Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "james comer"

James Comer mocked over call to invalidate Biden pardons on Fox News: 'Be careful'

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) suggested on Monday that pardons issued by former President Joe Biden should be declared "null and void," prompting a wave of reactions online.

The Chairman of the House Oversight Committee appeared on Fox Business to discuss pardons, including the preemptive pardon issued by Biden for Dr. Anthony Fauci. In an explosive new Washington Post report, new details emerged involving former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's actions and her accusations that Fauci had led a COVID coverup.

Comer argued during the live interview that Biden had never held any meetings ahead of pardons.

"There's no evidence Joe Biden had any decision-making in the pardon process. So I think that, alone, is more than enough evidence to declare all the pardons issued by Joe Biden in the last days of his presidency null and void," Comer said.

The internet responded to the Republican lawmaker's claims, with experts raising questions over what Comer's remarks could mean for President Donald Trump's pardons.

"If Biden's pardons can be declared null and void, so can Trump's under the next president, and for the same reasons. Be careful what you wish for," writer and political commentator Gary Gifford, who has more than 34,000 followers, wrote on Bluesky.

"I would welcome the death of the pardon power!" John Castiglione, lawyer and assistant editor of The Steinbeck Review, wrote on Bluesky.

"Got his marching orders," Dr. Marina Archer, psychologist and progressive commentator with nearly 15,000 followers, wrote on Bluesky.

"When you run out of real talking points," Anthony M. Hopper, author and professor at ECPI University, wrote on X.

Comer calls on all of Biden's pardons issued on the last day of his presidency (especially the one for Fauci) to be "declared null and void"

[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) June 22, 2026 at 6:49 AM

James Comer mocked for eye-popping claim on Fox News: 'Not even trying to mask it'

Political analysts and observers referred to a GOP lawmaker as a "racist" after he made remarks that seemed to reveal his thinly veiled thoughts.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) spoke about Medicaid fraud during a Fox News interview, where he said, "What we're seeing, especially in the blue states, is there is rampant fraud, especially in the minority communities."

He added, "The only way we're going to stop is if people are put in jail."

Commentators reacted to Comer's comments with disgust, accusing him of making a not-too-subtle racist remark.

"Ah yes, the black people! (sic) of course!" Alex Cole, a progressive news personality, wrote.

"James Comer, fraudster and rank racist," reacted Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and contributing editor for The Atlantic.

"When they write about how America collapsed, it will be because we allowed one of our political parties to get away with this sh—," wrote Rachel Bitecofer, a national political analyst and pollster.

"Remember in the pre-Trump era where they were subtle?" asked political writer Zaid Jilani.

"Here he is saying it out. 'Especially in the minority communities,'" former U.S. ambassador Luis Moreno posted. "Folks like Donald Trump Jr., Bankman-Fried, Brett Favre, nearly all of the white collar fraudsters pardoned by Trump would like a word."

"They are not even trying to mask it," agreed writer and editor Keith Murphy.

MAGA lawmaker claims GOP leadership may have set her up to make her look crazy

A MAGA congresswoman told a New York Times writer that she believes she was given the reins of a task force because it would make her look "a little crazy."

In an interview with Times columnist Ross Douthat, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) agreed with a suggestion about why congressional leadership assigned her to chair the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets.

Luna explained that Trump had been talking "about releasing the M.L.K., R.F.K. and J.F.K. files. We had this stuff outstanding with U.A.P. activity," referring to classified information about historical figures, UFOs, and assassinations.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) set up a task force to follow through on Trump's promises, but "people were a little spooked about taking the position because of everything that it involved."

Luna said she knew "there was a stigma" with the task force before being assigned to chair it. "If you do this, people are going to think you're crazy," she said.

Douthat asked her, "Do you think that this was something that you were given in part because it was like, let's keep her busy, and also it might make her look a little crazy?"

Luna admitted, "I think so. I think maybe they anticipated that, but I also knew."

Republicans en masse skip Bondi's closed-door Epstein hearing

House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) was apparently the only Republican lawmaker attending the interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday, MS NOW reported.

Sources told MS NOW that the atmosphere in the room was tense as Bondi appeared frustrated over the questions during the closed-door, transcribed interview with lawmakers as they continued their investigation into late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) commented that Republicans had skipped the Bondi interview — and called them out.

"I want to point out there's not a single Republican in the room besides the chairman [Comer]," Stansbury said, adding, "For a supposed group of individuals who care deeply about justice for the survivors, not a single one could be bothered to travel across the country today."

"It's sort of a curious fact of today's closed door transcribed interview, because the thing that set this all in motion was the fact that the Oversight Committee back in March had voted to subpoena Pam Bondi when she was still attorney general," MS NOW Congressional reporter Mychael Schnell told anchor Chris Jansing.

