By Matt Underwood Facing Contempt Threat, Clintons Refuse to Testify in Epstein Inquiry (Gift Article)
So, here’s the deal: The Clintons are saying “no thanks” to testifying in this Epstein inquiry, and it’s sparking a whole lot of debate. The core of the issue seems to be a deep distrust of the process itself, combined with the belief that this is all a political show designed to deflect from other, potentially bigger fish. It’s like everyone’s saying, “Release the files already!” because the transparency is the first and most crucial step, rather than this drawn-out investigation, and let the chips fall where they may.
The core of the argument seems to be, why should the Clintons cooperate when the very people conducting the inquiry – and, frankly, the previous administration – haven’t exactly been transparent themselves? The suggestion that this is a politically motivated move to target the Clintons, while conveniently ignoring the actions of others, is a strong theme. It’s a question of fairness, but also a strategic move, or at least that’s how it’s being interpreted.
There’s also a significant undercurrent of frustration with what’s perceived as a double standard. The idea that if anyone, like Bill Clinton, is found to have committed a crime, then they should be held accountable. And yet, there’s a strong sentiment that this particular inquiry isn’t actually about getting to the truth. Instead, it seems designed to control the narrative and divert attention. This also aligns with the refusal of some Republicans to testify in the Jan 6 inquiry, and the seeming lack of consequences for those decisions, and the precedent it set.
Many people are bringing up a few very important points to the forefront, such as the fact that Donald Trump’s name and associations with Jeffrey Epstein need to be addressed. The consensus seems to be that if the investigation is truly in good faith, why hasn’t Trump been asked to testify? Again, there’s a suspicion that this is simply a political game. If the goal is justice, then why not start with the biggest players, and address the lack of transparency in the past?
There is some valid pushback, such as the fact that the Clintons aren’t innocent. If there’s evidence of wrongdoing, then it’s essential for there to be a proper investigation. But many think the current inquiry is a sham, not a legitimate pursuit of justice. It’s less about finding truth and more about protecting certain people while using Bill Clinton as a means of controlling the entire narrative.
The legal precedents also come into play here. We’ve seen how drawn-out legal traps have been used in the past, and how politicians have used their influence to control information and craft a narrative. The Clintons, it appears, are aware of this, and aren’t willing to walk into a situation where the deck is stacked against them. There is an idea that it is up to Donald Trump to testify first, as he seems to have had a close relationship with Epstein for several years. The bottom line is that the Clintons aren’t going to subject themselves to a potentially rigged process. They may see this as a distraction to protect other people.
The frustration is also quite clear. There’s a feeling that the focus should be on getting all the Epstein files released, including the full truth. If there’s information that implicates anyone, then the whole world should know.
The bottom line is there is a sentiment that says, there is something more going on than a pursuit of justice. The inquiry should be for everyone, and it should start with releasing the files in their entirety.