Senate Hearing Erupts as Explosive New Epstein Files Revealed, Lawmakers Drop Bombshell

[0:00] penalty of perjury. The declaration that Clinton's also made and sent to you to answer some of those [0:04] questions were also under penalty of perjury. I just want to clarify that. And then with the [0:08] remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to note that you've talked a lot about [0:12] the importance of our subpoenas and that we should all support this committee subpoenas. [0:16] And I agree with you, sir. And I want to hear from the Clintons. It's also important to note [0:20] that we have members of this committee, Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Andy Biggs, [0:25] Congressman Scott Perry, who are obviously very outspoken, which we like to engage with. [0:29] Now, they're not here and that's OK. Now, you also know, sir, that all three of them defied [0:35] legally binding subpoenas issued by the January 6th committee relating to their efforts to overturn [0:41] the 2020 election. So we should be clear that the majority chooses to be very selective on which [0:48] subpoenas they want to enforce or talk about. We have members of the majority that themselves [0:53] have defied subpoenas. So once again, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, let's ask President Clinton [1:01] the questions that we have. Let's have him come in and testify in a way that we can negotiate. [1:07] And let's get all the release of the files done immediately. Thank you. [1:11] Would you yield? Could I respond to that? [1:13] Sure. I have no more time, but I'm happy to respond. [1:15] So with you say we didn't enforce the subpoenas, we did enforce. [1:22] They complied and testified under the penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge. Now, [1:28] the Clinton declarations were short bullet points, almost like talking points. [1:33] And the evidence is clear that the Clintons did have relationship with them. Now, again, [1:38] I've said publicly millions of times, no one's accusing the Clintons of wrongdoing. But the fact [1:45] that they were that close and the fact that I've never seen a sit down interview with Bill Clinton [1:51] where he's answered questions about his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell like [1:56] the current president has. So we have complied and enforced all of our subpoenas. [2:04] 100% of our subpoenas. So I just want to make that very clear. [2:10] Can I respond to you, sir? [2:11] Sure. Just to be clear, you're talking about two declarations. The declaration that you chose to [2:16] use as something that you moved on to not bring him in was one sixth the size of the Clinton [2:23] declaration. I'm looking at the Alberto Gonzalez response to you, sir, that you chose to dismiss. [2:28] And it is one sentence long, one sentence long. You just pointed out the Clinton declaration, [2:33] which is six times. [2:35] And so I just think you are using interesting points to make comparisons. Let's just be clear [2:40] and get back to the facts. Let's bring President Clinton in to have a conversation with this [2:45] committee. You are instead choosing to try to prosecute President Clinton and send him to jail, [2:52] which is part of criminal prosecution, before having him answer questions to this committee. [2:57] He has been, him and his team have been trying to negotiate. We want to hear from President [3:01] Clinton. I'm not sure that you do, sir. You don't think I want to hear from President Clinton? [3:06] Can I, can I, Chairman? [3:09] So before I recognize Ms. Luna, who will be next, I believe, are you willing to accept those bullet [3:19] points as testimony or do you want to hear from Clinton? I want to hear from President Clinton. [3:24] Then I don't know what the, what the point is of talking about their, their bullet points. I mean, [3:29] we all know they had a relationship. Well, sir, I'm just responding to the fact that you mentioned [3:34] that you're dismissing other legal subpoenas with one sentence answers. And yet, and you're the one [3:41] that pointed out the Clinton's declaration, which is also under penalty of perjury. [3:45] Do you think that Eric Holder or Lynch or Jeff Sessions or Merrick Garland had more? [3:52] I would love to have former Attorney General Merrick Garland in front of this committee [3:58] to answer questions as to why more of the files weren't released. I've actually said that publicly. [4:03] And so, sir, we, I think, I think what it comes down to is we all want to get to the truth. [4:09] We all want justice for the survivors. And I think more information is better. [4:13] And so I think our position is that we want, we would love, it is clear to me that President [4:20] Clinton is negotiating to come in front of this committee. And it may not be exactly what, [4:25] what you and the lawyer and your team want to see as far as that negotiation, or you're not [4:30] satisfied with the progress, but they continue to negotiate. They have not rolled out a transcript. [4:35] Let's get them in front of this committee. Thank you, sir. [4:38] Sure. I recognize this. Mr. Gill, then Ms. Lennon. Mr. Gill has a very good, or no, no. Who's next? [4:45] Luna. Go ahead, Ms. Luna. Thank you, Chairman. I'd just like to remind the American people that [4:50] I was the member that made the motion to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress and [4:54] every Democrat voted against it. And in addition to that, three of my Republican colleagues voted [4:58] against it, one of which did not come back because his voters decided that he was too swampy for them. [5:03] So I'd just like to point that out. But aside from that. Ms. Luna, it's been pointed out to me, [5:07] you've already had five minutes. Somebody will probably yield you some time. So I've got to. [5:10] If I could just finish real quick. If we're looking to see why the files have not been released yet, [5:15] no further than the judge. Okay. I'm sorry, Ms. Luna. I'm sorry. If someone can yield you some [5:21] time. I'm just saying I'm making a point. All right. So we haven't recognized the Republican [5:27] on this. Ms. Mace, do you want to be recognized? That would be great, Mr. Chairman. I have a number [5:32] of documents I would like to enter into the record this morning with unanimous consent. [5:37] First of all, I want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop playing [5:40] politics with justice. Not a single one of you have voted for your own party to be [5:45] held in contempt. I'm the only member of this body, of this committee that has held both [5:49] Republicans and Democrats alike in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena. So the hypocrisy [5:56] is real. And I don't want to hear anyone on the other side of the aisle say no one is above the [6:01] law here on this. We're talking about human trafficking, sex trafficking. We're talking [6:06] about children, girls as young as 14 being assaulted, being trafficked by wealthy and [6:12] powerful people. This is not political. This is personal. This should be nonpartisan. We should [6:18] be working on this together. And it's incredible that we're politicizing rape or politicizing sex [6:24] trafficking or politicizing this entire Epstein thing. And it just as a survivor, I'm telling you [6:30] it should not be. And I've done a lot of work, Mr. Chairman, in advocacy and writing legislation for [6:36] victims of abuse, male, female and children, man, woman and child. South Carolina, my home [6:42] state, Mr. Chairman, has a huge problem with not with all sorts of violent crimes. But sex [6:48] trafficking in my state is up by over 400 percent. We have domestic violence in our state where you [6:54] can't get a trial. And there was a case last year where a woman two years ago was kidnapped by her [7:00] boyfriend, beaten to a pulp, her face just beaten in. Two years after he kidnapped her and beat her, [7:07] he murdered her on Mother's Day because our local solicitor refused to prosecute [7:13] that. [7:14] Case and I have rogue solicitors and prosecutors and attorney attorneys general who aren't doing [7:20] anything to protect the people of South Carolina, women and children especially. [7:26] Recently, my attorney general prosecuted a case against convicted pedophile Donald Gresh. [7:31] Donald Gresh was convicted of having one thousand nine hundred images of toddlers as young as three [7:38] being raped by animals. Donald Gresh, under the prosecution of my attorney general, Alan Wilson, [7:44] served 1 day in jail. One day. Donald Gresh isn't the only pedophile convicted pedophile that we [7:55] prosecute like that. My attorney general, Alan Wilson, prosecuted this case. This is Travis [8:01] Read Gay. The other thing, too, is that Donald Gresh, he was facing 60 years in jail got one day. [8:08] Travis, read gay, was facing seventy years, seven charges and seventy years in jail in South [8:13] Carolina. My attorney general prosecuted this case. He pleaded guilty but he didn't rationalize the reason. [8:16] Many of his lawyers andbridge lawyers and other lawyers press charges against Donald Gresh. And he [8:17] He pled guilty in November, didn't serve any time. [8:20] He got probation. [8:23] He violated his probation 11 days later. [8:26] And if he violated his probation, he was to serve time in jail. [8:30] The magistrate or judge probably didn't have a law degree, let him out hours later. [8:36] He has not served any required time for this kind of thing. [8:42] And I did a press conference with a bunch of moms, over a dozen moms last week in Charleston, [8:46] South Carolina, and there was a local media blackout. [8:51] I asked, was it my attorney general who prosecuted this case and led this pedophile out on the [8:55] streets? [8:56] Was he the one that led the media blackout? [8:59] Well, I want my attorney general and my state to know that a young child came forward after [9:04] seeing my press conference and recognized this man. [9:07] She filed a police report the same day because he allegedly followed her in a park the week [9:12] before. [9:13] This is Scott Spivey, killed, shot with a bullet in the back, shot at 17 times. [9:19] Not prosecuted by my attorney general. [9:24] So I'm going to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter those three images into [9:27] the record. [9:29] This is Weldon Boyd. [9:31] This is Scott Spivey's killer who shot him in the back and has never really been investigated [9:36] or prosecuted for that killing in South Carolina. [9:40] I would like to enter that into the