Have any credible journalists or investigators reported on alleged sexual encounters between Trump and Bill Clinton?

1. What mainstream reporters actually covered: allegations about Bill Clinton, not encounters between the two men

Journalistic coverage from outlets including Reuters, Politico, NPR, PBS and The Guardian focused on women who accused Bill Clinton of rape, sexual assault or harassment and on Trump’s decision to highlight those accusations as a campaign tactic — for example, Trump convened Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton before a 2016 debate and major outlets covered that event as a political stunt amplifying Clinton accusers’ claims ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. These reports document alleged misconduct by Bill Clinton (including settled civil suits and independent‑counsel inquiries) and the political context in which Trump raised them ^{[1] [2]}.

2. No sourced reporting of sexual encounters between Trump and Bill Clinton

The assembled sources recount Trump invoking Clinton’s history with women and staging encounters with Clinton’s accusers, but none of the items in the provided results asserts or investigates any alleged sexual encounters directly linking Donald Trump to Bill Clinton. They describe Trump’s comments, the women who accused Clinton, and media and legal reactions — not allegations of sexual contact between the two men ^{[6] [1] [3]}. Available sources do not mention any journalist reporting that Trump and Bill Clinton had sexual encounters with each other (not found in current reporting).

3. How reporters treated the accusers and corroboration

News outlets emphasized that many of the allegations against Bill Clinton were longstanding, were subject to legal scrutiny, and in several cases produced mixed findings: some claims led to civil settlements (Paula Jones), others were investigated by independent counsel or reported with inconsistencies noted by prosecutors and the press (Kathleen Willey) ^{[1] [2] [5]}. The Washington Post explained that reporters look for contemporaneous corroboration when publishing sexual‑misconduct allegations, and some coverage focused on who could corroborate claims and what official probes found ^[7].

4. Political context and motives reported by journalists

Reporters uniformly placed Trump’s promotion of the Clinton accusations in a campaign context: he used the women’s allegations to deflect from his own sexual‑misconduct revelations and to attack the Clintons politically. Coverage framed the October 2016 meeting and related statements as deliberate campaign moves — described by Clinton’s campaign as a “stunt” — and noted critics’ views that Trump was trying to change the subject after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced ^{[1] [6] [8]}.

5. Differing perspectives within the coverage

News organizations reported competing perspectives: accusers’ claims and their narratives; Clinton’s denials (and in some cases court outcomes or settlements); and campaign statements condemning or defending the use of those allegations politically ^{[2] [1] [8]}. Some outlets and commentators examined the credibility of particular accusers, prosecutors’ findings, and the ethical question of revisiting long‑past allegations for political advantage ^{[5] [7]}.

6. What this reporting does — and does not — establish

The sourced reporting establishes that reputable journalists have documented allegations against Bill Clinton and have documented Trump’s amplification of those allegations during the 2016 campaign ^{[2] [1]}. The sources do not establish, and the search results do not report, any investigative journalism or credible reporting that alleges sexual encounters between Donald Trump and Bill Clinton themselves; stating otherwise would exceed what the available reporting supports (not found in current reporting).

If you want, I can (a) pull direct quotes from the cited articles about specific accusers and legal outcomes, or (b) search for any later reporting beyond these sources that might address your question further.