House talks holding Clintons in contempt

[0:00] and the ways he sought to curry favor and influence to shield himself from scrutiny. [0:06] Their testimony may also inform how Congress can strengthen laws to better combat human trafficking. [0:13] Since issuing the subpoenas, this committee has acted in good faith. [0:17] We've offered flexibility on scheduling. [0:20] The response we received was not cooperation, [0:23] but defiance marked by repeated delays, excuses and obstruction. [0:30] The Clintons claimed they had been treated unfairly because this committee accepted written statements [0:34] under penalty of perjury from former U.S. Attorneys General Holder, Lynch, Sessions and Garland, [0:42] as well as former FBI Director Comey. [0:45] Those written statements were accepted because none of those officials recalled information relevant [0:51] to the Epstein investigation, nor did they have personal relationships with Epstein. [0:58] By contrast, the committee required in-person testimony from former U.S. Attorney General Barr [1:05] and former U.S. Secretary of Labor and U.S. Attorney Acosta, both Republicans, [1:11] because they possessed information directly relevant to the investigation. [1:16] The Clintons are in a fundamentally different category. [1:21] They had documented relationships with Epstein and Maxwell, [1:24] evidenced by numerous photographs, flat log records, wedding invitations, and other materials. [1:30] Some of these photos can be seen here. [1:34] We repeatedly informed the Clintons' attorney that written statements would not be accepted. [1:39] The subpoenas required depositions. [1:44] Federal courts have consistently held that witnesses may not impose their own conditions [1:49] upon the manner of congressional inquiry. [1:51] Yet the Clintons attempted to do exactly that, submitting brief, bulleted, written statements [1:58] that are neither comprehensive nor responsive to the committee's many unanswered questions. [2:04] No witness, not a former president or a private citizen, may willfully defy [2:10] a duly issued congressional subpoena without consequence. [2:14] But that is what the Clintons did, and that is why we are here today. [2:19] I would expect bipartisan support for enforcing those subpoenas by voting in favor of these resolutions. [2:28] Unfortunately, it appears that Ranking Member Garcia has chosen to follow marching orders [2:31] designed to distract from the issue at hand. [2:35] I hope I'm wrong about this. [2:37] Over the weekend, Ranking Member Garcia made clear that Democrats intend to divert attention [2:41] from the Clintons by instead calling for Attorney General Bondi to be held in contempt. [2:46] The difference is clear. [2:49] Attorney General Bondi and the Department of Justice are producing documents. [2:53] While the pace is slower than any of us would prefer and must speed up, I believe that much of the [3:00] delay involves the Department of Justice trying to take care to redact victims' personal information. [3:07] By contrast, the Clintons have flatly refused to appear at all, despite repeated warnings that [3:13] the committee would remove forward with contempt proceedings. [3:18] Today, the Clintons must be held accountable for their actions, and Democrats must support [3:22] these measures or they will be exposed as hypocrites. [3:26] We must do what is necessary to uphold Congress's investigative authority, [3:32] which is imperative to the legislative process. [3:35] And we are doing so to demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally to everyone, [3:41] regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige. [3:46] I urge my colleagues to support this contempt report. [3:49] I now yield to Ranking Member Garcia for his opening statement. [3:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:54] I want to just make one thing clear. [3:57] Oversight Democrats, from the start of this investigation, have been crystal clear that [4:02] we're willing to talk to anyone who has information about Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes. [4:08] And we don't care if they're wealthy, their position, if they're Democrats or Republicans. [4:15] And we agree, subpoenas issued by our committee must always be respected. [4:21] No president or former president is above the law. [4:24] And I think every single person on this committee agrees with that. [4:29] In fact, I appreciate that you brought those posters. [4:31] Mr. Comer, can I actually see that? [4:33] Would you mind if I actually use that poster that you brought? [4:35] The ones that you put up? [4:39] The two that you put up earlier? [4:41] I'll put those up in a sec. [4:46] Now, this committee from day one, and we agree, [4:50] we've had questions for former President Clinton. [4:53] And as you know, former President Clinton has began answering some of those questions [4:57] in a signed declaration that this committee has received recently, including last week. [5:02] We know that President Clinton has offered to answer additional questions in different formats. [5:07] He's also called for a full release of the files immediately, [5:10] which you or no one in this committee has actually done. [5:15] It's interesting that it's this subpoena only that Republicans and the chairman [5:22] have been obsessed about putting all their energy behind. [5:26] Now, we also want President Clinton to answer questions. [5:30] In fact, he should continue to answer the questions from this committee, [5:34] as he has begun doing in not just a signed declaration, [5:37] but also in other offers to meet with this committee of which you have rejected. [5:41] But it's also incredibly interesting that this energy you have to attack whoever you believe [5:48] your political opponents are, you are unwilling to use on Ghislaine Maxwell, [5:53] a monster who has trafficked, abused, and raped children and women, [5:59] and which every committee member in this body knows should be in front of this committee. [6:04] Where is the contempt charges to bring her into this committee to answer the questions? [6:11] And I hope that you would agree, Mr. Comer, that that should be one of our top priorities. [6:18] And let's talk about the president. Your former colleague, Marjorie Taylor Greene, [6:24] on this committee reported that Trump told her that he wanted to continue his cover-up [6:28] because, quote, my friends will get hurt. Donald Trump is leading a White House cover-up right now [6:35] of the Epstein files. And we all know that Epstein himself said that Donald Trump was his best friend [6:42] for over 10 years. And it is shameful, illegal, and unconstitutional that the Department of Justice [6:49] has released 1% of the files. 1% of the files. Where is the pressure to get Pam Bondi to release [6:59] the files? Instead, your focus and the committee's focus on whoever you perceive to be you, your enemies, [7:06] and the enemies of Donald Trump. Because let's be clear, we want to talk to President Bill Clinton. [7:12] We want him to answer our questions. We also want Ghislaine Maxwell to answer our questions. We also want [7:17] to understand why Pam Bondi refuses to release all the files. 1% of the files have released. Millions [7:24] have been left. No publications for weeks. That is a crime. And so this White House cover-up continues [7:34] every single day that the files are not released. And yet, where are those calls, Mr. Comer? You're [7:41] saying they're complying. That is both a lie and shameful. It's time to end this White House cover-up. [7:48] I want to yield to Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement, Summer Lee, [7:52] who originally made the motion to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi. [7:56] Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I just want us to speak plainly and lay the facts out what's really [7:59] happened in this committee. We are one week out from Bill and Hillary Clinton who did not show up for [8:04] their depositions. One week, and we're already having a markup to hold them in contempt. Meanwhile, [8:08] the Department of Justice has been legally obligated to hand over the full unredacted Epstein files to this [8:13] committee since August. The same exact subpoena that they are using to hold the Clintons in contempt. [8:18] And please note that these resolutions are allowing the DOJ to prosecute the Clintons for the exact [8:25] same things that the DOJ itself is violating. They have handed over one percent of the files and [8:31] heavily redacted. We are five months overdue, Mr. Comer, if you've made no effort to bring in Pam [8:36] Bondi. So no, the difference is not clear. You have made no effort to demand any answers to exert any [8:41] pressure. So with that, Mr. Scheer, I do have an amendment at the desk which would hold Pam Bondi in [8:46] contempt for noncompliance with the bipartisan subpoena that you issued on August 5th, 2025. [8:53] I hope that my colleagues will support. I yield back. [8:56] All right. Minority's time has expired. We're still debating the measure and we'll take up your [9:03] amendment once we finish debating the initial measure. I just wanted to respond to a couple [9:09] things. I agree. We need to hear from Ghislaine Maxwell. We've been trying to get her in for a deposition. [9:17] Her lawyers have been saying that she's going to plead the fifth, but we have nailed down a date, [9:21] uh, February 9th, where Ghislaine Maxwell will be deposed by this committee. Now, [9:28] her lawyers have made it clear that she's going to plead the fifth. I hope she changes her mind [9:33] because I want to hear from her just like I want to bring her. [9:36] What's that? You said the difference is clear. It is. What would you say? If the difference is clear, [9:46] the difference here is that they are also trying to negotiate. She says she doesn't want to do it. [9:51] You have not moved in the same way. So you are actually not applying the same standard here across [9:56] the board. The DOJ is in the same exact subpoena. Ghislaine Maxwell said she won't do it. Bring her [10:02] in then. Let's do the contempt. You're out of order. So we were going to depose Ghislaine Maxwell, [10:09] February 9th. Where are the contempt charges, Mr. Chairman? You're out of order too, Mr. Garcia, [10:14] and we will proceed with that with that deposition. Ms. Lee said the Clintons just missed their deadline by [10:21] a week. We have been negotiating with the Clinton attorneys for five months. Mr. Chairman, whose [10:27] time are we speaking on right now? This is this is my time. This is my time. I recognize myself, [10:32] so I have five minutes. You already had your five minutes. Well, I'm about finished anyway. I haven't [10:36] used five minutes. I've used about one minute, but you use your full five minutes, sir. No, I haven't used [10:41] the five minutes, Mr. Garcia. So if does any other members seek recognition on the underlying bill? Ms. Luna. [10:52] So I just I think this is really important for everyone to get context and also to I just actually [11:00] talked to Todd Blanche this morning and as we proceed in this committee today, I just I wanted [11:06] to give an update but also to let you all know that Todd Blanche has told me that he's willing to talk to [11:13] any of you and I think it would be very important as we proceed with the seriousness of this investigation [11:18] specifically pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein that there's there's open dialogue directly with the [11:23] DOJ. When I went to move to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, part of the issue was is he wasn't [11:29] even willing to talk to Congress period, at least not some of the members that were concerned about [11:33] some of those audio tapes, but specifically pertaining to the Jeffrey Epstein update. As of right now, [11:41] what I've been told by Mr. Blanche is that the the files and I think in total it was over five million [11:46] files actually have finished review at the DOJ. They've had 500 attorneys from NSD, the Southern [11:53] District of Florida, SDNY and the FBI basically working on this six days a week to get these files [11:59] appropriately redacted with victim information, but specifically what the hang-up is for the file [12:04] release is the judge in New York that issued that made the order from the SDNY's prosecutor's office, [12:10] Jay Clayton basically certified under oath that there would be a review to protect some of the [12:15] victim information and so that's part of the reason why it not it has I guess been more of a delay. [12:21] I do think that this information needs to be released, but it's important to provide context that [12:25] unless we're going to bring in the judge in New York, which I agree with him, I do think that there [12:31] needs to be a proper review of the documents if it's pertaining to victim information, it's just [12:36] important to know that context, but I would be happy to, Garcia, I'd be happy to facilitate that [12:43] phone call and give you his personal cell phone. He said he would actually like to talk to all of you [12:46] guys and I would encourage you guys to actually engage in that conversation because I do think [12:50] this is important and then also to a last update, I was told and I've been trying to obtain information [12:56] of one victim specifically, if you have victims that specifically want their files, they will actually [13:02] take those names and get whatever files they can to them, so some of the Democrats are working with [13:07] some of the victims, I'm working with some of them, but it's important to know for context, so I yield my [13:11] time. Very good, and would you yield a couple of, you've got two minutes left, but I just want to [13:18] make clear, like most everyone on this committee, I do a lot of interviews and I have said, stated [13:26] repeatedly publicly on conservative networks, liberal networks and everything in between that we want [13:33] the Epstein documents released, and I appreciate the update from Ms. Luna on the progress, they have [13:40] been complying, we all wish that it was moving much faster, but there's a lot, there are a lot of [13:47] documents, and if you'll remember the last document dump that the Department of Justice released, there [13:51] were many people on this committee, on the Democrat side, that were very critical, saying there weren't [13:57] enough redactions, so they are making triple and quadruple sure that the victim's personal information [14:05] is redacted. Now, do any other members wish to be heard? Chair recognizes Mr. Infume. Mr. Chairman, [14:12] I yield to the ranking member Garcia. Thank you, thank you, sir. Representative Luna, I appreciate, [14:19] you know, the statements, but I just want to be clear, that is a lie, and here is why. Mr. Blanche [14:24] said that they've been reviewing the documents since the passage of the law, the Kana Massey law. We have [14:33] had a legal subpoena in place since the summer, since July. It's been the job of the DOJ to comply with [14:43] this law since a subpoena passed the subcommittee of this body. Since that subpoena passed in July, [14:51] we have received 33,000 documents of which 99% of them were already public documents. And so when we [14:59] talk about complying with the law, you have to talk about complying with the very subpoena that this [15:06] committee actually passed in a bipartisan way. And so Mr. Blanche is talking about the Epstein Files law, [15:14] which we should have received all the documents already per the actual law that was voted on. There has [15:19] been little to zero production of this committee's requests. And so Mr. Blanche is wrong, and he's not [15:27] being truthful to this committee and to you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield remaining time to Ms. [15:35] Sommer, who has the underlying motion. And I know that you said that we would be dealing with that. I [15:41] just don't think she had enough time to explain her position on it. Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Infumi. I [15:47] actually do appreciate that. And I would like to really emphasize that 1% of the Files is insulting. [15:53] It's insulting. In fact, when we consider that Pam Bondi herself has publicly stated that the Files [15:59] exist, she publicly stated that she had already given Donald Trump that information. So it is a little [16:04] bit concerning that you have not moved in the way that you said you would. This type of energy could be [16:10] well spent on the DOJ. It could be well spent on not just saying that you want us to release the Files. You have [16:18] power here. This markup is evidence that you were never serious about an honest bipartisan investigation. That [16:25] you always intended to use this as a one-sided political hit job. Because if you had your way, we actually [16:29] would have recessed this summer before we were able to force that bipartisan subpoena through the subcommittee on [16:36] federal law enforcement. So when we think about this kangaroo court into this honesty that's happening [16:42] right here, it dishonors the integrity of our committee and the survivors who have put themselves [16:49] at risk for justice. We all remember the round table where many of us sat and listened to the [16:56] survivors. We listened to their stories and one of them spoke and said that she doesn't know if we're [17:02] good liars or if we're telling the truth. But for the first time, she is hoping that something actually [17:08] happens here. We left that round table and Mr. Coomer, you yourself said that you wanted to honor those [17:13] victims. To let Pam Bondi off the hook, to let others who are obviously in those Files off the hook, [17:23] is unacceptable. We cannot investigate this fully if we do not have the full Files. We cannot see all there [17:34] is to see if the DOJ is not complying. We cannot move forward. Being in the minority party gives us [17:41] limited options for actions. And we all must be unwilling to wait if you are not going to subpoena [17:47] the Files. So I thank you, Mr. Infume, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back also. [17:52] Do any other members? Mr. Gosar. Yes, I yield to the Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gosar, for yielding. [18:00] First of all, let's go back. When this started, everyone was demanding that we subpoena the [18:06] Epstein estate. That wasn't in the discharge petition, but I issued a subpoena to the estate. [18:12] When we met with the victims, when we met privately for two hours, Ms. Lee was there and [18:18] Ms. Crockett and, you know, more than half the committee, they were demanding that we subpoena the [18:27] estate. And we did. We got every document from the estate. There were people who said, [18:31] oh, there are going to be a lot of questions answered. There'll be names. We've subpoenaed [18:35] every document, every picture, everything from the estate. We never, never held back. We've been [18:42] serious. We've all supported the full release of the documents. As I've stated many times publicly, [18:48] we wish the process was going quicker. That's a lot of documents, a lot of redactions, a lot of eyes [18:54] have to be put on this. So the Department of Justice is complying. Now with respect to Maxwell, [19:03] Maxwell and the Clintons are not treated differently. Maxwell was always, she was willing to appear, [19:10] but made very clear she would take the Fifth Amendment. The Clintons refused to appear. The [19:16] Clintons refused to appear. And one of the proposals that Clinton made was if we would let Hillary Clinton [19:28] off, then Mr. Garcia and I could travel to Mr. Clinton's house and bring one staffer and take notes, [19:38] but no transcript. That's not even a thing. And you all know that. The media, I'm sure, would require a [19:48] transcript. There's no real investigation without a transcript. So, you know, what few counter proposals [19:57] that Clinton's massive legal team has made aren't acceptable. And I don't think anyone is going to [20:03] stand up here and willing to publicly argue that they were. So does any other member seek recognition? [20:11] Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American people deserve full transparency. And anyone who has [20:18] relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes must be compelled to come forward and share with [20:22] this committee. Wealth and power cannot shield people from accountability from this committee. [20:27] It is the victims of these horrific crimes who deserve protection, not Jeffrey Epstein and the [20:31] people associated with him. We all agree. We want to hear from former President Bill Clinton. [20:37] But committee Republicans have failed to conduct a serious investigation. For instance, they, [20:42] A, refused to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt for failure to release 99% of the Epstein files [20:49] on a bipartisan law that we all passed on the House floor. And B, that had a deadline. And B, [20:56] they refused to hold Ghislaine Maxwell accountable for defying this committee's subpoenas. [21:00] We all know that President Trump has a longstanding relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. [21:05] His administration continues to obstruct the release of the Epstein files for this reason. We've seen [21:11] photos of them together. Even Elon Musk posted at real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That's the [21:17] real reason why they have not been made public. President Trump's own Mar-a-Lago Club appears to come [21:23] up often in connection to Jeffrey Epstein. From reporting, we know that Epstein was deeply involved [21:29] with Mar-a-Lago. He was a frequent visitor to the club for years. The club sent employees, usually [21:35] young women, to Epstein's mansion for massages, manicures, and other spa services. Staff members [21:41] from the club made frequent calls to Epstein's home in Palm Beach. And on these calls, Epstein engaged in [21:47] sexually suggestive behavior, such as exposing himself. And in 2000, Elaine Maxwell recruited [21:53] Epstein's trafficking victim from Mar-a-Lago, where she was working as an employee. This committee [22:00] must also investigate what Mar-a-Lago Club members and the staff knew about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. [22:05] Getting documents from Mar-a-Lago is about uncovering evidence, holding these people accountable, [22:11] and doing right by the victims of these horrific crimes. So I'm for, we are all for making sure [22:18] that we hear from everyone. I don't care if you're a Democrat, I don't care if you're a Republican, [22:21] I'm tired of rich people trying to evade justice and accountability, period. But you can't do it [22:28] just for the party you disagree with. You can't do it in a politically motivated way. So here's the [22:33] opportunity to show it's not a politically motivated thing. Let's also make sure that we get these [22:37] documents from Mar-a-Lago. So with that, pursuant to Clause 2K6 of House Rule 11, I move that the [22:43] House shall subpoena the Mar-a-Lago Club and all entities under common ownership or control [22:48] with the Mar-a-Lago Club to provide the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with [22:53] 1. All documents, communications and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein to include but not [22:59] limited to personnel files and records, client files and records, massage and spa services records, [23:06] complaints and grievances filed against Jeffrey Epstein, internal communications and billing [23:12] statements. 2. A list of all Mar-a-Lago Club personnel who provided massages on behalf of the [23:18] Mar-a-Lago Club between 1997 and 2003, regardless of whether such personnel were contractors or formally [23:26] employed, masseuses or otherwise. And 3. A list of all Mar-a-Lago Club personnel who were employed [23:33] as, uh, as or acted as managers of the Mar-a-Lago Club spa between 1997 and 2003. [23:39] 3. A motion was made by Mr. Frost. The motion is improper as the item is not on the agenda. Any [23:51] other chair recognizes? 3. So, so Mr. Chair, you, you want to use procedure to push back accountability? [23:57] 3. No, we're, we're holding people accountable today. That's why we're here. [24:00] 3. Well, why, why won't you move to make sure that we get the relevant documents from [24:03] Mar-a-Lago that I just read this and you're saying it's because it's not on the agenda that we can't [24:08] move forward with this? You have full discretion of this committee to say, you know what, let's have [24:13] a vote in a bipartisan way to say we want the documents from Mar-a-Lago. I don't have full [24:19] discretion. It's in the rules. We vote on a rules package at the beginning. You're able to say right [24:23] now that we can vote on this. We cannot vote on it. It's in our rules. We'll be breaking our rules. [24:28] We have to apply to the rules too. We're not like the Clintons. No, no, no. You are hiding behind [24:33] process to protect these Mar-a-Lago documents. And I think, I think it's a disgraceful. [24:39] Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing was noted in the Clinton's [24:44] letters is they said the subpoenas were illegal. I'd be curious to know if the ranking member thinks [24:49] that they're illegal. And with that, I'd yield the rest of my time to you. Thank you, Mr. Cloud. I want [24:56] to make sure everyone is aware. On February 11th, Attorney General Bondi will be appearing as the [25:06] sole witness in front of the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Crockett is a member of the Judiciary Committee. [25:11] I would assume, I don't want to speak for Ms. Crockett, but I would assume you'll ask her questions [25:15] about the Epstein investigation and her progress towards releasing the documents. Mr. Massey is a [25:22] member of the Judiciary Committee. He's already stated publicly he's going to spend his five minutes [25:27] asking the Attorney General about the Epstein document. So the Attorney General is slated to [25:33] be in front of Congress. And I'm pretty confident that just about everybody on that committee is [25:40] going to ask the Attorney General where we are with the document production. So I think that's [25:47] important to note. February 11th, she's slated to be in front of the Judiciary Committee. And with the [25:52] discharge petition, when the House voted for that, we issued the subpoenas for the Epstein [25:59] documents. Then we all voted for the discharge petition. The discharge petition has jurisdiction [26:06] in the Judiciary Committee. So she's going to be in front of the Judiciary Committee. The next week, [26:11] we're in session. So I think that's important to note. Do any other members see... Okay, Mr. Lynch, [26:18] then... Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would remind the gentleman, and I'm sure he knows [26:23] this, that the Oversight Committee is the principal investigatory committee in the House. And we have [26:30] a responsibility. It may be a shared responsibility with Judiciary, but we nevertheless have a [26:36] responsibility. And we are the ones who issued that subpoena. This committee did. We are the ones who [26:44] sat with the victims, right? We looked them in the eye, including the Speaker of the House. We looked [26:52] them in the eye, these women who have been struggling to get justice for many, many years. And we promised [26:58] them, every member of this committee, we promised them that we would do everything under our power [27:04] to make sure they finally receive justice. And here we are today. Now, with millions and millions of [27:13] documents requested back in August, we've still received, what, one percent of the documents. [27:19] This is evidence, evidence of wrongdoing in many cases. And yet we're allowing Attorney General Bondi [27:27] to obstruct justice, basically. Even the little bit of evidence that she has provided, she also [27:35] included a statement that basically said, don't believe this evidence. There's a lot of falsity in [27:40] these. I mean, I have never seen an Attorney General in this country provide evidence and then give an [27:48] opinion on that evidence to the legislature, to the Congress. That is unheard of. But it shows her [27:57] willingness to do whatever she can to obstruct justice from being delivered. The second thing I want to [28:07] say is, if we are truly interested in getting information relative to this investigation, there [28:14] should be some underlying basis for that. And I have reviewed all of the evidence that's been made [28:22] available so far. I find nothing, nothing that points to Secretary Clinton in this at all. Yes, she was [28:31] Secretary of State at one point. But the information that we're trying to get with respect to Secretary of [28:38] State is available from any Secretary of State that served in that office with respect to trafficking. [28:46] So there is no direct reason, no direct evidence to point to Secretary Clinton in any of this. And yet, [28:57] while those millions of documents are being denied us, we're pulling someone forward, I think for the [29:03] point of embarrassment, public embarrassment, and because of the ill will on the part of the President, [29:11] to bring her forward for embarrassment, but not for the purpose of gaining helpful information for [29:17] this investigation. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield the balance of my time to the ranking member, Mr. Garcia. [29:24] Thank you, Congressman Lynch. Mr. Comer, I just want to be just pretty clear about two things, [29:28] and one particularly something that you said. Let me just start by saying that you've noted in your [29:34] comments that your concern and your biggest concern was the issue of the transcript. And I want to just [29:39] go back really quick, because you and I share respect for subpoenas. You and I share that we want [29:47] the former President to answer questions. Is that correct? Correct. Great. And so does every other [29:51] member of this committee. We want the former President to answer questions of this committee, [29:56] and we want not just the former President, but everyone to follow subpoenas of this committee. So let's [30:02] agree on that. But to be clear, President Clinton, the former President, have submitted a signed [30:10] declaration. He's offered to sit with you and me and answer questions. He's offered to have staff [30:17] in the room to transcribe and be there while those questions are being answered. And his request was [30:24] to do it in a dignified way. Your concern, as you brought up in your last comments, was that he was [30:30] unwilling to do a recorded transcript. That's actually also not true. And to be clear, there's been public [30:35] reporting, including in articles that came out over the weekend, that they have not ruled out [30:41] a recorded transcript. I want to ask the President questions. Chairman Comer, I want to ask President [30:53] Clinton questions. Don't you? That's why we're here. I want to ask President Clinton questions [30:59] and a recorded transcript and with our members of our staff. Would you like to do that also? [31:03] May I make a comment on the transcript? They have not agreed to a transcript. Staff notes [31:13] are not equivalent. They've actually made public reporting. So they're wanting me to make note. [31:18] They said, OK, Comer can take notes. But they've called us all liars. And you know how the Clintons [31:24] have gone on offense. And look, they don't get to make the rules. We make the rules. Can I have the rest of [31:29] my time back? Yeah, go ahead. OK, thank you. I want to be clear, because this is an email, actually, [31:34] that from the Clinton lawyers. You have this, actually. To be clear, at no point were we opposed [31:40] to the creation of a record of the interview, which is why we offered to allow the note takers [31:45] previously. They go on, they go on. This is, you have this email, sir. So I guess my question, [31:51] my question to you is, do you want to sit down and ask President Clinton questions? Actually, [31:56] I want to have, can I have my time back? We'll recognize Garcia, then Mr. Donalds will be next. [32:00] So thank you. So my question to you, Mr. Comer, again, is if we want to actually [32:04] ask questions of President Clinton, of which those of us in the minority want to do, [32:10] then let's get him in. Let's negotiate a recorded transcription of that interview [32:17] to further our investigation. I thank you for the yield, Mr. Lynch. [32:20] Time's expired. Chair recognizes Mr. Donalds. [32:23] Chairman, point of clarification. Both President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were subpoenaed by [32:33] this committee to come in for a transcribed interview. Is that correct? [32:36] For a deposition. [32:41] Excuse me, for a deposition. Chairman, I've been in these closed depositions a number of times in my [32:49] time being on the oversight committee. I failed to see what President Clinton's talking about with [32:55] respect to a dignified manner. Every time I've been involved in any of these conversations, [33:00] even when it was a former President Biden's son came in for one of those. And I'm not trying to [33:06] bring up all the Hunter stuff. It's just a point I'm making. I think everybody just [33:09] take the temperature down, relax. Even those even those the closed door depositions have always been [33:16] held in a dignified manner. Members have had questions outside of questions from committee staff, [33:24] but members on both sides of the aisle had an ability to answer those questions. Those those [33:29] interviews are recorded. The transcripts of those interviewed are are are provided to the public. [33:35] I fail to see what special accommodations President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were looking for. [33:40] Chairman, can you help me understand this or even a ranking member? I want to I'm really trying to [33:46] understand. I'm not trying to make a point. We do too much of that here. I'm trying to understand, [33:49] because if we're holding a new meeting to replace what the committee already requested, [33:55] my question is why? Mr. Garcia is willing to answer the question. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Donalds. [34:04] I appreciate the question. Look, I think the committee first I'm not here to defend the Clintons, [34:08] to be clear. That's their job is to negotiate with the committee. And in this case, you have the majority. [34:13] Their job is to negotiate with the majority on coming in for a binding subpoena, to be to be clear. [34:18] But I'll also note that this committee has historically made accommodations for a variety [34:23] of folks. In fact, I think it is a bit hypocritical that when this very subpoena for the Clintons were [34:30] actually made, I believe there were an additional five to six other subpoenas that were issued to [34:37] numerous other members of former administrations, attorney generals and so forth. Every one of those [34:43] other subpoenas, I think maybe with the exception of one, were given special accommodations. In fact, [34:48] they were actually allowed to just send their responses in writing. Is that correct, Mr. Comer? [34:52] That is. May I respond to that? Yes. In just one second. And so, [34:56] accommodations are made. And so, while every other folks in that group were given special [35:03] accommodations, that's been typically the case. And I'll finally say just this. Like you, [35:12] I want to have President Clinton answer questions. I think they are trying to negotiate that with the [35:19] majority. And they have been clear that it being transcribed is not an issue. They have not ruled [35:26] that out. And so, let's negotiate with the Clintons and let's get them to answer our questions. [35:30] I mean, Chairman, since I guess we're on my time. And by the way, ranking member, thank you for that. [35:36] I appreciate that. Chairman, you were mentioning you were going to inject your commentary with respect [35:42] to special accommodations that have been made for previous witnesses. I don't know if you want to expound [35:47] on what the ranking member said or not. I would love to. So, first of all, you talk [35:52] about ongoing negotiations. We have been negotiating for five months. This is clearly a stall tactic, [35:59] hoping that the time clock runs out and the house flips and that you all let them off the hook. [36:05] But secondly, you mentioned, and I mentioned this in my open statement, there were names on that [36:10] initial list with the Summer Lee motion and the Scott Perry Amendment, Attorney General Holder, [36:20] Lynch, Sessions and Garland, as well as Comey. They all complied and had written statements under the [36:29] penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge of anything with Epstein, that they weren't directly [36:37] involved in the investigation and basically had no personal relationship. I think we would all agree [36:45] the Clintons had a personal relationship with both Epstein and Maxwell. It's from the evidence that [36:53] we've received thus far from the estate and all the other documents that we have thus far, it appears [37:00] that Jeffrey Epstein visited the Clinton White House 17 times while he was president, [37:06] and then post-presidency, it appears that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane at least 27 times. So [37:14] there's a huge difference between the knowledge and relationship with the Clintons and Epstein and [37:23] Maxwell versus the former Attorney General. And another note, I don't know if it's Mr. Bell or whoever [37:31] said that we only are interested in Democrats. We grilled Bill Barr and Alex Acosta. And they are very [37:40] Republicans. In fact, they were members of the Trump cabinet. I've been on the Oversight Committee nine [37:45] years. We've had four other committee chairs. We've had, since I've been here, we've had Jason Chaffetz, Trey Gowdy, [37:53] Elijah Cummins, and Carolyn Maloney. I don't ever remember a time, and I could be wrong. If I am, [38:00] I'm sure you all will correct me. But I don't remember a time when Carolyn Maloney or Elijah Cummins [38:07] subpoenaed a high-ranking Democrat to come in for a grilling. So to imply that this is partisan, [38:15] that is just simply not true. We've already had two very high, I mean, the former Attorney General [38:20] of the United States under Trump and the former Labor Secretary and U.S. Attorney. So we've done [38:29] that. And then the one other thing with the Clintons, and I'll yield back, one of the arguments [38:35] that Clintons made, Mr. Garcia, was that our subpoenas were unlawful. Do you agree that the [38:41] subpoenas we issued the Clintons are unlawful? I believe that all of our subpoenas that we have [38:46] issued have been lawful, sir. Okay. Does any other members seek recognition? Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown. [39:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's clear to me that the purpose of this meeting today is just to continue [39:09] this committee's agenda of political theater, plain and simple. Democrats have been very clear, [39:16] abundantly, repeatedly, and without room for ambiguity. We want to hear from anyone who has information [39:24] about the Epstein crimes. And yet, when former Clinton, President Clinton, and former Secretary Clinton [39:31] offered to cooperate with this committee, to submit sworn statements, to provide what they know, [39:37] to engage in good faith, the majority said no. And that's what brings us to why we are really here today. [39:45] The majority is rushing to hold in contempt two private citizens who have demonstrated their desire [39:50] to cooperate with this committee and who have called for the release of every file on Jeffrey Epstein, [39:56] all while the Department of Justice and Attorney General Pam Bondi are breaking the law in plain sight. [40:03] Here are the facts. The DOJ was required by statute to release the Epstein files by December 19th, [40:09] 2025. The deadline has passed by more than a month. And what have we received? One percent. [40:16] One percent is not compliance. One percent is not transparency. One percent is a cover-up. [40:23] What about the one percent they actually release? We've seen redactions, redactions that are extensive, [40:31] unusual, and very likely illegal. And what's more, the Epstein Files Release Act, passed by supermajorities [40:38] in this Congress and signed into law by this president, required the DOJ to send a report to Congress by January 3rd, [40:46] 2026. More than two weeks later, what have we received from the DOJ? Nothing. So if my colleagues [40:57] on the other side of the aisle were really serious about uncovering the truth and government and [41:01] accountability, we would be demanding answers from the administration. We would be demanding answers [41:07] from Attorney General Bondi. We would be demanding the release of the 99 percent of the Epstein files [41:14] still sitting at the DOJ. So I have some very simple questions. Where is the subpoena for Attorney [41:21] General Bondi? Where is the hearing on DOJ's failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act? [41:28] Where is the accountability for the redactions page after page after page? This vote feels less like [41:35] oversight and more like a distraction. A distraction from the DOJ's lawlessness. A distraction from a broken [41:42] promise of transparency. A distraction from the embarrassment of a co-equal branch of government [41:48] choosing complicity over accountability. And a distraction from survivors who deserve this [41:54] truth. If this committee is serious, then we must hold the Department of Justice accountable. Release [42:00] the files, all of them, and stop playing politics with justice. Survivors deserve better. And with that, [42:05] I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. Thank you, Representative Brown. I just want to just, [42:10] uh, uh, Chairman, I want to just respond to something that you said. I think it's important. First, [42:14] I just want to read the folks of who the, uh, of the subpoenas you have chosen not to enforce. [42:19] Uh, Alberto Gonzalez, who we subpoenaed on that same day, I believe, you did not enforce. Eric Holder, [42:25] of course, former AG, did not enforce. Loretta Lynch, who chose not to enforce. Jeff Sessions, [42:30] you chose not to enforce. Merrick Garland, who I think it'd be important to have answered questions, [42:34] you chose not to enforce. Robert, uh, James Comey, you chose not to enforce. In fact, I have, um, [42:41] Attorney General, uh, Gonzalez's letter, uh, it says, Dear Chairman Comer, this letter is to confirm [42:46] that consistent with my conversations with the committee general counsel, I have no present [42:49] memory or decisions or conversations related to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein [42:54] matter during my tenure as U.S. Attorney General. He, of course, was the Attorney General when this, [42:58] the whole Alex Acosta U.S. Attorney matter was in front of a critical time in this investigation. [43:05] Now, you chose not to enforce that with, because, you know, you, you mentioned that this letter is [43:09] under penalty of perjury. The declaration that Clinton's also made and sent to you to answer some [43:13] of those questions were also under penalty of perjury. I just want to clarify that. And then, [43:18] with the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to note that you've talked a lot [43:22] about the importance of our subpoenas and that we should all support this committee's subpoenas. [43:26] And I agree with you, sir, and I want to hear from the Clintons. It's also important to note that [43:30] we have members of this committee, Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Andy Biggs, Congressman [43:35] Scott Perry, who are obviously very outspoken, which we like to engage with. Now, they're not here, [43:40] and that's okay. Now, you also know, sir, that all three of them defied legally binding subpoenas [43:47] issued by the January 6th committee relating to their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. So we [43:52] should be clear that the majority chooses to be very selective on which subpoenas they want to [43:59] enforce or talk about. We have members of the majority that themselves have defied subpoenas. So once [44:06] again, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, let's ask President Clinton the questions that we have. Let's have him come [44:13] in and testify in a way that we can negotiate and let's get all the release of the files done [44:19] immediately. Thank you. Would you yield? Could I respond to that? Sure. I have no more time, [44:24] but I'm happy to respond. So with you say we didn't enforce the subpoenas. We did enforce. [44:32] They complied and testified under the penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge. Now, [44:37] the Clinton declarations were short bullet points, almost like talking points. And the evidence is clear [44:44] that the Clintons did have relationship with them. Now, again, I've said publicly millions of times, [44:50] there's no, you know, no one's accusing the Clintons of wrongdoing. But the fact that they were [44:56] that close and the fact that I've never seen a sit down interview with Bill Clinton where he's [45:01] answered questions about his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell like the current president has. So [45:07] we are we have complied and enforced all of our all of our subpoenas, 100% of our subpoenas. So I just [45:18] want to make that very clear. Can I respond to you, sir? Sure. Just to be clear, you're talking about two [45:23] declarations. The declaration that you chose to use as something that you moved on to not bring him in [45:29] was one sixth the size of the Clinton declaration. I'm looking at the Alberto Gonzalez response to you, [45:35] sir, that you chose to dismiss. And it is it is one sentence long, one sentence long. You just pointed [45:42] out the Clinton declaration, which is six times as long. And so I just think you're you are using [45:47] interesting points to make comparisons. Let's just be clear and get back to the facts. Let's bring [45:52] President Clinton in to have a conversation with this committee. You're you're instead choosing to try to [45:58] prosecute President Clinton and send him to jail, which is part of criminal prosecution, before [46:04] having him answer questions to this committee. He has been him and his team have been trying to [46:08] negotiate. We want to hear from President Clinton. I'm not sure that you do, sir. You don't think I [46:14] want to hear from President Clinton? Chairman Kilmer, can I can I? Chairman. So before I recognize Ms. Luna, [46:24] who will be next, I believe, are you willing to accept those bullet points as testimony or do you want [46:30] to hear from Clinton? I want to hear from President Clinton. Then I don't know what the what the point [46:36] is of talking about their their bullet points. I mean, that we all know they had a relationship. [46:41] So sorry, I'm just responding to the fact that you mentioned that you're dismissing other legal [46:46] subpoenas with one sentence answers. And yet and you're the one that pointed out the Clinton's [46:52] declaration, which is also under penalty of perjury. Do you think that Eric Holder or Lynch or Jeff [46:58] Sessions or Merrick Garland had more? I mean, I would I would love to have former Attorney General [47:06] Merrick Garland in front of this committee to answer questions as to why more of the files [47:11] were released. I've actually said that publicly. And so, sir, we I think I think what it comes down [47:16] to is we all want to get to the truth. We all want justice for the survivors. And I think more [47:22] information is better. And so I think our position is that we want we would let it is clear to me [47:28] that President Clinton is negotiating to come in front of this committee. And it may not be exactly [47:34] what what you and the lawyer and your team want to see as far as that negotiation or you're not [47:39] satisfied with the progress, but they continue to negotiate. They have not rolled out a transcript. [47:45] Let's get them in front of this committee. Thank you, sir. Chair recognizes Mr. Gill, [47:50] then Miss Luna. Mr. Gill has a beard. Go ahead. I don't miss who's next. Miss Luna. Go ahead. Miss Luna. [47:56] Thank you, Chairman. I just like to remind the American people that I was the member that made [48:00] the motion to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress and every Democrat voted against it. [48:05] And in addition to that, three of my Republican colleagues voted against it, one of which did [48:09] not come back because his voters decided that he was swampy for them. So I just like to point that [48:13] out. But aside from that, Miss Luna, it's been pointed out to me, you've already had five minutes, [48:17] somebody will probably yield you some time. So I've got it. If I could just finish real quick, [48:21] if we're looking to see why the files have not been released yet, look no further than the judge. [48:27] Okay. I'm sorry, Miss Luna. I'm sorry. If someone can yield you some time. [48:31] I'm just saying, I'm making a point. All right. [48:34] So we haven't recognized the Republican on this side. Ms. Mace, do you want to be recognized? [48:39] That would be great, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of documents I would like to enter into the record [48:44] this morning with unanimous consent. First of all, I want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the [48:49] aisle to stop playing politics with justice. Not a single one of you voted for your own party to be [48:54] held in contempt. I'm the only member of this, of this body, of this committee that has held both [48:59] Republicans and Democrats alike in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena. So the hypocrisy [49:06] is real. And I don't want to hear anyone on the other side of the aisle say no one is above the law [49:12] here on this. This is, we're talking about human trafficking, sex trafficking. We're talking about [49:16] children, girls as young as 14, being assaulted, being trafficked by wealthy and powerful people. [49:23] This is not political. This is personal. This should be nonpartisan. We should be working on this [49:29] together. And it's incredible that we're politicizing rape. We're politicizing sex trafficking. [49:34] We're politicizing this entire Epstein thing. And it just, as a survivor, I'm telling you, it should not be. [49:41] And I've done a lot of work, Mr. Chairman, in advocacy, in writing legislation for victims of abuse, [49:48] male, female, and children, man, woman, and child. South Carolina, my home state, Mr. Chairman, has a huge [49:53] problem with all sorts of violent crimes. But sex trafficking in my state is up by over 400 percent. [50:00] We have domestic violence in our state where you can't get a trial. And there was a case last year [50:07] where a woman two years ago was kidnapped by her boyfriend, beaten to a pulp, her face just beaten [50:13] in. Two years after he kidnapped her and beat her, he murdered her on Mother's Day because our local [50:20] solicitor refused to prosecute that case. And I have rogue solicitors and prosecutors and [50:27] attorneys general who aren't doing anything to protect the people of South Carolina, women and [50:33] children especially. Recently, my attorney general prosecuted a case against convicted pedophile Donald [50:40] Gresh. Donald Gresh was convicted of having 1,900 images of toddlers as young as three being raped by [50:49] animals. Donald Gresh, under the prosecution of my attorney general, Alan Wilson, served one day in jail. [50:57] One day. Donald Gresh isn't the only pedophile, convicted pedophile, that we prosecute like that. [51:06] My attorney general, Alan Wilson, prosecuted this case. This is Travis Reed Gay. Well, [51:13] the other thing, too, is that Donald Gresh, he was facing 60 years in jail, got one day. [51:17] Travis Reed Gay was facing 70 years, seven charges and 70 years in jail in South Carolina. My attorney [51:24] general prosecuted this case. He pled guilty in November, didn't serve any time. He got probation. [51:32] He violated his probation 11 days later. And if he violated his probation, he was to serve [51:38] time in jail. The magistrate or judge, probably didn't have a law degree, let him out hours later. [51:46] He has not served any required time for this kind of thing. And I did a press conference with a bunch [51:54] of moms, over a dozen moms last week in Charleston, South Carolina, and there was a local media blackout. [51:59] I asked, was it my attorney general who prosecuted this case and led this pedophile out on the streets? [52:05] Was he the one that led the media blackout? Well, I want my attorney general in my state to know [52:11] that a young child came forward after seeing my press conference and recognized this man. [52:16] She filed a police report the same day because he allegedly followed her in a park the week before. [52:22] This is Scott Spivey, killed, shot with a bullet in the back, shot at 17 times, not prosecuted [52:31] by my attorney general. So I'm going to ask you unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter those [52:36] three images into the record. This is Weldon Boyd. This is Scott Spivey's killer who shot him in the [52:43] back and has never really been investigated or prosecuted for that killing in South Carolina. I would [52:50] like to enter that into the record, Mr. Chairman. Without objection to order. This is Logan Federico. [52:54] She was executed a year ago, yesterday to the day, by a man named Alexander Dickey. Alexander Dickey [53:03] was a convicted criminal. He had 39 arrests, 25 felony charges. He executed this beautiful 22-year-old [53:11] daughter of Steven Federico in cold blood after stealing a gun. If her killer, Alexander Dickey, [53:19] hadn't been let out by a rogue magistrate or judge or a prosecutor solicitor that didn't care, [53:26] she would be alive today. