WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Jeffrey Epstein saga took another sharp turn this week after former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke publicly about their past ties to the convicted sex offender.

Their comments followed closed-door depositions with the House Oversight Committee, and the reaction was immediate. Critics, survivors’ advocates, and political voices accused the Clintons of ducking hard questions and minimizing a well-documented association.

Lawmakers compelled the depositions by subpoena after early pushback, making the sessions a rare moment in which former top officials testified under oath in a congressional review tied to Epstein’s sex trafficking network.

Bill Clinton’s insistence that he “saw nothing” and “did nothing wrong,” paired with Hillary Clinton’s statement that she “does not recall ever encountering” Epstein, sparked a new wave of anger. Among the loudest critics, media personality Megyn Kelly called Clinton a “liar.”

The Latest Depositions: Firm Denials, Sharp Pushback

On February 27, 2026, Bill Clinton sat for nearly six hours of closed-door questioning in New York with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee. In an opening statement later shared on social media, he described Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” and said their contact ended long before Epstein’s crimes became widely known.

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said. “Even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.” He added that if he had known what Epstein was doing, he would have “turned him in myself.” Clinton pointed to his upbringing in a home touched by domestic abuse as part of his explanation for why he would not have ignored misconduct.

He also confirmed he flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times for charitable work, and he said Secret Service agents were present. At the same time, he denied ever visiting Epstein’s island and said he never saw illegal behavior. Clinton also said he didn’t recognize a woman pictured with him in a jacuzzi in Justice Department files that later became public.

A day earlier, on February 26, Hillary Clinton testified for more than six hours. In her opening statement, she said, “I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein.” She repeated that she never flew on Epstein’s plane, never visited his properties, and had no involvement with him. She also criticized the committee, saying it was using the matter for partisan distractions.

Both Clintons also tried to distance themselves from Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition, they expressed support for survivors seeking justice and healing.

Critics React: Claims of Evasion and Unbelievable Answers

Even so, the pushback has been intense. Critics argue the denials don’t square with what’s already in the public record. That record includes flight logs that show Bill Clinton on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times, plus reports of Epstein visiting the White House during Clinton’s presidency.

Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and journalist, has led much of the public criticism. In media appearances tied to the Epstein files and the depositions, Kelly rejected Clinton’s account. She called him a “liar” and referred to him as a “predator.” Her comments matched a broader view among detractors that Clinton’s past makes his assurances hard to trust.

Meanwhile, survivors’ advocates and online commentators said the testimonies felt dismissive. Many described the answers as evasive and inadequate for victims who have waited years for clarity.

At the same time, political analysts say the depositions widened partisan gaps. Republicans have focused on the Clintons’ connection to Epstein, while Democrats have pointed to scrutiny of other public figures with their own links to Epstein’s circle.

Bill Clinton’s Record of Controversies Involving Women

This moment also revived attention on Bill Clinton’s long history of allegations involving women, including repeated denials that later collided with new facts or admissions.

Some of the most talked-about episodes include:

• Monica Lewinsky affair (1995 to 1997): Clinton initially denied having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He later acknowledged an improper relationship under oath. The House impeached him in 1998 on perjury and obstruction charges, although the Senate acquitted him.
• Paula Jones lawsuit: In 1994, Arkansas state employee Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment tied to his time as governor. He settled the case out of court for $850,000 in 1998.
• Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation: Broaddrick said Clinton raped her in 1978. Clinton denied the claim through representatives.
• Kathleen Willey and Gennifer Flowers: Willey alleged Clinton groped her in the Oval Office. Flowers said she had a long-term affair with him. Both claims became part of the wider scrutiny during his presidency.

Because of this history, critics say Clinton has a pattern of denial followed by partial acknowledgment. As a result, they compare his old responses to his current statements about Epstein.

Where This Fits in the Wider Epstein Case

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while he awaited trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Before his death, he built relationships with influential people across politics, business, and entertainment. Since then, document releases, including flight logs and photographs, have kept the Clintons in the headlines. Still, no evidence has surfaced that links them to criminal conduct.

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-KY), has issued subpoenas to several people, including the Clintons. The stated goal is to map Epstein’s network and review how government agencies handled related cases. Depending on who’s speaking, the probe has been described as a “serious investigation” or a “clown show.”

Bill Clinton said he cooperated to help prevent future abuse. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton framed the process as politically driven.

