Comeback Kid' no more: Dems aren't protecting the Clintons from Epstein scrutiny

[question everything]

Bill and Hillary Clinton are in House Republicans’ crosshairs — and the Democratic Party they once led isn’t coming to the rescue.

A youthful vanguard of progressive office-holders unlikely to even recall the Clinton presidency, let alone defend the former president’s foibles, have largely opted against defending the once formidable pair, even as many regard the GOP effort to compel their testimony blatantly hypocritical and politically driven. Last week, in fact, nine Democratic lawmakers joined Republicans and voted in favor of holding the two-term president in contempt for defying a subpoena to testify as part of the panel’s investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Just three broke ranks on a similar vote against the former secretary of State.

(snip)

It’s a remarkable rejection of “The Comeback Kid,” who was heartily cheered 18 months ago during the Democratic National Convention, as well as the party’s 2016 presidential nominee, and demonstrates the lack of clout the two have inside the current Democratic Party. The party’s effective abandonment of its longtime standard bearers provides a vivid illustration of how many members are eager to disassociate themselves from the Clinton brand. Both Clintons have said they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and they argue the subpoenas were not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose, rendering them invalid.

(snip)

The Clintons have accused Comer of pursuing partisan antics designed to put them in prison. In a post on X on Monday responding to the Oversight Committee, Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote that the former president and former secretary of State had “negotiated in good faith” and already “told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care.”

(snip)

Still, several of Clinton’s contemporaries acknowledged a generational shift in loyalties as the political pressure of Comer’s subpoenas grew in recent weeks. “There are fewer people in politics who were there during the Clinton years and during the Clinton revival of the Democratic Party. So there's less loyalty there,” said Bill Daley, who served as Clinton’s secretary of Commerce and acknowledged that the former president’s ties to Epstein “has been a problem … for a number of years.”. That said, Daley didn’t look kindly upon Democrats abiding by constitutional norms at a time when a Republican administration is frequently ignoring them.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republicans-again-target-clintons-democrats-094500286.html

=========

Many forget that Clinton was the first Democrat to be re-elected since FDR. Should at least consider this

[Easterncedar]

1. I think the Clintons don't want to be part of the circus

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2026, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

And don't care to have their lives further wasted by these malicious morons. After all the hours of torture they have both spent being investigated over the years, with virtually nothing found, except ordinary adultery (not to excuse that, but not my business). FFS. If the files had anything real on Clinton that would have been released a year ago. In big bold unredacted headlines.

[rampartd]

7. if epstein had anything on clinton that would be out in 2016

i think the clintons deserve an opportunity to testify, in public, under oath.

comer and jordan might regret this.

if any dems are guilty of this stuff, or of covering up for these guys, now is the time to come clean or announce your retirement.

[electric_blue68]

25. And underlined in red, or something!

[EarlG]

2. I think there might be something else going on here...

I'm not sure this is simply a case of Democrats deciding that they don't want to defend the Clintons and they're basically throwing them under the bus. I don't have any insider info that would prove otherwise, but here's another story from today that seems relevant:

After Republicans push Clintons to testify on Epstein, Democrats warn they'll haul in Trump

(NBC News) WASHINGTON — Facing the threat of being held in contempt of Congress, Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed Tuesday to testify before the House Oversight Committee about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Democrats now say Republicans have established a precedent when it comes to Congress’ ability to subpoena and haul in past presidents, first ladies and family members under threat of criminal charges if they refuse — a precedent they warn the GOP and Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., will soon regret.

"We are absolutely going to have Donald Trump testify under oath" when Democrats take back power, California Rep. Ted Lieu, a member of Democratic leadership who for years has been highlighting Donald Trump's ties to Epstein, told NBC News on Tuesday.

https://democraticunderground.com/1016422730

It seems to me that the Clintons genuinely feel like they don't have anything to hide here, and that by appearing they are setting a new bar -- they are going to have people, including people in the media, wondering why the Clintons are the only people being forced to do this, when people like Elon Musk (who is literally in the Epstein files begging to come and party on Epstein's pedo island) are not.

Donald Trump was out there yesterday telling reporters to move on from the Epstein files. By forcing the Clintons to testify, House Republicans are ensuring that the Epstein story is going to keep rolling along.