record, Mr. Chairman. [9:42] Without objection to order. [9:43] This is Logan Federico. [9:44] She was executed a year ago, yesterday to the day, by a man named Alexander. [9:51] Alexander Dickey. [9:52] Alexander Dickey was a convicted criminal. [9:55] He had 39 arrests, 25 felony charges. [9:58] He executed this beautiful 22-year-old daughter of Stephen Federico in cold blood after stealing [10:05] a gun. [10:08] If her killer, Alexander Dickey, hadn't been let out by a rogue magistrate or judge or [10:12] a prosecutor solicitor that didn't care, she would be alive today. [10:18] Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter her image and her killer's image into the record. [10:21] Without objection to order. [10:23] I have another image. [10:24] This is Eric Bowman. [10:25] Eric Bowman beat his wife and has been alleged and is being investigated for other abuses [10:32] against women and potentially underage girls. [10:34] He was just let out free, Mr. Chairman, out of jail in South Carolina. [10:40] He is a predator. [10:41] I have reported him to law enforcement. [10:43] He's under investigation, but I have written bill after bill about predators like Eric [10:47] Bowman, about voyeurism, about these sort of criminal sexual allegations. [10:53] I would like to enter his image into the record. [10:54] Without objection to order. [10:55] I have two more. [10:56] Can we get it? [10:57] Your time's expired, but I'll recognize you for a UC later on, because I want to make [11:03] sure everybody stays within their five minutes. [11:05] Chair, recognize Mr. Bell from Missouri. [11:08] You know, first and foremost, I think we're doing a disservice to the victims in this [11:15] case when we refer to it as the Epstein files. [11:18] It's sex trafficking evidence, and let's call it what it is. [11:22] Um, and as a prosecutor. [11:27] We prosecuted these kind of cases when I was DA back home in St. [11:32] Louis County, and I met with every single victim and victim's family because I wanted [11:37] them to know that I was here for them, and I thought it was important that we look them [11:44] in the eye and let them know that we're going to do everything we can to bring them justice [11:47] and treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve, and this is no different. [11:53] Um, that said, I think in D.C., what I've learned in my 11 months here is that, you know, [12:00] that this D.C. [12:01] disease that, um, of staying in this partisan bubble, um, is, is something that you have [12:10] to continue to, um, to be aware of so that you don't, um, fall into these same hypocritical [12:19] traps. [12:20] And I talked to Jamie Raskin because I just wanted to get some, some perspective on the [12:26] law. [12:27] And when we talk about, um, the legal analysis. [12:32] First and foremost, you can't read a statute. [12:35] You learned this in constitutional law first day. [12:38] You can't read a statute and understand the law. [12:40] You have to understand how it's interpreted by the courts. [12:43] And the courts have been clear that if there is, if there is negotiations, that does not [12:51] meet the threshold for criminal contempt. [12:54] And there's the, the, the examples are clear on that. [12:57] When Steve Bannon was held in contempt, he did not negotiate. [13:02] He. [13:03] He did not reply. [13:04] He did nothing. [13:05] Meadows, when he started to reply, then Trump told him not to, and then he, he ceased with [13:12] his communications with this body. [13:16] And so the, so in this case, I agree 100% with our ranking member. [13:23] I want to hear from the Clintons. [13:25] I think the victims deserve, we want to hear all the evidence, but what I know as a prosecutor [13:30] is that we don't start doing depositions before we listen to the evidence. [13:35] Now, if there's not evidence, okay, then there's other things to consider, but the evidence [13:41] is here. [13:43] There is evidence that has been, that has been duly voted on to be presented to the [13:51] American people by in a bipartisan manner. [13:56] And we, and of, of, of this, of this evidence, we've received 1%, 1%. [14:01] I mean, put this in perspective, there's 0%. [14:08] And then the only thing you can do next is go to one. [14:11] That's it. [14:11] We've got nothing. [14:13] And now we're doing, and now we're going to bring the, the Clintons in before we even [14:18] have the evidence that makes that, that makes zero sense, which is close to the one that [14:24] I talked about. [14:26] And so there's a legal analysis here. [14:29] There's about what are we doing to ensure that we are doing a, a real investigation [14:35] to get these victims, the, the, the justice that they deserve. [14:39] And so Jelaine max, Jelaine, whatever her name is. [14:42] She needs to be brought in. [14:43] She needs to be brought into this body and, and I'm hearing that, oh, well, she's going [14:48] to plead the fifth. [14:49] First of all, then letter. [14:50] But secondly, legally on most of these questions, she can't plead the fifth on grounds that [14:56] she's going to be incriminated. [14:58] She's already a criminal. [15:00] So what? [15:01] So, so let's bring her in. [15:03] Let's do those things. [15:04] Let's bring in every single person. [15:07] I don't care what they are, Democrat, Republican, and I've said this publicly and my mother [15:11] got on me about this. [15:12] I don't care if my mother is in the, is an Epstein five. [15:14] I don't care. [15:15] I don't care. [15:16] I don't care. [15:17] I don't care about the Epstein files. [15:18] We need to see 100% of the Epstein files to ensure that we are doing doing right by these [15:24] victims. [15:25] The illegal analysis does not support criminal contempt. [15:30] A real investigation, a fair bi-partisan investigation would, would lead us to the conclusion that [15:39] we want to hear from the Clintons that we want to hear from everyone. [15:43] But right now we don't even know who else is in the Epstein evidence. [15:48] because Pam Bondi has not turned over that evidence. [15:54] And that's the massive violation that we're seeing, [15:58] that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle [16:02] don't seem to have any urgency about, [16:05] the massive violation of the law. [16:08] And Pam Bondi needs to be here to answer those questions. [16:11] But that is like, oh, well, we'll put it off. [16:13] We'll get there. [16:14] We're working with them. [16:17] I'll yield the remainder. [16:18] I'm sorry, ranking member. [16:19] Before I recognize Mr. Gill, I want to point out, [16:24] February 11th, Pam Bondi will be in front of the House Judiciary Committee. [16:29] February 9th. [16:30] I'm sorry, February 9th. [16:31] February 9th. [16:35] Ms. Maxwell. [16:38] Yeah, February 9th, we're deposing Ms. Maxwell. [16:42] February 11th, Pam Bondi will be in front of this committee. [16:44] So there's a lot of wheels moving right now. [16:47] Chair, recognize Mr. Gill from Texas. [16:49] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [16:50] I just think it's worth pointing out that the obvious reality here [16:55] is that the Clintons are doing everything they possibly can [16:58] to not come testify before the committee [17:02] or have any real transcript or information about his engagement [17:08] and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over a long period of time. [17:12] I mean, we've been working for five months to nail down a date for a deposition, [17:18] working in good faith in the entire time the Clintons have been evading this committee. [17:24] At one point, even deciding. [17:26] They were going to propose Christmas Day, Christ's birthday, as a date for a deposition. [17:33] I mean, that's not good faith. [17:36] At one point, they proposed that instead of doing a deposition, [17:40] they're going to have Chairman Comer and a staffer and a note taker go up to New York City [17:47] where they could ask Mr. Clinton questions and create two different sets of records [17:55] about what Clinton said. [17:58] That's obvious. [17:59] Obviously quite different than having an official court reporter [18:04] precisely write down the words from the former president. [18:09] Competing staff notes are simply not going to cut it. [18:13] So we've spent five months working on this. [18:15] It's about time that they comply with a lawful subpoena like many other people have. [18:21] And there's some suggestion that we're selectively choosing who to enforce these subpoenas against. [18:28] I mean, as you pointed out multiple times, [18:32] Jeffrey Epstein, [18:33] visited the White House 17 times. [18:35] He flew at least 26 times on Epstein's private plane. [18:42] There's a clear, longstanding, obvious connection between the Clintons and the Epsteins. [18:47] And I think we need answers for that. [18:49] And I hope that we get that. [18:51] I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in that. [18:55] And with that said, I'm happy to yield two minutes to my colleague, Ms. Anna Paulina Luna. [19:00] Thank you. [19:01] I'd like to just say that I do agree with you. [19:03] I agree with some of the sentiment of both my colleagues, to include Mr. Bell, [19:09] who actually just spoke to wanting justice for the victims. [19:12] But it's important to note that the reason why the files have been delayed in release is because of Judge Paul Engelmeyer in New York. [19:20] This judge specifically ordered the SDNY to do a second review and for those documents to then be certified by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. [19:31] So if you want to get mad at someone, look no further. [19:34] Then Judge Paul Engelmeyer, who then also, at the same time, just denied Massey and wrote on his motion to appoint a special master. [19:42] So we can argue back and forth all day long about where the files. [19:45] I want to see the files, too. [19:46] I want everyone to come in and answer questions. [19:48] But look no further than this person. [19:50] By the way, this person is not a Democrat or Republican. [19:52] I think this person actually might be an independent. [19:54] But if you're wondering where the files are at, that is the truth of the matter. [19:58] That's it. [19:58] As soon as those files come out at the DOJ, we're going to get them. [20:00] And by the way, I will remind people that weren't here earlier. [20:03] Todd Blaine. [20:04] We'll get on a phone call with people here. [20:06] And after this, I'm going to go walk over Todd Blaine's cell phone number to Chairman Garcia and to Chairman Comer. [20:12] So they can both get on a call. [20:14] I think it's important to open dialogue. [20:15] OK, but the point is, is that we have to know the facts. [20:18] And those are the facts. [20:18] So look no further than Judge Paul Engelmeyer. [20:21] Again, he's the one person that appointed the review, a second review. [20:26] And then once those documents are then reviewed, then it goes to the DOJ. [20:29] But you can't fast track the process. [20:31] Can I ask a question? [20:32] Yes. [20:34] OK. [20:34] Are you are you suggesting that 99 that the reason for not receiving 99 percent of these files is this judge, not 20 percent of the files, 30 percent, half of them, 99 percent of the files, some of which are already public? [20:49] From what I've been from what I've been told, and this is why I would encourage you guys to talk directly to the DOJ on this, is that there was a second review ordered. [20:57] I don't know who all is in charge over in New York specifically doing that second review. [21:02] But I do know that at least with the DOJ. [21:04] They are officially done reviewing all the documents that they had had left. [21:08] Right. [21:08] They had 500 attorneys actually said this earlier, that NSC, Southern District of Florida, SDNY and the FBI. [21:15] There's 500 lawyers working on this review, all the documentation. [21:17] They are officially done with that. [21:18] Now, I don't know what the second review process is because I'm not internally at the DOJ. [21:21] But what I will tell you is when you have this judge then also turning around and denying Ro Khanna and Massey's motion to appoint a special master, which I think Mr. Khanna can probably speak on. [21:30] I think that that's shady. [21:32] And I think that it's really terrible that we're sitting. [21:34] Here arguing at, you know, each other pointing fingers when it's this one guy who no one seems to be mentioning that's actually stonewalling it. [21:41] So I'm here for it. [21:42] I want all the documents. [21:43] And I do think that we're going to get those documents. [21:44] So I think it's going to be rushed. [21:45] Absolutely not. [21:46] I don't want to rush the process. [21:47] But I will also encourage you guys, just as I did this morning, I got a victim's specific information. [21:52] The DOJ has said that they will release whatever files they have pertaining to her to her directly. [21:57] And she had not up until recently been able to, I think, up until today, get that because, frankly, a lot of these victims portals go to just. [22:04] I think empty inboxes. [22:05] But the point is, is that it's important for context. [22:08] So that's a question for the chair. [22:10] Well, you're right. [22:12] Before before I begin, I have a question for the chair. [22:14] I just want to clarify when you said Pam Bondi is coming on February 11th. [22:17] Is she coming to this committee? [22:18] She's coming to the Judiciary Committee. [22:20] Is she coming to this committee at all? [22:22] Well, we'll see how the judiciary. [22:23] Is she scheduled to come to this committee? [22:25] I said she's not scheduled to come to the committee. [22:27] She's coming in front of the Judiciary Committee. [22:29] OK. [22:30] Chairman, you're recognized. [22:31] I'd like to yield 30 seconds to Ranking Member Garcia. [22:34] Thank you. [22:34] Just really. [22:35] I appreciate Representative Luna's interest. [22:37] I know in the survivors. [22:38] I do appreciate that. [22:39] I just want to be very clear and clarify. [22:41] Judge Inglemeyer has nothing to do. [22:43] His rulings have nothing to do with the legal subpoena passed by the Oversight Committee [22:47] last July. [22:49] Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and the DOJ have been in defiance of a legal subpoena of this [22:54] committee that has nothing to do with the Kana Massey law that keeps getting referred [22:59] to. [22:59] And so when you're saying that Judge Inglemeyer is the reason, that is actually not the [23:04] case as it relates to the subpoena. [23:06] And so they're still violating the law and have been since July, to be clear. [23:10] Thank you, Mr. [23:10] Min. [23:11] Thank you. [23:11] And I just want to begin by echoing the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle [23:15] as someone who spent my career as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, as a law professor. [23:20] The rule of law is important. [23:22] No one should be above the law, including presidents and former presidents. [23:26] And congressional subpoenas are an important part of that rule of law. [23:29] And I think that Clinton should be here. [23:30] I think it's very shameful that they're not. [23:32] But I also have to admit, I'm very troubled. [23:35] I'm very troubled by this criminal contempt motion. [23:37] As a lawyer, I know that I don't know this area of law, criminal contempt. [23:41] So what I did is what any decent lawyer does. [23:43] I asked people who do know this area. [23:45] I called a number of colleagues, former colleagues, people who are former DOJ attorneys, experts [23:50] in this area. [23:51] And it's hard to get 10 lawyers to agree on anything. [23:52] But they all agreed that this was unprecedented, that under a normal administration, a normal [23:58] DOJ that's not politicized, they would never bring criminal contempt charges in these circumstances. [24:02] And I say non-politicized DOJ. [24:05] Because many of us are very concerned that this Department of Justice has become weaponized [24:10] under this administration, under Pam Bondi. [24:12] We have seen them go after Trump's political enemies, including people like Adam Schiff [24:17] and Lateef James with bankrupt charges. [24:20] We've seen them refuse to investigate an ICE agent who clearly shot and killed a woman [24:23] at Point Blank. [24:24] We've seen them fire line attorneys who refuse to go along with indictments that they describe [24:28] as political and illegal. [24:31] Now the closest comparison to this particular criminal contempt case is Steve Bannon. [24:35] And there's a well-established precedent here. [24:37] Steve Bannon refused to answer, saying he would only answer questions from this committee [24:42] if Trump told him to do so. [24:44] That wasn't like delaying or obfuscating. [24:47] That is willful defiance. [24:48] And that's what the courts found. [24:49] And that's why he went to jail. [24:52] And again, while I think that the Clinton should be here, what we're proposing here [24:54] is a very serious matter, bringing criminal charges against a former president of the [24:57] United States. [24:59] And I listened to you very carefully, Chair Comer, for the last hour. [25:02] And I heard you describe them as delaying, as dragging their feet. [25:04] And I heard you describe them as delaying, as dragging their feet. [25:05] Negotiating for five months. [25:07] But I never once heard you say they just outright refused to comply with the subpoena. [25:12] And dragging your feet is not the same as noncompliance. [25:14] It's not the same as contempt. [25:16] And so if we think they're dragging their feet or obfuscating, there are lesser things [25:20] we can do, including civil contempt. [25:22] And I have to ask, like, why are we not thinking about alternative measures rather than bringing [25:26] criminal contempt against a former president? [25:29] And I also want to point out that on November 14th, and I want to ask unanimous consent [25:33] to enter this into the record. [25:35] Donald Trump wrote a truth story. [25:36] He wrote in his social post in which he demanded that folks, the Republicans go after Bill [25:40] Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers in relation to Epstein. [25:44] That later that day, Pam Bondi announced that they would be bringing investigations. [25:48] And now that we saw later that this committee brought subpoenas against the Clintons. [25:54] This seems very political. [25:55] And the people I talk to in my district view this entire matter as politicized. [25:59] They view this as why Bill Clinton. [26:01] And look, if Bill Clinton is guilty, let's put him in jail. [26:04] But what I have a problem with right now is that we seem to be dealing with the same thing. [26:05] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:06] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:06] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:06] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:06] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:06] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:06] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:06] We're dealing with the same thing. [26:07] We're doing something that is unprecedented for Bill Clinton. [26:09] We're bringing criminal charges against him potentially that we would not do for any other [26:14] individual in these same circumstances. [26:16] And that, again, is not my opinion. [26:17] It's the opinion of everybody I talk to that says it's not a close matter. [26:20] And so I have deep concerns that this looks like a political witch hunt against Trump's critics, [26:25] that it will be referred to the Department of Justice, that we have seen as politicized. [26:30] Many have had deep concerns that they are breaking the law on a daily basis. [26:34] So I have trouble with this. [26:36] I don't know yet how I'm going to vote. [26:36] I don't know yet how I'm going to vote. [26:36] I don't know yet how I'm going to vote. [26:36] I don't know yet how I'm going to vote. [26:36] I don't know yet how I'm going to vote. [26:37] But I'd love to hear from you, Mr. Comer, why we did not pursue alternative measures, [26:42] particularly when the Clintons, by all accounts, were actively negotiating. [26:45] And whether you thought that their offers were not sufficient, [26:49] they don't strike me as noncompliance or defiance of this subpoena. [26:52] Mr. Min, Mr. Min, will you think for five months? [26:56] I mean, you just want to keep negotiating for 12, 11 more months and helpful noncompliance, [27:02] is my question to you. [27:02] I mean, why not? [27:03] Why not civil contempt? [27:04] Nobody's buying what you're selling. [27:06] We've been negotiating for. [27:07] For five months. [27:09] Why not civil contempt or some alternative? [27:11] Can I make a suggestion, actually? [27:13] I don't yield my time to you. [27:14] I yield it to Mr. Chairman. [27:15] I've already answered the question. [27:16] I yield back then. [27:17] All right, Chair. [27:17] Chair, not recognized. [27:18] Mr. Higgins. [27:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [27:22] Request unanimous