On February 26, 2026, Megyn Kelly aimed straight at former President Bill Clinton during her show, making headlines with a 1999 photograph taken at the Bombay Club in Washington, D.C. In it, Clinton appears to be looking down the shirt of Kelly’s friend, Meg Florence, while his hand rests on another friend, Abby Rittman’s, side. Kelly used the image as a springboard to criticize Clinton’s behavior. She labeled it “hound dog behavior,” arguing that he remained unabashedly unrepentant following the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “I’m not saying this is a crime,” she clarified, but offered a sharp observation that speaks to a persistent behavior pattern.
This commentary coincided with Clinton’s closed-door testimony regarding his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, a context that adds weight to Kelly’s claims. Clinton has acknowledged taking flights for philanthropy but denied visiting Epstein’s infamous island, creating further complications in his narrative. With timing that could be seen as tactical—or coincidental—Kelly’s revelations rekindled interest in Clinton’s character and the extent to which he has faced repercussions for his past actions.
Kelly’s remarks were as biting as they were revealing. “He was not shamed at all—after the Monica Lewinsky scandal—out of his hound dog behavior, to put it mildly,” she stated, focusing not only on Clinton’s actions but the cultural implications surrounding them. The added layer of sarcasm from a social media user suggested discomfort with the juxtaposition of Clinton’s past behavior against the backdrop of current political discourse, specifically comparing him to another controversial figure: Trump.
Reports also surfaced regarding the Clintons’ refusal to fulfill subpoenas from House Oversight Chairman James Comer. Comer accused them of sidestepping their obligations by proposing a limited interview devoid of the usual transcripts or congressional oversight. “Ridiculous” was how he labeled the proposal. Responding, Angel Ureña, deputy chief of staff to Bill Clinton, fired back at the claim, expressing frustration over perceived miscommunication. She argued, “We never said no to a transcript,” asserting that the real issues at play were far deeper.
Comer, however, was firm in his stance, rejecting the Clintons’ proposal as inadequate. He stated, “The Clintons’ latest demands make clear they believe their last name entitles them to special treatment.” This interaction highlighted not only the tension surrounding the investigations but also the Clintons’ ongoing struggle to navigate the fallout of their pasts under the scrutiny of the public eye. The underlying message within Comer’s words pointed to a persistent belief among some lawmakers that the powerful are not above accountability.
Further complicating matters, the GOP House Oversight Committee noted discrepancies in the remarks made by Clinton’s representatives regarding the nature of their negotiation over testimony. The committee countered Ureña’s claims with evidence indicating that the Clintons had suggested limiting the number of staffers to take notes during the interview. “Subpoenas and depositions are not suggestions,” they emphasized, underscoring their determination to uphold the process.
This series of events paints a vivid picture of the still-present controversies surrounding the Clintons. As Megyn Kelly draws attention to Clinton’s historical behavior, the echoes of his past resonate in the current political landscape, where scrutiny is perhaps more intense than ever. The combination of Kelly’s revelations and the ongoing congressional drama offers a stark reminder: past actions continue to reverberate, influencing perceptions and shaping the present.
"*" indicates required fields
