1) H.Res. _____, Recommending that the House of Representatives find William J. Clinton in Contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; 2) H.Res. _____, Recommending that the House of Representatives find Hillary R. Clinton in Contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
We've offered flexibility in scheduling. The response we received was not cooperation, but defiance marked by repeated delays, excuses, and obstruction. The Clintons claim they have been treated unfairly because this committee accepted written statements under penalty of perjury from former US attorneys general Holder, Lynch, Sessions, and Garland, as well as former FBI director Comey. Those written statements were accepted because none of those officials recalled information relevant to the Epstein investigation, nor did they have personal relationships with Epstein. By contrast, the committee required in-person testimony from former US attorney general Barr and former US secretary of labor and US attorney Acosta, both Republicans, because they possessed information directly relevant to the investigation.
The Clintons are in a fundamentally different category. They had documented relationships with Epstein and Maxwell, evidenced by numerous photographs, flat log records, wedding invitations, and other materials. Some of these photos can be seen here. We repeatedly informed the Clintons' attorney that written statements would not be accepted. The subpoenas required depositions.
Federal courts have consistently held that witnesses may not impose their own conditions upon the manner of congressional inquiry. Yet the Clintons attempted to do exactly that, submitting brief, bulleted written statements that are neither comprehensive nor responsive to the committee's many unanswered questions. No witness, not a former president or a private citizen, may willfully defy a duly issued congressional subpoena without consequence. But that is what the Clintons did, and that is why we are here today. I would expect bipartisan support for enforcing those subpoenas by voting in favor of these resolutions.
Unfortunately, it appears that ranking member Garcia has chosen to follow marching orders designed to distract from the issue at hand. I hope I'm wrong about this. Over the weekend, ranking member Garcia made clear that Democrats intend to divert attention from the Clintons by instead calling for Attorney General Bondi to be held in contempt. The difference is clear. Attorney General Bondi and the Department of Justice are producing documents.
While the pace is slower than any of us would prefer and must speed up, I believe that much of the delay involves the Department of Justice trying to take care to redact victims' personal information. By contrast, the Clintons have flatly refused to appear at all despite repeated warnings that the committee would move forward with contempt proceedings. Today, the Clintons must be held accountable for their actions, and Democrats must support these measures, or they will be exposed as hypocrites. We must do what is necessary to uphold Congress's investigative authority, which is imperative to the legislative process. And we are doing so to demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally to everyone, regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige.
I urge my colleagues to support this contempt report. I now yield to Ranking Member Garcia for his opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna just make one thing clear. Oversight Democrats from the start of this investigation have been crystal clear that we're willing to talk to anyone who has information about Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes. And we don't care if they're wealthy, their position, or if they're Democrats or Republicans. And we agree.
Subpoenas issued by our committee must always be respected. No president or former president is above the law, and I think every single person on this committee agrees with that. In fact, I appreciate that you brought those posters. Mister Cumber, can I actually see that? Would you mind if I actually use that poster that you brought? The one that you put up?
Speaker 3
The two that you put up earlier? I'll put those up in a sec. Now this committee from day one, and we agree, we've had questions for former President Clinton. And as you know, former president Clinton has begun answering some of those questions in a signed declaration that this committee has received recently, including last week. We know that President Clinton has offered to answer additional questions in different formats.
He's also called for a full release of the files immediately, which you or no one in this committee has actually done. It's interesting that it is this subpoena only that Republicans and the chairman have been obsessed about putting all their energy behind. Now we also want President Clinton to answer questions. In fact, he should continue to answer the questions from this committee as he has begun doing, in not just a signed declaration, but also in other offers to meet with this committee, of which you have rejected. But it's also incredibly interesting that this energy you have to attack whoever you believe your political opponents are, you are unwilling to use on Ghislaine Maxwell.
A monster who has trafficked, abused, and raped children and women and which every committee member in this body knows should be in front of this committee. Where are the contempt charges to bring her into this committee to answer the questions? And I hope that you would agree, mister Comer, that should be one of our top priorities. And let's talk about the president. Your former colleague, Marjorie Taylor Green, on this committee reported that Trump told her that he wants to continue his cover up because, quote, my friends will get hurt.
Donald Trump is leading a White House cover-up right now of the Epstein files. And we all know that Epstein himself said that Donald Trump was his best friend for over 10 years. And it is shameful, illegal, and unconstitutional that the Department of Justice has released 1% of the files. 1% of the files. Where is the pressure to get Pam Bondi to release the files?
Instead, your focus and the committee's focus is on whoever you perceive to be you, your enemies, and the enemies of Donald Trump. Because let's be clear. We wanna talk to President Bill Clinton. We want him to answer our questions. We also want Ghislaine Maxwell to answer our questions.
We also wanna understand why Pam Bondi refuses to release all the files. 1% of the files have been released. Millions have been left. No publications for weeks. That is a crime.
And so this White House cover-up continues every single day that the files are not released. And yet, where are those calls, mister Comer? You're saying they're complying. That is both a lie and shameful. It's time to end this White House cover-up.
I wanna yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee on federal law enforcement, Summer Lee, who originally made the motion to subpoena attorney general Pam Bondi.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. I just want us to speak plainly and lay the facts out, what's really happening in this committee. We are one week out from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who did not show up for their depositions. One week, and we're already having a markup to hold them in contempt. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has been legally obligated to hand over the full unredacted abstain files to this committee since August.
The same exact subpoena that they are using to hold the Clintons in contempt. And please note that these resolutions are allowing the DOJ to prosecute the Clintons for the exact same things that the DOJ itself is violating. They have handed over 1% of the vows and heavily redacted them. We are five months overdue, Mr. Comer. If you've made no effort to bring in Panbone.
So, no, the difference is not clear. You have made no effort to demand any answers or exert any pressure. So with that, mister Shear, I do have an amendment at the desk which would hold Panbondie in contempt for noncompliance with the bipartisan subpoena that you issued on 08/05/25. I hope that my colleagues will support. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Minorities' times expired. We're still debating the measure, and we'll take up your amendment once we finish debating the initial measure. I just wanted to respond to a couple of things. I agree. We need to hear from Ghislaine Maxwell.
We've been trying to get her in for a deposition. Our lawyers have been saying that she's gonna plead the fifth, but we have nailed down a date, February 9, where Ghislaine Maxwell will be deposed by this committee. Now her lawyers have made it clear that she's gonna plead the fifth. I hope she changes her mind because I wanna hear from her just like I wanna hear.
Speaker 4
If the difference is clear, the difference here is that they are also trying to negotiate. She says she doesn't want to do it. You have not moved in the same way. So you are actually not applying the same standard here across the board. The DOJ is in.
Speaker 1
You're out of order. So we were gonna depose Ghislaine Maxwell February 9. Where are the contempt charges, Mr. Churchill? Out of order, too, mister Garcia. And we will proceed with that deposition.
Miss Lee said the Clintons just missed their deadline by a week. We have been negotiating with the Clinton attorneys for 5 months. Mister chairman, months.
Speaker 1
Right now? This is my time. This is my time. I recognize myself, so I have 5 minutes.
Speaker 1
Well, I'm about finished anyway. I haven't used 5 minutes. I've used about 1 minute. But you used your full five minutes, sir. No.
I haven't used the five minutes, Mr. Garcia. So if any other member seeks recognition on the underlying bill? Luna. Miss Luna?
Speaker 7
So I just think this is really important for everyone to get context, and also I just actually talked to Todd Blanche this morning. And as we proceed in this committee today, I just wanted to give an update, but also to let you all know that Todd Blanche has told me that he's willing to talk to any of you. And I think it would be very important as we proceed with the seriousness of this investigation specifically pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein that there's open dialogue directly with the DOJ. When I went to move to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, part of the issue was he wasn't even willing to talk to Congress, period. At least not some of the members who were concerned about some of those audio tapes.
But specifically pertaining to the Jeffrey Epstein update. As of right now, what I've been told by mister Blanche is that the files, and I think in total, it was over 5,000,000 files, actually have finished review at the DOJ. They've had 500 attorneys from NSD, the Southern District of Florida, SDNY, and the FBI basically working on this six days a week to get these files appropriately redacted with victim information. But, specifically, what the hang-up is for the file release is the judge in New York that issued, that made the order from the SDNY's prosecutor's office, Jake Clayton, basically certified under oath that there would be a review to protect some of the victim information. And so that's part of the reason why it has, I guess, been more of a delay.
I do think that this information needs to be released, but it's important to provide context that unless we're gonna bring in the judge in New York, which I agree with. I do think that there needs to be a proper review of the documents if it's pertaining to the victim information. It's just important to know the context. But I would be happy to, Garcia, I'd be happy to facilitate that phone call, give you his personal cell phone. He said he would actually like to talk to all of you.
And I would encourage you guys to actually engage with that conversation, because they do think this is important. And then also, a last update. I was told, and I've been trying to obtain information on one victim specifically. If you have victims that specifically want their files, they will actually take those names and get whatever files they can to them. So some of the Democrats are working with some of the victims. I'm working with some of them, but it's important to note for the context.
So I yield my time.
Speaker 1
Very good. And would you yield a couple of you got two minutes left. But I just wanna, yeah. Make it clear. Like, most everyone on this committee, I do a lot of interviews, and I have stated repeatedly, publicly, on conservative networks, liberal networks, and everything in between that we want the Epstein documents released.
And I appreciate the update from miss Luna on the progress. They have been complying. We all wish that it was moving much faster, but there are a lot of documents. And if you remember the last document dump that the Department of Justice released, there were many people on this committee, on the Democrat side, that were very critical, saying there weren't enough redactions. So they are making triple and quadruple sure that the victim's personal information is redacted.
Now, do any other members wish to be heard? Chair recognizes Mr. Mfube.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you, sir. I, representative Luna, I appreciate, you know, the statements, but I just wanna be clear. That is a lie, and here is why. Mister Blanche said that they've been reviewing the documents since the passage of the law, the Connor Massey law.
We have had a legal subpoena in place since the summer, since July. It's been the job of the DOJ to comply with this law since a subpoena passed by the subcommittee of this body. Since that subpoena passed in July, we've received 33,000 documents, of which 99% were already public documents. And so when we talk about complying with the law, you have to talk about complying with the very subpoena that this committee actually passed in a bipartisan way. And so mister Blanche is talking about the Epstein files law, we should have received all the documents already per the actual law that was voted on.
There has been little to zero production of this committee's request. And so miss mister Blanche is wrong, and he's not being truthful to this committee and to you. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Mister chairman, I yield remaining time to Miss Summer who has the underlying motion. And I know that you said that we would be dealing with that. I just don't think she had enough time to explain her position on it.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Infumi. I actually do appreciate that. And I would like to really emphasize that 1% of the fouls is insulting. It's insulting. In fact, when we consider that Pam Bondi herself has publicly stated that the fouls exist, she publicly stated that she had already given Donald Trump that information.
So it is a little bit concerning that you have not moved in the way that you said you would. This type of energy could be well spent on the DOJ. It could be well spent on, not just saying that you want us to release the files. You have power here. This markup is evidence that you were never serious about an honest bipartisan investigation, that you always intended to use this as a one-sided political hit job.
Because if you had your way, we actually would have recessed this summer, before we were able to force that bipartisan subpoena through the subcommittee on federal law enforcement. So when we think about this kangaroo court and the dishonesty that that's happening right here, right, it dishonors the integrity of our committee and the survivors who have put themselves at risk for justice. We all remember the roundtable where many of us sat and listened to the survivors. We listened to their stories, and one of them spoke and said that she doesn't know if we're good liars or if we're telling the truth. But for the first time, she is hoping that something actually happens here.
We left that roundtable, and Mr. Kumar, you yourself said that you wanted to honor those victims. To let Pambandi off the hook, to let others who are obviously in those fouls off the hook is unacceptable. We cannot investigate this fully if we do not have the full files. We cannot see all there is to see if the DOJ is not complying. We cannot move forward.
Being in the minority party gives us limited options for actions, and we all must be willing to wait, if you are not going to subpoena the fouls. So I thank you, Amfume, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Gosar, for yielding. First of all, let's go back. When this started, everyone was demanding that we subpoena the Epstein estate. That wasn't in the discharge petition, but I issued a subpoena to the estate. When we met with the victims, when we met privately for two hours, Miss Lee was there, and Miss Crockett and, you know, more than half the committee.
They were demanding that we subpoena the estate, and we did. We got every document from the estate. There were people who said, oh, there's gonna be a lot of questions answered. There'll be names and all that. We've subpoenaed every document, every picture, everything from the estate.
We never held back. We've been serious. We've all supported the full release of the documents. As I've stated many times publicly, we wish this process was going faster. That's a lot of documents, a lot of redactions.
A lot of eyes have to be put on this. So the department of justice is complying. Now with respect to Maxwell, Maxwell and the Clintons are not treated differently. Maxwell was always willing to appear but made very clear she would take the Fifth Amendment. The Clintons refused to appear.
The Clintons refused to appear. And the what the one of the proposals that Clinton made was if we would let Hillary Clinton off, then mister Garcia and I could travel to mister Clinton's house and bring one staffer and take notes, but no depth, no transcript. That's not even a thing, and you all know that. The media, I'm sure, would require a transcript. There's no real investigation without a transcript.
So, you know, what few counterproposals that the Clinton's massive legal team has made aren't acceptable. And I don't think anyone is gonna stand up here and be willing to publicly argue that they were. So, does any other member seek recognition? Mr. Frost.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American people deserve full transparency, and anyone who has relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes must be compelled to come forward and share it with this committee. Wealth and power cannot shield people from accountability by this committee. It is the victims of these horrific crimes who deserve protection, not Jeffrey Epstein and the people associated with him. We all agree.
We want to hear from former President Bill Clinton. But committee Republicans have failed to conduct a serious investigation. For instance, they refuse to hold attorney general Pam Bonding in contempt for failure to release 99% of the Epstein files on a bipartisan law that we all passed on the house floor, and, b, that had a deadline. And, b, they refused to hold Gillian Maxwell accountable for defying this committee's subpoenas. We all know that President Trump has a longstanding relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
His administration continues to obstruct the release of the Epstein files, for this reason. We've seen photos of them together. Even Elon Musk posted that real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That's the real reason why they have not been made public. President Trump's own Mar-a-Lago club appears to come up often in connection to Jeffrey Epstein.
From reporting, we know that Epstein was deeply involved with Mar-a-Lago. He was a frequent visitor to the club for years. The club sent employees, usually young women, to Epstein's mansion for massages, manicures, and other spa services. Staff members from the club made frequent calls to Epstein's home in Palm Beach. And on these calls, Epstein engaged in sexually suggestive behavior, such as exposing himself.
And in 2000, Lane Maxwell recruited Epstein's trafficking victim from Mar A Lago where she was working as an employee. This committee must also investigate what Mar-a-Lago club members and the staff knew about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. Getting documents from Mar-a-Lago is about uncovering evidence, holding these people accountable, and doing right by the victims of these horrific crimes. So I'm for making sure that we hear from everyone. I don't care if you're a Democrat.
I don't care if you're Republican. I'm tired of rich people trying to evade justice and accountability, period. But you can't do it just for the party you disagree with. You can't do it in a politically motivated way. So here's the opportunity to show it's not a politically-motivated thing.
Let's also make sure that we get these documents from Mar-a-Lago. So with that, pursuant to clause 2k6 of House Rule 11, I move that the House shall subpoena the Mar-a-Lago Club and all entities under common ownership or control with the Mar-a-Lago Club to provide the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with, one, all documents, communications, materials related to Jeffrey Epstein, to include but not limited to personnel files and records, client files and records, massage and spa services records, complaints and grievances filed against Jeffrey Epstein, internal communications and billing statements. Two, a list of all Mar-a-Lago club personnel who provided massages on behalf of the Mar-a-Lago club between 1997 and 2003, regardless of whether such personnel were contractors or formally employed, Masseuses or otherwise. And three, a list of all Mar a Lago club personnel who were employed as or acted as managers of the Mar a Lago club spa between 1997 and 2003.
Speaker 1
A motion was made by Mr. Frost. The motion is improper as the item is not on the agenda. Any other chair recognizing?
Speaker 5
Won't you move to make sure that we get the relevant documents from Aerialogue that I just read? And you're saying it's because it's not on the agenda that we can't move forward with this? Do you have full discretion in this committee to say, you know what? Let's have a vote in a bipartisan way to say we want the documents from Mar-a-Lago.
Speaker 1
I don't have full discretion. It's in the rules. We vote on a rules package at the beginning of the process.
Speaker 1
We cannot vote on it. It's in our rules. We'll be breaking our rules. We have to apply to the rules too. We're not locked to the Clintons.
Speaker 5
No. No. No. You are hiding behind process to protect these Mar A Lago documents, and I think it's disgraceful.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing noted in the Clinton's letters is they said the subpoenas were illegal. I'd be curious to know if the ranking member thinks that they're illegal. And with that, I yield the rest of my time to you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Cloud. I wanna make sure everyone is aware. On February 11, attorney general Bondi will be appearing as the sole witness in front of the judiciary committee. Miss Crockett is a member of the judiciary committee. I would assume I don't wanna speak for Miss Crockett, but I would assume you'll ask her questions about the Epstein investigation and her progress towards releasing the documents.
Mister Massey is a member of the judiciary committee. He's already stated publicly he's going to spend his five minutes asking the attorney general about the Epstein documents. So the attorney general is slated to be in front of Congress, and I'm pretty confident that just about everybody on that committee is gonna ask the attorney general where we are with the document production. So I think that's important to note. February 11, she stated to be in front of the judiciary committee.
And with the discharge petition, when the house voted for that, we issued the subpoenas for the Epstein documents. Then we all voted for the discharge petition. The discharge petition as judiciary has jurisdiction in the judiciary committee. So she's gonna be in front of the judiciary committee. The next week, we're in session.
So I think that’s important to note. Do any other members seek? Okay. Mister Leach, then, yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would remind the gentleman, and I'm sure he knows this, that the oversight committee is the principal investigatory committee.
