By Don Terry | Friday February 27, 2026 | 7 min read
It was supposed to be a serious, fact-finding session about the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and the systemic failures that allowed him to abuse young girls for years. Instead, according to Hillary Clinton, her hours-long deposition before the House Oversight Committee veered from tedious repetition into something she described as genuinely strange.
Clinton argued that the committee’s priorities raised obvious questions. Republicans chose to subpoena her — a former first lady who, she says, never met Jeffrey Epstein — while declining to question Melania Trump, who did have documented social ties to Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Publicly available records show that Melania Trump attended events where Epstein and Maxwell were present, and that emails in the so-called “Epstein files” included friendly exchanges between Melania Trump and Maxwell. By contrast, Clinton maintains there are no communications linking her to either Epstein or Maxwell.
So why, she asked, was she the one compelled to testify? Why not ask Melania Trump what she knew, if anything? Did she meet Epstein through Donald Trump, or the other way around? These were the kinds of questions Clinton suggested the committee seemed uninterested in pursuing.
Clinton also referenced a statement attributed to a former Palm Beach police chief, who said that in 2006 Donald Trump remarked, “Thank goodness you’re stopping him. Everyone has known he’s been doing this.” If that account is accurate, Clinton implied, then the word “everyone” would presumably include those in Trump’s immediate circle at the time.
To be clear, Clinton acknowledged that Melania Trump may have no meaningful information to offer. Simply attending the same events as someone does not imply knowledge of crimes. But, she argued, if the committee’s goal is to follow connections wherever they lead, then those connections should be examined consistently — regardless of party.
In her written opening statement, Clinton also pointed out what she described as uneven treatment of witnesses. She reminded committee members that eight senior law enforcement officials who oversaw the Justice Department or FBI during Epstein-related investigations had been subpoenaed. Only one appeared in person, she noted. Several others were permitted to submit brief statements saying they had no relevant information.
Clinton said she requested similar treatment. She submitted a written statement asserting she had no knowledge relevant to the committee’s investigation. But, she said, Republicans rejected that option for her while accepting it from others.
Her testimony quickly turned into a broader critique of the committee’s approach. She argued that key figures named prominently in Epstein-related documents were not aggressively pursued, and she cited the example of Les Wexner’s deposition, which reportedly drew little Republican attendance.
Clinton contended that the investigation appeared less focused on uncovering institutional failures and more on political point-scoring. She directly named Donald Trump in her statement, accusing the committee of compelling her testimony despite knowing she had no useful information, while avoiding direct questioning of the current president.
“If transparency is truly the goal,” she argued, “then release the full files. Question everyone who appears in them under oath. Follow the facts wherever they lead.”
Clinton leaned on her own experience to make the case. Long before she was secretary of state or a presidential nominee, she served as a senator and worked on congressional investigations — even during the Watergate era. From that perspective, she said her concerns weren’t personal. They were about process. In her view, serious investigations only work when the rules apply to everyone the same way: the same standards for subpoenas, the same expectations for testimony, no special treatment based on politics.
Agree with her or not, her argument was straightforward. If Congress truly wants to understand how Epstein operated and who may have enabled him, then the investigation has to be thorough, transparent, and even-handed — no matter whose name comes up.
When she left the closed-door session, Clinton appeared worn down and irritated. She described the questioning as “repetitive,” suggesting the hours behind closed doors felt less like a search for new facts and more like going in circles.
“They asked literally the same questions over and over again, which didn’t seem to me to be very productive,” she told reporters afterward, describing a process that felt less like a search for facts and more like an exercise in endurance.
The former secretary of state insisted she answered every inquiry put to her, even when it circled back to the same point. “I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein,” she said. “I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices.”
For Clinton, the central issue was not her own name appearing in headlines but what she sees as a missed opportunity. Epstein’s crimes — the trafficking and abuse of underage girls — left deep scars on survivors and raised profound questions about wealth, power, and accountability. Clinton argued the proceedings were not structured to bring clarity or justice.
“The proceedings were not designed to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors of Epstein’s crimes,” she said, taking direct aim at the committee’s Republican majority. In her opening statement, she sharply criticized what she characterized as political theater.
As the session wore on, Clinton said, the line of questioning veered into unexpected territory. “It got quite unusual,” she recounted, “because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile bogus conspiracy theories.”
Her reference was to the 2016 conspiracy theory known as Pizzagate, which falsely claimed that a Washington, DC pizzeria was a front for a child sex ring involving Democratic officials. The baseless allegations spread widely online and culminated in a gunman firing shots inside the restaurant. No evidence ever substantiated the claims.
Clinton has long viewed the episode as a dangerous illustration of how misinformation can metastasize. To hear it resurface in a congressional setting, she suggested, underscored how deeply such narratives remain embedded in segments of the political discourse.
Meanwhile, the shadow of former President Donald Trump loomed over the proceedings. Trump’s past relationship with Epstein has been a recurring political vulnerability. The two men once socialized, though Trump has said he later distanced himself and removed Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club, claiming the financier “stole” staffers. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein.
Clinton questioned why the committee was not focusing more squarely on individuals with documented ties. “If this committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein’s trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement,” she said. “It would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.” Even speak with Melania
Representative Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the committee, echoed that sentiment, telling reporters that Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick should testify about their connections to Epstein. Lutnick has acknowledged visiting Epstein’s private island years after initially saying he had cut off ties.
Mein Kampf & Trump — Available on Amazon
Oversight committee chair James Comer left open the possibility of subpoenaing Lutnick but dismissed the idea of calling Trump. “President Trump has answered hundreds if not thousands of questions from you all about Epstein,” Comer told reporters, arguing that the former president had been transparent.
For Clinton, the deeper frustration appears to be about priorities. “If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions,” she said. “There is too much that needs to be done. What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?”
In the end, what was billed as a quest for accountability has, at least for now, become another flashpoint in America’s polarized politics — one where repetition, conspiracy, and unresolved questions continue to collide.