The Public Response, and What Comes Next

The depositions quickly dominated news coverage, and social media seized on the Clintons’ wording. Supporters say the couple is being singled out without proof of wrongdoing. Critics say the testimonies reflect how powerful people avoid accountability.

Transcripts and video from the depositions are expected to come out, and the argument is likely to grow louder once they do. For many Americans, the latest chapter keeps the same questions alive: who knew what, who looked away, and why it took so long to get answers tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

Related News:

Megyn Kelly Slams Hillary Clinton For Extraordinary Hypocrisy

ATLANTA, Georgia –  CNN data analyst Harry Enten delivered a blunt take on the early 2028 Democratic presidential primary. On air, he called the field a “downright clown car” and a “total mess.”

Early polling shows a tight pack, with no one breaking 25% and several names sitting within the margin of error. That sparked a lively discussion about whether Democrats are sliding into a fight between progressives and moderates, and what the rise of figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani could mean for the party’s next era.

All of this lands at an uneasy moment for Democrats. The party is still dealing with the fallout from the 2024 losses, and many voters see no clear next leader. At the same time, Democrats are preparing for the 2026 midterms while facing a Republican Party energized under President Donald Trump. As a result, these early signs of a fractured primary could make unity harder when it matters most.

Polls Show a Crowded Race With No Breakout

Recent surveys suggest Democratic voters are spread out across the field. A Yahoo/YouGov poll from February 2025 showed a close contest among likely contenders:

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom leads at 19%, helped by his national profile and messaging on issues like climate change and abortion rights.
• Former Vice President Kamala Harris sits at 18%, backed by experience but followed by doubts tied to 2024.
• Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg pulls 13%, with support from many moderates drawn to his pragmatic style.
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) gets 12%, reflecting continued strength among progressives focused on economic justice and climate policy.

None of these candidates clears 25%, a level Enten pointed to as a common marker for an early front-runner. Because many polls carry a margin of error of around 3 to 4 points, the top tier looks more like a statistical tie than a settled race. In other words, Democratic voters haven’t rallied around a single option.

Other polling and commentary reinforce the same theme. CNN’s data team has also highlighted how unusual it is to see an open primary with no dominant figure at this stage. In past cycles, such as 2000, 2008, and 2016, big names like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had built clearer leads by this point. This time, name recognition and money may not translate into early momentum.

Enten’s On-Air Take: “Total Mess”

On “CNN News Central” with host John Berman, Enten walked through the numbers and used sharp language to describe what he saw. “Yeah, they’re all running and this is just a downright clown car at this point on the Democratic side,” he said, pointing to how tightly packed the field is.

He also stressed how rare it is for no one to top 25% two years out. While Newsom held a small edge, Enten argued that Newsom also carries a “flailing” image, tied to California’s struggles with homelessness and high taxes. He added that Harris has “baggage” from her time as vice president, while Buttigieg and AOC signal very different paths for the party that could keep the base split.

Enten summed it up with another jab: “This is just a total clown car. It is a total mess. There is no clear frontrunner at this particular point on the Democratic side. Who the heck knows who the nominee is going to be in two years?”

The moment moved fast online. Clips spread on X (formerly Twitter), where both critics and supporters of the party debated what it said about Democratic strength. A post from a conservative account picked up traction, using the segment to mock Democratic disarray.

Panel Response: Jokes, Then Real Worry

The panel’s reaction mixed laughter with concern. Berman chuckled at the “clown car” line, then pushed the group to look at what the numbers might mean. Other guests offered different reads on the same data.

One panelist sounded upbeat, arguing that a wide-open field can boost interest and turnout. They framed it as normal competition that could pull in different groups of voters. Another guest saw danger ahead, warning that a long, bitter primary could drain money and time, while also turning off independents.

Soon, the conversation shifted to the party’s internal split. Moderates defended figures like Newsom and Buttigieg as safer bets in swing areas. Progressives pointed to AOC’s strength with younger voters and many voters of color. Even when the room laughed, the tension underneath was hard to miss.

Progressive vs. Moderate Split, and Why It Feels Bigger Now

Democrats have dealt with factions for decades, but the current divide looks sharper. Progressives want bigger moves on climate, health care, and wealth gaps. Moderates prefer smaller steps, arguing that bold messaging can backfire in close races.