"And the reason why it was successful was because there were five Republicans who crossed ranks and joined that effort make putting it over the finish line, which was a stunning, stunning move considering the fact that President Trump, on a number of occasions has tried to push back on the Epstein files and the investigation overall, whether or not you know why they're not here today, as you mentioned, James Comer is here," Schnell said. "We did hear from him earlier. It's worth noting that currently Congress is out of session. They're on recess. So members are back home in their districts. Of course, that doesn't take away from the fact that they could have come into town for such an important interview. So certainly an interesting fact here as we go through the motions of this transcribed interview. But certainly Comer said that he was going to be asking Pam Bondi all the questions that the survivors had raised, including about redactions, withholding and Ghislaine Maxwell's prison sentence."

Bondi's comments had prompted questions over whether the committee would subpoena Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who at the time was Bondi's deputy, and current FBI Director Kash Patel, Jansing said.

But that could be difficult to do, said MS NOW Senior Legal Reporter Lisa Rubin, and Republicans could have deliberately chosen not to show up.

"Certainly it would be hard for the committee today to vote on a subpoena like that because they don't have the votes," Rubin explained.

"Chairman Comer would have to be the one to initiate that vote, but also authorize the subpoena," Rubin said. "And I think that this today, the transcribed interview was conveniently scheduled in a way that many Republicans would not be there, meaning they gave the Democrats the interview that they were seeking after having subpoenaed Pam Bondi. But they set it up at a time where she would not be subject to hard questions from members of her own party."

There could be more questioning to come for both Blanche and Patel, Rubin added.

"In terms of Todd Blanche and Kash Patel, those are absolutely people to whom these questions should be directed," Rubin said. "And I have to say this may be inconvenient for some of the Democrats, but it was absolutely predictable and intelligible, legally, that Pam Bondi would say that she could not discuss her conversations with the president. That is something that is protected by executive privilege."

James Comer sweats as he's cornered by Epstein survivors before Pam Bondi grilling

Three Epstein survivors confronted Rep. James Comer (R-KY) in a moment that made the GOP lawmaker visibly uncomfortable, just minutes before a closed-door interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi was set to question her on Friday about deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

As Comer was taking questions from the press, he was forced to respond to the victims who were on Capitol Hill before the House Oversight Committee meeting. The closed-door interview was not videotaped but was expected to focus on the "sloppy rollout of the Epstein files," MS NOW anchor Ali Vitali reported.

"In a remarkable moment just a short time ago, a group of Epstein survivors peppered oversight committee Chair James Comer with their own questions ahead of Bondi's session," Vitali said.

"These people cannot be brought in under transcribed interviews. Can you ensure that they would please be brought in under oath?" Sharlene Rochard, an Epstein survivor, asked Comer.

The chairman of the committee seemed surprised by the line of questioning.

"If you lie to Congress, it's a felony," Comer said. "So it's, you know, we're bringing them in. We're bringing people in that have never been brought in before."

"Survivors' names over and over and over were exposed," Liz Stein, Epstein survivor, told Comer. "Yet we see time and time again, perpetrators names have been redacted when they shouldn't have been. Are we going to get some answers?"

Comer responded.

"I hope so, those are the questions we're going to ask," he said. "And you know, we're doing this. We want justice for the survivors."

Vitali commented on the moment.

"Stunning to see them confront Comer themselves," Vitali added.

James Comer gets more than he can handle from Newsmax host: 'Sounds like a false flag'

A GOP congressman had a hard time during an appearance on Newsmax selling the Trump administration's newest moves against a foreign country.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) was trying to convince Newsmax anchor Rob Finnerty that the United States needed to take action against Cuba and its former president, Raúl Castro. The Trump administration declared on Wednesday that it indicted Castro.

"I get it, the Ayatollah is gone, Nicolas Maduro is in jail, but now Cuba?" Finnerty said, shaking his head. "Look, I think people struggle with how this is America first, when gas is $4.55 a gallon right now."

Comer responded, "It is, and you're absolutely right," but then toed the Trump line by insisting that going after another foreign leader is necessary.

"Cuba has always been a national security threat," Comer said. "It's just minutes away from Miami."

"But do you really think they're a threat?" Finnerty asked.

"If some country went in and loaded Cuba with the same drones Iran had when we first started bombing Iran, then yes, I think it could be a threat," Comer answered. "We've got to be on guard because of the new types of warfare that's out there."

Finnerty didn't buy it, though.

"To me, this just sounds like we're just trying to make the case to attack Cuba," Finnerty said. "I don't buy it. It sounds like a false flag operation."

Comer lashes out at 'clickbait' over reporting on possible pardon for Epstein accomplice

Republican Rep. James Comer made a heated defense and promise not to shield an accomplice of disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffery Epstein after he was criticized for watering down the rules of an investigation.