Speaker 11
In the house. And, we have a responsibility. It may be a shared responsibility with judiciary, but we nevertheless have a responsibility. And we are the ones who issued that subpoena. This committee did.
We are the ones who sat with the victims. Right? We looked them in the eye, including the Speaker of the House. We looked them in the eye, these women who have been struggling to get justice for many years, and we promised them. Every member of this committee, we promised them that we would do everything under our power to make sure they finally receive justice.
And here we are today. Now with millions of documents requested back in August, we've still received, what, 1% of the documents. This is evidence of wrongdoing in many cases. And yet we're allowing attorney general Bondi to obstruct justice, basically. Even a little bit of evidence that she has provided, she also included a statement that basically said, don't believe this evidence.
There's a lot of falsity in these. I mean, I have never seen an attorney general in this country provide evidence and then give an opinion on that evidence to the legislature, to the congress. That is unheard of. But it shows her willingness to do whatever she can to obstruct justice from being delivered. The second thing I wanna say is if we are truly interested in getting information relative to this investigation, there should be some underlying basis for that.
And I have reviewed all of the evidence that's been made available so far. I find nothing that points to secretary Clinton in this at all. Yes. She was secretary of state at one point, but the information that we're trying to get with respect to secretary of state is available from any secretary of state that served in that office with respect to trafficking. So there is no direct reason, no direct evidence to point to Secretary Clinton in any of this.
And yet, while those millions of documents are being denied us, we're pulling someone forward, I think, the point of embarrassment, public embarrassment, and because of ill will on the part of the president to bring her forward for embarrassment, but not for the purpose of gaining helpful information for this investigation. Mister chairman, I'll yield the balance of my time to the ranking member, Mister Garcia.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Congressman Lynch. I mister Comer, I just wanna be pretty clear about two things, and one particularly something that you said. Let me just start by saying that you've noted in your comments that your concern and your biggest concern was the issue of the transcript. And I wanna just go back really quick because you and I share respect for subpoenas. Mhmm.
You and I share that we want the former president to answer questions. Is that correct?
Speaker 3
Great. And so does every other member of this committee. We want the former president to answer questions of this committee, and we want not just the former president, but everyone to follow subpoenas of this committee. So let's agree on that. But to be clear, President Clinton, the former president, has submitted a signed declaration.
He's offered to sit with you and me, and answer questions. He's offered to have staff in the room to transcribe and be there while those questions are answered. And his request was to do it in a dignified way. Your concern, as you brought up in your last comments, was that he was unwilling to do a recorded transcript. That's actually also not true.
And to be clear, there has been public reporting, including in articles that came out over the weekend, that they have not ruled out a recorded transcript. I want to ask the president questions. Chairman Comer, I wanna ask President Clinton questions.
Speaker 3
I wanna ask President Clinton questions and a recorded transcript with members of our staff. Would you like to do that also?
Speaker 1
May I make a comment on the transcript? They have not agreed to a transcript. Staff notes are not equivalent. They've actually.
Speaker 1
So there won't be to make note. They said, okay. Comer can take notes, but they've called us all liars and, you know, how the Clintons have gone on offense. And, look, they don't get to make the rules.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I wanna be clear because this is an email, actually, from the Clinton lawyers. You have this, actually. To be clear, at no point were we opposed to the creation of a record of the interview, which is why we offered to allow the note takers previously. They go on.
They go on. This is you have this email, sir. So I guess my question to you is, do you wanna sit down and ask presidential questions? Actually, I wanna have, can I have my time back?
Speaker 3
So, thank you. So my question to you, mister Comer, again, is if we wanna actually ask questions of President Clinton, of which those of us in the minority want to do, then let's get him in. Let's negotiate a recorded transcription of that interview to further our investigation. I thank you for the yield, mister Lynch.
Speaker 14
Yeah. Chairman, point of clarification. Both President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were subpoenaed by this committee to come in for a transcript interview. Is that correct?
Speaker 14
Excuse me. For a deposition. Chairman, I've been in these closed depositions a number of times in my time being on the oversight committee. I fail to see what President Clinton's talking about with respect to a dignified manner. Every time I've been involved in any of these conversations, even when it was former president Biden's son who came in for one of those.
And I'm not trying to bring up all the Hunter stuff. It's just a point I'm making. I think everybody just take the temperature down. Relax. Even those, the closed door depositions have always been held in a dignified manner.
Members have had questions outside of questions from committee staff, but members on both sides of the aisle had the ability to answer those questions. Those interviews are recorded. The transcripts of those interviewed are provided to the public. I fail to see what special accommodations President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were looking for, Chairman. Can you help me understand this?
Or even a ranking member. I wanna understand. I'm really trying to understand. I'm not trying to make a point. We do too much of that here. I'm trying to understand because if we're holding a new meeting to replace what the committee already requested, my question is why.
Mister.
Speaker 3
Thank you, mister Donald. I appreciate the question. Look. I think the committee first, I'm not here to defend the Clintons, to be clear. That's their job is to negotiate, with the committee.
And in this case, you have the majority. Their job is to negotiate with the majority on coming in for a binding subpoena, to be clear. But I'll also note that this committee has historically made accommodations for a variety of folks. In fact, I think it is a bit hypocritical that when this very subpoena for the Clintons was actually made, I believe there were an additional five to six other subpoenas that were issued to numerous other members of former administrations, attorney generals, and so forth. Every one of those other subpoenas, I think maybe with the exception of one, was given special accommodations.
In fact, they were actually allowed to just send their responses in writing. Is that correct, Mr. Comer?
Speaker 3
One second. And so accommodations are made. And so while every other folks in that group were given special accommodations, that's been typically the case. And I'll finally say just this. Like you, I wanna have the president Clinton answer questions.
I think they are trying to negotiate that with the majority, and they have been clear that be it being transcribed is not an issue. They've not ruled that out. And so let's negotiate with the Clintons, and let's get them to answer our questions.
Speaker 14
I mean, chairman, I since I guess we're all my time. Thank you, and by the way, ranking member, thank you for that. I appreciate that. Chairman, you were mentioning you were gonna inject your commentary with respect to special accommodations that have been made for previous witnesses. I don't know if you want to expound on what the ranking member said or not.
Speaker 1
I would love to. So first of all, you talk about ongoing negotiations. We have been negotiating for 5 months. This is clearly a stall tactic hoping that the time clock runs out and the house flips and that you all let them off the hook. But, secondly, you mentioned, and I mentioned this in my open statement, there were names on that initial list with the Summer Lee motion and the Scott Perry amendment.
Attorney General Holder, Lynch, Sessions, and Garland, as well as Comey. They all complied and had written statements under the penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge of anything with Epstein, that they weren't directly involved in the investigation, and, you know, basically had no personal relationship. I think we would all agree the Clintons had a personal relationship with both Epstein and Maxwell. You know, it's from the evidence that we've received thus far from the estate and all the other documents that we have thus far, it appears that Jeffrey Epstein visited the Clinton White House 17 times while he was president. And then post-presidency, it appears that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane at least 27 times.
So there's a huge difference between the knowledge and relationship with the Clintons and Epstein Maxwell versus the former attorney general. And another note, I think I don't know if it was mister Bell or whoever said that we only are interested in Democrats. We grilled Bill Barr and Alex Acosta, and they are very Republican. In fact, they were members of the Trump cabinet. I've been on the oversight committee 9 years.
We've had 4 other committee chairs. We've had Jay since I've been here, we've had Jason Chafetz, Trey Gowdy, Elijah Cummings, and Carolyn Maloney. I don't ever remember a time, and I could be wrong if I am. I'm sure you all are correct me, but I don't remember a time when Caroline Maloney or Elijah Cummings subpoenaed a high-ranking Democrat to come in for a grilling. So to imply that this is partisan, that is simply not true.
We've already had two very high, I mean, the former attorney general of the United States under Trump and the former labor secretary and US attorney. So we've done that. And then the one other thing with the Clintons, and I'll yield back. One of the arguments the Clintons made, Mister Garcia, was that our subpoenas were unlawful. Do you agree that the subpoenas we issued to the Clintons are unlawful?
Speaker 3
I believe that all of our subpoenas that we have issued have been lawful, sir.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's clear to me that the purpose of this meeting today is just to continue this committee's agenda of political theater, plain and simple. Democrats have been very clear, abundantly, repeatedly, and without room for ambiguity. We want to hear from anyone who has information about the Epstein crimes. And yet, when former President Clinton and former Secretary Clinton offered to cooperate with this committee, to submit sworn statements, to provide what they know, to engage in good faith, the majority said no.
And that's what brings us to why we are really here today. The majority is rushing to hold in contempt two private citizens who have demonstrated their desire to cooperate with this committee and who have called for the release of every file on Jeffrey Epstein, all while the Department of Justice and Attorney General Pam Bondi are breaking the law in plain sight. Here are the facts. The DOJ was required by statute to release the Epstein files by 12/19/2020. The deadline has passed by more than a month.
And what if we received? 1%. 1% is not compliance. 1% is not transparency. 1% is a cover-up.
What about the 1% they actually release? We've seen redactions that are extensive, unusual, and very likely illegal. And what's more, the Epstein files release act passed by supermajorities in this Congress and signed into law by this president required the DOJ to send a report to Congress by 01/03/2026. More than two weeks later, what have we received from the DOJ? Nothing.
So if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really serious about uncovering the truth and government and accountability, we would be demanding answers from the administration. We would be demanding answers from the attorney general Bondi. We would be demanding the release of 99% of the Epstein file still sitting at the DOJ. So I have some very simple questions. Where is the subpoena for Attorney General Bondi?
Where is the hearing on DOJ's failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act? Where is the accountability for the redactions page after page? This vote feels less like oversight, and more like a distraction. A distraction from the DOJ's lawlessness, a distraction from a broken promise of transparency, a distraction from the embarrassment of a coequal branch of government choosing complicity over accountability, and a distraction from survivors who deserve this truth. If this committee is serious, then we must hold the Department of Justice accountable.
Release the files, all of them, and stop playing politics with justice. Survivors deserve better. And with that, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Representative Brown. I just wanna, chairman, I wanna just respond to something that you said. I think it's important. First, I just wanna read the folks of who the subpoenas you have chosen not to enforce. Alberto Gonzalez, who we subpoenaed on that same day, I believe, you did not enforce it.
Eric Holder, of course, former AG, did not enforce. Loretta Lynch, you did choose not to enforce. Jeff Sessions, you chose not to enforce. Merrick Garland, who I think it'd be important to have answered questions. You chose not to enforce.
Robert, James Comey, you chose not to enforce. In fact, I have Attorney General Gonzalez's letter. It says, dear chairman Comer, this letter is to confirm that consistent with my conversations with the committee general counsel, I have no present memory of decisions or conversations related to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein matter during my tenure as US attorney general. He, of course, was the attorney general when the whole Alex Acosta US attorney matter was in front of a critical time in this investigation. Now you chose not to enforce that because, you know, you mentioned that this letter is under penalty of perjury.
The declaration that Clinton also made and sent to you to answer some of those questions was also under penalty of perjury. I just wanna clarify that. And then with the remainder of my time, mister chairman, I think it's important to note that you talked a lot about the importance of our subpoenas and that we should all support this committee's subpoenas. And I agree with you, sir, and I want to hear from the Clintons. It's also important to note that we have members of this committee, Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Andy Biggs, Congressman Scott Perry, who are obviously very outspoken, which we like to engage with.
Now they're not here, and that's okay. Now you also know, sir, that all three of them defied legally binding subpoenas issued by the January 6 committee relating to their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. So we should be clear that the majority chooses to be very selective on which subpoenas they want to enforce or talk about. We have members of the majority that themselves have defied subpoenas. So once again, I ask you, mister chairman, let's ask president Clinton the questions that we have.
Let's have him come in and testify in a way that we can negotiate, and let's get all the release of the files done immediately. Thank you.
Speaker 1
You say we didn't enforce the subpoenas, we did enforce. They complied and testified under the penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge. Now the Clinton declarations were short bullet points, almost like talking points. And the evidence is clear that the Clintons did have a relationship with them. Now, again, I've said publicly millions of times.
There's no, you know, no one's accusing the Clintons of wrongdoing. But the fact that they were that close and the fact that I've never seen a sit down interview with Bill Clinton where he's answered questions about his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell like the current president has. So we are, we have complied and enforced all of our subpoenas, 100% of our subpoenas. So I just want to make that very clear.
Speaker 3
Can I respond to you, sir? Sure. Just to be clear, you're talking about two declarations. The declaration that you chose to use as something that you moved on to not bring him in was one six the size of the Clinton declaration. I'm looking at the Alberto Gonzalez response to you, sir, that you chose to dismiss, and it is one sentence long, one sentence long.
You just pointed out the Clinton declaration, which is 6 times as long. And so I just think you're using interesting points to make comparisons. Let's just be clear, and get back to the facts. Let's bring President Clinton in to have a conversation with this committee. You're instead choosing to try to prosecute President Clinton and send him to jail, which is part of criminal prosecution, before having him answer questions to this committee.
He and his team have been trying to negotiate. We wanna hear from President Clinton. I'm not sure that you do, sir. You don't.
Speaker 1
So, chairman? So before I recognize Miss Luna, who'll be next, I believe, are you willing to accept those bullet points as testimony, or do you wanna hear from Clinton?
Speaker 1
Then I don't know what the point is of talking about their bullet points. I mean, we all know they had a relationship.
Speaker 3
Sorry. I'm just responding to the fact that you mentioned that you're dismissing other legal subpoenas with one sentence answers. And yet you're the one that pointed out the Clinton's declaration, which is also under penalty of perjury.
Speaker 1
Do you think that Eric Holder or Lynch or Jeff Sessions or Merrick Garland had more? I mean, you wanna bring them on?
Speaker 3
I would love to have former attorney general Merrick Garland in front of this committee to answer questions as to why more of the files weren't released. I've actually said that publicly. And so, sir, we I think what it comes down to is we all wanna get to the truth. We all want justice for the survivors, and I think more information is better. And so I think our position is that we want, it is clear to me that President Clinton is negotiating to come in front of this committee.
And it may not be exactly what you and the lawyer and your team want to see as far as that negotiation, or you're not satisfied with the progress. But they continue to negotiate. They have not rolled out a transcript. Let's get them in front of this committee. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1
Chair recognizes Mister Gill, then Miss Luna. Mr. Gill has a beer. Go ahead. Or oh, no. Miss, who's next?
Miss Luna. Go ahead, Miss Luna. Then.
Speaker 7
Miss May. I'd just like to remind the American people that I was the member that made the motion to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, and every Democrat voted against it. And in addition to that, three of my Republican colleagues voted against it, one of whom did not come back because his voters decided that he was too swampy for them. So I'd just like to point that out. But aside from that.
Speaker 1
Well, Miss Luna, it's been pointed out to me you've already had five minutes. Somebody will probably give you some time. Okay. I've got it.
Speaker 7
If I could just finish real quick. If we're looking to see why the files have not been released yet, look no further than the judge inquiring via.
Speaker 17
First of all, I wanna ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop playing politics with justice. Not a single one of you voted for your own party to be held in contempt. I'm the only member of this body, of this committee that has held both Republicans and Democrats alike in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena. So the hypocrisy is real, and I don't wanna hear anyone on the other side of the aisle say no one is above the law here on this. This is where we're talking about human trafficking, sex trafficking.
We're talking about children, girls as young as 14 being assaulted, being trafficked by wealthy and powerful people. This is not political. This is personal. This should be nonpartisan. We should be working on this together.
And it's incredible that we're politicizing rape, or politicizing sex trafficking, or politicizing this entire Epstein thing. It just as a survivor, I'm telling you, it should not be. And I've done a lot of work, mister chairman, in advocacy, in writing legislation for victims of abuse, male, female, and children, man, woman, and child. South Carolina, my home state, mister chairman, has a huge problem with, not with all sorts of violent crimes, but sex trafficking in my state is up by over 400%. We have domestic violence in our state where you can't get a trial.
And there was a case last year where a woman two years ago was kidnapped by her boyfriend, beaten to a pulp, her face just beaten in. Two years after he kidnapped her and beat her, he murdered her on Mother's Day because our local solicitor refused to prosecute the case. And I have rogue solicitors and prosecutors and attorneys general who aren't doing anything to protect the people of South Carolina, women and children especially. Recently, my attorney general prosecuted a case against convicted pedophile Donald Gresh. Donald Gresh was convicted of having 1,900 images of toddlers as young as three being raped by animals.
Donald Gresh, under the prosecution of my attorney general Alan Wilson, served one day in jail. One day. Donald Gresh isn't the only convicted pedophile that we prosecute like that. My attorney general, Alan Wilson, prosecuted this case. This is Travis Reed Gay.
Well, the other thing too is that Donald Gresh, he was facing 60 years in jail. Got one day. Travis Reed Gay was facing seven charges in seventy years in jail in South Carolina. My attorney general prosecuted this case. He pled guilty in November, didn't serve any time.
He got probation. He violated his probation 11 days later, and if he violated his probation, he was to serve time in jail. The magistrate or judge probably didn't have a law degree. Let him out hours later. He has not served any required time for this kind of thing.
And I did a press conference with a bunch of moms, over a dozen moms, last week in Charleston, South Carolina, and there was a local media blackout. I asked was it my attorney general who prosecuted this case and left this pedophile out on the streets? Was he the one that led the media blackout? Well, I want my attorney general and my state to know that a young child came forward after seeing my press conference, and recognized this man. She filed a police report the same day because he allegedly followed her in a park the week before.
This is Scott Spivey. Killed, shot with a bullet in the back, shot 17 times. Not prosecuted by my attorney general. So I'm gonna ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter those three images into the record. This is Weldon Boyd.
This is Scott Spivey's killer who shot him in the back and has never really been investigated or prosecuted for that killing in South Carolina. I would like to enter that into the record, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 17
This is Logan Federico. She was executed a year ago yesterday, to the day, by a man named Alexander Dickie. Alexander Dickie was a convicted criminal. He had 39 arrests, 25 felony charges. He executed this beautiful 22-year-old daughter of Steven Federico in cold blood after stealing a gun.
