[0:09]We'll go on the record. Um, witnesses council has something she would like to state before we get started today. >> Well, first of all, good morning and thank you. Um, I just wanted to state for the record that we had requested that there be amplification so that the
[0:20]witness both could hear the different members who are here and certainly you all as you all are asking questions but also so that the witness herself could hear. Um, in a construct where you all now have a videotape. It seems as though
[0:32]being able to provide that amplification to ensure we're heard would be relevant and important. Um, we recognize that there was concern at least initially expressed to us that the court reporters might not be able to conduct their
[0:42]duties efficiently. They indicated that they could do so. So that was not actually um an issue and I think in the end what we wanted to ensure is that there's clear amplification not only of our own witness but of all of the
[0:53]members who have traveled so far to be able to ensure that everyone could be heard and that clear answers are given to questions >> and and and I want to again state for the record the microphones provided by
[1:05]the the Clintons became an issue for the audio recording. So we want crystal clear audio and visuals of today's proceedings. So the microphones were removed. we'll uh take into account tomorrow and I know many of us are hard
[1:17]hearing so we want to make sure that everyone speaks loudly and and all the questions are clearly understood. We'll do everything we can to accommodate that. >> Thank you so much. We appreciate that.
[1:26]>> Nothing further. We'll begin. Good morning. This is a deposition of former Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under
[1:36]the authority granted to it pursuant to House Rule 10. Accordingly, House Rule 10 grants the committee broad jurisdiction for the committee to conduct investigations of any matter at
[1:47]any time. On July 23rd, 2025, the subcommittee on federal law enforcement of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted by voice to
[1:57]approve a motion directing the chairman to authorize and issue a subpoena to you for a deposition. On August 5th, 2025, Chairman Comr issued a subpoena for
[2:07]Secretary Clinton to appear today for a deposition and furtherance of the committee's investigation into the actions and investigations of Mr. Jeffrey Epste and Miss Galen Maxwell.
[2:18]I will enter the original subpoena and corresponding cover letter from August 5, 2025, as well as the additional subpoena from December 15, 2025, determining a new date as exhibit one.
[2:30]>> Excuse me, council. Uh, I want to for the record I want to put in one sentence from the cover letter to the subpoena and that's the chairman's own definition of the scope of this investigation. He
[2:41]wrote and I quote, "It's to conduct oversight of the federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of
[2:53]Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell." Thank you. As stated in the email correspondence with council for secretary Clinton in negotiations for the scope regarding the
[3:03]the today's deposition, the scope agreed upon by council with the for the committee and council for secretary Clinton stated, and I quote, as conveyed to you in a letter from the chairman
[3:14]yesterday morning that you agreed to, the committee could not accept your proposed limitation on the scope of President Clinton's testimony. Accordingly, pursuant to the committee's investigation into the alleged
[3:26]mismanagement of of the federal government's investigation into Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and Miss Galain Maxwell, the circumstances and subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein's death,
[3:37]the operation of sex trafficking rings and ways of the federal government for the federal government to effectively combat them, ways in which Mr. Epstein and Miss Maxwell sought to curry favor
[3:49]and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities and potential violations of ethics rules related to elected officials. The committee will ask President Clinton and Secretary
[4:00]Clinton all of its questions regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell, including but not limited to the personal relationships between the Clintons and Mr. Epstein and Miss
[4:10]Maxwell and the ways in which Mr. Epstein and Miss Maxwell sought to curry favor and exercise influence as well as the operation for of sex trafficking rings and the ways for the federal
[4:21]government to effectively combat them without the pro proposed limitations on scope sought in your January 31, 2026 letter. >> I will enter as exhibit two the
[4:33]correspondence between Chairman Comr and Council for President Clinton and Secretary Clinton. This correspondence includes the following letters. October 6, 2025. Letter from David E Kendall to
[4:44]Chairman Comr and Ranking Member Garcia. October 22, 2025 letter from Chairman Comr to David E Kendall. November 3, 2025, letter from David E. Kendall to
[4:56]Chairman Comr and Ranking Member Garcia. November 21, 2025, letter from Chairman Comr to David E. Kendall. December 10,
[5:06]2025, letter from David E. Kendall to Chairman Comr and Ranking Member Garcia. December 15, 2025. Letter from Chairman
[5:14]Comr to David E. Kendall. January 3, 2026. Letter from David E. Kendall to Chairman Comr and Ranking Member Garcia.
[5:24]January 8, 2026. Letter from Chairman Comr to David E. Kendall. January 12, 2026. Letter from Ashley Ken and David
[5:34]E. Kendall to Chairman Comr. January 13, 2026. Letter from President William J. Clinton and Secretary Hillary R. Clinton to Chairman Comr encompassing attached
[5:45]declarations under the penalty of perjury of both President Clinton and Secretary Clinton. January 20, 2026, letter from Ashley Kalan and David E.
[5:54]Kendall to Chairman Comr. January 31, 2026, letter from Ashley Kalen and Katherine M. Turner to Chairman Comr.
[6:03]and February 2, 2026 letter from Chairman Comr to Ashley Ken and Katherine M. Turner. The committee originally noticed the
[6:12]deposition on December 12, 2025 for Secretary Clinton to appear before the committee on December 18, 2025. I will
[6:21]mark that notice as exhibit 3. I will mark as exhibit four the postponeed notice date December 16, 2025
[6:31]for a deposition of Secretary Clinton to occur on January 14, 2026. Secretary Clinton did not appear for her deposition on January 14, 2026. I will
[6:43]enter as exhibit five the transcript for the deposition for which Secretary Clinton failed to appear. The committee noticed a committee
[6:53]business meeting on January 14, 2026 to consider the contempt report for Secretary Hillary R. Clinton to be held on January 21st, 2026. I will mark that
[7:03]notice as exhibit 6. I will mark as exhibit seven the contempt report for Secretary Hillary R. Clinton voted favorably out of the Committee on Oversight and Government
[7:13]Reform. I will mark as exhibit 8 the final roll call vote sheet on favorably reporting the contempt report of Secretary Hillary R. Clinton out of the committee on
[7:24]oversight and government reform. The committee noticed today's deposition on February 19, 2026. I will enter the
[7:34]notice for this deposition as exhibit 9. I will enter as exhibit 10 an email thread between committee on oversight and government reform staff and count
[7:43]and excuse me staff and council for President Clinton and secretary Clinton. The email thread confirms the date, time, and location among other terms of today's deposition. Additionally, this
[7:54]email thread clearly states the agreed upon terms including but not limited to video recording, no predetermined time limit, and scope. Can the witness please state her name
[8:07]for the record? >> Hillary Rodm Clinton. >> Thank you. My name is Billy Grant. I am the deputy chief counsel for investigations for Chairman James Comr. Under the Committee on Oversight and
[8:19]Government Reforms rules, you are allowed to have council present to advise you during this deposition. Do you have council representing you in a personal capacity capacity present with you today?
[8:30]>> I do. Will all council please identify themselves for the record? >> David Kendall, Williams and Connelly LLP. >> Katherine Turner, Williams and Connelly LLP.
[8:40]>> Cheryl Mills, Council to the Secretary. >> Thank you. For the record, starting with the majority staff. Can the additional staff members please introduce themselves with their name, title, and
[8:52]affiliation? >> Jack Emmer, chief counsel for investigations for Chairman Comr. Peter Spectre, deputy director of oversight for Chairman Comr. >> Daniel Ashworth, general counsel for
[9:02]Chairman Comr. Ryan Jaceti, chief counsel for Chairman Comr. >> Will Harness, Professional Staff, Chairman Comr. >> Emily Fire, council for Chairman Comr. >> Melvin Soda, the middle director for
[9:14]Chairman Comr. >> Alison Tolman, professional staff member. >> Professional staff member. >> Thank you.
[9:24]>> Could you have used a microphone? I'm sorry, I cannot hear you over there. Could you please repeat your name? >> Austin Hacker.
[9:36]>> No, this gentleman here in the black >> Thank you. >> staff director. >> And the next one, communications director, >> chief clerk and director of operations.
[9:52]Ashley, deputy staff director for >> Would the majority members please announce themselves for the record? >> Congresswoman Nancy Mace, South
[10:03]Carolina. >> Congressman Eric Berles, Southwest Missouri. Michael, 27th District of Texas. >> Lauren Boowbert, Colorado 4th District.
[10:13]Rep. Anna Paul Luna, Florida 13. >> William Tman, South County, fourth congressional district. >> Rep. John Magcguire, Virginia fifth district. Will the minority staff please identify
[10:24]themselves for the record? >> Would the minority members please announce themselves for the record?
[10:34]>> Ranking member Robert Garcia >> represent House Virginia Representative Yman and Arizona's third
[10:45]district. >> And I'm James Commer chairman of the committee from Kentucky. Thank you all. Secretary Clinton, before
[10:57]we begin, I would like to go over the ground rules for this deposition. The questioning will proceed in rounds. The majority will ask questions for an hour and then the minority will have an opportunity to ask questions for an hour
[11:08]if they choose. To the extent members have questions for the witness, they will be propounded during their sides respective rounds. The clock will stop if you need to confer with counsel. your
[11:18]council is speaking and when members or staff are speaking during the opposing sides round of questions, we will alternate back and forth until there are no more questions. Do you understand? >> I do.
[11:29]>> There is a court reporter taking down everything I say and everything you say to make a written record of the deposition. For the record to be clear, please wait until the staffer questioning you finishes each question
[11:40]before you begin your answer. And the staffer will wait until you finish a response before proceeding to the next question. Further to ensure the court reporter can properly record this deposition, please speak clearly,
[11:52]concisely, and slowly. Also, the court reporter cannot record non-verbal answers, such as nodding or shaking your head. So, it is important that you answer each question with an audible
[12:03]verbal answer. Do you understand? >> I do. >> Exhibits may be entered into the record. Majority exhibits will be identified numerically. Minority exhibits will be
[12:13]identified alphabetically. Do you understand? I do. >> We want you to answer our questions in the most complete and truthful manner possible. So, we'll take our time. If you have any questions or do not fully
[12:24]understand the question, please let us know. We will attempt to clarify, add context to, or rephrase our questions. If we ask about specific conversations
[12:34]or events in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words or details, you should testify to the substance of those conversations or events to the best of your recollection. If you recall
[12:45]only a part of a conversation or event, you should give us your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall. Do you understand? >> I do. >> You are required by law to answer
[12:56]questions from Congress truthfully. This also applies to questions posed by congressional staff in this deposition. Do you understand? >> I do. >> If at any time you knowingly make false statements, you could be subject to
[13:08]criminal prosecution, including but not limited to perjury. Do you understand? >> I do. This includes both knowingly providing false testimony but also stating that you do not recall or
[13:19]remember something when in fact you do. Do you understand? >> I do. >> Furthermore, you cannot tell halftruth or exclude information necessary to make
[13:28]statements accurate. You are required to provide all information that would make your response truthful. A deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false
[13:39]statement. Do you understand? >> I do. Is there any reason you are unable to provide truthful testimony in today's interview? >> No. >> Please note that if you wish to assert a
[13:51]privilege over any statement today, that assertion must comply with the rules of the committee on oversight and government reform. Pursuant to that committee rule 16C1 states, "For the
[14:02]chair to consider assertions of privilege over testimony or statements, witnesses or entities must clearly state the the specific privilege being asserted in the reason for the assertion on or before the scheduled date of
[14:14]testimony or appearance. For the purposes of the deposition, objections must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner. If the witness
[14:25]refuses to answer a question to preserve a privilege, the committee may seek a ruling from the chair. If the chair overrules any such objection, the witness shall be ordered to answer. If the witness continues to refuse to
[14:36]answer a question despite being ordered to do so, the witness may be subject to sanction. Do you understand? >> Um, in so far as I understand the rules
[14:46]of privilege, uh, I don't have any specific knowledge of your committee's ideas of privilege. >> Understood. Ordinarily, we take a 5-minut break at the end of each hour of questioning, but
[14:57]if you need a longer break or a break before that, please let us know and we will be happy to accommodate. However, to the extent that there is a pending question, we would ask that you finish answering the question before we take a
[15:08]break. Do you understand? >> Yes. >> Finally, I will note for everyone here today that the contents of what we discuss in the deposition is confidential under the House Deposition
[15:19]Regulation. Under the rules, the chairman and ranking minority member shall consult before any release of testimony or transcripts, including portions thereof. This means it is a violation of House and committee rules
[15:31]to disclose content of the deposition prior to its official release. For this reason, the marked exhibits that we will use today will remain with the court reporter so that they can go
[15:41]into the official transcript, and any copies of those exhibits will be kept at the table or returned to us when we wrap up. Can the court reporter please swear on the witness?
[15:52]Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this deposition will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
[16:02]>> Do you have any other questions before we begin? >> Yes, I have an opening statement that I would like to deliver before we begin. >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of
[16:14]the committee, as a former United States Senator Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to
[16:25]be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability. As we all know, however, too often congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an
[16:36]abdication of duty and an insult to the American people. This committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations
[16:48]into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not. As I stated in
[16:58]my sworn declaration on January 13th, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever
[17:07]encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes, or offices. I have nothing to add
[17:17]to that. Like every decent person, I've been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It's unfathomable
[17:27]that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.
[17:38]Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government's handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed
[17:49]eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein's crimes were investigated and prosecuted.
[18:00]Of those eight, only one appeared before the committee. Five of the six former attorneys general were allowed to submit brief statements stating they had no
[18:11]information to provide. You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today, despite espousing the need for
[18:22]transparency on dozens of occasions. You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not
[18:34]a single Republican member showed up for Les Wexner's deposition. This institutional failure is designed
[18:43]to protect one political party and one public official rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors as well as inform the public
[18:54]who want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors and I am furious on their behalf. I have spent my life advocating
[19:05]for women and girls. I have worked hard to stop the terrible abuses so many women and girls face here and around the world, including human trafficking,
[19:16]forced labor, domestic violence, and sexual slavery. For too long, these have been largely invisible crimes or not treated as crimes at all. But the
[19:27]survivors are real and they are entitled to justice. In Southeast Asia, I met girls as young as 12 years old who had been forced into prostitution and raped
[19:38]repeatedly. Some were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I met mothers who told me how they lost their daughters to trafficking and did not know where to
[19:48]turn. In settings around the world, I met survivors trying to rebuild their lives and help rescue others with little support from people in power who too
[19:58]often turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder. If you are new to this issue, let me tell you, Jeffrey Epstein was a highness individual, but he is far from
[20:10]alone. This is not a one-off tabloid sensation or political scandal. It is a global scourge with an unimaginable
[20:19]human toll. My work combating sex trafficking goes back to my days as first lady. I worked to pass the first federal legislation against trafficking
[20:30]and was proud that my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which increased support for survivors and gave prosecutors better tools for
[20:40]going after traffickers. As Secretary of State, I appointed a former federal prosecutor, Lucy Debbaka, to ramp up our global anti-trafficking
[20:51]efforts. I oversaw nearly 170 anti-trafficking programs in 70 nations and directly pressed foreign leaders to
[21:00]crack down on trafficking networks in their countries. Every year, we published a global report to shine a light on abuses. The findings of those
[21:11]reports triggered sanctions on countries failing to make progress, so they became a powerful diplomatic tool to drive concrete action. I insisted that the
[21:22]United States be included in the report for the first time ever in 2011 because we must hold ourselves not just to the same standard as the rest of the world,
[21:32]but to an even higher one. Sex trafficking and modern slavery should have no place in America. None. Infuriatingly, the Trump administration
[21:44]gutted the trafficking in person's office at the State Department, cutting more than 70% of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked so
[21:55]hard to prevent trafficking crimes. The annual trafficking report required by law was delayed for months. The message from the Trump
[22:05]administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer. Combating human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump
[22:16]White House. That's a tragedy. It's a scandal and it deserves vigorous investigation and oversight. A committee endeavoring to stopping human
[22:27]trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a legal system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes. A committee run by
[22:38]elected officials with a commitment to transparency would ensure the full release of all the files. It would ensure that the lawful
[22:49]redactions of those files protected the victims and survivors, not powerful men and political allies. It would get to
[22:58]the bottom of reports that DOJ withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accuses President Trump of crimes. It
[23:09]would subpoena anyone who asked on which night there would be the wildest party on Epstein's island. It would demand
[23:18]testimony from prosecutors from Florida, New York, and the Department of Justice about why they gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and chose not to pursue others who
[23:29]may have been implicated in his crimes. And it would demand that Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi testify about why this administration is abandoning
[23:41]survivors and playing into the hands of traffickers. It would seek out advocates and law enforcement officials on the front lines of the fight against human
[23:51]trafficking and ask them what support they need. And it would put forth legislation to provide more resources
[23:59]and force this administration to act. But that's not happening. Instead, you have compelled me to testify fully aware that I have no knowledge that would
[24:10]assist your investigation in order to distract from President Trump's actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers. If this committee is
[24:21]serious about learning the truth about Epstein's trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press ga gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement. It would ask him
[24:33]directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files. If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on
[24:43]fishing expeditions. There is too much to be done. What is being held back? who is being protected and why the cover up.