"I made my position clear: I am not open to a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell," Comer wrote on X in response to an article by Politico reporter Hailey Fuchs.

In the Wednesday article, Fuchs reported that Comer told her that "a lot of people" and fellow members of the House Oversight Committee, which he chairs, want to pardon Maxwell.

"My committee is split on that," Comer is quoted saying in the article, which stated that "Comer himself wasn't in favor."

Despite the clarification of Comer's position on Maxwell, he felt like he needed to reiterate it on X in response to Fuchs posting her article.

"In the future, use my full statement," Comer posted. "Don't post clickbait."

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee penned a letter on April 17 to Comer for "running scared" from the Epstein investigation and allowing informal "roundtables" without rules.

"Republicans are retreating from real hearings and hiding behind roundtables to avoid votes they are losing," House Democrats wrote in the letter.

'Oversight is in a bind': Bondi's move throws off GOP lawmakers in Epstein probe

Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) has apparently considered withdrawing a subpoena issued to Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to reports on Thursday.

Bondi, who appeared in a closed-door deposition with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Wednesday, had tried to disarm concerns among bipartisan lawmakers who have subpoenaed her over the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, Semafor's Nicholas Wu reported.

But not all Republicans in the committee were convinced by Bondi's move, and neither were Democratic lawmakers convinced, though some have questioned whether to continue deposing her. Five Republicans sided with Democrats to move forward to question Bondi under oath.

"Three of the five Republicans remained unconvinced," Wu wrote. "Democrats are skeptical that the GOP will ultimately compel Bondi to talk about the Epstein files under oath, but unless Bondi can win over more Republicans, she’s still in line for the same harsh intraparty questioning under oath that brought down ex-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem."

Comer said that he plans to continue with the subpoena, "though he added he’d never pulled one back before and had to confer with committee lawyers," Wu wrote.

"Oversight is in a bind here," Wu added. "There’s no guarantee that talking with Bondi about Epstein in a closed-door setting, even a deposition, will be more productive than the normally rough-and-tumble public hearings held by the panel."

It was unclear what would happen next.

“The important thing is to get the answers. So, you know, at the moment, the subpoena is still issued, and we’ll be looking at questions, and then we’ll see where we go from there,” said Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX), who was among the five Republicans who had voted to force Bondi to testify.

This GOP farce just proved the net is closing on Trump

For the better part of 40 years, the Republican Party has chased Bill and Hillary Clinton with fervor bordering on obsession. From Whitewater to Benghazi, from emails to impeachment, the pursuit has been relentless, and always ridiculous.

After Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College in 2016 (while winning the popular vote), it seemed possible the GOP might finally loosen its grip.

Nope. This week, the GOP tried to light the Clintons on fire again. And as usual, the Clintons proved flame retardant.

In the Epstein affair, James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, tried to use closed-door depositions to make the former first couple look guilty — or at least more guilty than Donald Trump.

But if Comer and his allies believed they would finally corner the Clintons, they miscalculated badly. The depositions produced no bombshells, no dramatic unravelings — nothing, unless you count the bizarre spectacle of a bunch of clowns asking Hillary about UFOs, and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) managing to torpedo the whole thing by leaking photos to the press.

If this two-day Chappaqua farce did anything, it made it more obvious that the current president and first lady should testify.

Anyone with documented ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and that includes Bill Clinton, should answer questions under oath. He did. Survivors deserve nothing less than full transparency. All this innuendo and all these flimsy excuses — “bad judgment,” “mistake,” “just business” — need to end. Now.

But if Republicans insist on dragging Hillary Clinton into the room, despite zero evidence she ever met or interacted with Epstein, then fairness demands the standard apply to Melania Trump.

Melania moved in overlapping social circles with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She was photographed at events where Epstein was present. Maxwell reportedly referred to her affectionately — as “sweet pea.”

If Hillary Clinton can be questioned to eliminate doubt, Melania should be too. But don’t bet on it. She’ll hide under her shady hats, and refuse to step forward in her five-inch stilettos.

It shouldn’t stop there. It’s time to pick up the pace. Honestly, if Republicans want to stop Epstein haunting the entire midterms campaign, they need to get down to business.

Why has there been so little urgency to pursue testimony from figures far more substantively tied to Epstein than the Clintons? It’s starting to bother voters, and it’s only going to get worse.

Les Wexner, the billionaire who financed Epstein, did testify — and not a single GOP member of Comer’s committee dared participate in full.

Wexner said he was “deceived,” that Epstein “misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family.”

Speaking of money, what the hell did Bill Gates need Epstein for?

The Microsoft founder has called meetings with Epstein after his 2008 conviction for child prostitution a “huge mistake” and a “serious error in judgment.”

But a “mistake” is not enough. Epstein was a registered sex offender. His crimes were public knowledge. Why continue meeting with him?

