Connect with us

Politics

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Stance on Epstein Testimony Dec. 10

Published

on

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Stance on Epstein Testimony Dec. 10

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Hon. James Comer
Hon. Robert Garcia
December 10, 2025 Page 3

That means, of the original eight individuals (aside from my clients) subpoenaed in August, only one has testified live, Attorney General Barr, who was Attorney General in 2019 when Epstein was investigated, indicted, and killed himself in federal custody.’ HOGR’s insistence that its work requires appearances from only three of the original ten witnesses called, two of whom are named “Clinton”, lays bare the partisan motivations behind insisting that my clients give live testimony. There is no credible basis for seeking such testimony.

President Clinton left office nearly twenty-five years ago. While in office, the Epstein matter was not before any part of the federal government, nor was it in the public domain. Furthermore, he had no relationship with Mr. Epstein for nearly twenty years before Mr. Epstein’s death. Mr. Epstein was first charged in 2006 by the State of Florida for a misdemeanor, executed a federal non-prosecution agreement in 2007, and pleaded guilty to two state felony charges in 2008. For context, and to note the historically high bar Congress has set until now, the Chairman has observed, “There have been two presidents in the last century that have been subpoenaed by Congress…. and neither ended up testifying in front of Congress.” (Washington Examiner, Aug. 6, 2025). No former President has appeared before Congress since 1983, forty-two years ago (and President Gerald Ford did so to discuss the upcoming celebration of the 1987 bicentennial of the enactment of the Constitution).² That is for good reason. Any legislative request for testimony from a current or former President inevitably raises separation of powers issues.³ While the Committee has indicated it respects the restraints of executive privilege when a President is asked for information (as Congress itself asks the Executive Branch to respect the Speech or Debate Clause), it is bound by Constitution, tradition, and practice to recognize the

1 I would note that in reviewing the 127-page transcript of Attorney General Barr’s testimony before the Committee, the word Clinton appears seven (7) times:

Secretary Clinton is mentioned three (3) times (once in conjunction with the Clinton Foundation). Two (2) were regarding President Trump’s actions relating to Russia and the 2016 election, far afield from the Epstein matter. The third reference was whether she somehow planted President Trump’s name in the Epstein files, despite her last serving in government nearly thirteen years ago. Barr’s testimony undercuts this conjecture.

President Clinton is mentioned three (3) times. In response to questions from the Committee, Barr states that there was no evidence President Clinton visited the island of Little St. James.

2 Further illustrating this separation of powers concern, President Reagan was not asked to appear before the congressional committees reviewing the Iran-Contra events, and President Clinton himself provided information privately to the independent (and not congressional) 9/11 Commission on a matter of national security and international relations.

3

See Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 612-13 (2024) (reviewing the importance of maintaining the separations of power involving requests of Presidents in explaining presumptive privilege).

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

Published

on

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.

The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.

The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.

Advertisement

Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.

“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”

Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”

“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending