9 Democrat Reps cast meaningless votes in support of GOP witch hunt against Clintons in Epstein

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't the Clintons already provided written testimony?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought everyone wanted to get to the bottom of the Epstein files? The Clintons know more about his activities than anyone. Question is: Why WOULDN'T you want them to testify? I guess certain folks are above the law...

The Clintons know more than anyone?

Not Trump, who owned and lived in one of Epstein's bases of operations?

How many times did Epstein visit the White House under Clinton ? Wasn’t it something like 20? (Those darn secret service logs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9 Democrat Reps cast meaningless votes in support of GOP witch hunt against Clintons on Epstein.

The vote was going to pass without them, but they had to make a performative show of aligning with the GOP traitors actively covering up Trump's culpability and supporting DOJ's contempt.


https://www.axios.com/2026/01/22/bill-clinton-contempt-epstein-democrats-jeffries

Your partisanship is showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are trying to say that any congressional subpoena should be honored, to set the tone for next year.

This has advanced well beyond political posturing, and they (and you?) still don't seem to get that. It does not matter one wit what they do now. The GOP will not suddenly not be full of traitorous hypocrites, and they will not honor congressional subpoenas because a few democrats made a symbolic vote a year ago.

This is an actual witch hunt and the Clintons are right to ignore it. They are shameless politicians and Bill Clinton is a known womanizer. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved with Epsteins illegal crimes. Whereas there is tons of evidence that Trump was.

It is not a witch hunt. Clinton has had many photos with Epstein.
Your viewpoint is clouded with bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they are trying to say that any congressional subpoena should be honored, to set the tone for next year.

+1

I was appalled and puzzled that the Democrats during their investigations and especially the impeachment just accepted people’s refusals to testify. If someone gets a subpoena to traffic court or even a jury summons they had better comply or accept that there will be repercussions.

Congress is a coequal branch to the judiciary and thus its authority to execute its Constitutionally assigned function to hold impeachment trials is equal to that of the Supreme Court to conduct its proceedings. Logic dictates that, in order to serve as the intended check and balance on the other two branches, that it has the authority to do so. Why the Democrats felt that a subpoena meant making a polite request to pretty please come and talk and crossing their fingers and making a wish was going to be effective, I’ll never understand.

Congress should absolutely enforce its subpoenas, regardless of persons, whether the recipient is a President, an ex-President, or an ordinary citizen. Moreover, I (along with most Americans) are sick of politicians saying that because the other side acted badly ours should, as well. The Democrats should be leading the charge as the defenders of Democracy and advocates of justice.

I don’t think the Clintons had any significant involvement in Epstein’s crimes (for that matter I think it unlikely that Trump did either, although between Trump and Clinton I’d say Trump was more likely to be more involved), but they should still go and testify to that for the record. This isn’t about sides, but if the Democrats treat it that way, they sacrifice the moral high ground that should be a given against the Republicans. Instead of asking why 9 representatives voted for the Republican measure, you should ask why the Democrats didn’t propose it in the first place and unanimously support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9 Democrat Reps cast meaningless votes in support of GOP witch hunt against Clintons on Epstein.

The vote was going to pass without them, but they had to make a performative show of aligning with the GOP traitors actively covering up Trump's culpability and supporting DOJ's contempt.


https://www.axios.com/2026/01/22/bill-clinton-contempt-epstein-democrats-jeffries

Am I correct in observing the fact that this useless, idiotic Axios "article" doesn't actually list the 9 Democrats who cast the votes? WTF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I support anyone who tries to uphold the authority of Congress. The Clintons should just get on with it. I am full of admiration for Hillary who spent 12 hours or so getting grilled by Congress for Benghazi. I know they're much older now and it's very tiring and stressful for them... but they should go and tell their truth. Let the world see they're old and frail with poor recall. Televise the bullying and victimization. Let the people hate Comer instead.

Congress is occupied by a majority of traitors who won't uphold the authority of Congress.