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter her image and her killer's image [53:30] into the record. Without objection to order. I have another image. This is Eric Bowman. Eric [53:35] Bowman beat his wife and has been alleged and is being investigated for other abuses against women [53:42] and potentially underage girls. He was just let out free, Mr. Chairman, out of jail in South Carolina. [53:50] He is a predator. I have reported him to law enforcement. He's being, he's under investigation, [53:54] but I have written bill after bill about predators like Eric Bowman, about voyeurism, about these sort [54:00] of criminal sexual allegations. I would like to enter his image into the record. Without objection to [54:05] order. I have two more. Can we get it? Your time's expired, but I'll recognize you for UC later, [54:11] later on. Okay. Because I want to make sure everybody stays within their five minutes. Chair [54:15] recognize Mr. Bell from Missouri. You know, first and foremost, I think we're doing a disservice [54:22] to the victims in this case when we refer to it as the Epstein files. It's sex trafficking evidence, [54:30] and let's call it what it is. And as a prosecutor, we prosecuted these kind of cases when I was DA back [54:41] home in St. Louis County. And I met with every single victim and victim's family because I wanted them [54:47] to know that I was here for them. And I thought it was important that we'd look them in the eye and let [54:54] them know that we're going to do everything we can to bring them justice and treat them with the dignity [54:59] and respect that they deserve. And this is no different. That said, I think in DC, what I've learned in my 11 months here, [55:08] is that this DC disease that of staying in this partisan bubble is something that you have to [55:20] continue to be aware of so that you don't fall into these same hypocritical traps. And I talked to Jamie [55:32] Raskin because I just wanted to get some perspective on the law. And when we talk about the legal analysis, [55:42] first and foremost, you can't read a statute. You learned this in constitutional law first day. [55:47] You can't read a statute and understand the law. You have to understand how it's interpreted by the [55:51] courts. And the courts have been clear that if there is negotiations, that does not meet the threshold [56:02] for criminal contempt. And the examples are clear on that. When Steve Bannon was held in contempt, [56:10] he did not negotiate. He did not reply. He did nothing. Meadows, when he started to reply, then Trump told [56:18] him not to. And then he ceased with his communications with this body. And so in this case, [56:29] I agree 100% with our ranking member. I want to hear from the Clintons. I think the victims deserve, [56:36] we want to hear all the evidence. But what I know as a prosecutor is that we don't start doing [56:42] depositions before we listen to the evidence. Now, if there's not evidence, okay, then there's other [56:48] things to consider. But the evidence is here. There is evidence that has been, that has been duly [56:56] voted on to be presented to the American people in a bipartisan manner. And of this evidence, [57:09] we've received 1%. 1%. I mean, put this in perspective. There's 0%. And then the only thing [57:19] you can do next is go to 1%. That's it. We've got nothing. And now we're going to bring the Clintons in [57:26] before we even have the evidence. That makes zero sense, which is close to the one that I talked [57:34] about. And so there's a legal analysis here. There's about what are we doing to ensure that we are doing [57:42] a real investigation to get these victims the justice that they deserve. And so Jelaine Max, [57:51] Jelaine, whatever her name is, she needs to be brought into this body. [57:55] And I'm hearing that, oh, well, she's going to plead the fifth, first of all, then let her. [58:00] But secondly, legally, on most of these questions, she can't plead the fifth. [58:05] On grounds that she's going to be incriminated, she's already a criminal. So let's bring her in. [58:13] Let's do those things. Let's bring in every single person. I don't care what they are, [58:18] Democrat, Republican, and I've said this publicly, and my mother got on me about this. I don't care if [58:22] my mother is in the Epstein files. We need to see 100% of the Epstein files [58:29] to ensure that we are doing right by these victims. The illegal analysis does not support [58:37] criminal contempt. A real investigation, a fair, bipartisan investigation would lead us to the [58:48] conclusion that we want to hear from the Clintons, that we want to hear from everyone. But right now, [58:54] we don't even know who else is in the Epstein evidence because Pam Bondi has not turned over [59:02] that evidence. And that's the massive violation that we're seeing that my colleagues on the other [59:11] side of the aisle don't seem to have any urgency about, the massive violation of the law. And Pam [59:18] Bondi needs to be here to answer those questions. But that is like, oh, well, we'll put it off. [59:23] We'll get there. We're working with them. I'll use the remaining—I'm sorry, ranking member. [59:30] Before I recognize Mr. Gill, I want to point out February 11th, Pam Bondi will be [59:36] in front of the House Judiciary Committee. February 9th. [59:39] February 9th. I'm sorry, February 9th. February 9th. [59:41] February 9th is Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell. Yeah, February 9th, we're deposing Ms. Maxwell. [59:51] February 11th, Pam Bondi will be in front of this committee. So there's a lot of wheels moving right now. [59:56] Chair recognize Mr. Gill from Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just think it's worth [1:00:01] pointing out that the obvious reality here is that the Clintons are doing everything they possibly can [1:00:08] to not come testify before the committee or have any real transcript or information about his engagement [1:00:18] and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over a long period of time. I mean, we've been working for five [1:00:24] months to nail down a date for a deposition working in good faith in the entire time the Clintons have [1:00:32] been evading this committee. At one point, even deciding that they were going to propose Christmas [1:00:38] Day, Christ's birthday, as a date for a deposition. I mean, that's not good faith. At one point, they [1:00:47] proposed that instead of doing a deposition, they're going to have Chairman Comer and a staffer [1:00:54] and a note taker go up to New York City, where they could create, where they could ask Mr. Clinton [1:01:01] questions and create two different sets of records about what Clinton said. That's obviously quite [1:01:10] different than having an official court reporter precisely write down the words from the former [1:01:18] president. Competing staff notes are simply not going to cut it. So we've spent five months working on [1:01:24] this. It's about time that they comply with a lawful subpoena like many other people have. [1:01:32] And there's some suggestion that we're selectively choosing who to enforce these subpoenas against. [1:01:38] I mean, as you've pointed out multiple times, Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House 17 times. He flew [1:01:46] at least 26 times on Epstein's private plane. There's a clear, longstanding, obvious connection [1:01:54] between the Clintons and the Epsteins. And I think we need answers for that. And I hope that we get [1:02:00] that. And I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in that. And with that [1:02:05] said, I'm happy to yield two minutes to my colleague, Ms. Anna Paulina Luna. [1:02:10] Thank you. I'd like to just say that I do agree with some of the sentiment of both my colleagues, [1:02:17] to include Mr. Bell, who actually just spoke to wanting justice for the victims. But it's important [1:02:22] to note that the reason why the files have been delayed and released is because of Judge Paul [1:02:28] Engelmeyer in New York. This judge specifically ordered the SDNY to do a second review. And for those [1:02:36] documents to then be certified by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. So if you want to get mad at someone, [1:02:43] look no further than Judge Paul Engelmeyer, who then also, at the same time, just denied Massey [1:02:48] and Ro Khanna's motion to appoint a special master. So we can argue back and forth all day long about [1:02:54] where the files. I want to see the files too. I want everyone to come in and answer questions. [1:02:58] But look no further than this person. By the way, this person is not a Democrat or Republican. I think this [1:03:02] person actually might be an independent. But if you're wondering where the files are at, [1:03:06] that is the truth of the matter. That's it. As soon as those files come out at the DOJ, [1:03:09] we're going to get them. And by the way, I will remind people that weren't here earlier, [1:03:13] Todd Blanche will get on a phone call with people here. And after this, I'm going to go walk over [1:03:17] Todd Blanche's cell phone number to Chairman Garcia and to Chairman Comer so they can both get on a call. [1:03:23] I think it's important to open dialogue, okay? But the point is that we have to know the facts, [1:03:27] and those are the facts. So look no further than Judge Paul Engelmeyer. Again, he's the one person [1:03:32] that appointed the review, a second review. And then once those documents are then reviewed, [1:03:37] then it goes to the DOJ. But you can't fast track the process. [1:03:40] Can I ask a question? Yes. Okay. Are you suggesting that 99, [1:03:46] the reason for not receiving 99 percent of these files is this judge? Not 20 percent of the files, [1:03:53] 30 percent, half of them, 99 percent of the files, some of which are already public? [1:03:59] From what I've been told, and this is why I would encourage you guys to talk directly to the DOJ on [1:04:04] this, is that there was a second review ordered. I don't know who all is in charge over in New York [1:04:09] specifically doing that second review. But I do know that, at least with the DOJ, they are officially [1:04:14] done reviewing all the documents that they had had left, right? They had 500 attorneys. I actually [1:04:20] said this earlier, that NSD, Southern District of Florida, SDNY, and the FBI, there was 500 lawyers [1:04:25] working on this to review all the documentation. They are officially done with that. Now, I don't [1:04:28] know what the second review process is because I'm not internally at the DOJ. But what I will tell [1:04:32] you is when you have this judge then also turning around and denying Ro Khanna and Massey's motion to [1:04:37] appoint a special master, which I think Mr. Khanna can probably speak on, I think that that's shady. [1:04:41] And I think that it's really terrible that we're sitting here arguing at, you know, each other [1:04:45] pointing figures when it's this one guy who no one seems to be mentioning that's actually stonewalling it. [1:04:50] So I'm here for it. I want all the documents. And I do think that we're going to get those documents. [1:04:54] Do I think it's going to be rushed? Absolutely not. I don't want to rush the process. But I will also [1:04:58] encourage you guys, just as I did this morning, I got a victim's specific information. The DOJ [1:05:02] has said that they will release whatever files they have pertaining to her, to her directly. [1:05:06] And she had not, up until recently, been able to, I think up until today, get that because, frankly, [1:05:11] a lot of these victims' portals go to just, I think, empty inboxes. But the point is, is that it's important [1:05:17] to, for context. So that's, I yield my time. [1:05:18] I have a question for the chair. [1:05:19] Well, you're right. [1:05:21] Before I begin, I have a question for the chair. [1:05:23] I just want to clarify, when you said Pam Bondi's coming on February 11th, is she coming [1:05:27] to this committee? [1:05:28] She's coming to the Judiciary Committee. [1:05:29] So is she coming to this committee at all? [1:05:32] Well, we'll see how the judiciary... [1:05:33] Is she scheduled to come to this committee at this point? [1:05:35] I've said she's not scheduled to come to the committee. [1:05:37] I didn't, I just want to clarify that. [1:05:38] She's coming in front of the Judiciary Committee. [1:05:39] Okay. [1:05:39] Chairman, I have a point. [1:05:40] Chair, you're recognized, Mr. Wayne. [1:05:41] I'd like to yield 30 seconds to Ranking Member Garcia. [1:05:43] Thank you. Just really briefly, I appreciate Representative Luna's, you know, interest I know in the [1:05:47] survivor. So I do appreciate that. I just want to be very clear and clarify. [1:05:50] Judge Engelmeyer has nothing to do, his rulings have nothing to do with the legal subpoena [1:05:56] passed by the Oversight Committee last July. [1:05:58] Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and the DOJ have been in defiance of a legal subpoena of this committee [1:06:04] that has nothing to do with the Kana Massey law that keeps getting referred to. [1:06:08] And so when you're saying that Judge Engelmeyer is the reason, that is actually not the case [1:06:14] as it relates to the subpoena. And so they're still violating the law and have been since July, [1:06:19] to be clear. Thank you, Mr. Min. [1:06:20] Thank you. And I just want to begin by echoing the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. [1:06:25] As someone who spent my career as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, as a law professor, the rule of law is [1:06:30] important. No one should be above the law, including presidents and former presidents, [1:06:35] and congressional subpoenas are an important part of that rule of law. And I think the Clintons should [1:06:40] be here. I think it's very shameful that they're not. But I also have to admit, I'm very troubled [1:06:44] by this criminal contempt motion. As a lawyer, I know that I don't know this area of law, criminal [1:06:50] contempt. So what I did is what any decent lawyer does. I asked people who do know this area. [1:06:55] I called a number of colleagues, former colleagues, people who are former DOJ attorneys, experts in this [1:07:00] area. And it's hard to get 10 lawyers to agree on anything, but they all agreed that this was [1:07:04] unprecedented that under a normal administration, a normal DOJ that's not politicized, they would [1:07:09] never bring criminal contempt charges in these circumstances. And I say non-politicized DOJ [1:07:14] because many of us are very concerned that this Department of Justice has become weaponized under [1:07:20] this administration. Under Pam Bondi, we have seen them go after Trump's political enemies, [1:07:25] including people like Adam Schiff and Latifah James with bankrupt charges. We've seen them refuse to [1:07:30] investigate an ICE agent who clearly shot and killed a woman at point blank. We've seen them fire line [1:07:35] attorneys who refuse to go along with indictments that they describe as political and illegal. Now, [1:07:40] the closest comparison to this particular criminal contempt case is Steve Bannon. And there's well [1:07:46] established precedent here. Steve Bannon refused to answer saying he would only answer questions from [1:07:51] this committee if Trump told him to do so. That wasn't like delaying or obfuscating. That is willful [1:07:57] defiance. And that's what the courts found. And that's why he went to jail. And again, while I [1:08:02] think that the Clinton should be here, what we're proposing here is a very serious matter, bringing [1:08:05] criminal charges against a former president of the United States. And I listened to you very carefully, [1:08:09] Chair Comer, for the last hour, and I heard you describe them as delaying, as dragging their feet, [1:08:15] negotiating for five months. But I never once heard you say they just outright refused to comply with [1:08:20] the subpoena. And dragging your feet is not the same as non-compliance. It's not the same as contempt. [1:08:25] And so if we think they're dragging their feet or obfuscating, there are lesser things we can do, [1:08:30] including civil contempt. And I have to ask, like, why are we not thinking about alternative [1:08:35] measures rather than bringing criminal contempt against a former president? And I also want to [1:08:39] point out that on November 14th, and I want to ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, [1:08:44] Donald Trump wrote a true social post in which he demanded that folks, the Republicans go after [1:08:50] Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers in relation to Epstein. Later that day, [1:08:55] Pam Bondi announced that they would be bringing investigations. And now that we saw later that [1:08:59] this committee brought subpoenas against the Clintons. This seems very political. And the [1:09:04] people I talk to in my district view this entire matter as politicized. They view this as why Bill [1:09:09] Clinton, and look, if Bill Clinton is guilty, let's put him in jail. But what I have a problem with right [1:09:15] now is that we seem to be doing something that is unprecedented for Bill Clinton. We're bringing [1:09:19] criminal charges against him, potentially, that we would not do for any other individual in these [1:09:24] same circumstances. And that, again, is not my opinion. It's the opinion of everybody I talk to [1:09:28] this. It's not a close matter. And so I have deep concerns that this looks like a political witch hunt [1:09:33] against Trump's critics, that it will be referred to Department of Justice, that we have seen as [1:09:39] politicized. Many of us had deep concerns that they are breaking the law on a daily basis. [1:09:43] So I have trouble with this. I don't know yet how I'm going to vote. But I'd love to hear from you, [1:09:48] Mr. Comer, why we did not pursue alternative measures, particularly when the Clintons, by all [1:09:53] accounts, were actively negotiating. And whether you thought that their offers were not sufficient, [1:09:59] they don't strike me as noncompliance or defiance of this subpoena. Mr. Minn. Mr. Minn, will you [1:10:05] yield for a question real quick? Do you think for five months, do you just want to keep negotiating for [1:10:08] 12, 11 more months? Is that noncompliance is my question to you? And why not civil contempt? [1:10:14] Nobody's buying what you're selling. We've been negotiating for five months. [1:10:19] Why not civil contempt or some alternative? Can I make a suggestion, actually? [1:10:22] I don't yield my time to you. I yield it to Mr. Minn. I've already answered the question. [1:10:25] I yield back then. All right. Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins. [1:10:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Request unanimous consent to enter into the record the minutes [1:10:36] of the hearing conducted by the federal law enforcement subcommittee on July 23rd of 2025, [1:10:45] over which I presided as chair. That was the subcommittee to clarify for America where the [1:10:53] original subpoena driven by the Democrats and Ms. Lee, the original motion to subpoena the so-called [1:11:05] Epstein files was introduced. Anonymous consent to present. Without objections ordered. [1:11:12] So within that, these minutes, here's the original, the original motion from the Democrats. [1:11:25] Move that the subcommittee issue a subpoena. Listen carefully, you alleged journalists and [1:11:32] the beloved American citizenry that's paying attention to this. Move that the subcommittee [1:11:41] issue a subpoena to the Department of Justice for the full, complete, unredacted Epstein files [1:11:49] to be delivered concurrently to the majority and minority of the subcommittee on federal law enforcement [1:11:57] of the committee of oversight and government reform. That's it. That was that was the motion presented by [1:12:09] the Democrats. That motion immediately struck me as very poorly written because it had no recognition of [1:12:25] of recognizing and adhering to the existing longstanding criminal justice procedure designed to protect the [1:12:35] innocent. It had no timeline. There was no timeline mandated in their own motion that would that would force [1:12:51] the DOJ to comply with said timeline. There was no there was no mandate for a particular percentage [1:13:02] of release. There was no prohibition for actions in performance of compliance with their motion which [1:13:15] would become a subpoena from the oversight committee. It was just there was no it was not even the [1:13:22] the identification of of Epstein just said Epstein files Epstein who you think the DOJ has not prosecuted [1:13:30] more than one Epstein in the history of the DOJ. It was it was very poorly written. So Republicans [1:13:42] noting that there were a lot of people missing from this if we were going to do this allow it to move [1:13:48] to a lot of people missing. So Mr. Perry introduced I remind my colleagues that this is my time. You [1:13:57] recognize the decorum of this oversight committee. Perhaps you'll be recognized to speak. Mr. Perry [1:14:07] introduced a motion to amend the motion to subpoena by the amendments to include William Jefferson [1:14:16] Clinton. Imagine that. Use the whole name. And Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton amongst others. But of [1:14:25] everybody on Scott Perry's list the most defiant has been the Clintons and the oversight committee has [1:14:34] been very patient. I submit for the record unanimous consent. I asked Mr. Chairman the actual subpoena [1:14:44] produced on August the 5th. At a hearing on July the 23rd the subpoena was produced on August the 5th. [1:14:53] Without objections ordered. Everyone has essentially complied [1:14:58] to the wishes of the committee. Who's in control? We are. With a majority we determine. The most defiant [1:15:06] has been the Clintons. That's why we're here today. Back in July after Scott Perry introduced an amendment to [1:15:15] the Democrats motion expanding the list to include the Clintons and others including Republicans. Ms. Mace [1:15:24] introduced an amendment to the motion to subpoena saying I move to amend Ms. Lee's motion to include the [1:15:34] redacting of names of victims and any personally identifiable information of said victims and any [1:15:40] possible child sexual abuse materials. And the subpoena itself and I'm closing Mr. Chair. The subpoena [1:15:49] itself stated that the DOJ is to provide all the material requested and recognizing redactions required [1:16:01] by law. So you're talking about a million documents. It takes time to redact a million documents. But the DOJ [1:16:10] is performing and is delivering. Time. Time. Time. Time. I'll give I'll give Walkinshaw an extra [1:16:17] minute. Thank you Mr. Chairman. But before before we go to Mr. Walkinshaw, Ms. Mace has two more [1:16:22] unanimous consent requests and I'm going to give Mr. Walkinshaw an extra minute if everyone's okay with [1:16:26] that. Ms. Mace. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues too. The whole Epstein saga and [1:16:34] working with people on both sides aisle on the Epstein files and the working with the victims has been extremely [1:16:40] enlightening. Can you present the unanimous consent? Oh here's the unanimous consent. Through the Epstein [1:16:49] thing this is a tweet that I did about judges. I learned that you know not all the judges have [1:16:52] been forthcoming with information and files. I tweeted out on November 28th impeach corrupt judges especially [1:16:59] South Carolina judges. I've done this about a dozen times or more. I'm guilty as charged. The last week [1:17:05] an attorney named Robert Murding, I would like to enter his image into the record too. Without objection to [1:17:10] order. He is trying to hold me in contempt and told a judge I should be thrown in jail for among other [1:17:15] things tweeting out that judges should be impeached. This is what happens to survivors. This is what [1:17:22] happens to victims. And I would like to enter my predator bill into unanimous consent as well. [1:17:31] Without objection to order. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Chair recognize Ms. Walkinshaw for six [1:17:36] minutes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll restate what others have said which is that anyone who has [1:17:43] information relevant to our investigation including President Clinton should talk to the committee and [1:17:50] I'm glad that he's agreed to do so. I have read Mr. Chairman that one of the sticking points [1:17:57] in the negotiation between you and the Clinton's lawyers has been your demand that questions be [1:18:07] asked about non-Epstein related issues. And it surprised me because I'm sitting here today listening [1:18:17] to your intense interest in understanding more about the Clintons and their relationship with Epstein. [1:18:25] So I'm curious why you have for five months demanded that you and other members of this committee be [1:18:32] able to ask questions unrelated to our investigation of the Epstein files and Epstein's sex trafficking. And [1:18:41] I'm happy to yield Mr. Chairman. I don't know what you're talking about. Everything that we've [1:18:47] pertained to with respect to the deposition pertains to the Epstein files. Okay. So you haven't [1:18:52] demanded that the conversation the questions be limited to the Epstein files. It's the staff attorneys. [1:18:57] The staff attorneys are communicating with the Clinton attorneys. That's the communication going [1:19:02] back and forth. We will this investigation is about the Epstein files. Okay. So you're willing and you'll [1:19:06] say here publicly you're willing to have that conversation that limits the conversation the [1:19:12] questions just to the Epstein issue and files. Okay. All right. I think the Clinton's lawyers have been under a [1:19:19] different impression. So we've made a little progress. Clinton lawyers are full of crap. We've made a little [1:19:23] progress on the negotiation here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're 32 days past the statutory deadline [1:19:31] in months since this committee's subpoena. And Congress has received, as we've heard, just one percent of [1:19:37] the files. More than five million pages remain hidden. Instead of holding the attorney general accountable [1:19:45] for this failure, the majority is trying to change the subject today. Frankly, I find it insulting. [1:19:52] We have to bring our attention back to the people who should be our focus, the survivors of Epstein's [1:19:59] horrific sex trafficking operation, the women and girls who were exploited, abused, ignored for years. [1:20:06] They deserve the truth, transparency, and justice without delay, without excuses, and without any [1:20:14] political protections for the powerful or the wealthy. That's what we should be doing. Not scoring [1:20:21] partisan points, not creating distractions, working to uncover the full scope of his crime so the [1:20:28] survivors can see accountability. And if we're truly serious about justice, we can't ignore one of Epstein's [1:20:38] most well-documented associates, President Donald J. Trump. We have documented communications, [1:20:46] including a signed birthday note from Donald Trump containing explicit sexual references [1:20:52] and referencing wonderful secrets, wonderful secrets between them. Emails from Epstein saying [1:20:58] that Trump, quote, knew about the girls. Donald Trump acknowledging he knew Epstein was a, quote, [1:21:05] creep and that Epstein recruited girls and women from Mar-a-Lago. Trump saying he wants to cover up the files [1:21:14] because, quote, my friends will get hurt. If we're committed to transparency and justice, [1:21:20] why is that off limits for this committee? Why is his name absent? Why no discussion [1:21:27] of Attorney General Bondi's refusal to comply for months with this committee subpoena? Why no contempt [1:21:36] for Attorney General Bondi? What we're witnessing today is not oversight. It's not accountability. It's part [1:21:45] of a cover-up, a diversion, and it didn't start today. Despite clear legal requirements and a law [1:21:53] that Donald Trump signed, a subpoena that you signed, Mr. Chairman, and repeated public promises, [1:21:59] Attorney General Bondi has failed to release the files. It's entirely within her control. And yet, [1:22:06] only one percent has been produced more than a month late. And even that sliver is so heavily redacted [1:22:15] that it mocks the law. It mocks the law. And it mocks this committee subpoena. Let's be honest [1:22:23] about the transparency that Attorney General Bondi has provided. This is DOJ Epstein data set number [1:22:31] four. It's number four. Data set number four. This is part of the one percent that folks have been [1:22:46] talking about this today. I'll close with this. Attorney General Bondi and the Trump administration [1:22:52] missed their deadline. They're ignoring our subpoena. They've withheld 99% of the files, [1:22:59] and they have obscured the little that they did release. It's not a coincidence. It's intentional. [1:23:08] It's about protecting one man, Donald J. Trump, from accountability. Release the files. I yield back. [1:23:17] Chair recognizes- Mr. Chair, unanimous consent request. Okay, I'll recognize you for that. [1:23:22] Mr. Chairman, as unanimous consent to enter the record, a political article entitled, [1:23:26] Clay Higgins explains why he was the lone no vote on Epstein file's release. [1:23:31] Without objection to order. Chair recognizes it'll be on our side, Mr. Perry, then Mr. McGuire. Mr. Perry. [1:23:37] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm disappointed at where we're headed here. Look, I think that legitimately, [1:23:46] both sides want all the information. I know I sure do, with the proviso that the victims and innocent [1:23:55] people are not damaged in the release of that. What's interesting to me is that the only time my [1:24:04] colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about any of this is when they can bring up [1:24:08] the current president's name, but they're not interested at all in anything else. And I would [1:24:14] just say this regarding the timeline, because I'm frustrated with it too. You know what would have been [1:24:19] great? Would have been awesome if we could have truncated the timeline when the Democrat DOJ was [1:24:25] in power under a Democrat president, and there was any investigation whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, [1:24:32] my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't interested in these victims at all, [1:24:37] when they could have done something about it. Nary a word was said, and certainly nothing was done. [1:24:43] All this advance work could have been done by them had they cared. But this is not about caring [1:24:48] about anybody. This is all political theater because because they hate the current president [1:24:53] of the United States. I get it. It's disappointing to me. These victims should have their day and they [1:25:00] should all this information, regardless of who it touches, should be out with the proviso that the [1:25:06] innocent are protected. I know that's not of any interest to you. I get it. That's unfortunate. [1:25:14] I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana. [1:25:18] I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked unanimous consent to receive into [1:25:25] the record the actual subpoena presented to the Honorable Pam Bondi by this committee regarding [1:25:34] the DOJ's release of the investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein. It was dated the 5th of August. [1:25:47] I'd like to enter into unanimous consent associated with that entry the letter written by this committee [1:25:55] on August the 5th to Attorney General Pam Bondi referencing the subpoena and giving specific [1:26:03] instructions. Without objections ordered. I'd like to also enter into the record. Actually, I don't believe this [1:26:13] has been released prior to right now is the schedule associated with the subpoena. This is one, two, [1:26:24] three, four pages of specific instructions from this committee regarding the subpoena delivered on [1:26:35] August the 5th. Now, unanimous consent of that schedule as well. I'm sure the media will be [1:26:45] fascinated with that. So the professionalism that this committee has pursued to clarify for the citizenry, [1:26:57] the professionalism that this committee has embraced and pursued has been squared away, impeccable. [1:27:10] And that includes recognition that the Department of Justice, as stated in the subpoena, [1:27:19] is to comply with redaction procedures of established law and criminal justice longstanding procedures. [1:27:33] So I heard someone mention five million files. That is the first time I've heard five million files, [1:27:40] but I know that there were originally a quarter of a million files and the Trump administration found [1:27:46] another 600,000 files. So we were talking about to round it off a million files. Every one of those individual documents [1:27:58] has to be reviewed by agents of the DOJ and their supervisors before they can be officially approved for release. [1:28:10] That's the law. The DOJ has 400 agents working full time on just releasing these documents. Now, [1:28:20] you may argue that at the end of the day, you want to see the release of what they completed that day. [1:28:26] I would say that's a fair narrative for discussion. But to say that DOJ is not fully engaged in complying [1:28:37] with our subpoena is not accurate. It's not intellectually sound. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate [1:28:45] the opportunity to offer into the record these official and legal subpoena documents. I yield. [1:28:53] Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent request. [1:28:56] Okay. Mr. Frost. [1:28:57] I have two articles. One is from Politics PA. [1:29:00] Quote, Representative Perry referred to the House Ethics Committee for refusing subpoena. [1:29:05] Without objection, so ordered. [1:29:06] The other one's a CNN article. GOP reps Perry and Biggs formally object to subpoena from House [1:29:12] January 6th committee. Without objection, so ordered. [1:29:15] Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I have sat here listening and [1:29:23] I am quite perplexed. It does take me back to my legal days. And so when I think about a subpoena, [1:29:32] one of the things that we normally look at when we are trying to determine whether or not [1:29:36] contempt is going to be ushered into the conversation is whether or not there has been substantial [1:29:42] compliance and what it means to actually look like you have substantially complied. [1:29:49] It means that you're taking reasonable steps to follow a court order that you're acting in good faith [1:29:55] and typically that serves as a defense. So if we are still crafting the parameters of said subpoena, [1:30:04] for instance, my colleague, Mr. Walkinshaw just asked whether or not this would be limited to [1:30:12] the Epstein subject matter. For me, if they responded at all, then there is some sort of compliance, [1:30:21] which they did. They didn't just throw the bird. They didn't just say, forget it. But more importantly, [1:30:29] I just want to point out that we are living in an age of hypocrisy because my other colleague just [1:30:36] pointed out that Mr. Perry sits here and somehow sits in judgment of others. Frankly, that is what [1:30:44] people are kind of getting annoyed by is the hypocrisy because Mr. Perry still has an outstanding subpoena [1:30:50] that was never complied with. In addition to that, he talked about we need to care for the victims. [1:30:56] Somebody correct me if I'm wrong and I will yield my time. But I don't believe that Mr. Perry ever [1:31:02] signed off on the discharge petition in the first place. So I don't know if he is just doing what he [1:31:07] believes is politically expedient. But I will tell you this. I refuse to be a puppet because Democrats [1:31:15] tend to be of goodwill. We always want to do the right thing. We are always trying to follow the [1:31:21] rules and follow the law. Unfortunately, we are living with an administration that does not care. [1:31:27] We just want some type of parody. So for instance, we all want to hear from President Clinton. If for [1:31:35] some reason you said we will give you, say, Pam Bondi and then we've got President Clinton with it, [1:31:43] or say maybe President Trump and President Clinton, two presidents, because we know that both presidents [1:31:49] actually had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But what looks political and looks like one can [1:31:56] get away with everything, especially since that's what the Supreme Court has stated, that's why it [1:32:02] looks like it's just gamesmanship. You only care about following the rules so long as you can invoke [1:32:07] those rules on what is typically perceived as your political enemies. This is why we are falling apart in [1:32:14] this country. We are supposed to be about checks and balances. It should not matter whether or not [1:32:19] you're associated with the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Independent or whomever, whether [1:32:24] you're rich, whether you're poor, whether you're middle class, whether you're a black immigrant or [1:32:28] whatever. But it seems like we only have a political agenda in this committee and that's why everything [1:32:34] goes off the rails. You only love law enforcement when they're going after black, brown, immigrants, [1:32:40] that kind of folk, right? But on January 6th, you didn't care about law enforcement because they [1:32:46] still don't have their plaques up. We continue to do the right thing and say yes, apply the rules [1:32:52] equally across the board and then y'all play in our faces and you only apply it to one side. [1:32:59] I am asking for one commitment and then I will yield to the ranking member. [1:33:03] Mr. Chair, will you commit to me as the chair of probably the most important committee [1:33:10] in this Congress, especially in this moment where people are concerned about the level of corruption [1:33:15] that exists within this committee? Will you promise me that you are good for doing whatever [1:33:24] is right and following the evidence no matter who is on the other side of that evidence? [1:33:32] Yes, and that is why I subpoenaed the estate and we had no idea what was it. Nobody knew. [1:33:38] Nobody knew who was in the estate documents and I, without hesitation, subpoenaed the estate. We've [1:33:43] subpoenaed the Department of Justice. And that's where we got the birthday letter. We subpoenaed the [1:33:48] estate. Hold on, Mr. Chair. We got the birthday letter, but we can't just get the evidence and then [1:33:54] not follow up on the evidence that we actually get. I will relinquish the rest of my time to the chair. [1:33:59] Thank you. I just want to just really clarify one. Thank you very much, Representative Crockett. Just back to [1:34:04] Mr. Walcott's point. I think it's important to clarify that in communication, Mr. Chair, with your [1:34:09] with your team and the back and forth with the emails, the Clinton team made it clear that they [1:34:15] wanted to answer questions about Epstein, but that was not something that your team agreed to, [1:34:21] only about Epstein. And that and so that I just want to make sure to clarify. And I appreciate you [1:34:27] clarifying, Mr. Comer, that you said that you would limit the questions to only Epstein. Is that correct? [1:34:33] That is correct. I think that Clinton said that is not true. What their lawyer said is a complete lie. [1:34:39] Well, I'm glad I'm glad that you clarified for them because it's been their impression [1:34:43] that it's been I'm just telling you it's been their impression. He's paid them too much money [1:34:46] then over the last five months. Sir, I'm not I'm just reading emails and I'm just reading [1:34:51] the back and forth between them and your and your and your team. It's been their impression that those [1:34:55] questions were going to be beyond just Epstein. And so I'm glad that's been clarified. So thank you, [1:34:59] Mr. Walkinshaw. Chair recognize Mr. McGuire from Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:35:03] I mean, I agree with you. Five months is plenty of time. The Clintons are doing everything they can [1:35:07] to avoid questioning. And the American people want to hear from the Clintons. You know, Bill Clinton [1:35:13] brought Epstein to the White House 17 times. He had him on and Bill Clinton was on the Epstein airplane [1:35:21] 26 times. So the American people want to hear from them. I don't understand why our friends on the [1:35:25] left can't understand that. They support these crazy policies like open borders, 20 million people [1:35:31] coming to our country. They've been robbing, raping, and killing the American people. You know, [1:35:35] Lake and Rowley would still be alive. And instead of protecting criminal, excuse me, law-abiding citizens, [1:35:41] they defend the criminals and they want to have a defund the police movement. It makes no sense. [1:35:47] These criminals, they put back on the street, recommit the same crime, and they're like, [1:35:51] why did they commit the same crime? All Americans have the same goal, the same American dream. We want to live, [1:35:57] work, and raise our family in peace. You just might disagree on how to get there, [1:36:02] but the Democrats seem to always be wrong. The American people don't want boys undressing in [1:36:08] girls' locker rooms. But for some reason, the Democrats support that. Five months is plenty [1:36:13] of time. The American people want to hear from the Clintons, and they said they had no relationship, [1:36:18] but they definitely did. And with that, I yield the remainder of my time back to Ms. Luna. [1:36:23] Thank you. I just kind of want to point out, first of all, specifically to the letter, [1:36:28] the hand sketch that was allegedly the President's. I believe there was a $10 billion lawsuit that was [1:36:33] filed that, according to the President, the organization that published that is actually [1:36:38] trying to currently settle, so just to clarify. But aside from that, I wanted to actually ask Mr. [1:36:44] Min a question, if he's here still, if he would be willing to vote for a contempt in the Clintons if [1:36:52] they refuse to come in and testify on a fine of about $1,000 a day until they comply with the subpoena. [1:36:59] But I don't know if he's here. Is he still here? No. Okay. Well, I think that that's just something to [1:37:03] consider. You know, we have the ability to do those fines, and I think that that needs to be considered, [1:37:09] especially if, you know, optically there is reason for pause for Democrats not wanting to vote for that, [1:37:16] based on the fact that President Clinton was a former president. I understand the optics of that, and I also [1:37:22] understand re-elections. However, nonetheless, the Clintons are defying a subpoena, so sometimes [1:37:27] financially people can be motivated, especially if there's a fine, and that's something that we [1:37:31] actually all reserve the right to vote on. And I think that that's actually a very good option, [1:37:36] especially being that most Americans would go to jail for defying subpoenas. And so I do not think [1:37:41] that there needs to be any special accommodations made, especially given the nature of this, but I do [1:37:46] think that that can be a tool to motivate. So I'd like to suggest that to you, Chairman Comer, also to you, [1:37:51] Reiki member Garcia, that that would be a good method that we specifically reserve if we choose [1:37:57] to use alternative means of contempt. Representative, would you yield to me for a question? Yes. [1:38:02] So it seems like you're open to changing this, what we're voting on today, so that way we can get [1:38:09] to a place where we actually hear from them. Is that right? Is that what I'm hearing? But I want, [1:38:13] yes, I would like to have the Clintons coming into Congress to give a transcribed deposition. I think [1:38:18] that Chairman Comer has made that clear. But I also think having just Garcia and Comer drive all the [1:38:24] way up to New York without that, I think that optically that sends a very bad message as the [1:38:28] separation of powers and authorities Congress has. And then I also to think that, you know, [1:38:34] it's kind of a slap in the face to people that typically would not have those accommodations made [1:38:39] for them. Yeah, yeah. With that also, you know, being a part of this, I think that, you know, [1:38:44] Bill Clinton specifically said he wants the files to be released. And I think that we also need to [1:38:48] consider the fact that there is a judge. I know Mr. Garcia disagrees with me on this. But based on [1:38:54] the email that I have seen on Judge Paul Engelmeyer, you know, if you have someone that is ordering the [1:39:01] DOJ to do a final second scan of the files, if it's politically motivated, that's impeding an [1:39:08] investigation. And I'm tired of judges if they get involved in investigations in Congress trying to [1:39:13] obstruct. And so I just putting this out there, I'm going to be trying to impeach that judge, [1:39:19] unless he can basically give a waiver, let the DOJ release the files immediately. [1:39:23] Yeah. And just real quick, I just want to say on the general thing, I agree. I mean, [1:39:27] I think it would be best if the ranking member and chair can huddle and figure out how we can change [1:39:32] this so we can actually hear from them. Because my concern too, and the other thing is, there's no [1:39:36] faster way to make sure that we never actually hear from them in person than moving forward a criminal [1:39:41] contempt that says put them in jail. I mean, we're just not going to hear from them for our [1:39:45] investigation. And so, I mean, I agree if they can come to something to figure out how can we move [1:39:51] forward in a way where we're actually, there's a pathway to hear from them. I'm for that. So. [1:39:57] So typically, I do not agree with what the Clintons are doing. Okay. And I think that they need to come [1:40:02] in here to explain. But I do think that when you go after someone's pocketbook, I think that they [1:40:06] quickly change their tune. And I think that they might be compelled to come in. I also don't want to set the [1:40:11] precedents, though, that, you know, just because you're president means you're outside of this, [1:40:15] you know, justice. And that's basically what it would be doing. And so, Chairman, I will [1:40:20] let you direct the ship on this. But that is my suggestion. Thank you. Chair recognizes Ms. Ansari. [1:40:27] Thank you. I'm going to start by yielding to the ranking member. Thank you. And I want to just [1:40:30] respond to Ms. Luna and Mr. Maxwell as well. Just to be clear, I think two things can be true. It can be true [1:40:36] that we want to hear from the Clintons, and that it's important that we hear from them, and that we want [1:40:42] to enforce our subpoena. I think it can also be true that they have also begun clearly making efforts [1:40:49] to answer questions by declaration, to negotiate coming in to give testimony. They've made offers [1:40:56] to obviously be in—their initial offer was to do that testimony outside of Washington, D.C., [1:41:02] with the leadership of the committee and staff. They have been open to transcription. And so I just [1:41:08] want to reemphasize that I think there is room here to continue to negotiate and get the testimony [1:41:13] that we need. In addition, I am incredibly thankful that we're finally moving forward on ensuring that [1:41:19] Ghislaine Maxwell will come before this committee, that we're going to get Pam Bondi finally in front [1:41:23] of this Congress. We need to