Be careful what you wish for. That’s the message for Democrats who ran with the idea that Donald Trump is hiding Jeffrey Epstein’s client list because he’s on it.
Fool around and find out. That’s another message specifically for Bill Clinton, who was subpoenaed, along with his wife, Hillary, by the House Oversight Committee to testify in October regarding its probe of the “horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein.” Along with the Clintons, former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller and former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales have all received subpoenas to testify on various days in August and September. The Justice Department itself has until August 19 to turn over the “full, complete, unredacted Epstein Files” to the Oversight Committee.
The DOJ announced in July that Attorney General Pam Bondi overpromised and underdelivered. Well, that isn’t quite what the DOJ said. But despite her desk thumping in February, the Justice Department said in a July memo, “This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
Later in July, former Epstein attorney Alan Dershowitz agreed.
There’s little question that Bondi has thoroughly botched this case, and Trump hasn’t been a whole lot better, dismissing it as either something no one cares about or merely a Democrat hoax. It’s arguably the biggest unforced error by Trump’s second administration.
However, Trump and Bondi might have been implementing a strategy to bait Democrats. If so, it’s working because Democrats eagerly joined the Right in demanding the release of the Epstein files. They may not like what they receive.
We’ll see what, if anything, interesting comes from the DOJ. Furthermore, Bill Clinton may refuse to testify, perhaps by claiming executive privilege. If he does testify, it’s hard to imagine how he’d do so without either lying or pleading the Fifth Amendment early and often. Either way, he won’t look good.
Hillary Clinton may just show up and demand to know, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Meanwhile, the committee has delayed testimony from Epstein’s former girlfriend and convicted sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell, after denying her request for immunity. “The Committee is willing to continue to engage in good faith negotiations,” wrote Chairman James Comer (R-KY) to her attorney. “However, the Committee is unwilling to grant you congressional immunity.” She’s already serving 20 years for sex trafficking.
“The facts and circumstances surrounding both Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell’s cases have received immense public interest and scrutiny,” Comer also wrote. “While the Department undertakes efforts to uncover and publicly disclose additional information related to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell’s cases, it is imperative that Congress conduct oversight of the federal government’s enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt summed it up best last month: “Democrats have now seized on this as if they ever wanted transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, which is an asinine suggestion for any Democrat to make. The Democrats had control of this building, the White House, for four years, and they didn’t do a dang thing when it came to transparency in regards to Jeffrey Epstein and his heinous crimes. It was this president who directed the Department of Justice and the attorney general to do an exhaustive review of all files related to Jeffrey Epstein, which they did.”
Now, Democrats may regret having played this game.