PP you replied to. I know. I know it's a witch hunt against the Clintons, because Comer waived appearances by the other people he subpoenaed, but insisted for the Clintons. I know the GOP are traitors.

But the Clintons still need to get up there and testify. Anything else is a bad look. This is the tip of the iceberg of unfair things that happen when the voters give their country to fascists.

[Anonymous]

Bannon, Navarro were sent to jail for not testifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 Democrat Reps cast meaningless votes in support of GOP witch hunt against Clintons on Epstein.

The vote was going to pass without them, but they had to make a performative show of aligning with the GOP traitors actively covering up Trump's culpability and supporting DOJ's contempt.


https://www.axios.com/2026/01/22/bill-clinton-contempt-epstein-democrats-jeffries

Am I correct in observing the fact that this useless, idiotic Axios "article" doesn't actually list the 9 Democrats who cast the votes? WTF

Newsweek has it:
https://www.newsweek.com/bill-hilary-clinton-contempt-jeffrey-epstein-files-democrats-11397229

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are trying to say that any congressional subpoena should be honored, to set the tone for next year.

This has advanced well beyond political posturing, and they (and you?) still don't seem to get that. It does not matter one wit what they do now. The GOP will not suddenly not be full of traitorous hypocrites, and they will not honor congressional subpoenas because a few democrats made a symbolic vote a year ago.

This is an actual witch hunt and the Clintons are right to ignore it. They are shameless politicians and Bill Clinton is a known womanizer. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved with Epsteins illegal crimes. Whereas there is tons of evidence that Trump was.

It is not a witch hunt. Clinton has had many photos with Epstein.
Your viewpoint is clouded with bias.

Epstein was a wealthy socialite. Lots of people have pictures with him. That's not evidence of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I support anyone who tries to uphold the authority of Congress. The Clintons should just get on with it. I am full of admiration for Hillary who spent 12 hours or so getting grilled by Congress for Benghazi. I know they're much older now and it's very tiring and stressful for them... but they should go and tell their truth. Let the world see they're old and frail with poor recall. Televise the bullying and victimization. Let the people hate Comer instead.

Congress is occupied by a majority of traitors who won't uphold the authority of Congress.

PP you replied to. I know. I know it's a witch hunt against the Clintons, because Comer waived appearances by the other people he subpoenaed, but insisted for the Clintons. I know the GOP are traitors.

But the Clintons still need to get up there and testify. Anything else is a bad look. This is the tip of the iceberg of unfair things that happen when the voters give their country to fascists.

You dont see how dangerous it'd be for them to testify in this environment? Facts don't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Hatred and lies rule the day. It does not matter what they get up there and say. They are already guilty as far as this regime is concerned, and they are out for blood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 Democrat Reps cast meaningless votes in support of GOP witch hunt against Clintons on Epstein.

The vote was going to pass without them, but they had to make a performative show of aligning with the GOP traitors actively covering up Trump's culpability and supporting DOJ's contempt.


https://www.axios.com/2026/01/22/bill-clinton-contempt-epstein-democrats-jeffries

Am I correct in observing the fact that this useless, idiotic Axios "article" doesn't actually list the 9 Democrats who cast the votes? WTF

Newsweek has it:
https://www.newsweek.com/bill-hilary-clinton-contempt-jeffrey-epstein-files-democrats-11397229

Thanks, but what a joke that Axios runs an article about "9 Democrat Reps" who voted this way but, um... forgets to name them in said article. Quality reporting and editing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are trying to say that any congressional subpoena should be honored, to set the tone for next year.

+1

I was appalled and puzzled that the Democrats during their investigations and especially the impeachment just accepted people’s refusals to testify. If someone gets a subpoena to traffic court or even a jury summons they had better comply or accept that there will be repercussions.