[24:53]So my challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust of
[25:05]the American people that they have given to you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. and they expect you to
[25:16]use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein's crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking
[25:27]in this country and around the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would also like to request that the video of
[25:37]this deposition be made available within 24 hours as it has been for other witnesses. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
[25:46]The time reads 11:34 a.m. The majority's time will begin now. Uh, Madam Secretary, in the interest of efficiency
[25:56]here today, uh, I'm going to ask you one question followed by a list of names. Um, the question can be answered yes or no. If you do indicate yes to any
[26:07]individual, I will come back and revisit that at the end. The question is, have you ever communicated with any of the following people relating to Jeffrey Epstein or
[26:17]Ghislaine Maxwell? >> Richard Khan, >> no. >> Darren and DK, >> no.
[26:28]>> Sarah Kellen, >> no. >> Doug Band, >> not that I recall. Lawrence Summers.
[26:43]>> No. >> Huma Abodine. Ever. >> Have I ever talked to her about this in preparation for this hearing? I have >> outside of that.
[26:53]>> Not that I recall. >> Nam Chsky. >> No.
[27:04]>> Leslie Grath. >> No. Nadia Marson Kova. >> No. >> John Luke Brunell.
[27:16]>> No. I don't know most of these people. Should I tell you that I know know who they are or just tell you I never talked to them? >> Just that you never talked to them. It's fine. >> Alan Dersowitz.
[27:26]>> No. >> Kathy Rumler. >> No. >> Bill Richardson. >> No. George Mitchell.
[27:39]>> No. >> Andrew Mountbaiton Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew. >> No. >> Peter Mandelson.
[27:50]>> No. >> Reed Hoffman. >> No. >> Karina Shuliaak.
[28:00]>> No. >> Bill Gates. No >> Barack. >> No. >> Woody Allen.
[28:13]>> No. >> Sandy Burgerer. >> No. >> Jess Staley. >> No. >> Paul Morris.
[28:27]>> No. >> Leon Black. >> No. Sultan Ahmed bin Suliam.
[28:37]>> No. >> Leslie Wexner. >> No. >> Jack Kesler.
[28:48]>> No. >> Mark Middleton. >> No. >> Harvey Weinstein. >> No. >> Ellie de Rothschild.
[29:02]No. >> Arian de Rothschild. >> No. >> Lynn Forester de Rothschild.
[29:12]>> No. >> Any other members of the the Rothschild family? >> No. >> Glenn Dubin?
[29:24]>> No. >> Eva Anderson Dubin? >> No. Casey Wasserman.
[29:35]>> No. >> Larry Vokei. >> No. >> David Rogers.
[29:47]>> No. >> Era Magazer. >> No. >> Daniel Gilbert.
[29:57]>> No. Karen Ewing. >> No. >> Stacy Plask?
[30:06]>> Not that I recall. >> Howard Lutnik?
[30:14]>> No, not not that I recall. >> Steve Bannon. >> I don't know if I've ever met him. You
[30:24]all have to introduce me. I take that as a no. You >> just to be absolutely clear, you've asked if I've ever communicated about Jeffrey Epstein, a man I never met with
[30:35]any of these people, most of whom I've never heard of and certainly not met. That's the premise of your question. >> Mr. Epste or Mrs. Maxwell? >> You did not say that. >> I did say that in the beginning. I will repeat the question.
[30:46]>> No, that's okay. But I didn't talk about her with any of these people either. >> I barely knew her. >> David Gurgen. >> No.
[30:57]Elon Musk, >> no. >> Abigail Johnson, >> no. >> Jeff Bezos,
[31:08]>> no. >> Larry Paige, >> no. >> Sergey Bren, >> no.
[31:19]>> Lewis Fria, >> no. Uh, a new member arrived. Would they
[31:31]please introduce themselves for the record? >> McBression Missouri First. >> Thank you, sir. >> Can I inter back the initial premise of
[31:42]your question because I too did not hear. >> Yes, ma'am. Have you ever communicated with any of the following people relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Gillan Maxwell? I didn't hear the Maxwell piece, but we could ask CL. It doesn't
[31:54]matter. It's the same answer, but I did not hear the Maxwell name in there. >> Understood. >> So, was the last name you said, Larry
[32:09]Page? It >> was Sergey Briner. Uh, the last name I stated was Lewis
[32:25]Frey. You indicated no. Is that correct? >> I think. Do you mean free? >> Free. Yes, ma'am. >> No. >> And um Sarah K.
[32:35]>> No. And these are all to the best of my recollection as I as I say. Many of these people I've never heard of. Most of these people I've never had a
[32:47]relationship with, although they I know their name. Some of them are deceased. Uh but I was not communicating about uh Jeffrey Epstein and Glain Maxwell,
[32:58]as I understand what you're asking me, contacting people about them. That did not happen. >> Is there anyone that you had a
[33:08]conversation with about Galen Maxwell? Oh, I'm sure I've talked about Galain Maxwell and especially in preparation for this hearing >> and outside of conversations with your
[33:23]council, um, what did you talk about about Miss Maxwell? >> I don't recall any conversations about m about Miss Maxwell, but I knew her
[33:33]casually, so I can't tell you that I never had a conversation that mentioned Golain Maxwell's name because I don't recall that. Understood. And um
[33:43]you say that you knew Miss Maxwell casually. What does that mean? >> Just what I said. I knew her primarily as someone who dated someone that I knew. >> And who was that individual?
[33:54]>> Ted Weight. >> And who was Ted Weight? >> Ted Weight was a successful, as I
[34:03]recall, software developer. And um
[34:16]roughly when would the first time Miss Maxwell would have come up in relation to Mr. Wait? >> I don't recall but you know perhaps
[34:26]sometime around 2010 because he was in invited to my daughter's wedding and she was his guest. Have you ever spoken with Miss Maxwell
[34:42]um personally yourself? >> I'm sure I have. Yes. >> Did you estimate on how many occasions? >> Not many. I didn't see see her very
[34:52]often. When would the first um occasion have
[35:08]been? >> I have no recollection. Did your first interaction with Miss
[35:27]Maxwell occur while um President Clinton was president of the United States and you were first lady of the United States? >> No, I do not recall ever meeting her
[35:36]while Bill was still in the White House. >> Did Mr. wait ever inform you what Miss
[35:47]Maxwell did for a living? >> Not that I recall. >> Did anyone ever um indicate to you what
[35:57]Miss Maxwell did for a living? >> Not that I recall. When would the last time have been that
[36:14]you um either communicated with Miss Maxwell, even if not directly yourself, but been around Miss Maxwell? >> The best of my recollection is at the
[36:25]wedding in uh 2010. Would you consider Miss Maxwell a
[36:37]friend? >> No. >> Would you consider her a friend of President Clinton? >> He'll have to answer that. >> Would you consider Miss Maxwell a friend
[36:55]of your daughter? >> She'll she probably was friendlier with her than I was because I didn't see her very often. How often would your daughter have seen
[37:13]Miss Maxwell? >> I have no idea. >> But again, it was in the context of her
[37:21]being in a relationship with Ted White. Anyone else in your family have a
[37:33]relationship of some kind with Miss Maxwell? Well, that's my family. You asked about Bill and Chelsea. >> And just to make clear for the record,
[37:52]uh, have you ever met Jeffrey Epstein? I do not recall ever meeting Jeffrey Epstein in preparation for this uh
[38:01]hearing. I was told that he attended an event at the White House uh that was put on by the White House Historical Association.
[38:10]Um but I have no recollection of that. and only that one time at the White
[38:25]House Historical Association. >> That's the only time that I'm aware of that I might have possibly been in the same room with him. >> Did you have an initial impression of Mr. Epste?
[38:37]>> I have no recollection of Mr. Epstein. I just told that he was in a room at a dinner that we were hosting for the White House Historical Association. >> What was your understanding of Mr. of
[38:48]what Mr. Epstein did for work? >> I knew nothing about him. He was there as a invited guest by the White House Historical Association. That that's my best recollection.
[39:00]>> And no one else informed you of what Mr. Epstein did for work? >> No, but we had hundreds and thousands of people who came to the White House. I was not informed of what people did or didn't do for work, especially someone
[39:11]that I never even uh had a conversation with. >> Do you know who invited Mr. Epstein to the White House? I can only tell you what I know, which
[39:23]is that he apparently was a guest invited by the White House Historical Association to attend a dinner to thank people who gave money to the White House Historical Association for the upkeep
[39:35]and maintenance of the White House. That that's what I was informed of in preparation for uh coming here. >> Yes, ma'am. And um understanding we
[39:45]focused the last few questions on um your time in the White House with President Clinton. After that time period of um President
[39:56]Clinton's administration, did anyone ever tell you what Mr. Epstein did for a living? >> I don't recall ever talking about Mr. Epstein. He was not on my radar. He was
[40:06]not somebody that I had any connection to. When President Clinton was traveling um
[40:17]with Mr. Epstein on uh Clinton Foundation business, no one associated with the foundation at that time discussed Mr. Epstein with you?
[40:29]>> Not that I recall. I was not involved with the foundation. I was a senator from New York and I was deeply committed to my work and it became one of the most intense
[40:41]experiences of my life when we were attacked on 911. I was not involved with what uh was happening to create the foundation to create the
[40:51]work that was done uh to get lowcost drugs for AIDS. I knew about the work. I didn't know about the details.
[40:59]>> Understood. And to be clear, uh, you never had any communication yourself with Mr. Epstein, whether that be face-toface interaction, phone calls, emails, text messages.
[41:10]>> You can answer. You can answer it again. >> I I have no recollection in any way of ever having any
[41:21]conversation at the White House or in any other place or on any kind of device of any sort. I knew nothing about him.
[41:32]>> And um when did you learn of Mr. Epstein's um 2006 indictment and subsequent arrest
[41:42]leading to his incarceration in 2008? >> I have no idea. I I was not paying attention. I was running for reelection in 2006. I ran for president in 2007208.
[41:54]I don't know that I ever learned about it until much later when more things came out about him. >> Understood. And when did you first learn
[42:04]of Mr. Epstein's arrest in 2019? >> Probably when it happened because it was headline news. I'm sure I like everybody else saw it in the press.
[42:15]>> And in seeing that in the press, did you discuss Mr. Epstein or his case at the time with anyone? I'm sure we did
[42:22]because it was a, you know, big story. >> And um, Mr. Epstein died in custody after following his 2019 arrest. When
[42:34]would you have learned of his death? whenever it was reported. >> Going back slightly a question, you said
[42:52]you likely would have talked to someone regarding his arrest in 2019. Um, who would you have discussed that? >> Whoever, whoever was around. I mean, it was a big story as you recall. It was a
[43:03]very big story. I don't have any specific recollections. It wasn't something that I was particularly focused on, but it was a big story. And uh
[43:22]going back to Miss Colin Maxwell, when did you learn of her arrest in 2021? >> Again, whenever it was reported. um as
[43:33]um happening >> and did you discuss that with anyone? >> I'm sure I did. It was another big story. >> And who would those discussions have
[43:49]been with? >> I don't have any specific recollection. Um, so moving forward in time just a
[44:07]little bit, you were Secretary of State under President Obama. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. >> And it was during his first term, 2009 to 2013. >> That's correct.
[44:18]And after you completed your time as Secretary of State, did you return in any role to the uh Clinton Foundation? >> I did. I I became active in it uh at
[44:30]that point. >> And by being active in it, um could you describe that for us, please? tried to support the work that uh Bill and my
[44:39]daughter and the team had done. Uh and you know look for ways to uh be helpful. Uh it it you know was something that I
[44:51]wanted to make sure I could support. >> And um please correct me if I'm wrong. You were uh you rejoined as a board member. Is that right?
[45:02]>> That might have been the first time I was a board member. I don't remember either the first or the second time. Yeah. >> And speaking of um it sounds like you
[45:11]were heavily involved when you returned to the foundation or I guess started with the foundation at this point um in trying to accomplish those goals and
[45:23]initiatives. What were you doing, you know, broadly speaking on a on a daily basis, monthly basis, that sort of thing? Um well I wanted to start a
[45:32]program about early learning for kids and so we started something called Too Small to Fail which I was very actively involved in with my daughter and we
[45:43]worked with pediatricians and other people to help parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles uh read, talk and sing
[45:54]to their children so that they could help build brain cells. that was a major uh priority of mine and I'm very proud of what we've built and the difference that it's made in you know millions of
[46:05]kids' lives. Um, I certainly did what I could to support the work that we do um overseas through
[46:16]the Clinton Global Initiative, which has had a terrific track record of bringing people together to uh work in partnerships to make commitments to try
[46:26]to improve everything from, you know, clean water to um solar energy to improved education.
[46:36]uh all of the priorities that the partners we have uh bring to us that we try to help them with. >> And uh thank you for that, Madam
[46:46]Secretary. We've had a few members join us. Would you guys please announce yourselves for the record? >> Yes. Pat Fallon, fourth district of Texas. Scott Perry, 10th.
[46:57]>> Thank you both. >> You have the last Mr. Perry. Scott Perry. >> Thank you. And madam secretary, as a as a board
[47:12]member, um what type of responsibilities does that entail? >> Oh, attending the board meetings, um
[47:22]approving the agenda of uh work for the year, the budget that goes with it, that kind of u responsibility. And you mentioned the Clinton Global Initiative.
[47:34]Um, just for clarity, I will likely refer to that as CGI as we go forward with this. Um, CGI is a part of the Clinton Foundation. Is that accurate?
[47:46]>> Yes. >> And um, what was your role with CGI at this time period right after you left being
[47:55]Secretary of State? It was again to you know support the staff that put together uh both the annual meeting but also worked during the year with our partners
[48:04]who'd made commitments to help them uh fulfill their commitments. So you know if there were a meeting about a commitment that was made to get clean
[48:13]water to some uh very remote place uh if there were a meeting uh I might be invited to it to meet with the partners to encourage them. you know, it was
[48:24]mostly around the work that uh happens throughout the year in preparation for the annual meeting
[48:34]>> and uh forgive my ignorance please. What happens at those annual meetings? >> The annual meetings are a way for people
[48:43]to come together to make commitments uh that they have previewed with our staff. So, I'll give you an example. Probably around
[48:53]Oh, I don't know. Somewhere between 12 and 15 years ago, I don't know specifically. Matt Damon, the actor, came to the Clinton Global Initiative
[49:03]because he said he really cared about clean water. And could we connect him with people that he could work with to get more clean water in more places um
[49:14]in the world? So, we did. We we connected him to this uh gentleman who was a real expert on clean water. um they started working together. They
[49:24]created something called water.org which was a Clinton Global Initiative commitment that was made at the annual meeting and then our staff worked with
[49:34]them and I I think it's fair to say that you know they've been one of the most successful uh organizations and actually delivering clean water. But it's that kind of work.
[49:44]It's people who might have a good idea, maybe they've got some resources, maybe they have some experience. I'll give you another idea. So Proctor and Gamble called us and said, "One of our
[49:55]scientists, one of our chemists in the UK has created this packet of uh chemicals that can literally make the
[50:06]dirtiest water clean enough to drink, but we don't know what to do with it because we're a consumer company that sells products to middle class people. This is something that would go to the
[50:17]very poor. What do we do with it if we come to CGI? can you connect us with somebody who can help us? So we connected them with World Vision um and I think maybe one or two other
[50:28]organizations and so they used the packets to literally go around the world cleaning water and Bill went with them, Chelsea
[50:37]went with them um and they would go to rural Myanmar or rural Kenya and they would take this bucket of dirty water
[50:45]and they dump the packet in and then my daughter and my husband would drink it to show that it was clean. And that was a CGI commitment. We bring together
[50:55]governments, local, state, national, businesses, philanthropies, NOS, academics, anybody who has a good idea
[51:07]that we can help them uh work on uh and try to fulfill. That's what we do. >> And thank you. The uh Clinton Foundation
[51:17]started shortly thereafter. your um your husband, President Clinton, left office. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And um CGI started a few years later. Is
[51:33]that right? >> I I think that's right. I think it started um maybe 2005 maybe. I'm not sure. And
[51:44]um does CGI or the foundation more broadly perform any work in sex trafficking or human trafficking around the world?