If her killer Alexander Dickie hadn't been let out by a rogue magistrate or judge or a prosecutor solicitor that didn't care. She would be alive today. Mister chairman, I would like to enter her image and her killer's image into the record.
Speaker 17
I have another image. This is Eric Bowman. Eric Bowman beat his wife and has been alleged to be investigated for other abuses against women and potentially underage girls. He was just let out free, mister chairman, out of jail in South Carolina. He is a predator.
I have reported him to the law enforcement. He's being investigated, but I have written bill after bill about predators like Eric Bowman, about voyeurism, about these sort of criminal sexual allegations. I would like to enter his image into the record.
Speaker 1
Can we get it? Your time's expired, but I'll recognize you for UC later on the fifth. Because I wanna make sure everybody stays within their five minutes. Can I recognize Mr. Bell from Missouri?
Speaker 13
You know, first and foremost, I think we're doing a disservice to the victims in this case when we refer to it as the Epstein files. It is sex trafficking evidence, and let's call it what it is. And as a prosecutor, we prosecuted these kinds of cases when I was DA back home in Saint Louis County. And I met with every single victim and victim's family because I wanted them to know that I was here for them, and I thought it was important that we'd look them in the eye and let them know that we're gonna do everything we can to bring them justice and treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. And this is no different.
That said, I think in DC, what I've learned in my eleven months here is that this DC disease of staying in this partisan bubble is something that you have to continue to be aware of so that you don't fall into these same hypocritical traps. And I talked to Jamie Raskin because I just want to get some perspective on the law. And when we talk about the legal analysis, first and foremost, you can't read a statute. You learned this in constitutional law the first day. You can't read a statute and understand the law.
You have to understand how it's interpreted by the courts. And the courts have been clear that if there are negotiations, that does not meet the threshold for criminal contempt. And this the examples are clear on that. When Steve Bannon was held in contempt, he did not negotiate. He did not reply.
He did nothing. Meadows, when he started to reply, then Trump told him not to, and then he ceased with his communications with his body. And so in this case, I agree 100% with our ranking member. I wanna hear from the Clintons. I think the victims deserve we want to hear all the evidence.
But what I know as a prosecutor is that we don't start doing depositions before we listen to the evidence. Now if there's no evidence, okay, then there's other things to consider. But the evidence is here. There is evidence that has been dually voted on to be presented to the American people in a bipartisan manner, and of this evidence, we've received 1%. 1%.
I mean, put this in perspective. There's 0%, and then the only thing you can do next is go to 1. That's it. We've got nothing. And now we're do and now we're gonna bring the Clintons in before we even have the evidence.
That makes zero sense, which is close to the one that I talked about. And so there's a legal analysis here. There's about what are we doing to ensure that we are doing a real investigation to get these victims the justice that they deserve. And so Jelaine Max, Jelaine, whatever her name is, she needs to be brought into this body. And I'm hearing that, oh, well, she's gonna plead the fifth.
First of all, then let her. But secondly, legally, on most of these questions, she can't plead the Fifth. On the grounds that she's gonna be incriminated, she's already a criminal. So let's bring her in. Let's do those things.
Let's bring in every single person. I don't care what they are, Democrat or Republican. And I've said this publicly, and my mother got on me about this. I don't care if my mother is in the Epstein files. We need to see 100% of the Epstein files to ensure that we are doing right by these victims.
The illegal analysis does not support criminal contempt. A real investigation, a fair bipartisan investigation would lead us to the conclusion that we want to hear from the Clintons, that we want to hear from everyone. But right now, we don't even know who else is in the Epstein evidence because Pam Bon Bondi has not turned over that evidence, and that's the massive violation that we're seeing that my part my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to have any urgency about. The massive violation of the law. And Pam Bondi needs to be here to answer those questions, but that is like, oh, well, we'll put it off.
We'll get there. We're working with them. I'll use the sorry. Frankie, my friend.
Speaker 1
And before I recognize mister Gill, I wanna point out February 11, Pam Bondi will be in front of the house judiciary committee. February 9. February 9. I'm sorry. February 9.
February 9. February 9 is Miss Maxwell. Miss Maxwell. And, miss Max, yeah. February 9, we're deposing Miss Maxwell.
February 11, Pam Bondi will be in front of this committee. So there's a lot of wheels moving right now. Chair recognized Mr. Gil from Texas.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just think it's worth pointing out that the obvious reality here is that the Clintons are doing everything they possibly can to not come testify before the committee or had any real transcript or information about his engagement and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over a long period of time. I mean, we've been working for five months to nail down a date for a deposition, working in good faith the entire time. The Clintons have been evading this committee, at one point even deciding that they were gonna propose Christmas Day, Christ's birthday, as a date for a deposition. I mean, that's not good faith.
At one point, they proposed that instead of doing a deposition, they're gonna have chairman Comer and a staffer and a notetaker go up to New York City where they could ask mister Clinton questions and create two different sets of records about what Clinton said. That's obviously quite different than having an official court reporter precisely write down the words from the former president. Competing staff notes are simply not gonna cut it. So we've spent 5 months working on this. It's about time that they comply with a lawful subpoena, like many other people have.
And there's some suggestion that we're selectively choosing who to enforce these subpoenas against. I mean, as you pointed out multiple times, Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House 17 times. He flew at least 26 times on Epstein's private plane. There's a clear, long-standing, obvious connection between the Clintons and the Epsteins, and I think we need answers for that. And I hope that we get that, I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in that.
And with that said, I'm happy to yield two minutes to my colleague, Miss Anna Paulina Luna.
Speaker 7
Thank you. I'd like to just say that I do agree with some sentiment of both my colleagues, to include Mister Bell, who actually just spoke to wanting justice for the victims. But it's important to note that the reason why the files have been delayed and released is because of Judge Paul Engelmeier in New York. This judge specifically ordered the SDNM, the SDNY, to do a second review and for those documents to then be certified by US attorney Jay Clayton. So if you wanna get mad at someone, look no further than judge Paul Angrimy, who then also, at the same time, just denied Massey and Ro Khanna's motion to appoint a special master.
So we can argue back and forth all day long about where the files are. I wanna see the files too. I want everyone to come in and answer the questions. But look no further than this person. By the way, this person is not a Democrat or a Republican.
I think this person actually might be independent. But if you're wondering where the files are, that is the truth of the matter. That's it. As soon as those files come out at the DOJ, we're gonna get them. And by the way, I will remind people that weren't here earlier.
Todd Blanche will get on a phone call with people here. And after this, I'm going to go walk over Todd Blanche's cell phone number to chairman Garcia and to chairman Comer so they can both get on a call. I think it's important to open a dialogue. Okay? But the point is that we have to know the facts, and those are the facts.
So look no further than Judge Paul Engelmeier. Again, he's the one person that appointed the review a second review. And then once those documents are reviewed, then it goes to the DOJ. But you can't fast-track the process.
Speaker 13
Are you suggesting that 99% of the reason for not receiving these files is this judge. Not 20% of the files, 30%, half of them, 99% of the files, some of which are already public.
Speaker 7
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. I don't know who all is in charge over in New York specifically doing that second review, but I do know that at least with the DOJ, they are officially done reviewing all the documents that they had left. Right? They had 500 attorneys actually, said this earlier that NSC, Southern District of Florida, SDNWine, the FBI were there’s 500 lawyers working on this to review all the documentation. They're officially done with that.
Now I don't know what the second review process is because I'm not internally with the DOJ. But what I will tell you is when you have this judge then also turning around and denying Roe Khan and Massey's motion to appoint a special master, which I think Mister Khanna can probably speak on. I think that that's shady. And I think that it's really terrible that we're sitting 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. So I'm here for it.
I want all the documents, and I do think that we're gonna get those documents. Do I think it's gonna be rushed? Absolutely not. I don't want to rush the process. But I will also encourage you guys, just as I did this morning, I got victim specific information.
The DOJ has said that they will release whatever files they have pertaining to her directly, 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, I think, empty inboxes. But the point is that it's important for context. So that's I yield my time.
Speaker 19
Before I begin, I have a question for the chair. I just want to clarify. When you said Pam Bondi's coming on February 11, is she coming to this committee?
Speaker 1
This point? I've said she's not scheduled to come to the committee. She's coming in front of the judiciary committee.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Just really briefly. I appreciate representative Luna's, you know, interest in the survivors. So I do appreciate that. Just wanna be very clear and clarified.
Judge Englemeyer has nothing to do, his rulings have nothing to do with the legal subpoena passed by the oversight committee last July. Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and the DOJ have been in defiance of a legal subpoena of this committee that has nothing to do with the Kana Massey law, that keeps getting referred to. And so when you're saying that, Judge Eagle Meyer is the regent, that is actually not the case as it relates to the subpoena. And so they are still violating the law and have been since July, to be cleared. Thank you, Mr. Minh.
Speaker 19
Thank you. And I just wanna begin by echoing the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Someone who spent my career as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, as a law professor, the rule of law is important. No one should be above the law, including presidents and former presidents, and congressional subpoenas are an important part of the rule of law. And I think that Clinton should be here.
I think it's very shameful that they're not. But I also have to admit I'm very troubled by this criminal contempt motion. As a lawyer, I know that I don't know this area of law, criminal contempt. So what I did is what any decent lawyer does. I asked people who do know this area.
I called a number of colleagues, former colleagues, people who are former DOJ attorneys, experts in this area. It's hard to get 10 lawyers to agree on anything. They all agreed that this was unprecedented, that under a normal administration, a normal DOJ that's not politicized, they would never bring criminal contempt charges in these circumstances. And I say non-politicized DOJ because many of us are very concerned that this Department of Justice has become weaponized under this administration, under Pam Bondi. We have seen them go after Trump's political enemies, including people like Adam Schiff and Letitia James with bankrupt charges. We've seen them refuse to investigate an ICE agent who clearly shot and killed a woman at point-blank.
We've seen them fire line attorneys who refused to go along with indictments that they described as political and illegal. Now the closest comparison to this particular criminal contempt case is Steve Bannon. And there's a well-established president here. Steve Bannon refused to answer, saying he would only answer questions from this committee if Trump told him to do so. That wasn't like delaying or obfuscating.
That is willful defiance. And that's what the courts found, that's why he went to jail. And again, while I think that the clinic should be here, what we're proposing here is a very serious matter, bringing criminal charges against a former president of the United States. And I listened to you very carefully, Chair Comer, for the last hour. And I heard you describe them as delaying, as dragging their feet, negotiating for 5 months.
But I never once heard you say they just outright refused to comply with the subpoena. And dragging your feet is not the same as non-compliance. It's not the same as contempt. And so if we think they're dragging their feet or obfuscating, there are lesser things we can do, including civil contempt. And I have to ask, like, why are we not thinking about alternative measures rather than bringing criminal contempt against a former president?
And I also want to point out that on November 14, and I wanna ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Donald Trump wrote a true social post in which he demanded that folks, the Republicans, go after Bill Clinton, Rehoff, and Larry Summers in relation to Epstein. Later that day, Pam Bondi announced that they would be bringing investigations. And now that we saw later that this committee brought subpoenas against the Clintons. This seems very political, the people I talk to in my district view this entire matter as politicized. They view this as why Bill Clinton, and look, if Bill Clinton is guilty, let's put him in jail.
But what I have a problem with right now is that we seem to be doing something that is unprecedented for Bill Clinton. We're bringing criminal charges against him, potentially, that we would not do for any other individual in these same circumstances. And that, again, is not my opinion. It's the opinion of everybody I talked to. It says it's not a closed matter.
And so I have deep concerns that this looks like a political witch hunt against Trump's critics, that it will be referred to the Department of Justice, that we have seen as politicized. Many of us had deep concerns that they are breaking the law on a daily basis. So I have trouble with this. I don't know yet how I'm gonna vote, but I'd love to hear from you, Mister Comer, why we did not pursue alternative measures, particularly when the Clintons, by all accounts, were actively negotiating. And whether you thought that their offers were not sufficient, they don't strike me as noncompliance or defiance of this subpoena.
Speaker 19
I don't yield my time to you. I yield it to mister, I've already your question. Yield it, then.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Requesting unanimous consent to enter into the record the minutes of a hearing conducted by the federal law enforcement subcommittee on 07/23/2025, over which I presided as chair. That was the subcommittee to clarify for America where the original subpoena driven by the Democrats and miss Lee, the original motion to subpoena the so called Epstein files was introduced. Anonymous consent to present without objection to order. Yes, sir.
So within that these minutes, here's the original motion from the Democrats. Move that the subcommittee issue a subpoena. Listen carefully. You'd alleged journalist and you, the beloved American citizen readers, paying attention to this. Move that the subcommittee issue a subpoena to the Department of Justice for the full, complete, unredacted Epstein files to be delivered concurrently to the majority and minority of the subcommittee on federal law enforcement of the committee on oversight and government reform.
That's it. That was the motion presented by the democrats. That motion immediately struck me as very poorly written because it had no recognition of recognizing and adhering to the existing long standing criminal justice procedure designed to protect the innocent. It had no timeline. There was no timeline mandated in their own motion that would force the DOJ to comply with said timeline.
There was no mandate for a particular percentage of release. There was no prohibition for actions in performance of compliance with their motion, which would become a subpoena from the oversight committee. It was just there was no, it was not even the identification of Epstein. Just said Epstein files. Epstein, who?
You think the DOJ has not prosecuted more than one Epstein in the history of the DOJ? It was a very poorly written. So Republicans noting that there were a lot of people missing from this. If we were gonna do this, allow it to move. There are a lot of people missing.
So mister Perry introduced, I remind my colleagues that this is my time. You recognize the decorum of this oversight committee. Perhaps you'll be recognized to speak. Mister Perry introduced a motion to amend the motion to subpoena by the amendments to include William Jefferson Clinton. Imagine that.
Use the whole name. And Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, amongst others. But of everybody on Scott Perry's list, the most defiant has been the Clintons, and the oversight committee has been very patient. I submit for the record unanimous consent. Ask with the chairman the actual subpoena produced on August 5, yet a hearing on July 23.
The subpoena was produced on August 5.
Speaker 9
Everyone has essentially complied to the wishes of the committee. Who's in control? We are. With the majority, we determine. The most defiant has been the Clintons.
That's why we're here today. Back in July, Scott Perry introduced an amendment to the Democrats' motion, expanding the list to include the Clintons and others, including Republicans. Miss Mace introduced an amendment to the motion to subpoena, saying, I move to amend Miss Lee's motion to include the redacting of names of victims and any personally identifiable information of said victims and any possible child sexual abuse materials. And the subpoena itself, and I'm closing, mister chair, the subpoena itself stated that the DOJ is to provide all the material requested and recognizing redactions required by law. So you're talking about 1 million documents. It takes time to redact a million documents, but the DOJ is performing and delivering.
Speaker 1
But before we go to mister Waukesha, miss Mace has two more, you know, his consent request, and I'm gonna give mister Waukesha an extra minute if everyone's okay with that. Miss Mace?
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank my colleagues, too. The whole Epstein saga and working with people on both sides aisle on the Epstein files and then working with the victims has been extremely enlightening.
Speaker 17
Through the Epstein thing, this is a tweet that I did about judges. I learned that, you know, not all the judges have been forthcoming with information and files. I tweeted out.
Speaker 17
Impeach corrupt judges, especially South Carolina judges. I've done this about a dozen times or more. I'm guilty as charged. Last week, an attorney named Robert Murding. I would like to enter his image into the record, too.
Speaker 17
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 judges should be impeached. This is what happens to survivors. This is what happens to victims. And.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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, and I'm glad that he's agreed to do so. I have read, mister chairman, that one of the sticking points in the negotiation between you and the Clintons' lawyers has been your demand that questions be asked about non-Epstein related issues. 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. 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 our investigation of the Epstein files and Epstein's sex trafficking, and I'm happy to yield, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
I don't know what you're talking about. Everything that we've pertain to with respect to the deposition pertains to the Epstein files.
Speaker 1
and questions be limited to the Epstein files. The staff attorneys are communicating with the Clinton attorneys. That's the communication going back and forth. We will this investigation is about the Epstein files.
Speaker 20
Okay. So you're willing, and you'll say here publicly, you're willing to have that conversation that limits the conversation, the questions just to the Epstein issue and files. Okay. Alright. I think the Clintons' lawyers have been under a different impression, so we've made a little progress.
Speaker 20
We made a little progress on the negotiation here today. Thank you, mister chairman. We're thirty-two days past the statutory deadline and months since this committee's subpoena. And Congress has received, as we've heard, just 1% of the files. More than 5,000,000 pages remain hidden.
Instead of holding the attorney general accountable for this failure, the majority is trying to change the subject today. Frankly, I find it insulting. We have to bring our attention back to the people who should be our focus, the survivors of Epstein's horrific sex trafficking operation, the women and girls who were exploited, abused, ignored for years. They deserve the truth, transparency, and justice without delay, without excuses, and without any political protection for the powerful or the wealthy. That's what we should be doing.
Not scoring partisan points, not creating distractions, working to uncover the full scope of his crime, so the survivors can see accountability. And if we're truly serious about justice, we can't ignore one of Epstein's most well-documented associates, President Donald J. Trump. We have documented communications, including a signed birthday note from Donald Trump containing explicit sexual references and referencing wonderful secrets between them. Emails from Epstein saying that Trump, quote, knew about the girls. Donald Trump acknowledging he knew Epstein was a, quote, creep, and that Epstein recruited girls and women from Mar-a-Lago.
Trump saying he wants to cover up the files because, quote, my friends will get hurt. If we're committed to transparency and justice, why is that off-limits for this committee? Why is his name absent? Why no discussion of Attorney General Bondi's refusal to comply for months with this committee subpoena? Why no contempt for Attorney General Bondi?
