NEWS: All Hell Breaks Loose As Comer & McGovern Clash Over Contempt Charges For Clintons

[0:00] your statements. I'm going to defer my questions, and Mr. Scott, I wonder if Mr. Scott has no [0:11] questions. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. So I have two sets of questions, Madam Chair, [0:17] because we have two bills coming up here at once. So let me start with the D.C. bill. [0:21] Chairman Comer, has your committee held a hearing or a markup on this measure? [0:24] We have not, because in order to rescind the D.C. Council motion, you're on a time frame, [0:30] 30 days. It's pretty self-explanatory. I have a limited amount of time here. And has Congress [0:36] ever vetoed a local D.C. tax law before? Yes. We did House Joint Resolution 42 last Congress. [0:46] Mr. Markinshaw? I think that's incorrect. We have not. I don't know what you're talking about. [0:53] That's unprecedented. So since this measure has received zero public consideration by the U.S. [0:58] Congress, and you want the House to vote on it this week, and Congress has never interfered [1:02] with a local D.C. tax law before, let's at least spend a few minutes evaluating what it [1:07] would do. Can you tell me the size of D.C.'s budget for fiscal year 2026? It's $22 billion. [1:15] Okay. And how much of that is covered by the projected revenue raised from D.C., from local [1:22] D.C. taxes? We've worked very closely on the Oversight Committee with Mayor Bowser in trying [1:31] to recruit industry. The answer is $13 billion. And private investment. And what is D.C.'s [1:37] capital budget for fiscal year 2026, which is used to invest in things like the metro, public [1:43] schools, and public infrastructure? I'll have to go through my notes. It may take a minute. [1:49] $2.6 billion. How have D.C. revenue projections over the next four years been impacted by the [1:56] mass layoffs of federal employees by the Trump administration? Do you know, Mr.— [2:04] They've been negatively impacted. Yeah, we're told, you know, we're— [2:09] All I know, Mr. Montgomery, we've worked with the mayor to try to get the federal employees [2:13] back to work, something that she supported. [2:15] It's revised downward by $1 billion. $1 billion. So if we overturn D.C.'s new tax law, do you [2:21] know what the fiscal impact of that decision will be on D.C.'s budget? I mean, according [2:31] to D.C.'s chief financial officer, that would blow a $600 million hole in the budget. And, [2:37] you know, I raise these issues. And again, I mean, you know, I agree. I mean, that if you [2:42] really want to micromanage D.C., you should run for city council. Because clearly, I don't [2:46] think—you're coming here knowing the first thing about D.C.'s budget process and fiscal [2:52] situation. And I think Republicans in Congress think they know better than D.C.'s elected [2:58] officials about these very technical, local tax and budget decisions. But blowing a huge [3:02] hole in their budget? I mean, seriously? I mean, you guys can't even manage the federal [3:08] budget, which is your actual job. I mean, you guys just voted for this big, ugly bill which [3:13] adds $4 trillion to the federal debt. And you're going to tell D.C. how to run their [3:18] government? I want to ask the unanimous consent to insert to the record, Madam Chair, a letter [3:23] signed by the Mayor, Muriel Bowser, and Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, [3:29] Phil Mendelson. Without objection. [3:31] One quote here. The district is already a month into the 2026 tax year and has begun accepting [3:37] and processing tax returns. Disapproval at this stage would create huge administrative challenges, [3:44] require taxpayers to refile their taxes, render existing guidance and forms obsolete, and necessitate [3:50] rapid midyear changes to tax administration systems. This is insane. This doesn't make any [3:57] sense. So, Madam Chair, I really am frustrated that this is what we're going to spend our time [4:06] doing this week. You know, a bill that's going to create more chaos in the district. It doesn't [4:12] make any sense. Now, to the second bill that we're here to talk about. You know, President [4:18] Trump referred to efforts to uncover the facts about the Epstein issue as a, I'm going to quote [4:24] him, a hoax involving Democrats, not Republicans, end quote. And he instructed Attorney General [4:30] Bondi to investigate Democrats, including President Clinton. And that's exactly what this is all [4:36] about. My Republican friends, you know, say that they are interested in getting to the [4:41] truth of the Epstein files. I'm on the Rules Committee. We moved nine times, nine times, [4:49] to try to get an amendment considered on the host floor to release the files. And the way [4:54] we actually had a vote on it was through a discharge petition, because all of you blocked it. [4:58] That's not true. That's a, we, I subpoenaed Pam Bondi for the Epstein documents. [5:03] Yeah, it is true. You did block it. You did block it. Nine times in this committee, we voted [5:10] to make an amendment in order, and it was blocked. In addition to the Clintons, six other people [5:16] were also subpoenaed. Attorney General Barr, she came in to testify. The rest, including the Clintons, [5:22] all sent in written declarations. Yet this contempt resolution singles them out for partisan reasons. [5:29] They are actively negotiating with the committee to provide testimony, most recently offering to sit [5:35] for a transcribed interview, which I guess Chairman Comer has rejected, because this isn't really [5:40] actually about getting at the facts. It's about playing politics. It's about creating a spectacle. [5:45] We all know what's going on. Mr. Walkinshaw, isn't this just a political exercise to change the subject [5:52] away from Trump's involvement in the Epstein files? By the way, the incomplete release of the Epstein [5:57] files at this point, Donald Trump has mentioned 5,391 times. 