[51:54]>> There may be partners who make commitments about that. We have thousands and thousands of commitments. So I I can't answer yes or no, but it
[52:04]might be an area that uh some of our commitment makers would be focused on. And um how did the foundation, the Clinton
[52:15]Foundation, how did that idea come to fruition? Was that your idea, President Clinton's idea? >> Oh, no. The Clinton Foundation was all
[52:24]Bill's idea. He set he set it up uh as he was leaving the White House. It was the entity that raised the money to
[52:35]build the Clinton Presidential Center. um and then to um carry on the work that he wanted to do. You know, shortly after he got out of the White House, he and
[52:44]Nelson Mandela were asked to come to the annual AIDS conference uh to see whether the two of them could do something that needed to be done, which was to uh try
[52:54]to stem the epidemic of HIV AIDS. And so Bill started out trying to figure out how to deal with this problem and came to the conclusion that the best way
[53:06]would be to lower the price of the drugs that were being used in the United States but were too expensive to be used around the world in order to treat more
[53:16]people. And I really give huge credit to both Bill's idea about how to do that, but also huge credit to President George
[53:26]W. Bush because when President Bush took Bill to Pope John Paul's funeral in Rome, he and Bill were talking because
[53:37]President Bush was coming forward with the PEPFAR program. And so he and Bill were talking and President Bush was very committed to
[53:45]this and Bill was very committed. And so Bill said to President Bush, I now have generic drugs being made in places like
[53:55]India that are much cheaper than the brandame drugs and you could with tax money treat many more people. And so President Bush to his credit said,
[54:07]"Yeah, but my folks tell me that the drugs aren't as good as ours." And Bill said, "I'll give them to you. You give them to the FDA. You test them and I'll abide by your tests." I think you can
[54:18]ask him if you want tomorrow, but I think he gave I don't know like 24 drugs and the FDA approved 22 and President Bush was as good as his word. And so we began at the as the United States and
[54:30]the Clinton Foundation because of that connection and that partnership. We began treating millions of people with
[54:38]lowcost drugs with federal PEPAR money saving millions of lives. Sadly, that's going to be reversed because of the attitudes of this administration and the
[54:50]cutbacks, but it was one of the great services to humanity. And I give President Bush and I give my husband enormous credit for doing something that
[55:01]wasn't going to get them headlines, wasn't going to get them, you know, some kind of, you know, statue put up, but was saving millions of lives, preventing motherto- child transmission,
[55:12]preventing, you know, people from dying. So that's what he was doing. >> And thank you for that. Did uh did Mr. Ban play a significant role in helping
[55:23]set up the foundation initially? Yes, he did. >> And um when CGI was initially created, uh
[55:35]whose idea was that? >> It was Bill's idea. He went to Davos and he called me after he'd been at Davos and he said, "You know, a lot of interesting people, but they don't do
[55:47]anything but talk." And I have a better idea. Why don't we get people together and yeah, they can talk, but they have to make commitments and they have to follow through on the commitments and we
[55:58]could have an annual meeting that would bring people who were willing to make commitments. Uh, and that's that was his idea and I thought it was a really good idea and I encouraged him to go out and
[56:10]see if he could put it together. >> Are you aware of any of uh excuse me, are you aware of anyone else helping formulate the idea for CGI? Oh, I think he talked to a lot of people. I I
[56:21]couldn't tell you who, but he talked to a lot of people. >> Did Mr. Epstein have a role in shaping the formation of CGI? >> I have no idea. I don't know anything about it.
[56:31]>> Did Ghislaine Maxwell have any role in shaping CGI? >> I don't have any idea uh about that. I will enter as majority exhibit 11 um
[57:05]the interview between Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch and Miss Ghislaine Maxwell from July of 2025.
[57:14]We'll get you all a copy momentarily. >> Thank you so much.
[57:39]>> And I'm sorry, what was this exhibit? >> This will be majority 11. Um, I would like to direct your
[58:02]attention to page 263. Okay. And on page 263, Miss Maxwell
[58:44]uh tells Mr. Blanch that she had a role in shaping CGI. Um you said you were not aware of Miss Maxwell having any role in shaping CGI.
[58:55]>> I was not involved in the creation of CGI. Again, I was in the United States Senate. I was not involved in uh the
[59:03]work that was done to set up CGI. No one discussed the formation of CGI with you >> that it was going to be set up, but I don't have any specific recollection of
[59:15]of having any um specific knowledge of it. No. >> Did Mr. Epstein help craft the idea or formulation of CGI?
[59:26]>> I don't have any idea. I don't I don't know anything about that. Is it possible that Miss Maxwell had a
[59:40]role in creating CGI? >> I'm not going to speculate. I'm I'm here to tell you what I know and I don't know anything about that. >> Understood. And is it possible Mr. Epstein had a role in crafting CGI? >> I'm not going to speculate about that
[59:52]either because, you know, I have no way of knowing that because I have no direct knowledge.
[59:58]>> I will enter now as majority exhibit 12. This will be a
[1:00:09]letter from Mr. Epstein's attorneys. I will give you a second for it to be passed out. This is a letter dated July 6, 2007.
[1:00:29]It is from uh Gerald V. Left court. He was an attorney for Mr. Epstein. He sent this to the prosecutors in the Southern
[1:00:39]District of Florida. Uh that would be Slowman, Mitchell, Lori, and Villa.
[1:00:49]And I will direct your attention to page 21. At the that top paragraph on page 21,
[1:01:01]it says, quote, "Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to
[1:01:12]some of the world's most pressing challenges. Um, again, is it possible that Mr. Epstein played a role in crafting CGI?"
[1:01:22]I have no idea what he did or what he said he did and I have no way to testify to the veracity of either. I was not involved.
[1:01:34]>> Have you seen this document before? >> No. the Clinton Foundation um
[1:01:59]accepts donations as part of carrying out its work. Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> And when seeking, let me take a step back.
[1:02:12]Um people charitably provide donations to the foundation. >> It's a 501c3. Yes. And do you or anyone else at the foundation
[1:02:23]ever solicit donations for the foundation? >> I'm sure that that that happens. People talk to us. We talk to people. They ask questions about the work that's being
[1:02:33]done. And I'm sure that happened uh in the years before I was involved. >> Did you solicit funds from Jeffrey
[1:02:44]Epstein for the foundation? I had no contact with Jeffrey Epstein. I did not solicit funds from Jeffrey Epstein. >> Did you solicit any funds for the
[1:02:58]foundation from Miss Maxwell? >> I did not. I again, we're talking about the creation of the foundation. I was not involved in the creation of
[1:03:07]the foundation or the creation of CGI in those early years. I was incredibly focused on my job in the Senate. Bill was focused on setting up the foundation
[1:03:19]and starting CGI >> and understanding um you were occupied with with your career
[1:03:30]as a as a senator and then your presidential campaign leading up to 2008. At this time, were you discussing starting the CGI with President Clinton?
[1:03:42]>> I'm going to object to any communications between the two of them. You can ask generally, but that's covered by the marital communications privilege. >> Understood. So, generally speaking,
[1:03:53]>> I I am sure that I talked to my husband uh about what he was doing to set up the foundation. It was more on the substance of the work.
[1:04:04]How many drugs was he getting made in India? What was the you know idea that was going to motivate uh you know CGI to
[1:04:14]be what he wanted it to be? It was not in the weeds. It was the concept. It was you know the excitement that he had about trying to establish the foundation
[1:04:24]and CGI. >> And um similar question for Mr. Band. Did you discuss the creation of CGI with Mr. Band?
[1:04:35]>> I may have because he was around. He worked for my husband. He was a personal aid to my husband, but I don't have any recollections of any specific conversations. Broadly speaking at
[1:05:06]um at any time do you recall any discussions related to distancing the foundation or CGI from Mr. Epstein or Mr. Maxwell? >> I don't recall any conversations. I know
[1:05:18]that um sometime maybe 200 three or so um Bill did not have any
[1:05:28]ongoing uh contact with Epstein and in preparation for this hearing, you know, it became clear to him that Epstein was not interested in the
[1:05:39]charitable work that was motivating Bill as he traveled around the world getting people to commit to uh providing lowcost drugs for not just HIV, AIDS, but
[1:05:51]eventually tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases. >> And what is your understanding of Mr. Epstein no longer wanting to
[1:06:02]participate in the foundation's philanthropic goals? I don't it only in preparation for this have I been told that you know that was
[1:06:14]there was no real interest there and um you know there was no point in uh being involved or connected to him
[1:06:25]>> and we touched on this um correct me if I'm wrong you said you're not aware of Mr. I've seen donating to
[1:06:35]the foundation. Would you consider let me back up. Um, President Clinton took trips on Mr. Epstein's jet. Is that correct?
[1:06:47]>> Yes. >> Would you consider offering a private jet as a donation in kind to the foundation? Well, I don't know what the the rules
[1:06:57]are under the 501c3 regulations, but it was certainly uh a gift and he was, you know, one of a number of people who provided transportation
[1:07:07]uh so that Bill could do the work he was doing. I think
[1:07:41]we touched on this. Um, did Mr. Epstein end up donating to the foundation or CGI? I have no personal
[1:07:51]knowledge of that. >> You're not aware of a $25,000 donation to the from Miss Epstein's uh affiliated
[1:08:03]companies to the foundation? >> Only what I was told um was alleged uh in preparation for this testimony. I did not know uh about that and I don't know
[1:08:13]that it's true. Are you aware of the Clinton Foundation reviewing any records in regard to Mr. Epstein donating to the foundation?
[1:08:23]>> I will have to ask our lawyers. I I did not. >> Have you had any conversations about the foundation reviewing those donations made by Mr. Epste?
[1:08:34]>> I I think I'll have to ask our lawyers. I don't I don't know. I didn't review them. >> Understood. Miss Mace, did you have some questions? >> I I did. Um, thank you for being here
[1:08:44]this afternoon. In your opening remarks, you mentioned this is political theater and partisan. Do you believe the Epstein files are a vast right-wing conspiracy? >> I think if they are fully released as
[1:08:58]the Transparency Act requires, >> that would be fulfilling the uh responsibility of the Justice Department. But it appears that there
[1:09:10]have been uh many uh issues with the full release. So I'm not going to characterize it other than to say I think that's a well-known uh fact. >> Are you aware that both Republicans and
[1:09:21]Democrats voted to subpoena you and your husband? >> I am here. >> Okay. Are you aware both Republicans and Democrats voted to hold you in contempt when you didn't show up? >> I am here.
[1:09:31]>> Is that partisan when both parties vote to do something together? Is that partisan or nonpartisan? I think it's standing up for the institution, but there are many other aspects of the committee's work that strikes me as
[1:09:43]avoiding the main issues about who should be sitting here, who has actual information that might be useful to your uh investigation. >> As a survivor, I'm a survivor. I appreciated your opening statement and
[1:09:54]your prioritizing some of these issues. Have you always believed this way? Have you believed this way for some time? >> Have I? What? >> Have you believed what you believed in your opening statement for some time?
[1:10:04]>> Yes, I have. Um, how long have you had those beliefs or held those beliefs in your opening statement? >> Very long. >> In 1998, you had those same beliefs? >> Yes.
[1:10:15]>> 2005? >> Yes. >> 2008? >> Yes. >> 2012? >> Sure. >> 2016? >> Mhm. >> 2020? >> Mhm. >> 2024 to present day, you've held these beliefs the whole time?
[1:10:26]>> Yes, I have. >> Um, have you always believed that women abused by powerful men should be believed? I know where you're going with this and I have had nothing to say about anything in the past. I'm here to answer
[1:10:37]questions about this investigation. >> So, do you believe that women who are abused in EP by Epstein and an Epstein circle of associates should be believed?
[1:10:48]>> I think that many of them have made uh very credible accusations. >> Have you always thought that Do you think that women abused by powerful men should get justice? I think that they
[1:10:59]should have their time to be evaluated and where there is adequate evidence they should certainly get justice and perpetrators should be held to >> the question was have you thought always
[1:11:10]thought that women abused by powerful men should get justice. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Um I agree. Um are you aware that uh you were aware I think you said this earlier that Jeffrey Epste was convicted in 2008
[1:11:22]for procuring a child for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute. Correct. That's what the uh charges were. Yes. >> And uh you were aware of that in 2008? >> I don't recall that I was aware then.
[1:11:33]>> And in 2008, you were a US senator still? >> I was. >> Um would you say that Jeffrey Epstein is one of the world's most prolific sex traffickers?
[1:11:43]>> From what we know, he certainly uh engaged in his predatory activities for a long period of time. >> Would you say he's one of the world's most prolific sex traffickers? I >> I I don't know what to compare it to.
[1:11:55]their terrible sex trafficking rings all over the world. >> Um, and you were you said you were Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. >> And you state your agency prioritize
[1:12:06]combating sex trafficking internationally. Correct. >> That's correct. >> During your time as Secretary of State, did you or the state receive any intelligence cables or briefings mentioning Epstein's foreign travel, Pedophile Island, or his network of
[1:12:18]pedophiles and sex trafficking? >> Not that I am aware of. No. >> Um, how did you miss it? if he's I believe one of the most prolific sex traffickers in the world. You were
[1:12:28]Secretary of State. How did you miss it? >> Well, that would have been a matter of the Justice Department, not the State Department. >> But in your opening statement, and your statements earlier, in your opening statement, you stated that Secretary
[1:12:38]Rubio should be called to testify. You said that he has and the administration has quote abandoned survivors using the same logic you were Secretary of State during a time period after Jeffrey Epste
[1:12:49]was convicted of being a pedophile and soliciting children for sex. Why then did you quote using your own logic abandon survivors? >> Uh was what what is the question please?
[1:13:00]>> I I I I I followed her comment. First of all, we focused on whether there were laws that made sex trafficking, sexual
[1:13:12]slavery, domestic violence, other abuses of women on the books in countries. And then we tried to evaluate were those
[1:13:20]laws being implemented and were judges appropriately trained and briefed about how to implement those laws. Were
[1:13:29]governments taking them seriously? We looked at the broad institutional approach to these very serious abuses. >> Would you say the US government at that
[1:13:40]time during this time period was appropriate with the way that it handled Epstein? I I don't think that you could say that was true about any of the government's um prosecutorial efforts
[1:13:52]starting with uh the Southern District of Florida and Alex Acasta and all those who basically gave him a sweetheart deal and then I think going up the chain.
[1:14:02]There was very little attention paid uh that should have been paid but the but we had laws on the books. they were not being implemented. But that was not within my purview because what we were
[1:14:14]looking at is what's the institutional structure and do can we do more to make sure countries take it seriously. Our country had laws on the books. This this man was not held to account. If it was
[1:14:25]not in your purview when you were Secretary of State, then why is it today in Secretary Rubio's? >> Because what's happened is that the office that was actually following what
[1:14:34]was going on around the world has been decimated. 70% of the staff is gone. It's impossible to carry out the functions of
[1:14:44]that office if you don't have a critical number of people. So my question would be to Secretary Rubio. Is there more that can be done?
