3小时前
发布于 2026年2月27日，美国东部时间上午12:00 | 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）政治版
当美国前总统比尔·克林顿周五就杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）丑闻向国会委员会作证时，他将开创一个可能让现任总统唐纳德·特朗普日后追悔莫及的先例。
这位79岁的前总统的证词是在他妻子——前国务卿希拉里·克林顿——闭门作证之后进行的。希拉里·克林顿于周四猛烈抨击共和党主导的众议院监督调查是为了掩盖对特朗普的保护。
执法部门并未指控克林顿夫妇或特朗普与爱泼斯坦存在刑事不当行为。但这位前总统和现任总统都与爱泼斯坦相识，并且在司法部关于爱泼斯坦的文件中都被多次提及。
考虑到克林顿夫妇极高的知名度以及他们与共和党长达数十年的激烈交锋历史，特朗普盟友将克林顿夫妇卷入调查的举动注定会引发激烈的政治闹剧。
但他们出现在委员会面前也有可能对共和党（GOP）造成适得其反的效果。首先，他们的参与为爱泼斯坦事件注入了新的燃料，而白宫数月来一直试图平息这一事件却未能成功。
此外，克林顿夫妇的证词引发了令人不安的类比，这会让特朗普及其核心圈子感到不适。例如，如果爱泼斯坦文件中提及的证词标准要求适用于所有人，为何文件中提到的著名共和党人却未被传唤至委员会作证？美国商务部部长霍华德·卢特尼克（Howard Lutnick）对其与爱泼斯坦过往互动的描述被司法部公布的文件削弱，但他目前尚未收到与传唤克林顿夫妇相同的传票。目前没有针对卢特尼克的刑事不当行为指控。
比尔·克林顿与爱泼斯坦的过往接触肯定会引起委员会的兴趣。但如果特朗普在文件中被多次提及，为何他没有同样被宣誓作证呢？这是否存在双重标准？
而希拉里·克林顿的出现——尽管她声称自己对爱泼斯坦的行为一无所知——则树立了一个配偶被问及丈夫与被指控的性交易贩子关联的范例。一些观察人士可能会质疑，第一夫人梅拉尼娅·特朗普是否对丈夫在2005年结婚前后与爱泼斯坦有过交集有类似的了解。虽然试图强迫现任总统作证肯定会引发强烈的宪法争议，但第一夫人没有正式的宪法角色，因此似乎没有法律障碍可以阻止对她的传唤。
前总统向国会作证并非前所未有的情况。
19世纪的总统约翰·泰勒（John Tyler）曾被传票传唤，就其前国务卿丹尼尔·韦伯斯特（Daniel Webster）滥用公款调查出庭。1911年，西奥多·罗斯福（Theodore Roosevelt）在国会委员会调查钢铁行业反垄断问题时作证——根据美国国会研究服务处美国历史分析师斯蒂芬·斯塔西斯（Stephen Stathis）1983年的文章，这是众多作为证人出庭的前总统之一。
特朗普拒绝了众议院调查委员会要求他就2021年1月6日其支持者冲击美国国会大厦事件作证的传票。在一场关于权力分立的激烈宪法争议中，他起诉阻止传票的发出，最终在委员会工作结束后传票被撤回。
此前总统的证词大多集中在政策问题上，而克林顿的证词则涉及个人事务。
民主党人已表示，如果他们在11月的中期选举中重新获得众议院多数席位，将加深对爱泼斯坦历史的审查。鉴于当前美国政治中盛行的报复循环，在特朗普卸任前后强迫他作证不足为奇。
在他的前劲敌被迫作证后，特朗普似乎对克林顿夫妇表示了同情。家庭成员被传唤至国会委员会的先例可能会让他感到恐慌，特别是考虑到明年民主党可能重新获得众议院多数席位的可能性。而周五将强调的原则——即前总统可以被强制就不存在明显权力分立问题的事项作证——可能会使特朗普在卸任后的未来变得复杂。
众议院监督委员会主席詹姆斯·科默（James Comer）否认他在进行党派调查。“这不只是民主党人的事，”他说。科默指出，该小组已经听取了前劳工部长亚历克斯·阿科斯塔（Alex Acosta）和前司法部长比尔·巴尔（Bill Barr）的证词。两人都在特朗普的第一任期内任职。阿科斯塔是前美国佛罗里达州南部地区检察官，2008年批准了一项有争议的州级认罪协议，涉及爱泼斯坦案。
民主党人指责科默将调查作为党派诡计，以保护特朗普。但克林顿证词中揭示的诱人模式可能会因加剧爱泼斯坦事件的争议而成为特朗普的负担。
克林顿夫妇屈服于压力作证
克林顿夫妇最初极力抗拒向委员会作证，认为这是一个试图将焦点从爱泼斯坦文件上的特朗普转移开的党派企图。但他们最终改变立场，以免被视为蔑视国会，一些民主党人预计会与共和党一起投票惩罚他们的缺席。
克林顿夫妇在纽约州查帕奎（Chappaqua）家中附近的证词地点出现，表明这一事件在多年来正义未能伸张于据称被爱泼斯坦贩卖和虐待的女性之后，正形成一种累积且自我强化的势头。
