By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite accusations of moving the goalposts, Republican Oversight Chairman James Comer has refused to hold a public hearing for Hillary Clinton’s deposition, asserting that committee hearings are primarily for entertainment. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, agreed to a closed-door deposition following their prominence in the latest Epstein files, though the couple has since advocated for a public proceeding. Clinton’s team maintains they engaged in good faith for months, sharing information under oath, only to have Republicans ignore it and shift their focus, turning accountability into a distraction.
Read the original article here
It appears that James Comer is taking a rather firm stance against Hillary Clinton testifying publicly regarding the Epstein matter. This development has sparked a considerable amount of discussion, with many questioning the motivations behind this decision and the implications it holds. The sentiment being expressed suggests a deep-seated skepticism about Comer’s intentions, with some outright accusing him of being more interested in political theater than genuine inquiry.
The assertion that “Open hearings are more for entertainment” is being interpreted as a convenient excuse for avoiding uncomfortable truths. If Hillary Clinton’s name isn’t even prominently featured in the Epstein files, as some are pointing out, then the demand for her public testimony under these specific conditions seems misplaced, or perhaps driven by an agenda. The predictability of this situation is also a recurring theme, hinting at a perceived pattern of behavior from those involved.
There’s a strong suspicion that any testimony from the Clintons, whether public or private, is already being framed within a predetermined narrative. The idea of them being “grilled” and then absolved due to legal technicalities, despite the alleged “sickness” of their supposed actions, paints a picture of a foregone conclusion. This leads to suggestions that the Clintons should proactively release their own detailed statements or prepared testimonies right before any potential hearings, preempting any attempts to twist their words.
The suggestion to “go scorched earth” and address anticipated questions from Trump’s supporters upfront is a bold one, aiming to strip away any manufactured controversies. Following up by publishing Comer’s questions afterward and daring him to react is seen as a way to expose the tactics being employed. The idea that Hillary Clinton should simply refuse to testify, or ignore court orders as some suggest Republicans do, highlights a perceived hypocrisy and a desire for a more confrontational approach to defend against what is viewed as a politically motivated investigation.
The parallel drawn to Comer’s handling of the Devon Archer testimony is particularly telling. In that instance, it’s noted that Comer gave his account of the testimony before the transcript was released, only for the transcript to allegedly disprove his version entirely. This precedent fuels the suspicion that Comer’s intention isn’t about discovering truth, but about selectively releasing information to fit his narrative.
Comer’s perceived lack of preparedness and his tendency to ask “gotcha” questions, only to be flustered when witnesses offer contrary information, is a frequently cited criticism. This leads to the pointed question: “What are you afraid of, Domer?” The observation that Comer complained about the Clintons dragging their feet on testimony, held numerous press conferences about it, and now, when they are apparently willing to cooperate, he seems hesitant, is seen as deeply contradictory.
The advice for the Clintons to bring their own stenographer and immediately release transcripts is a direct response to concerns about selective releases and leaks. Refusing to testify unless it’s public is presented as a tactic that could make it difficult for Comer to hold them in contempt, given the alleged Republican tendency to disregard legal processes. The question of how many Republicans have actually testified under oath is raised, implying a double standard.
There’s a stark moral judgment being passed on anyone perceived to be supporting or protecting pedophiles, with accusations that such individuals are themselves guilty or pedophiles. This fuels the belief that the entire situation is a “game” orchestrated by Republicans, leading to expressions of strong disapproval towards them and their supporters.
The sudden shift in Trump’s supposed attitude towards Bill Clinton is interpreted as a political maneuver. The idea that Hillary Clinton would “love to dump on Trump publicly” is seen as a powerful counter-narrative. Instead of formal testimony, some suggest the Clintons should simply “start naming names and give stories,” believing the public can discern the truth. The rapid change of heart from Comer is labeled as “cowardice.”
The implication that Republicans might be hiding something is consistently raised. The insistence on public testimony is seen as a key demand, with the underlying belief that Comer is not seeking truth but rather aiming to slander the former President and his wife. This is explicitly labeled a “witch hunt by Trump’s cronies.”
The suggestion to “plead the fifth” if testimony isn’t public is a direct response to the perceived lack of transparency. Comer’s apparent shift from demanding testimony to seemingly resisting public testimony is framed as a failure of transparency. The core concern is that anything Ms. Clinton says that doesn’t align with the “MAGA Republicans’ interest” will be dismissed.
The question of why this would be the case, unless there’s something specific they want to keep quiet, is posed rhetorically. The idea that holding a press conference or appearing on a primetime special would allow Hillary Clinton to “spill the beans” suggests a belief that she possesses information that would be damaging to certain political figures.
The characterization of this entire effort as “MAGA Coward” and a deep-seated hatred for democracy is a strong indictment of the Republican party’s current direction. The claim of a “most transparent administration in history” is met with derision. The demand for “Cameras on for this!” underscores the desire for an open and observable process.
The suggestion that Hillary Clinton might decline the offer to testify, and the question of “Why?????”, directly probes the perceived hesitation and its underlying reasons. The insistence on having their testimony recorded by their own chosen party is a protective measure against manipulation. The fear is that Comer will spin the testimony to exonerate Trump.
The question posed to conservatives, asking if they should be upset by this turn of events, highlights a perceived contradiction in their stance. The possibility of Democrats not being allowed to attend these hearings raises further concerns about fairness and impartiality. The “panic is palpable” suggests that some believe the Republican party is facing significant pressure.
The potential refusal to testify is seen as a consequence of the current situation. The argument is made that if the Clintons are as “evil and dangerous” as they have been portrayed, then the process should be fully open and transparent. Alternatively, they are advised to sit down with a trusted journalist and release the full interview online.
The hypothetical scenario of Hillary Clinton appearing at a public hearing with “unredacted files” is presented as a powerful counter-move. Comer being labeled a “Coward” is a direct consequence of this perceived avoidance of transparency. The act of “hiding this type of shit from the public” is seen as a clear indicator of guilt.
The current administration is broadly characterized as the “most corrupted government in America’s pathetic history.” The comparison to Bill Barr’s handling of the Mueller Report, where he allegedly lied about its findings to protect Trump, is used to illustrate a pattern of misleading the public and the MAGA base, who are seen as willing to believe Comer’s version of events even when contradicted by evidence. The perceived lack of sophistication in “Donny dementia cosplaying administration” to “entrap the Clintons” suggests a belief that any attempts to do so will ultimately backfire and be exposed during legal discovery.