What we're witnessing today is not oversight. It's not accountability. It's part of a cover-up, a diversion. And it didn't start today. Despite clear legal requirements in a law that Donald Trump signed, a subpoena that you signed, mister chairman, and repeated public promises, Attorney General Bondi has failed to release the files.
It's entirely within her control, and yet only 1% has been produced, more than a month late. And even that sliver is so heavily redacted that it mocks the law. It mocks the law, and it mocks this committee subpoena. Let's be honest about the transparency that Attorney General Bondi has provided. This is the DOJ Epstein dataset number 4.
It's number 4. Dataset number 4. This is part of the 1% that folks have been talking about today. I'll close with this. Attorney General Bondi and the Trump administration missed their deadline.
They're ignoring our subpoena. They've withheld 99% of the files, and they have obscured the little that they did release. It's not a coincidence. It's intentional. It's about protecting one man, Donald J. Trump, from accountability.
Release the files. I yield back.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, I ask you to name his consent to enter the record of the political article entitled Clay Higgins explains why he was the lone no vote on Epstein file's release.
Speaker 1
Without objection to the order. Chair recognizes it'll be on our side, Mister Perry, then Mister McGuire. Mr Perry.
Speaker 21
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm disappointed at where we're headed here. Look. I think that, legitimately, both sides want all the information. I know I sure do, with the proviso that the victims and innocent people are not damaged in the release of that.
What's interesting to me is that the only time my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanna talk about any of this is when they can bring up the current president's name, but they're not interested at all in anything else. And I would just say this regarding the timeline because I'm frustrated with it too. You know what has been great? Would have been awesome if we could have truncated the timeline when the Democrat DOJ was in power under a Democrat president, and there was any investigation whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't interested in these victims at all when they could have done something about it.
Nary a word was said, and certainly nothing was done. All this advance work could have been done by them had they cared. But this is not about caring for anybody. This is all political theater because they hate the current president of The United States. I get it.
It's disappointing to me. These victims should have their day, and they should have all this information, regardless of who it touches, should be out with the proviso that the innocent are protected. I know that's not of any interest to you. I get it. That's unfortunate.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Speaker 9
I'll thank the gentleman for yielding. Mister chairman, earlier, I asked unanimous consent to receive into the record the actual subpoena presented to the honorable Pam Bondi by this committee regarding the DOJ's release of the investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein that was dated August 5. I'd like to enter into unanimous consent the letter written by this committee on August 5 to attorney general Pam Bondi, referencing the subpoena and giving specific instructions.
Speaker 9
I'd like to also enter into the record. The actual, I don't believe this has been released prior to right now, is the schedule associated with the subpoena. This is one, two, three, four pages of specific instructions from this committee regarding the subpoena, delivered on August 5.
Speaker 9
Schedule as well. I'm sure the media will be fascinated by that. So the professionalism that this committee has pursued to clarify for the citizenry, the professionalism that this committee has embraced and pursued has been squared away. Impeccable. And that includes recognition that the Department of Justice, as stated in the subpoena, is to comply with redaction procedures of established law and criminal justice, long standing procedures.
So I heard someone mention 5,000,000 files. That this is the first time I've heard 5,000,000 files, but I know that there were originally 250,000 files. And the Trump administration found another 600000 files. So we were talking about rounding it off a million files. Every one of those individual documents has to be reviewed by agents of the DOJ and their supervisors before they can be officially approved for release.
That's the law. The DOJ has 400 agents working full time on just releasing these documents. Now you may argue that at the end of the day, you want to see the release of what they completed that day. I'd say that's a fair, it's a fair narrative for discussion. But to say that DOJ is not fully engaged and complying with our subpoena is not accurate.
It's not intellectually sound. And, mister chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer into the record these official and legal subpoena documents. I yield.
Speaker 5
I have two articles. One is from politics, PA. Representative Perry referred to the House Ethics Committee for refusing subpoena.
Speaker 5
The other one's a CNN article. GOP reps Perry and Biggs formally object to subpoena from the House January 16.
Speaker 6
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I have sat here listening, and I am quite perplexed. It does take me back to my legal days. 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 has been substantial compliance. 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, and typically, that serves as a defense. So if we are still crafting the parameters of said subpoena, for instance, my colleague, Mr. Waukinshaw just asked whether or not this would be limited to the Epstein subject matter. For me, if they responded at all, then there is some sort of compliance, which they did. They didn't just throw the bird. They didn't just say, forget it.
But more importantly, I just wanna point out that we are living in an age of hypocrisy, because my other colleague just pointed out that Mister Perry sits here and somehow sits in judgment of others. Frankly, that is what people are kinda getting annoyed by, is the hypocrisy because Mister Perry still has an outstanding subpoena that was never complied with. In addition to that, he talked about we need to care for the victims. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, and I will yield my time. But I don't believe that Mr. Perry ever signed off on the discharge petition in the first place.
So I don't know if he is just doing what he believes is politically expedient. But I will tell you this, I refuse to be a puppet because Democrats tend to be of goodwill. We always want to do the right thing. We are always trying to follow the rules and the law. Unfortunately, we are living with an administration that does not care.
We just want some type of parody. So, for instance, we all want to hear from President Clinton. If for some reason you said we will give you, say, Pam Bondi, and then we've got President Clinton with it, or say, maybe President Trump and President Clinton. Two presidents. Because we know that both presidents actually had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
But what looks political and looks like one can get away with everything, especially since that's what the Supreme Court has stated, that's why it looks like it's just gamesmanship. You only care about following the rules so long as you can invoke those rules on what is typically perceived as your political enemies. This is why we are falling apart in this country. We are supposed to be about checks and balances. It should not matter whether or not you're associated with the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, independent, or whomever, whether you're rich, whether you're poor, whether you're middle class, whether you're a black immigrant, or whatever.
But it seems like we only have a political agenda in this committee, and that's why everything goes off the rails. You only love law enforcement when they're going after black, brown, immigrants, that kind of folk. Right? But on January 6, you didn't care about law enforcement because they still don't have their badges up. We continue to do the right thing and say, yes, apply the rules equally across the board, and then y'all play in our faces, and you only apply it to one side.
I am asking for one commitment, and then I will yield to the ranking member. Mister chair, will you commit to me as the chair of probably the most important committee in this congress, especially in this moment where people are concerned about the level of corruption that exists within this committee? Will you promise me that you are good for doing whatever is right and following the evidence, no matter who is on the other side of that evidence?
Speaker 1
Yes. And that is why I subpoenaed the estate, and we had no idea what was nobody knew. Nobody knew. I understand. Estate documents.
And I, without hesitation, subpoenaed the estate. We've subpoenaed the Department of Justice.
Speaker 6
And that's where we got the birthday letter. We subpoenaed estate. Hold on.
Speaker 6
Okay. We got the birthday letter, but we can't just get the evidence and then not follow up on the evidence that we actually get. I will relinquish the rest of my time to the chair.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I just wanna really clarify one minute. Thank you very much, representative Crockett. Just to back to mister Walker's point, think it's important to clarify that in communication, mister chair, with your team and the back and forth with the emails, the Clinton team made it clear that they wanted to answer questions about Epstein, but that was not something that your team agreed to, only about Epstein. And so that's I just wanna make sure we clarify, and I appreciate you clarifying, mister Comer, that you said that you would limit the questions to only Epstein.
Is that correct?
Speaker 1
The Clinton said that is not true. What their lawyer said is a complete lie.
Speaker 3
Well, I'm glad that you clarified for them because it's been their impression that it's been, I'm just telling you it's been their impression.
Speaker 3
Sir. I'm not, I'm just reading emails, and I'm just reading the back and forth between them and your team. It's been their impression that those questions were gonna be beyond just Epstein. And so I'm glad that has been clarified. So thank you, Mr. Wonkinshaw.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. Five months is plenty of time. The Clintons are doing everything they can to avoid questioning. And the American people want to hear from the Clintons.
You know, Bill Clinton brought Epstein to the White House 17 times. He had him on, and Bill Clinton was on the Epstein airplane 26 times. So the American people want to hear from them. I don't understand why our friends on the left can't understand that. They support these crazy policies like open borders.
20,000,000 people coming to our country. They've been robbing, raping, and killing the American people. You know, Lake and Raleigh would still be alive. And instead of protecting criminals, I'm sorry. Law Biden citizens, they defend the criminals, and they wanna have a defund the police movement.
It makes no sense. These criminals, they put back on the street, recommit the same crime, and they're like, why did they recommit the same crime? All Americans have the same goal, the same American Dream. We wanna live, work, and raise our family in peace. We just might disagree on how to get there, but the Democrats seem to always be wrong.
The American people don't want boys undressing in girls' locker rooms, but for some reason, the Democrats support that. Five months is plenty of time. The American people wanna hear from the Clintons, and they said they had no relationship, but they definitely did. And with that, I yield the remainder of my time back to Miss Luna.
Speaker 7
Thank you. I just kinda want to point out, first of all, specifically to the letter, the hand-sketched that was allegedly the president's. I believe there's a $10,000,000,000 lawsuit that was filed that, according to the president, the organization that published that is actually trying to currently settle. Just to clarify. But aside from that, I wanted to actually ask Mister Min a question if he's still here.
If he'd be willing to vote for a contempt in the Clintons if they refuse to come in and testify on a fine of about $1,000 a day until they comply with the subpoena. But I don't know if he's here. Is he still here? No? Okay.
Well, I think that that's just something to consider. You know, we have the ability to do those fines, and I think that needs to be considered, especially if, you know, optically there is reason for pause for Democrats not wanting to vote for that based on the fact that president Clinton was a former president. I understand the optics of that, and I also understand re-elections. However, nonetheless, the Clintons are defying a subpoena. So sometimes financially, people can be motivated, especially if there's a fine, and that's something that we actually all have the right to vote on.
And I think that that's actually a very good option, especially being that most Americans would go to jail for defined subpoenas. And so I do not think that there needs to be any special accommodations made, especially given the nature of this. But I do think that can be a tool to motivate. So I'd like to suggest that to you, Chairman Comer, also to you, Ranking Member Garcia, that would be a good method that we specifically reserve if we choose to use alternative means of contempt.
Speaker 5
So it seems like you're open to changing this, what we're voting on today, so that way we can get to a place where we actually hear from them. Is that right? Is that what I'm hearing?
Speaker 7
But I want yes. I would like to have the Clintons come into congress to give a transcribed deposition. I think that chairman has made that clear, but I also think having just Garcia and Comer drive all the way up to New York without that, I think that, optically, sends a very bad message as the separation of powers and authorities Congress has. And then I also think that, you know, it's kind of a slap in the face to people that typically would not have those accommodations made for them.
Speaker 7
With that also, you know, being a part of this, I think that, you know, Bill Clinton specifically said he wants the files to be released, and I think that we also need to consider the fact that there is a judge. I know mister Garcia disagrees with me on this, but based on the email that I have seen on Judge Paul Engelmeier, you know, if you have someone that is ordering the DOJ to do a final second scan of the files, if it's politically motivated, that's impeding an investigation. And I'm tired of judges if they get involved in investigations in Congress, trying to obstruct. And so I just putting this out there, I'm going to be trying to impeach that judge unless he can basically give a waiver, let the DOJ release the files immediately.
Speaker 5
Yeah. And just real quick, I just wanna say on the general thing, I agree. I mean, I think it would be best if the ranking member and chair can huddle and figure out how we can change it so we can actually hear from them. Because my concern too, and the other thing is there's no faster way to make sure that we never actually hear from them in person than moving forward to criminal contempt that says put them in jail. I mean, we're just not gonna hear from them for our investigation.
And so, I mean, I agree if they can come to something to figure out how can we move forward in a way where there's actually a pathway to hear from them. I'm for that.
Speaker 7
To be clear, I do not agree with what the Clintons are doing. Okay? And I think that they need to come in here to explain. But I do think that when you go after someone's pocketbook, I think that they quickly change their tune, and I think that they might be compelled to come in. I also don't wanna set the precedent, though, that, you know, just because you're president means you're outside of this, you know, justice.
And that is basically what it would be doing. And so, chairman, I will let you direct the ship on this, but that is my suggestion.
Speaker 3
Thank you. And I wanna just respond to Miss Luna and Mister Maxwell as well. Just to be clear, I think two things can be true. It can be true that we want to hear from the Clintons and that it's important that we hear from them, and we wanna enforce our subpoena. I think it can also be true that they have also begun clearly making efforts to answer questions by declaration, to negotiate coming in to give testimony.
They've made offers to obviously be in, their initial offer was to do that testimony outside of Washington DC with the leadership of the committee and staff. They have been open to transcription. So I just wanna reemphasize that I think there is room here to continue to negotiate and get the testimony that we need. In addition, I am incredibly thankful that we're finally moving forward on ensuring that Galene Maxwell will come before this committee, that we're gonna get Pam Bondi finally in front of this Congress. We need to release the files, get that testimony, and, of course, ask the question that this committee has of President Clinton.
I think that is all fair, and I hope that's the direction that we end up moving in. Thank you. Miss Sunsari.
Speaker 23
Thank you. Given much of what we've heard today, and especially in light of some of the hypocrisy that we've heard today, I just wanna walk through the timeline of Donald Trump's cover-up of the Epstein files, because I think it's important for folks to remember how we got to this point. This was a series of deliberate decisions made at the highest levels in the White House and the Department of Justice to keep the truth hidden from the American public and the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his allies' abuse. Let's start with what the president said during his campaign trail, repeatedly. At multiple points in 2024, when running for office, Donald Trump said he would, quote, declassify the Epstein files, use it as a rallying cry to win over voters.
In October 2024, JD Vance said, quote, seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. But the moment Trump and Vance had power in the White House to act, that commitment disappeared. That's when the cover-up began. On 02/27/2025, Pam Bondi said that she was releasing the Epstein files with her statement, quote, this Department of Justice is following through on President Trump's commitment to transparency and lifting the veil on the disgusting actions of Jeffrey Epstein and his coconspirators. Then it became clear, very clear, that Donald Trump did not, in fact, want information about Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes revealed to the public.
Starting in July 2025, Donald Trump began to gaslight the public. He said, "Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?" This guy has been talked about for years. This is the point when Congress stepped up. On July 23, congresswoman Summer Lee moved in this very committee to subpoena the full and unredacted Epstein files.
And just to be clear, because of that subpoena, the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi have been required by law to provide the Epstein files to this committee since 2025. They have been in gross illegal violation of the subpoena this entire time. To my Republican colleagues on this committee, do you remember that subpoena, the lawful congressional oversight committee subpoena from July 23? Pam Bondi has been in violation of that for six months now. At the same time, members on both sides of the aisle filed a discharge petition that would have put a vote on the floor for the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
For a moment, the petition was one signature away from forcing a vote in the full House. And what did Mike Johnson do? He shut down Congress. He refused to swear in our colleague, Adalita Grijalva, for a historic 7 weeks in order to keep her name off the list. He forced the American public to endure a government shutdown to protect Donald Trump and to cover up the Epstein files.
And when it finally came to the floor and it became clear that the bill would pass overwhelmingly, only then did he endorse, and then sign the bill so that he wouldn't lose. This required the DOJ to release the unredacted Epstein files publicly by December 19. The DOJ has blown past that deadline, releasing only 1% of the files, which is patently absurd. And the files they did release were heavily redacted, which is completely illegal according to the law. On December 23, the DOJ said they miraculously discovered over 1,000,000 files related to Epstein.
All of these patterns are an attempt to slow down the release and fail to meet the lawful deadlines, are consistent and coordinated. This is all part of an intentional cover-up, which leads to the unavoidable question. Who is the president protecting when we know he only cares about one person? Guess I'll end with my question to the chairman. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, has violated the subpoena issued by this committee.
We should be holding her in contempt, to remain fair and to remain transparent. And so I ask that you do that if you really truly wanna be fair and care about the justice for the victims here.
Speaker 1
May I respond? We have been very clear. We expect those documents. She has complied. She's turned over the documents.
In the beginning, percent. The beginning, you all complained and said the first document dump didn't have enough redactions, and the second document dump had too many redactions. So they're trying to get this, and I believe.
Speaker 1
I will get those documents very soon. I have been assured we're going to get those documents very soon.
Speaker 23
I hear you. But with all due respect, given everything that she herself stated in February, her own statements in front of the entirety of the American public, saying, we have the documents. They are ready to go. Mhmm. The subpoena from this committee was issued in July.
Speaker 1
Not willing the president. They have turned over documents. They have turned documents over, and every time they do, you all complain about too many redactions, not enough redactions.
Speaker 1
Your time's expired, and we want the documents. We've made that very clear. Chair recognizes Mr. Crane.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I just wanna do a unanimous consent request. This is actually an email that has been sent to your team, mister Comer, and our team from the Clinton lawyer and the Clintons that basically says, to be clear, we are not objecting to a transcript and never have. Please make that clear during today's testimony that was sent to you, Mr. Comer. So I just wanna reemphasize they are not objecting to the transcript.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
And before I recognize mister Crane, let me reply. We just got that email, and we have spent 5 months trying to get acceptable terms that I think everyone within any sense of fairness would agree needs to be, needs to occur. After we hold this vote, hopefully, it'll be a bipartisan vote. They're gonna have two weeks before this bill is on the floor. They're gonna have two weeks before the full house votes on it.
And make no mistake to the Clintons in their lawyer to it. This bill will pass, and I believe it will pass with Democrat votes even though I've heard leadership, Democrat leadership, is whipping to try to get you all to vote no on this. They have had 5 months to comply with this. And to defend the indefensible and try to act like Bill Clinton's a victim here, I think, a stretch. We know who the victims are.
And I think if you ask the victims, do you want to hear from Bill Clinton? I'm pretty confident I know what the answer will be because our staff has communicated with their attorneys. Chair recognizes Mr. Crane.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, this committee hearing is about whether or not we're going to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress. I strongly recommend that we do, especially pertaining to the release of the Epstein files and trying to get to the bottom of what exactly went on there and how Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to continue doing what he was doing and abusing so many people for so long. It's interesting when I look at the history of the Congress and look at the fact that Peter Navarro, former Trump trade adviser who defied the January 6 committee subpoena, was sent to prison for four months. Steve Bannon, also a former Trump adviser, defied the January 6 committee subpoena.