对问责制的呼吁以及要求有权势的人说明他们对爱泼斯坦行为的了解，促使法律、商业和娱乐界的高管们从高级职位上离职。
在英国，爱泼斯坦的前友人安德鲁·蒙巴顿-温莎（Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor）和前内阁大臣彼得·曼德尔森（Peter Mandelson）因涉嫌公职不当行为被捕。曼德尔森的律师表示他的逮捕毫无根据。前安德鲁王子（Mountbatten-Windsor）否认了所有针对他的过去指控，否认曾目睹爱泼斯坦被指控的行为。他尚未就逮捕发表评论。两人均已获保释，调查仍在继续。
比尔·克林顿的证词将为其长期受丑闻困扰但也多次东山再起、实现政治救赎的职业生涯增添又一个非凡转折。这将重新引发一场激烈的政治对决，这场对决可追溯到30多年前——在这场对决中，这位自富兰克林·罗斯福以来首位连任两届的民主党总统占了上风。
他肯定会被问及与爱泼斯坦的合影；与已故恋童癖者的同伙吉斯莱恩·麦克斯韦（Ghislaine Maxwell）的合影；以及在热水浴缸中的身份不明女性。根据美国有线电视新闻网对飞行日志和法庭文件的审查，克林顿在2002年至2003年间至少乘坐爱泼斯坦的私人飞机16次。他否认知道爱泼斯坦的罪行，并表示早在2019年联邦指控之前就已疏远他。
委员会中的民主党人预计前总统的证词将比其妻子的更深入。“我认为明天还有更多内容要谈，”弗吉尼亚州代表苏哈斯·苏布拉马尼亚姆（Suhas Subramanyam）表示，“这会显著推进我们的调查吗？我不知道，也许会，也许不会。”
动荡政治生涯的非凡尾声
克林顿（1993-2001年任总统）的证词也是这位前国家元首私人生活再次受到公开审视的最新尴尬时刻。这种有失体面的趋势可追溯到他担任阿肯色州州长和1992年首次总统竞选时期，在其第二任期因与白宫实习生莫妮卡·莱温斯基（Monica Lewinsky）的绯闻而被弹劾达到顶峰。
克林顿在参议院审判中未被罢免。但在后来的岁月里，在#MeToo运动和关于爱泼斯坦圈子中有权势男性的揭露之后，总统与年轻得多的莱温斯基之间权力动态的不平衡往往被更严厉地审视。
这位前总统在定义其职业生涯的法律争议和政治斗争中，经历过多次证词和公开审视。他以灵活的证人身份著称，在巅峰时期拥有非凡的政治技巧。然而，正是宣誓作证差点导致他政治生涯的终结。1998年，克林顿在宣誓作证时声称“从未与莱温斯基发生性关系”，这句话后来成为对他弹劾条款的核心。
周五的证词将检验他在退休期间经历一系列健康挑战后，是否仍保留着敏锐的语言技巧和政治智慧来抵御共和党人的攻击。在2024年民主党全国代表大会上，他告诉代表们，他不确定还能参加多少次这样的集会。“天哪，我正在变老，”他说。
希拉里·克林顿：“我没有更多补充”
希拉里·克林顿周四作证称，她对爱泼斯坦的所谓罪行一无所知，并指责共和党人试图虚假地表现透明度。“我对爱泼斯坦和麦克斯韦的犯罪活动一无所知，”克林顿谈到爱泼斯坦和麦克斯韦时说。她继续说：“我不记得曾经见过爱泼斯坦先生。我从未乘坐过他的飞机，也从未访问过他的岛屿、住宅或办公室。我对此没有更多补充。”
在她向委员会的声明中，她还指责科默出于政治原因针对她，并呼吁小组质询特朗普。“隐瞒了什么？谁在被保护？为什么要掩盖？”她问道。
在对丈夫私人生活受到共和党审查进行反击时，希拉里·克林顿重蹈了他们在其丈夫两届白宫任期和她自己2008年及2016年总统竞选期间频繁使用的熟悉策略。
这位前国务卿重申，她无法回答共和党人关于前总统与爱泼斯坦关系的问题。科默表示，她回答问题时多次说“我不知道，你得问我的丈夫”。他补充说：“我们明天有很多问题要问她的丈夫。”
这对前第一夫妇分别作证的视频预计将在几天内发布。这将让所有美国人看到现代政治中最引人注目的“双人组”之一重返政治舞台。
但这是克林顿夫妇都希望避免的一次重返聚光灯下。
Why the Clintons’ ordeal might end up backfiring on Trump
3 hr ago
PUBLISHED Feb 27, 2026, 12:00 AM ET | CNN Politics
When former President Bill Clinton testifies to a congressional committee Friday on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, he will be setting a precedent that President Donald Trump may come to regret.