consent to enter into the record the minutes of a hearing conducted [27:30] by the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee on July 23rd of 2025, [27:35] over which I presided as chair. [27:38] That was the. [27:40] That was the subcommittee to clarify for America where the original subpoena driven by the Democrats [27:48] and Ms. Lee, the original motion to subpoena the so-called Epstein files was introduced. [27:58] Unanimous consent to present. [28:01] Without objection to order. [28:03] So within that is minutes, here's the original, the original motion from the Democrats. [28:16] Move that the subcommittee issue a subpoena. [28:19] Listen carefully, you alleged journalists and you, the beloved American citizenry that's paying attention to this. [28:30] Move that the subcommittee issue a subpoena to the Department of Justice for [28:35] the full complete unredacted Epstein files to be delivered concurrently to the majority and [28:43] minority of the subcommittee on federal law enforcement. [28:48] Of the committee. [28:48] Of oversight and government reform. [28:52] That's it. [28:54] That was, that was the motion presented by the Democrats. [29:01] That motion immediately struck me as very poorly written because it had no recognition of, [29:15] of recognizing and adhering to the existing long standing criminal justice procedure, [29:24] designed to protect the innocent. [29:28] It had no timeline. [29:32] There was no timeline mandated in their own motion that would, that would force the DOJ to comply with said timeline. [29:46] There was no, there was no mandate for a particular percentage of release. [29:55] There was no prohibition for actions in performance of compliance. [30:03] With their motion, which would become a subpoena from the oversight committee. [30:10] It was just, there was no, it was not even the, the identification of, of Epstein. [30:15] Just said Epstein files. [30:17] Epstein who? [30:18] You think the DOJ has not prosecuted more than one Epstein in the history of the DOJ? [30:25] It was, it was very poorly written. [30:29] So Republicans noting that there were a lot of people missing from this, if we were going to do this, allow it to move. [30:38] There were a lot of people missing. [30:40] So Mr. Perry introduced, I remind my colleagues that this is my time. [30:47] You recognize the decorum of this oversight committee. [30:53] Perhaps you'll be recognized to speak. [30:57] Mr. Perry introduced a motion to amend the motion to subpoena by the amendments to include William Jefferson Clinton. [31:08] Imagine that, used the whole name. [31:11] And Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, amongst others. [31:14] But have everybody on? [31:16] Scott Perry's list. [31:19] The most defiant has been the Clintons and the oversight committee has been very patient. [31:26] I submit for the record, unanimous consent, I ask Mr. Chairman, the actual subpoena produced on August the 5th at a, at a hearing on July the 23rd, the subpoena was produced on August the 5th. [31:44] Without objections ordered. [31:45] Everyone has essentially complied to the wishes of the president. [31:50] To the wishes of, of the committee. [31:51] Who's in control? [31:53] We are. [31:53] We're the majority. [31:54] We determined. [31:56] The most defiant has been the Clintons. [31:58] That's why we're here today. [32:01] Back in July, after Scott Perry introduced an amendment to the Democrats motion, expanding the list to include the Clintons and others, including Republicans, Ms. Mace introduced an amendment to the motion to subpoena. [32:21] Saying I moved to amend Ms. Lee's motion to include... [32:24] The redacting of names of victims and any personally identifiable information of said victims and any possible child sexual abuse materials. [32:34] And the subpoena itself, and I'm closing, Mr. Chair, the subpoena itself stated that the DOJ is to provide all the material requested and recognizing redactions required by law. [32:52] So you're talking about a million documents. It takes time to redact a million documents. [33:00] But the DOJ is performing and is delivering in the Clintons' hall. [33:05] Time, time, time. I'll give Walkinshaw an extra minute. [33:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [33:09] Before we go to Mr. Walkinshaw, Ms. Mace has two more, you know, consent requests, and I'm going to give Mr. Walkinshaw an extra minute if everyone's okay with that. [33:17] Ms. Mace. [33:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues, too. [33:23] The whole Epstein. [33:24] The Epstein saga and working with people on both sides of the aisle on the Epstein files and then working with the victims has been extremely enlightening. [33:32] This doesn't sound like unanimous consent. [33:34] Can you present that unanimous consent? [33:36] Oh, here's the unanimous consent. [33:37] Okay. [33:39] Through the Epstein thing, this is a tweet that I did about judges. [33:41] I learned that, you know, not all the judges have been forthcoming with information and files. [33:45] I tweeted out on November 28th, impeach corrupt judges, especially South Carolina judges. [33:51] I've done this about a dozen times or more. [33:53] I'm guilty as charged. [33:54] The. [33:55] Last week, an attorney named Robert Murning. [33:57] I would like to enter his image into the record, too, without objection to order. [34:01] He is trying to hold me in contempt and told a judge I should be thrown in jail for, among other things, tweeting out that judges should be held in that that judges should be impeached. [34:10] This is what happens to survivors. [34:12] This is what happens to victims. [34:14] And I'm sorry. [34:16] No, no, no. [34:17] I would like to enter my predator bill into unanimous consent. [34:21] This is not without objection to order. [34:23] And thank you. [34:24] All right. [34:24] Thank you. [34:25] Chair, I recognize Miss Walkinshaw for six minutes. [34:27] Thank you, Mr. [34:28] Chairman. [34:28] I'll restate what others have said, which is that anyone who has information relevant to our investigation, including President Clinton, should talk to the committee. [34:39] And I'm glad that he's agreed to do so. [34:43] I have read, Mr. [34:46] Chairman, that one of the sticking points in the negotiation between you and the Clinton's lawyers has been your demand. [34:54] I understand that questions be asked about non Epstein related issues. [35:02] And it surprised me because I'm sitting here today listening to your intense interest in understanding more about the Clintons and their relationship with Epstein. [35:14] So I'm curious why you have for five months demanded that you and other members of this committee be able to ask questions unrelated to the deal. [35:25] I understand. [35:26] our investigation of the Epstein files and Epstein's sex trafficking. And I'm happy to [35:32] yield Mr. Chairman. I don't know what you're talking about. Everything [35:37] that we've pertained to with respect to the deposition pertains to the Epstein files. [35:42] Okay. So you haven't demanded that the conversation, the questions be limited to the Epstein files. [35:47] The staff attorneys are communicating with the Clinton attorneys. That's the communication [35:52] going back and forth. This investigation is about the Epstein files. [35:56] Okay. So you're willing, and you'll say here publicly, you're willing to have that conversation [36:00] that limits the conversation, the questions just to the Epstein issue and files. Okay. [36:07] All right. I think the Clinton's lawyers have been under a different impression. So we've [36:11] made a little progress. The Clinton lawyers are full of crap. [36:13] Made a little progress on the negotiation here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're 32 days [36:18] past the statutory deadline in months since this committee's subpoena and Congress has received [36:26] as we've heard just 1% of the files, more than 5 million pages remain hidden. Instead [36:33] of holding the attorney general accountable for this failure, the majority is trying to [36:38] change the subject today. Frankly, I find it insulting. We have to bring our attention [36:44] back to the people who should be our focus. The survivors of Epstein's horrific sex trafficking [36:51] operation, the women and girls who were exploited, abused, ignored for years. [36:57] of the truth, transparency, and justice without delay, without excuses, and without any political [37:05] protections for the powerful or the wealthy, that's what we should be doing. Not scoring [37:11] partisan points, not creating distractions, working to uncover the full scope of his crime [37:18] so the survivors can see accountability. And if we're truly serious about justice, we can't ignore [37:27] one of Epstein's most well-documented associates, President Donald J. Trump. We have documented [37:35] communications, including a signed birthday note from Donald Trump containing explicit sexual [37:41] references and referencing wonderful secrets, wonderful secrets between them. Emails from [37:48] Epstein saying that Trump, quote, knew about the girls. Donald Trump acknowledging he knew Epstein [37:54] was a, quote, creep and that Epstein recruited girls and women from Mar-a-Lago. [37:59] Trump saying he wants to cover up the files because, quote, my friends will get hurt. [38:09] If we're committed to transparency and justice, why is that off limits for this committee? [38:14] Why is his name absent? Why no discussion of Attorney General Bondi's refusal to comply [38:21] for months with this committee's subpoena? Why no contempt for Attorney General Bondi? [38:28] What we're witnessing today is not oversight. It's not accountability. It's part of a cover-up. [38:36] A diversion. And it didn't start today. Despite clear legal requirements in a law that Donald [38:43] Trump signed, a subpoena that you signed, Mr. Chairman, and repeated public promises, [38:50] Attorney General Bondi has failed to release the files. It's entirely within her control. [38:56] And yet only 1% has been produced more than a month late. And even that sliver is so heavily [39:03] redacted that it mocks the law. It mocks the law. And it mocks this committee's subpoena. [39:10] Let's be honest about the transparency that Attorney General Bondi has provided. [39:19] This is DOJ Epstein data set number four. It's number four. Data set number four. [39:34] This is part of the 1% that folks have been talking about this today. [39:38] I'll close with this. Attorney General Bondi and the Trump administration [39:42] missed their