He was sent to prison for four months and several others. So it's gonna be really telling to see how my Democrat colleagues vote on this one. Mister Comer, how many times, mister chairman, how many times did mister Epstein go to the White House in your recollection, sir?
Speaker 1
According to the evidence that we've obtained, it appears he went 17 times during the Clinton presidency.
Speaker 1
I've been a member of congress for nine years and, you know, fairly high up on the on the pecking order. I've been to the White House, I believe, 9 times in 9 years. So he went to the Clinton White House double the number of times that I've been to the White House in my entire congressional career.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, how many times did mister Clinton fly on mister Epstein's plane?
Speaker 1
At least 26 times, according to the flight logs that were subpoenaed from the estate.
Speaker 11
Water, Mr. Chairman. Those were four different trips, four trips. And every time they regas the plane, they counted that as another trip. But it was Asia, Africa, and they had to refuel. So every time they stopped to refuel, they counted that as another leg of the trip.
There are four trips, not 27.
Speaker 10
Reclaiming my time. That's still enough trips for us to wanna be able to ask the Clintons questions about their involvement with Epstein. Is that true, mister chairman? Yes, sir. Right.
So like I said, I hope that my Democrat colleagues who all of a sudden have found religion, this congress, and now they want the Epstein files, even though over the last 4 years when they had control of Washington DC, you didn't hear a peep about Jeffrey Epstein out of any of them. And so I think it's gonna be real telling, you know, how my Democrat colleagues who claim to be all about the victims, how they actually vote on these contempt charges for the Clinton family. And I just think it's interesting too that, mister chairman, my understanding is you've been working for the last 4 or 5 months to get the Clintons in here. Is that correct?
Speaker 10
Did they tell you that they would come in over December, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day?
Speaker 10
Okay. So that just goes to show that they're trying to dodge suggesting dates that they know none of us are in session. You know? And I think that's pretty despicable. The other thing I believe that they said is that you and the ranking member could fly up to New York, but you couldn't record any of the conversations.
Is that correct?
Speaker 10
Does that sound like any congressional deposition you've ever heard, sir?
Speaker 1
No. And it would be my word against mister Garcia's, and I'm pretty confident I know whose side the New York Times would take, and the Washington Post would take, and MSNBC would take. And look, an investigation, you have to have transcripts, and the media want transcripts. Well, you have to have transcripts. We don't do notes.
And the Clintons have already accused us of lying, and they accused us of saying this was an unlawful subpoena, which I appreciate Mister Garcia admitting that it is a lawful subpoena. So I yield back.
Speaker 10
I also wanna point out one thing that I think has been pretty interesting. When I flew into Washington DC yesterday, my chief of staff told me that he'd been contacted by the Clinton attorneys at least 3 times to try and stop this. So it looks as if they tried to resist you for about five months. And once we finally pulled the trigger on it, now they're realizing that this could go very poorly for them. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Speaker 1
That's how it appears that they could stall. And then when it finally came to this vote, they felt like they could count on the Democrats objecting and a few of the Republicans that, the media would go to and, you know, the moderates and say, oh, is this gonna affect your election? It's gonna affect your election. At the end of the day, I think even the media want to hear from Clinton. We all wanna see the documents.
So we everyone in America that's keeping up with this, which is a majority of Americans, want answers, and we're trying to get answers here today. And the Clintons have obstructed for 5 months. Five months.
Speaker 16
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I just wanna, again, just clarify that the Clintons have not objected to a transcript. I just wanna clarify that, Mister Comer, which you just mentioned. And I think that in this moment of negotiation, which you've been in and you've been in with them this entire time, there's progress being made, and they've not objected the transcript. Let's talk to President Clinton, and let's get a transcript of it.
Let's have the committee there, and the staff there, and move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1
If may I respond? We won't start to stop the talk. May I respond? They did object to the transcript, mister Garcia. They did object to the transcript.
They're just now changing because they see that public opinion is not on their side. Chair recognized Ms. Randall. And you've got, we'll give you five minutes. We'll give you 5 minutes.
Speaker 16
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. You know, I wanna start by saying it is I do not feel it is my responsibility to defend the former president of The United States. As a member of Congress, in a separate and coequal branch of government from the executive branch, and as an individual person who is responsible to my constituents, it is not my job to defend the former president of The United States. Just like it is not your responsibility, Chair Comer, to carry out the political retribution of the current president of the United States. It is also not this committee's job to yield to the judiciary committee to question the subjects of our subpoenas.
It is not our job to defer to anyone else's interests. And, in fact, we have the opportunity at any time to amend the rules of our committee should you choose to take action that our rules keep us from taking. Like, that is a tool that you as committee chair and we as a committee have. And I also wanna say, you know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a regular person.
I'm one year into this job. And contrary to attempts by my Republican colleagues to put the burden of decisions made by congresses of the past on our shoulders, I was sent here by my constituents just a year ago, and it's to them, to my neighbors, to whom I am accountable. Not to party leadership, not to anybody else, but to my constituents. So I want to talk about what they are seeing and hearing right now. They are seeing, just as Miss Ansari previously said, Donald Trump and JD Vance and Pam Bondi switch allegiances, decide they no longer want to pursue accountability and full release, unredacted release of the Epstein files.
But they are also seeing a system that has failed survivors and regular people over and over, that privileges the powerful and well connected over regular people. You know, regular people who don't have the luxury of saying, I'm not gonna come to court, and I want to be free of any accountability. Regular people who see us acting and carrying out the demands of the president, former presidents, rich people, people who come to lobby us, folks who have access to power in a way that regular people don't. And, I think we've all made very clear, all of us on both sides of this dais, that we want to hear from the former president of the United States about any information that he has related to Epstein's ring of trafficking and assault of women.
Speaker 16
also and, you know, Chair Comer, you have said over and over that it's been five months that you've been in negotiations with the Clintons. It has been 6 months since this committee subpoenaed the Department of Justice for full release of the files. And I'm down to hold anybody accountable. I'm down for us to enforce our congressional subpoenas to uphold our power as a separate and co-equal branch of government. But I wanna call the question, will my colleagues on the other side of this dais also hold accountable the attorney general that has been withholding, illegally withholding evidence that has been subpoenaed by this committee and in a bipartisan law passed on the floor of the house.
Are we, is it just political theater? Are you just trying to point fingers and say, like, it's you? It's you. It's not us. It's them.
Or are we here to do the work of holding accountable people who have committed heinous crimes against women and girls, and people who might know about them? Are we doing that work, or are we just pointing fingers and trying to consolidate our own political power? That's a question I know my constituents have, and it is one that I'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the desk.
Speaker 1
Chair, any member seek recognition? Chair recognizes Ms. Talib from Michigan.
Speaker 24
Mister chair, I think many of us were there with the survivors, and I'd like to bring them into the room because I think it's really important. You know, it's not just one president, but now two that have been connected to Epstein. Sex trafficking. One of them even testified about walking into the house, the butler opening the door. There's administrative assist.
They have no idea. She was walking into a horrific scheme that was sending young girls to the powerful, to the rich, to the elected officials. And one of the first pictures she said she saw was of Clinton with his arms around Epstein. She saw another one of Trump with Epstein. And I just remember her almost trying to convince us, like, understand that I had no idea, as if somehow she was guilty.
Do you remember that?
Speaker 24
And so I'm here to tell you I'm ready to vote, but I'm also just taken aback and disgusted because I didn't need a birthday card to say the president of the United States, current president of the United States had something. I didn't need to see the photos of the chairman today of Clinton. All I needed to do is hear the survivors. Tell us, please, do something. These are people that have impacted their lives forever.
But I just don't understand, mister chair, and this is with all due respect, I just don't get why Bondi cannot be held in contempt, why we're not for I don't care if she that she wants to plead the fifth. So what? Do it in front of the American people. Same thing with Maxwell. She's telling the committee she's gonna plead the fifth.
Have her come before this committee to do it in front of the American people. The fact of the matter is, are you saying that if anybody wants to plead the fifth, they don't have to be forced to come before this committee? That doesn't make any sense. What excuse is that? That doesn't make any sense.
The fact that I continue to tell you all, what is the most consistent thing survivors have asked us to do? Follow the money. How come we haven't forced JPMorgan Chase before this committee? How come we haven't allowed Bank of America to come before this committee? Mister Chair, it is so disgusting.
And this is why everybody's so distracted by this whole thing of, like, oh, you know, the Clintons, Trump, and everything. But who was funding it? Literally, JPMorgan turned a blind eye to evidence of sex trafficking even after its 2008 conviction. Hear me out. After he was convicted, they still hid suspicious activity reports that should have been reported.
You know, you see the fact that continuing them saying, well, in 2028, agreed to pay what? 290, $90,000,000 of settled lawsuit. I don't care. You come here, and because it's the truth, y'all. You guys gotta realize Epstein's not the last person.
There's probably another Epstein out there right now doing sex trafficking. We should hold everybody in contempt that had anything to do with cover this up, including bank executives that still have their jobs. Okay. The fact of the matter is, we know what this is. You wanna talk about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, but talk about everybody involved, because it does look like you're only doing this to distract everyone when we know not one, but two presidents were involved.
And those young ladies shaking when they were testing pregnant because they didn't know if they could trust us. Some of them literally said we had no idea what we were walking into, but they were connected to the rich. They were connected to the presidents. You heard them say that over and over again, but one of the things they continue to say is follow the money. Because mister chair, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, JP Moore, all these people, they will not be the last folks that allowed a sex trafficker to harm young women, children.
And so we have to set a very good president precedent that we will not sit back and say, well, Maxwell's gonna plead the fifth. Bondi's gonna plead the fifth. I don't care. You're a public servant, come before this committee. Maxwell, you were directly involved.
How many times did the survivors mention her? How many times saying that she lured them in? She was primarily involved. And, mister chair, you and I had conversations. And you said, give us names.
They gave us names, and you know it. So why are y'all focused only on them? And let me tell you, you know where I stand. I will hold anybody in contempt that will not give us information. I don't care how many lawyers they bring up on us.
But I'll tell you, mister chair, shame on us for not forcing Bondi before this committee. Shame on us for not forcing Maxwell before this committee. Shame on us for not forcing JPMorgan Chase to answer questions that many of us have of them of $1,500,000,000 in suspicious activity. Because somebody had to fund this madness, these horrific actions by these men. With that, mister chair, I yield.
Speaker 1
And, miss Talib, if I may respond to some of that before I recognize miss Boberts next, I've mhmm. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. Okay. I believe with all my heart, you are as sincere as anyone on this committee about wanting to get answers about the truth.
And I believe your heart is pure. Maxwell is coming in front of this committee, and we've.
Speaker 1
and you you'll be able to ask her questions. That's one of the things Clinton wanted: was only me and Garcia. Maxwell's coming. Anyone who wants to ask her questions on this committee will be able to.
Speaker 1
No. I'm not trying to argue with you, Mr. Lee. I just wanna respond to Pam Bondi coming before congress in two weeks. I am confident she is going to be grilled by both parties on the discharge petition. If you didn't want, I don't wanna, and Miss Randall, you mentioned something about the judiciary committee.
Believe me, I don't want to work with the judiciary committee on any investigation. Okay? But when we passed that discharge petition, that got them involved.
Speaker 1
Ah, I know. Let me just let me explain. Pam Bondi's gonna be in front of the judiciary committee. We'll see how that goes. We'll see if there's been a document done.
Speaker 1
the bank in the institutions either. Thing. This is the most important thing. Months ago, I approached Miss Talib, Miss Lee, and Miss Stansbury. And I said, please, if you all get a chance, and I know you all are sincere, try to get some names from these women.
And we will continue to try to get documents.
Speaker 1
I didn't want to know about Let's bring these bank executives. Order. I'm just referring. We want to hold everyone accountable. We don't care if they're billionaires.
We don't care if they're Republicans. We don't care who they are.
Speaker 24
Do you agree to work with me though? We gotta get the bank executives here. Because, mister chair, you and I know that this is still being funded in some other way. Epstein's dead, but we know there's another person out there doing the same thing. We know it because the banks cover it up.
These suspicious activity forms were literally these reports that had to be filed. They were there for a reason. So we can stop.
Speaker 1
And last thing, and then I'm gonna open it. I think, to do it and see if there are any other members. But we are going in looking at suspicious activity reports, both Republicans and Democrat staffs going in looking at suspicious activity reports as we speak. I'm all about looking at suspicious activity reports. Now time's expired.
Does any other member seek recognition? Mister Fallon from Texas.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to share a quote with you. I thought it was interesting. No one is above the law, and no one should be escaping accountability. And Hillary Clinton said that.
And according to the LA Times, there's another quote. No man in this country is so high that he's above the law. I agree with both these quotes. Al Gore said that when he was a member of this chamber, Bill Clinton's own vice president. I hope every member of this committee agrees with those quotes.
So we have to ask ourselves, are we a rule of law nation, or are we not? When a citizen of these United States is subpoenaed by this Congress, they should comply, plain and simple, regardless of who they are. We all get accused of things, and we should do everything we can to, because accusation is nothing but that, to prove it false if it's untrue. Jeffrey Epstein was a rapist, pedophile, sex trafficker. In street parlance, he was a scumbag, lowlife, and slimeball.
And some of the things that I've read in these files, he was evil and corny. He's also dead. I didn't even know who he was until he was not. So why are we here talking about a dead guy? Because he was associated with powerful people, some of whom are highly likely to have participated with him in some of the worst kinds of criminal activity.
And if they did, they should pay. They should face justice, whether they're rich or poor, famous or anonymous, mighty or meek. So, is that what we're doing today? Are we pursuing justice and transparency? Because transparency makes an easier and shorter path to the truth.
We should be pursuing the truth. But some on this committee and in this Congress are pursuing fame and campaign fortune and exploiting this issue not in the pursuit of justice, but in the pursuit of raising hundreds of thousands of dollars using a false premise as a battering ram. Jeffrey Epstein, and here's the false premise that Epstein was a creature of the political riot, and they're protecting him. And they, he was pounding around with Donald Trump and those in his orbit. And that's why the Republicans released the files.
Now that's incendiary, but is it true, or is it just a cheap, woke fantasy? Well, here are the facts, and the facts matter, so let's look at Tella tape. How many confirmed visits to the White House? Under Bill Clinton, there were 17. Jeffrey Epstein visited the Clinton White House 17 times.
How many times did he visit the Donald Trump White House? Zero. How about documented political donations? 21,000 to the Clintons, zero to Trump. Documented non-Clinton political contributions.
118,000 to the Dems, 18,000 to the GOP for a total of 89% to the Democrats and the Clintons, 11% to the GOP. Now to the matter at hand, Epstein files released by the oversight Democrats from 2019 to 2023, when they were in charge of this committee, zero. Epstein released files by the oversight Republicans from 2023 to present, 53,000 pages. Epstein files released by the Biden Department of Justice in the 4 years he was in office. Again, zero.
Epstein file was released by the Trump DOJ 2025 to present, 125,000 pages. And a member of this committee completely jumped the shark again. And right after Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a left wing loon, and it was a time where we really need to turn down the temperature and practice some civility, said, and I quote, Republicans have been so busy protecting pedophiles and rapists that they forgot what this committee is supposed to be about. Well, I tell you what, this committee is supposed to be about, mister chairman, about transparency and truth. And on this matter, the Republicans have led, and we produced results.
And the Democrats have done squat and bupkis. For the record, you know, that kind of incendiary rhetoric, while it may make headlines and make people famous or perhaps better stated infamous, and raise loads of cash, maybe we'll get you invited to Hollywood parties. But at what cost? Those kinds of lies create division and damage, and they're ludicrous, absurd, lazy, and perhaps worst of all, unoriginal. And I don't think it's gonna translate much to journey to the upper chamber.
I hope it doesn't translate to that. The Trump administration Republicans on this committee and on this issue have served Lady Justice by account of about $178,002.00. So Clinton should come in, honor the subpoena, and testify. And you know why, Mr. Chairman? In the pursuit of truth.
Speaker 1
But, chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You'll have to forgive me if I do not give a slow clap to our colleague across the aisle for his Academy Award-winning appearance just now in front of the committee. But I wanna just address some of the things that I heard here today, and to talk about why we're here. What I've heard here this morning in front of this committee is exactly why the American people hate politics. Because the American people don't care if you're a Republican, if you're a Democrat, if you're an independent, whether you vote or not.
They want the Epstein files, and they want justice and accountability. And they don't give a damn whether or not it's Democrats or Republicans or who is implicated. They want accountability. And that is what the survivors are asking us for. They are asking us to do our jobs, to make good on the promises that we made them when they came and met with us, and to actually, in good faith, conduct an investigation.
Now I always think it's important to pull back the curtain for the American people about what happens in these committees. And I was not shocked and surprised, but, you know, I think it's important to note that when I stepped out of the committee a few moments ago, the press were huddled on the Republican side of this committee room to take statements from the Republicans. They're not out in the kind of, like, neutral area. They're standing outside the Republican door so that after this vote is taken, our Republican colleagues can walk out and make a statement to the press. Now I think that that's important to know for the public here, because this is not about true accountability.
Because if this was actually about getting to the bottom of this case and actually holding individuals accountable for the crimes that were committed by Jeffrey Epstein, by Ghislaine Maxwell, by the associates, and the many people who are implicated in this case. What would be happening right now in this committee is that Pam Bondi and DOJ officials would be sitting right there on the witness panel, answering questions under oath because they are breaking the law. They are not complying with our subpoena. They are not complying with the Epstein Transparency Act. And on the day, the final deadline, that they were supposed to release their final explanation about why they may have redacted some files, and in fact, they have, as has been stated many times, only released less than 1% of the files.
Donald Trump used the United States military to invade a foreign country and steal their oil. And while we're sitting here and our colleagues are trying to create a spectacle for the media, every single newspaper in the United States and the world's headline is about how Donald Trump right now is in Europe, embarrassing the United States. How he is threatening our NATO allies to invade Greenland. Humiliating the United States. And I have to say I was home over the weekend for Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations to honor the life and legacy of Doctor King.