[1:14:54]>> I'm running out of time here. Um you were clothed with immense power as Secretary of State. You stated on the record in your opening statement that that uh child sex trafficking, sex trafficking in general, human trafficking, trafficking of all kinds
[1:15:05]was a priority. You were clothed with immense power. Your husband was clothed with immense power. And until you got this subpoena and until these files were out in the open, you did nothing to try to affectuate all of these things. You
[1:15:17]say that should have been done. Is that correct? >> No, it's totally uncorrect. I mean, all of your assumptions are ones that I reject. >> Um, when you saw photos of your husband in a hot tub laying on a beach and getting massaged by other women, and you
[1:15:29]knew that Jeffrey Epste was involved in some of these trips and these things, did it concern you at all? >> I'm here not to offer my opinions. I'm here to answer specific questions to the best of my ability. >> When you saw your husband in these photos with a young woman being
[1:15:40]massaged, what went through your mind? >> I am not going to speculate. you didn't have any feelings about young women massaging your husband. >> I am not going to offer opinions or
[1:15:52]speculation about anything that I have no context for and was not there. >> Um, after you learned that Jeffrey Epste was convicted of sex crimes, sex crimes with
[1:16:04]kids, any of these photos of your husband with women being massaged on the beach, did it concern you? I I have no context for even answering that question. And I think, you know,
[1:16:15]obviously the innuendo, all the rest of it. >> I'm asking a black and white question. I'm not putting any leading statements into it or adjectives. Did you do anything to determine what was happening in those images or on those trips that
[1:16:26]you once you saw these photos, once you realized Jeffrey Epste was a convicted sex offender of children, did you do anything to determine what was happening on these trips with your husband?
[1:16:36]I don't find any of your questions to be relevant to the investigation. >> If a former president was traveling around with young women, >> you'll have a chance you'll have a chance to talk to him tomorrow.
[1:16:47]>> Um, you said this morning you did not solicit funds from Jeffrey Epste. Correct. >> That's absolutely correct. >> Um, did anyone solicit funds from Jeffrey Epste on your behalf? >> Not that I'm aware of.
[1:16:58]>> Did you ever invite Jeffrey Epste or Galain Maxwell to any of your political fundraisers? I did not personally invite them to my political fundraiser. >> Did anyone personally invite them on your behalf? >> You I do not know.
[1:17:09]>> Is the purpose of a political fundraiser to solicit funds? >> You would know that it is. >> Okay. And you say that this morning you've never communicated with a Sarah K. Correct. >> I do not know who Sarah Kay is.
[1:17:20]>> Okay. She is a council woman from New Rochelle, which is about how many miles from here? >> Not very far away. >> 20 to 25. >> I have no idea. >> Um I have an exhibit I would like to
[1:17:30]enter. This is an email dated September 30th, 2014. Am I allowed to enter an exhibit? >> Yes, ma'am. Uh, this will be exhibit 13, I believe. Majority exhibit 13.
[1:17:40]>> Okay. From September 30th, 2014, it was >> Please provide the witness with a copy. >> Okay. >> You have a copy of it. You guys have it. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[1:18:00]And can you read me the subject line of the email? >> Following up event with Hillary Clinton and Congresswoman Loey. >> Do you know who Congresswoman Loey is?
[1:18:10]>> She was our congresswoman here for many years. >> And who was the email from? >> Someone named Sarah Kay. >> Uh above that at the very Oh, you have
[1:18:20]that very top one. Okay. Um All right. From Sarah K. And it's redacted on who it was sent to. Um, can you read me the email? >> Okay, thank you very much for the prompt
[1:18:31]reply. Hi Sarah, thank you for the invitation, but unfortunately Jeffrey will not be able to attend. Thanks so much for speaking with me just now. Attached, please find the
[1:18:42]invitation and response card for the event we spoke about with Hillary Clinton and Congresswoman Loey at the Harvard Club. That was a um >> that was a uh fundraiser I believe for
[1:18:53]Congresswoman Loey that I attended to support her is my my recollection. >> Okay. And um and this is a this is an email. This is an invitation to the
[1:19:05]fundraiser where you were there. Um >> do you have any idea if the Epstein referred to is the Jeffrey Epste? There's a lot of people named Epstein in this u uh area.
[1:19:15]>> This is in the DOJ files. I I have no knowledge of it. >> It says Mr. and Mrs. Epstein. >> Yeah, I have no knowledge of this. >> Okay. Um, so it could be a different Jeffrey Epstein.
[1:19:27]>> I I have You're You're You're showing me an email from someone who I don't recall knowing about a fundraiser that wasn't for me, but was for Congresswoman Loey. I have no information. >> Okay.
[1:19:38]>> I I went to the fundraiser to support my friend Nita Loey. >> All right. Um, >> excuse me. Can I interrupt? I have another >> photos that are being released
[1:19:50]of the secretary as she is testifying from inside this room. Can you please advise me as to whether or not that's permissible and consistent with the rules, particularly given that we have asked for a public hearing, if there are
[1:20:01]photos that are being released of the secretary as she is testifying. Can you please explain how that >> I'm done with this? If you guys are doing that, I am done. You can hold me in contempt from now until the cows come home. This is just typical behavior.
[1:20:13]>> We will go off the record. Oh, for heaven. >> So, I would like to understand how that permissible >> before the hearing was. >> It doesn't matter. We all are abiding by the same rules. >> I I will take that down.
[1:20:25]>> Yeah. Well, >> I would like to take a break at this moment. >> I'd like to have for now. >> Go off the record. >> Go off the record. >> We'll go back on the record. Um, the
[1:20:41]majority's time had approximately five minutes left in it. I believe that the witness or her council would like to make a quick statement. >> Thank you so much. We've just used the break because we learned during the
[1:20:53]process of these hearings that the committee was violating its own rules and members tweeting and sharing pictures of what is going on inside this closed hearing, a hearing that we have asked repeatedly to be open to the
[1:21:04]public. Chairman Comr was gracious enough to engage with me on this matter. We asked specifically to invite the press in since the committee had already made decisions on its own unilaterally to release pictures and other things
[1:21:16]that are going on in this room. He indicated that he wanted to speak to that himself directly. I'd like to just say for the record, we find it unacceptable. We find it unprofessional
[1:21:26]and we find it unfair. We are looking forward to this being conducted under the rules and being conducted consistent with expectations of how members of Congress I know take this matter so
[1:21:35]seriously and do it in that vein. We would also like to just indicate as a practical reality that we are here in good faith. We are counting on the good faith of all the members.
[1:21:46]>> Thank you. Uh chairman cover. >> Yeah. I'd like to state for the record I've advised my members that no photos or videos during the deposition can be released. I understand the posted photo
[1:21:56]was taken before the deposition started. Uh we will uh that will not happen again and uh we will look forward to continue with the deposition. I'd like to make
[1:22:07]just a clarification there, Mr. Chairman. It was taken in this room after the witness set sat down. It is not a basis that because she had not started speaking that it would be
[1:22:18]appropriate for there to have been a release of anything that was occurring in this room. >> And uh we have made clear that that's not allowed and I will also say we were disappointed that the uh secretary's
[1:22:29]opening statement was leaked to the press uh before she even gave her opening statement. So the secretary's statement was not leaked to the press. It was provided as with other witnesses
[1:22:40]including Mr. Wexner who provided his before giving. Hers was given simultaneous. And so what we don't want is a secretary to be treated any differently than other witnesses. That seems to be a consistent pattern and we
[1:22:51]would love that pattern not to continue. >> We've gone to great lengths to uh make uh all the accommodations that you all have requested. Uh so we will again the
[1:23:03]members have been advised uh that is unacceptable. >> We look forward to continuing the de. >> Thank you very much Mr. Chair. I appreciate you addressing. >> Thank you member Garcia. >> Thank you. No I just want to want to add
[1:23:14]it's completely unacceptable that oversight Republicans and its members in this moment chose to violate both committee rules and the agreement that they negotiated directly with Secretary
[1:23:25]Clinton. Now, the Clintons requested a public hearing specifically to avoid this exact situation. Now, Secretary Clinton has offered to continue speaking
[1:23:37]throughout this deposition if we also allow the press to come in and on the record. Now, the majority has continued to refuse this. I want to make very clear for the record that oversight
[1:23:48]Democrats agree today. They should be allowed here into into the uh into the deposition. That's been our position from day one. Thank you. >> Um, and with that, the majority will conclude its first hour. We'll go off
[1:23:59]the record. >> We can go back on the record. I
[1:24:10]understand council has something that they would like to say before we get started. >> Yes, I would. Um, first of all, I'd like to say I appreciate everyone being here um today, but I want to start with we've just learned that there has been a
[1:24:21]second violation of the promise that the chairman made with respect to no photos being taken in this room during this
[1:24:31]hearing. As you know, we have asked for and did ask Mr. Comr for the press to be invited in. They are sitting right outside. Literally, he has been speaking with them and we have been asked that
[1:24:42]they be invited in. at the last break because we learned that there was a member who was sharing photos from inside this room in violation of this committee's own rules. We have now been
[1:24:53]presented with a second photo of the witness, Secretary Clinton, while she has been testifying in this room. That is completely inconsistent with the
[1:25:04]rules. It's completely in violation and it's also in violation of the promise that Mr. Comr just made with respect to it would not happen again. And indeed it did. And so I would like to ensure that
[1:25:15]when we go back on the record and when Mr. Co comr elects to re rejoin the room, I note he has left for the record. Uh I would like to be able to ensure that we address that or sorry he has not
[1:25:26]left. He's down at the end. There's been a second violation, Mr. uh chairman. So now I do really feel that it would be appropriate for the press to be invited in because someone has already violated the commitment and promise you made that
[1:25:37]there would not be any further violations. >> You have a copy of the picture. We we >> I am confident that one of the individuals here can share with you a copy of the picture and I would rather
[1:25:48]that at this point we invite the press in. >> We don't know who's >> we're going to we're going to show the photo. >> It's from
[1:25:59]I believe it's from the same influencer. Emily go with go with Andrew and make sure we have the same That's
[1:26:18]>> we were saying Mr. Chairman, will you allow the press
[1:26:56]in at this time since there has been a second violation of your clear guidance that that no further pictures >> record to consult to confer with the chairman?
[1:27:05]>> Go off the record, please. We can go back on the record. >> Thank you very much. Uh we have examined
[1:27:16]the second photo that was taken inside this room in violation of the committee's rules. Mr. Chairman, you have indicated that you will assure that that will not happen again. Mr.
[1:27:26]Chairman, we continue to believe that the remedy for this is to invite the press in at this juncture. We believe that there is no reason not to do so. We recognize that you continue
[1:27:37]to resist having the press join, but if you would like, we would welcome that. Otherwise, we would welcome no further violations. >> What was the last part? You would welcome >> I know it's hard to hear without
[1:27:49]amplification. >> Sorry. No further violations. No further viol But I would I would like to note one thing if I may. Uh a New York Times
[1:27:58]reporter tweeted that uh her DIM member in the room and then she said, you know, that Maxwell was at Chelsea's wedding because she was dating a friend who
[1:28:09]brought her as a plus one and all that. So, there's a Democrat member leaking to the press what's going on in here according to the uh uh Annie Carney.
[1:28:20]>> So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I know part of this is always about the tit for tat and I think that's what we're trying to address. This is we're here and we're speaking with respect to the witness and what has been a
[1:28:31]violation of a photo of her inside this room. I'm not trying to get into anybody else's first amendment rights. When it comes to the photo, please instruct your member to take the photo down until after.
[1:28:43]>> I have >> Thank you so much. >> Nothing further. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon.
[1:28:52]>> My name is >> I'll be doing most of the questioning for the minority today. First, I want to thank you for your long and distinguished service to this country.
[1:29:03]>> Thank you. I'd also want to thank you for your time today. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Before we get to questions, I'd like to take a few minutes and highlight some context that we think is relevant for
[1:29:14]today's conversation. To be candid with you, it's not clear to us that you have much information to share with this committee that would be relevant to our investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. For
[1:29:26]example, I would like to introduce as minority exhibit A this excerpt from Gain Maxwell's interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. I'll read out loud the relevant excerpt
[1:29:47]for you. You can see that Miss Maxwell was asked, quote, "Do you know whether Mr. Epstein had, knew, or had any sort of visit,
[1:29:58]dealings, or associated with Hillary Clinton? And Miss Maxwell said, quote, I would say no. Miss Maxwell was asked, quote, did you ever see them together?
[1:30:09]Miss Maxwell said, no. So, there are some events we're aware of where you might have been in the same place as Mr. Epstein or Miss Maxwell at the same
[1:30:20]time. We'll ask about those, but we are a little confused about why we're even here. I imagine you might have your own perspective on this. You shared a little bit of that earlier. Is there anything
[1:30:32]more you'd like to share from your point of view on today's conversation before we get started? >> Thank you very much, councel. Um, I appreciate uh your recognition of the
[1:30:43]context. I do not think I am or could be uh a significant witness uh to anything that would affect uh the work of this
[1:30:54]committee with respect to the investigation. Uh, I understand that uh that was a
[1:31:01]decision made to uh subpoena me and I thought um it would have been more appropriate to treat me in the context
[1:31:11]in which uh you have just placed me. Uh that's why I offered a sworn statement outlining uh my uh lack of knowledge uh
[1:31:23]with respect to either uh Epstein or Maxwell and the uh crimes that they committed. uh but uh the majority of the committee and then the entire committee
[1:31:34]determined that uh they wish to uh talk with me and it is you know still somewhat of a puzzle for me to be here and trying to
[1:31:46]answer your questions to the best of my ability uh because I don't think it's a good use of the committee's time uh the matters that are included within uh the
[1:31:57]broad scope of the investigation as described by the chairman uh are ones that I take very seriously and I would personally like to see the
[1:32:06]committee um pay attention to uh those who have information that could be responsive. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. I'd like to start our conversation with a few
[1:32:18]foundational questions so we can get a clear record from the very beginning. And you've covered some of this earlier, but I want to be really clear for the transcript. Before his crimes became
[1:32:29]public, did you have any knowledge of the sexual abuse that Jeffrey Epstein was committing against girls and young women? >> No. >> Before her crimes became public, did you
[1:32:40]have any knowledge of the sexual abuse that Galain Maxwell was committing and facilitating against girls and young women? >> No. Our colleagues have suggested that
[1:32:51]they need to speak with you because Galain Maxwell's nephew worked for your 2008 presidential campaign and then at the State Department when you were Secretary of State. That is somebody
[1:33:03]named Alexander Dasi. Are you familiar with Alexander Dasi? >> I am. Um Alex Gerasi volunteered for my
[1:33:14]2008 presidential campaign. I did not know him. I don't know what motivated him to be a volunteer, but he proved to
[1:33:23]be a very uh effective uh contributor to the campaign. He earned a paid position on the campaign. Uh all of my uh staff
[1:33:34]that interacted with him on the campaign had a very high regard for his intelligence and his skills. He's a extremely well educated young man. uh
[1:33:45]and when I became uh secretary of state uh he was recommended for a job that he was well suited for. I had absolutely no
[1:33:54]idea that he was in any way related to Galain Maxwell until I received uh the
[1:34:03]subpoena from uh this committee uh suggesting that uh he was and that was the first I knew of it. So, is it fair to say that as far as you know, Mr. Dasi
[1:34:14]was not hired for your campaign or at the State Department because he was Galain Maxwell's nephew? >> That is absolutely fair to say, and I can't speak for everyone in my campaign.
[1:34:26]Obviously, it's a huge enterprise, but I would be surprised if anyone knew that he was related uh to Gain Maxwell, but I can absolutely testify to the fact that
[1:34:38]I did not. Are there any other accusations or claims that have been made against you with respect to Mr. Epstein or Miss Maxwell that you would like to address before we move into some chronological questions?
[1:34:50]>> Well, I don't keep up with all the conspiracy theories and the crazy allegations that populate the internet. So, I'm sure there are, but I will do my best to answer your questions uh as you
[1:35:02]uh pose them. >> Okay. I will ask a series of chronological questions. I know most of these are from a long time ago. If you don't recall, just tell me you don't
[1:35:11]recall. As an initial matter, would you recall roughly how many events and receptions would you have attended at the White House during your time as first lady?