deadline. They're ignoring our subpoena. They've withheld 99% of the files, [39:49] and they have obscured the little that they did release. [39:55] coincidence it's intentional it's about protecting one man donald j trump from accountability release [40:04] the files i yield back chair recognizes chair of unanimous consent request okay i'll recognize you [40:12] for that mr german as unanimous consent to enter the record of political article article entitled [40:16] clay higgins explains why he was the lone no vote on epstein files release without objection to [40:22] order chair recognizes it'll be on our side mr perry then mr mcguire mr perry thanks mr chairman [40:29] i'm disappointed at where we're headed here um look i think that legitimately both sides [40:38] want all the information i know i sure do with the proviso that the victims and innocent people [40:46] are not damaged in the release of that what's interesting to me is is that the only time my [40:54] my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about any of this is when they can bring [40:58] up the current president's name but they're not interested at all in anything else and [41:04] you [41:04] And I would just say this regarding the timeline, because I'm frustrated with it, too. [41:08] You know what would have been great, would have been awesome if we could have truncated [41:13] the timeline when the Democrat DOJ was in power under a Democrat president and there [41:19] was any investigation whatsoever. [41:21] Ladies and gentlemen, my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't interested in these [41:25] victims at all when they could have done something about it. [41:29] Nary a word was said and certainly nothing was done. [41:33] All this advance work could have been done by them had they cared. [41:37] But this is not about caring about anybody. [41:40] This is all political theater because because they hate the current president of the United [41:44] States. [41:45] I get it. [41:46] It's disappointing to me. [41:48] These victims should have their day and they should all this information, regardless of [41:53] who it touches, should be out with the proviso that the innocent are protected. [41:59] I know that's not of any interest to you. [42:02] I get it. [42:03] That's unfortunate. [42:04] Are you? [42:05] The balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana. [42:07] I thank the gentleman for yielding. [42:10] Mr. Chairman, earlier, I asked unanimous consent to receive into the record the actual subpoena [42:17] presented to the Honorable Pam Bondi by this committee regarding the DOJ's release of the [42:30] investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein. [42:34] That was dated the 5th of August. [42:37] I'd like to enter into unanimous consent associated with that entry, the letter written [42:43] by this committee on August the 5th to Attorney General Pam Bondi, referencing the subpoena [42:52] and giving specific instructions. [42:55] Without objection to order. [42:56] I'd like to also enter into the record the actual, I don't believe this has been released [43:05] prior to right now. [43:08] Is the schedule associated with the subpoena. [43:13] This is one, two, three, four pages of specific instructions from this committee regarding [43:22] the subpoena delivered on August the 5th. [43:28] Now, unanimous consent. [43:31] Without objection to order. [43:32] And that schedule as well. [43:33] I'm sure the media will be fascinated with that. [43:37] So the professionalism that the, that this committee has pursued. [43:43] To clarify for the citizenry, the professionalism that this committee has embraced and pursued [43:55] as has been squared away, impeccable. [44:01] And that includes recognition that the Department of Justice as stated in the subpoena is, is [44:13] to comply with, with redaction procedures of established law and criminal justice. [44:19] Okay. [44:20] So I heard someone mention five million files. [44:27] That is the first time I've heard 5 million files, but I know that there were originally [44:32] a quarter of a million files and the Trump administration found another 600,000 files. [44:39] So we were talking about to ground it off a million files. [44:44] Every one of those individual documents has to be reviewed by a ABA. [44:52] Okay. [44:53] agents of the DOJ and their supervisors before they can be officially approved for release. [45:00] That's the law. The DOJ has 400 agents working full-time on just releasing these documents. [45:10] Now, you may argue that at the end of the day, you want to see the release of what they completed [45:16] that day. I would say that's a fair narrative for discussion. But to say that DOJ is not [45:25] fully engaged in complying with our subpoena is not accurate. It's not intellectually sound. [45:33] And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer into the record these official and [45:40] legal subpoena documents. I yield. Without objection, so order. [45:45] Mr. Chair, we have a misconcept request. [45:47] Okay. [45:47] I have two articles. One is from Politics PA. [45:51] Quote, Representative Perry referred to the House Ethics Committee for refusing subpoena. [45:56] Without objection, so order. [45:57] The other one's a CNN article. GOP reps Perry and Biggs formally object to subpoena from [46:02] House January 6th. [46:03] Without objection, so order. Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas. [46:08] Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I have sat here listening and I am quite perplexed. [46:15] It does take me back to my legal day. [46:18] And so when I think about a subpoena, one of the things that we normally look at when we are trying to determine whether or not contempt is going to be ushered into the conversation is whether or not there's been substantial compliance. [46:34] And what it means to actually look like you have substantially complied, it means that you're taking reasonable steps to follow a court order that you're acting in good faith. [46:46] And typically that serves as a. [46:48] A defense. [46:50] So if we are still crafting the parameters of said subpoena, for instance, my colleague, Mr. [46:58] Walkinshaw, just asked whether or not this would be limited to the Epstein subject matter. [47:06] For me, if they responded at all, then there is some sort of compliance, which they did. [47:13] They didn't just throw the bird. [47:15] They didn't just say forget it. [47:17] But more importantly, I just want. [47:20] To point out that we are living in an age of hypocrisy because my other colleague just pointed out that Mr. [47:28] Perry sits here and somehow sits in judgment of others. [47:33] Frankly, that is what people are kind of getting annoyed by is the hypocrisy because Mr. [47:38] Perry still has an outstanding subpoena that was never complied with. [47:42] In addition to that, he talked about we need to care for the victims. [47:47] Somebody correct me if I'm wrong and I will yield my time. [47:50] But I don't. [47:51] Believe that Mr. [47:51] Perry ever signed off on the discharge petition in the first place. [47:55] So I don't know if he is just doing what he believes is politically expedient. [48:00] But I will tell you this. [48:02] I refuse to be a puppet because Democrats tend to be of goodwill. [48:08] We always want to do the right thing. [48:10] We are always trying to follow the rules and follow the law. [48:13] Unfortunately, we are living with an administration that does not care. [48:18] We just want some type of parody. [48:20] So for instance, we all. [48:22] Want to hear from President Clinton. [48:25] If for some reason you said we will give you, say, Pam Bondi and then we've got [48:32] President Clinton with it or say maybe President Trump and President Clinton, [48:37] two presidents, because we know that both presidents [48:40] actually had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. [48:43] But what looks political and looks like one can get away with everything, [48:48] especially since that's what the Supreme Court has stated. [48:51] That's why it looks like it's just gamesmanship. [48:54] You only care about following the rules so long as you can invoke those rules [48:58] on what is typically perceived as your political enemies. [49:02] This is why we are falling apart in this country. [49:05] We are supposed to be about checks and balances. [49:08] It should not matter whether or not you're associated with the Democratic Party, [49:12] the Republican Party, independent or whomever, whether you're rich, [49:15] whether you're poor, whether you're middle class, [49:17] whether you're a black immigrant or whatever. [49:19] But it seems like we only have a political agenda in this committee. [49:24] And that's why everything goes off the rails. [49:27] You only love law enforcement when they're [49:29] going after black, brown immigrants, that kind of folk. [49:32] Right. But on January six, [49:35] you didn't care about law enforcement because they still don't have their plaques up. [49:39] We continue to do the right thing and say, yes, apply the rules equally across [49:44] the board and then y'all play in our faces and you only apply it to one side. [49:50] I am asking for one commitment and then I will yield to the ranking member. [49:54] Mr. Chair, will you [49:55] commit to me as the chair of probably the most important committee in this [50:01] Congress, especially in this moment where people are concerned about the level [50:05] of corruption that exists within this committee? [50:08] Will you promise me that you are good for doing whatever is right and following [50:16] the evidence no matter who is on the other side of that evidence? [50:22] Yes. And that is why I subpoenaed the estate. [50:25] And we had no idea what was nobody knew. [50:28] Nobody knew. [50:29] I understand documents and I, without hesitation, subpoenaed the estate. [50:33] We subpoenaed the Department of Justice. [50:35] And that's where we got the birthday letter. [50:37] We we subpoenaed because they hold on to say, OK, we got the birthday letter, [50:42] but we can't just get the evidence and then not follow up on the evidence [50:45] that we actually get. I will relinquish the rest of my time to the chair. [50:49] Thank you. I just want to just really clarify one. [50:51] Thank you very much, Representative Crockett. [50:54] Just to back to Mr. Walker's point, I think it's important to clarify that in [50:57] communication. [50:58] I want to share with your with your team and the back and forth with the emails. [51:02] The Clinton