Tag: bill clinton
James Comer

"Transparency"? Why Republican Comer Won't Let The Clintons Testify In Public

Under Republican control, the aims of the House Oversight Committee are to promote partisan narratives rather than to reveal facts and advance public understanding of national issues. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), its chairman, has displayed that routinely self-serving approach in the committee’s “investigation” of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal – and especially in his zeal to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Comer was never among the tiny handful of Republicans who demanded that the Trump administration release the government’s files on the deceased sex predator. Instead, the plodding Comer dutifully followed Donald Trump’s lead in defecting public anger over the case. Focusing on the Clintons, who know little (Bill) or nothing (Hillary) about this matter, is exactly how Trump has handled his own troubling connections with Epstein for the past several years.

With tens of thousands of mentions of Trump in the released Epstein materials, that distraction is more urgent than ever. And the Clintons somehow remain enticing targets for politicians like Comer and even some of the Democrats on his committee.

But after resisting the subpoenas for months – until it became clear that a vote to hold them in contempt would pass the House – the Clintons have flipped Comer’s script. Rather than give depositions behind closed doors, as the Republicans evidently prefer, the former president and secretary of state have demanded that the committee question them in a public hearing.

On February 5, Hillary Clinton posted this challenge on X:

“For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith. We told them what we know, under oath,” she wrote. “They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”

In a follow-up post, she urged Comer to “stop the games.”

“If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let’s have it—in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.”

Comer is not about to accept that challenge, which he ignored.

First, he knows how that worked out when Hillary Clinton showed up to testify about the Benghazi terror attack for 11 hours, at the behest of his predecessor, former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) – in short, not well for Gowdy and the Republicans, who made themselves look stupid as Clinton briskly schooled them. It’s not at all clear that Comer, a simpleton often mocked in whispers by his fellow Republicans, would fare better against both Clintons.

Second, Comer is obviously planning to pursue the devious strategy that proved more successful for Gowdy during the Benghazi farce – to record the depositions and then selectively leak snippets that create a misleading impression of the testimony. That is how Gowdy abused Sidney Blumenthal, the journalist and former Clinton White House aide called to testify privately for nine hours during that inquest in 2015.

I wrote extensively about that clown show – and the complicity that Gowdy enjoyed from the New York Times Washington bureau, which eagerly lapped up the leaks – in a series of posts. Gowdy and his stooges fabricated a tale about Blumenthal’s supposed “business interests” in Libya and how they had influenced Clinton’s policy. Having invented that diverting story, the Republicans could not afford to let the public see and hear Blumenthal’s testimony demolishing it.

So despite protests from Democrats, notably the late and highly esteemed Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), a much sturdier figure than the current ranking Democrat, Blumenthal’s testimony was kept under wraps – where it remains a decade later. Neither Gowdy nor his fellow Republicans wanted the public to see how they had misused their power to spread falsehoods, pursue partisan grudges unrelated to Benghazi, and generally make fools of themselves.

Will House Democrats, the Epstein victims, and the media allow Comer to get away with the same game? For all their rhetoric about “transparency,” not to mention similar high-minded blather from the Republicans, why would they permit this nonsense?

This attempt to conceal and distort the Clintons’ testimony is the latest episode in the ongoing Trump coverup – and it would be shameful indeed to allow such a deception to proceed.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024). The paperback version, with a new Afterword, will be published in February 2026.

Reprinted with permission from Creators

Forcing Clintons To Testify About Epstein Won't Absolve Missing Witness Trump

Forcing Clintons To Testify About Epstein Won't Absolve Missing Witness Trump

If the House Oversight Committee’s Republican majority – or for that matter most of its Democratic members – felt a powerful motivation to uncover the truth about Jeffrey Epstein, there are many people with far more intimate knowledge of the pedophile financier and his crimes than Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But actual facts about this monumental scandal and real accountability for its perpetrators are of little concern to Rep. James Comer, the committee chairman who has singlemindedly abused his position to focus his "investigation" on the Clintons, or the House Republican leadership. Having failed to suppress the Epstein files as ordered by the White House, they have embarked on a renewed campaign of distraction and deflection.

Even the servile Comer realizes that the most notorious potential witness is Donald J. Trump, whose name appears more than a thousand times, including very troubling allegations, in the files released by the Justice Department. With three million additional files yet to be examined, Trump’s name may appear many more times. Despite his false claim that the voluminous files somehow “exonerate” him, evidence in the public record proves that they had a long and intimate relationship during years when Epstein was abusing hundreds of underage girls – including at least one, the late Virginia Giuffre, who had worked at Mar-a-Lago.

Now Comer would surely insist that the sitting president cannot be required to testify in the House of Representatives. But historically the same has been true of former presidents, a customary stricture that Comer breezily waved aside for an opportunity to harangue Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – who never knew Epstein and can reveal nothing about him, but remains forever a tempting target for House Republicans with nothing better to do.