And the question that I got over and over again from my constituents is what is in those files that is so bad that President Trump is invading Venezuela, threatening our NATO allies, and sending thousands of armed paramilitary troops onto our streets to create violence and chaos in American cities. That is what the American people are actually asking us. And so I will be honest, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply troubled that the individuals who are the subject of today's hearing did not appear on their scheduled date. No one is above the law.
But I do know based on.
Speaker 26
correspondence that they have been corresponding with you regularly to try to resolve this issue. But I don't believe that's what this hearing is actually about. Because if it was actually about getting justice and about getting the truth, we would have the DOJ here. We would be holding Pam Bondi in contempt, and we would be hearing from the survivors themselves. And so I have to agree with my colleagues that I believe this is part of an extended smokescreen to try to cover things up.
And so I do ask my colleagues across the aisle, if you are earnest about getting to the truth and getting to justice, then bring the DOJ in here and hold them accountable, because that is actually what the American people want. I yield back.
Speaker 1
And, lady yields back. Before I recognize Mister Biggs, I wanna point out again for the umpteenth time, Pam Bondi is coming in front of Congress under oath, and there'll be lots of opportunities to ask her questions about the Epstein files.
Speaker 23
She's violated a subpoena from this committee, and she's held in contempt for that. That's a fact.
Speaker 1
Here's the difference. She has been turning over documents. Now I've said it 100 times. It's not as quick as we would like, but they're turning over the documents. And I've been very clear today, and in hundreds of interviews.
Serious about 1%.
Speaker 1
Well, in our subpoena, there was no deadline. And then we voted for the discharge petition, and there's a deadline. The discharge petition's in the judiciary. She's coming in front of the judiciary. Now.
Speaker 1
Bill Clinton's not a victim here, and the media is not getting a Republican side on anything. Let's just.
Speaker 27
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I would just point out the previous speaker was talking about peeling back so the public can see what goes on in a committee. I mean, I just came from another committee where we're talking about massive fraud around the country and, in particular, in Minnesota. And, I'm glad that two Democrats could find time out of their busy schedules to even attend that hearing.
What a shame. What a shame. So I when someone says, what is in the files so bad? I'll ask this question. What is in the files that's so bad that the Democrats for four years, when they had control of this committee, didn't release a single document, didn't call a single witness, didn't make any motion.
In fact, for those four years, go back and look. Did they ever say anything about Epstein? No. They didn't. But wanting to make a press, wanting to get it on the press, that's why you're making the issue today.
Because let's talk about why we want need to talk with, do this contempt is because president former president Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton basically strung us along as we were bending over backwards trying to accommodate their schedule. They didn't show up after we finally had to get a subpoena form. And I just have right here, this is just interesting to me. This is a little note written by little note written by mister Clinton, former president Clinton, to Jeffrey Epstein's on Jeffrey Epstein's fiftieth birthday. Jeffrey, happy 50th.
It's reassuring, isn't it, to have lasted as long across all the years of learning and knowing, adventures, and no illegible word. And also to have your childlike curiosity, the drive to make a difference, and the solace of friends. He rode on that plane many times. He was apparently close friends with him. Jeffrey Epstein claims that, and I don't know if we should believe anything Epstein says for sure, but, I mean, Epstein says that he helped set up and fund the Clinton Foundation.
And former president Clinton, in his note, I mean, this is what he wants. He doesn't want to come in and testify. He wants to do the same thing that he did in previous times. Just, okay. We're gonna send a little note that ought to do it.
He says something to the effect that he spent significant time in the Clinton Foundation after he left the presidency. Well, if Jeffrey Epstein set it up, then there's some reason to ask questions of both he and the former secretary of state. They were given a subpoena. It was a lawfully issued subpoena by a standing committee. By the way, I happen to be at that subcommittee hearing.
I was there when every Democrat voted that out. Nobody objected and said they didn't want him to be subpoenaed. But he was subpoenaed, and he didn't show up. So here we are. And, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield time to you if you need it.
Speaker 1
I appreciate it. I think that everything that needs to be pointed out, we've pointed out. So, I will then yield, sir. Okay. Chair, any other members seek recognition?
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank you and the ranking member, and I particularly wanna underscore the ranking member's opening statement. And that was that oversight. Democrats want the truth about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and accountability for everyone involved. He said, and I agree, we want transparency. We want the facts.
And above all, we want this committee to use its oversight tools in a serious and responsible way. I would be remiss if I did not thank, on behalf of all of us, the efforts of representative Rokana of this committee and representative Massey. Thank god they stood in the way of things and took the heat to get the discharge petition up and voted on. And I wanna also point out something that I think is important, that is consistencies, Mr. Chairman. The action that the majority has been proposing today departs from this committee's established practices, including its long time standing acceptance of written testimony and the level of accommodation this committee has traditionally required before proceeding to criminal contempt, not civil, criminal contempt.
I'm glad, as the ranking member has stated, that the Clintons have agreed to testimony, to a transcript, and to meet. I agree also that meeting should not be taking place in New York. It sends the wrong reason for anybody that gets something from this committee. They should come to the committee. It's just that, plain and simple.
But it departs in many instances from the way this committee has moved on. And I say that because we never know this time next year who might hold that gavel and who on either side may wanna go after the current president, his sons, his wife, his family, and anybody connected to him as a department head. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's a slippery slope. Now, does Bill Clinton have to defend himself? Absolutely.
Yes. It is a bit curious, however, why we are going after Mrs. Clinton. I've not seen anything, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said earlier, that suggests that she ought to be a part of this in any way or has done something wrong or is complicit in this matter. And I would hope that there's some consideration, Mr. Chairman, to withdrawing at the very least that particular resolution. That just makes me think that this is a fishing expedition and that we want to dust her up a bit if we get her before this committee.
Now, a couple of quick things. We're being asked to move forward holding a former president of the United States, again, not in civil contempt, but in criminal contempt of Congress. I'm and I'll tell you why it's an extraordinary step. Not that it's unprecedented. It's extraordinary, but it is unprecedented in the fact that we did not do that with Richard Nixon.
We did not do that with Donald Trump. There was a subpoena, but there was never an attempt to find them in criminal contempt of Congress or of this committee. It's an extraordinary remedy that's usually reserved for situations where a witness has clearly and willfully defied Congress after extraordinary processes have been exhausted. The majority has not demonstrated that standard so far. I do wanna say also that we're in a situation where I don't think that anybody on the Republican or on the Democratic side of this committee is trying to defend former president Clinton.
They're trying to find a way to make sure that we're consistent. So the reason we keep hearing the need to have pan Bondi before this committee is that we're getting ready to bring criminal contempt charges before there's been an investigation. Usually, that happens after the investigation. And the notion that somebody was gonna come before this committee, Missus Maxwell, and take the fifth, I don't care. She's already a convicted criminal.
She can't take the fifth. But we can do the actions we ought to be about, and that is to make sure that both of them are before this committee. And then to make sure also or to suggest, it's up to you and the ranking member, that meeting takes place, and those transcripts are made available, and that Mr. Clinton comes before the committee with counsel so that we then are in a position to move forward. We're taking a big jump here without doing some of the things that we normally do. Now I'm glad that Miss Talib brought up the matter of victims.
She's not here right now, but all of us sat in that room with the victims. It was gut-wrenching. And all of us made a commitment that we would prove that this institution could and would do the right thing. So we're challenged here, mister chairman, and I hope that you and the ranking member can give us a way to proceed here that both of the concerns on both sides are addressed. But if we just move straight as we're going now, without an investigation, it begs the question what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Miss Simon Zeck, before I recognize her, I just wanna add, with respect to the Hillary Clinton subpoena, you all voted for that. This committee voted for that in a bipartisan manner. Her name was on that list. And, with respect to Pam Bondi, again, she's testifying in front of Congress in less than two weeks.
Chair of guys, Miss Simon.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick comment, and I have a friendly question for my colleague, Miss Luna. I don't say a friendly question. I've worked with victims for decades. So few opportunities present themselves for victims to sit face to face with folks who hold power, to beg and plead that everyone who had anything to do with their harm be held to account.
So few opportunities. I have been a victim advocate where brilliant young women who have been trafficked across this country have stood in courtrooms and were demanded to testify against their traffickers, and they did with such power and grace in fear that their lives may be taken because of that braveness. And a number of those young women that I witnessed take all that they had to confront their demons, they were murdered because they took a stand. And so when we did stand in front and sit in front of those victims, and they gave us their all, I hope that this is not the only opportunity, mister chair, to speak on their behalf. From our president to everyone in those files.
Forget all the political games. If these women are connected with the largest sex trafficking ring in modern day American history. Cannot get justice. What about the girls in every state? I mean, it is what it is.
That being said, Miss Luna, you talked briefly about a proposal.
Speaker 25
There was a proposal put on the table, to rethink how we might have a conversation about the Clintons or President Clinton coming in and having a conversation with this body. And I guess that time has passed, but I know that I would love to hear from the president or former president of The United States. I would love to hear from the Attorney General. I would love to hear from the current president of these United States. The victims deserve to be heard.
The victims deserve the files to be released in their entirety, and the victims deserve for us to get to the bottom of this matter. I yield back. Well, I actually would like to yield my time to the ranking member.
Speaker 3
Actually, I'm okay right now on time. I might come back around, but back to Mister Comer and the Republicans.
Speaker 1
Okay. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, we are going to there's an amendment at the desk. Well, let's miss Lee, what purpose do you seek recognition?
Speaker 1
Will the clerk distribute the amendment to all the members? The clerk will designate the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment to the amendment in nature of a substitute to the William J. Clinton contempt report as offered by Miss Lee of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered read. I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that even listening to this debate throughout our hearing today, our markup today, I think it's really clear that at the heart of this effort to release the Epstein vowels are very real human beings who have experienced unimaginable harm. They have been repeatedly victimized by the indifference of the US government and the injustice they face. They deserve peace, healing, and justice. When my motion to subpoena the Epstein files passed, this committee resolved to get that justice for those survivors.
And I thank mister, excuse me, Chairman Comer for pushing this effort forward by issuing additional subpoenas for the Epstein estate and the banks. And we know that without the full fouls from the DOJ, that is just not enough. That's why I'm introducing this amendment, which holds General Attorney General Pam Bondi in civil contempt for failing to comply with the August 5 subpoena, and I urge my colleagues to support it. And we believe that we should start with civil contempt because we are serious about this investigation. We want these files, and we want to hear from them.
And we must start there. The Department of Justice needs to be the priority. We can move to noncompliance by anyone else, including Ghislaine Maxwell, after we have received those files. It has been five months, and we're still missing over 5,000,000 pages of documents purportedly. The Department of Justice has only released 1% of those files.
They have stonewalled this committee since August, and they have failed to provide even the most basic updates. How is that not an insult both to the authority of this committee and to the survivors? Without the full files, how can we know who might have legitimate knowledge or who might be culpable? We wouldn't have to speculate on the Clintons or anyone else's involvement if we had all those files. And to be clear, I'm certainly not opposed to the president and Secretary Clinton being held accountable for violating the subpoena.
But the fact that this effort to hold the Clintons in contempt was fast-tracked and is happening before any action against the Justice Department is just evidence that the Republicans on this committee are not taking this investigation seriously. It is an unequal application of the law. And, again, it is a bit ironic that these contempt resolutions empower the Justice Department to imprison possibly two people for defying the exact same subpoena that they themselves are defying. If this committee wants to be taken seriously, we would be addressing all the bad actors in this investigation, not cherry-picking them for political points. The Justice Department needs to be held accountable for their noncompliance and lack of transparency.
They have been selectively producing information, shielding powerful people, and obstructing any efforts at oversight. And if we don't hold them accountable, mister chair, we are too. Just this past Friday, attorney general Bondi asked a New York federal judge to deny an appointment of a special master to monitor the release of the Epstein files. They don't want a neutral third party making sure they follow the law. I think all of us should be questioning what the Justice Department is doing that they don't want the American people to see.
We can't just take them at their word, that they'll eventually get around to releasing the files. Quite frankly, they have put up the same if not far less of an action as the Clintons have. What little information they've released so far has either already been made public or has been a mess of just sketchy redactions. A group of survivors sent a letter to the Justice Department's Inspector General complaining that the redactions had been, quote, selective. They pointed out that multiple times, the names of alleged abusers appear to be redacted, yet some survivors' names and identifying information were released.
To be clear, the subpoena I moved to secure does not allow for redactions unless it would protect the identity of a survivor or contain child sex abuse materials. They have had plenty of time to work with this committee to protect survivors' identities. This is bigger than une case. It's about rich and powerful people being protected by each other and institutions. It's about a system that has enabled Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and whoever their coconspirators are to buy favors in silence from our government.
This effort is the one time we could get some real accountability and reclaim the power of the system. Republicans don't drop the ball by allowing Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice to play us for fools. Mister Chair, you are setting a precedent that noncompliance with this committee results in immediate contempt proceedings. So I challenge you and my Republican colleagues to put your money where your mouth is and pass this amendment and hold Pam Bondi in contempt. I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Aye yields back. I'll recognize myself just for an amendment. Look. I oppose this amendment, and I hope everyone on the committee opposes it. That's because Attorney General Bondi and the Department of Justice, they have released documents.
Again, not at the speed or pace that any of us want, but they are complying with our subpoena. That is a fact. Pose your amendment, actually, because you amend the criminal, too civil. And I think that most of what I'm hearing from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, everyone wants to hear from the Clintons. They've had an opportunity for 5 months.
They will have another opportunity between today's vote and the floor to come in and answer questions. Pam Bondi is coming in front of Congress in less than two weeks to answer questions. Your colleague, Miss Crockett, I again, I don't wanna speak for Miss Crockett, but I'm pretty confident Miss Crockett's gonna grill Pam Bondi. Right? You agree with me?
I would've won that bet.
Speaker 1
Well, we'll see. I think that's a good she may. I hope she does. So I oppose. Now Chair recognizes Mister Garcia.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start by saying I strongly support the amendment proposed by Congresswoman Lee. The house majority keeps saying that they believe no one is above the law. Oversight Democrats certainly believe that, but the attorney general is violating it with impunity in support of a White House cover-up every single day. We want accountability for her failure to comply with our subpoena for the full Epstein files that's been in place since the summer.
She fails to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. She fails to comply with the subpoena put in place by Representative Lee and the committee. This is clearly a White House-directed cover-up. Now, over a month after the deadline, only 1% of these files have been released. No explanation has been given for legal redactions, again, in violation of the law.
Epsil survivors have reported that their names have appeared in parts of the document that were not redacted. And every day, she continues to withhold files and conceal the truth. She continues to give Ghislaine Maxwell special treatment by moving her to a less secure prison that we all are aware of, which is completely shameful. Now chairman Comer, you claim, of course, that the attorney general was complying with the subpoena. I mean, that is absolutely false.
1% of the documents since a subpoena in place during the summer are not complying with our subpoena. Now on 08/05/2025, this committee issued that subpoena, compelling her to produce documents and communications. That subpoena unambiguously required the attorney general to do that no later than 8/19/2025. August 19, not December, 08/19/25. On August 22, the DOJ made a single production of approximately 33,000 pages to the committee.
All of those documents, however, were already public. The DOJ has made no additional production to the committee pursuant to the subpoena. The DOJ has failed to provide specific information in response to repeated requests from democratic oversight staff as to why the DOJ's timetable continues to move and why it has not fulfilled this production or the law. Now, in response to letters from our committee on November 25, the DOJ transmitted a single letter in response to the committee's inquiries. They claimed that the DOJ was working to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which now, of course, we know they actually weren't doing because we haven't received very much.
The letter made no reference to the committee's subpoena, no reference to the DOJ's plan for compliance. The corrupt failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not just a crime. It also shows that the attorney general has made no attempt to actually comply with the subpoena. Now oversight Republicans might be happy to give President Trump and Panbandi a free pass to break the law, but this committee shouldn't do so. This amendment will allow us to go to court to force Pambani to comply with our subpoena and to finally bring the Epstein files to light.
I urge adoption, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Who's next on your side? Lynch. Mister Lynch from Massachusetts.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look. As the ranking member pointed out, we've got about 1% of the documents. I take exception to the declaration by the chairman that Pam Bondi and the department of justice is actually producing documents.
It's cooperating. So we've got the 30,000 documents that they sent us in August. It was a dump, and it was largely already made public. It wasn't prepared. I'll give you a comparison.
We've got a handful of attorneys that work for the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, and they have given us more in the same amount of time than the Department of Justice has given. I wanna point out that there are 100,000 employees at the Department of Justice. And I know very recently, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York has now put a considerable number of people on the case redacting documents. But that was six months after he started to do that. Clayton started to do that six months after we had originally requested the documents.
So this is a stall tactic. They haven't given us any of the documents. Remember, back in February 2025, Pam Bondi said publicly that she had a client list of the perpetrators in the Epstein, excuse me, client list was sitting on her desk right now to review. That was back in February 2024. She went on later on 03/03/2025.
She told Sean Hannity that a truckload of evidence had arrived, that FBI director Cash Patel is gonna get me and himself really a detailed report as to why all these documents and evidence had been withheld, close quote. However, on 25 July 2025, Bondi the FBI released an unsigned memorandum concluding that the review found no evidence. No evidence that Epstein had a client list or that he blackmailed prominent associates. And this is obviously contradicting her earlier public statements, and faced significant backlash. This is clearly obstruction of justice on the part of Pam Bondi.
We have every bit of reason to infer that she has no intention at all of producing these documents. She has made a mockery out of this whole process, including allowing witness tampering and having Ghislaine Maxwell convicted of trafficking in this instance, removed from one jail to a much more comfortable position. Why is that not witness tampering? We should ask you questions about that. And the idea that some other committee is gonna do this is an abdication of our responsibility on this committee, I believe.