team made it clear that they wanted to answer questions about Epstein. [51:08] But that was not something that your team agreed to only about Epstein. [51:13] And and so that's I just want to make sure to clarify. [51:17] And I appreciate you clarifying, Mr. [51:18] Comer, that you said that you would limit the questions to only Epstein. [51:23] Is that correct? That is correct. [51:24] I think that Clinton said that is not true. [51:27] What their lawyer said is is a complete lie. [51:29] OK. [51:30] I'm glad I'm glad that you clarified for them has been their impression that it's [51:34] been I'm just telling you, it's been their impression. [51:35] He's paid him too much money then over the last five months or I'm not. [51:38] I'm just reading emails and I'm just read [51:41] back and forth between them and your and your and your team. [51:44] It's been their impression that those [51:46] questions were going to be beyond just Epstein. [51:48] And so I'm glad that's been clarified. [51:49] So thank you, Mr. [51:50] Walkinshaw. [51:50] Chair recognizes Mr. McGuire from Virginia. [51:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [51:54] I agree with you. Five months is plenty of time. [51:56] The Clintons are doing everything they can to avoid questioning. [52:00] American people want to hear from the Clintons. [52:02] You know, Bill Clinton brought Epstein to the White House 17 times. [52:08] He had him on and Bill Clinton was on the Epstein airplane 26 times. [52:12] So the American people want to hear from them. [52:14] I don't understand why our friends on the left can't understand that they support [52:18] these crazy policies like open borders, 20 million people coming to our country. [52:22] They've been robbing, raping and killing the American people. [52:25] You know, Lake and Raleigh would still be alive instead of protecting criminal. [52:30] They defend law abiding citizens. [52:32] They defend the criminals and they want to have a defund the police movement. [52:36] It makes no sense. [52:37] These criminals they put back on the street, recommit the same crime. [52:41] And they're like, why they commit the same crime. [52:44] All Americans have the same goal, the same American dream. [52:47] We want to live, work and raise our family in peace. [52:50] We just might disagree on how to get there. [52:52] But the Democrats seem to always be wrong. [52:55] The American people don't want boys undressing in girls locker rooms. [52:59] But for some reason, [53:01] the Democrats support that five months is plenty of time. [53:04] The American people want to hear from the Clintons. [53:07] And they said they had no relationship, but they definitely did. [53:10] And with that, I yield the remainder of my time back to Miss Luna. [53:13] Thank you. [53:14] I just kind of want to point out, first of all, specifically to the letter, [53:19] the hand sketch that was allegedly the president's. [53:22] I believe there's a ten billion dollar [53:23] lawsuit that was filed that, according to the president, [53:27] the organization that published that is actually trying to currently settle. [53:30] So just to clarify. [53:31] But aside from that, I wanted to actually ask Mr. [53:35] Min a question if he's here still, if he would be willing to [53:40] vote for a contempt in the Clintons if they refuse to come in and testify on a [53:46] fine of about a thousand dollars a day until they comply with the subpoena. [53:50] But I don't know if he's here. Is he still here? [53:52] No. OK, well, I think that that's just something to consider. [53:55] We have the ability to do those those fines. [53:57] And I think that that needs to be considered, especially if, you know, [54:01] optically, there is reason for pause for Democrats not wanting [54:06] to vote for that based on the fact that President Clinton was a former president. [54:10] I understand the optics of that and I also understand elections. [54:14] However, nonetheless, the Clintons are defining subpoena. [54:17] So sometimes financially people can be motivated, especially if there's a fine. [54:21] And that's something that we actually all reserve the right to vote on. [54:24] And I think that that's actually a very [54:26] good option, especially being that most Americans would go to jail for defying [54:29] subpoenas. [54:30] And so I do not think that there needs to be any special accommodations made, [54:34] especially given the nature of this. [54:36] But I do think that that can be a tool to motivate. [54:39] So I'd like to suggest that to you, [54:41] Chairman Comer, also to you, Ranking Member Garcia, [54:44] that that would be a good method that we [54:46] specifically reserve if we choose to use alternative means of contempt. [54:49] Representative, would you yield to me for a question? [54:52] Yes. So it seems like you're open to changing [54:56] this what we're voting on today so that way we can get to a place where we [55:00] can actually hear from them. Is that right? [55:02] Is that what I'm hearing? [55:03] I want. Yes. [55:04] I would like to have the Clintons coming [55:05] into Congress to give a transcribed deposition. [55:08] I think that Chairman Comer has made that clear. [55:10] But I also think having just Garcia and Comer drive all the way up to New York [55:15] without that, I think that optically that sends a very bad message as the separation [55:19] of powers and authorities Congress has and then I also to think that, you know, [55:24] it's kind of a slap in the face to people that typically would not have those [55:29] accommodations made for them. [55:31] But yeah, with that also, you know, being a part of this, [55:34] I think that, you know, Bill Clinton specifically said he wants [55:37] the files to be released. And I think that we also need to consider [55:39] the fact that there is a judge. I know Mr. Garcia disagrees with me on this. [55:43] But based on the email that I have seen on Judge Paul Engelmeyer, [55:49] you know, if you have someone that is ordering the DOJ to do a final second scan [55:54] of the files, if it's politically motivated, that's impeding an investigation. [56:00] And I'm tired of judges. [56:01] If they get involved in investigations in Congress trying to obstruct. [56:05] And so I just putting this out there, I'm going to be trying to impeach that judge [56:10] unless he can basically give a waiver, let the DOJ release the files immediately. [56:14] Yeah. And just real quick, I just want to say on the general thing, I agree. [56:17] I mean, I think it would be best if the [56:19] ranking member and chair can huddle and figure out how we can change it so we can [56:23] actually hear from them, because my concern, too, and the other thing is there is no [56:27] faster way to make sure that we never actually hear from them in person than [56:31] moving forward a criminal contempt. [56:32] That says put them in jail. [56:33] I mean, we're just not going to hear from them for our investigation. [56:37] And so, I mean, I agree if they come to something to figure out how can we move [56:41] forward in a way where we're actually there's a pathway to hear from them. [56:46] I I'm for that. [56:47] So to be clear, I do not I do not agree with what the Clintons are doing. [56:51] OK, and I think that they need to come in here to explain. [56:53] But I do think that when you go after [56:54] someone's pocketbook, I think that they quickly change their tune. [56:57] And I think that they might be compelled to come in. [57:00] I also don't want to set the precedent, [57:02] though, that, you know, just because you're president means you're outside of [57:05] this, you know, justice, but that's basically what it would be doing. [57:09] And so, Chairman, I will let you direct the ship on this. [57:12] But that is my suggestion. [57:13] Thank you. Chair recognizes this. [57:15] Sorry. Thank you. [57:18] I'm going to start by yielding to the ranking member. [57:20] Thank you. I want to just respond to Mr. [57:21] Lewin and Mr. Maxwell as well. [57:23] Just to be clear, I think two things can be true. [57:26] It can be true that that we want to hear from the Clintons and that it's important [57:31] that we hear from them and we want to we want to enforce our [57:34] agenda. It can also be true that they have also begun clearly making efforts [57:39] to answer questions by declaration, to negotiate coming in to give testimony. [57:45] They've made offers to obviously be in their initial offer was to do that [57:50] testimony in outside of Washington, D.C., with the leadership of the committee [57:54] and staff, they have been open to a transcription. [57:58] And so I just want to reemphasize that I [58:00] think there is room here to continue to negotiate and get the testimony that we [58:04] need. [58:04] In addition, I am incredibly thankful that we're finally moving forward on ensuring [58:09] that Glenn Maxwell come before this committee, that we're going to get Pam [58:12] Bondi finally in front of this Congress, we need to release the files, get that [58:17] testimony and of course, ask the question that this committee has of President [58:21] Clinton, I think that is all fair and I hope that's the direction that we end up [58:24] moving in. Thank you, Mr. Ansari. [58:26] Thank you. [58:28] Given much of what we've heard today and [58:30] especially in light of some of the hypocrisy that we've heard today, I just [58:33] want to walk through the timeline. [58:35] I'm Donald Trump's cover up of the Epstein files because I think it's important for [58:39] folks to remember how we got to this point. [58:42] This was a series of deliberate decisions made at the highest levels in the White [58:46] House and the Department of Justice to keep the truth hidden from the American [58:50] public and the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his allies abuse. [58:54] Let's start with what the president said during his campaign trail repeatedly [58:59] at multiple points in twenty twenty four when running for office. [59:03] Donald Trump said he would quote. [59:05] Classify the Epstein files, use it as a rallying cry to win over voters. [59:10] In October twenty twenty four, J.D. [59:12] Vance said, quote, seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. [59:16] But the moment Trump and Vance had power [59:19] in the White House to act, that commitment disappeared. [59:22] That's when the cover up began on February twenty seven twenty twenty five. [59:27] Pam Bondi said that she was releasing the Epstein files with her statement. [59:32] Quote This Department of Justice is following [59:34] through