5,391 times. And not one word about [6:08] even asking the president to voluntarily come up and answer questions, but I'll yield to you. [6:13] I think it's really important to remind the American people about the timeline of President Trump's [6:18] involvement here. We all know he ran for the presidency in 2024, saying he was going to release [6:24] the files. Shortly after being sworn in, his Attorney General claimed to have a binder with [6:30] the client list, and she was going to release the files. At some point, very quickly, President Trump [6:37] changed his tune. He started doing everything in his power to prevent the release of the files. We know, [6:43] based on reporting, the Attorney General told him that he was mentioned in the files. We now know, [6:48] thousands of times, he's mentioned in the files. So, I think we... [6:52] You know, thousands of times, because he released the files. [6:56] Half of them. He released half of them, only when he was forced to, after doing everything in his [7:01] power to prevent it. Is there an update on the Clintons... [7:03] And I can share an update. The good news, Mr. Chairman, I think we'll be able to go through [7:09] door number one that I outlined in my opening statement. I understand that the Clintons have [7:14] agreed to appear for depositions and have agreed to the terms that you laid out in your most [7:21] recent letter. Are you aware of that? [7:22] No. Yeah. Well, if that's the case... [7:25] Somehow, the media and the Democrats get the correspondence way before we do. [7:30] Well, my understanding is that the Attorney's reached out to you. [7:32] Your staff has it, Mr. Chairman. [7:33] You better check with your staff. But if that's the case, why are we doing this then? [7:37] If the staff has it, they just got it, because we've been in there [7:41] waiting for you all to stop talking on the last bill, so we could present this bill. [7:46] And look, you said transcribes, they rejected a transcribe... [7:49] He wanted a transcribed interview. The difference in transcribed interview and deposition, [7:53] you don't have to answer the questions in a transcribed interview. [7:56] Right, but they've agreed to the terms in your letter, Mr. Chairman. [7:58] I would suggest that you consult with your staff. Maybe Mr. Watkinshaw can maybe make sure that you're... [8:04] Yeah, we'll make sure you get... [8:04] My understanding is that your staff has been notified of this. [8:08] If they've been notified, it's been in the last 15 minutes. [8:11] Mr. McGovern, yeah, Mr. McGovern, it just has come out in the last... [8:17] I just received your note. [8:18] In the last two minutes. [8:20] In the last... [8:20] Can we just... Can we save it? Can we save all... [8:23] No, no, no, no. Just because we're going to have to review this and look at this. [8:26] And look, this sets a bad precedent. So every time we issue a subpoena... [8:30] And what Mr. Watkinshaw does not say is the Democrats made the motion for all these subpoenas. [8:39] This was a Democrat motion, and a majority of the Democrats on the committee voted for this subpoena. [8:44] We want to hear from everyone. [8:44] So you're trying to say it's bipartisan, and it's not partisan. [8:47] Let me claim my time, Madam Chair. [8:50] It's bipartisan. [8:51] In other words, you're getting everything you want, but you still want to go ahead with the show. [8:55] You're talking about something nobody's even read yet, Mr. McGovern. [8:58] All right, let me ask. So in the recent DOJ release of the Epstein files, [9:03] there appears to be far more information of prominent people in Epstein's circle, [9:07] including Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Elon Musk, and Howard Lutnick. [9:11] Chairman Comer, do you know if top Trump advisor Elon Musk ever went to Epstein's rape island? [9:18] I haven't seen any evidence that he had. [9:20] Do you know what Trump... [9:22] Look, if anybody that's been to the island, especially if they went to the island [9:25] after he's convicted, we're interested in talking to them. [9:28] Do you know if Trump advisor Steve Bannon ever went to Epstein's rape island? [9:32] I don't keep up with Steve Bannon. [9:33] All right, do you know if Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, [9:36] ever went to Epstein's rape island? [9:38] He has said he went to the island with his wife and kids and would never go back. [9:44] He went somewhere. I don't know if it's an island, but he went somewhere with Epstein. [9:47] He said that before. So you don't want to subpoena them, or don't you care to learn if they... [9:52] I've subpoenaed the former Republican Attorney General Bill Barr for a hard-hitting deposition, [9:57] and we subpoenaed Alex Acosta, who served in the Trump administration. [10:00] Are you going to subpoena anything? [10:01] How many Republicans did Jamie