What was so valuable that it justified the reputational and moral risk? Gates has more money than God. It doesn’t make sense. That’s why Gates should testify under oath, and answer questions from the FBI.

So should Alex Acosta, the U.S. Attorney who approved Epstein’s 2008 Florida plea deal, then later became Trump’s secretary of labor.

Acosta later claimed he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence.”

The full context of how Epstein secured such an extraordinary deal remains disturbingly unresolved.

The lawyer Alan Dershowitz needs to be grilled. He strenuously denies wrongdoing, stating, “I never had sex with any of Epstein’s accusers,” calling allegations “fabricated.”

So why did he hang out with Epstein? Seriously.

Then there’s Woody Allen. In light of all the allegations that have dogged the comic and director, his association with Epstein remains extremely dubious. As recently as September, Allen defended his attendance at Epstein’s dinners, saying Epstein "couldn't have been nicer" and was "charming and personable". And that he “told us he’d been in jail.”

Woody. You of all people should have run for the hills.

Steve Bannon, who spent hours interviewing Epstein after his conviction, says Epstein was “trying to rehabilitate his image.”

Can’t someone subpoena Bannon’s tapes? We’re talking about serious crimes.

And what of figures in proximity to Epstein who overlap directly with Trumpworld — including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick?

Above all, if Bill Clinton can be compelled to testify a quarter-century after leaving office, then Donald Trump must be called to testify under oath and to be interviewed by the FBI. He was in way deeper.

It is not enough for Trump to toss half-answers at press gaggles or dismiss legitimate questions as “old news” or a “hoax.” Trump once called Epstein a “terrific guy” who liked women “on the younger side.”

That remark has no expiration date. There are photos, footage, flight logs, and overlapping Palm Beach connections. If Congress and the Justice Department truly believe no one is above scrutiny, that principle must begin with the man at the center of their universe.

Here is a starting point: anyone who chose to associate with Epstein after his 2008 conviction should testify. Period. No exceptions. Everyone. If you were really innocent, you should be jumping forward.

Ask yourself a simple question. If you were running a business and a man who had served time for sex crimes against minors offered to help, would you welcome him in? Would you schedule meetings? Would you board his plane? Would you strategize about philanthropy or public image?

Most Americans would recoil.

Yet an astonishing number of powerful people did not. They proceeded as if the conviction were a small inconvenience. And some are lying now.

Why?

The path forward is not complicated. Call everyone who associated with Epstein after his conviction. Put them under oath. Follow the money. Release the files, clean. Apply the same standard to Democrats and Republicans, billionaires and celebrities, former presidents and private citizens alike.

The survivors have waited long enough. And they deserve far better than they’re getting.

Bill Clinton claims Trump shared vastly different Epstein 'falling out' story: House Dem

Former President Bill Clinton revealed to lawmakers Friday that he had a previous conversation with President Donald Trump about what really caused the rift between him and Jeffrey Epstein years ago.

Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL) described what Clinton said during a closed-door House Oversight Committee deposition in Chappaqua, New York, over his relationship with Epstein.

"I’m happy to clarify. President Clinton brought up a conversation he had with Trump in NYC re: Epstein," Frost wrote on X. "President Clinton said that Trump told him that he had a falling out with Epstein due to a land dispute. This directly refutes Trump’s claims about why he fell out with Epstein."

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) told CNN additional details about what Clinton said in the testimony.

"Since Chairman [James] Comer (R-KY) did bring that up I can specifically address that, which is basically President Clinton was asked about well, he brought up the fact that he spoke with President Trump at a golf event, and President Trump had told him that they, he and Epstein had had a falling out, and it was because of a land dispute," Subramanyam said.

"It wasn't because of what Epstein was doing to girls who were working at Mar-a-Lago, so it absolutely does dispute something that President Trump has said," Subramanyam added. "I think Congressman Comer, Chairman Comer had mentioned that President Clinton cleared or absolved President Trump of of anything. But that's not true. The reality is all President Clinton said was that any of all the things he heard from President Trump himself, nothing he heard would indicate that President Trump was involved in wrongdoing. Again, the transcripts will come out but I can't confirm that that's what was said."

The president has previously said that his falling out with Epstein was related to the late financier and convicted child sex offender hiring away Trump's workers at his Mar-a-Lago spa.

Trump has maintained that he did not have any ties to Epstein, despite his name appearing throughout the Department of Justice's 3 million documents, with him mentioned about 38,000 times.

"I don't know anything about the Epstein files. I've been fully exonerated," Trump said.

Former President Clinton delivered his opening statements Friday under oath and shared a statement on his social media.

"I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong," Clinton said.

Neither the Clintons nor Trump has been accused of any wrongdoing.

Lawmakers have indicated that a transcript would be released and include testimony from the Clintons. No date or deadline has been announced.