The 79-year-old former president’s deposition follows the closed-door testimony of his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who on Thursday blasted the Republican-run House Oversight probe as a cover-up to protect Trump.
Neither of the Clintons nor Trump is accused by law enforcement of criminal wrongdoing in relation to Epstein. But the ex-president and the current one were both acquainted with him and are both mentioned multiple times in Justice Department files on Epstein.
The battle by Trump’s allies to draw the Clintons into their investigation was always destined to create bitter political theater, given their enormously high profiles and decadeslong histories of fierce duels with Republicans.
But their arrival before the committee also has the potential to backfire on the GOP. First, their involvement is offering new fuel to the Epstein saga, which the White House has been trying unsuccessfully to quell for months.
And the testimony of the Clintons is raising uncomfortable parallels that will discomfit Trump and his inner orbit. For instance, if the standard for required testimony is being mentioned in the Epstein files, why are prominent Republicans also mentioned in the files not being hauled before the committee? Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s descriptions of his past interactions with Epstein were undercut by files released by the DOJ — but he has not so far received a subpoena to match those sent to the Clintons. There is no allegation of criminal wrongdoing against Lutnick.
Bill Clinton’s past contact with Epstein will surely interest the committee. But isn’t there a double standard if Trump, who was mentioned in the files numerous times, is not also put under oath?
And former Secretary Clinton’s appearance — although, in her telling, she had no information about Epstein’s conduct — creates a model of a spouse being asked about her husband’s links to the accused sex trafficker. Some observers might wonder whether first lady Melania Trump might have similar insight about the times her husband and Epstein moved in similar orbits before and after their marriage in 2005. While there would surely be a mighty constitutional fight over an attempt to compel testimony from a sitting president, the first lady has no formal constitutional role, and there appear to be no legal barriers to such a summons.
It is not unprecedented for a former president to testify to Congress.
19th-century President John Tyler was subpoenaed to appear in a probe into the misuse of public funds by his former secretary of state, Daniel Webster. Theodore Roosevelt testified before a congressional committee investigating antitrust issues in the steel industry in 1911 — one of a number of former presidents to appear as witnesses, according to a 1983 article by Stephen Stathis, an analyst in American history at the Congressional Research Service.
Trump refused a subpoena to testify to the House committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, riot by his supporters at the US Capitol. He sued to block the summons amid a fierce constitutional dispute over the separation of powers, and it was eventually withdrawn when the committee’s work ended.
Previous testimony by earlier presidents mostly focused on policy issues, whereas the deposition by Clinton touches on personal matters.
Democrats have already said they will deepen scrutiny into Epstein’s history if they win back the House majority in November’s midterm elections. Given the cycle of retribution that currently dominates US politics, it would be no surprise if they tried to compel testimony from Trump before, or after he leaves office.
Trump has appeared to empathize with the Clintons after his bitter former sparring partners were forced to give depositions. The precedent of family members being hauled before a congressional committee might be alarming for him, especially given the possibility of a Democratic House majority next year. And the principle that will be underscored on Friday — that a former president can be compelled to give testimony on a matter that has no obvious separation of powers issues — might complicate Trump’s own future once he’s left office.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer denied he was running a partisan investigation. “This isn’t just Democrats,” he said. Comer noted that the panel had heard from former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta and former Attorney General Bill Barr. Both served during Trump’s first term. Acosta was the former US attorney for the Southern District of Florida who signed off on a controversial state plea deal for Epstein in 2008.