[1:35:22]>> Well, I was privileged to be at the White House as first lady for eight years, and I have no way of giving you an accurate number, but they would be in
[1:35:33]the thousands. and they were, you know, one of the great privileges of being in the White House, hosting events, hosting
[1:35:40]meetings, meeting people, um, using the, uh, rooms of the White House, uh, using the grounds of the White House. Uh, so
[1:35:51]many hundreds, maybe thousands of events, but many, many thousands of people. I was just going to ask if you could estimate how many people you might have met at those hundreds or thousands
[1:36:02]of events and receptions. >> Well, council, I can't say I met every person who ever attended an event. Um, and so I can't really give you an
[1:36:12]accurate number. Um but if you know if the event was a small event perhaps I would meet everyone but for most of the large events that we
[1:36:24]hosted uh it was hit or miss if I met somebody or didn't meet somebody. Um for the huge Christmas receptions which were thousands of people that would come to
[1:36:36]enjoy the holiday decorations at the White House. So, I I can't really give you a a a totally clear answer
[1:36:45]other than um I did my best to greet people and to be u an appropriate uh hostess because I took seriously my um
[1:36:57]responsibilities as first lady. >> So, Mr. Epstein visited the White House a fair amount during your husband's first term in office. one and I think
[1:37:08]the only specific event that we're aware of where you may have been present was, as you mentioned earlier, a September 29th, 1993 reception for donors to a
[1:37:19]White House renovation project that was funded through the White House Historical Association. And our understanding is there was some kind of reception that night. Do you have any
[1:37:29]recollection of attending that event or that reception? I have no specific recollection, but I know that I was expected to and I assume I did. Um, but
[1:37:39]I can't sitting here today describe anything specific about that event. But I was very anxious to support fundraising that went to the White House
[1:37:50]Historical Association that in turn supported uh the upkeep and the maintenance uh of the White House. uh because certainly, you know, it was an
[1:38:01]old building uh with a lot of very valuable furniture and art and it took a lot of wear and tear because I just finished explaining we had thousands of people who would come through and I'm
[1:38:12]not even talking about the visitors who would come through because that was many many more thousands. So, the house itself needed to be carefully cared for.
[1:38:24]And so I uh hosted my husband and I hosted the event and the White House Historical Association um
[1:38:33]brought those who had contributed uh because it was ultimately beneficial for the White House. >> Would it be correct to say that sitting here you have no specific memory or
[1:38:43]recollection of meeting Mr. Epstein or Miss Maxwell at that event in 1993? >> That is an accurate statement. In fact, um, when I got the subpoena, I was
[1:38:55]incredulous because I never thought I was in the same room with Jeffrey Epstein. Um, and it was brought to my attention that he was very likely to
[1:39:07]have attended the White House Historical Association, but I have no independent uh, recollection of that. >> Okay. It has been publicly reported that Mr. Epstein visited the White House 16
[1:39:18]other times during your husband's first term. He was signed in by different staff members and visited different parts of the White House. Broadly speaking, do you have any memory or
[1:39:28]knowledge of any other visits by Jeffrey Epstein to the White House other than the one we just discussed? >> Not not that I recall, but I I want to be clear. That doesn't mean that, you
[1:39:39]know, I didn't pass somebody in the hallway that somebody didn't pop in. But I have no recollection >> great >> of of meeting with him, seeing him,
[1:39:48]conversing with him in the White House. >> I'm going to fast forward all the way to 1999. We believe that Mr. Epstein contributed
[1:39:59]$20,000 to your joint fundraising account with the Democratic Party. Would you have any specific memory, knowledge, or recollection of that particular
[1:40:09]contribution sitting here today? I do not. And again, this was something that I learned about uh in preparation for testifying. And as you point out,
[1:40:19]council, the contribution went to the joint committee that was set up to support my Senate campaign. And my again, my memory is that we couldn't
[1:40:30]coordinate between joint committees and campaigns. I mean, those were the rules back in the day as I recall them. So I don't have any recollection at all that
[1:40:41]I knew he contributed to my campaign and he did not contribute as far as I know directly but then this indirect contribution to the joint committee I
[1:40:52]don't recall that I knew it at the time and I was you know surprised to learn it in preparation for testifying. So at this point toward the end of your
[1:41:02]husband's presidency, how would you characterize your relationships at that point with Mr. Epstein and Miss Maxwell? >> Non-existent. >> Thank you.
[1:41:16]Moving to the period after your husband's presidency. Again, we don't really have much of a record to work off of. There is public reporting that
[1:41:25]sometime in 2007, Miss Maxwell may have co-hosted a fundraiser for your presidential campaign in New York City. We don't know much about it. Christina
[1:41:35]Aguilera may have performed if that's helpful. Do you have any specific recollection of that event?
[1:41:43]I do not. But I again have been told um and reminded that there was an event with a very large host committee uh for
[1:41:54]my campaign and um Christina did uh appear and I and I believe performed.
[1:42:03]I have no further information than that. I you know I I was attending many many fundraising events uh and I
[1:42:13]don't recall any specific uh encounter or conversation with anyone uh including uh Galain Maxwell.
[1:42:24]>> Miss Maxwell also appears to have donated $2,300 to your presidential campaign that year. Do you have any memory or knowledge of
[1:42:34]that specific contribution? I do not. >> Would it be fair to say that your presidential campaign likely would have had a fair number of donors donating
[1:42:44]$2,300 thereabouts? >> Oh, many, many thousands. Um, I don't recall the exact number, but my best memory is that we raised nearly
[1:42:55]a billion dollars. And so, uh, it was a fast, frenetic pace. uh and I'm grateful for everyone who
[1:43:05]contributed obviously uh but I have no specific recollection of her contribution. >> It's been widely reported and we I think discussed in the previous hour that in
[1:43:16]July of 2010, Miss Maxwell attended your daughter's wedding in Reinbeck, New York, and that she may have accompanied Ted Wait, who is reportedly a family
[1:43:26]friend or at least was at the time. You of course were also present at the wedding. Do you have any recollection of Miss Maxwell's attendance at the wedding?
[1:43:38]>> I have no specific recollection. Obviously, there's a picture of her uh being at the wedding um as my husband
[1:43:48]walks uh my daughter down the aisle. She was there as a guest of Ted Weight, someone we had known for 30 years, I believe, uh who was a strong supporter
[1:44:00]uh of my husband and and became a friend. Um and there were more than 500 people at the wedding. So other than
[1:44:08]that picture of her uh at the wedding, I have no recollection of talking with her. I was pretty focused on my daughter
[1:44:17]and the wedding party and the wonderful occasion that it was. So, um I don't recall having any um
[1:44:29]conversation other than the fact she was there and she was there as Ted Weight's uh guest >> and and the understanding that you had if any about her relationship with Mr.
[1:44:40]Wait, what was your understanding of that if you had one? that they must have been dating. Um, and this was of course long before any certainly I knew
[1:44:50]anything about uh the activities that she uh was charged with engaging in and the crimes that she was convicted of.
[1:45:01]During her interview last year with Deputy Aten at Attorney General Todd Blanch, Miss Maxwell said that she may have met you on a flight from Nantucket
[1:45:11]or Martha's Vineyard to New York. That's not a lot to go on. And I would note that one of the charges Miss Maxwell faced was perjury. But do you recall ever meeting Miss Maxwell on a flight
[1:45:22]from Massachusetts to New York? >> I don't recall it. I'm not going to say it didn't happen, but I don't recall it. And my memory too, council, and you
[1:45:32]would have to check this, but I I believe I was told that in her uh long interview with Todd Blanch, is it it's Todd Blanch, right? Todd
[1:45:43]Blanch, the deputy attorney general, uh she herself said that she attended the wedding as Ted Weight's guest. In that same interview, Miss Maxwell
[1:45:53]said that she visited your home in Chapaqua a few times and that she was invited. Do you have any memory or knowledge of Miss Maxwell being invited to and visiting your home?
[1:46:04]>> I do not and I was not present for any visit, if one occurred. It's been reported that in September of 2013 at a Clinton Global Initiative
[1:46:16]conference in New York, Miss Maxwell was recognized as a commitment to action partner for her work on behalf of the Terramar project, which was an ocean
[1:46:25]conservation nonprofit that she founded in 2012. Do you have any recollection of whether you were at that event? So that's a Clinton Global Initiative
[1:46:35]conference in New York in September 2013. >> I believe I attended uh the conference but during the conference there are many different
[1:46:46]uh sessions going on. There are some mainstage sessions with very high-profile people. We've had an extraordinary collection of world
[1:46:55]leaders uh including Pope Francis and others. But then there are many of what are called breakout sessions that are smaller sessions where people gather
[1:47:05]usually around the issue they're interested in. So in this case if it had been the oceans there might have been a breakout session about that. Uh and I do
[1:47:16]not recall seeing her there. I do not recall uh any knowledge of her being there. But if she were there uh and she were making a commitment, it would have
[1:47:26]been in one of these uh smaller sessions. And I have to add, you know, in 2013, um Miss Maxwell spoke at the United
[1:47:37]Nations, she gave a TED talk, she was featured for her work about
[1:47:44]oceans in a long profile on CNN. Um, so she had a um a public
[1:47:54]uh persona that the UN, the TED Talk people, CNN and the press all recognized
[1:48:02]because nobody at that time knew what was later discovered. >> And is it right to say and it sounds like you would not have had any direct
[1:48:11]role in organizing whatever her role was at that particular event? Not that I recall. >> At that point in 2013, if you can recall, how would you have characterized
[1:48:23]your relationships with Mr. Epstein and Miss Maxwell? >> Had no relationship, no knowledge of, never met or talked to uh Jeffrey
[1:48:33]Epstein. I viewed uh Galain Maxwell as an acquaintance. Um someone that um I might see but had no real uh relationship with.
[1:48:44]>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Madam Secretary. I know that a couple of the minority members have just a couple questions, uh, as part of this hour as well. And so I I
[1:48:54]have a few and then I'll turn it over to a couple of the of the minority members as well. >> Um, you can hear me, okay, from here? >> Yes, I can. But it would help if the minority members would move to where >> I'm actually they're going to sit right
[1:49:06]here as soon as I'm >> perfect. Perfect. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. I want to just just begin by just um asking a few questions which I believe you've already clarified in your opening statement, but just to
[1:49:16]be very clear on the record one more time. As far as best as you can recall, you've never met Jeffrey Epstein. >> That's correct. >> As best as you can recall, and I know
[1:49:27]that and you've said this, you've never went to the island. >> Never went to the island. >> You never flew with him on a plane. >> Never flew with him on a plane. And you were never aware of his horrific crimes prior to those becoming public
[1:49:38]knowledge. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Okay. >> Thank you. >> I also wanted just to note one of the questions that we've been receiving a lot has been speculation amongst the public that Jeffrey Epstein was somehow
[1:49:49]affiliated with foreign intelligence agencies or or other intelligence services. And I know that we have received numerous questions in in of
[1:49:59]that type. Now obviously you served as Secretary of State. I'm grateful for Thank you for your service. In your role as Secretary of State, were you ever made aware of Jeffrey Epstein having any
[1:50:09]types of relationships with foreign intelligence agencies? Obviously, of course, of a foreign country. >> I was not. and and ranking member
[1:50:19]Garcia, I am aware um of the speculation around this that comes from the files being released and questions being
[1:50:29]raised and I do think that is a fruitful area for the committee to investigate. No, I appreciate that because I'll say of the types of questions that we're
[1:50:38]receiving, uh, the kind of conversation around whether Jeffrey Epstein had any ties to foreign intelligence or was working with foreign governments continues to come up. And so obviously
[1:50:50]as uh, Secretary of State that would be something I would imagine um, you know, you may or may not have information for. So I appreciate that uh, that response.
[1:51:00]Madam Secretary, just lastly, I want to also thank you for your testimony and broadly speaking, you've probably been following just recently and this week
[1:51:10]we've seen and there's been reports that numerous files are missing from the Trump from the group of files been released. For the record, only about
[1:51:21]approximately 50 file 50% of the total files have likely been released. the other percentage have been withheld for whatever reasons we're not really sure of and don't really understand.
[1:51:32]It's also been reported by numerous outlets this week that the FBI has removed files that are supposed to be being made available to the Congress
[1:51:43]that include serious allegations of alleged abuse by President Trump, sexual abuse to a minor. Now these are
[1:51:54]allegations that we know have been corroborated in other ways and the media have have reported on these but these files themselves have been removed. Now this we view this is a very serious
[1:52:06]matter. I've personally looked for these files in the archive manifest that lists which files should be placed there.
[1:52:15]Those files are no are no longer there. and we have been calling on the DOJ and the attorney general to release all of
[1:52:24]the files. I'm wondering if in your experience obviously in the US Senate as Secretary of State if you have any response to the behavior of the DOJ in
[1:52:36]their withholding of critical information and the apparent removal of files that could suggest serious crimes by
[1:52:46]folks in this administration. Congressman, I appreciate you're raising this issue and I appreciated the statement that you put out when this
[1:52:57]became uh public knowledge thanks to investigative reporting which revealed it. And I think that this
[1:53:06]behavior by the Justice Department uh deserves the most thorough investigation that the Congress could carry out.
[1:53:17]As I understand the sequence of events, this committee subpoenaed the Justice Department as well as the Epstein estate as well as
[1:53:29]law enforcement officials uh from prior administrations as well as my husband and me. the Justice Department refused to comply
[1:53:40]which is what led to the passage by the Congress of the Transparency Act which then was signed into law.
[1:53:50]And I think from the very beginning, the behavior of the attorney general and her staff has demonstrated
[1:54:01]either a gross incompetence, which is bothersome because they are the keepers of information that should be evaluated
[1:54:12]uh for law enforcement purposes, or a clear cover up because they are protecting the president and others. Either one of
[1:54:23]those should be the focus of this committee to try to get to the bottom. If they are incompetent and they are incapable of
[1:54:34]complying with the law that the Congress passed, we need to know that because they are falling down on the job. They have an FBI director who's more
[1:54:43]interested in drinking beer in a hockey uh dressing room after our team won the Olympics
[1:54:52]rather than being responsive and complying with the law as it has been uh promulgated. So, I don't think it's unfair to say that
[1:55:07]given the sequencing of the events, starting with the way that President Trump made the release of the files a
[1:55:14]key element of his 2024 campaign, the promise that he and then his attorney general made that the files
[1:55:24]would be released, then a walking back of that as they began began to look at the files. A an ignoring of what they had promised,
[1:55:35]including that they had a client list on the desk of the attorney general. Reasonable people would have to assume they are engaged in
[1:55:46]a massive coverup which is infuriating. as an American, as a citizen, all of us should be, regardless of party,
[1:55:56]wondering what are they hiding. And that's why I said in my opening statement, the president of the United States is
[1:56:06]not above the law and should be in a setting like this answering questions under oath, as should others who are
[1:56:16]prominently featured in the files and especially the group that is featured after 2008
[1:56:26]because prior to 2008 when Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty to the watered down charges
[1:56:35]that Alex Aosta negotiated and then was rewarded for in the first Trump administration with a cabinet position. There are so many unanswered questions
[1:56:46]and I looked at the transcript of the Alex Acasta uh testimony that uh was taken before uh
[1:56:56]this committee and I don't think that any Republican members asked him a question. So you have to conclude
[1:57:08]that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark or clearly the Justice Department starting in the White House and at the top with the attorney general
[1:57:19]and this latest example of the missing files about the allegations and they are absolutely nothing more than allegations
[1:57:29]but the FBI interviewed that witness four times. You don't interview a noncredible witness four times. You
[1:57:38]don't put into the FBI reporting, protect this source if you think there
[1:57:46]is nothing to it. So, of course, I would like to know, like every other American deserves to know, what is in those files and who is going to hold people
[1:57:58]accountable because the Justice Department seems to be either unwilling or incapable of doing so. >> Thank you, uh, Madam Secretary. Let me
[1:58:09]also just add um one thing. You've probably also read reporting that uh Secretary Lutnik um was pretty pretty open in his in an interview about not
[1:58:20]having spoken to uh Mr. Epstein or interacted with him after 2005. And then we go on to learn that Secretary Lutnik not only went on uh went to the island,
[1:58:32]there were visits, they went into possible business together, communicated with his wife. So there were numerous interactions that happened after that interview. Uh we we believe that
[1:58:43]Secretary Lutnik should be in front of this committee answering questions, especially when he's choosing to essentially lie about his interactions with Mr. Would you agree that Secretary Lutnik should come and testify?
[1:58:53]>> I think everyone that the committee sees playing a prominent role in the files should be deposed. That is your
[1:59:04]job. Your job is to try to get to the truth as best as you can determine it. And that that should that should be the
[1:59:14]guiding principle it seems to me uh as to who you uh ask to come before you. >> Thank you. Hello, Congressman.
[1:59:36]>> Hello. Thank you, Secretary, for being here today. Uh, I'm going to ask you a few questions that might be a little redundant, but just to get get on the record. Uh, so, um, am I correct that you did not know at any point before
[1:59:48]Jeffrey Epstein's crimes became public that Epstein committed or facilitated sexual abuse of minors and young women? >> That is correct. And prior to Epstein's crimes becoming public, were you ever
[1:59:57]warned not to associate with him? >> Not that I recall. >> And you did not know at any point before Maxwell's crimes became public that she committed or facilitated sexual abuse of minors or young women?