We should not look. We are the ones that we had the victim sit down in front of us and tearfully ask for justice from this committee. And we promised that. We promised that we would do everything we can. We didn't say, well, we'll check with the judiciary committee, we'll let them do the work.
We said we would take on this responsibility, which is ours, Mr. Chairman. This is the rightful jurisdiction for this case, and we should demand people with evidence to produce that evidence so that we can proceed in our work. We haven't done that thus far. We've let Pam Bondi distort and obstruct the justice that's due to these victims. It is shameful.
It really is. And, I wanna hear from everyone who has a connection to this. I wanna hear from every single witness that might be able to provide evidence to the committee. And I think Pam Bondi with the millions of documents is at the top of that list. And she has thwarted justice long enough.
She is a lapdog to the president. She is trying to protect the president who is all over this case. And, I'm hopeful that eventually he'll be a witness before this committee at some point. With that, mister chairman, I.
Speaker 1
Yield back. Gentlemen, yields back. Before I recognize Scott Perry, if I may, this committee has done everything that the victims asked that day in that hearing. They asked that we subpoena the estate. I didn't we had no idea what was in the state documents.
Could've been all Republicans. Had no idea. Could've been billionaires. Could've been donors to the Republican Party. Could've been donors to the Democratic Party.
Had no idea. Without hesitation, I signed that subpoena for the estate. And then with respect to what you with your criticism of Bondi, I don't disagree with anything you said in your criticism of the current attorney general. And I think she's gonna have to answer those questions in front of Congress, in front of the American people in two weeks. And I'm confident she's gonna be asked those questions, and I expect to hear answers from the criticism that you leveled against her.
No one's defending her. Again, we expect to get the documents. They have produced some. We aren't satisfied with the pace, and she's gonna be in front of Congress in two weeks to answer that exact criticism. Chair recognized Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address the unjustified and cowardly claims made against me by members of this committee after I left, and maybe they were afraid to face me while I was here. But I'm here now, and I'm gonna face you. Just to be clear, if you have this job, you should know that any subpoena from another Congress is invalid in the next Congress. It dies with the last congress.
That's minimum information that you should know if you're gonna serve in Congress. So just let me inform you of that, if you didn't know that. Regarding the so-called subpoena, it is unjust, and it is immoral to get a group of your friends together who have a predetermined outcome, put them together in a room, and then use the power of the federal government to prevail on your political enemies. The subpoena that was served to me or my counsel was not valid because there was no valid committee serving it. I did not violate any law, and I reject the claims or the appearance that I did.
The Democrat party sought to, by use of the awesome and just the grand power of the federal government, to destroy my reputation as a person who was not charged with anything, was not accused of anything, was not the target of investigation. You wish to dirty me up and bankrupt me, so you could get rid of me. It is outrageous, and I have not mentioned that at all. But since you brought it up, I felt it would be appropriate at this time to clear my good name. And as the years have gone by, more information has come out to prove what I just said was absolutely accurate.
What happened during that period of time when you were in the majority was you set up a star chamber with predetermined outcomes and then sought to destroy in any way possible your political enemies by fashioning lies and then repeating them over and over again, which you do to this day, which you do to this moment. Now, when I spoke earlier, I didn't mention the subpoena. I mentioned the truth, and that's what this committee should be all about, wherever it comes from and whoever it touches. And I believe that to my soul, which is why I have been on this bandwagon long before you have ever been on it, and much more than you have ever done. Much more than you have ever done legitimately and sincerely.
So I just, I thank the chairman for allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight, and hopefully, that won't happen in the future. Now regarding the Clintons, as you know, I offered the amendment, the resolution to bring in everybody, attorneys general from both sides of the aisle. But with the Clintons in particular, because of their particular knowledge of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and his exploits with underage women, it is horrific. As a father of two young daughters, I would just say that the perpetrators of whatever happened ought to be thankful that their fathers don't know about it. But I sure hope that they do know soon, and I sure hope that there is justice for all the victims, and that we don't seek to destroy the lives of those uninvolved for political purposes.
What does, which is what, quite honestly, this whole theater, this whole charade has been about. This should have been easy. Is Mr. Clinton an American citizen? We appreciate that he was the president, but according to his wife, he's not above the law, and neither is she. This is a lawful subpoena with plenty of time.
The committee has been, and the chairman has been more than generous trying to work it out. But it's pretty obvious to anybody with eyes in their head that the Clintons feel like they're above the law, they're gonna get special treatment, as Secretary Clinton did the last time she was subpoenaed. I'll remind everybody that she worked out a deal to come in with her so-called attorney, was her aide, behind closed doors on a Saturday without any transcript. That's where we're headed. I'll yield the balance of my time to the general lady from Colorado if she wants it.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Perry. I just think that all of this is rich. I mean, we have every Democrat here just with their typical talking points, claiming they want to hold the Clintons accountable and hear from them. So I think it's time we move on and get to the actual point of this. We had the Clintons defy a lawful subpoena, and that is what we are here to discuss.
But Democrats want to bring up anything but that. And if this continues, I'm going to call the question. So continue with your Clintons and how you are going to protect them or defend them, or I'm going to call the question. We're gonna have the vote and end all of this nonsense rhetoric that's going on. Mister chairman, I yield.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields back. Cherrying out. Miss Stansbury is next on the list, I think. No? Okay.
Frost, who's next? I just go by what the ranking member wants.
Speaker 5
I just wanna speak in support of this amendment that has been put forth by Representative Lee. Look. At the end of the day, The United States Congress voted damn near unanimously.
Speaker 5
One member of Congress voted against release in the Epstein files, happens to be the Bay Republican on this committee. But damn near unanimously, we said we want the files. Months before that, in the subcommittee on this committee, we said we issued a subpoena for the files as well. They have failed to comply with the law, not just on one law that we passed, but also on a lawful subpoena that this committee put forth. And so I just wanna speak in support of representative Lee's motion here, an amendment here, because we have to go at this everywhere.
We wanna hear from everyone. We wanna hear from the former president. We wanna hear from anyone who's implicated. We wanna hear from anyone who has information that might help us get justice for the victims. But it is obvious that my Republican colleagues are doing anything they can to play defense.
Speaker 5
administration. 1% of documents is unacceptable. 1% of documents is unacceptable when you've had months since June or July to produce these documents when we sent a lawful subpoena to the Department of Justice. 1% of documents is unacceptable for a bill passed by the United States Congress that they are in violation of. They're breaking the law right now, as we speak.
And all we're asking for is accountability here for everyone. And so this amendment, I think, is very simple. I know the chairman keeps bringing up the fact that Panbani is going to come to the judiciary committee. The judiciary committee is not the committee leading the investigation on this. We are the oversight committee.
And so he can go over to the judiciary committee all she wants. Like, she, by the way, is supposed to, like every other attorney general has in the history of this country, show up before the judiciary committee at least once a year or once a congress to talk about a lot of different business. But we have a very specific thing we need to talk with her about. And it is talking with her about the fact that she's breaking the law and that the administration is obviously slow-rolling, putting forth the Epstein files. And I do not buy this thing that, oh, well, they're taking their time to redact it, and this and that.
We all know that's a load of BS. We all know that is a talking point that perhaps the administration gave some of my colleagues that they are just repeating over and over again. But when you have the entire Department of Justice or a, you know, a lot of people working on this, you should be able to produce documents in a much faster way. And the law was clear. And, the way, it's the law that we all voted on.
So if you thought that the timetable was unfair, you should have voted no. But you voted yes. We all voted yes except one. And so I think this is a very sensible amendment that everyone should vote yes on, because it is important that we have accountability across the board, no matter who you are. I will yield, do you want my time?
I'll yield the balance of my time to the ranking member.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Frost. Just to conclude, we obviously have and support representative Lee's amendment. We think it's important to get Pam Bondi to actually produce the files. And it's certainly important to move this debate forward.
And so I just, again, wanna reiterate and reinforce our support as we wrap up this debate on this amendment. And so, thank you, mister Cumber.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We have one more speaking request on our side, that's Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it turns out, apparently, I was mentioned as well. When I was, I was conducting that hearing that, on Minnesota fraud, another fraud that the Democrats were so interested in that only two of them bothered to show up. That's interesting. Well, so let's talk about the illicit subpoenas.
Because I think some of my colleagues may not remember this, but the resolution that we all passed that passed out of here to install the J6 committee gave to then minority leader Kevin McCarthy specific authority to name the members from the Republican side that would sit on the J6 committee. So he named them. But Speaker Pelosi didn't like those guys. So she said no. They can't be on the committee.
So she booted them and replaced them with people that she felt would be more amenable to get to, accomplish the desired political outcome that she wanted the J6 committee to have. And that was so she put two individuals. You'll remember Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger on there having removed, and no other Republicans were on there. And so not only did she violate the resolution, but the resolution also called for a certain number to be on there, and there were not that number. So the committee itself was illicit.
Then it was not a standing committee, like this is where you have jurisdictional authorities. That committee, by that point, was no longer a committee. It was an effort to railroad people, including myself. And things have been said about me repeatedly that have been debunked. Everything's been debunked that was said about me.
But we here have it today, and mister Perry was right. This was designed to go after certain specific people. I'm still not quite sure why I was one, but I was one. And, bringing it up today, is actually kind of an abhorrent tactic because it was an illicit committee, didn't have authority to issue an illicit subpoena, whereas this committee issued a legitimate subpoena. Not only did it provide the subpoena, but it actually worked for months trying to get the Clintons and accommodate their schedule, including continuing this at least once, so the Clintons would find it more convenient to come and respond to the deposition.
Leaving all other deflection aside, if you really want the Clintons to come in and answer these questions, then this would be the appropriate time to vote to hold them in contempt. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. The question is now on the amendment offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 8
So that we know exactly what we're doing here, because this has gone way off of where we started with Miss Lee's amendment. So the members of the committee know this resolves itself that the committee on oversight and government reform shall initiate judicial proceedings in any federal court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform to seek declaratory judgments affirming the duty of Patricia or Pamela J. Bondi, attorney general of the United States, to comply with the subpoena duly issued to her by the chairman of the committee on oversight and government reform as a part of investigating and the investigation into federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking law generally, and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. How we vote on this will be very telling. I support this amendment. I would urge other members of the committee to do so also if we are serious about equal practice and holding everyone accountable.
I yield back, sir.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. The question is now on the amendment offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. All those in favor of the Lee amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.
No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not.
Speaker 1
Sir. A recorded vote is ordered, as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Speaker 1
The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the MEN amendment.
Speaker 2
Amendment is the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the William J. Clinton contempt report as offered by Mister Minn of California.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.
Speaker 19
Chair Comer, I motion to amend your amendment in the nature of a substitute to authorize the House Oversight Committee to do three things. First, pursue federal court action to enforce a subpoena against former President Bill Clinton related to the sex trafficking investigation. Two, require the committee to report back any resulting litigation. And three, direct the house general counsel to represent the committee with the speaker's approval. Now I have, as mentioned previously, spent my career trying to enforce the rule of law.
I started as an SEC enforcement attorney, went on to become a law professor. I very strongly believe in the rule of law. But the rule of law is not just about not having anyone above the law. It is also about not targeting people simply because you don't like them, or because they're in a different political party, or because they've done things you don't particularly care for. Going after an individual uniquely because of how they're positioned is also a gross violation of our powers and of the rule of law.
And if you look at the precedent of how congress has operated, we have three inherent powers when it comes to contempt. Inherent contempt, civil enforcement, and criminal contempt. Now since we initiated criminal contempt back in the 1930s, we have rarely, if ever, used criminal contempt as a charge, and we have almost never leapt from civil enforcement to criminal contempt. The decision here to go from civil enforcement and to ignore that step, jumping to criminal contempt, is, in my view, a gross imposition, a gross abuse of power on our part. It is also counterproductive because if we launch criminal contempt proceedings, I think my colleague, Mr. Biggs, pointed out that we want the Clintons to testify.
If we launch criminal contempt proceedings, we will not hear from the Clintons. That is a fact. They'll be tied up in court. We have no guarantee that they will ever testify before this committee. Civil enforcement will achieve the goal we want of getting the Clintons out here before this committee.
Now I just think this is problematic. We talked earlier, mister Comer, and I still have not heard you, to this point in time, say anything about the Clintons defying the subpoena. I've heard you say, obfuscate, delay, drag their feet. We've had 5 months. But at no point in time do they say, we're not complying with the subpoena.
And to me, civil enforcement is an appropriate intermediate step. It makes sense because it allows a court to step in, secure compliance with the committee's subpoena in a nonpartisan, orderly way that follows the rule of law. Court would be empowered to impose fines, and actual imprisonment if the individual or entity refuses to comply with us. If we break from precedent, this is gonna start potentially a chain reaction of partisan warfare with criminal charges. That is not a road I believe we wanna go down in this committee or in this congress.
I think civil contempt will achieve our goals, and it will do so in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. I'll recognize myself for a few minutes. The committee consulted with the house office of general counsel as well as committee counsel, who have expressed significant concern with shifting from criminal contempt to civil contempt because it would likely result in extended litigation that would go beyond this term. As Mr. Perry said, a subpoena is only good for a congressional term. He is already five months past his subpoena.
The Clintons have lawyered up. There is no question in my mind that if we do this, they will ride this out and hope that the house flips and that you all are in control, and you all just let them go get by without answering any questions, which I think is terrible. So I cannot support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Chair recognizes his ranking member.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna support the main motion. I think I just wanna reiterate something. I think all oversight dems have said today is that we all wanna hear from President Clinton. We all want questions answered from President Clinton. I don't think one member of this committee has stated anything differently.
And this amendment is a way for us to secure compliance without immediately moving to criminal contempt, while they have been trying to negotiate answering our questions. We continue to let the legal process play out. Both the integrity of our investigation as a whole is critical as we move forward. This is an opportunity for us to get our questions answered by President Clinton. We will do that without empowering a department of justice that, quite frankly, has been corrupt and untrustworthy for many months.
We just continue to negotiate and work through an established process. Clearly, there's interest to negotiate from the Clinton side. Let's hear from President Clinton. Let's support this motion. I yield back.
If
Speaker 1
I may, and with all due respect, if you wanna hear from president Clinton, have him come in for the deposition. They've had 5 months to do that. For whatever reason you've been unsuccessful, there's two more weeks before this will be voted on in full house. We will hear from Bondi in between, and we will go from there. We expect to hear from Bill Clinton.
He's not above the law. Mister Walker Charles recognized.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of points. One, it seems to me like we made some progress in the negotiation to talk to President Clinton here today. You have acknowledged you and your team are no longer gonna demand to be able to ask questions not related to Epstein. The Clintons have agreed to the transcription of that conversation.
So demanded that. You could go to New York and talk to President Clinton on the date that you all set. That's ready to go. We've heard from Miss Luna that it would be a bad look for you and the ranking member to have to drive to New York. They got airports there.
Y'all could take a flight and go to New York, and have the conversation. That would move our investigation forward. I'm supporting mister Men's amendment and the nature of a substitute, and, you know, I'll share. I was a staff member for a member of this committee for more than a decade throughout the Obama administration, multiple chairman of the committee. And time after time, Republicans who chaired the committee, Democrats who chaired the committee, negotiated with members of the administration or private individuals who they wanted to have come before the committee, negotiated the terms.
Not once did I see this kind of leap to criminal contempt. It is not consistent with the way that this committee has operated. It is not necessary. Mister Men's amendment or you and the ranking member going to New York and having the transcribed, under oath, conversation with President Clinton would move our investigation forward. Either of those are better options than pursuing criminal contempt, which would not get us a conversation with President Clinton, would not move our investigation forward, and would not get the survivors the transparency that they're demanding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
If I may, Mister Waukesha, to reply to that. One reason that your counteroffers today don't hold a lot of weight with me is the fact that we never demanded of their attorneys that we ask questions outside the realm of the Epstein investigation. We never thought that was never a thing. They have just made that up. So their dishonesty, you know, we have already admitted one lie when they said this wasn't a lawful subpoena.
That was in the letter for Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton to me. They said this is not a lawful subpoena. It is a lawful subpoena. Does anybody disagree with that? It is a lawful number two, we've never asked to ask questions outside of this.
And I'll give you an example. When we were negotiating with Hunter Biden's attorneys or judiciary was negotiate, we agree. When Hunter Biden came in to talk about the Biden influence peddling and the money that they were receiving from foreign countries, we wouldn't ask about the stuff on the laptop. We wouldn't ask about the stuff in the suspicious activity reports about human trafficking and other things underground. We only asked about the influence peddling, which was what the investigation was about.
And it's been the same with the Clinton. So if their attorneys are trying to spin out with the media.
Speaker 1
That we wanted to talk about Monica Lewinsky or anything, that is not true. All we wanna talk about is Epstein. That has always been the deal. And for them to say otherwise is a complete 100% lie by the Clinton attorneys.
Speaker 20
Well, I'm glad to hear that, mister chairman, and I'm glad that the Clintons have agreed to have the conversation transcribed. So it seems to me that the only remaining barrier of the barriers you have identified is you don't want to go to New York. And, from my view, this investment.
Speaker 26
Thank you. I honestly just wanna get some clarification because I've heard so many different things here this morning. So, mister chairman, you just said you're willing to go to New York. In fact, you're going to New York this weekend. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
The committee has released the emails. So we can see the communication between that. Be difficult.
Speaker 26
I really just want to understand. Are you willing to go to New York to conduct this interview and deposition?
Speaker 1
With the committee, with the staff, it's not gonna just be we have negotiated this for five months, Miss Stansbury.
Speaker 26
The answer is yes? It sounds like it's a yes. My other question for you is that, so it's my understanding that you guys have received correspondence by phone, email, and from a written letter from the attorneys, from the Clintons offering to do this on the record with you, with the staff, with the attorneys. Is that correct?
Speaker 26
We're here, pursuant to a motion you brought for contempt, and the claim is that you have not made reasonable accommodations and that they have not been responsive. But they have transmitted correspondence to all of the members of the committee, including yourself and all of the members, basically, including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone, that they have offered by email, and they have offered any written letter from both themselves and the attorneys to meet with you on the record with the staff to give sworn statements. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
We have negotiated for five months. You all are trying to create a false narrative. You've had 5 months. You should have gotten the clit to the Clint before the contempt vote.