Democrats accuse Comer of running the investigation as a partisan ruse to shield Trump. But the tantalizing patterns established by the Clinton testimony mean it might become a liability for Trump by exacerbating intrigue about Epstein.
Clintons bowed to pressure to testify
The Clintons initially fought hard to avoid testifying to the committee, regarding it as a partisan attempt to turn the focus away from Trump over the Epstein files. But they reversed course so as not to be deemed in contempt of Congress, with some Democrats expected to vote with the GOP to punish their non-appearance.
The presence of the Clintons — at depositions near their home in Chappaqua, New York — shows the saga’s gathering and self-reinforcing momentum after years when justice was denied to women allegedly trafficked and abused by Epstein.
Calls for accountability and for powerful people to say what they knew about his conduct have seen prominent legal, business and entertainment executives step down from senior positions.
In Britain, former Epstein friends Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson were arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Mandelson’s lawyers have said his arrest was baseless. Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, has denied all past accusations against him and denied he ever witnessed the behavior of which Epstein is accused. He has yet to comment on his arrest. Both men have been released from custody and investigations continue.
Bill Clinton’s deposition will mark another extraordinary twist in a long political career dogged by scandal but also featuring multiple comebacks and unlikely moments of political redemption. It will renew a heated political showdown with Republicans that stretches back more than 30 years — in which the first two-term Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt got the upper hand.
He is sure to be asked about photos in which he appeared with Epstein; with the late pedophile’s now-jailed accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell; and with an unidentified woman in a hot tub. Clinton flew on Epstein’s jet at least 16 times between 2002 and 2003, according to a CNN review of flight logs and court documents. He denies knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and said he distanced himself from him long before he was federally charged in 2019.
Democrats on the committee expect the former president’s testimony to cover more ground than that of his wife. “I think there’s more to talk about tomorrow,” Virginia Rep. Suhas Subramanyam said. “Will it further our investigation significantly? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not.”
An extraordinary coda to a turbulent political career
The deposition of Clinton, who was president between 1993 and 2001, is also the latest embarrassing moment when the former commander in chief’s private life has been publicly scrutinized. This undignified trend goes back to when Clinton was governor of Arkansas and his first presidential campaign in 1992, and culminated when he was impeached during his second term over an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton escaped being ousted from office in a Senate trial. But in later years, the imbalance in the power dynamic between the president and the much-younger Lewinsky has often been seen in a harsher light, following the #MeToo movement and revelations about the circle of influential men who knew Epstein.
The ex-president is a veteran of multiple depositions and moments of public scrutiny during the legal controversies and political scraps that helped define his career. He was known as a nimble witness and at his peak possessed extraordinary political skills. Yet it was testimony under oath that almost caused his political demise. In 1998, Clinton testified under oath that he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky. The statement was later a cornerstone of the articles of impeachment against him.
His testimony on Friday will be watched to see whether he retains the sharp linguistic dexterity and political nous to repel GOP attacks after a series of health challenges in retirement. At the Democratic National Convention in 2024, he told delegates he was not sure how many more such gatherings he’d be able to attend. “Lord, I’m getting old,” he said.
Hillary Clinton: ‘I have nothing to add’
Hillary Clinton testified Thursday she had no information about Epstein’s alleged crimes and accused Republicans of making a false attempt to show transparency. “I had no idea about their criminal activities,” Clinton said of Epstein and Maxwell. She continued, “I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes, or offices. I have nothing to add to that.”
In her statement to the committee, she also accused Comer of targeting her for political reasons and called on the panel to question Trump. “What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?” she asked.
In mounting a counter-attack against Republican scrutiny on the private life of her husband, Hillary Clinton was reverting to a familiar tactic to which she has frequently returned in their political careers that spanned his two White House terms and her own presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016.
The former secretary of state reiterated that she had no answers to GOP questions about the former president’s relationship with Epstein. Comer said that she replied to questions with the words “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask my husband” more than a dozen times. He added: “We have a lot of questions for her husband tomorrow.”
Video of the former first couple’s separate testimony is expected to be released within days. That will allow every American to witness the return to the political stage of one of the most compelling double acts in modern politics.
But this was one return to the spotlight that both Clintons would have preferred to avoid.