Raskin subpoena when he has... [10:05] How many Republicans did the Democrats subpoena? [10:07] The answer is no. [10:08] This is a bipartisan investigation. That's why a majority of Democrats on the Oversight Committee voted for this. [10:13] I'm sorry. It's my time, Mr. Chair. [10:15] You can spread all the propaganda you want in your committee, [10:19] but it's my time in this committee, and I'm asking the questions. [10:22] So the answer is no, that you're not going to subpoena... [10:24] I don't even know what the question is. [10:25] Well, it was very... Are you going to subpoena Howard Lutnick or Steve Bannon or Elon Musk? [10:32] We'll subpoena anyone that the evidence leads us to. [10:34] Is that yes? Lutnick on the island. [10:36] Well, it's the evidence. We'll talk about it with the committee, [10:38] and we don't just pull subpoenas out of our butts like Jamie Raskin would do. [10:43] Can I be quick at my time? [10:45] Chairman Comer, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Bondi more than five months ago. [10:50] I subpoenaed Pam Bondi for the Epstein documents. [10:53] Excuse me, Madam Chair. Can you muzzle the witness, please? [10:56] I mean, Attorney... [10:59] Chairman Comer, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Bondi more than five [11:04] months ago, requiring her to produce all of the Epstein files to Congress by August 19th, 2025. [11:10] Um, yes or no. As of right now, has Attorney General Bondi fully complied with the subpoena? [11:17] We're still reviewing the three million documents to see if that's all of the documents tonight. [11:21] No, the answer is no. [11:22] Mr. Oversight Committee, it's important. [11:23] Just one minute, if I could. I'm going to ask you all not to talk over each other, [11:29] but I do have a question. I'd like, I mean, something I'd like to ask if you'd let me real [11:36] quickly, real quickly. Thank you. We keep, people keep saying, have all the files been released? [11:46] Does somebody have a total of the files? How is anybody ever going to know how many files there are? [11:54] Madam Chair, when this started five or six months ago, there was a, it was, uh, suggested [12:02] that there were between 100 and 300,000 files. We've already had released over 3.1 million files. [12:08] Okay, now Mr. McGovern. Mr. Walkinshaw, why don't you respond, please? [12:11] The direct answer to your question, Madam Chairwoman, is yes, we do have a number. And we have a number [12:16] because the Trump Administration, the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, said there are six [12:22] million files. They collected six million files. Now he says they over collected, so they've only [12:27] released three million. The law does not allow them to subjectively determine that three million of [12:34] the Epstein files that are in his possession, which he said were over collected. Mr. McGovern, [12:39] though, asked a question about the Oversight Committee's subpoena and the Attorney General's [12:44] compliance with that subpoena. That's separate from the release of files that we've seen publicly, [12:50] because the Oversight Committee's subpoena does not have the same list of allowed redactions [12:57] that the legislation that we all voted for has. She's produced to this committee only 30,000 pages [13:03] of documents, not three million, not six million. She's out of compliance with the subpoena and not [13:10] following the law requiring the release of all six million documents. But can we talk about this? [13:17] I'm interested in getting to a number. Well, I'm curious. Okay, so she's released over three [13:25] million, you said, Mr. Chairman. She just released three million in addition to the, [13:30] I don't know, 37,000 a few months ago. And Mr. McGovern, you said we know the number? [13:37] Is that what you said? The Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, President Trump's former [13:43] personal lawyer, said that there are six million files. He's choosing to release only three million, [13:49] and he's choosing to heavily redact that three million. [13:53] So should we hold Pam Bondi in contempt? [13:57] She is turning over documents. And what they said is they turned over documents, [14:02] every document that they're legally required to turn over. [14:05] I don't think she's complying with the Supreme Court. That they're allowed by law to turn over. [14:11] Well, all right. There's still, there's still investigations, there's class action lawsuits, [14:16] there's, there's, there's a lot of, a lot of legal stuff still taking place with this. But we want [14:25] the documents. We want everything. We're reviewing the three million. I don't think anybody can say [14:31] with honesty they've read all three million of them. We're pouring through them as quick as we can. [14:35] I'm, I'm worried about the three million that haven't been released. And do we know what's in [14:38] those three million pages that haven't been released? We do not know. Have, have we heard [14:43] from, have you, because I've, I've been reading the public, I've been reading public statements, [14:48] but I want to know whether you have heard from Epstein's victims and survivors about the recent [14:53] release by DOJ. Have you heard of some of the, the concern of some of the survivors who, who believe [15:00] that DOJ is deliberately releasing personal information about them? See, that's, and, and, [15:07] while