Oh boy, here we go. If you’ve been waiting for political theater with a side of selective memory loss, mark your calendar. Hillary Clinton is set to testify on February 26 in the Epstein matter, with Bill Clinton following the very next day. That’s not just a scheduling coincidence—that’s a back-to-back double feature. And if you’re sensing that popcorn sales might spike, you’re not alone.
Now, let’s not forget how we got here. This wasn’t exactly a voluntary stroll into the Oversight Committee’s conference room. The House Oversight Committee had to drag this along for months while the Clintons delayed, pontificated, and suggested that maybe—just maybe—a written statement would suffice. The committee wasn’t buying it. In fact, it voted in a bipartisan fashion to move toward a contempt vote. When you’ve got both sides of the aisle agreeing you need to show up, that’s usually a sign the clock has run out. Suddenly, the Clintons found their calendars opening up.
Then came the push for public testimony. Of course it did. The argument? Transparency. The likely strategy? A little grandstanding, a little righteous indignation, maybe a few dramatic flourishes to eat up the clock. But the committee said no—closed-door depositions first, public release later. Translation: less theater, more substance.
And right on cue, Hillary Clinton popped up on the BBC, apparently eager to set the narrative before she ever sets foot in the hearing room. Instead of directly answering questions about Epstein and Maxwell, she pivoted immediately to accusing the Trump administration of a cover-up. That’s quite a leap, considering President Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, reported concerns to authorities, and was in office when Epstein was arrested in 2019. Not to mention, he signed the law releasing the files now under discussion. There have been no credible allegations against Trump from victims. In fact, Virginia Giuffre specifically testified that he did not act inappropriately. But in politics, deflection is practically an Olympic sport, and Hillary remains in peak form.
When asked if she regretted any links to Epstein and Maxwell, she didn’t exactly seize the moment for reflection. Instead, she claimed, “We have no links,” reducing Bill’s documented flights on Epstein’s plane to “some rides” connected to charitable work. Just some rides. Like hopping in an Uber on the way to a fundraiser. As for Epstein’s 17 documented visits to the Clinton White House? Not addressed. Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea Clinton’s 2010 wedding, after Epstein’s conviction? Also not exactly clarified.
Hillary said she didn’t recall ever meeting Epstein. Maxwell? Just “a few occasions.” And when pressed about Maxwell’s connection to the Clinton Global Initiative, the answer was that thousands of people attend CGI events. Which is true—but that’s not the question. The issue isn’t crowd size; it’s why Maxwell reportedly received special recognition in 2013, well after Epstein’s conviction. Maxwell herself told Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that she was “very central” to the startup of CGI, adding that Epstein was “very enthusiastic” about her involvement. That sounds a bit more involved than simply blending into a crowd of thousands.
Then there are the photos. Bill in a swimming pool with Maxwell and a redacted individual. A hot tub image with another redacted person. Images aboard Epstein’s plane with redactions galore. Hillary said she absolutely knows the context of those pictures and described them as part of philanthropic trips. What she didn’t do was explain who the redacted individuals were—or what exactly was happening in that hot tub. Details matter. Especially when the public is being asked to accept broad assurances.
🚨 WTF?! Hillary Clinton LAUGHED when asked about creepy photos taken of Bill Clinton in a hot tub with possible Epstein victims, saying he was being “philanthropic and charitable”
What a scumbag.
Thank GOD Trump blocked Hillary from becoming President. https://t.co/tDLXZ8qsoZ
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 17, 2026
She also claimed she has long called for the release of the files. That may be news to some observers who don’t recall a consistent drumbeat on that issue until recently. And she warned that people “aren’t going to like” what she has to say, hinting that some portion of her testimony might involve going after the Trump administration again. Which is fine—this is Washington—but it’s unlikely that the committee’s primary interest is partisan sparring. They’re looking for answers.
This testimony isn’t about cable news soundbites or BBC interviews. It’s about clarifying what connections existed, how deep they ran, and why certain associations persisted even after Epstein’s criminal conviction. Bill Clinton has not been credibly accused of wrongdoing by victims. That’s important. But the questions surrounding flights, visits, awards, and personal connections aren’t going away simply because someone says “we have no links.”
So yes, it promises to be a barnburner. The committee would be wise to stay focused, cut through the performative fog, and press for specifics. Because when the words “we don’t recall” start flying, the American public deserves follow-ups. And this time, there’s no written statement shortcut.