Several pressure points keep coming up:

• Policy fights: Progressives push for major programs like Medicare for All, while moderates tend to support narrower changes.
• Electability arguments: Supporters of Buttigieg and other centrists say they can win swing voters. Critics say that the approach can fall flat with the base.
• 2026 primary battles: Progressive challengers are stepping into key races, which puts party splits on display. For example, Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s bid in Texas has drawn GOP attention, with Republicans claiming Democrats are “in shambles.”

Gallup has also tracked movement in Democratic attitudes. One recent Gallup poll found 45% of Democrats want the party to become more moderate, up from 34% in 2021. That shift shows the tug-of-war inside the coalition. If leaders can’t calm it down, the party could lose ground in 2026 and enter 2028 even weaker.

In a podcast episode titled “Can Liberals, Progressives & Moderates Unite to Beat Republicans in November , and 2028?”, guests discussed how fragile the coalition feels. Many agreed that costs and affordability unite Democrats, yet they disagree on the fix. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has argued for a class-first message focused on jobs, wages, and everyday costs, rather than culture fights.

Rising Names: AOC and Zohran Mamdani Point to a Shift

The growing profile of younger progressives like AOC and Zohran Mamdani signals a possible change in who drives the party’s future. AOC, now 38, has grown from a 2018 upset winner into a major national figure, boosted by strong media skills and a clear message on economics and climate.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York State Assembly member and democratic socialist, represents the next wave. First elected in 2020, he has backed policies like rent control, police reform, and Palestinian rights, and he has often challenged establishment Democrats. His rise also highlights the expanding influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in some areas.

Together, they represent a bigger progressive push:

• Stronger pull with younger voters: They focus on issues such as student debt relief and environmental justice.
• More direct attacks on party power: Mamdani’s critiques of corporate influence echo themes AOC has used for years.
• More presence in the national talk: Their inclusion in polls shows progressives aren’t on the sidelines.

Still, critics argue this trend could push away swing voters. After the 2024 losses, some Democrats blamed progressive positions on topics like immigration and crime. Supporters answer that progressive candidates keep winning in many blue districts, and they see that as proof that the message works where turnout matters.

A Familiar Story, Even if the Stakes Feel New

Today’s clash fits a long pattern. Democrats have housed competing groups since the New Deal, with shifting alliances between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The civil rights era broke the party’s old Southern power base, and later decades elevated more centrist leaders such as Bill Clinton.

More recently, the Obama years ended with a party split between Clinton-style pragmatism and Sanders-style populism. Democrats united behind Joe Biden in 2020, but that unity didn’t erase the underlying strain. After 2024, the arguments returned louder, and the lack of an incumbent for 2028 makes the power struggle even clearer.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis has noted that House Democrats now include roughly similar numbers of moderates and progressives. That balance could swing either way, depending on the next few elections. History also offers cautionary tales. For some Democrats, the 1972 McGovern campaign still stands as a warning about moving too far left and paying for it later.

What a Wide-Open Field Means for Party Leadership

A messy primary creates real risks. Without a clear leader, donors and endorsements can scatter. That can stretch the race out and leave the eventual nominee bruised. Party leaders, including DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, could face pressure to keep the contest from turning into a damaging brawl. Some also talk about changes like superdelegate rules or stronger party platforms, although those debates come with their own baggage.

At the same time, an open contest can help the party. A stronger nominee can emerge after real testing. Some Democrats see figures like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly as possible unifiers. Progressives, on the other hand, argue Democrats need bolder economic plans to compete with Trump’s populist appeal, including an “abundance agenda” tied to housing and energy.

Some analysts, including voices at the American Enterprise Institute, warn the internal split could hurt Democrats in 2028 if it stays unresolved. One strategist summed up the moderate case this way: being moderate means taking popular positions and breaking with party habits when needed.

What Comes Next for Democrats

With the 2026 midterms approaching, Democrats need a clearer message and fewer internal fights. They also need to rebuild support with working-class voters, especially on costs, wages, and housing. The rise of AOC and Mamdani hints at a stronger leftward pull, while moderates keep warning that swing voters decide national elections.

Enten’s “clown car” line may stick because it captures the mood. Democrats face a hard reality: they can’t afford years of public infighting while Trump’s coalition stays energized. A truce, even a fragile one, may be the price of staying competitive.

Related News:

CNN’s Abby Phillip Ignites Outrage for Comparing Medals for Vets to a Game Show

CNN senior data analyst and chief data reporter Harry Enten is spotlighting a clear demographic shift: the fastest-growing states so far this decade are the ones Donald Trump carried in the 2024 presidential election.