From past observation of Comer's antics, we know he is uninterested in facts and treats his chairmanship as a perch from which to smear partisan opponents. So we can be confident that he won’t subpoena Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Elon Musk, or Steve Bannon, all of whom have plainly lied about their chummy relationships with Epstein. He isn’t going to take public testimony from the Republican lawyers -- most notably former Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta -- who arranged the sweetheart plea deal that allowed Epstein to continue his depredations. (One of those Epstein attorneys was Clinton nemesis Kenneth Starr, who alas is deceased.)

The purpose of Comer's phony inquest isn’t uncovering truth. If that is the objective of anyone else on the Oversight Committee, however, those worthies should educate themselves about the basic facts concerning Clinton and Epstein. To date, members of both parties – including the committee’s ranking member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) – have displayed little knowledge about the witness they threatened with a contempt citation. To assist in their edification, let’s review:

There is no evidence that Bill Clinton knew anything about Epstein’s crimes before he was indicted. Like many other wealthy supporters of the Clinton Foundation, Epstein provided the use of his personal aircraft for charitable trips abroad, including a long 2002 trip to Africa for HIV/AIDS relief. Epstein and members of his entourage accompanied Clinton for parts of that trip, along with many other staff, including a young woman later identified as an Epstein victim. She posed for a photo with Clinton and described him as a “perfect gentleman.”

There is no evidence that Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein continued after the sex-trafficker became a target of federal law enforcement -- unlike many well-known and powerful individuals, such as Musk and Lutnick, whose names have turned up in the files. In fact, Clinton’s connection with him ended years before Epstein’s crimes became public.

There is no evidence that Bill Clinton ever visited Epstein’s Caribbean island, the site of many of his crimes, although Trump habitually repeats that particular lie. Among those who have dispelled that claim are Epstein himself, in a disclosed email, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who said Trump’s accusations about Clinton were “wrong.” That observation was confirmed by former Attorney General William Barr, who oversaw the 2019 prosecution of Epstein, told the committee that “in the case of Bill Clinton, so far as I was aware, there was no evidence that he visited the island. You know, the government did not obtain any such evidence.”

And Ghislaine Maxwell made the same declaration in her famous interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, at a moment when she was seeking clemency from Trump. Knowing that Trump and Blanche would want to hear the worst about Clinton, Maxwell nevertheless exonerated him fully.

“He never, absolutely never went” to Little St. James Island," she said. "And I can be sure of that because there's no way he would have gone. I don't believe there's any way that he would've gone to the island had I not been there. Because I don't believe he had an independent friendship, if you will, with Epstein,” Maxwell continued, noting that Clinton had no interest or relationship with him except as “a rich guy with the plane” to be used for “humanitarian” trips to Africa and Asia. That is assuredly what she would tell Comer if he ever calls her to testify.

As for Hillary Clinton, there is no evidence whatsoever that the former first lady and secretary of state ever had anything to do with Epstein, or that she could reveal anything about him beyond what she has read in the newspapers. At a time when dozens of significant witnesses have escaped without a summons from Comer, the subpoena her issued to her is the ultimate proof that this “investigation” is merely the latest Congressional Republican misadventure.

It’s another episode of bad faith and deception. Nobody with a functioning brain should fall for it.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024). The paperback version, with a new Afterword, will be published in February 2026.

Reprinted with permission from Creators

US Attorney Tasked To Probe Clinton In Epstein Case Has 'No Prosectorial Experience'

US Attorney Tasked To Probe Clinton In Epstein Case Has 'No Prosectorial Experience'

Jay Clayton, Attorney General Pam Bondi's most recent appointment to investigate Democrats involved with late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after President Donald Trump's sudden reversal, has been chosen for what The New Republic's Michael Tomasky says is a "political task that has nothing whatever to do with justice."

Clayton, a corporate lawyer who is "mostly a high finance guy," Tomasky notes, chaired the Security and Exchange Commission during Trump's first term.

"One thing that impressed me, and that was at odds with the standard Trumpian flouting of rules of any kind governing the behavior of appointees and their families, is that his wife, a Goldman Sachs official, resigned her position when he took the job," Tomasky notes.

"What? People in the Trump solar system acting ethically of their own volition? Hard to imagine how Trump tolerated that," he adds.

However, Clayton has "no prosecutorial experience at all" Tomasky writes.

When Trump named Clayton to run the Southern District of New York earlier this year, Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blocked his nomination, but Trump appointed him on an interim basis for 120 days. After that the federal court for the district decides whether his appointment should go forward, and Manhattan's federal judges gave him the green light.

Clayton has been quiet in that position, Tomasky writes, saying "critics noted that when Bondi fired Maurene Comey, the daughter of James Comey who had overseen the prosecutions of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Clayton said nary a word."

