Hillary Clinton DEMANDS PUBLIC Epstein Testimony, RIPS Into House Oversight Chair

[0:00] Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going on the attack against House Oversight [0:04] Chair James Comer. Clinton demanding a public hearing as part of the Oversight Committee's [0:09] probe into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Clinton writing on X, if you want this fight, [0:14] James Comer, let's have it in public. You talk to, you love to talk about transparency. There's [0:20] nothing more transparent than a public hearing. Camera's on. We'll be there. Here to break down [0:25] what this statement from Clinton could mean is the Hill's White House columnist, Niall Stanage. [0:29] Niall, thanks so much for joining us. First, what are your initial reactions to Clinton's call [0:34] for a public hearing? I think it's basically her trying to get the most favourable circumstances [0:40] that she can now that both she and former President Clinton have agreed to testify. [0:45] And I don't necessarily think there's anything nefarious about it. If one is testifying and one [0:51] knows that at least the Republicans on the committee are going to be hostile, it seems to [0:55] me fair enough that you would want it to be open hearing broadcast live for people, [1:00] can watch it in its entirety and make up their own minds. Whether this were Hillary Clinton or [1:05] anyone else, I think the difficulty with closed door hearings that are videoed is that the [1:12] political enemy, if he ever is testifying, can then, at least in theory, release selectively [1:18] edited parts of the video or leak parts of the video in a damaging way. The Oversight Committee [1:26] pushed back in a social media post, accusing the Clintons of spinning the facts, but not addressing [1:31] their demands for public testimony. Is there a real possibility that Comer could be open to this [1:37] public hearing? Could we see the former Secretary of State and former President testifying live on [1:42] television? I think it is a possibility. Now, James Comer doesn't seem enthusiastic about the [1:49] idea, to say the least. He has previously made comments where he has suggested that open hearings [1:55] before the cameras basically encourage grandstanding among members of the committee [2:00] and encourage... [2:01] those kinds of exchanges that are perhaps very explosive or very confrontational, but don't illuminate [2:09] very much. So, as for now, it appears that he doesn't seem all that king, but his argument is that the [2:17] video requirement was always part of the agreement to testify at all. He's arguing, and Republicans [2:27] on the committee are arguing, that it's the Clintons who are trying to move the goalposts here. [2:32] Nile, as you know, this whole saga has been... we've seen the Clintons pivot from not cooperating on their testimony to wanting this public spotlight on it. What do you make of that shift in strategy? [2:43] I think it was forced on them to some degree by the suggestion that they could be held in contempt of Congress. This is obviously going to be enormously [2:52] controversial as a hearing, regardless of whether much of substance emerges from it or not. It seemed that the Clintons initially wanted to avoid it, were hoping to push back. [2:57] It seemed that the Clintons initially wanted to avoid it, were hoping to push back. [3:02] I don't think that Kennedy had any half idea about any kind of idea like this. But the prospect of being held in contempt of Congress, I think, did change their view. [3:13] There is of course the broader debate, Judy, as you know, that has played out across at least a couple of administrations now, of when people comply with requests to testify. [3:23] Subpoenas from Congressional committees and so on and so forth. [3:27] You mentioned substance. Do you think anything meaningful will come out of either of the Clintons' testimonies for all the hype they're doing? [3:33] there's been a lot of talk, especially on the Clinton side, that this won't add anything new [3:37] beyond what we know from the Epstein files. Right now, I have a somewhat hard time imagining there [3:43] will be some massively scandalous piece of information that suddenly emerges. That's not [3:50] the signals that we're getting. Having said that, I mean, generally speaking, it is better to get [3:56] greater disclosure rather than less. And that was the argument for releasing the Epstein files in [4:02] the first place. So it is possible that there will be some surprise, but I think it's perhaps [4:08] more likely that there'll just be a lot of fireworks between the Clintons and the Republican [4:13] members of this committee, but perhaps not a whole lot of substance. Hillary Clinton is scheduled to [4:19] testify on February 26th. Bill Clinton will testify the very next day. What should we be keeping an [4:25] eye on during these next three weeks as this whole situation seems to unfold? So first of all, [4:31] obviously, this question of whether it will. [4:33] Ultimately, it's a question of whether it will. [4:33] Ultimately, it's a question of whether it will. [4:33] Ultimately be an open hearing or open hearings, I guess we should say, open depositions where both [4:39] people do testify live, both Hillary Clinton and former President Clinton. But beyond that, I think [4:44] this is obviously a political fight at some level. The reason all this squabbling is going on about [4:50] the conditions is because both the Clintons on one hand and the Republicans on the other are trying [4:55] to get the upper hand in terms of public messaging, pushing the narrative in their favor one way or [5:02] another. So I think we're almost done with this. I think we're almost done with this. [5:03] I think we're most certainly going to see a lot more of that between today and the dates that they're actually due to appear. [5:11] Niles Standish, thanks so much for joining us. [5:13] Thanks, Judy.