Former President Bill Clinton, testifying under oath Friday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told investigators he spoke to Donald Trump once about Jeffrey Epstein and never saw or heard anything that would suggest Trump had any liability. That's according to Rep. James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the committee, who told Newsmax the testimony "exonerates" the president.
Clinton's appearance came after months of defying a congressional subpoena and only materialized after the committee threatened contempt of Congress charges. His wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testified on Thursday.
The committee is investigating how the late convicted sex offender built his global influence and whether government officials responded appropriately to his crimes. And now, the most prominent political figure compelled to answer questions under oath has offered testimony that points away from Trump rather than toward him.
Appearing on Newsmax's "Finnerty" on Friday, Comer walked through the significance of Clinton's testimony. He didn't mince words:
"Bill Clinton today said under oath that he had spoken to Donald Trump once about Epstein, and he never saw or heard anything about Donald Trump in their conversation that would lead him to believe that Donald Trump had any liability."
Comer added a point that sharpens the credibility of that statement considerably. This wasn't a friendly witness doing a favor.
"There's no love lost from Clinton to Trump."
That framing matters. If Bill Clinton, under oath and with every political reason to say otherwise, couldn't produce a single piece of incriminating testimony about Trump, the evidentiary picture is about as clear as it gets. Comer also pointed to a previous deposition by former Attorney General Bill Barr, who he said testified there was "no liability with Donald Trump."
Two witnesses. Two depositions. Zero evidence implicating Trump. Comer connected the dots plainly:
"I think the evidence is clear thus far that Donald Trump has no liability and is exonerated."
None of this has stopped House Democrats from pressing their preferred angle. Rep. Robert Garcia, the California Democrat who serves as ranking member, led renewed calls for Trump "to sit for deposition on Epstein ties." Guest host E.D. Hill asked Comer about those calls during the Newsmax appearance.
Consider what's actually happening here. The committee has secured testimony, under oath, from:
Both cleared Trump. And the Democratic response is to demand that Trump himself sit down and, presumably, also clear Trump. The investigation is producing evidence. The evidence points in one direction. Democrats don't like that direction, so they want to change the subject to the one name that generates cable news segments.
Comer noted that Trump has answered questions about Epstein in other settings. He also had a message for the Democrats pursuing this line:
"Look like fools for only obsessing over Donald Trump."
The committee's mandate is to investigate Epstein's network: the financial structure, the political connections, the institutional failures that allowed a convicted sex offender to operate for years. That's a serious investigation with serious implications, and it required contempt threats just to get a former president into the chair.
Bill Clinton defied that subpoena for months. He didn't show up voluntarily. He didn't cooperate eagerly. The committee had to drag him in under threat of criminal referral. That resistance, and the reasons behind it, seems far more relevant to the committee's core mission than a fishing expedition targeting someone whose own hostile witnesses can't produce a shred of incriminating testimony about him.
But congressional Democrats aren't interested in the investigation's actual findings. They're interested in maintaining a narrative. The Epstein case touches powerful people across the political spectrum. A serious inquiry follows the evidence wherever it leads. A political operation keeps circling back to the same name regardless of what the evidence shows.
Bill Clinton sat under oath, looked at investigators, and gave testimony that cleared Trump. The question now is whether Democrats will follow the evidence the investigation is actually producing, or keep demanding answers to a question that's already been answered.
The committee has its testimony. The record speaks for itself.
