Dems aren’t protecting the Clintons

‘Comeback Kid’ no more: Dems aren’t protecting the Clintons from Epstein scrutiny

The party-wide reluctance to defend two former standard-bearers signals a rejection of the Clinton brand.

By Eli Stokols, Hailey Fuchs, Shia Kapos and Mia McCarthy

Bill and Hillary Clinton are in House Republicans’ crosshairs — and the Democratic Party they once led isn’t coming to the rescue.

A youthful vanguard of progressive office-holders unlikely to even recall the Clinton presidency, let alone defend the former president’s foibles, have largely opted against defending the once formidable pair, even as many regard the GOP effort to compel their testimony blatantly hypocritical and politically driven. Last week, in fact, nine Democratic lawmakers joined Republicans and voted in favor of holding the two-term president in contempt for defying a subpoena to testify as part of the panel’s investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Just three broke ranks on a similar vote against the former secretary of State.

“I think it has less to do with Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves and their legacy, and more to do with the way that the party has shifted itself over the last 20 years,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost, (D-Fla.), who was among the Democrats who voted to hold the former president in contempt and is, at 28, the youngest member of Congress. “We want to be more aggressive and find the truth, and it’s less about allegiances to, you know, individuals, and more about what’s best for our party and what’s best for this country.”

It’s a remarkable rejection of “The Comeback Kid,” who was heartily cheered 18 months ago during the Democratic National Convention, as well as the party’s 2016 presidential nominee, and demonstrates the lack of clout the two have inside the current Democratic Party. The party’s effective abandonment of its longtime standard bearers provides a vivid illustration of how many members are eager to disassociate themselves from the Clinton brand.

Both Clintons have said they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and they argue the subpoenas were not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose, rendering them invalid.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a potential 2028 presidential candidate, said in an interview on Tuesday that preserving the legislative branch’s constitutional oversight role was essential, even when the person on the hot seat is a towering figure in one’s own party.

“We want the power of Congress to be respected,” said Ocasio-Cortez, 36, who expressed relief that the Clintons on Tuesday agreed to testify at the end of the month. “We have to assert our investigatory authorities …it’s the best outcome for everyone that our witnesses agree to testify.”

It isn’t just the under-40 crowd. Nearly all of the party’s likeliest 2028 presidential candidates, including some with close personal ties to the Clintons, have been conspicuously silent about House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer’s (R-Ky.) effort to have the Clintons testify about the Epstein files. Comer wants a private hearing, one some Democrats believe will enable Republicans to mischaracterize testimony in public.

“At this point, they bring nothing but baggage,” said one Democratic lobbyist in Washington, granted anonymity to speak freely, who added that the Clintons’ “continued presence is a barrier to the party’s renewal.”

An adviser to a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, granted anonymity to speak bluntly, asked: “What is the political usefulness of the Clintons these days? We all just got behind Epstein transparency because it made Trump uncomfortable. What are we going to say now? ‘Everyone must answer for this but the Clintons?’”

Democrats’ determination to hold their own leaders accountable — a central tenet for many who said Bill Clinton should testify given his longtime link to Epstein — offers a sharp contrast to a Republican Party that, with a few notable exceptions, continues to rally around President Donald Trump and dismiss any investigations he faces as partisan witch hunts.

“Jeffrey Epstein was a serial abuser of women,” said Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who is 49. “It doesn’t matter if you are the president of the United States, a former president, a Cabinet secretary, or a CEO of a big company: if you committed a crime, you should be held accountable.”

“There’s just an acknowledgement that anyone should be held accountable, regardless of political party, if they are, in fact, in the Epstein files and have done bad things,” said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), who was unsure about whether Democrats would have been less likely to hold a former president of their own party in contempt two decades earlier.

“I don’t know, man, I was in kindergarten,” Jacobs, 37, said.

The Clintons have accused Comer of pursuing partisan antics designed to put them in prison. In a post on X Monday responding to the Oversight Committee, Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote that the former president and former secretary of State had “negotiated in good faith” and already “told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care.”

In testifying, the Clintons “look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone,” Ureña continued. He did not offer additional comment when contacted by POLITICO.

Like other public figures who received subpoenas from the Oversight panel in the Epstein probe, the Clintons submitted sworn declarations to the panel. In their written statements, the former first couple attested to their lack of knowledge about the criminal activities of both Epstein and his convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Clinton has maintained that he was an acquaintance of Epstein’s but stopped communicating with him at least two decades ago. Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing.

Still, several of Clinton’s contemporaries acknowledged a generational shift in loyalties as the political pressure of Comer’s subpoenas grew in recent weeks.