at the same time protecting the men that abuse these women? You want to, you? [15:13] Have you? It's deeply concerning. I mean, look, the most recent release we heard from the Department [15:19] of Justice that they couldn't follow the law because they were taking so much time to carefully [15:24] scrutinize the files and ensure they did the appropriate redactions to protect the survivors. [15:30] And then we hear from survivor after survivor after survivor after survivor who was revealed [15:37] in the release. So they delayed the release to protect the survivors, so they say, and then they [15:43] failed to protect the survivors when they released half of the files of the law. And the interesting [15:47] thing is that the names that really weren't released are the perpetrators, are the people who abused [15:53] these women. So we, you know, again, they victimized, again, the survivors, um, and they're protecting the [16:01] people, you know, who were, who were, you know, who abused them. Um, you know, I mean, I, I gotta say that, [16:07] you know, Republicans on the Oversight Committee have moved swiftly to hold the Clintons in, [16:11] and Democrats, in criminal contempt, yet several Republican members of the Oversight Committee notably [16:16] refused to comply with congressional subpoenas from the January 6th committee. Maybe, Chairman Comer, [16:21] do you think your own members should have been held in contempt and prosecuted? [16:24] So I'm glad you asked that question, because there's been a lot of speculation in our Minnesota [16:29] fraud investigation that there may be a, a Democrat member from Minnesota that, uh, [16:34] net worth has significantly increased. What we found out, you can't, we can't investigate [16:40] other members. That has to be the Ethics Committee. So if there was an issue with, [16:44] with, uh, the January 6th committee subpoenaing members of Congress, which I've been told we're [16:50] not supposed to do, then they should take it up with the Ethics Committee, because that's their sole [16:54] purpose, is to investigate other members. Yeah, so I, I'm just wondering whether we should recess for [17:01] five or ten minutes so that you can figure out what the Clinton development is, so we maybe can save [17:06] ourselves a whole bunch of time. Well, may I ask you a question, Mr. McGovern? Is this going to be the [17:12] standard practice every time we issue a subpoena? Whoever's in charge, Democrats, Republicans, whoever's [17:17] in control, every time you issue a subpoena, letting them stonewall for five months, and then [17:23] prove that you've got the votes on the floor in a bipartisan fashion to hold them in contempt? [17:28] No, no, no, no, no, no, I mean, I, I think what the danger here is that the Clintons weren't [17:34] negotiating in good faith, and you jumped to this, for five months? Just saying, we, we have seen, [17:41] Chairman Comer has repeatedly moved the goalposts here. Oh, that's, that is not true, you've been [17:46] here three weeks, you don't, hey, that's not true, madam. You weren't asked a question, Mr. Chairman. [17:50] At our markup, the Chairman. And the reporters can't hear you, so, just a moment, you made an [17:57] accusation, Mr. Watkins. I'm trying to, I'm trying to complete my statement. That you, that the Republicans [18:02] moved the goalposts. That's right, and I'm going to explain that. How can you back that up? [18:06] I'll back, I'll back it up this way. We had a markup a couple weeks ago on these contempt [18:11] resolutions. The Chairman laid out his objections to the Clinton's most recent offer at that time. [18:19] He didn't like that they hadn't agreed to a transcription. He didn't like that they wanted [18:25] to limit the amount of committee staff in the room. They had said that he hadn't agreed to limit the [18:33] discussion to Epstein-related matters. He claimed at the time that was untrue, and he did want to [18:38] limit the discussion to Epstein-related matters. All of those objections that the Chairman laid out [18:43] at our markup a couple weeks ago were addressed by the offer that the Clintons made yesterday. [18:51] We now know the additional objections that the Chairman laid out in a recent letter have been addressed [18:58] by the Clintons and their lawyers. So if we're going to continue to move forward, despite the fact [19:03] that they have met everything you've asked them to meet, I think we've revealed what's actually happening. [19:10] And so the question is, are we interested in getting to the truth and the facts, or are my [19:17] friends interested in creating a spectacle? Or is this all about, no, this, I'm going to, I'm saying we, [19:22] I have, we, I have, we have been on this, Democrats on this committee have tried, tried nine times to bring, [19:29] you know, a resolution to the floor to release the Epstein files. Only when public pressure, [19:36] you know, uh, you know, forced you to cave on it, finally, did we have a vote on it. And now we have [19:43] a, a Department of Justice that is half complying. Um, and you know, we, Mr. McGovern, [19:48] let, let me, let me tell you, I agree with you that we should take a recess so that we can review [19:56] the recent developments. That's all I was trying to say to you, is I think that we should do that. [20:03] Rules have been called, I mean, excuse me, votes have been called. And so I think we should go vote.