Of course, Bill Clinton should cooperate with any investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking of underage girls. The suggestion that Democrats would shield a former president from questions that might tarnish his legacy speaks ill of Democrats. This concerns a criminal enterprise, not bad-boy behavior.

Democrats siding with the pursuit of justice should be commended. Nine of them joined Republicans on the House Oversight Committee in voting to hold Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify. Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) then gave Clinton two weeks to address the matter before bringing it to the House floor for a vote.

As president, Clinton topped the charts for success, in my book. But his overseeing a federal government budget surplus is a past triumph. This is about a sex ring that abused minors and about which Clinton may have some knowledge.

There is, so far, no evidence that Clinton took part in the crimes — and no publicly verified evidence that he ever set foot on Epstein's "Pedophile Island." But he was a friend of Epstein and flew on his private jet.

Some commentary suggests that Bill and Hillary Clinton are Democratic royalty that many in the party want to protect. May we swat down the concept of royalty in a country founded on sweeping away hereditary rule? The Kennedys have been heralded as somehow royal, which is how Donald Trump got away with putting the lunatic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of the nation's health.

It would appear that Trump held far closer ties to Epstein than Bill Clinton did. He, too, should testify under oath about what he knows about the sexual abuse of minors. Clinton should not give him cover by refusing to participate in the probe.

The Trump administration appears to be throwing wrenches in the gears of a serious investigation. Attorney General Pam Bondi was ordered to release all Justice Department documents relating to Epstein by Dec. 19. That was over a month ago.

Some in the Democratic leadership wrongly saw protecting Clinton from uncomfortable questions as a means to improve their prospects in the midterms. On the contrary, having him testify would show a principled interest in getting to the bottom of an appalling criminal case.

And so kudos to the Democratic reps who joined Republican committee members in voting to hold Clinton in contempt. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) explained her vote: "I'm just focused on survivors ... We want to hear from anyone who has information. And that should not be limited to party lines."

Sure, Republican calls to look into Clinton's possible ties with Epstein are also intended to dredge up memories of the former president's tawdry sexual behavior as some kind of excuse for Trump's. But the Epstein investigation isn't about adulterous trysts. It's about sexual abuse of girls young enough to be in junior high.

I'm hardly alone in believing that much of Trump's daily flame-throwing — from talking about 100% tariffs on Canada to staging military-like sieges of American cities — are related to changing the subject from, as he complains, "Epstein, Epstein, Epstein."

About the deportation of illegal immigrants who committed crimes: Democrat Barack Obama did better than Trump without the theatrics. Through his eight years in office, Obama quietly oversaw over 3.1 million deportations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. By comparison, fewer than 932,000 were removed in Trump's first term. And since Trump returned to office on Jan. 20, 2025, ICE has deported about 540,000 people.

Trump surely wants to bury the public in daily spectacle to keep the spotlight off the Epstein probe. Exempting Clinton from testifying would have only slowed it down.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at [email protected]. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Jorge Alcala at Unsplash