Speaker 1
And if they weren't losing public opinion, Miss Steinsbury, they would be defying this now. That's the only reason there's negotiations at the last minute.
Speaker 26
But, mister chairman, is that a fact? I, that's all I'm asking. Is that factual?
Speaker 26
Just to be clear for the public, his staff are advising the chairman not to answer that question. Okay.
Speaker 1
No. The staff said they couldn't understand what the hell you were saying because you blabbered for three minutes. But that's what, but go ahead.
Speaker 26
Okay. Mister chairman, let me say it again. Is it true that the Clintons and their attorneys have had multiple conversations with you via phone, via email, and via written correspondence, offering to give sworn statements on the record to you and the staff? Just a yes or no.
Speaker 26
Not in receipt of a letter postmarked from their attorneys yesterday saying that they would give sworn statements under oath?
Speaker 26
You're not in possession of the letter that their attorneys sent yesterday to the entire committee.
Speaker 26
Okay. Well, I'm not gonna read the letter. We'll make sure it's available to the public.
Speaker 1
Anything's available to the public. The problem is they've not been truthful.
Speaker 26
And, but, mister chairman, the standard, the legal standard for contempt is noncooperation. And so my question to you is, are you making reasonable accommodations? Are you cooperating? Are you in correspondence with them? And this is in direct relation to the motion that was made now for an amendment that essentially would use our civil compliance code in order to get full compliance from the committee.
And you're saying you're opposed to it because they haven't complied. But I have not heard you lay out the case for compliance. So why would you oppose civil compliance?
Speaker 1
Miss Stansbury, we've been negotiating for 5 months. In the meantime, every other person has complied with the subpoena that we've dealt with.
Speaker 26
The legal standard for the court, mister chairman. Legal standard either.
Speaker 26
Well, I see we have a lot of armchair lawyers here. I am not one. But, mister Min, I do support your amendment. And, I think that while the chairman refused to answer questions on the record, I think we established that there has been ongoing correspondence and that it does not meet the standard.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I just wanna clarify two things. The first is, in the comments, I know, mister chairman, you had just discussed about not going beyond the scope of the Epstein investigation with questions. To be clear, though, during the Bill Bard deposition, you were not interested in, during the Bill Bard deposition, you did go beyond the scope of the Epstein questions. You asked questions about Russia and a bunch of other things.
And so that has been a testimony was public. That has been a pattern that has been in the public realm. And so the reason the Clintons have pushed back on that is because you actually have gone beyond the scope of the Epstein investigation in depositions on this investigation with folks you have subpoenaed. I just wanna be clear about that because you just mentioned that right now in your comments. The second thing I wanna say, just to miss Sansbury's point, to reiterate is regardless of when it was done, it's false to say that the clinchans haven't agreed to a transcript of the deposition.
They have agreed to a transcript. They've done it, and they've reiterated that position in an email that they sent today. It's a position they've made before today. To position that, sir, I mean, obviously, to position that they've made before to your team. It's a position that they made a few days ago.
They've publicly said it in the press. In fact, it was covered, I think, today or yesterday in an article of The New York Times. And they again reiterated it during this testimony when you said that that's not that they've not agreed to, they've clarified the position. They are willing to have it transcribed. I just wanna clarify that.
Speaker 25
Okay. Chair, I would like to use the remainder of my time and yield it to Representative Min.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Rep Simon. I just wanna add a couple of points here. First, I just wanna note something that I think has been a little bit conflated today. This vote today, on the contempt proceeding, is not about whether Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved with the Epstein sex trafficking ring. If either or both of them were involved, they deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The survivors deserve justice. But the vote that we are about to take later today is about whether the Clintons' actions in negotiating through their lawyers on the particulars of how, when, and where they might appear before this committee, whether that constitutes a willful defiance, and that is a legal standard, a willful default of the subpoena issued to them. And, again, I wanna point out that Chair Kalmer has repeatedly talked about negotiating for five months, delaying, and trying to run out the clock. I do not believe that is willful defiance of the subpoena. That's not just my opinion.
It's the opinion of every serious lawyer in this space that I've talked to that actually knows this area of the law. I think we are going far afield here, and going straight to criminal contempt. I would also just point out and rebut what the chair said about criminal contempt leading to the Clintons testifying here. If we issue criminal contempt proceedings, I don't know if you followed how the courts work. A civil enforcement of a subpoena can take place very quickly.
Criminal trials will take a very long time, months, if not years. That will definitely run out the clock. We will never hear from the Clintons before this committee. And so I would urge you all to consider this amendment in the nature of a substitute because it will actually allow us to hear from the Clintons, maybe get the answers we want from them. And particularly since, chair Comer, you've repeatedly said there is no basis in your mind that the committee is not accusing them of any wrongdoing.
We're just simply seeking answers. If we want answers, if we want more information to get to the bottom of what happened with Epstein and this horrific child sex trafficking ring, we should be looking to civil contempt, civil enforcement, because that will actually get them before us, not criminal. With that, I yield back to Chair Ref Simon.
Speaker 25
I would like to yield my time to Miss Stansbury. Miss Stansbury says no. I would like to yield my time to the ranking member.
Speaker 3
I think we've made our case. I think that we support the amendment. It's the right way to go, and civil contempt is the right next action if we're gonna go in this route. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Chair yields back. With the called vote, Biggs wants to be recognized, and I think we're gonna vote on the main amendment. Yeah. I'll be pretty quick.
Speaker 27
So when you take him to the correct legal standard and you talk about willful and defiance, so you have a culpable middle state, and you have the act. Mhmm. The act took place here when they didn't show up. That's the defiance. They didn't show up.
Now the question is, was it willful? Well, the other piece of evidence you have that it was willful is they sent a little note saying, this is all we're going to say. This is what happened here, and that's the evidence. It was willful. They knew that they knew about the subpoena because they negotiated with you.
You even moved the time for them. They chose not to come. When you reissued the date, you gave them the date that would that ostensibly is gonna be more convenient. They continued to say they were gonna come, and then at the last minute, they slipped a note in saying, this is what I'm gonna say. I'm not saying anything more.
That's the culpable middle state. You've got willful defiance. Thus, contempt is appropriate. And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Very good. Very good. The question is now on the main amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Speaker 1
All those opposed, say no. No. And the opinion of the chair imposed have it. A recorded vote is ordered, as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess, subject to the call of the chair. We will plan to convene immediately after the first vote series. With that, the committee stand will, stands in recess. On. Alright.
Now we're good. Okay. The committee will come back to order. Now pursuant to notice, I call up a report containing a resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to. We have to finish, Bill. Okay.
Speaker 8
Are the amendments going to precede the vote on the two resolutions, or is it the other way around?
Speaker 1
Vote on the amendments. We're gonna roll everything to the end of the committee, so we can have everybody back in there to vote on it.
Speaker 1
Alright. So I just read that, guys. Alright. As I was saying, pursuant to notice, I call up a report containing a resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a duly issued subpoena issued by this committee. The clerk will report the report which has been distributed in advance.
Speaker 2
A report containing a house resolution recommending that the house of representatives find former secretary of state Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of congress for a refusal to comply with a duly issued subpoena issued by the committee on oversight and government reform.
Speaker 1
I ask you to ask consent that the report be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, without objection. So ordered, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please report the amendment.
Speaker 2
An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered to the contempt report as offered by Mister Comer of Kentucky.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered the original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the report. As with President Clinton, the committee believes that Secretary Clinton possesses information that is relevant to this committee's investigation. Specifically, Secretary Clinton's testimony may shed light on the activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and their efforts to establish relationships and curry favor with influential people. As former secretary of state, Clinton may also have information regarding the federal government's efforts to combat international sex trafficking.
Secretary Clinton's refusal to discuss that information in person and on the record directly obstructs the committee's investigation. The committee must enforce these bipartisan subpoenas through bipartisan support of this contempt of Congress resolution. I urge all my colleagues to support this contempt report, and I now yield to the ranking member Garcia for his opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Comer. I just wanna, again, just repeat that once, oversight Democrats have been clear that we want to hear from anyone with knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. We made that clear earlier. We'll continue to make that clear. One thing that's important to note is that on numerous occasions, Secretary Clinton has made statements, both in the public and to this committee, that she has no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein or his activities.
I just wanna put that on the record. It's not clear to me, as it's not clear to many others, why Secretary Clinton has been a target of this investigation. The secretary submitted a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury that she had no memory of ever meeting mister Epstein, never flew on his plane, and never held any office with responsibility for investigating his activities. She testified to having met Ghislaine Maxwell, possibly in passing, but did not have a relationship with her. Now oversight Republicans did not pursue subpoenas to former attorneys general and FBI officials who certified that they had no knowledge of the case.
And then Hillary Clinton should have her subpoena dealt with in the same way. Again, I think having and asking questions of Secretary Clinton is appropriate to this committee. It's also appropriate that we deal with her case in the way we have dealt with others who have been able to answer in writing or have been dismissed by the majority. At least after this point, the evidence that we've collected by our committee supports Secretary Clinton's assertions. No one who is serious about justice for Epstein survivors believes that Hillary Clinton has somehow been involved in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
We also know that, of course, Donald Trump is very clear about weaponizing against his opponents. In fact, he's famously, of course, led the call to lock her up since the 26 election campaign, and is clearly moving forward to do the same. Now a contempt resolution against Shirley Clinton would expose a weaponization of this Epstein investigation. If we have additional questions for Secretary Clinton, we should ask those. We should work with her and her team, and we should get her to answer those in front of the committee.
But, again, this is an attempt to politicize and attack Donald Trump's political enemies. We do ensure that we'll hear from folks that are critical to the vet this investigation, and at the center of that are folks like Pam Bondi, who will not be appearing in front of this committee, to be clear, but the judiciary committee, and Galena Maxwell, which I'm I it's finally, we're about to actually hopefully get some additional answers from her. And with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've found it interesting that you acknowledge that Pam beyond Blondie is not moving at a speed or pace to your liking. And I think the biggest concern for many of us who are looking at not only ensuring a real investigation to give these victims, you know, these survivors the respect that they deserve and the justice that they deserve, but it just appears over and over that we are not using the same standards, as a result of partisanship. Again, having conducted these types of investigations as a district attorney, you don't skip steps. If the evidence is there, you review the evidence, and you follow where that evidence leads you.
You review the evidence, develop your theory of the case, and then conduct your investigation based on the evidence. Now there are times when you don't have the evidence, and you do have to try and investigate in different ways to try to get that evidence. But in this case, we have the evidence. This congress voted on a bipartisan basis to have that evidence released. But yet, we're trying to skip steps for political points.
And, again, mister chair, you acknowledge pan bonding not moving at the speed or pace that you like, but you are still comfortable with the 1% of the files that we have got. 1%, 99%, no, we still don't have anything. Not 20%, not 30%, we're missing 40 or 50. 99% of the files that we're missing, but yet there's no criminal contempt push with respect to Pam Bondi or any urgency. But yet, the legal analysis for criminal contempt is that there is no cooperation, that there's no negotiation because the case law, the courts have determined as long as there is negotiation, good faith, no negotiation, you have to give time for that.
And that's not moving at the speed and pace that the committee prefers. But in this case, we're jumping right to criminal contempt. And what I would say is, like, just about every member that on my side of the aisle has said, we wanna talk to anyone who has evidence pertaining to these survivors. Anyone. And if we go down and if I want to hear from the Clintons, if this committee is successful in going down a criminal pathway, we're not going to hear from them.
And that defeats the purpose. You get your political points, but it defeats the purpose. And so at the appropriate time, if anyone were refusing to work with this committee, and as we've seen with the affidavits, this does not apply to the Clintons. If anyone refuses to come to this committee without, you know, and just ignores it, then all of us will support the appropriate remedies. But in this case, it's clear that this is a partisan attack to try and score points as opposed to actually trying to do a real investigation to give the survivors in this case the justice that they deserve.
And this committee, this congress should be above that. I yield my time to the ranking member if he so chooses.
Speaker 1
I'll recognize myself for a few seconds. Our report lays out that Hillary Clinton had both a personal relationship with Maxwell, as well as a financial relationship with Epstein. She's had five months as well to come before this committee. We voted in a bipartisan manner to issue her a very lawful subpoena, and she's chosen not to comply with the subpoena. So.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So we're not seeking information from Secretary Clinton because of her own, look. There's nothing in any of
Speaker 11
Documents that we've received from either the estate or from the Department of Justice. There's no indication from talking to the witnesses or the witnesses' attorneys that Mrs. Clinton had anything to do with this. And yet, we're trying to issue a criminal contempt charge because of her reluctance to appear. None of those documents. There's no indication that she has anything to do with this.
I'm not surprised that she's reluctant to appear. She had nothing to do with this. And if we're seeking the other count, the other basis for our inquiry from the charge and from the resolution is that as her official capacity as secretary of state, she may have information regarding sex trafficking in general. But that is not unique to Mrs. Clinton. We could summon the, you know, special undersecretary for sex trafficking at the State Department if we really wanted to find out information of that nature.
All we could summon is any other secretary of state who has served since 2008. I think when some of this was first uncovered in-depth, but it had nothing to do with the secretary of state, then it was between Mar a Lago and Jeffrey Epstein. It went from young girls being trafficked from Mar-a-Lago to Jeffrey Epstein's estate. And there's no nexus there between Donald Trump's club and the young girls who were trafficked to Jeffrey Epstein. There's no nexus there where the Secretary of State might intervene.
So with all due respect, I think her name was put in there because of the animosity with which the president regards her. And this goes back to, you know, a political race, between those two candidates and has nothing to do with the information that Secretary Clinton might be able to offer. I wanna hear from everyone who has information on this. However, we don't have a shred of evidence that Missus Clinton has meaningful information to assist this committee. But I know where there is evidence.
I know Pam Bondi has had millions of documents that she has refused to surrender to this committee for the past five months, six months. I know where there is also other evidence. Sitting in a luxury prison, Ghislaine Maxwell, who should be before this committee, should never have been taken out of that original prison by president Trump's personal attorney, and by doing so, made her less likely to
Speaker 11
Willing to offer testimony and evidence to this committee. That is witness tampering. When you take someone who's been convicted of a crime, remove them from uncomfortable settings, put them in a nice place. Just keep your mouth shut, honey. That's all.
That's what's going on there. We know that. All of a sudden, she gets a sweetheart deal. She's in, she's got they're bringing in pets for her. They're giving you the royal treatment now.
As long as you keep your mouth shut, honey, that's what they're saying to her. Just keep your mouth shut, don't mention the president. That's the scam going on here. That's witness tampering, plain and simple. And yet you have someone who served this country, secretary of state, elected US senator, has nothing to do with this but because it gratifies the president that you dushed her up and ruined her reputation.
This is beneath what we should be doing. We should strike the motion to summon her before this committee. We should drop this effort to hold her in criminal contempt. I yield back.
Speaker 1
And with all due respect, if you didn't want to subpoena Hillary Clinton, the Democrats on the subcommittee should not have voted to subpoena Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 3
Mister Chairman, just wanna be clear that we have the video. Committee Democrats actually voted no, by voice vote.
Speaker 3
Would you like to show the video? I mean, the video is very clear. We actually all vote or not. Just wanna be clear that in the initial vote, all democrats vote or no. Thank you.
Speaker 1
That's why we have recorded votes, and you all declined that. So, does any other member seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Hillary Clinton contempt report. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it in the amendment, and the nature of substitute the report is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting the Hillary Clinton report as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment to the nature of the substitute to the report is agreed to. Recorded vote, sir. A recorded vote was ordered, as previously announced.
Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess, subject to the call of the chair. We plan to reconvene at 3:15. 03:15. The committee stands in recess.
Speaker 1
He is right there. Okay. You ready? You're telling me, Eddie. I'm here for just yeah.
The committee will resume consideration of the amendment in the nature of.
Speaker 1
Substitute of the William J. Clinton contempt report. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of the report. Now hold this open to make sure everybody is here.
Glen hadn't noted. Jordan Fox is closed. We're having a little technical difficulty here. I'm gonna close it. That's the box.
Here. Has every member's record, I see doctor Fox. Has every member been recorded who wishes to be recorded?
Speaker 1
Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute offered by mister Minh from California. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the Minh amendment to the amendment of the report. For the second amendment.
Yep. Have all members No. Been recorded. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
Speaker 1
The noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the William J. Clinton contempt report. All those in favor signify by saying aye. And all those opposed, say no. And the opinion share of the ayes having the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the report is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting the William J. Clinton contempt report as amended. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the William J. Clinton contempt report. Have all members who wish to be been recorded? Okay.
Waiting on one more.
Speaker 1
Has everybody voted now? Yes. Yes. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 34, the nays are 8 with two voting present.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. Pursuant to this vote, the committee hereby favorably reports and adopts this report recommending that the House of Representatives find William J. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by this committee. We will move to the report to the full house. Without objection, the motion to consider is laid on the table.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, pursuant to house rule nine, clause two one, I just ask that members have the requisite two days to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental additional and minority and dissenting views.
Speaker 1
Without objection. Thank you. Without objection. The question is now unfavorably reporting the Hillary Clinton contempt report as amended. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will now open the vote on the Hillary Clinton contempt report. Clay, have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report the total.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 28. The nays are 15, with one voting present.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. Pursuant to this vote, the committee hereby favorably reports and adopts this report recommending that the House of Representatives find Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by this committee. We will move the report to the full house. Without objection, the motion reconsiders the late on the table.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, pursuant to house rule 11, clause 21, I just ask that members have the requisite two days to file with the clerk of the committee any supplemental, additional, or minority dissenting views for inclusion in the report.
Speaker 1
Pursuant to house rule 11, clause two. Committee members shall have the right to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental additional minority dissenting views within two days without objection to order. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the report reported today, subject to the approval of the minority without objection to ordered. If there's no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.