“There are fewer people in politics who were there during the Clinton years and during the Clinton revival of the Democratic Party. So there’s less loyalty there,” said Bill Daley, who served as Clinton’s secretary of Commerce and acknowledged that the former president’s ties to Epstein “has been a problem…for a number of years.”

That said, Daley didn’t look kindly upon Democrats abiding by constitutional norms at a time when a Republican administration is frequently ignoring them.

“The Democrats aren’t giving them what the Republicans are giving Trump,” Daley said. “It’s too bad that the Democrats have not been more aggressive on Comer and his tactics.”

Will Marshall, another Clinton cohort, concurred. “It would have been nice to see Dems not take part in an obvious attempt to pressure a former Democratic president to come to a MAGA show trial,” said Marshall, the founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank that served as a policy incubator during the Clinton years.

Longtime Clinton adviser Philippe Reines called last week’s committee vote “a self-inflicted wound” that reflected “naivete” by some younger members to risk forcing every Democratic lawmaker to vote on the floor about holding the Clintons in contempt.

“Why play along with this if you’re a Democrat? How do you not see this for what it is?” Reines said. “The punishment [of contempt] never fit the crime. Trump after he left office refused to honor a subpoena from the J6 committee. He sued them. And you think you’re going to set an example that Republicans will follow if Democrats win back the House?”

Bill Clinton has maintained a reasonably high approval rating since leaving office 25 years ago, although his popularity has slowly dropped from a high of 69 percent just ahead of his breakout address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention to 48 percent in January 2025, according to Gallup surveys.

Clinton’s eight years in office were defined as much by the relative stability and economic growth as by his romantic relationship with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, which led to his impeachment, and other investigations that swirled around the White House. The Senate did not convict him and Clinton was never charged with a crime.

Historically, the late ‘90s were a heady period for the country as intellectuals confident that liberal democracy would endure following the end of the Cold War declared an “end of history.” They were unable to foresee the geopolitical turbulence ushered in following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks less than two years after Clinton left Washington that has eroded political stability in the U.S and globally.

But his legacy has grown more complicated over time, especially for a changing Democratic coalition. The party’s broader reckonings over race and sexual harassment and abuse have included reassessments of the Clinton era — namely, the 1994 crime bill that led to higher incarceration rates among Black men, and NAFTA, which some, including most notably Trump, have blamed for an ensuing offshoring of manufacturing jobs — and personal conduct with a White House intern.

Marshall, the PPI founder, said the new cohort of Democrats steering the party to the left are asking the wrong questions.

“If you’re a Democrat today, you have to be asking yourself why we’re in the minority, why do we lack the tools to stop Trump from criminalizing our political differences? And the answer is the party is shrinking,” he said. “The dilemma isn’t how to keep moving left. It’s how to get back the voters Clinton won twice in the ‘90s.”

While Hillary Clinton’s popularity grew after her husband’s two terms, first as a senator from New York and then as President Barack Obama’s secretary of State, many Democrats remain conflicted about her unsuccessful run for president in 2016. While some view her as a courageous trailblazer as the first woman to be nominated for president by a major political party, others grumble about the party establishment effectively anointing her as the nominee and her weakness as a retail politician, one whose heavy baggage offered Trump countless opportunities to attack.

During their 2016 campaign, Trump sought to shift the focus from allegations of sexual assault against him to his opponent’s husband, even inviting three of Bill Clinton’s accusers to sit in the front row at a presidential debate. Trump’s whataboutism has continued into his second term as president, as he continues to deflect questions about his own behavior as detailed in the Epstein files by noting that the revelations include Clinton and other prominent Democrats.

Trump has denied wrongdoing in relation to the Epstein allegations, and no evidence has suggested that Trump took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation. The president maintains that he and Epstein had a falling out years ago.

“I know that there were a lot of good things that Bill Clinton did as president,” said Rep. Wesley Bell (D-Mo.), who voted against both contempt measures in committee, and has been outspoken that the Clintons were engaging in good faith and had yet to commit a violation that rose to the level of contempt.

James Carville, the longtime Democratic strategist who guided Clinton’s 1992 campaign, dismissed the House GOP’s focus on the Clintons as “theatrics” and predicted that forcing the former first couple to testify would backfire.

“The more attention they bring to this, it’s not going to end well for them,” said Carville, who noted that Hillary Clinton endured 11 hours of public testimony over the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi when she was secretary of State. He also said that Clinton would be “well prepped” for his testimony opposite Comer.

“You’ve got one of the lowest IQ people to ever serve in the United States government matched against maybe the highest IQ person ever served in the United States government” Carville said. “This whole thing reminds me of what you see a lot here down in the South where I live — dogs chasing cars. You caught the car. Good. What are you gonna do with it? It was fun chasing the car. The car stopped. Eat the hubcap.”