on President Trump's commitment to transparency and lifting the veil [59:39] on the disgusting actions of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. [59:43] Then it became clear, very clear that Donald Trump did not, in fact, [59:47] want information about Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes revealed to the public. [59:51] Starting in July twenty twenty five, Donald Trump began to gaslight the public. [59:56] He said, quote, Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? [1:00:00] This guy's been talked about for years. [1:00:02] This is the point when Congress stepped [1:00:04] up on July twenty third, Congresswoman Summer Lee moved in this very [1:00:09] committee to subpoena the full and unredacted Epstein files. [1:00:13] And just to be clear, because of that subpoena, the Department of Justice and [1:00:17] Pam Bondi have been required by law to provide the Epstein files to this [1:00:22] committee since the summer of twenty twenty five. [1:00:25] They have been in gross, illegal violation of the subpoena this entire time. [1:00:31] To my Republican colleagues on this committee, do you remember that [1:00:35] subpoena, the lawful congressional oversight subpoena from July twenty third? [1:00:41] Pam Bondi has been in violation of that for six months now. [1:00:45] At the same time, members on both sides of the aisle filed a discharge petition that [1:00:49] would have put a vote on the floor for the Epstein Files Transparency Act. [1:00:54] For a moment, the petition was one [1:00:56] signature away from forcing a vote in the full House. [1:00:59] And what did Mike Johnson do? [1:01:00] He shut down Congress. [1:01:02] He refused to swear in our colleague, [1:01:04] Adelita Grijalva, for a historic seven weeks in order to keep her name off the list. [1:01:09] He forced the American public to endure a [1:01:11] government shutdown to protect Donald Trump and to cover up the Epstein files. [1:01:15] And when it finally came to the floor and [1:01:17] it became clear that the bill would pass overwhelmingly, only then did he endorse [1:01:22] and then sign the bill so that he wouldn't lose. [1:01:25] This required the DOJ to release the unredacted Epstein files publicly. [1:01:30] By December 19th, the DOJ has blown past [1:01:34] the deadline, releasing only one percent of the files, which is patently absurd. [1:01:39] And the files they did release were [1:01:41] heavily redacted, which is completely illegal, according to the law. [1:01:45] On December 23rd, the DOJ said they [1:01:47] miraculously discovered over one million files related to Epstein. [1:01:51] All of these patterns are an attempt to slow down the release and fail [1:01:56] to meet the lawful deadlines are consistent and coordinated. [1:02:00] This is all part of an intentional cover up, which leads [1:02:04] to the unavoidable question, who is the president protecting when we [1:02:07] know he only cares about one person that I'll end with my question to the chairman? [1:02:14] The attorney general, Pam Bondi, has [1:02:17] violated the subpoena issued by this committee. [1:02:20] We should be holding her in contempt to remain fair and to remain transparent. [1:02:25] And so I ask that you do that if you really, [1:02:26] truly want to be fair and care about the justice for the victims here. [1:02:30] May I respond that we have been very clear? [1:02:36] We expect those documents. [1:02:37] She has complied. [1:02:39] She's turned over documents in the beginning. [1:02:41] In the beginning, you all complained and said the first document [1:02:45] dropped didn't have enough redactions and the second document had too many redactions. [1:02:52] So they're trying to get this. [1:02:54] And I believe that we will get those documents very soon. [1:02:58] I have been assured we're going to get those documents very soon. [1:03:01] I hear you. [1:03:02] But with all due respect, given everything that she herself stated in February of last year, her own statements [1:03:09] in front of the entirety of the American public saying we have the documents, they are ready to go. [1:03:15] The sub the subpoena from this committee was issued in July. [1:03:19] And nobody on our side, nobody on our side is defending Pam Bondi. [1:03:23] I think she should be held in contempt. [1:03:25] If she is complying with it, they have turned documents over. [1:03:29] They have turned documents over. [1:03:30] And every time they do, you all complain about too many redactions, not enough redactions. [1:03:35] So that's that is unacceptable. [1:03:38] It has been. [1:03:38] It's been six months, your time, your time has expired and we want the documents. [1:03:42] We've made that very clear. [1:03:43] Chair recognizes Mr. [1:03:46] Crane can do unanimous consent first before I recognize Mr. [1:03:49] Crane will let you just want to do a unanimous consent request. [1:03:54] This is actually an email that has been sent to your your your team, Mr. [1:04:00] Comer and our team from the from the Clinton lawyer and the Clintons. [1:04:05] That has that's that basically says, to be [1:04:07] clear, we are not objecting. [1:04:09] To a to a transcript and never have. [1:04:12] Please make that clear during today's testimony that was sent to you, Mr. [1:04:16] Comer. [1:04:16] So I just want to reemphasize they are not objecting to a transcript. [1:04:19] Thank you. [1:04:21] And before before I recognize Mr. [1:04:24] Crane, let me we just got that email and we have spent five months trying to get [1:04:31] acceptable terms that I think everyone within any sense of fairness would agree [1:04:39] needs to be needs to occur. [1:04:41] So after we hold this vote, hopefully it'll be a bipartisan vote. [1:04:47] They're going to have two weeks before this bill is on the floor. [1:04:52] We're going to have two weeks before this this this the full House votes on it. [1:04:56] And make no mistake to the Clintons in their larger joint. [1:04:59] This bill will pass and I believe it will pass with Democrat votes, even though I've [1:05:03] heard leadership, Democrat leadership is is whipping to try to get you all to vote. [1:05:08] Vote no on this. [1:05:12] They have had five months to comply with this and to defend [1:05:17] the indefensible and try to act like Bill Clinton's a victim here, I think is a stretch. [1:05:24] We know who the victims are. [1:05:25] And I think if you ask the victims, do you want to hear from Bill Clinton? [1:05:30] I'm pretty confident I know what the answer will be because our staff has [1:05:34] communicated with their attorneys chair recognizes Mr. [1:05:37] Crane. [1:05:39] Thank you, Mr. [1:05:40] Chairman. [1:05:40] Obviously, this committee hearing is about whether or not we're going to hold the [1:05:45] Clintons in contempt of Congress. [1:05:47] I strongly recommend that we do. [1:05:49] Especially in pertaining to the release of the Epstein files and trying to get to [1:05:56] the bottom of what exactly went on there and how Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to [1:06:01] continue doing what he was doing and abusing so many people for so long. [1:06:08] It's interesting when I look at the history of the Congress and look at the [1:06:13] fact that Peter Navarro, former Trump trade adviser who defied the January 6th [1:06:19] committee subpoena, was sent to prison for four months. [1:06:23] Steve Bannon, also a former Trump adviser, defied the January 6th committee subpoena. [1:06:29] He was sent to prison for four months and several others. [1:06:33] So it's going to be really telling to see how my Democrat colleagues vote on this one. [1:06:38] Mr. Comer, how many times, Mr. [1:06:41] Chairman, how many times did Mr. [1:06:44] Epstein go to the White House in your recollection? [1:06:46] According to the evidence that we've obtained, it appears he went [1:06:50] 17 times during the Clinton presidency. [1:06:53] Is that more times than you've gone to the White House, Chairman? [1:06:56] I've been a member of Congress for nine years and fairly, fairly high up on the [1:07:01] pecking order. I've been to the White House, I believe, nine times in nine years. [1:07:05] So he went to the Clinton White House [1:07:08] double the number of times that I've been to the White House in my entire career. [1:07:12] Mr. Chairman, how many times did Mr. Clinton fly on Mr. Epstein's plane? [1:07:19] At least 26 times, according to [1:07:21] the flight logs that were subpoenaed from the estate. [1:07:24] Right. So, Mr. Chairman, those were those were four different trips, four trips. [1:07:30] And every time they regassed the plane, they counted that as another trip. [1:07:34] But it was Asia, Africa, and they they had to refuel. [1:07:39] So every time they stopped to refuel, [1:07:41] they counted that as another leg of the trip. [1:07:43] There are four trips, not not twenty seven. [1:07:45] That's almost like I didn't inhale, reclaiming my time. [1:07:50] That's still that's still enough trips [1:07:52] for us to want to be able to ask the Clintons questions about their [1:07:56] involvement with Epstein is that is that true, Mr. Chairman? [1:08:00] Yes, sir. Right. [1:08:01] So like I said, I hope that my Democrat [1:08:04] colleagues who all of a sudden have found religion, [1:08:08] this Congress, and now they want the Epstein files, [1:08:11] even though over the last four years when they had control of Washington, D.C., [1:08:15] you didn't hear a peep about Jeffrey Epstein out of any of them. [1:08:19] And so I think it's going to be real telling, you know, how my Democrat [1:08:23] colleagues who claim to be all about the victims, how they actually vote on [1:08:29] on these contempt charges for the Clinton family. [1:08:32] And I just think it's interesting, too, that, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is [1:08:37] you've been working for the last four or five months to get the Clintons in here. [1:08:40] Is that correct? Five months. [1:08:42] Yes, sir. Did they did they tell you that they would [1:08:45] come in over December 24th and 25th, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day? [1:08:51] They have implied that they would come in. [1:08:53] Yes. OK, so that just goes to show that they're [1:08:56] trying to dodge suggesting dates that they know none of us are in session. [1:09:01] You know, I think I think that's that's pretty despicable. [1:09:06] The other thing I believe that they said is that you and the ranking member could [1:09:12] fly up to New York, but you couldn't record any of the conversations. [1:09:16] Is that correct? That is correct. [1:09:18] Does that sound like any congressional deposition you've ever heard of, sir? [1:09:21] No. And it would be it would be. [1:09:23] My word against Mr. [1:09:25] Garcia's and I'm pretty confident I know whose side the the New York Times would [1:09:30] take and The Washington Post would take and MSNBC would take it. [1:09:34] Look, an investigation. [1:09:36] You have to have transcripts and the media wants transcripts. [1:09:41] You have to have transcripts. [1:09:43] We don't do the notes. [1:09:44] And the Clintons have already accused us of lying and they accused us of saying [1:09:49] this was an unlawful subpoena, which I appreciate, Mr. Garcia, [1:09:53] admitting that it is a lawful subpoena. [1:09:55] So I yield back. [1:09:56] I also want to point out one thing that I think has been pretty interesting. [1:10:00] When I flew into Washington, D.C. yesterday, my chief of staff told me [1:10:05] that he'd been contacted by the Clinton attorneys at least three times to try [1:10:10] and stop this. So it looks as if they it looks as if [1:10:15] they tried to resist you for about five months. [1:10:18] And once we finally pulled the trigger on it, now they're realizing [1:10:21] that this could go very poorly. [1:10:23] For them. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? [1:10:25] That's how it appears that they could stall, stall, stall. [1:10:28] And then when it finally came to this vote, they felt like they could count on [1:10:32] the Democrats objecting and a few of the Republicans that [1:10:38] the media would go to and the moderates and say, oh, is this going to affect your [1:10:43] election is going to affect your election at the end of the day? [1:10:46] I think even the media wants to hear from Clinton. [1:10:49] We all want to see the documents. [1:10:51] So we everyone in America that's keeping up with this, which is a majority of [1:10:54] Americans, they want answers and we're trying to get answers here today. [1:10:58] And the Clintons have obstructed for five months, five months. [1:11:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [1:11:03] Chair recognizes Mr. Tlaib. [1:11:06] Oh, wait a minute. [1:11:08] Miss Randall, I'm sorry. [1:11:10] Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. [1:11:11] I'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member. [1:11:13] Thank you. I just want to, again, just clarify that [1:11:17] that the Clintons have no have not objected to a transcript. [1:11:21] I just want to clarify that, Mr. Comer, which you just mentioned. [1:11:24] And I think that in this moment of negotiation, which you've [1:11:28] been in and you've been in with them this entire time, there's progress being made [1:11:31] and they've not objected to the transcript. [1:11:33] Let's talk to the let's talk to President Clinton and let's get a transcript of it. [1:11:37] Let's have the committee there and the staff there move forward. [1:11:39] Thank you. May I respond? [1:11:43] We won't start to stop the talk. [1:11:45] May I respond? They did object to a transcript. [1:11:48] Mr. Garcia, they did object to a transcript. [1:11:50] They're just now changing because they see that public opinion is not on their side. [1:11:55] Chair recognizes Miss Randall. [1:11:56] And you've got we'll give you five minutes. [1:11:58] We'll give you five minutes. [1:12:00] Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. [1:12:03] You know, I want to I want to start by [1:12:05] saying it is I do not feel it is my responsibility to defend the former [1:12:10] president of the United States as a member of Congress in a separate and [1:12:15] co-equal branch of government from the executive branch. [1:12:17] And as a individual person who is responsible to my constituents, it is [1:12:24] not my job to defend the former president of the United States, just like it is not [1:12:31] your responsibility, Chair Comer, to carry out the political retribution of the [1:12:35] current president of the United States. [1:12:40] It is also not this committee's job to yield to the Judiciary Committee to question [1:12:50] the subjects of our subpoenas. [1:12:54] It is not our job to defer to anyone else's interest. [1:13:03] And in fact, we have the opportunity. [1:13:05] At any time to amend the rules of our committee, should you choose to take [1:13:12] action that our rules keep us from taking like that? [1:13:16] That is a that is a tool that you as [1:13:18] committee chair and we as a committee have. [1:13:22] And I also want to say, you know, I'm not I'm not a lawyer. [1:13:25] I'm a regular person. [1:13:29] I'm one year into this job and contrary to attempts by my Republican colleagues to [1:13:35] put the burden of decisions made by Congresses of the past. [1:13:37] We have no rights on our shoulders. [1:13:39] I was sent here by my constituents just a year ago. [1:13:42] And it's to them, to my neighbors, who I am accountable, not to party leadership, [1:13:49] not to anybody else but to my constituents. [1:13:54] So I want to talk about what they are seeing and hearing right now. [1:13:58] They are seeing, just as Ms. [1:14:01] Ansari previously said, Donald Trump and JD Vance and Pam Bondi [1:14:08] switch allegiances. [1:14:09] Decide they no longer want [1:14:11] to pursue accountability and full release unredacted release of the Epstein files but [1:14:17] they are also seeing a system that has failed survivors and regular people over and over [1:14:29] that that privileges the powerful and well-connected over regular people you know [1:14:40] regular people who don't have the luxury of saying I'm not going to come to court and I want [1:14:48] to be free of any accountability regular people who see us acting and carrying out the demands of [1:15:04] the president former presidents rich people people who come to lobby us folks who have access to [1:15:10] power in a way that regular people don't and I think we've all made very clear all of us [1:15:19] on both sides of this dais that we want to hear from the former president of the United States [1:15:26] about any information that he has related to Epstein's ring of trafficking and assault of [1:15:33] women and girls but we also and you know chair Comer you have said over and over over and over [1:15:40] and over that it's been five months that you've been in negotiations with the Clintons it has [1:15:44] been six months since this committee subpoenaed the department of justice for full release [1:15:51] of the files and and I'm down I'm down to hold anybody accountable I'm down for us to enforce [1:16:00] our congressional subpoenas to uphold our power as a separate and co-equal branch of government [1:16:08] but I want to call the question will my colleagues on the other side of this dais [1:16:13] also hold accountable the attorney general that has been withholding illegally withholding [1:16:21] evidence that has been subpoenaed by the department of justice for full release of [1:16:24] the evidence that has been subpoenaed by this committee and and in a bipartisan law passed [1:16:28] on the floor of the house are we is it just political theater are you just trying to point [1:16:33] fingers and say like it's you it's you it's not us it's them or are we here to do the [1:16:38] work of holding accountable people who have committed heinous crimes against women and [1:16:46] girls and people who might know about them are we doing that work or are we just pointing [1:16:50] fingers and trying to consolidate our own political power that's a question I know that [1:16:55] my constituents have and it is one that I'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the dais thank [1:17:00] you I yield back chair any members seek recognition chair recognizes miss talib from Michigan um [1:17:09] Mr. chair I think many of us were there with the survivors and uh I'd like to bring them into the [1:17:16] room because I think it's really important you know it's not just one president but now two [1:17:21] that have been connected to the Epstein um sex trafficking one of them even testified about [1:17:30] his 예 the case uh uh against women and 저는 minneberg and Interim Vice President Patty [1:17:36] Deming was unable to attend her first day in theering at half hour after workers Farron [1:17:41] park went into the house the Butler opening the door the there's administration says a [1:17:46] having no idea she is walking into a horrific scheme that was sending young girls to the [1:17:51] powerful to the rich the elected officials and one of the first picture she said she [1:17:57] saw was. of Clinton that these arms around. [1:18:02] Epstein. [1:18:04] She saw. [1:18:05] to convince us, like understand that I had no idea as if somehow she was guilty. Do you all [1:18:10] remember that? And so I'm here to tell you I'm ready to vote, but I'm also just taken aback and [1:18:17] disgusted because I didn't need a birthday card to say the president of the United States, current [1:18:23] president of the United States had something. I didn't need to see the photos by the chairman [1:18:27] today of Clinton. All I needed to do was hear the survivors tell us, please do something. These are [1:18:34] people that have impacted their lives forever. What I just don't understand, Mr. Chair, and this [1:18:41] is with all due respect, I just don't get why Bondi cannot be held in contempt, why we're not [1:18:47] for it. I don't care if she says that she wants to plead the fifth. So what? Do it in front of [1:18:53] the American people. Same thing with Maxwell. She's telling the committee she's going to plead [1:18:59] the fifth. Fine. Have her come before this committee to do it in front of the American [1:19:02] people. The fact of the matter is, are you saying that if anybody wants to plead the fifth, they [1:19:07] don't have to be forced to come? [1:19:08] Before this committee? That doesn't make any sense. What excuse is that? That doesn't make [1:19:14] any sense. The fact that I continue to tell you all what is the most consistent thing survivors [1:19:19] have asked us to do? Follow the money. How come we haven't forced JP Morgan Chase before this [1:19:25] committee? How come we haven't allowed Bank of America to come before this committee? Mr. Chair, [1:19:30] it is so disgusting. And this is why it's everybody's so distracted by this whole thing of [1:19:37] like, oh, you know, the Clintons, Trump and everything. [1:19:40] But who was funding it? Literally, JP Morgan turned a blind eye to evidence of such trafficking, [1:19:49] even after his 2008 conviction. Hear me out. After he was convicted, they still hid.