CHAPPAQUA, N.Y., February 27, 2026
BY CUBUI
A politically charged series of depositions involving former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unfolded Tuesday amid escalating partisan conflict over the handling of records tied to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The depositions, conducted as part of a House Oversight Committee inquiry, drew Republican and Democratic lawmakers to Chappaqua, where the Clintons reside. Committee Chairman James Comer said the inquiry seeks “transparency and accountability” regarding the government’s past handling of Epstein-related investigations.
“We can’t prosecute anyone,” Mr. Comer told reporters. “But we can subpoena, we can seek transparency, and we can ask questions.”
Republicans argue that the Clintons’ past associations and travel logs warrant further scrutiny. Democrats counter that the investigation is selectively focused and politically motivated. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, speaking outside the deposition site, questioned why other figures with documented financial ties to Epstein — including financier Leslie Wexner — had not faced similar public questioning by the committee.
At the center of the dispute is a separate controversy over allegedly missing documents within the Department of Justice’s public release of Epstein-related materials. Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee say they have identified gaps in document numbering — commonly referred to as Bates stamps — that they contend suggest certain FBI interview records were not included in the most recent disclosures.
Representative Robert Garcia said the missing materials include interviews tied to a survivor who has accused former President Donald Trump of misconduct when she was a minor. Mr. Trump has denied wrongdoing, and no charges have been filed against him in connection with those claims.
“We want to know where those files are,” Mr. Garcia said. “If documents have been withheld, the public deserves an explanation.”
The Justice Department has denied deleting records, stating that documents are withheld only if they are duplicates, privileged or part of ongoing investigative processes. A spokesperson said previously that redactions are made to protect victims’ privacy and sensitive information.
When asked directly whether he was concerned about potential suppression of records related to Mr. Trump, Mr. Comer said the committee was reviewing the claims but had not reached a definitive conclusion. “We’re looking into it,” he said.
The controversy has expanded beyond Congress. Børge Brende, president of the World Economic Forum, announced he would step down following reports that newly released documents showed past communications with Epstein that he had not previously disclosed. Mr. Brende said in a statement that he was unaware of the full extent of Epstein’s criminal history at the time of their contact.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have sought to shift focus to other national security issues, including U.S. posture in the Arctic and relations with Iran and Cuba. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reiterated this week that Greenland holds “strategic importance” for North American security, echoing earlier comments from the president. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker emphasized the importance of Arctic defense coordination with Denmark and Greenland but did not describe any immediate plans for military action.
Public attention has been divided between the deposition drama and broader geopolitical tensions. According to Nielsen data, viewership for the president’s recent State of the Union address drew 28 million viewers across major networks, lower than several previous years.
Polling from Emerson College this week showed Democrats holding a lead in the generic congressional ballot, though analysts caution that midterm dynamics remain fluid.
As the Oversight Committee continues its inquiry, lawmakers from both parties insist that transparency — whether regarding past associations, investigative records or national security decisions — will remain central to the debate. Whether the current investigations yield new disclosures or deepen partisan divisions remains to be seen.