[newdeal2]

3. It only sets a precedent in terms of norms and perception

But not legally. If the Clintons do it “willingly,” don’t expect Trump to do the same. SCOTUS will bail him out.

[Raven123]

4. I see this story as a nothingburger.

My take is the Clintons can protect themselves. They called for the files to be released, so I assume they do not think they are at risk by what is contained. What’s to protect? There is no upside to getting in the middle of this. The GOP is going back to the boogie man/woman. It just shows they have no strategy.

Have a public hearing. Dems can use their time to show how often Trump is in the files. Go for it.

[Kid Berwyn]

5. The Clintons will show the nation they are good people.

The GOP will rue the day they tried to use trump's best friend to smear them.

[AZJonnie]

6. It's mainly "Teh Deep State" that's going to be in the crosshairs in the upcoming House investigation

Where the stated theme is basically "Why did the DoJ let Epstein Get Away With Everything For So Long".

Along w/the Clintons, the presence has also been requested of: Alberto Gonzalez, Comey, Mueller, Holder, Lynch, Sessions, Barr, and Garland. I'm not sure who all has agreed thus far, how many were actually subpoenaed like B&H, but that was their list of who they want to see before them.

I have to admit, I'm interested to see what threads Democrats pull at. The GQP will be all about establishing that the DoJ is "weaponized" and "playing politics" and "protecting Democrats", and getting each of them to admit they never had real cause to ever go after Trump over his involvement with Epstein, but the Democrats are likely going to ask some good faith and illustrative questions.

[lostincalifornia]

8. What a bullshit article from politico. The Democrats aren't protecting the Clintons, in fact they were publicly

critical of Clinton during his impeachment, and during this Epstein fiasco they have as a whole consistently said expose everyone involved with Epstein, unlike most of the republicans who have done everything in their power to delay and prevent release of any information of who has been involved with Epstein.

What would be refreshing is if Politico actually produced a piece explaining how the republicans in Congress have been going out of their way not only to carry the water for the sociopath in the white house, but to push the same lies and misinformation from the White House.

No Politico, THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, AND HAVE NEVER BEEN, IT IS THE REPUBLICANS, AND PUBLICATIONS LIKE YOURS THAT HAVE BEEN DISTORTING THE FACTS SINCE THE ATTEMPTED INSURRECTION AGAINST OUR DEMOCRACY SINCE JANUARY 6.

[betsuni]

16. Weird article, like the "research" about the Democratic Party was Wikipedia and their mom or Uncle Stan.

[lostincalifornia]

17. Well said betsuni.

[Tommy Carcetti]

9. The Clintons will be fine.

Hillary held her own with Congress for 11 hours back in 2015, and there's absolutely no one better in politics at explaining complex situations in plain, understandable English than Bill.

Of course, there's no way around the fact that a man they did some business with in the early 2000s was in fact a sexual deviant. That doesn't imply any sort of guilt on their own behalf, and I haven't seen anything to date yet that indicates they were in any way complicit.

I really don't care much one way or another what some of the younger members of the party might take on it. But the Clintons themselves will be fine.

[leftstreet]

10. Trump sounds scared. No more LoCk hEr UP!

Jake Sherman
@JakeSherman
18h
"I think it's a shame," Trump says, of the House bringing Bill and Hillary Clinton into testify.

"I always liked him," Trump says of Bill Clinton.

"She's a very capable woman," Trump on Hillary Clinton.

"I hate to see it in many ways," Trump says.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Qutzupalotl]

11. Good catch. Reminds me of what he said about Maxwell...

“I wish her well.” Like, I barely know her, but I wish her well.

Trump knows her bare-ly, but wouldn't recognize her with clothes on.

[Prairie Gates]

12. Comeback Kid was a phrase from 1992...that was 34 years ago!

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2026, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)

It's like if people kept talking about the fucking Eisenhower administration in the early 90s.

Let it go.

Fuck's sake.

[JHB]

13. Hey, Al Franken got tossed overboard for not actually doing anything, so let the High Standards reign

My own opinion is that Clinton had contact with Epstein because Epstein drew people with lots of money, which made Clinton's fundraising radar start pinging ka-ching, but if he took part in any of the other goings-on, he can roast.

And frankly, if that latter is the case, we'd actually gain votes by selling tickets to brush sauce on him.