[2:00:09]>> That is correct. >> And did anyone ever raise concerns to you about Miss Maxwell or warn you not to associate with her? >> Not that I recall. >> Thank you. uh you served as first lady
[2:00:20]and US senator and secretary of state and so you met a lot of other heads of state foreign dignitaries and so at any point did Jeffrey Epsteino Ghislaine Maxwell's names come up?
[2:00:31]>> Not that I recall. >> Um and you mentioned you did a lot of work on human trafficking. Could you talk a little bit more about that? And and then also I would love to know if Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell's names
[2:00:41]ever came up. No, I can tell you that those names never came up as I said prior to um their crimes becoming
[2:00:52]public. Uh I don't think people knew um or if they did know, they were not sharing that. Uh or if they did share it with the FBI or the Justice Department,
[2:01:04]the investigations never went anywhere. So I don't know that anybody would have ever raised those names and I don't know
[2:01:12]that uh anybody knew to even uh look into it. You know as I said the whole question of um human trafficking, sexual
[2:01:23]slavery, forced labor, domestic violence for the longest time were not even considered crimes. And
[2:01:31]it took a lot of effort on the part of many many courageous people around the world uh to raise the visibility of
[2:01:41]these crimes and to actually change criminal law in many countries. You know when I spoke in 1995 at the UN World
[2:01:51]Conference on Women in Beijing, that was one of the issues everyone was struggling with. Domestic violence was considered cultural, not criminal. Uh sexual slavery was just something that
[2:02:03]happened. You know, young women were forced into uh prostitution. Uh all of this was certainly known and was something that had gone on for, you
[2:02:14]know, centuries, thousands of years. But there became finally enough outrage and organizational
[2:02:24]uh impetus to begin to try to change that. And that's what I worked on when I was first lady because I I really became
[2:02:33]aware as I traveled uh to Asia and Africa, even Eastern Europe, particularly after the fall of the
[2:02:40]Soviet Union, what a big criminal network was operating around the world to traffic people. And obviously we're
[2:02:51]here focusing on what happened to, you know, girls and women with being sexually abused, but it's also true that people were forced into labor and mines
[2:03:01]and fishing boats. I mean, this was a phenomenon that finally was getting attention and we worked very hard to raise visibility. I mentioned the law
[2:03:11]that was finally passed in our country uh in 2000. There was also something called the Polarmo Protocol where nations came together to pledge
[2:03:22]themselves to change laws to implement uh enforcement against uh trafficking. So, it's been a a a long uh struggle,
[2:03:32]but we've tried to focus on preventing it, prosecuting it, and protecting uh the survivors. And we've made progress. But obviously we're here today talking
[2:03:43]about crimes that still are happening even in our own country. >> Uh I know the public wants names to be named and I know this is a difficult question for you given your lack of a
[2:03:55]relationship with exior Maxwell, but are there any names that you think we should be talking to at this point that haven't been out there already? >> I I I don't know any more than you do as
[2:04:05]to what's being exposed in the files? Um, I saw where Congressman Massie stood on the floor the other day and said that he may name named three people as I
[2:04:14]recall that should be investigated. But there's a long list of people who may even if they did not do something
[2:04:25]themselves wrong because of their association with Epstein might have credible information for your committee. And final question, you've expressed a a
[2:04:36]desire for this hearing to be public. I just love to hear sort of an explanation for why. >> Look, I think sunlight is the best disinfectant. I think as much as we can
[2:04:45]do in public, we should do. And I've testified before Congress many times uh before you were there. Um and it was always in public. I mean, that's what we
[2:04:56]did. I testified and I was on the other side of the table asking questions in public except for something that was classified that couldn't be in public.
[2:05:06]What we did was in the sunlight in front of the press because people namely our constituents uh deserve to know what we are finding
[2:05:16]out and to go along with us um with few exceptions uh to understand you know what the Congress is doing. So, I
[2:05:26]believe I believe for a long time I think we should be uh testifying in public and I think it would benefit this committee for people to see that you're actually doing things and especially if
[2:05:38]you call people who have some credible information for you that you are committed regardless of the cover up in the Justice Department or whatever directions the DOJ is getting from the
[2:05:49]White House, you are determined to find out the truth. >> Thank you. Hello, Congressman
[2:06:15]>> Secretary. How are you? >> I'm okay. >> Uh, first and foremost, thank you for being here. >> Thank you. Secondly, uh as an attorney,
[2:06:25]um I know sometimes things are done differently in DC, but uh when an agreement is made, um and a and and our word is given, it should be kept.
[2:06:34]>> I agree with that. Um and and first and for first and foremost um to get into the line of questioning that I had on
[2:06:44]November 12th of last year, oversight committee Democrats released emails that were obtained from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. In one email from 2011, Epstein
[2:06:56]said Gelain Maxwell said to Gelain Maxwell that President Trump was quote the that dog that hasn't barked. End of quote. And that an unnamed victim quote
[2:07:07]spent hours at my house with him. End of quote. In another email from 2019, Epstein wrote that quote, "Of course
[2:07:16]he," referring to President Trump knew about the girls as he asked Galain to stop. Two days later, President Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to
[2:07:27]investigate President Clinton and other prominent Democrats in order to distract from his own close ties to Jeffrey Epstein. I'll mark as M minority exhibit
[2:07:39]B a true social post from Donald Trump dated November 14th, 2025. And I think you have that now. As you
[2:07:51]can see, President Trump's post refers to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes against young girls and women as the Epstein hoax. End of quote. His post also
[2:08:03]completely ignores several other high-profile individuals, including Republicans and allies of President Trump, who are known to have had
[2:08:13]relationships with Epstein. In fact, the Epstein files contain numerous officials in the current and previous Trump administrations who have connections to
[2:08:23]Jeffrey Epstein, including, but I'm not sure limited to Howard Lenik, RFK Jr., Steve Bannon, Elon Musk, Tom Bareric,
[2:08:34]Kevin Worsh, and Mett Oz to name a few. Secretary Clinton, to your knowledge, has the Trump administration done anything at all to investigate these
[2:08:44]other individuals with ties to Epstein? Congressman, I know of nothing, just reading the press. I obviously have no inside information uh that there has
[2:08:55]been any uh effort whatsoever to investigate the names that you just mentioned or any others who might have credible information about Jeffrey
[2:09:05]Epstein's uh crimes. And I think that's where this committee comes in. You are not beholdened to the Justice Department. You have an independent article one jurisdiction.
[2:09:17]You are the co-equal branch of government and you have the responsibility to pursue what the Justice Department apparently is failing
[2:09:28]to pursue. The other point I would make is having observed uh President Trump uh up close and personal for a number of years now since I ran against him, he
[2:09:40]has a tell. He has a behavioral tell. Whenever he is worried about being found out himself, he accuses somebody else of
[2:09:50]doing what he actually has done. And it's just a pattern with him. Um, so it's no surprise to me that all of a sudden what he promised in his campaign
[2:10:02]to reveal everything about the files and then when his people began looking in the files and realized how uh potentially incriminating they were of
[2:10:13]him, all of a sudden that was no longer the focus. It was blaming Democrats, talking about a hoax, saying move on.
[2:10:22]There's nothing to see here. That is a typical pattern of uh President Trump's behavior which speaks louder than all
[2:10:33]the words that he speaks uh and all of the true social posts that he makes. He clearly knows what he did. He knows what others did because remember one of the
[2:10:45]emails that has come out recently is he called the police chief of Palm Beach at the time Epstein was arrested
[2:10:54]according to reporting to say, "I'm so glad you got him. I'm so glad you're stopping him." Well, how would he know that?
[2:11:03]How how would he know that? So, there is so much to be uncovered here rather than being covered up. And it
[2:11:11]really in addition to the specific information that could be gotten and the accountability that could be uh
[2:11:22]achieved. It would restore trust. You know, the American people are not dumb. They're watching this. They're seeing this. They're following this. And it's just one more example of, you know, us
[2:11:34]not doing the kind of work that would build uh trust uh in finding out, you know, the truth uh not just for the victims and survivors, but for the American public.
[2:11:45]>> I just have a couple quick questions. Howard Letic recently went so far as to lie about his close connections with Jeffrey Epstein, but the truth came out with the release of the files. Secretary
[2:11:57]Clinton, is Howard Leutnik still employed as the Secretary of Commerce in the Trump administration? >> So far as I know, >> Secretary Clinton, in your opinion, why has Donald Trump ignored these other
[2:12:07]prominent figures who had close ties to Epstein? >> I can't speculate on that, Congressman. I think it's a worthwhile question to ask and I think it certainly should be
[2:12:18]asked by this committee. And lastly, in light of in light of everything, not just um what I think was an embarrassing
[2:12:28]leak earlier, do you believe your deposition today is a good faith exercise? >> I can't um conclude that. Um I I think
[2:12:39]all the information such as it is that I have could have been delivered in a sworn statement could have been delivered uh in u written to written interrogatories.
[2:12:50]Um, so I'm not going to speculate about um the committee's uh intentions here, but you know, a former member of this
[2:13:01]committee, someone with whom I doubt I have very much in common, Marjgerie Taylor Green, uh, said that Trump put pressure on
[2:13:10]Bondi not to release the files. And if I recall, she was one of the votes for the Transparency Act and she and others, including other members of
[2:13:20]this committee, were hauled into the White House and taken to the woodshed. And so I believe she may be a a source
[2:13:29]of information uh about, you know, her own experience demonstrating clearly that this White House does not want the
[2:13:38]Justice Department to release the files that might in any way uh incriminate uh President Trump.
[2:13:47]>> Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you so much for being here, Madam
[2:14:02]Secretary. Um, some of this was briefly touched upon, but as you know, there is wide speculation among the public that Jeffrey Epste may have been affiliated with domestic intelligence agencies and
[2:14:13]services. Alex Aosta, for example, Secretary of Labor in the first Trump administration, allegedly said that Epstein, quote, belonged to intelligence end quote. We know that Aosta has denied
[2:14:23]the statement, but it nonetheless raises questions about Epstein. You obviously served in a variety of highly sensitive positions, allowing you to access some of our nation's most sensitive and secretive information, either during or
[2:14:35]after your time in government. Were you ever made aware of Jeffrey Epstein having any kind of relationship directly or indirectly with a United States intelligence agency or service like the
[2:14:46]CIA? >> I was not, but obviously I served um in the Senate uh and don't recall anything like that ever being presented. I was on
[2:14:56]the Armed Services Committee, so perhaps there might have been uh a mention if there was any relevance. And in the
[2:15:05]State Department, uh, I don't recall any information like that at all. >> And were you ever made aware of Galain Maxwell having any kind of relationship with an intelligence agency or service in the United States?
[2:15:16]>> Thank you. Now, during the committee's deposition of former Attorney General Bill Bar, he indicated that quote, "Many American businessmen who have foreign contacts sometimes will talk to intelligence agencies and provide
[2:15:27]information to them." Are you aware of Jeffrey Epstein having these less formal interactions with the CI or any other domestic intelligence? >> I'm not aware of any uh intelligence
[2:15:37]connections uh of Jeffrey Epste at all >> and that applies to foreign intelligence. >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. I want to move to >> but I do think Congresswoman your, as I
[2:15:47]said earlier, your questions are well taken. There are so many threads of this investigation that need
[2:15:58]to be followed. You are talking about the intelligence. We have talked about the sexual abuses and we also should be following the money. One of my former
[2:16:10]colleagues, Senator Widen, is trying to get out of the Treasury Department records about Jeffrey Epstein's financial transactions. The Congress
[2:16:21]should and this committee certainly should subpoena the Treasury Secretary for the information that Senator Widen has compiled. In my experience in the
[2:16:32]Senate, Senator Weiden is a thoughtful, careful investigator. If he says there's something there, I would take it to the
[2:16:42]bank. And so follow the money. Follow these foreign involvement intelligence potential. Whether they're true or not,
[2:16:51]I don't know. And of course, follow whatever leads you can get out of the emails and other information that are
[2:17:00]being uh put forth by either J DOJ or the Epstein estate or anybody else on, you know, the crimes that he committed. >> Thank you. That brings us to the issue
[2:17:11]of transparency, which is related to to what you just said. You and President Clinton have been very clear about your desire to testify publicly before this committee. In fact, on February 5th,
[2:17:21]2026, you posted on social media, quote, "If you want this fight, rep James Comr, let's have it in public. You love to talk about transparency. There is nothing more transparent than a public
[2:17:32]hearing. Cameras on. Secretary Clinton, why is it important for you to testify before this committee in a public setting?" >> Well, first of all, I believe in public
[2:17:42]testimony. I believe that the public has a right to know uh what its elected members of Congress are investigating and legislating.
[2:17:53]Having served for eight years, I think it is useful as a member to do a hearing in public because you're going to learn
[2:18:03]things by the coverage of it, by the response that you get from people. You know, this hearing, if it were in public, maybe somebody your question about intelligence. Maybe somebody
[2:18:14]watching it would have said, "Oh my gosh, I just remembered having a conversation with Foreign Minister X or Prime Minister Y and that person mentioned Jeffrey Epstein." Most people
[2:18:24]are not going to look at the video. They're not going to read the transcript, but they will follow a live public hearing. So I think it actually enhances the work that those of us
[2:18:36]who've been privileged to serve uh are doing and can do. So to me it it it is just a an absolute uh prerequisite for doing
[2:18:47]the kind of legislative and investigative work as effectively as possible by doing it in public. >> And did you know that you would be photographed today?
[2:18:58]>> No. And is that at all part of what you had understood about the terms of the agreement for today's deposition? >> Well, I will confess that I had some
[2:19:08]concerns about whether the majority on the committee would treat me fairly and would, you know, fairly convey what I say and what I did and how I looked and
[2:19:19]how I responded. So, yes, I did have a concern. And when we learned about uh the photos being taken, not by a staff member, but by a
[2:19:29]member, it was shocking and very disappointing. So, if it were in public, we wouldn't have that debate. You know, everybody could see the same thing that the congresswoman saw. I'm sitting here.
[2:19:39]Sometimes I'm smiling. Sometimes I'm frowning. Sometimes I look good. Sometimes I don't. That's all in public. Everybody can have the same view rather than, you know, an angled photo and all
[2:19:51]the rest of it. So, it was disappointing and I I regret that it happened uh and it violated your rules. But, uh that's not the real concern I have. The real
[2:20:01]concern is get busy. Focus on the people that have something to tell you that can tell you about intelligence, money, and crimes and get them before you and
[2:20:12]whenever possible do it in public. >> And finally, do you think that Donald Trump should be deposed by this committee? >> Absolutely. You know, I was a lawyer
[2:20:24]and as a lawyer, you would look for pattern and practice. If you were deposing uh a witness in a case that you were trying, if you were in court, what did
[2:20:36]you know about this person? What you knew could influence how you questioned that person, how you tried the case?
[2:20:46]Donald Trump has been held civily liable for sexual assault by a jury of his
[2:20:55]peers. Nine members of a jury found him liable in the sexual assault of Eene
[2:21:03]Carol. That is behavior that fits a pattern if one were looking for a pattern. He has also been convicted
[2:21:14]on 34 felony counts for attempting to hide his relationship with a escort and
[2:21:23]then to commit business fraud to prevent it from becoming public in the 2016 campaign which was ultimately election
[2:21:33]interference. So, if I were running the committee or I were involved in this investigation, I would be looking for people who maybe had some prior conduct
[2:21:45]that might be relevant to either money or crimes. And yes, I think that uh it would be in
[2:21:56]keeping uh with the scope of the investigation of this committee to uh set up a deposition uh with President
[2:22:06]Trump. I know he's been deposed many, many, many times. He's taken the Fifth Amendment many, many hundreds of times. So, I'm not saying you're going to get a lot of information,
[2:22:17]but given what's in the files and given past and prior conduct,
[2:22:27]he would be on my witness list. >> Thank you. >> We can go off the record. >> All right, we'll go back on the record.
