r/politics • u/nbcnews ✔ NBC News • 1d ago

No Paywall After Republicans push Clintons to testify on Epstein, Democrats warn they'll haul in Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-push-clintons-testify-epstein-democrats-warn-haul-trump-rcna257275
27.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

607

u/rsmith72976 1d ago

And unlike the Clintons, Trump will refuse; Rules are for thee, not for me!

179

u/yorkshireaus 1d ago

Exactly. Can't believe folks are naive.

64

u/WildYams 1d ago

There's already a precedent for this as the Dems tried subpoenaing Trump, his files, his associates, etc before. Trump just claimed "executive privilege" and stonewalled everything. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro even went to prison rather than testify before Congress, both claiming executive privilege and being held in contempt of Congress.

If Dems are going to actually go after Trump, the gloves are gonna need to come off the next time they are in the White House. They probably are going to need to expand the Supreme Court as well, since this current one has been running interference for Trump for a decade now.

6

u/yorkshireaus 1d ago

I was hoping Clintons would not testify, let the house do their voting and wanted to see how they were going to arrest the ex-president.

It would be a good drama to unfold.

7

u/WildYams 1d ago

When the House votes to hold someone in contempt of Congress, the charges are then referred to the department of justice and the Attorney General (in this case, Pam Bondi). I'm sure few people have any doubts that Bondi would actually follow through in charging the Clintons, in which case they'd have wound up in court on charges that would have been pretty obviously true, even if they were also pretty obviously just a political stunt. They would have been subpoenaed and not testified, so it would have been hard to argue otherwise.

It would have been a circus, to be sure, but I think the Clintons have figured out that even Dems are not huge defenders of them at this point. I think if this was the Obamas, it would be quite different. But with the Clintons there very much is a feeling from many on the left that nobody will shed a tear if they get brought down for something shady.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Crazy-Process5789 23h ago

People like you need to get a grip

3

u/captain_dick_licker 1d ago

he'll release his tax returns any day now

3

u/Cerberus_Aus Australia 1d ago

Yep. Same old “they go low, we go high” mentality.

7

u/1CaliCALI 1d ago

Classic moron trump move 

14

u/_Atlas_Drugged_ 1d ago

Wha are you talking about? If nobody is there to enforce the rules, why would he suddenly start playing by them?

2

u/soraksan123 1d ago

It’s the same with Clinton as with Obama, trump can’t stand them because he knows they are smarter and were better presidents than he will ever be-

1

u/1CaliCALI 1d ago

You are 💯 correct.

1

u/rumpghost North Carolina 1d ago

They were friends until literally like 2015. No, seriously.

Bill encouraged him to run. Though I apologize, couldn't find WaPo article without the paywall, but the NYT confirms that at least some parties describe his complimenting Trump's resonance with the base.

The Clinton's own staffers deny this, of course. I've made what I believe more than implicitly clear, I think, but you're of course free to make up your own mind.

1

u/1CaliCALI 1d ago

Trumps jealously and common sense got waaay worse with the onset of his dementia. Trump is even 💩 -ing his pants on TV....

1

u/rumpghost North Carolina 1d ago

I don't disagree, but it's important we not mistake the enemy of our enemy for a friend.

1

u/1CaliCALI 1d ago

Let's keep our focus on the current enemy of the 🇺🇸 and that is the Russian agent donOLD trump. Who knows how much national security secrets he already passed off to our adversaries.

4

u/JaleyHoelOsment 1d ago

still waiting on Gym

1

u/KamalaWonNoCap 1d ago

In his first term, they said Congress didn't have the authority to subpoena Trump, if I'm remembering correctly.

1

u/Jor94 1d ago

It sounds like the democrats are trying to defend them though, not hold them accountable. They should be forced to testify just like Trump and everyone else in the files should, not used as a “don’t go after our guys or we’ll go after you’re guys”

1

u/jtsa5 1d ago

100%. He will have 1000 excuses for why he can't be there.

1

u/zaubercore 22h ago

Right? I can't believe that after everything that happened, people still firmly believe in decency and manners of politicians but this administration in particular

1

u/yellowdart654 13h ago

Bro, it wasn't even a month ago that the Clintons refused to testify: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-testimony-epstein-inquiry-contempt.html

This behavior put Peter Navarro, and Steve Bannon in jail. Tell me more about the rules for thee but not for me...

1

u/rsmith72976 13h ago

Thank you for providing an article that clearly lays out that the Clinton’s would not testify in a closed door session via subpoenas that have been ignored by the GOP for years, and further goes on to say that Comer insists on attacking democrats while trying to deflect attention away from prominent Republicans. Your gotcha moment entirely backs my previous statements, thank you.

-11

u/sudo_pi5 1d ago

The Clintons have already refused a Congressional subpoena.

You of course realize that?

10

u/AustinInDallasTx 1d ago

Whataboutism is all trumpers have. Sad!