release the files, get that testimony, and of course ask the questions [1:41:29] that this committee has of President Clinton. I think that is all fair, and I hope that's the direction [1:41:33] that we end up moving in. Thank you. Ms. Ansari. Thank you. Given much of what we've heard today, [1:41:39] and especially in light of some of the hypocrisy that we've heard today, I just want to walk through [1:41:43] the timeline of Donald Trump's cover-up of the Epstein files, because I think it's important for [1:41:48] folks to remember how we got to this point. This was a series of deliberate decisions made at the [1:41:54] highest levels in the White House and the Department of Justice to keep the truth hidden from the American [1:41:59] public and the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his allies' abuse. Let's start with what the [1:42:05] President said during his campaign trail repeatedly. At multiple points in 2024 when running for office, [1:42:12] Donald Trump said he would, quote, declassify the Epstein files, use it as a rallying cry to win over [1:42:19] voters. In October 2024, J.D. Vance said, quote, seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. But the [1:42:26] moment Trump and Vance had power in the White House to act, that commitment disappeared. That's when the [1:42:32] cover-up began. On February 27th, 2025, Pam Bondi said that she was releasing the Epstein files with her [1:42:40] statement, quote, this Department of Justice is following through on President Trump's commitment to [1:42:45] transparency and lifting the veil on the disgusting actions of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. [1:42:52] Then it became clear, very clear, that Donald Trump did not, in fact, want information about Jeffrey [1:42:59] Epstein and his crimes revealed to the public. Starting in July 2025, Donald Trump began to gaslight [1:43:05] the public. He said, quote, are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about [1:43:11] for years. This is the point when Congress stepped up. On July 23rd, Congresswoman Summer Lee moved in this [1:43:18] very committee to subpoena the full and unredacted Epstein files. And just to be clear, because of [1:43:24] that subpoena, the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi have been required by law to provide the Epstein [1:43:31] files to this committee since the summer of 2025. They have been in gross illegal violation of the subpoena [1:43:38] this entire time. To my Republican colleagues on this committee, do you remember that subpoena? The lawful [1:43:46] congressional oversight subpoena from July 23rd, Pam Bondi has been in violation of that for six [1:43:53] months now. At the same time, members on both sides of the aisle filed a discharge petition that would [1:43:59] have put a vote on the floor for the Epstein files transparency act. For a moment, the petition was one [1:44:05] signature away from forcing a vote in the full house. And what did Mike Johnson do? He shut down Congress. He refused to [1:44:12] swear in our colleague, Adelita Grijalva, for a historic seven weeks in order to keep her name off [1:44:17] the list. He forced the American public to endure a government shutdown to protect Donald Trump and to [1:44:23] cover up the Epstein files. And when it finally came to the floor and it became clear that the bill would [1:44:28] pass overwhelmingly, only then did he endorse and then sign the bill so that he wouldn't lose. This required [1:44:36] the DOJ to release the unredacted Epstein files publicly by December 19th. The DOJ has blown past that deadline, [1:44:44] releasing only one percent of the files, which is patently absurd. And the files they did release were heavily [1:44:51] redacted, which is completely illegal according to the law. On December 23rd, the DOJ said they miraculously [1:44:57] discovered over one million files related to Epstein. All of these patterns are an attempt to slow down the release and [1:45:05] fail to meet the lawful deadlines are consistent and coordinated. This is all part of an intentional [1:45:12] cover-up, which leads to the unavoidable question, who is the president protecting when we know he only [1:45:17] cares about one person? Guys, I'll end with my question to the chairman. The Attorney General, Pam Bondi, [1:45:26] has violated the subpoena issued by this committee. We should be holding her in contempt to remain fair and [1:45:33] to remain transparent. And so I ask that you do that if you really truly want to be fair and care about [1:45:37] the justice for the victims here. May I respond? We have been very clear. We expect those documents. [1:45:47] She has complied. She's turned over documents in the beginning. One percent. In the beginning, you all [1:45:52] complained and said the first document dump didn't have enough reductions and the second document dump had [1:46:00] too many reductions. So they're trying to get this, and I believe that we will get those documents very [1:46:07] soon. I have been assured we're going to get those documents very soon. I hear you, but with all due [1:46:12] respect, given everything that she herself stated in February of last year, her own statements in front [1:46:19] of the entirety of the American public saying, we have the documents. They are ready to go. The subpoena from [1:46:26] this committee was issued in July. And nobody on our side, nobody on our side is defending Pam Bondi. [1:46:32] I can assure you. So then she should be held in contempt. If we are going to hold President [1:46:36] She is complying with, they have turned documents over. They have turned documents over, and every time [1:46:40] they do, you all complain about too many redactions, not enough redactions. So that's, that is unacceptable. [1:46:47] It has been six months. Your time, your time's expired, and we want the documents. We've made that very clear. [1:46:53] Chair recognizes Mr. Crane. Can I do unanimous consent first? Okay, before I recognize Mr. Crane, [1:46:59] we'll, we'll let. Thank you. Okay, I just want to do a unanimous consent request. This is actually [1:47:05] an email that has been sent to your, your, your team, Mr. Comer, and our team from the, from the Clinton [1:47:12] lawyer, and the Clintons, that has, that's, that basically says, to be clear, we are not objecting [1:47:18] to a, to a transcript, and never have. Please make that clear during today's testimony. That [1:47:24] was sent to you, Mr. Comer. So I just want to reemphasize they are not objecting to a transcript. [1:47:28] Thank you. And before, before I recognize Mr. Crane, let me, we just got that email, and we have spent [1:47:37] five months trying to get acceptable terms that I think everyone within any sense of fairness would [1:47:48] agree needs to be, needs to occur. After we hold this vote, hopefully it'll be a bipartisan vote, [1:47:56] they're going to have two weeks before this bill's on the floor. They're going to have two weeks before [1:48:02] this, this, this, the full house votes on it. And make no mistake, to the Clintons and their [1:48:08] lawyer choice. This bill will pass, and I believe it will pass with Democrat votes, even though I've [1:48:12] heard leadership, Democrat leadership is, is whipping to try to get you all to vote, vote no on this. [1:48:22] They have had five months to comply with this, and to, and to defend the indefensible, and, and try to act [1:48:29] like Bill Clinton's a victim here, I think is a stretch. We know who the victims are, and I think if you [1:48:36] ask the victims, do you want to hear from Bill Clinton, I'm pretty confident I know what the answer will be, [1:48:42] because we, our staff has communicated with their attorneys. Chair recognizes Mr. Crane. [1:48:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously this committee hearing is about whether or not we're going to [1:48:54] hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress. I strongly recommend that we do, especially in pertaining to [1:49:03] the release of the Epstein files, and trying to get to the bottom of what exactly went on there, [1:49:08] and how Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to continue doing what he was doing, and abusing so many people for [1:49:16] so long. It's interesting when I look at the history of the Congress, and look at the fact that Peter Navarro, [1:49:24] former Trump trade advisor, who defied the January 6th committee subpoena, was sent to prison for four months. [1:49:32] Steve Bannon, also a former Trump advisor, defied the January 6th committee subpoena. He was sent to [1:49:39] prison for four months, and several others. So it's going to be really telling to see how my Democrat [1:49:45] colleagues vote on this one. Mr. Comer, how many times, Mr. Chairman, how many times did Mr. Epstein go to [1:49:54] the White House in your recollection, sir? According to the evidence that we've obtained, it appears he went 17 [1:50:00] times during the Clinton presidency. Is that more times than you've gone to the White House, Chairman? [1:50:05] I've been a member of Congress for nine years, and you know, fairly high up on the pecking order. I've [1:50:12] been to the White House, I believe, nine times in nine years. So he went to the Clinton White House [1:50:17] double the number of times that I've been to the White House in my entire congressional career. [1:50:22] Mr. Chairman, how many times did Mr. Clinton fly on Mr. Epstein's plane? [1:50:28] At least 26 times, according to the flight logs that were subpoenaed from the estate. [1:50:34] Right. Point of order, Mr. Chairman? Those were four different trips, four trips, [1:50:39] and every time they re-gassed the plane, they counted that as another trip. But it was Asia, [1:50:45] Africa, and they had to refuel. So every time they stopped to refuel, they counted that as another leg of [1:50:52] the trip. There are four trips, not 27. That's almost like I didn't inhale. [1:50:56] Reclaiming my time. That's still enough trips for us to want to be able to ask the Clinton's [1:51:05] questions about their involvement with Epstein. Is that true, Mr. Chairman? [1:51:09] Yes, sir. [1:51:10] Right. So like I said, I hope that my Democrat colleagues who all of a sudden have found religion [1:51:17] this Congress, and now they want the Epstein files, even though over the last four years when they had [1:51:23] control of Washington, D.C., you didn't hear a peep about Jeffrey Epstein out of any of them. And so [1:51:29] I think it's going to be real telling, you know, how my Democrat colleagues who claim to be all about [1:51:34] the victims, how they actually vote on these contempt charges for the Clinton family. And I just think [1:51:42] it's interesting, too, that, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is you've been working for the last [1:51:48] four or five months to get the Clintons in here, is that correct? [1:51:50] Five months, yes, sir. [1:51:52] Did they tell you that they would come in over December 24th and 25th, Christmas Eve and Christmas [1:52:00] Day? [1:52:00] They have implied that they would come in, yes. [1:52:03] Okay, so that just goes to show that they're trying to dodge suggesting dates that they know none of [1:52:09] us are in session. You know, I think that's pretty despicable. The other thing I believe that they [1:52:18] said is that you and the ranking member could fly up to New York, but you couldn't record any of the [1:52:25] conversations. Is that correct? [1:52:26] That is correct. [1:52:27] Does that sound like any congressional deposition you've ever heard of, sir? [1:52:30] No, and it would be my word against Mr. Garcia's, and I'm pretty confident I know whose side [1:52:37] the New York Times would take, and the Washington Post would take, and MSNBC would take, and look, [1:52:45] an investigation, you have to have transcripts, and the media wants transcripts. You have to have [1:52:52] transcripts. We don't do the notes, and the Clintons have already accused us of lying, and they accused [1:52:58] us of saying this was an unlawful subpoena, which I appreciate Mr. Garcia admitting that it is a lawful [1:53:04] subpoena, so I yield back. I also want to point out one thing that I think has been pretty interesting. [1:53:09] When I flew into Washington, D.C. yesterday, my chief of staff told me that he'd been contacted [1:53:15] by the Clinton attorneys at least three times to try and stop this. So it looks as if they, [1:53:23] it looks as if they tried to resist you for about five months, and once we finally pulled the trigger [1:53:29] on it, now they're realizing that this could go very poorly for them. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? [1:53:35] That's how it appears that they could stall, stall, stall, and then when it finally came to this vote, [1:53:40] they felt like they could count on the Democrats objecting and a few of the Republicans that [1:53:48] the media would go to and, you know, the moderates and say, oh, is this going to affect your election? [1:53:53] Is this going to affect your election? At the end of the day, I think even the media wants to hear [1:53:58] from Clinton. We all want to see the document. So we, everyone in America that's keeping up with [1:54:03] this, which is a majority of Americans, they want answers, and we're trying to get answers here today, [1:54:08] and the Clintons have obstructed for five months, five months. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [1:54:13] Chair recognizes, uh, Ms. Tlaib. Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Ms. Randall, I'm sorry. [1:54:19] Uh, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member. [1:54:22] Uh, thank you. I just want to, again, just clarify that, um, that the Clintons have no, have not objected to a [1:54:29] transcript. I just want to clarify that, Mr. Comer, which you just mentioned. And I think that in this [1:54:35] moment of negotiation, which you've been in, and you've been in with them this entire time, [1:54:39] there's progress being made, and they've not objected to the transcript. Let's talk to the, [1:54:43] let's talk to President Clinton, and let's get a transcript of it. Let's have the committee there [1:54:47] and the staff there move forward. Thank you. May I respond? We won't start to stop the talk. May I [1:54:54] respond? They did object to a transcript, Mr. Garcia. They did object to a transcript. They're just now [1:55:00] changing because they see that public opinion is not on their side. Chair recognize Ms. Randall, [1:55:05] and, and you've got, we'll give you five minutes. We'll give you five minutes. Thank you so much, [1:55:10] Mr. Chair. Um, you know, I want to, I want to start by saying it is, I do not feel it is my [1:55:17] responsibility to defend the former president of the United States. As a member of Congress in a [1:55:23] separate and co-equal branch of government from the executive branch, and as a individual person who is [1:55:30] responsible to my constituents, it is not my job to defend the former president of the United States, [1:55:37] just like it is not your responsibility, Chair Comer, to carry out the political retribution of [1:55:44] the current president of the United States. It is also not this committee's job to yield to the [1:55:55] judiciary committee to question, uh, the subjects of our subpoenas. It is not our job to defer to [1:56:10] anyone else's interest. And in fact, we have the opportunity at any time to amend the rules of our [1:56:17] committee should you choose to take action that our rules keep us from taking. Like that, that is a, [1:56:26] that is a tool that you as committee chair and we as a committee have. And I also want to say, [1:56:33] you know, I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a regular person. Um, I'm one year into this job and contrary [1:56:42] to attempts by my Republican colleagues to put the burden of decisions made by Congresses of the past [1:56:47] on our shoulders, I was sent here by my constituents just a year ago, and it's to them, to my neighbors, [1:56:53] who I am accountable, not to party leadership, not to anybody else, but to my constituents. So I want [1:57:03] to talk about what they are seeing and hearing right now. They are seeing just as Ms. Ansari previously [1:57:11] said, Donald Trump and JD Vance and Pam Bondi switch allegiances, decide they no longer want to pursue [1:57:22] accountability and full release, unredacted release of the Epstein files. But they are also seeing [1:57:28] a system that has failed survivors and regular people over and over that, that privileges the powerful [1:57:44] and well-connected over regular people. You know, regular people who don't have the luxury [1:57:53] of saying I'm not going to come to court and I want to be free of any accountability. Regular people [1:58:03] who see us acting and carrying out the demands of the president, former presidents, rich people, [1:58:17] people who come to lobby us, folks who have access to power in a way that regular people don't. And [1:58:26] I think we've all made very clear, all of us on both sides of this dais, that we want to hear [1:58:33] from the former president of the United States about any information that he has related to [1:58:40] Epstein's ring of trafficking and assault of women and girls. But we also, and you know, [1:58:47] Chair Comer, you have said over and over, over and over and over, that it's been five months that you've [1:58:52] been in negotiations with the Clintons. It has been six months since this committee subpoenaed [1:58:58] the Department of Justice for full release of the files. And, and I'm down, I'm down to hold [1:59:07] anybody accountable. I'm down for us to enforce our congressional subpoenas to uphold our power as [1:59:16] a separate and co-equal branch of government. But I want to call the question, will my colleagues on the [1:59:21] other side of this dais also hold accountable the Attorney General that has been withholding, [1:59:29] illegally withholding, evidence that has been subpoenaed by this committee and, and, in a [1:59:37] bipartisan law passed on the floor of the House? Are we, is it just political theater? Are you just [1:59:42] trying to point fingers and say like, it's you, it's you, it's not us, it's them? Or, are we here [1:59:47] to do the work of holding accountable people who have committed heinous crimes against women and [1:59:56] girls and people who might know about them? Are we doing that work or are we just pointing fingers [2:00:01] and trying to consolidate our own political power? That's a question I know that my constituents have [2:00:07] and it is one that I'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the dais. Thank you. I yield back. [2:00:11] Chair, any members seek recognition? Chair recognizes Ms. Tlaib from Michigan. [2:00:17] Um, Mr. Chair, I think many of us were there with the survivors and, uh, I'd like to bring them into [2:00:26] the room because I think it's really important. You know, it's not just one president, but now two [2:00:31] that have been connected to the Epstein, um, sex trafficking. One of them even testified about [2:00:39] walking into the house, the butler opening the door. There's administrative assistant having no idea [2:00:46] she was walking into a horrific scheme that was sending young girls to the powerful, to the rich, [2:00:57] the elected officials. And one of the first pictures she said she saw was of Clinton with his [2:01:05] arms around Epstein. She saw another one of Trump with Epstein. And I just remember her almost trying to [2:01:14] convince us, like understand that I had no idea as if somehow she was guilty. Do you all remember that? [2:01:22] And so I'm here to tell you I'm ready to vote, but I'm also just taken aback and disgusted because I [2:01:28] didn't need a birthday card to say the president United States, current president United States had [2:01:33] something. I didn't need to see the photos by the chairman today of Clinton. I, all I needed to do is [2:01:39] hear the survivors tell us, please do something. These are people that have impacted their lives forever. [2:01:46] What I just don't understand, Mr. Chair, and this is, with all due respect, I just don't get why [2:01:54] Bondi cannot be held in contempt, why we're not for, I don't care if she says that she wants to [2:02:01] plead the fifth. So what? Do it in front of the American people. Same thing with Maxwell. She's [2:02:07] telling the committee she's going to plead the, fine, have her come before this committee to do it [2:02:11] in front of the American people. The fact of the matter is, are you saying that if anybody wants to [2:02:16] plead the fifth, they don't have to be forced to come before this committee? That doesn't make any [2:02:20] sense. What excuse is that? That doesn't make any sense. The fact that I continue to tell you all, [2:02:27] what is the most consistent thing survivors have asked us to do? Follow the money. How come we [2:02:32] haven't forced JPMorgan Chase before this committee? How come we haven't allowed Bank of America to come [2:02:38] before this committee? Mr. Chair, it is so disgusting. And this is why it's everybody's so distracted [2:02:45] by this whole thing of like, oh, you know, the Clintons, Trump and everything. But who was funding [2:02:52] it? Literally, JPMorgan turned a blind eye to evidence of such trafficking, even after his 2008 [2:03:01] conviction. Hear me out. After he was convicted, they still hid suspicious activity reports that [2:03:07] should have been reported. You know, you see the fact that continuing them saying, well, in 2028, [2:03:14] agreed to pay what? $290 million of settled lawsuit. I don't care. You come here. And because [2:03:22] it's the truth, you all, you guys got to realize Epstein's the not the last person. There's probably [2:03:27] another Epstein out there right now, doing sex trafficking right now. We should hold everybody in [2:03:34] contempt that had anything to do to cover this up, including bank executives that still have their jobs. [2:03:41] The fact of the matter is, we know what this is. You want to talk about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, [2:03:51] but talk about everybody involved. Because it does look like you're only doing this to distract [2:03:57] everyone when we know not one, but two presidents were involved. And those young ladies shaking when [2:04:08] they were testing, because they didn't know if they could trust us. Some of them literally said, [2:04:15] we had no idea what we were walking into. But they were connected to the rich, [2:04:19] they were connected to the presidents. You heard them say that over and over again. [2:04:24] But one of the things they continue to say is, follow the money. Because Mr. Chair, [2:04:30] Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, JP Morgan, all these people, they will not be the last folks [2:04:36] that allowed a sex trafficker to harm young women, children. And so we have to set a very good [2:04:45] precedent that we will not sit back and say, well, Maxwell's going to plead the fifth, [2:04:53] Bondi is going to plead the fifth. I don't care. You're a public servant, come before this committee. [2:04:57] Maxwell, you were directly involved. How many times did the survivors mention her? How many times [2:05:03] saying that she lured them in? She was primarily involved. And Mr. Chair, you and I had had [2:05:09] conversations. And you said, give us names. They gave us names. And you know it. So why are you all [2:05:16] focused only on them? And let me tell you, you know where I stand. I will hold anybody in contempt [2:05:21] that will not give us information. I don't care how many lawyers they bounce up on us. [2:05:27] But I'll tell you, Mr. Chair, shame on us for not forcing Bondi before this committee. Shame on us [2:05:32] for not forcing Maxwell before this committee. Shame on us for not forcing JP Morgan Chase [2:05:37] to answer questions that many of us have of them of $1.5 billion in suspicious activity. Because [2:05:44] somebody had to fund this madness, this horrific actions by these men. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield. [2:05:50] And Ms. Talib, if I may respond to some of that before I recognize Ms. Boebert's next. [2:05:56] I believe with all my heart, you are as sincere as anyone on this committee about wanting to get [2:06:09] answers about the truth. And I believe your heart is pure. Maxwell is coming in front of this committee. [2:06:17] And we've tried. No, let us decide that today when, like when. [2:06:21] It is. It's nailed down. February the what day? The 9th. She's coming and you'll be able to ask [2:06:27] her questions. That's one of the things Clinton wanted was only me and Garcia. Maxwell's coming. [2:06:32] Anyone who wants to ask her questions on this committee will be able to. So that's nailed down. [2:06:34] I think the American people want answers from President Clinton. [2:06:37] I'm not trying to argue with you, Mr. Lee. I just want to respond to Pam Bondi is coming before [2:06:43] Congress in two weeks. I am confident she is going to be grilled by both parties on the discharge [2:06:53] petition. If you didn't want, I don't want to, and Ms. Randall, you mentioned something about [2:06:57] the Judiciary Committee. Believe me, I don't want to work with the Judiciary Committee on any [2:07:02] investigation. Okay. But when we passed that discharge petition, that got them involved. [2:07:07] But we had an outstanding subpoena. Just let me explain. Pam Bondi is going to be in front of [2:07:12] the Judiciary Committee. We'll see how that goes. We'll see if there's been a document done. [2:07:17] Mr. Chair, we can't forget the banking institutions either. And then the last thing. The last thing. [2:07:20] This is the most important thing. Months ago, I approached Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Stansbury. [2:07:30] And I said, please, if you all get a chance, and I know you all are all sincere, try to get some names [2:07:39] from these women. And we will continue to try to get documents. Mr. Chair, let's follow the money. [2:07:48] Let's bring these bank executives. We want to hold everyone accountable. We don't care if they're [2:07:57] billionaires. We don't care if they're Republicans. We don't care who they are. Do you agree to work [2:08:03] with me, though? We got to get the bank executives here. Because, Mr. Chair, you and I know that this is [2:08:09] still being funded in some other way. Epstein's dead. But we know there's another person out there [2:08:14] doing the same thing. We know it because the banks cover it up. These suspicious activity [2:08:20] forms were literally these reports that had to be filed. They were there for a reason. [2:08:24] So we can stop. And last thing, and then I'm going to open it, I think, [2:08:30] see if there's any other members. But we are going in looking at suspicious activity reports, [2:08:35] both Republicans and Democrat staffs going in looking at suspicious activity reports as we speak. [2:08:40] I'm all about looking at suspicious activity reports. Now, time's expired. Does any other [2:08:45] member seek recognition? Mr. Fallon from Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to share a quote [2:08:53] with you. I thought it was interesting. No one is above the law and no one should be escaping [2:08:58] accountability. And Hillary Clinton said that. And according to the LA Times, there's another quote. [2:09:04] No man in this country is so high that he's above the law. I agree with both these quotes. Al Gore said [2:09:09] that when he was a member of this chamber. Bill Clinton's own vice president. I hope every member [2:09:15] of this committee agrees with those quotes. So we have to ask ourselves, are we a rule of law nation [2:09:21] or are we not? When a citizen of these United States is subpoenaed by this Congress, they should comply, [2:09:29] plain and simple, regardless of who they are. We all get accused of things and we should do everything [2:09:34] we can to, because the accusation is nothing but that, to prove it false if it's untrue. Jeffrey [2:09:40] Epstein was a rapist, pedophile, sex trafficker. In street parlance, he was a scumbag, lowlife, [2:09:46] and slimeball. And some of the things that I've read in these files, he was evil and carny. He's also [2:09:51] dead. I didn't even know who he was until he wasn't. So why are we here talking about a dead guy? [2:10:01] Because he was associated with powerful people, some of which are highly likely to have participated [2:10:07] with him in some of the worst kind of criminal activity. And if they did, they should pay. [2:10:12] They should face justice, whether they're rich or poor, famous or anonymous, mighty or meek. [2:10:20] So is that what we're doing today? Are we pursuing justice and transparency? Because transparency makes [2:10:27] an easier and shorter path to the truth. We should be pursuing the truth. But some on this committee and [2:10:34] in this Congress are pursuing fame and campaign fortune and exploiting this issue, not in the [2:10:41] pursuit of justice, but in the pursuit of raising hundreds of thousands of dollars using a false [2:10:45] premise as a battering ramp. Jeffrey Epstein. And here's the false premise that Epstein was a [2:10:53] creature of the political right and they're protecting him. And he was pounding around with Donald Trump and [2:10:58] those in his orbit. And that's why the Republicans won't release the files. Now that's incendiary, [2:11:07] but is it true or is it just a cheap, woke fantasy? Well, here's the facts in the facts [2:11:14] matter. So let's look at the tail of the tape. How many confirmed visits to the White House? [2:11:20] Under Bill Clinton, there were 17. Jeffrey Epstein visited the Clinton White House 17 times. How many [2:11:24] times did he visit the Donald Trump White House? Zero. How about documented political donations? [2:11:31] 21,000 to the Clintons, zero to Trump. Documented non-Clinton political contributions. [2:11:38] 118,000 to the Dems, 18,000 to the GOP. For a total of 89% to the Democrats and the Clintons, [2:11:44] 11% to the GOP. Now to the matter at hand. Epstein files released by the oversight Democrats from 2019 [2:11:51] to 2023 when they were in charge of this committee. Zero. Epstein released files by the oversight [2:11:59] Republicans from 2023 to present. 53,000 pages. Epstein files released by the Biden Department of [2:12:07] Justice. In the four years he was in office. Again, zero. Epstein files released by the Trump [2:12:13] DOJ. 2025 to present. 125,000 pages. And a member of this committee completely jumped the shark again. [2:12:24] And right after Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a left-wing loon, and it was a time where we really [2:12:31] need to turn down the temperature and practice some civility, said, and I quote, Republicans have [2:12:36] been so busy protecting pedophiles and rapists that they forgot what this committee is supposed to be [2:12:42] about. Well, I tell you what this committee is supposed to be about, Mr. Chairman. About transparency [2:12:46] and truth. And on this matter, the Republicans have led. And we produced results. And the Democrats [2:12:52] have done squat and bumpkiss. For the record, you know, that kind of incendiary rhetoric, while it may make [2:13:01] headlines and make people famous, or perhaps better stated infamous, and raise loads of cash. [2:13:08] Maybe even get you invited to Hollywood parties. But at what cost? Those kind of lies create division [2:13:17] and damage. And they're ludicrous, absurd, lazy, and perhaps, worst of all, unoriginal. And I don't [2:13:24] think it's going to translate much to Journey to the upper chamber. I hope it doesn't translate to that. [2:13:31] The Trump administration and Republicans on this committee and on this issue have served Lady [2:13:37] Justice by a count of about 178,000 to zero. So the Clintons should come in, honor the subpoena, [2:13:45] and testify. And you know why, Mr. Chairman? In the pursuit of truth. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [2:13:53] The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes Ms. Stansberry from New Mexico. [2:13:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You'll have to forgive me if I do not give a slow clap to our colleague across the [2:14:05] aisle for his Academy Award-winning appearance just now in front of the committee. But I want to just [2:14:10] address some of the things that I heard here today and to talk about why we're here. What I've heard [2:14:16] here this morning in front of this committee is exactly why the American people hate politics. [2:14:22] Because the American people don't care if you're a Republican, if you're a Democrat, if you're an [2:14:28] independent, whether you vote or you don't. They want the Epstein files and they want justice and [2:14:34] accountability. And they don't give a damn whether or not it's Democrats or Republicans or who is [2:14:41] implicated. They want accountability. And that is what the survivors are asking us for. They are asking [2:14:50] us to do our jobs, to make good on the promises that we made them when they came and met with us, [2:14:57] and to actually, in good faith, conduct an investigation. Now, I always think it's important [2:15:05] to pull back the curtain for the American people about what happens in these committees. And I was [2:15:10] not shocked and surprised, but, you know, I think it's important to note that when I stepped out of [2:15:16] the committee a few moments ago, the press, the press, were huddled on the Republican side of this [2:15:23] committee room to take statements from the Republicans. They're not out in the kind of like neutral [2:15:28] area. They're standing outside the Republican door. So that after this vote is taken, our Republican [2:15:33] colleagues can walk out and make a statement to the press. Now, I think that that's important to [2:15:39] know for the public here, because this is not about true accountability. Because if this was actually [2:15:47] about getting to the bottom of this case, and actually holding individuals accountable for the [2:15:54] crimes that were committed by Jeffrey Epstein, by Ghislaine Maxwell, by the associates, and the many, [2:16:00] many people who are implicated in this case, what would be happening right now in this committee [2:16:07] is that Pam Bondi and DOJ officials would be sitting right there on the witness panel answering questions [2:16:13] under oath. Because they are breaking the law. They are not complying with our subpoena. They are not [2:16:20] complying with the Epstein Transparency Act. And on the day, the final deadline that they were supposed to [2:16:27] release their final explanation about why they may have redacted some files. And in fact, they have, [2:16:33] as has been stated many times, only released less than 1% of the files. Donald Trump used the United [2:16:40] States military to invade a foreign country and steal their oil. And while we're sitting here and our [2:16:46] colleagues are trying to create a spectacle for the media, every single newspaper in the United States [2:16:53] and the world's headline is about how Donald Trump right now is in Europe, embarrassing the United [2:16:59] States, how he is threatening our NATO allies to invade Greenland, humiliating the United States. And I [2:17:10] have to say, I was home over the weekend for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations to honor the life [2:17:16] and legacy of Dr. King. And the question that I got over and over again from my constituents [2:17:22] is what is in those files that is so bad that President Trump is invading Venezuela, threatening [2:17:33] our NATO allies, and sending thousands of armed paramilitary troops onto our streets to create [2:17:40] violence and chaos in American cities. That is what the American people are actually asking us. [2:17:48] And so I will be honest, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled that the individuals who are the subject of [2:17:55] today's hearing did not appear on their scheduled date. No one is above the law. But I do know, [2:18:05] based on the correspondence, that they have been corresponding with you regularly to try to resolve [2:18:11] this issue. But I don't believe that's what this hearing is actually about. Because if it was actually [2:18:20] about getting justice and about getting the truth, we would have DOJ here. We would be holding Pam Bondi in [2:18:26] contempt. And we would be hearing from the survivors themselves. And so I have to agree with my [2:18:34] colleagues that I believe that this is part of an extended smoke screen to try to cover things up. [2:18:40] And so I do ask my colleagues across the aisle, if you are earnest about getting to the truth and [2:18:46] getting to justice, then bring DOJ in here and hold them accountable. Because that is actually what the [2:18:52] American people want. I yield back. And the lady yields back. Before I recognize Mr. Biggs, I want [2:18:57] to point out again for the umpteenth time, Pam Bondi is coming in front of Congress under oath, [2:19:05] and there will be lots of opportunities to ask her questions about the Epstein files. [2:19:10] Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? She's violated a subpoena from this committee, [2:19:15] and she should be held in contempt for that. That's a fact. [2:19:18] Here's the difference. They have been turning over documents. Now, I've said it a hundred times. [2:19:22] It's not as quick as we would like, but they're turning over documents. And I've been very clear [2:19:27] today and in hundreds of interviews, we expect the documents. You can't be serious that one percent [2:19:31] is turning over documents. What's the deadline for them? When do you expect the full documents? [2:19:35] Well, in our subpoena, there was no deadline. Actually, there was. [2:19:37] And then we voted for the discharge petition, and there's a deadline. The discharge petition is in [2:19:43] judiciary. She's coming in front of judiciary. Now, that is a fact. That's irrelevant to this [2:19:47] investigation from the oversight committee. Bill Clinton's not a victim here, and the media's not [2:19:51] going to Republican side on anything. I don't think Pam Bondy's a victim. [2:19:55] I think Pam Bondy's a victim. Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs. It's Mr. Biggs, five minutes. [2:19:59] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will just point out, the previous speaker was talking about [2:20:09] peeling back so the public can see what goes on in the committee. I mean, I just came from another [2:20:17] committee where we're talking about massive fraud around the country and in particular in Minnesota. [2:20:23] And I'm glad that two Democrats could find time out of their busy schedule to even attend that [2:20:29] hearing. What a shame. What a shame. So when someone says, what is in the files so bad? [2:20:38] I'll ask this question. What is in the files? It's so bad that the Democrats for four years, [2:20:42] for four years, when they had control of this committee, didn't release a single document, [2:20:49] didn't call a single witness, didn't make any motion. In fact, for those four years, go back and [2:20:55] look. Did they ever say anything about Epstein? No, they didn't. But wanting to make a press, [2:21:05] wanting to get it on the press, that's why you're making the issue today. Because let's talk about why [2:21:10] we need to do this contempt is because former President Clinton and former Secretary of State [2:21:16] Hillary Clinton basically strung us along as we were bending over backwards, trying to accommodate [2:21:22] their schedule. They didn't show up after we finally had to get a subpoena for them. And I just, [2:21:30] I have right here, this is just interesting to me. This is a little note written by Mr. Clinton, [2:21:39] former President Clinton, to Jeffrey Epstein on Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. Jeffrey, [2:21:46] happy 50th. It's reassuring, isn't it, to have lasted as long across all the years of learning and [2:21:52] knowing, adventures and no illegible word, and also to have your childlike curiosity, the drive to make [2:22:01] a difference, and the solace of friends. He rode on that plane many times. He was apparently close [2:22:10] friends with him. Jeffrey Epstein claims that, and I don't know if we should believe anything [2:22:15] Epstein says for sure, but I mean, Epstein says that he helped set up and fund the Clinton Foundation [2:22:22] and former President Clinton in his note. I mean, this is what he wants. He doesn't want to come in [2:22:28] and testify. He wants to do the same thing that he did in previous times, just, okay, we're going to [2:22:33] send a little note that ought to do it. He says something to the effect that he spent significant [2:22:40] time in the Clinton Foundation after he left the presidency. Well, if Jeffrey Epstein set it up, [2:22:48] then there's some reason to ask questions of both he and the former Secretary of State. [2:22:55] They were given a subpoena. It was a lawfully issued subpoena by a standing committee. By the way, [2:23:01] I happened to be at that subcommittee hearing. I was there when every Democrat voice voted that out. [2:23:09] Nobody objected and said they didn't want him to be subpoenaed, but he was subpoenaed, [2:23:16] and he didn't show up. So here we are, and with Mr. Chairman, I'll yield time to you if you need it. [2:23:26] I appreciate it. I think that everything that needs to be pointed out, we've pointed out, so I will. [2:23:36] Then I'll yield, sir. Okay. Chair, any other members seek recognition? Mr. Mfume. Thank you, [2:23:43] Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the ranking member, and I particularly want to underscore [2:23:49] the ranking member's opening statement, and that was that oversight Democrats want the truth [2:23:56] about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and accountability for everyone, everyone involved. He said, [2:24:04] and I agree, we want transparency. We want the facts, and above all, we want this committee to use [2:24:10] its oversight tools in a serious and responsible way. I would be remiss if I did not thank on behalf [2:24:18] of all of us the efforts of Representative Ro Khanna of this committee and Representative Massey. [2:24:24] Thank God they stood in the way of things and took the heat to get the discharge petition up and voted on. [2:24:32] And I want to also point out something that I think is important, and that is consistencies, Mr. Chairman. [2:24:41] The action that the majority has been proposing today departs from this committee's established [2:24:48] practices, including its long-standing acceptance of written testimony and the level of accommodation [2:24:56] this committee has traditionally required before proceeding to criminal contempt, not civil, [2:25:02] criminal contempt. I'm glad, as the ranking member has stated, that the Clintons have agreed [2:25:11] to testimony and to a transcript and to meet. I agree also that that meeting should not be taking place in [2:25:19] New York. It sends the wrong reason. For anybody that gets something from this committee, they should come to [2:25:25] the committee. It's just that plain and simple. But it departs in many instances with the way this [2:25:31] committee has moved on. And I say that because we never know this time next year who might hold that [2:25:38] gavel and who on either side may want to go after the current president, his sons, his wife, his family, [2:25:46] and anybody connected to him as a department head. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's a slippery slope. [2:25:53] Now, does Bill Clinton have to defend himself? Absolutely, yes. It is a bit curious, however, why we are [2:26:00] going after Mrs. Clinton. I've not seen anything, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said earlier, that [2:26:07] suggests that she ought to be a part of this in any way or has done something wrong or is complicit in this [2:26:13] matter. And I would hope that there's some consideration, Mr. Chairman, to withdrawing, [2:26:18] at the very least, that particular resolution. It just makes me think that this is a fishing expedition [2:26:25] and that we want to dust her up a bit if we get her before this committee. Now, a couple of quick [2:26:31] things. We're being asked to move forward holding a former president of the United States, again, not in [2:26:39] civil contempt, in criminal contempt of Congress. And I'm going to tell you why it's an extraordinary [2:26:44] step. Not that it's unprecedented. It's extraordinary. But it is unprecedented in the fact that we did not [2:26:50] do that with Richard Nixon. We did not do that with Donald Trump. There was a subpoena, but there was [2:26:56] never an attempt to find them in criminal contempt of the Congress or of this committee. It's an extraordinary [2:27:03] remedy that's usually reserved for situations where a witness has clearly and willfully defied [2:27:09] Congress after extraordinary processes have been exhausted. The majority has not demonstrated that [2:27:16] standard so far. I do want to say also that we're in a situation where I don't think that anybody on [2:27:25] the Republican or on the Democratic side of this committee is trying to defend former President Clinton. [2:27:32] They're trying to find a way to make sure that we're consistent. So the reason we keep hearing the need [2:27:37] to have Pan Bondi before this committee is that we're getting ready to bring criminal contempt charges [2:27:44] before there's been an investigation. Usually that happens after the investigation. And the notion that [2:27:50] somebody is going to come before this committee, Mrs. Maxwell, and take the fifth, I don't care. [2:27:56] She's already a convicted criminal. She can't take the fifth. But we can do the actions we ought to be [2:28:03] about. And that is to make sure that both of them are before this committee. And then to make sure also [2:28:09] or to suggest, it's up to you and the ranking member, that that meeting takes place and those transcripts [2:28:16] are made available and that that Mr. Clinton comes before the committee with counsel so that we then are [2:28:22] in a position to move forward. We're taking a big jump here without doing some of the things that we we normally do. [2:28:29] Now, I'm glad that Ms. Tlaib brought up the matter of victims. She's not here right now. But all of us [2:28:35] sat in that room with those victims. It was gut wrenching. And all of us made a commitment that we [2:28:41] would prove that this institution could and would do the right thing. So we're challenged here, Mr. Chairman, [2:28:48] and I hope that you and the ranking member can give us a way to proceed here that both of the concerns on [2:28:57] both sides are addressed. But if we just move straight as we're going now, without an investigation, [2:29:03] it begs the question, what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? I yield back. [2:29:08] The gentleman yields back. Ms. Simon's next. Before I recognize her, I just want to add, [2:29:13] with respect to the Hillary Clinton subpoena, you all voted for that. This committee voted for that [2:29:18] in a bipartisan manner. Her name was on that list. And with respect to Pam Bondi, again, she's testifying in [2:29:26] front of Congress in less than two weeks. Chair recognize Ms. Simon. [2:29:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick comment. And I have a friendly question from my colleague, [2:29:38] Ms. Luna. And I'll say a friendly question. I've worked with victims for decades. So few opportunities [2:29:50] present themselves for victims to sit face to face with folks who hold power, to beg and plead that [2:29:59] everyone who had anything to do with their harm be held to account. So few opportunities. I have been [2:30:10] a victim advocate where brilliant young women who have been trafficked across this country have stood [2:30:18] in courtrooms and were demanded to testify against their traffickers. And they did with such power [2:30:26] and grace in fear that their lives may be taken because of that that braveness. And a number of [2:30:37] those young women that I witnessed take all that they had to confront their demons. They were murdered [2:30:44] because they took a stand. And so when we did stand in front and sit in front of those victims and they [2:30:50] gave us their all. I hope that this is not the only opportunity, Mr. Chair, to speak on their behalf. [2:31:01] From our president to everyone in those files. Forget all the political games. If these women who are [2:31:17] connected with the largest sex trafficking ring in modern day American history cannot get justice, [2:31:26] what about the girls in every single state? I mean, it is what it is. That being said, [2:31:36] Ms. Luna, you talked briefly about a proposal. There was a proposal put on the table to rethink [2:31:48] how we might have a conversation about the Clintons or President Clinton coming in and having a [2:31:54] conversation with this body. And I guess that time has passed. But I know that I would love to hear from [2:32:04] the former President of the United States. I would love to hear from the Attorney General. I would love [2:32:10] to hear from the current President of the United States. The victims deserve to be heard. The victims [2:32:22] deserve for the files to be released in their entirety. And the victims deserve for us to get to the bottom [2:32:31] of this matter. I yield back. Well, I actually would like to yield my time to the ranking member. [2:32:36] Actually, I'm okay right now on time. I might come back around. But back to Mr. Comer and the [2:32:42] Republicans. Thank you, Ms. Simon. Okay. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, [2:32:56] we are going to, there's an amendment at the desk. Well, let's, Ms. Lee, what purpose do you seek [2:33:09] recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk distribute the amendment to all members? [2:33:16] And the clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute [2:33:21] to the William J. Clinton contempt report as offered by Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania. [2:33:24] Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. [2:33:28] The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. [2:33:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that even listening to this debate throughout our hearing today, [2:33:40] our markup today, I think it's really clear that at the heart of this effort to release the Epstein [2:33:45] Fowles are very real human beings who have experienced unimaginable harm. They have been [2:33:52] repeatedly victimized by the indifference of the U.S. government and the injustice that they face. [2:33:58] They deserve peace and healing and justice. When my motion to subpoena the Epstein Fowles passed, [2:34:05] this committee resolved to get that justice for those survivors. And I thank Mr. [2:34:10] Chairman Comer for pushing this effort forward by issuing additional subpoenas for the Epstein [2:34:17] estate and the banks. And we know that without the full files from the DOJ, that that is just not [2:34:25] enough. That's why I'm introducing this amendment, which holds Attorney General Pam Bondi in civil contempt [2:34:32] for failing to comply with the August 5th subpoena. And I urge my colleagues to support it. And we believe [2:34:38] that we should start with civil contempt because we are serious about this investigation. We want [2:34:45] these files and we want to hear from them. And we must start there. The Department of Justice needs to be [2:34:51] the priority. We can move to non-compliance by anyone else, including Ghislaine Maxwell, after we have [2:34:59] received those files. It has been five months and we're still missing over five million pages of documents [2:35:05] purportedly. The Department of Justice has only released one percent of those files. They have [2:35:11] stonewalled this committee since August. And they have failed to provide even the most basic updates. [2:35:17] How is that not an insult, both to the authority of this committee and the survivors? Without the full [2:35:24] files, how can we know who might have legitimate knowledge or who might be culpable? We wouldn't have to [2:35:31] speculate on the Clintons or anyone else's involvement if we had all of those files. And to be clear, [2:35:37] I'm certainly not opposed to the President and Secretary Clinton being held accountable for violating the [2:35:45] subpoena. But the fact that this effort to hold the Clintons in contempt was fast-tracked and is happening [2:35:50] before any action against the Justice Department is just evidence that the Republicans on this committee are [2:35:55] not taking this investigation seriously. It is an unequal application of law. And again, [2:36:02] it is a bit ironic that these contempt resolutions empower the Justice Department to imprison possibly [2:36:09] two people for defying the exact same subpoena that they themselves are defying. If this committee [2:36:17] wants to be taken seriously, we would be addressing all the bad actors in this investigation, [2:36:22] not cherry-picking them for political points. The Justice Department needs to be held accountable for [2:36:28] their noncompliance and lack of transparency. They have been selectively producing information, [2:36:33] shielding powerful people, and obstructing any efforts for oversight. And if we don't hold them [2:36:40] accountable, Mr. Chair, we are too. Just this past Friday, Attorney General Bondi asked a New York [2:36:47] federal judge to deny an appointment of a special master to monitor the release of the Epstein files. [2:36:51] They don't want a neutral third party making sure they follow the law. I think all of us should be [2:36:57] questioning what the Justice Department is doing that they don't want the American people to see. [2:37:03] We can't just take them at their word that they'll eventually get around to releasing the fouls. Quite [2:37:09] frankly, they have put up the same, if not far less of an action as the Clintons have. What little [2:37:19] information they've released so far has either already been made public or has been a mess of [2:37:24] just sketchy redactions. A group of survivors sent a letter to the Justice Department's Inspector General [2:37:30] complaining that the redactions had been, quote, selective. They pointed out that multiple times [2:37:36] the names of alleged abusers appeared to be redacted, yet some survivors' names and identifying [2:37:42] information were released. To be clear, the subpoena I moved to secure does not allow for redactions [2:37:47] unless it would protect the identity of a survivor or contains child sex abuse materials. They have [2:37:53] had plenty of time to work with this committee to protect survivors' identities. This is bigger [2:37:57] than one case. It's about rich and powerful people being protected by each other and institutions. It's [2:38:02] about a system that has enabled Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and whoever their co-conspirators [2:38:07] are to buy favors and silence from our government. This effort is the one time we could get some real [2:38:13] accountability and reclaim the power of the system. Republicans don't drop the ball by allowing Pam [2:38:19] Bondi and the Department of Justice to play us for fools. Mr. Chair, you are setting a precedent that [2:38:24] noncompliance with this committee will result in immediate contempt proceedings. So I challenge you and [2:38:29] my Republican colleagues to put your money where your mouth is and pass this amendment in holding Pam [2:38:33] Bondi in contempt. I yield back. [2:38:35] Mr. Chair, I'll recognize myself just for an amendment. Look, I oppose this amendment and I hope [2:38:45] everyone on the committee opposes this. That's because Attorney General Bondi and the Department of Justice, [2:38:52] they have released documents. Again, not at the speed or pace that any of us want, but they are [2:38:58] complying with our subpoena. That is a fact. I oppose your amendment, Ms. Lee, because you amend the [2:39:05] criminal to civil. And I think that most of what I'm hearing from my colleagues on the other side of [2:39:16] the aisle is everyone wants to hear from the Clintons. They've had an opportunity for five months. They [2:39:22] will have another opportunity between today's vote and the floor to come in and answer questions. [2:39:30] Pam Bondi is coming in front of Congress in less than two weeks to answer questions. Your colleague, [2:39:36] Ms. Crockett. Again, I don't want to speak for Ms. Crockett, but I'm pretty confident Ms. Crockett's going to [2:39:41] grill Pam Bondi, right? You agree with me. I would have won that bet. Well, we'll see. I think that's a good [2:39:54] she may. I hope she does. So I oppose this. Now, chair recognizes Mr. Garcia. [2:40:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just start by saying I strongly support the amendment proposed by [2:40:06] Congresswoman Lee. The House majority keeps saying that they believe that no one is above the law. [2:40:12] Oversight Democrats certainly believe that. But the Attorney General is violating it with impunity [2:40:17] in support of a White House cover-up every single day. We want accountability for her failure to [2:40:22] comply with our subpoena for the full Epstein files that's been in place since the summer. She fails to [2:40:28] comply with the Epstein files transparency act. She fails to comply with the subpoena put in place [2:40:33] by Representative Lee and the committee. This is clearly a White House-directed cover-up. [2:40:39] Now, over a month after the deadline, only one percent of these files have been released. [2:40:44] No explanation has been given for illegal redactions, again in violation of the law. [2:40:48] Epstein survivors have reported that their names have appeared in parts of the document that were not [2:40:54] redacted. And every day she continues to withhold files and conceals the truth. She continues to give [2:41:00] Ghislaine Maxwell special treatment by moving her to a less secure [2:41:03] prison that we all are aware, which is completely shameful. Chairman Comer, you claim, of course, [2:41:08] that the Attorney General was complying with our subpoena. I mean, that is absolutely false. [2:41:14] One percent of the documents since a subpoena in place during the summer is not complying with our [2:41:21] subpoena. Now, on August 5th, 2025, this committee issued that subpoena, compelling her to produce [2:41:28] documents and communications. That subpoena unambiguously required the Attorney General to do [2:41:34] that no later than August 19th of 2025. August 19th, not December, August 19th of 2025. [2:41:42] On August 22nd, the DOJ made a single production of approximately 33,000 pages to this committee. [2:41:49] All of those documents, however, were already public. The DOJ has made no additional production to the [2:41:55] committee pursuant to the subpoena. The DOJ has failed to provide specific information in response [2:42:00] to repeated requests from Democratic oversight staff as to why the DOJ's timetable continues to move [2:42:07] and why it's not fulfilled its production or the law. Now, in response to letters from our committee, [2:42:12] on November 25th, the DOJ transmitted a single letter in response to the committee's inquiries. [2:42:18] They claimed that the DOJ was working to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which now, [2:42:23] of course, we know they actually weren't doing because we actually haven't received very much. [2:42:27] The letter made no reference to the committee's subpoena, no reference to DOJ's plan for compliance. [2:42:34] The corrupt failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not just a crime. It also [2:42:41] shows that the Attorney General has made no attempt to actually comply with our subpoena. Now, [2:42:46] oversight Republicans might be happy to give President Trump and Pan Bondi a free pass to break the law, [2:42:52] but this committee shouldn't do so. This amendment will allow us to go to court, [2:42:56] to force Pan Bondi to comply with our subpoena, and to finally bring the Epstein Files to light. [2:43:02] I urge adoption, and I yield back. [2:43:05] The gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition? [2:43:08] Who's next on your side? Lynch. Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts. [2:43:11] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, as the ranking member pointed out, [2:43:17] we've got about one percent of the documents. [2:43:19] I take exception to the declaration by the chairman that Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice is [2:43:30] actually producing documents, is cooperating. So we've got the 30,000 documents that they sent us [2:43:37] in August. It was a dump, and it was largely already made public. It wasn't prepared. I'll give you a [2:43:45] comparison. We've got a handful of attorneys that work for the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, and they have [2:43:52] given us more in the same amount of time than the Department of Justice has given. I want to point [2:43:58] out that there are 100,000 employees at the Department of Justice. And I know very recently, [2:44:05] the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has now put a considerable number of people on [2:44:11] the case redacting documents. But that was six months after we started to do that. Clayton started [2:44:19] to do that six months after we had originally requested the documents. So this is a stall tactic. [2:44:26] They haven't given us any of the documents. Remember, back in February of 2025, Pam Bondi said publicly [2:44:40] that she had a client list of the perpetrators in the Epstein, excuse me, client list was sitting on [2:44:51] her desk right now to review. That was back in February of 2025. She went on later on in March 3rd, [2:45:00] 2025. She told Sean Hannity that a truckload of evidence had arise, arrived that FBI Director Cash [2:45:09] Patel is going to get me and himself really a detailed report as to why all these documents and [2:45:16] evidence had been withheld, close quote. However, in July 25, July 2025, Bondi and the FBI released an [2:45:25] unsigned memorandum concluding that the review found no evidence, no evidence that Epstein had a client list [2:45:33] or that he blackmailed prominent associates. And this is obviously contradicting her earlier public [2:45:39] statements and faced significant backlash. This is clearly obstruction of justice on the part of Pam [2:45:49] Bondi. We have every bit of reason to infer that she has no intention at all of producing these documents. [2:46:01] Uh, she has made a mockery out of this, this whole process, uh, including allowing, uh, witness tampering [2:46:11] and having, uh, Ghislaine Maxwell convicted of, of, uh, trafficking in this instance, uh, removed from a, [2:46:19] from, from one jail to a much more comfortable position. Why is that not witness tampering? We should, [2:46:24] we should ask her questions about that. And the idea that, that some other committee is going to do this [2:46:30] is, is, is an abdication of our responsibility on this committee, I believe. Uh, we should not, look, we, [2:46:41] we are the ones that we had the, the victims sit down in front of us and tearfully ask for justice from this [2:46:51] committee. And we, we promised that. We promised that we would do everything we possibly, we didn't say, [2:46:56] well, we'll, we'll check what the Judiciary Committee and we'll let them do the work. We said we would take on this [2:47:02] responsibility, which is ours, Mr. Chairman. This, the, this is the rightful jurisdiction for this case, [2:47:10] and we should demand people with evidence to produce that evidence so that we can proceed in our work. [2:47:16] We haven't done that thus far. We've, we've let, we've let Pam Bondi distort and obstruct, uh, the dress, [2:47:25] the justice that's, that's due to these, to these victims. It, it's shameful. It really is. [2:47:31] And, uh, I want to hear from everyone who has a connection to this. I want to hear from every single witness [2:47:39] that might be able to provide evidence to this committee. And I think Pam Bondi with the millions [2:47:46] and millions and millions of documents is at the top of that list. And she has, she has thwarted justice long enough. [2:47:55] Uh, she is a lapdog to the president. She is trying to protect the president who is all over this case, [2:48:02] all over this case. And, uh, I'm hopeful that eventually he'll be a witness before this committee [2:48:08] at some point. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Before I recognize, uh, [2:48:14] Scott Perry, if I may, this committee has done everything that the victims asked that day in that [2:48:24] hearing, they asked that we subpoena the estate. I didn't, we had no idea what was in that state [2:48:29] documents. Could have been, could have been all Republicans. Had no idea. Could have been billionaires, [2:48:33] could have been donors to the Republican Party, could have been donors to the Democrat Party. [2:48:36] Had no idea. Without hesitation, I signed that subpoena for the estate. And then with respect to what you, [2:48:45] with your criticism of, of Bondi, I don't disagree with anything you said in your criticism [2:48:52] of the current attorney general. And I think she's going to have to answer those questions [2:48:57] in front of Congress, in front of the American people in two weeks. And I'm confident she's going [2:49:02] to be asked those questions. And I expect to hear answers from the, from the, uh, criticism that you [2:49:08] leveled against her. No one's defending her. Again, we expect to get the documents. They have produced some. [2:49:15] We aren't satisfied with the pace. And she's going to be in front of Congress in two weeks to answer [2:49:21] that exact criticism. Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania. [2:49:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address the unjustified and cowardly [2:49:33] claims made against me by members of this committee after I left. And maybe they were afraid to face me [2:49:39] while I was here, but I'm here now and I'm going to face you. Just to be clear, if you have this job, [2:49:46] you should know that any subpoena from another Congress is invalid in the next Congress. It dies [2:49:52] with the last Congress. That's minimum information that you should know if you're going to serve in [2:49:57] Congress. So just let me inform you of that if you didn't know that. Regarding the so-called subpoena, [2:50:04] it is unjust and it is immoral to get a group of your friends together who have a predetermined outcome, [2:50:11] put them together in a room, and then use the power of the federal government to prevail [2:50:17] on your political enemies. The subpoena that was served to me or my counsel was not valid [2:50:24] because there was no valid committee serving it. I did not violate any law and I reject the claims [2:50:34] or the adherence that I did. The Democrat Party sought to, by use of the awesome and just the grand [2:50:51] power of the federal government, to destroy my reputation as a person who was not charged with [2:50:58] anything, was not accused of anything, was not the target of investigation. You wish to dirty me up [2:51:06] and bankrupt me so you could get rid of me. It is outrageous and I have not mentioned that at all, [2:51:14] but since you brought it up, but since you brought it up, I felt it would appropriate at this time [2:51:22] to clear my good name. And as the years have gone by, more information has come out [2:51:28] to prove what I just said was absolutely accurate. What happened during that period of time when you were [2:51:36] in the majority was you set up a star chamber with predetermined outcomes and then sought to destroy [2:51:44] in any way possible your political enemies by fashioning lies and then repeating them over and [2:51:50] over again, which you do to this day, which you do to this moment. Now when I spoke earlier, I didn't [2:51:56] mention the subpoena. I mentioned the truth and that's what this committee should be all about, [2:52:00] wherever it comes from and whoever it touches. And I believe that to my soul, which is why [2:52:06] I have been on this bandwagon long before you have ever been on it and much more than you have ever [2:52:13] done much more than you have ever done legitimately and sincerely. So I just I thank the chairman for [2:52:24] allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight and hopefully and hopefully that won't [2:52:32] happen in the future. Now regarding the Clintons, as you know, I offered the amendment, [2:52:37] the resolution to bring everybody in attorneys general from both sides of the aisle. [2:52:42] But with the Clintons in particular, because of their particular knowledge of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein [2:52:48] and his exploits with underage women, it is horrific. As a father, as a father of two young daughters, [2:52:59] I would just say that the perpetrators of whatever happened ought to be thankful that their fathers don't [2:53:05] know about it. But I sure hope that they do know soon. And I sure hope that there is justice for all [2:53:11] the victims and that we don't seek to destroy the lives of those uninvolved for political purposes. [2:53:20] What this which is what, quite honestly, this whole theater, this whole charade has been about. [2:53:25] This should have been easy. As Mr. Clinton, an American citizen, we appreciate that he was the [2:53:30] president. But according to his wife, he's not above the law and neither is she. This is a lawful subpoena [2:53:37] with plenty of time. The committee has been and the chairman has been more than generous trying to [2:53:42] work it out. But it's pretty obvious to anybody with eyes in their head that the Clintons feel like [2:53:48] they're above the law and they're going to get special treatment as Secretary Clinton did the last [2:53:52] time she was subpoenaed. I'll remind everybody that she worked out a deal to come in with her so-called [2:53:58] attorney but was her aide behind closed doors on a Saturday without without any transcript. [2:54:05] That's where we're headed. I'll yield the balance of my time to the gentle lady from Colorado if she [2:54:10] wants it. Thank you, Mr. Perry. I just think that all of this is is rich. I mean, we have every [2:54:17] Democrat here just with their typical talking points claiming they want to hold the Clintons accountable [2:54:22] and hear from them. So I think it's time we move on and and and get to the actual point of this. [2:54:29] We had the Clintons defy a lawful subpoena and that is what we are here to discuss. But Democrats want [2:54:35] to bring up anything but that. And if this continues, I'm going to call the question. [2:54:40] So continue with your Clintons and how you are going to protect them or defend them or I'm going [2:54:47] to call the question. We're going to have the vote and end all of this nonsense rhetoric that's going [2:54:52] on. Mr. Chairman, I yield. Gentle lady yields back. Chair recognize Ms. Stansberry's next on the list. I think [2:54:57] no. Okay. Frost, who's next? I just go by what the ranking member wants. So who's next? [2:55:12] Mr. Frost. Frost from Florida. I just want to speak in support of this amendment [2:55:20] that has been put forth by Representative Lee. Look, at the end of the day, [2:55:24] the United States Congress voted damn near unanimously. One member of Congress voted against [2:55:31] releasing the Epstein files happens to be a Republican on this committee. But damn near [2:55:36] unanimously, we said we want the files. Months before that, in the subcommittee, [2:55:41] in a subcommittee on this committee, we said we issued a subpoena for the files as well. They have [2:55:47] failed to comply with the law, not just on one law that we passed, but also on a lawful subpoena [2:55:54] that this committee put forth. And so I just want to speak in support of Representative Lee's [2:56:02] motion here, an amendment here, because we have to go at this everywhere. We want to hear from [2:56:07] everyone. We want to hear from former president. We want to hear from anyone who's implicated. We want [2:56:11] to hear from anyone who has information that might help us get justice for the victims. But it is obvious [2:56:16] that my Republican colleagues are doing anything they can to play defense for the administration. [2:56:23] 1% of documents is unacceptable. 1% of documents is unacceptable when you've had months and months [2:56:30] and months since June or July of last year to produce these documents when we sent a lawful [2:56:35] subpoena to the Department of Justice. 1% of documents is unacceptable for a bill passed by the [2:56:40] United States Congress that they are in violation of. They're breaking the law right now as we speak. [2:56:46] And all we're asking for is accountability here for everyone. And so this amendment, [2:56:53] I think, is very simple. I know the chairman keeps bringing up the fact that Pam Bondi is going to [2:56:58] come to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee is not the committee that is leading [2:57:02] the investigation on this. We are the oversight committee. And so she can go over to the Judiciary [2:57:09] Committee all she wants. Like she, by the way, is supposed to, like every other attorney general has [2:57:14] in the history of this country, shows up before the Judiciary Committee at least once a year or once [2:57:18] to Congress to talk about a lot of different business. But we have a very specific thing we [2:57:24] need to talk with her about. And it is talking with her about the fact that she's breaking the law [2:57:29] and that the administration is obviously slow rolling putting forth the Epstein files. And I do [2:57:35] not buy this thing that, oh, well, they're taking their time to redact it and this and that. We all know [2:57:42] that's a load of BS. We all know that that is a talking point that perhaps the administration gave [2:57:47] some of my colleagues that they are just repeating over and over and over again. But when you have the [2:57:53] entire Department of Justice or a lot of people working on this, you should be able to produce [2:57:59] documents in a much faster way. And the law was clear. And by the way, it's the law that we all voted on. [2:58:05] So if you thought that the timetable was unfair, you should have voted no. But you voted yes. We all [2:58:11] voted yes, except one. And so I think this is a very sensible amendment that everyone should vote yes [2:58:17] on because it is important that we have accountability across the board, no matter who you are. [2:58:24] I will yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. Thank you. Thank you again, [2:58:32] Mr. Frost. Just to conclude, we obviously have and support Representative Lee's amendment. We think [2:58:39] it's important. It's important to get Pam Bondi to actually produce the files. And it's certainly [2:58:46] important to move this debate forward. And so I just, again, want to reiterate and reinforce our support [2:58:51] as we wrap up this debate on this amendment. And so thank you, Mr. Coomer. Thank you. We have one more [2:58:58] speaking request on our side. That's Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And [2:59:04] turns out, apparently, I was mentioned as well. When I was I was conducting that that hearing that [2:59:12] on Minnesota fraud, another fraud that the Democrats were so interested in that only two of them bothered to [2:59:17] show up. That's interesting. Well, so let's talk about the the illicit subpoenas. Because I think [2:59:26] some of my colleagues may not remember this, but the resolution that we all passed that passed out [2:59:33] of here to install the J6 committee gave to then minority leader Kevin McCarthy specific authority [2:59:43] to name the members from the Republican side that would sit on the J6 committee. So he named them. [2:59:50] But Speaker Pelosi didn't like those guys. So she said, no, they can't be on the committee. So she booted [2:59:58] them and replaced them with people that she felt would be more amenable to get to accomplish the [3:00:05] desired political outcome that she wanted the J6 committee to have. And that was so she put two [3:00:12] individuals. You will remember Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger on there having removed [3:00:19] and no other no other Republicans were on there. And so not only did she violate the resolution, [3:00:25] but the resolution all called for a certain number to be on there. And there were not that number. So [3:00:31] the committee itself was illicit. It was not a standing committee like this is where you have [3:00:40] jurisdictional authorities. That committee by that point was no longer a committee. It was it was an [3:00:48] effort to railroad people, including including myself. And things have been said about me repeatedly [3:00:57] that have been debunked. Everything's been debunked that was said about me. But we here we have it today. [3:01:04] And the and Mr. Perry was right. This was designed to go after certain specific people. I'm still not [3:01:10] quite sure why I was one, but I was one. And bringing it up today is actually kind of an abhorrent tactic [3:01:19] because it was an illicit committee, didn't have authority to issue an illicit subpoena. Whereas [3:01:26] this committee issued a legitimate subpoena, not only did it provide the subpoena, but it actually [3:01:32] worked for months trying to get the Clintons to accommodate their schedule, including continuing [3:01:38] this at least once. So the Clintons would find it more convenient to come and respond to the deposition. [3:01:44] Leaving all other deflection aside, if you really want the Clintons to come in and answer these [3:01:50] questions, then this would be the appropriate time to vote to hold them in contempt. And with that, [3:01:55] Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you. [3:01:57] The gentleman yields back. The question is now on the amendment offered by Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania. [3:02:04] Mr. Chairman, if I'm not interested. Go ahead. [3:02:09] So that we know exactly what we're doing here, because this has gone way off of where we started [3:02:14] with Ms. Lee's amendment. So the members of the committee know this resolves itself that the [3:02:22] Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall initiate judicial proceedings in any federal court of [3:02:29] competent jurisdiction on behalf of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to seek declaratory [3:02:37] judgments affirming the duty of Patricia or Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, [3:02:44] to comply with the subpoena duly issued to her by the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and [3:02:51] Government Reform as a part of investigating and the investigation into federal government's [3:02:58] enforcement of sex trafficking law, generally and specifically its handling of the investigation [3:03:05] and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. How we vote on this will be very telling. [3:03:12] I support this amendment. I would urge other members of the committee to do so also, if we are [3:03:18] serious about equal practice and holding everyone accountable. I yield back, sir. [3:03:24] The gentleman yields back. The question is now on the amendment offered by Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania. [3:03:36] All those in favor of the Lee amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. [3:03:43] In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not. Recorded vote, please, sir. A [3:03:47] recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be [3:03:51] postponed. For what? Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. [3:03:56] The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the amend amendment. [3:04:07] Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the William J. Clinton contempt report [3:04:10] as offered by Mr. Mind of California. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. [3:04:15] I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes to explain [3:04:20] his amendment. Chair Comer, I motion to amend your amendment in the nature of a substitute to authorize [3:04:25] the House Oversight Committee to do three things. First, pursue federal court action to enforce a [3:04:31] subpoena against former President Bill Clinton related to the sex trafficking investigation. [3:04:36] Two, require the committee to report back any resulting litigation. And three, direct the House [3:04:42] General Counsel to represent the committee with the Speaker's approval. Now, I have, as mentioned [3:04:48] previously, spent my career trying to enforce the rule of law. I started as an SEC enforcement attorney, [3:04:54] went on to become a law professor. I very strongly believe in the rule of law. But the rule of law is [3:04:59] not just about not having anyone above the law. It is also about not targeting people simply because [3:05:07] you don't like them or because they're in a different political party or because they've done things you [3:05:11] don't particularly care for. Going after an individual uniquely because of how they're positioned is also [3:05:17] a gross violation of our powers and of the rule of law. And if you look at the precedent of how [3:05:24] Congress is operated, we have three inherent powers when it comes to contempt. Inherent contempt, [3:05:30] civil enforcement, and criminal contempt. Now, since we initiated criminal contempt back in the 1930s, [3:05:38] we have rarely, if ever, used criminal contempt as a charge. And we have almost never leapt from civil [3:05:44] enforcement to criminal contempt. The decision here to go from civil enforcement and to ignore that step, [3:05:51] jumping to criminal contempt is, in my view, a gross imposition, a gross abuse of power on our part. [3:05:57] It is also counterproductive because if we launch criminal contempt proceedings, I think my colleague, [3:06:02] Mr. Biggs, pointed out that we want the Clintons to testify. If we launch criminal contempt proceedings, [3:06:07] we will not hear from the Clintons. That is a fact. They will be tied up in court. We have no guarantee [3:06:12] that they will ever testify before this committee. Civil enforcement will achieve the goal we want [3:06:17] of getting the Clintons out here before this committee. Now, I just think this is problematic. [3:06:22] We talked earlier, Mr. Comer, and I still have not heard you, to this point in time, say anything [3:06:27] about the Clintons defying the subpoena. I've heard you say, obfuscate, delay, drag their feet. [3:06:32] We've had five months. But at no point in time do they say, we're not complying with the subpoena. [3:06:37] And to me, civil enforcement is an appropriate intermediate step. It makes sense because it allows a [3:06:41] court to step in, secure compliance with the committee subpoena in a nonpartisan, orderly way [3:06:47] that follows the rule of law. Court would be empowered to impose fines and actual imprisonment [3:06:53] if the individual or entity refuses to comply with us. If we break from precedent, this is going to [3:06:58] start potentially a chain reaction of partisan warfare with criminal charges. That is not a road, [3:07:04] I believe, we want to go down in this committee or in this Congress. I think civil contempt will [3:07:08] achieve our goals and it will do so in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. With that, [3:07:12] I yield back. [3:07:13] The gentleman yields back. I'll recognize myself for a few minutes. The committee has consulted with [3:07:22] the House Office of General Counsel as well as Committee Counsel, who have expressed significant [3:07:28] concern with shifting from criminal contempt to civil contempt because it would likely result in [3:07:34] extended litigation that would go beyond this term. As Mr. Perry said, a subpoena is only good [3:07:40] for a congressional term. He is already five months past his subpoena. The Clintons have lawyered up. [3:07:51] There's no question in my mind that if we do this, they will ride this out and hope that [3:07:59] that the House flips and that you all are in control and you all just let them get by without [3:08:05] answering any questions, which I think is terrible. So I cannot support this amendment. I ask my colleagues [3:08:11] to oppose this amendment. Chair recognizes the ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to support [3:08:15] the Min motion. I think I just want to reiterate something I think all oversight Dems have said today [3:08:20] is that we all want to hear from President Clinton. We all want questions answered from President [3:08:25] Clinton. I don't think one member of this committee has stated anything differently and this amendment is [3:08:32] a way for us to secure compliance without immediately moving to criminal contempt while they have been trying [3:08:40] to negotiate answering our questions. We can continue to let the legal process play out. Both the integrity [3:08:47] of our investigation as a whole is critical as we move forward. This is an opportunity for us [3:08:53] to get our questions answered from President Clinton. We will do that without empowering a Department [3:08:59] of Justice that quite frankly has been corrupt and untrustworthy for many, many months. We should [3:09:06] continue to negotiate and work through an established process. Clearly, there's interest to negotiate [3:09:12] from the Clinton side. Let's hear from President Clinton. Let's support this motion. I yield back. [3:09:17] If I may, and with all due respect, if you want to hear from President Clinton, have him come in [3:09:26] for the deposition. They've had five months to do that. For whatever reason, you've been unsuccessful. [3:09:32] There's two more weeks before this will be voted on for the full house. We will hear from Bondi [3:09:37] in between, and we will go from there. We expect to hear from Bill Clinton. He's not above the law. [3:09:45] Mr. Walker, Charles, recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of points. One, it seems to me like we [3:09:52] made some progress in the negotiation to talk to President Clinton here today. You have acknowledged [3:09:58] you and your team are no longer going to demand to be able to ask questions not related to Epstein. [3:10:05] The Clintons have agreed to transcription of that conversation. So you could go to New York and [3:10:13] talk to President Clinton on the date that you all said. That's ready to go. We've heard from [3:10:18] Ms. Luna that it would be a bad look for you and the ranking member to have to drive to New York. They [3:10:22] got airports there. You all could take a flight and go to New York and have the conversation. That would move [3:10:28] our investigation forward. I'm supporting Mr. Men's amendment and the nature of a substitute and [3:10:35] you know, I'll share. I was a staff member for a member of this committee for more than a decade [3:10:41] throughout the Obama administration, multiple chairman of the committee and time after time [3:10:47] after time, Republicans who chaired the committee, Democrats who chaired the committee, negotiated with [3:10:53] members of the administration or private individuals who they wanted to have come before the committee [3:10:58] negotiated the terms. Not once did I see this kind of leap to criminal contempt. It is it is not [3:11:08] consistent with the way that this committee has operated. It is not necessary. Mr. Men's amendment or [3:11:15] you and the ranking member going to New York and having the transcribed under oath conversation with [3:11:21] President Clinton would move our investigation forward. Either of those are better options than [3:11:27] pursuing criminal contempt, which would not get us a conversation with President Clinton, would not [3:11:33] move our investigation forward and would not get the survivors the transparency that they're demanding. [3:11:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, Mr. Walkershaw, to reply to that. One reason that your counter offers today [3:11:48] don't hold a lot of weight with me is the fact that we never demanded to their attorneys that we ask [3:11:58] questions outside the realm of the Epstein investigation. We never, that was never a thing. They have just made [3:12:03] that up. So their dishonesty, you know, we've already admitted one lie when they said this wasn't a lawful [3:12:10] subpoena. That was in the letter from Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton to me. They said this is not a lawful [3:12:14] subpoena. It is a lawful subpoena. Does anybody disagree with that? It is a lawful subpoena. Number two, [3:12:18] we've never asked to ask questions outside of this. And I'll give you an example. When we were [3:12:25] negotiating with Hunter Biden's attorneys or judiciary was negotiating, we agree when Hunter Biden came in [3:12:32] to talk about the Biden influence peddling and the money that they were receiving from foreign countries, [3:12:36] we wouldn't ask about the stuff on the laptop. We wouldn't ask about the stuff in the suspicious [3:12:41] activity reports about human trafficking and other things with Hunter Biden. We only asked about [3:12:47] the influence peddling, which was what the investigation was. And it's been the same with [3:12:52] with the Clintons. So if their attorneys are trying to spin out with the media that we wanted to talk [3:12:58] about Monica Lewinsky or anything else, that is not true. All we want to talk about is Epstein. That has [3:13:04] always been the deal. And for them to say otherwise is a complete 100% lie by the Clinton attorneys. [3:13:11] Well, I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Chairman. And I'm glad that the Clintons have agreed to have [3:13:17] the conversation transcribed. So it seems to me that the only remaining barrier of the barriers you [3:13:23] have identified is you don't want to go to New York. And from my view, this investigation is important [3:13:29] enough. I'm going to New York this weekend. That's not a barrier. Go to the moon. Let's have the [3:13:32] conversation. You can do it. Chair recognizes who's next. Ms. Danesbury. Thank you. Honestly, [3:13:43] I just want to get some clarification because I've heard so many different things here this morning. [3:13:48] So, Mr. Chairman, you just said you're willing to go to New York. In fact, you're going to New York [3:13:54] this weekend. Is that correct? The committee has released the emails. So we can see the [3:14:01] communication between the staff. I'm not trying to be difficult. I really just want to understand. [3:14:04] Are you willing to go to New York to conduct this interview and deposition? With the committee, [3:14:10] with the staff. It's not going to just be we have we have negotiated this for five months, [3:14:16] Ms. Danesbury. No, I'm just asking. And you're you're all are the question and there's no there's [3:14:21] they've had five months. Is the answer a yes? It sounds like it's a yes. My other question for you [3:14:29] is so it's my understanding that you guys have received both correspondence by phone email and [3:14:37] from a written letter from the attorneys from the Clintons offering to do this on the record [3:14:43] with you, with the staff, with the attorneys. Is that correct? I didn't. I wasn't paying attention [3:14:51] to your question. Okay. We're here pursuant to a motion you brought for contempt and the claim is that [3:15:00] you have made reasonable accommodations and that they have not been responsive. But they have transmitted [3:15:09] correspondence to all of the members of the committee including yourself and all of the [3:15:13] members basically including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone [3:15:21] that they have offered by email and they have offered in a written letter from both themselves [3:15:26] and the attorneys to meet with you on the record with the staff to give sworn statements. Is that correct? [3:15:32] We have negotiated for five months. You all are trying to create a false narrative. You've had [3:15:38] five months. You should have gotten to the Clintons before the contempt vote. All I'm asking you is [3:15:44] if that's true. And if they weren't losing public opinion, Ms. Stansberry, they would be defined this [3:15:49] now. That's the only reason there's negotiations at the last minute. Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking if those are the facts. [3:15:54] They don't get to make the rules. We make the rules. The chairman of the committee, we make the rules. [3:15:58] But Mr. Chairman, is that the fact? That's all I'm asking. Is that factual? Just to be clear for the [3:16:10] public, his staff are advising the chairman to not answer that question. Okay. No, the staff said they [3:16:16] didn't understand what the hell you were saying because you've blabbered for three minutes. But [3:16:20] that's what, but go ahead. Okay, Mr. Chairman, let me say it again. Is it true that the Clintons and their [3:16:29] attorneys have had multiple conversations with you via phone, via email, and via written correspondence [3:16:37] offering to give sworn statements on the record to you and the staff? Just a yes or no. The Clintons said [3:16:44] that we could take notes, Mr. Garcia and I. The committee would like to ask questions as well. Are you not in [3:16:51] receipt of a letter postmarked from their attorneys yesterday saying that they would give sworn statements [3:16:57] under oath? That's not a record. You're not in possession of the letter that their attorneys [3:17:09] sent yesterday to the entire committee. What their letter is stating isn't what you're stating. Okay. [3:17:15] Well, I'm not going to read the letter. We'll make sure it's available to the public. Although I'm sure [3:17:20] they'll make sure anything's available to the public. The problem is they've not been truthful and- [3:17:24] But Mr. Chairman, the standard, the legal standard for contempt is non-cooperation. And so my question [3:17:31] to you is, are you making reasonable accommodations? Are you cooperating? Are you in correspondence with [3:17:38] them? And this is in direct relation to the motion that was made now for an amendment that essentially [3:17:46] would use our civil compliance code in order to get full compliance from the committee. And you're [3:17:51] saying you're opposed to it because they haven't complied. But I have not heard you lay out the case [3:17:56] for compliance. So why would you oppose civil compliance? Ms. Stansberry, we've been negotiating [3:18:02] for five months. In the meantime, every other person has complied with the subpoena that we've dealt with. [3:18:08] That's not the legal standard for the court, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Well, I see we have a lot of armchair [3:18:19] lawyers here. I am not one. But Mr. Min, I do support your amendment. And I think that while the [3:18:28] chairman refused to answer questions on the record, I think we established that there has been ongoing [3:18:33] correspondence and that it does not meet the standard. Ms. Simons, recognize. I would like to yield my [3:18:46] time to the ranking member. Thank you. I just want to clarify two things. The first is in the comments. [3:18:52] I know, Mr. Chairman, you had just discussed about not going beyond the scope of the Epstein [3:18:57] investigation with questions. To be clear, though, during the Bill Barr deposition, [3:19:04] you did go beyond the scope of the Epstein questions. You asked questions about Russia [3:19:07] and a bunch of other things. And so that testimony was public. That has been a pattern that has been in [3:19:13] the public realm. And so the reason the Clintons have pushed back on that is because you actually [3:19:19] have gone beyond the scope of the Epstein investigation in depositions on this investigation [3:19:24] with folks you have subpoenaed. I just want to be clear about that. Because you just mentioned that [3:19:28] right now in your comments. The second thing I want to say, just to Ms. Sandsbury's point to [3:19:35] reiterate, is regardless of when it was done, it's false to say that the Clintons haven't agreed [3:19:44] to a transcript of the deposition. They have agreed to a transcript. They've done it in, [3:19:51] and they've reiterated that position in an email that they sent today. It's a position they've made [3:19:56] before today to position, sir. I mean, obviously to position that they've made before to your team. [3:20:03] It's a position that they have made a few days ago. They've publicly said it in the press. In fact, [3:20:09] it was covered, I think today or yesterday in an article in the New York Times. [3:20:13] And they again reiterated it during this testimony when you said that that's not that they've not [3:20:20] agreed. They've clarified the position. They're willing for it to be transcribed. I just want to clarify [3:20:23] that. Chair recognizes who's next. I still have time. Okay. If that's okay, [3:20:31] Chair, I would like to use the remainder of my time and yield it to Representative Min. [3:20:38] Thank you, Rep. Simon. I just want to add a couple points here. First, I just want to note something that [3:20:44] I think has been a little bit conflated today. This vote today on the contempt proceeding is not [3:20:50] about whether Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved with the Epstein sex trafficking ring. [3:20:55] If either or both of them were involved, they deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of [3:20:59] the law. The survivors deserve justice. But the vote that we are about to take later today is about [3:21:05] whether the Clinton's actions in negotiating through their lawyers on the particulars of how, [3:21:10] when and where they might appear before this committee, whether that constitutes a willful [3:21:14] defiance. And that is the legal standard, a willful default of the subpoena issued to them. [3:21:20] And again, I want to point out that Chair Colmer has repeatedly talked about negotiating for five [3:21:24] months, delaying and trying to run out the clock. I do not believe that that is willful [3:21:29] defiance of the subpoena. That's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of every serious lawyer in this [3:21:34] space that I've talked to that actually knows this area of the law. I think we are going far afield [3:21:39] here and going straight to criminal contempt. I would also just point out and rebut what the [3:21:43] Chair said about criminal contempt leading to the Clintons testifying here. If we issue criminal [3:21:48] contempt proceedings, I don't know if you followed how courts work. A civil enforcement of a subpoena [3:21:54] can take place very quickly. Criminal trials will take a very long time, months if not years. That will [3:21:59] definitely run out the clock. We will never hear from the Clintons before this committee. And so I would urge you [3:22:04] all to consider this amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute because it will actually [3:22:08] allow us to hear from the Clintons, maybe get the answers we want from them. And particularly since [3:22:13] Chair Colmer, you've repeatedly said there is no basis in your mind. The committee is not accusing them [3:22:18] of any wrongdoing. We're just simply seeking answers. If we want answers, if we want more information [3:22:22] to get to the bottom of what happened with Epstein and this horrific child sex trafficking ring, we should [3:22:28] be looking to civil contempt, civil enforcement, because that will actually get them before us, not criminal. [3:22:33] With that, I yield back to Chair Ref. Simon. I would like to yield my time to Ms. Stansberry. Ms. [3:22:41] Stansberry says no. I would like to yield my time to the ranking member. I think we've made our case. [3:22:47] I think that we support the amendment. It's the right way to go. And civil contempt is the right [3:22:52] next action if we're going to go in this route. Thank you. I'd like to yield my time back to the [3:22:55] Chair. Thank you. Chair yields back. We've called votes, but Mr. Biggs wants to be recognized, [3:23:00] and I think we're going to vote on the man amendment. Yeah, I'll be pretty quick. So when you take [3:23:04] into the correct legal standard, and you talk about willful and defiance, so you have a culpable [3:23:10] middle state, and you have the act. The act took place here when they didn't show up. That's the [3:23:17] defiance. They didn't show up. Now the question is, was it willful? Well, the other piece of evidence [3:23:23] you have that it was willful is they sent a little note saying, this is all we're going to say. This is, [3:23:30] this is what happened here. And that's the evidence. They, it was willful. They knew that, [3:23:35] they knew about the subpoena because they negotiated with you. You even moved the time [3:23:40] for them. They chose not to come when you reissued the date. You gave them the date that would, [3:23:47] that ostensibly is going to be more convenient. They continued to say they were going to come. [3:23:52] And then at the last minute, they slipped a note in saying, this is what I'm going to, [3:23:57] this is what I'm going to say. I'm not saying anything more. That's the culpable middle state. [3:24:02] You've got willful defiance. Thus, contempt is appropriate. And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. [3:24:10] Very good. Very good. The question is now on the men amendment. All those in favor signify by saying, [3:24:18] aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. A recorded [3:24:24] vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be [3:24:27] postponed. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess, [3:24:34] subject to the call of the chair. We will plan to convene immediately after the first vote series. [3:24:40] With that, the committee will stand to recess.