[2:22:41]It is 2:49 p.m. Um, I believe Chairman Comr has uh something he would like to say. >> Yes. And uh thank you, Madam Secretary, and we appreciate what you said in the
[2:22:52]in the last round of question. I want to be very clear. This committee is taking this investigation very seriously. We are following the money. We have a history of doing that over the past two
[2:23:02]years. I wrote the Treasury Department requesting suspicious activity reports related to Jeffrey Epstein. Treasury has been in full compliance and our staff has spent untold hours reviewing those
[2:23:14]documents. I know the minority staff have also reviewed those documents. Anytime we subpoena anything, both sides get it. Uh based on the suspicious activity reports, I then issued
[2:23:24]subpoenas to two banks, Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan. The banks, those two banks are also in compliance and continue to produce thousands of pages of records. And and I will say this
[2:23:34]before I turn it over to Representative Mace. this investigation is made very difficult when witnesses drag out negotiations uh for more than 6 months and and
[2:23:44]violate their duly issued subpoena. So that's one reason when we're dealing with very powerful people uh that have uh the best attorneys uh out there, it's
[2:23:54]it's very difficult when it takes six months to get witnesses in. So I just wanted to mention that. I'll yield to Miss M. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you for returning this
[2:24:04]afternoon. Secretary Clinton, is your husband someone the committee should investigate? >> My husband will be here tomorrow. You'll have a chance to ask him questions. >> So my question is, is your husband this committee someone this committee should
[2:24:16]investigate? >> Ask and answer. >> Apparently you are. You subpoenaed him. He's going to be here tomorrow. >> In your testimony before the break, you discussed why you believe President Trump should testify before our committee due to a quote pattern of
[2:24:27]behavior end quote. You testified that a pattern of behavior warrants accountability. So, I want to make sure I understand uh your standard correctly. The pattern of behavior you describe includes being held civily liable,
[2:24:38]indictments, sexually dev deviant behavior. Correct? >> Yes. >> In 1998, your husband was found civily liable for sexual misconduct with Paula Jones and settled for $850,000. Is that correct?
[2:24:50]>> Yes. >> By your standard of pattern of behavior, should your husband testify before this committee? >> He is testifying tomorrow. On December 19th, 1998, President Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and
[2:25:00]obstruction of justice with directly related to his extrammarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And your husband was impeached for perjury related to sexual behavior. Correct. >> I didn't understand what you said.
[2:25:12]>> Your husband was impeached for perjury related to sexual behavior, his sexual behavior. >> He he was impeached for several uh I uh several uh reasons uh and then was uh
[2:25:23]acquitted in the Senate. And your husband flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane 17 to 26 times. Correct. >> He made several trips with different legs on the trip as I recall.
[2:25:34]>> But he flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane 17 to 26 times. >> Um, were you aware that Secret Service was dropped on some of those flights? >> That is not my understanding. >> Were they were not on some of those flights? >> That is not my understanding.
[2:25:45]>> So your understanding is that Secret Service was on all of the flights that President Clinton was on. >> That is my understanding. Um, by this standard of behavior, multiple credible accusers, including Wanita Brick, who alleged rape against
[2:25:56]your husband, your husband was disbarred in Arkansas, lost his license, law license before the Supreme Court, flew on Epstein's plane dozens of times, visited Epstein's island.
[2:26:06]>> That is not true. That is absolutely untrue. >> Well, there's documentation in the DOJ files. I'm not sure you're aware, your attorneys have told you, but uh Jeffrey Epstein told uh one of the victims to
[2:26:18]lie to investigators to lie that Bill Clinton was ever on Epstein Island. I can provide that document to you. >> We would like that document. Please >> council because actually the files say just the opposite. Epstein himself denied he was
[2:26:29]>> this these are FBI notes from an interview with a victim. Um and I can get you the victim number and the case number and the files. These are notes from a 302 interview. >> You like those? Are you going to provide those now? >> I I don't that's not my line of questioning. She brought it up, but I
[2:26:41]have a document. >> I'm sorry. You're making a representation as to the fact. >> I didn't enter anything as an exhibit. >> It's But it's factually inaccurate. >> No, I can give it to you later. I can go find the document, make copies of it, and give it to you this afternoon. >> Thank you so much.
[2:26:52]>> Okay. By your standard of pattern of behavior, um, according to documents released by the Department of Justice, your husband appears in photos in swimming pools, hot
[2:27:02]tubs, a poor Jeffrey aboard Jeffrey Epstein's private plane with unidentified young women. We came here today and told this committee. You told this committee that a pattern of behavior demands accountability.
[2:27:14]Correct. >> I said that I believe the committee should call anyone who had a substantial pattern in practice of contact with
[2:27:23]Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes uh before they came to light. And does that include your husband? >> And after they came to light, you're going to have a chance to question him tomorrow. So I'll ask you again by the
[2:27:34]standard you just set in your own words just now. Does this standard apply equally to your husband or only President Trump? >> I have said that my husband has been
[2:27:45]subpoenaed. He will appear. He will answer your questions to the best of his ability. But there is no evidence whatsoever of any connection with
[2:27:56]Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. And I think that that will be u obviously uh apparent in the questioning. >> What makes you so sure of that then? I
[2:28:06]mean he's he's photographed >> objection to speculate on something that's not >> Yeah, I it is so speculative. I mean swimming in a pool, sitting in a hot
[2:28:17]tub. There are millions of people who do that without any improper behavior or certainly committing any crimes. So, uh, I think >> you think most of the men are like your husband that did anything wrong. Why?
[2:28:28]Why were they being surrounded by young women giving them massages on Jeffrey's private estate or private plane? Are they all innocent then? >> You know, you are making assumptions in your questions that have not been proven
[2:28:38]and I don't believe are provable. >> Okay. Why did it why did you wait six months to have this hearing today or have this testimony? >> You know, I've answered that. I thought
[2:28:48]that given the way that other witnesses who were subpoenaed at the same time were being treated uh that there was an unfair uh treatment of both my husband
[2:29:00]and myself. Uh, and I thought that especially from my perspective, I had very little if any information to provide you and that I could have done
[2:29:10]it in a sworn statement and you could have moved on to depose somebody else who might have more information that would be beneficial to your uh, >> have two more questions, then we're going to pass it to Congresswoman
[2:29:21]Congresswoman Luna. After Jeffrey Epste was convicted, did it concern you at all um, that you had taken a substantial amount of money from Jeffrey Epste? That's an inappropriate uh assumption. I
[2:29:33]did not take a substantial amount of money from Jeffrey Epstein. So far as I know, Jeffrey Epstein contributed to the joint committee that uh was supporting my Senate race in >> which was how much?
[2:29:45]>> I believe I was told $20,000. >> And you don't consider $20,000 substantial? >> I do not consider it relevant to me because I have no recollection that I ever knew that he gave any money to. >> So you talk to your donors that gave
[2:29:56]$20,000 to your campaign. My understanding of the rules back then is that there was no coordination between the committee and the campaign. So, no, I have no recollection.
[2:30:08]>> But that doesn't mean you can't speak to your donors. That doesn't prohibit the law does not prohibit you speaking to >> But I I didn't know he was a donor. As far as I knew, he was not a donor until I learned this in preparation.
[2:30:18]>> Did you at all that Maxwell was heavily involved with people you knew and were close to? >> I knew people that I knew knew her. Yes, that's true. And you didn't you just shrugged you didn't want to look into it or
[2:30:30]>> nobody question you know until her crimes were revealed and she was indicted and tried and convicted I don't think people knew uh very much about at all what
[2:30:42]>> how do you know Howard Lutnik? I know Howard Lutnik because when I was senator on 911, the firm he headed, Caner
[2:30:51]Fitzgerald, suffered the greatest loss of life. As I recall, something like 650 of his employees were murdered by
[2:31:01]terrorists that day. >> Howard Lutnik missed being a victim because he was delayed dropping his child off to kindergarten. You asked the question, I'm going to answer your
[2:31:12]question. This was what I spent my time doing. I am a survivor trying to look out for other survivors trying to >> and I was taking care of the people who
[2:31:22]lost 8,000 lives and now you're being defiant and indignant today. >> You asked me about Epstein survivors. I'm a survivor myself. You have emails. You've denied that Jeffrey Epstein that
[2:31:33]you tried to get Jeffrey Epste to give money to you. Howard Lutnik was using an email with me asking Jeffrey Epste for money >> email from Howard Lutnik sending it to Jeffrey Epste and his people to raise
[2:31:45]money for you for an event an intimate event for you at his offices at Caner Fitzgerald and you're going to sit here today and offiscate and say to this committee you didn't try to get money
[2:31:56]from Jeff Furry Epstein when there was an intimate event in an email that Howard Luckn emailed to Epstein's people and Epstein to get him to come to your intimate event at Caner Fitzgerald, a
[2:32:07]very small event. And so I'm not going to put you want to yell at me, that's fine, but I'll yell right back. Okay. I am looking out for >> I'm doing the job that you would not do and refuse to do as Secretary of State. Thank you. And I yield back to
[2:32:18]>> No, I'm going to finish answering the question, which I have a right to do. >> I am very sympathetic to your personal situation. I have read about
[2:32:29]it. I have seen you testify or speak on the floor about it and I very much sympathize with not only what you went through but appreciate your effort to
[2:32:41]stand up for survivors. I was a senator representing the people who were murdered on 911. Nobody lost more people than Howard
[2:32:52]Lutnik. You can say whatever you want. You can call him and have him appear before the committee. >> I knew him. I knew him as the man who lost the employees that he knew
[2:33:04]intimately, including his brother >> and he was so money for you. >> Let her finish your answer. >> You know what? >> If you don't want to hear what
[2:33:15]emotionally affected me, that's fine. But that's why I know Howard Lutnik. I went to the memorial service every 911 after the formal service was held. I see
[2:33:27]what you're doing here and you're upscan. That is how I know Howard
[2:33:45]>> Butnik. Why don't you let me get over here? >> Fine. I'll do the heavy lifting. >> You get my weight. >> Yeah, I got it. Miss Luna. Miss Luna.
[2:34:03]>> Secretary Clinton, thank you for being here today. >> Thank you, Congresswoman. >> President Clinton has stated that he severed ties with Epstein around 2005 prior to 2008 conviction. Um, were you involved or informed of any
[2:34:15]communication, emails, calls, or meetings related to distancing the foundation and or your family after those 2008 convictions? >> I was not. You had mentioned that this committee
[2:34:26]had avoided calling people to testify who should be sitting here. Um I would like to show you some emails if the staff could please pass out to the
[2:34:34]members and the secretary EFTA 00878421 and EFTA 00705860 please so she can see it.
[2:34:43]>> This will be exhibit 14 and 15 for the majority. >> I'll wait till you get them so you can see them. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[2:35:00]Thank you very much. >> Yes, we are. >> There's two. Are there two separate? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And pass them down because I
[2:35:08]have more from my colleague. >> Thank you so much. I appreciate that. the same they're two there's two
[2:35:20]different documents >> there's two yeah they're two emails both different EFAs um Secretary Clinton would you please read EFTA 00705860
[2:35:31]just you don't have to read from it's to Jeffrey Epstein but can you read the context of the >> sir could you state the number again is the number at the bottom >> yes it's at the bottom it's EFTA [Phone Redacted]
[2:35:42]>> this is majority 14 >> 14 yes sir Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty. >> How does that make you feel?
[2:35:53]>> Makes me sick. >> Um, if you can also read the EFTA 00878421. Um, this is also another email.
[2:36:04]Can you just please provide the context? It's an email to Jeffrey Epstein. Um, if you could just read the the context of what it is.
[2:36:13]>> Of course. the oh Jesus Ohio Jesus I'm coming trick >> and the bo just the main body of the context of the email
[2:36:24]>> said that she felt God's presence next to her when she was in bed she knows that Jesus watches over her and he helped save her life. Whoops. >> How does that make you feel? >> It's bizarre. I don't know what it
[2:36:35]means. The reason I asked you to read both of these is because these emails were both sent by um co-conspirators that were then given the plea deals and
[2:36:45]now have been given victim status. Uh both of these women were also named an FBI document. Um and they're on a number
[2:36:55]of other emails. Do you believe that the Department of Justice should re-evaluate the plea deals for some of these women given that
[2:37:05]as you can see they have um they have clearly done some things probably that they shouldn't have. >> I I don't know the status uh of whether
[2:37:17]that would be legally possible. So I have no opinion. I think um outside of the statute of limitations, they might be able to reinvestigate under the um civil rights violations. Would you be in
[2:37:28]favor of that or looking into any of the co-conspirators that were given plea deals down to victim status if there's credible evidence that they were trafficking young girls? >> I think it should be pursued.
[2:37:39]>> Um I'd like to also show you another uh EFTA if the staff can also pass this to
[2:37:47]the secretary. It's EFTA 01656217. >> Should be exhibit 16 for the majority. >> And I'd al also like to reflect on those
[2:38:05]previous EFTAs. Um the EFA 00705860 that was actually sent by a woman by the name of Susan Hamlin. Um, and then the other EFTA 00878421
[2:38:16]was sent by a woman named Nadia who's also listed in other files as well. >> Is it a single page? >> Oh, sorry. >> Uh, Secretary Clinton, this was actually
[2:38:32]out of an FBI briefing document when um Epstein was in his New York trial. If you can look at the top left, the
[2:38:42]individual photo. Um, who is that individual? >> I I can't tell. I It's such a small blurry picture. >> Okay. Um, for those that want to pull up
[2:38:52]the file, the the photos of Jeffrey Epstein. This is actually a passport that was given. The individual's name is Marcus Robert Fortnelli. Um, do you think that this is a sign or a telltale
[2:39:03]sign of intelligence um, operations and pseudonyms? I can't speculate. I don't know. >> Okay. >> Victims have stated to this committee,
[2:39:14]both Democrats and Republicans, that during Epstein's time, during his daycare jail is what I'll call it, and that he was also in active communication with Bush's CIA director. They also had
[2:39:25]stated that he had active ties to Russia, Israel, and Iran. Um given your status not just as the first lady but also in your secretary position, have you ever been targeted by any of these
[2:39:36]countries um as a means of a foreign intelligence gathering operation? >> Are you aware of potential vulnerabilities in >> Yeah, I I was targeted by Russia in the
[2:39:46]2016 campaign. I mean, I think that's pretty well known. >> What about Israel or Iran? >> I don't know about either Israel or Iran. >> Okay. Do you believe that Epstein was
[2:39:56]running potentially honeypot operation with intelligence gathering operations to collect information on high-profile individuals, both Democrat and Republican, the United States, in an
[2:40:05]effort to sway um our foreign policies? Is it possible? >> I have no direct knowledge, but I think it's one of the areas your committee should investigate. >> Do you think it's possible?
[2:40:17]>> Well, it it's certainly possible. It's a triedand-true technique of certain intelligence agencies. Do you believe that he was using honeypotss in effort to >> I I can't speculate. I don't know.
[2:40:27]>> Okay. And on the topic of transparency, Secretary, um were you ever denied access or did you ever inquire on the topic of UAP or Gilgamesh in your official personal capacity and why?
[2:40:37]>> I was never denied access because I never asked for access. >> Okay. Um, in the efforts of having a transparent government and restoring
[2:40:47]faith within our country, do you believe that the American people deserve access to those topics? >> I do. Subject to any national security
[2:40:57]implications? I think the information um should be made available. I think that's been ordered or at least I read that it had been ordered. And lastly, uh, before I I yield my time, Chairman Comr, um, do
[2:41:08]you believe that you were personally a target of an intelligence gathering operation specifically pertaining to Ghislaine Maxwell or or Jeffrey Epstein? >> I have no reason to believe that. I don't have any information. >> Okay. Thank you, Tony. Time.
[2:41:19]>> Thank you. Represent. Okay. All right. Good.
[2:41:33]Afternoon. How are you? >> Hi. Could you identify yourself? >> Yes, sure. Sure. Uh Pat Fallon, fourth
[2:41:45]district of Texas. >> Pat Fallon. Okay. >> Native of Massachusetts, but no one would vote for me there. I moved to Texas. >> Um so, m I'm pretty simple guy. I just want to keep things simple and uh just
[2:41:56]ask you some questions, give you a chance to uh respond. So July 25th, unanimous oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena yourself and your husband.