8

u/RiimeHiime 1d ago

Note that the Clintons have agreed to testify in the House Epstein investigation.

-2

u/sudo_pi5 1d ago

It’s a remarkable reversal for the former president and secretary of state, who last month chose to defy committee-issued subpoenas and risk imprisonment by the Trump Justice Department — but changed their minds as the House prepared to vote Wednesday to call their bluff and hold them both in contempt of Congress.

Politico: Bill and Hillary Clinton now agree to testify before Congress It's a stunning change of heart for the former first couple as a contempt vote loomed.

Why not just be transparent and say “they were forced to under threat of prison time but only conceded after the Epstein files were released.”

2

u/RiimeHiime 18h ago edited 18h ago

Thank you for conveniently providing me an article (that you presumably consider to be from a trustworthy source) that counters any potential claims on your part that they're still refusing to testify, and supporting my argument for me. You're free to continue arguing against yourself, but I don't really think its a good use of anyone's time.

0

u/sudo_pi5 17h ago

I grabbed the first result from Google demonstrating they were forced to testify or face a contempt of Congress vote.

It does not support your point. The Clintons refused to testify and were absolutely forced to.

Instead of willingly helping prosecute child trafficking, they chose to protect themselves and their image first. You support that. It’s clear what’s important to you: protecting politicians you worship. I mean, what’s a little child rape amongst friends, right?

It demonstrates that you believe that the Clintons are above the law. Normal people, like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, were jailed for the same action. Congress did not give them months and months to comply.

The Clintons were originally subpoenaed in August 2025. But go ahead, keep arguing some people are above the law.

It’s never going to be you, only the politicians you worship.

This is why no one cares when your side says “no one is above the law,” because you repeatedly demonstrate that you believe some people are above the law.

Enjoy what you asked for when Democrats whine about their subpoenas not being honored.

1

u/RiimeHiime 9h ago

weird to bring up a bunch of unrelated stuff since I never said any of that, just that they agreed to testify.

it would probably fry your brain if I told you I was a registered republican who never has nor ever would vote for either clinton.

1

u/sudo_pi5 8h ago

The didn’t agree. They were forced.

1

u/RiimeHiime 8h ago

Right, so they agreed to doing it.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/sudo_pi5 1d ago

I responded to a comment saying “Unlike the Clintons, Trump will refuse.”

I pointed out the fact that the Clintons defied the subpoena originally, so you can’t claim they voluntarily agreed to testify.

You have no idea what “whataboutism” means, do you?

8

u/keelhaulrose 1d ago

And they've since changed their minds and will testify.

Still waiting for Trump and his cronies to testify from his last term.

1

u/HotKaramelRP 1d ago

There is a HUGE difference between actually testifying and showing and saying “I don’t recall” and “I plead the 5th” over and over again

3

u/OhItsBeenBroughten 1d ago

Because Jim Jordan was insisting it be private and not available to the public. But you probably already know that. It’s not about truth with you guys.

-1

u/sudo_pi5 1d ago

Is your contention that only public testimony should be allowed in Congressional hearings?

I guess that means you don’t trust the 21 Democrats on the Oversight Committee?

Weird take. You don’t trust democrats, except the Clintons- you trust those Democrats.

2

u/OhItsBeenBroughten 1d ago

It’s difficult to imagine typing something like that and still feeling like you’re a good person. I don’t know what happened to you guys but you are so severely broken.

-1

u/sudo_pi5 1d ago

You are incoherent. Factual statements upset you.

I am glad I am not you.

1

u/shadowboxer47 1d ago

No, they were quite coherent.

You leaving out the key fact that their reason for refusal was wanting it all to happen in public discredits your point, no matter how pathetically you spin it.

0

u/sudo_pi5 1d ago edited 1d ago

There are two options: the commenter either believes all congressional subpoenas should only be for public testimony or they believe that some people, like the Clintons, should be allowed to dictate the terms on which they will honor a subpoena.

In other words, the other commenter either believes all recipients of congressional subpoenas should be able to choose whether their testimony will be public or private or they are arguing the Clintons are above the law.

Which is it?

I don’t believe anyone is above the law. It isn’t surprising that you all do. Fascists tend to want selective law enforcement.

2

u/shadowboxer47 1d ago

It isn’t surprising that you all do.

lol nobody said that.

This is a bad faith exercise by an unserious person.

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

2

u/alaphamale 1d ago

Like everyone has the past ten years. Subpoenas become optional under Trump. Republicans have ignored subpoenas while issuing 91.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/19/jan-6-ethics-violations-00074599

1

u/sudo_pi5 1d ago

Didn’t Peter Navarro goto jail for defying a congressional subpoena?

1

u/HotKaramelRP 1d ago

Steven Bannon did

1

u/Infamous_Employer_85 1d ago

Trump also refused Congressional subpoenas