Hillary Clinton's closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation ground to a halt Thursday after MAGA influencer Benny Johnson posted a photo of the former first lady mid-proceedings, claiming the image was provided by GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert.

Johnson shared the photo on X with commentary that cut straight to the point.

The first image of Hillary Clinton testifying under oath about Jeffrey Epstein to the Republican Oversight Committee.

He added that Clinton "does not look happy" and that it marked "the first time Hillary has had to answer real questions about Epstein." Johnson claimed Boebert gave him permission to post the photo "with credit." The image appeared to be taken from where the congresswoman was sitting in the room.

The hearing went off the record. Clinton adviser Nick Merrill said the pause came "while they figure out where the photo came from and why possibly members of Congress are violating House rules." Boebert defended Johnson but notably did not confirm she was the one who sent the image.

Benny did nothing wrong. Proceeding with deposition.

That was the Colorado Republican's full public response.

The Sideshow and the Substance

Here's what matters and what doesn't. The photo leak created a procedural disruption in what should have been a straightforward exercise in accountability. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer had requested the deposition be conducted privately. It was being recorded. Videos and a transcript were set for release after attorney review.

In other words, the public was always going to see this. The leak didn't reveal hidden proceedings. It jumped a timeline and handed Clinton's team a procedural grievance to weaponize.

According to The Independent, Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, predictably seized the moment. He called the photo leak "unacceptable" and accused Republicans of "breaking their own committee rules that they established with the secretary and her team." He then praised Clinton's willingness to continue as "gracious."

Gracious. A woman answering questions about her connections to a convicted sex trafficker, and the framing from Democrats is that she's doing Congress a favor by showing up.

Clinton's Opening Statement: Deflection as Strategy

Clinton used her opening remarks not to shed light on what she knew about Jeffrey Epstein, but to redirect the committee's attention toward President Trump. She claimed in her statement:

I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices.

Then came the pivot. Clinton acknowledged Epstein was "a heinous individual" and called trafficking "a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll." But her real purpose surfaced moments later:

If this Committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein's trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement; it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.

This is the Clinton playbook distilled to its essence. Sit for a deposition about your own family's connections to Epstein, then spend your opening statement telling Congress to investigate someone else. The deflection is so practiced it barely registers as deflection anymore.

For the record, Trump was once friends with Epstein, and the two stopped being friends long before Epstein was investigated and convicted in Florida. Clinton knows this. The "tens of thousands of times" language is designed to generate headlines, not illuminate facts.

The Questions That Actually Matter

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace was among the lawmakers who questioned Clinton. According to CNN, Mace asked whether the former first lady had any feelings about young women massaging her husband. A source in the room told CNN that Clinton would not speculate "about things she was not present for" and was not there "to talk about feelings."

That response tells you everything about how Clinton approached this deposition. She came armored in plausible deniability: she wasn't present, she didn't know, she doesn't recall. The question isn't whether those answers are legally sufficient. They probably are. The question is whether anyone finds them credible.

Former President Bill Clinton is set to be questioned on Friday. The Clintons' proximity to Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been a matter of public interest for years. A deposition under oath is the appropriate venue for serious answers.

The Photo Leak in Perspective

Was the photo leak a breach of protocol? Probably. Comer set the rules, and members should follow them. But the breathless coverage of the leak itself threatens to become the story, eclipsing the reason Clinton was sitting for a deposition in the first place.

That's how this works every time. The process complaint swallows the substance. A congressional investigation into one of the most prolific sex trafficking operations in modern history gets reduced to a news cycle about a photograph on social media.

Democrats don't want to talk about what Clinton said under oath. They want to talk about what Boebert may have texted. Republicans should not oblige them.

What Comes Next

Bill Clinton's Friday deposition is the next chapter. The committee will eventually release the full transcript and video of both sessions. That's when the substance overtakes the spectacle, assuming anyone still cares by then.

The victims of Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network deserve a thorough accounting from every powerful person who moved in his orbit. Not rehearsed deflections. Not "I do not recall." Not opening statements that read like opposition research memos.

Hillary Clinton sat for the deposition. She answered questions. She also spent her platform trying to turn a hearing about Epstein into a hearing about Trump. The transcript, when it arrives, will show whether the committee let her get away with it.