"The Aaron Sorkin-movie version of Clayton would have told Bondi to stuff it Saturday and resigned—I do not hold this public trust to go on politically motivated fishing expeditions. But that’s not real life, especially in Trumpworld," Tomasky writes.

It would be "brave" if Clayton comes back and says there's no evidentiary basis to indict his targets—former Democratic President Bill Clinton, Democratic presidential adviser Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, but if he does bring indictments, Tomasky says, there are only two plausible reasons.

"One might that there’s actually evidence sufficient to an indictment. In which case, let justice be done. But in Donald Trump’s, and Pam Bondi’s, America, we would be quite justified in suspecting a second explanation: That Clayton did what he was ordered by the White House to do," he writes.

"The Trump era is a time of learning what people are made of. I’m guessing that in six months’ time, we’ll know a lot more about Jay Clayton than we know today," he adds.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

What The Epstein Files Reveal About His 'Best Friend' And Top Republicans Who Enabled Him

What The Epstein Files Reveal About His 'Best Friend' And Top Republicans Who Enabled Him

By publicly commanding the Justice Department to investigate the “involvement and relationship” of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein with former President Bill Clinton and various other Democrats, Donald Trump advertised his own consciousness of guilt. Instantly, with the zeal of a born lackey, Attorney General Pam Bondi passed Trump’s diktat down to Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, a reputedly honest lawyer who defiled the proud traditions of that office by echoing her unlawful orders without a peep of protest.

It was just another entry in the shameful docket that will should someday result in disbarments and perhaps worse for all involved (except Trump, who has been awarded blanket immunity by another gang of crooked Republican lawyers on the Supreme Court).

To be clear, there is no evidence at all implicating Clinton (or any of the Democrats named by Trump) in wrongdoing of any kind. There is no justification for Bondi’s farcical vow to investigate them “with integrity,” a concept and characteristic entirely unknown to her.

Indeed, the only “news” about Clinton emerged in two Epstein emails confirming again that the former president -- who once borrowed an Epstein jet for a humanitarian trip to Africa -- had “never ever ever” visited the predator’s private Caribbean island, as Trump and his flunkeys have repeatedly alleged. It’s just another big lie formulated to distract from the president’s own apparent culpability.

What we have seen in the “Trump” pages from the thousands of Epstein documents released so far is damning if not legally incriminating to him, however. “Of course he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop,” wrote Epstein in a tantalizing 2019 email. In another the predator depicted Trump as “that dog that didn’t bark,” and noted that his “friend” had “spent hours” at Epstein’s house with one of the predator’s female victims, probably Virginia Giuffre, who killed herself last spring. In other messages, Epstein boasted more than once that he could “bring down” Trump.

What we have not seen yet is whatever has frightened the president into the madly panicked acts of falsification and abuse that he and his minions commit almost every day.

Beyond his manipulation of the Justice Department to frame his political enemies, Trump has misused his power to intimidate the handful of House Republicans who stepped forward to demand release of the Epstein files. And as in the Russia investigation, he is dangling a pardon to keep Ghislaine Maxwell quiet and supportive as the Bureau of Prisons lavishes her with special privileges in a minimum-security institution not meant for sex offenders like her.

Only Trump knows (assuming he remembers) exactly what he fears in those massive files documenting his long “involvement” with Epstein. But the disclosures to date should remind us of how deeply his partisan supporters – and top legal figures in the Republican Party – are implicated in Epstein’s long escape from justice.

Among the released emails are many messages between Epstein and his late friend Kenneth Starr whose saccharine tone induces a spasm of cringe. “Luv ya!” and "Hugs!" wrote the former Whitewater special counsel to his pal Jeffrey – in stark contrast to his dogged pursuit of the Clintons, which degenerated into a sex probe when he realized that they were innocent of any financial corruption.

As Epstein’s counsel, Starr played a pivotal role in the sweetheart plea deal, engineered by his longtime associate Alex Acosta, that enabled him to evade accountability for so long. Booted out of Baylor University for covering up a rape scandal, Starr went on to advise Trump during his first impeachment. (He also had a soft spot for other pedophiles if they shared his religion or political outlook.) Acosta was later elevated into Trump’s cabinet as labor secretary, until his gross behavior in the Justice Department as Epstein’s supine enabler forced him to resign. The names of many other Trump Republicans litter the files, notably including Steve Bannon, who advised Epstein on how to "rehabilitate" his ruined reputation.

Although it will never be investigated by Republicans like Rep. James Comer, who has subpoenaed (both!) Clintons to testify about Epstein, therein lies a matter due for investigation. How did the most notorious pedophile in recent history get away with his crimes for so long? Trump knew and did nothing – and so did his Republican mouthpieces and cronies.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024).

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World