Congress is a coequal branch to the judiciary and thus its authority to execute its Constitutionally assigned function to hold impeachment trials is equal to that of the Supreme Court to conduct its proceedings. Logic dictates that, in order to serve as the intended check and balance on the other two branches, that it has the authority to do so. Why the Democrats felt that a subpoena meant making a polite request to pretty please come and talk and crossing their fingers and making a wish was going to be effective, I’ll never understand.

Congress should absolutely enforce its subpoenas, regardless of persons, whether the recipient is a President, an ex-President, or an ordinary citizen. Moreover, I (along with most Americans) are sick of politicians saying that because the other side acted badly ours should, as well. The Democrats should be leading the charge as the defenders of Democracy and advocates of justice.

I don’t think the Clintons had any significant involvement in Epstein’s crimes (for that matter I think it unlikely that Trump did either, although between Trump and Clinton I’d say Trump was more likely to be more involved), but they should still go and testify to that for the record. This isn’t about sides, but if the Democrats treat it that way, they sacrifice the moral high ground that should be a given against the Republicans. Instead of asking why 9 representatives voted for the Republican measure, you should ask why the Democrats didn’t propose it in the first place and unanimously support it.

Moral high ground only matters on a moral battleground. This is not a moral battleground. It's an actual battleground. And you don't cede actual high ground for philosophical high ground. It is not safe for them to testify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are trying to say that any congressional subpoena should be honored, to set the tone for next year.

+1

I was appalled and puzzled that the Democrats during their investigations and especially the impeachment just accepted people’s refusals to testify. If someone gets a subpoena to traffic court or even a jury summons they had better comply or accept that there will be repercussions.

Congress is a coequal branch to the judiciary and thus its authority to execute its Constitutionally assigned function to hold impeachment trials is equal to that of the Supreme Court to conduct its proceedings. Logic dictates that, in order to serve as the intended check and balance on the other two branches, that it has the authority to do so. Why the Democrats felt that a subpoena meant making a polite request to pretty please come and talk and crossing their fingers and making a wish was going to be effective, I’ll never understand.

Congress should absolutely enforce its subpoenas, regardless of persons, whether the recipient is a President, an ex-President, or an ordinary citizen. Moreover, I (along with most Americans) are sick of politicians saying that because the other side acted badly ours should, as well. The Democrats should be leading the charge as the defenders of Democracy and advocates of justice.

I don’t think the Clintons had any significant involvement in Epstein’s crimes (for that matter I think it unlikely that Trump did either, although between Trump and Clinton I’d say Trump was more likely to be more involved), but they should still go and testify to that for the record. This isn’t about sides, but if the Democrats treat it that way, they sacrifice the moral high ground that should be a given against the Republicans. Instead of asking why 9 representatives voted for the Republican measure, you should ask why the Democrats didn’t propose it in the first place and unanimously support it.

Moral high ground only matters on a moral battleground. This is not a moral battleground. It's an actual battleground. And you don't cede actual high ground for philosophical high ground. It is not safe for them to testify.

If we are at that point, that Trump is going to convict them, no matter what their testimony can’t harm them. In that case, it would seem that testifying would be their best defense, and it should be a spectacle. Testifying in front of the cameras while the world watches would seem much preferable to what a dictator can do in secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are trying to say that any congressional subpoena should be honored, to set the tone for next year.

This has advanced well beyond political posturing, and they (and you?) still don't seem to get that. It does not matter one wit what they do now. The GOP will not suddenly not be full of traitorous hypocrites, and they will not honor congressional subpoenas because a few democrats made a symbolic vote a year ago.

This is an actual witch hunt and the Clintons are right to ignore it. They are shameless politicians and Bill Clinton is a known womanizer. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved with Epsteins illegal crimes. Whereas there is tons of evidence that Trump was.

It is not a witch hunt. Clinton has had many photos with Epstein.
Your viewpoint is clouded with bias.

DP. This is true of Bill but why Hillary? There are so many men that were much more closely linked to Epstein that I don’t see how insisting Hilary Clinton testify is anything other than a witch hunt.