Like I said, I don't think it goes there for him, but if I'm mistaken I'm not the least bit inclined to defend him. Wasn't thrilled with what he did in the 90s (WHILE REPUBLICANS MADE NO SECRET THEY WERE HUNTING FOR THINGS TO PIN ON HIM), but Monica was an adult and the Republicans were so painfully hypocritical.

[Lovie777]

14. Maybe not the younger ones..

but they still have strong support.

I would not be surprised if all of this, on the Dems side is a trap regarding the orange one.

[comradebillyboy]

15. I don't think Bill and Hillary need protection.

If there was anything incriminating the pukes would have released it long ago. Bill was a womanizer but he seemed to prefer actual adult women.

[JCMach1]

19. The MAGA GOP invited two honey badgers over

For a petting.... I think we know how this is going to go.

[Skittles]

24. thank you

Monica wasn't a child, I was a sergeant in the Air Force at that age

[3catwoman3]

27. Indeed she was not. Even 5 yr olds know...

...you are not supposed to show people your underwear.

[UTUSN]

18. My main lesson from defending Bill the last time was, never again put an individual above the party's AGENDA.

When the dust settled, and it took years, my paradigm changed to regarding "leaders" only as instruments in the service of the Agenda, not as idols, and I then came to think that he should have resigned and let GORE take over. I defended him to the last ditch in real time based on purely partisan terms. As of now, I'm repulsed at the MAGAts doing this (again), but have no idea what or any involvement Bill has, but defending him now is not my option, just he can look out for himself.

[lame54]

21. No...

You were not defending Bill
You were fighting republican overreach
That you should always fight
As in this instance

[UTUSN]

22. Not reframing what I lived.

[lame54]

20. They need to drop Trump's name as much as possible

[LetMyPeopleVote]

23. MaddowBlog-As Clintons prepare to answer questions about Epstein, Trump balks

Republican Rep. James Comer opened a door that has long been closed. His party might come to regret the decision.

As Clintons prepare to answer questions about Epstein, Trump balks

www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Mike Walker (@newnarrative.bsky.social) 2026-02-05T19:34:10.950Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/as-clintons-prepare-to-answer-questions-about-epstein-trump-balks

It’s never been altogether clear why Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, launched a crusade to get Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify as part of his panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation. But the Kentucky Republican did it anyway, even issuing first-of-their-kind subpoenas to compel the Democrats’ testimony.....

“So let’s stop the games,” Hillary Clinton added. “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.”

The hapless committee chairman hasn’t yet responded, but in the meantime, there’s also a larger context to all of this. The New York Times reported that no former president has ever been compelled to testify to Congress under subpoena, and Comer has set a precedent his party might ultimately come to regret.

Members of Congress don’t necessarily think that is a good thing; they want the ability to bring in former presidents when they are relevant witnesses and may have something meaningful to say. And Mr. Comer’s move was a rare power play by a Republican lawmaker at a time when the G.O.P.-led House and Senate have ceded much of their power to the White House.

But his accomplishment also amounted to a remarkable use of government power to target a political adversary — the kind seen more often in autocratic societies where a peaceful transfer of power is not a given because leaders fear ending up in prison after leaving office. And it was one that some experts said further chipped away at the country’s democratic norms.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Times that “like all powers of Congress or any other branch, these are powers that can be abused. We’re living in a period of spectacular abuse of power.”.....

It was against this backdrop that NBC News’ Tom Llamas reminded the incumbent president: “Democrats are already saying if you bring President Bill Clinton and he has to testify, we’re bringing President Trump.” Before the anchor could finish his question about this, Trump interjected.

“Well, I think they might say that, you know? But they’ve already brought me. See, I’ve been brought,” the president replied. “They had me indicted, many, many times. Many, many times.”

Like so many of the president’s comments, this didn’t make any sense at all — congressional Democrats had nothing to do with the many criminal charges Trump has faced — though the response suggested he’s not at all eager to answer questions about Epstein, even if subpoenaed in future years, and even if the Clintons cooperate.

trump may be worried about being called before congress after his term is up. I personally do not believe that trump will survive to the end of his term in order to be forced to testify. trump may be worried because he cannot conceive of dying

[JBTaurus83]

26. The King of Delay

Will never be in front of Congress.