order to shift focus from Trump’s own Epstein ties; fact‑checkers point out this political motive while insisting on documentary evidence standards ^{[5] [1]}. News outlets covering the DOJ action warned the assignment of investigations at an official’s request can look like subordinating independent justice institutions to political ends ^[8].

7. Bottom line for readers: what fact‑checkers agree on and what remains unsettled

Fact‑checking outlets agree on several points: Clinton did fly on Epstein’s planes multiple times; publicly circulated exact counts and island‑visit assertions lack supporting documentation; and viral visual claims about Trump and Clinton have included AI‑generated material or misleading captions ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Available sources do not mention definitive proof that either man made the alleged number of island visits cited in some political claims ^[1].

Limitations: this synthesis uses the provided reporting and fact‑checks; it does not incorporate documents or evidence outside those sources, and it reflects the cautious standard fact‑checkers apply when distinguishing verified records from politically motivated assertions ^{[1] [2] [3]}.