What destinations did Bill Clinton visit on Epstein's plane?

1. What the unsealed flight records and reporting actually show

Journalists and document releases show Clinton appears on Epstein’s flight logs for multiple flight segments between 2002 and 2003 — commonly reported as roughly 17–26 segments depending on how counts are tabulated — and those segments correspond to multi-leg trips that stopped in destinations across Asia, Europe and Africa ^{[5] [6] [3]}. The Independent and other outlets say Clinton’s travel on Epstein planes included routes tied to destinations such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and parts of Africa; some outlets additionally report trips tied to Morocco, Armenia and Siberia ^{[4] [3]}.

2. Why counts (17, 26, 27, etc.) vary — flight segments vs. multi-leg trips

FactCheck.org and related summaries explain the discrepancy: the logs record individual flight legs, not “complete trips,” so a single multi-stop journey generates multiple entries; that partly explains why some reports count 17 flights while others cite 26 or more flight segments ^{[7] [1]}. News organizations caution that raw log counts therefore do not map directly to the number of distinct travel occasions or discrete destinations ^[7].

3. Where reporters have specifically traced Clinton’s travel

Reporting by the Palm Beach Post, Roll Call and The Independent trace Clinton’s appearances on flight logs to multi-leg itineraries and list destinations including Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, China, Brunei, London, New York, the Azores, Belgium, Norway, Russia and various African locations; other reporting also cites Morocco, Armenia and Siberia among places tied to Epstein flights around the same period ^{[3] [5] [4]}. The precise passenger manifest for every leg is not uniformly detailed in every published account; outlets rely on compiled logs, contemporaneous statements, and interviews ^{[5] [3]}.

4. The specific, repeatedly contested claim: Little St. James (Epstein’s island)

Multiple fact-checks and reporting conclude there is no evidence in the flight logs that Clinton traveled to Epstein’s Little St. James island in the U.S. Virgin Islands; FactCheck and other outlets say none of the available logs list Clinton as a passenger on a Virgin Islands–bound plane ^{[1] [7]}. Clinton has publicly denied visiting Little St. James, and some contemporaneous statements from his office said trips on Epstein’s planes were for Clinton Foundation work and did not include visits to the island ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Conflicting claims and sources to watch

Some people cited in reporting have suggested different memories — for example, a former aide’s recollection of an island visit is on record — but those recollections conflict with Clinton’s denials and with the absence of a Virgin Islands listing in the released flight logs; outlets emphasize that memory, logs and public statements do not form a single consistent narrative ^{[1] [6]}. Republicans in Congress and President Trump have pushed for further probes; Reuters and ABC report the Justice Department agreed to investigate ties after political pressure, underscoring the politicized context of renewed reporting ^{[2] [8]}.

6. What is not established in the available reporting

Available sources do not mention a definitive, fully reconciled manifest tying Clinton to a specific list of every single destination on Epstein’s jet for every leg — reporting relies on compiled flight-logs, counts of legs versus trips, and statements from aides and spokespeople, which produce variation in lists and totals ^{[7] [5]}. Available sources do not mention direct evidence from the logs that Clinton visited the U.S. Virgin Islands (Little St. James) ^[1].

7. How to read the record: context and caution

The public record shows Clinton used Epstein’s aircraft for foundation-related travel after leaving office, and multiple outlets have mapped those logs to international stops; at the same time, fact-checkers and flight-log analysts warn against equating flight-leg counts with unique island visits or criminal implication — the logs document travel activity, not the nature of conduct on trips, and investigators previously reported insufficient evidence to predicate charges against uncharged third parties in earlier probes ^{[7] [2]}. Reporters and readers should distinguish between: (a) appearing on flight logs for specific legs; (b) being physically present at particular destinations such as Little St. James; and (c) evidence of criminal activity — the sources provided separate those elements and frequently note the limits of what the logs alone can prove ^{[1] [6]}.

If you want, I can compile a side‑by‑side list of destinations mentioned by each outlet in these sources and note which articles cite flight-log excerpts versus recollections or statements.