Tag: james comer
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

James Comer

Republicans Spouting Absurd Claims To Deflect Trump's Epstein Letter

In yet another sign that GOP lawmakers have no shame when it comes to defending their Dear Leader, multiple Republican members of Congress made the insane claim this week that President Donald Trump’s vile birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein was forged.

The lawmakers were taking cues from the White House, which claimed that Trump's signature on the birthday note is not real—suggesting that someone nearly 25 years ago had the foresight to forge Trump's signature.

"From what I've seen, it's not his signature," Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida said, even though it is very clearly Trump's signature.

And, in true Republican fashion, Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee used it as an opportunity to turn attention back to President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen.

"I don't know. I mean, anyone can do a signature. We’ve seen autopens been used quite a bit by the Biden administration,” he said.

“The president says he did not sign it. So I take the president [at] his word,” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer told CNN.

Comer, who spent two years investigating Biden, added that he has no plans to investigate Trump over the letter.

“You asked if I'm going to be trying to figure out whether that, you know, fake or not, probably not. We're going to be trying to get justice for the victim,” he said.

Similarly, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio told CNN that he doesn't "buy" that the signature was Trump's, and that he doesn't think that the House should investigate Trump's ties to Epstein. But what else would you expect from someone accused of refusing to protect sexual assault victims when he was a wrestling coach at the Ohio State University?

Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri tried to pull the notorious "I haven't seen the letter" cop out when asked about it by CNN's Manu Raju. But when Raju pulled out a copy of the birthday message, Burlison refused to look at it.

"I don't want to see it,” he said while laughing.

House Speaker Mike Johnson also ridiculously claimed to have not seen the note.

"I’ve heard about it. But no," Johnson told reporters. "And the White House says it’s not true."

Meanwhile, Democrats are mocking Republicans for their blatant lies.

“So let me get this straight … 20 years ago, Democrats forged Trump’s signature on a creepy birthday card to a pedophile … planted it in Epstein’s estate before Trump even ran … and then waited to release it until *after* Trump got reelected? Got it,” Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts wrote on X.

"I have two eyes. You have two eyes,” Rep. Eric Swalwell of California told CNN. “Anyone who looks at that letter which was provided by the Epstein estate knows whose signature that was.”

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Daddy Issues? GOP Tough Guys Cry For Help In Scary Cities

Daddy Issues? GOP Tough Guys Cry For Help In Scary Cities

Conservatives who have depicted Donald Trump as a strong “daddy” finally whipping the nation into shape have spent the past few days expressing over-the-top fears about cities. Despite their so-called tough guy image, leaders on the right have offered fearful remedies while pushing lies about urban crime.

During the 2024 campaign Republicans characterized Trump as a “daddy” who was coming to straighten out misbehaving Americans supposedly coddled by maternal politicians like former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris.

In recent weeks the right has doubled down on this cringeworthy imagery, adopting the song lyrics “daddy’s home” to herald Trump’s purported leadership on the world stage.

But now “daddy” is hearing a lot of crying from some tearful boys and girls.

The new scaredy-cat campaign is meant to provide cover for Trump’s decision to send federal law enforcement and the National Guard to a supposedly crime-ridden Washington, D.C. Republicans have ignored and denied data showing a drop in crime and instead decided to fearmonger.

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a staunch Trump ally, was perhaps most representative of this campaign, ironically exhibiting what the right has previously characterized as a “beta” mindset.

“I drive around in Washington, D.C. in my Jeep and, yes, I do drive myself. And I don’t buckle up. And the reason why I don’t buckle up, and people can say whatever they want to, they can raise their eyebrows at me, again, is because of carjacking,” Mullin told Fox News on Wednesday.

“I don’t wanna be stuck in my vehicle when I need to exit in a hurry because I got a seat belt around me. And I wear my seat belt all the time, but in Washington, D.C., I do not because it is so prevalent of carjacking. And I don’t want the same thing happen to me what’s happened to a lot of people that work on the Hill.”

Not wearing a seatbelt in D.C. is against the law and subject to fines. In fact, one of the violations that federal agents have spent their valuable time pursuing while policing the nation’s capital is the failure to wear a seatbelt.

Mullins’ purported behavior also doesn’t make sense in the context of a carjacking, because a carjacker would prefer drivers go without a seatbelt so they can more easily take control of the car they are trying to steal.

And statistics show that carjackings are down considerably in D.C. in the past two years. The city has gone from a high of 67.5 carjackings per 100,000 residents in 2023 to 23.8 in 2025.

Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told CNN on Wednesday that he is so afraid of crime in D.C. that he sleeps in his office.

“I come from a family of public education. That's one of the reasons I live in my office at night. But the other reason is it's too dadgum dangerous, brother. It is dangerous and everybody knows it, and the people are being victimized,” he explained.

Florida Sen. Rick Scott said Trump’s actions in Washington are necessary because the city needs to be safe for his grandchildren. In its current state Scott argued Tuesday, “You’ve got to be very careful, you can’t be out after dark.”

Reality check: thousands of people go out at night in Washington, a city with a vibrant nightlife and culture.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who chairs the House Oversight Committee and is most famous for obsessing over Hunter Biden’s laptop, escalated things on Thursday.

“We're gonna support doing this in other cities if it works out in Washington DC. We spend a lot on our military. Our military has been in many countries around the world for the past two decades walking the streets trying to reduce crime. We need to focus on the big cities in America now,” he told the conservative Newsmax network.

The 147-year old Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of federal military personnel in enforcing domestic policy, and has often been invoked by conservatives when fearmongering about Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

But Comer apparently believes that scary sandwich-throwing requires that the law be ignored.

Trump’s allies in right-wing media are also in the throes of crying for “daddy” to fix the problem, with figures like Charlie Kirk, Megyn Kelly, and Ainsley Earhardt cheering the over-the-top incursion into the nation’s capital.

But the data shows that these crybabies aren’t operating in reality. Crime is at a 30-year low in Washington and the show of force has squandered federal resources on mundane violations best left to local police.

“Daddy” Trump is more concerned with distracting the public from his connection to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking scandal and downplaying the continued economic disruption happening on his watch. His bawling children on the right are merely offering up another round of crocodile tears.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World