Using fresh U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, Enten described it as a “red state boom” alongside a “blue state slump.” In his view, this wave of internal migration could bring major political effects that last well beyond one election cycle.

Enten walked through the numbers on CNN Newsroom in early February 2026. He focused on mid-decade changes, comparing the 2020 Census baseline with mid-2025 estimates. His main point was simple: the states posting the biggest gains, both by percent and by raw numbers, largely sit in Trump’s 2024 column.

He highlighted five standouts since 2020: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona.

Top Growth States: All Trump-Won in 2024

Based on Census Bureau Vintage 2025 data and Enten’s review:

• Texas and Florida lead the country in overall population gains, adding a large share of the national increase.
• North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona also show strong growth, including solid percentage jumps.
• Beyond those, other red-leaning states such as South Carolina, Idaho, and Utah have posted high growth rates in 2024 and 2025.

As Enten put it, the biggest population growth this decade has come from five states, and all five backed Trump in 2024. He also stressed that the gains are not only about births or international arrivals. A big driver is domestic migration, with Americans relocating from one state to another.

The Other Side of the Trend: “Blue State Slump” and Out-Migration

On the other hand, Enten contrasted those gains with slower growth, or even losses, in several long-time Democratic strongholds. He described a “blue state slump,” pointing to places where more residents leave than arrive.

Among the states he flagged for net domestic out-migration:

• California, Vice President Kamala Harris’s home state, has posted the largest net loss, with hundreds of thousands leaving each year.
• New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts also rank among the biggest domestic migration losers.

In Enten’s summary, Americans are “voting with their feet.” He linked the movement to common quality-of-life and cost concerns, including lower taxes, cheaper housing, fewer business hurdles, and warmer weather, factors many people associate with Republican-led states.

While this pattern has existed for years, he suggested it picked up speed after 2020. Remote work made moving easier, pandemic-era shifts changed where people wanted to live, and rising costs in major coastal metros pushed more families to look elsewhere. Policy differences also play a role for some movers, including views on crime, schools, and regulation.

What’s Pushing People Out of Blue States

People and analysts often point to a mix of pressures behind the move away from some blue states:

• High living costs: Home prices and taxes in places like California and New York can put ownership out of reach.
• Policy frustrations: Some residents cite concerns about public safety, school performance, and heavy regulation in large cities.
• Lifestyle changes: Many want more space, less density, and fewer day-to-day restrictions.
• Job opportunities: States such as Texas and Florida continue to attract workers in fields like tech, energy, finance, and manufacturing.

At the same time, red states offer clear pull factors. For example, Florida and Texas have no state income tax. Many of these states also promote business growth and market themselves as easier places to build a life, whether you’re raising a family or planning retirement.

Political Stakes: Reapportionment and the Electoral College

Enten warned that if these trends hold through the 2030 Census, the impact could show up in congressional seats and presidential elections. House seats shift after each census, based on population. Because the Electoral College ties to House seats (plus two senators per state), changes in representation can change the math for winning the White House.

Analysts reviewing Census trends have suggested:

• Red states could pick up 8 to 13 House seats after the 2030 reapportionment.
• Blue states, especially California, New York, and Illinois, could lose a similar number.
• As a result, Electoral College votes could move more toward the South and West, which would often help Republican-leaning states.

Enten called the pattern a warning sign for Democrats and good news for Republicans. He also noted that familiar Democratic paths, including relying on the “blue wall” states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, could get harder if population-weighted advantages shrink elsewhere.

In one simulation based on mid-2025 estimates, Enten said Trump would have had more electoral votes in a hypothetical 2024 rerun, which could reduce the need for razor-thin swing-state wins.

A Bigger Picture: Migration, Polarization, and Power

These population shifts also reflect a deeper split in where Americans choose to live. When people move, they bring their values, habits, and political views with them. Over time, that can change states in both directions. Some observers point to new arrivals in places like Texas and Florida as a reason those states could become more competitive.

Still, Enten focused on the near-term imbalance. Growing states gain more political weight. Shrinking states lose it.

In other words, this “red state boom” and “blue state slump” show how choices about housing, jobs, and lifestyle can change American politics almost as much as campaigns do. The 2030 Census will give the clearest answer. Until then, Enten’s takeaway is straightforward: demographics can redraw the map, even before a single vote is cast.

Related News:

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond in High-Stakes Defamation Case