[2:42:05]On the 25th of August, Chairman Comr issued a lawful subpoena, which I would think it's fair to say you didn't cooperate. There was a lot of delays. It was August. We're now in February. Uh
[2:42:16]the deposition was set in December, then it was delayed, moved to January, and now here we are in February. We all get accused of things. The higher you go up in the ladder, the more people are accused of things. I I if I don't
[2:42:28]have anything to hide, I want I'm eager to come in and testify. I just find that interesting. Why Why the delay for 6 months? Well, I think as I've said, um,
[2:42:38]we negotiated in good faith and I believe the committee negotiated in good faith for a while because we thought, at least I'll speak for myself, that I
[2:42:49]could provide whatever information I had, which was not much, in the same form that you accepted it from former attorneys general and FBI directors who had much more direct knowledge or could
[2:43:00]have had much more direct knowledge uh, about the uh investigation you were conducting and I found it bewildering
[2:43:09]that I couldn't provide what I knew uh in in writing uh under penalty of uh perjury as uh others had done.
[2:43:19]>> Okay. I'd say better late than never. So I'm glad you are here. On the 20 uh in September 22 ABC program the view had you as a guest and you uh were quoted as saying no one is above the law. Still agree with that?
[2:43:30]>> I agree with that. >> As do I. I think Secretary Clinton, uh, that's why you're here. >> I absolutely agree with that. >> When did you first meet Jeffrey Epste? >> I never met Jeffrey. >> You never? Okay. Uh, when did you first
[2:43:41]meet Gizelle Maxwell? >> I have I have no recollection of when I first met. >> So, you might have met her, but you don't remember? >> I do not. >> Okay. So, you'd obviously describe your relationship as pretty much non-existent
[2:43:53]with both of them. >> Yeah. I I I had a at least a casual acquaintance with her. I had nothing with him. >> Okay. Would you describe your husband's relationship with Jester Epstein as
[2:44:03]limited, cordial, close? >> Limited for a limited period of time uh with respect to using his airplane. >> Okay. And how about your husband's relationship with Ms. Maxwell?
[2:44:14]>> I think that they knew each other for a longer period of time. >> Okay. So, just for the record, in 1992, Epstein donated a grant to your husband's presidential campaign. in 93
[2:44:24]10 grand to the White House historical association while uh you were in the White House and your your husband worked and then he visited the White House seven as we've said I think ad nauseium
[2:44:33]17 times from 93 to95 and then in 99 a $20,000 donation to Senate campaign or an affiliate allied campaign then in 20
[2:44:44]uh 2006 25 grand to the Clinton Foundation and then post Clinton presidency your husband was on the plane somewhere in the neighborhood of 26 times. Right.
[2:44:55]>> I I can't vouch for everything you just said. I can't vouch for >> All right. But you're not disputing it vehemently. So >> No, I'm not I'm not accepting it, but I I can't vouch for it. I can't respond to
[2:45:07]it. >> All right. In 2008, Jeffrey Epson was convicted of two felony counts. >> Correct. >> Were they felonies? I don't recall. >> They They were federal felonies. Yeah. >> Were they felonies? >> They're state felonies. Correct.
[2:45:18]>> State felonies. Okay. >> Felonies, nonetheless. Okay. So, just bear with me on this because, you know, again, give you a chance to respond.
[2:45:28]Has been ran for governor five times. The last time in 90 or '86, I think he got almost a half a million votes. In '92, he got 45 million votes. 47 million in '96. When you ran in '08, he got
[2:45:39]nearly 20 million in the primary. And he was governor. You were senator, secretary of state. He was president. You've met hundreds of thousands of people, probably way more than the average typical person would. And my
[2:45:50]point here is all all these millions of people that supported you and your husband, hundreds of thousands that you met in 2010, one of the most significant events of your life is going to be your daughter's your only daughter's wedding.
[2:46:01]You have 500 wedding guests from all reports. That means and there's a groom involved. So you're distilling down to 250 only 250 people can be can attend.
[2:46:12]And it's your testimony that how did uh Miss Maxwell end up at the wedding? She was the guest of Ted Wait, who was a longtime friend of our family. >> So, it was just an odd coincidence that
[2:46:23]she was at one of the most No, I mean, that's fine. If that's that's your testimony, that's your testimony. >> I I I was not telling my dates who their guests could or their my guests who their dates. >> It's just an odd coincidence. Okay. See,
[2:46:34]uh would you describe your husband as a smart guy? >> Excuse me. Are you asking her to testify about her husband instead of because he's going to be here tomorrow, so you can ask questions to the witness that is for her. But it seems to me that you are
[2:46:46]asking questions that >> requiring opinion. Can you ask a question that is >> How long have you been married? Can I ask that? >> Oh, do I have to answer that? >> 50 years.
[2:46:55]>> He's a pretty smart guy by all accounts. >> Would you agree with that? Highly intelligent. I think he is. I didn't vote for him, but I think he is. >> Then I will I will uh >> We agree on that. I mean, I don't think that's controversial, counselor, because
[2:47:07]everybody that I've ever met that has met your husband and has firsthand experience describes him as the smartest guy in the room when you're in the room. uh very smart scary recall like if he meets you 20 years later he remembers
[2:47:18]what you wore what they were saying which is a great tool and asset when you're a politician >> I think that's so with this great recall um it's I'm sure it served him well in
[2:47:28]his political career so given I I just find it surprising that in January 26 y'all sent a joint letter from you and him where he asserted that he quote didn't recall encountering Mr. Epste or
[2:47:40]any specific interactions with him while in office? >> That was his recollection. >> Okay. But even though we've established that he was in the White House, Epste I'm talking about 17 times and there's a
[2:47:51]public report that there were personal tours given not only the White House but even the residents and somebody that smart just happened not to remember any of it. >> This witness can answer questions about her own declaration about what she
[2:48:02]recalls or knew. Again, the president is going to be here tomorrow. >> All right. Well, your your client talked about patterns in practice and uh Bill
[2:48:12]Clinton, her husband said that he doesn't remember meeting Epstein during his time in office took trips with him or took trips on his plane to New York, England, Japan, China, Singapore,
[2:48:24]Bangkok, Brunai, Rwanda, Mosmbique, South Africa, France, Norway, and many more. So, it's really not a question of where they uh went together, but where they didn't go together. Uh, do you know
[2:48:35]the colloquial name for Little St. James Island? >> No. >> It's Epstein Island. Okay. I'll refer to it in in in both contexts. >> To your knowledge, did your husband ever
[2:48:46]visit Little St. James Island? >> Not to my knowledge. >> Do you know who Doug Band is? >> He worked for my husband. Yes. >> So, by reports on the press, he was a
[2:48:57]key architect of the Bill Clinton post presidency, a top aid, the body man, the fixer, a counselor, a close adviser. Would you disagree with any of those? >> He worked he worked for him in a number of capacities
[2:49:06]>> about 10 years. O2 to 12 it was. >> He worked for him. I don't know. Fair to say give or take a decade. >> Okay. He's on the record as asserting
[2:49:16]that Mr. Clinton did indeed visit Epstein Island. You think he's lying? >> Yes. >> Okay. Why would he lie? >> I don't know. You'd have to ask him. >> Okay. And then uh you know Virginia, have you heard of Virginia? I'm sure you
[2:49:28]didn't meet her, but have you heard of Virginia Ju? >> I've heard about her. I didn't ever meet her. She was a victim of Epstein. Tragically, she didn't survive. She's no longer with us.
[2:49:37]>> She testified under oath that she saw uh Mr. Clinton on Epstein Island two separate occasions. You think she's lying or at least >> I have no no information whatsoever that
[2:49:48]he was ever on the >> just, you know, just trying to be fair. Why do you think that is? I mean, that's my question. >> I'm not going to offer opinions. I I don't have any information. Uh, further to your point earlier about practices
[2:49:59]and patterns, now there's a third person, Steve Scully. Have you ever heard of him? >> Who? >> Steve Scully. >> Steve Scully. >> Yes,
[2:50:07]>> I know of a Steve Scully by who was that? Apple. >> Yeah, he's well, he was an IT contractor on the infamous aforementioned island.
[2:50:17]He also asserts that he saw Mr. Clinton, and this is a quote from him, lounging around the porch area of Little St. James Villa. It's just oddly specific. Do you think this third person was lying
[2:50:28]as well? >> I don't. No information about this. >> You see how that would, you know, I wanted to ask you that because I find that odd. It's a pattern in practice as you mentioned. >> Um, have you ever visited Epstein Island or Little St. James Island? >> No.
[2:50:40]>> Okay. So, just to be clear, it is your testimony that for instance, you never flew in a private plane, flew into St. Thomas airport, and then didn't enter the terminal, but instead boarded a helicopter to little St. James Island.
[2:50:52]You never did that. >> I did not. >> Okay. So, Virginia Grey, who we touch talked
[2:51:03]about, who we all found highly credible, I think bipartisan in a bipartisan manner, stated that Mr. Clinton walked in a vanity fair and threatened them and that they better not write an expose detailing the crimes of quote his good
[2:51:14]friend Jeffrey Epstein. Do you find that troubling at all? >> I find it not believable. Let's turn to the current administration president because you said some pretty choice words of the administration and
[2:51:25]President Trump aggressive and even some coupled with incendiary claims about President Trump and his do DOJ. You fair to say that you would not describe them
[2:51:34]as transparent. >> I would I would not describe him as transparent. >> Okay. How about you were an enthusiastic supporter of Joe Biden and Vice President Harris when each of them
[2:51:45]respectively ran for president? >> I was. >> Okay. Would you describe the Biden Harris administration as an administration that was committed to transparency >> to the best of their ability? >> Okay.
[2:51:57]>> You also asserted uh and if I'm get this wrong, please let me know that or at least insinuated that President Trump was closer to Epstein than your husband >> socially.
[2:52:09]>> I think there's an enormous amount of evidence that goes back many, many years demonstrating uh their relationship. >> Okay. Do you know how many times Jeffrey Epstein visited the Trump 45 White
[2:52:20]House? >> I do not know. >> By all accounts and evidence, zero. And how many times did he visit the Clinton White House? >> I don't know.
[2:52:29]>> There was 17 times. Um, how much did Jeffrey Epson ever donate to Donald Trump politically? >> I have no idea. >> There was zero. U, but we have established that he donated to either
[2:52:41]you or your husband or your committee's 21 grand. not to agree. >> I I have I have no information uh that
[2:52:50]uh you know is personally based about their relationship. >> Uh Jeffrey Epstein donated $35,000 to foundations. One was a $10,000 donation to the White House Historical Society in
[2:53:02]93 when the Clintons your family was in the White House. >> He donated uh and then there was that uh 2006 donation for 256 donation to the Clinton Foundation. He's donated uh
[2:53:13]similar to the Trump White House. Never. Yeah. No. No foundations either. How many pages of the Epstein files were released by the oversight committee in 2021 to 23 when the Democrats were in the majority? >> I have no idea.
[2:53:24]>> It was zero. Um >> but there was also an ongoing uh investigation um >> of I I believe Gain Maxwell during that
[2:53:34]time period. >> So the answer is I can share with you is zero. How many pages did the Biden Department of Justice release from the Epstein files from 21 to 25?
[2:53:45]>> I have no personal information. I have read that uh uh because of the trial of Glain Maxwell uh that that was not uh done, but I have no personal information.
[2:53:56]>> Yeah. Okay. Well, that was zero and that ended quite a bit ago. A little bit ago now. Um there were no images and there were no videos. When you compare the GOP uh GOP oversight committee when we took
[2:54:07]over in January 23 to present, there were 65,000 documents that had been released. And then how many videos? Uh there was nothing under uh the Biden administration. There was no images as
[2:54:19]well. There's been 180,000 images, 2,000 videos, and now over 3 million pages. So when you compare them, it's an odd definition of who's transparent and who
[2:54:28]isn't. Uh, last thing you're um we have established that there's a $20,000 donation that Jeffrey Epstein
[2:54:38]made to an affiliated allied campaign to get you elected to the presidency. Have you um returned that or donated
[2:54:48]that once? Like he got convicted in 2008 of two felony counts. Um have you ever returned that $20,000? >> Come to my campaign. I was not I was not
[2:54:59]>> So you've never donated that to charity? That's why >> I've donated many good to I'd like to know the facts in the record that shows Jeffrey Epstein
[2:55:09]donated to her presidential campaign I think. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Oh yeah, >> 1998 was the Senate. You're right. I still corrected. That would I think that
[2:55:20]would be a nice gesture. >> Next up, Representative Cloud from Texas. Hi. Could you identify yourself?
[2:55:37]>> Michael Cloud, Texas 27th. >> Michael >> Cloud C8. >> Okay. >> And thank you for being here, Madam Secretary. >> Uh, you were asked if Jeffrey Epstein
[2:55:48]played a role in shaping the Clinton Global Initiative. Uh is it correct to say that you mentioned that you do not know whether this was the case or not? >> I have no information.
[2:55:58]>> Uh we have a letter of course from Epstein lawyer stating that he was and I quote was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative. Uh if you do not know who
[2:56:08]would know. >> I I don't I don't know because I was not involved. >> You don't know who was involved in the >> Well, my husband obviously was involved. >> So your husband would know at least.
[2:56:20]Well, you certainly can ask him. >> Okay. Similarly, you've mentioned that you do not know how funds were recruited at the Clinton Global Initiative. Is that an accurate understanding of your testimony today?
[2:56:31]>> No. Uh donations were made uh that lots of donations, many many individuals, groups, businesses, philanthropies have donated to the Clinton uh global initiative.
[2:56:42]>> Sure. Yeah. What what was the process of recruiting those donations? I guess is or what's your understanding of it or your involvement in it? >> Some of it was spontaneous. Uh some of
[2:56:53]it was uh through the team that helps to raise money. It's a combination of uh supporting charitable work. >> Do you know if Jeffrey Epstein was involved in helping?
[2:57:04]>> I have no reason to believe that. I don't know. >> You don't know if he was involved in donor relations in any way? >> I have no, as I say, reason to believe it, but I don't know. >> Do you know who would know? the people
[2:57:16]who were involved in raising the money, but I was not involved with CGI in those early years. >> What about the what about when you were there?
[2:57:28]>> I have I have no knowledge that Jeffrey Epstein was involved at all. >> How how many roughly me staff members are there in the Clinton Global
[2:57:36]Initiative? Uh it has varied over the years but hundreds >> and in involved with donor relations >> dozens I suppose
[2:57:48]>> dozens okay um as best as we know it's been public reported that in 2024
[2:57:57]uh Gilain Maxwell or Gileain I think is how it's pronounced arranged and wired uh $1 million to publicist group for the inaugural CGI event referring it to to
[2:58:09]it internally as quote the Clinton project. Epstein was copied on related emails and questioned the timing and destinations of the funds. Were you aware of this $1 million payment?
[2:58:19]>> I was not. >> Uh were you aware of it before today? >> No. Well, in preparing for this >> preparation, you may know. Okay. Do you know who would have known?
[2:58:31]>> I don't even know if it's true. So, I have no way of telling you. You don't know who at the Clinton Global Initiative what staff would have handled
[2:58:40]million-dollar donors or >> it didn't it didn't go it went to a group called publicist which is not the Clinton Global Initiative so I would not know
[2:58:51]um well the email said it was for the Clinton project so >> first of all I have no idea whether that's true and secondly it went to a third party >> uh Maxwell was honored and given
[2:59:02]complimentary access at the 2013 CGI conference for quote uh ocean conservation work years after public allegations against her and Epstein were
[2:59:14]public. Uh you were involved were you involved in approving participants or honories at the CGI events? >> I was not but I don't know that there were public allegations at that point in
[2:59:25]time. So I I can't respond to that. So you you were not involved in approval. You didn't know who was going to be honored at the events?
[2:59:36]>> No, I was not. >> Okay. Do you know who would have known? >> Whoever was a staff at the time, but there's been a lot of staff turnover over, you know, 20 plus years.
[2:59:47]>> Um, a number of things you've mentioned a you've mentioned you have not been able to recall. Uh, and that's understandable. Is it possible that any of the information
[2:59:58]that you have not been able to recall would have been found in the 30,000 or three 30,000 emails that went missing?
[3:00:08]>> No, I don't believe so. I I had no no reason to believe that. So, it's not that I'm not recalling things that were there. I don't recall at all. >> Unfortunately, I have to catch you.
[3:00:19]Thank you for your time. >> Next will be representative Timmons from South Carolina. Madam Secretary, William Timmons from
[3:00:32]South Carolina. Thank you for being here today. >> Throughout this deposition, you've seem to be a bit incredulous, indignant about being here. Do you think it's
[3:00:43]inappropriate? It seems um I guess I just want to highlight all of the reasons that I see you being here and ask you if you don't think that that
[3:00:53]justifies your presence. I mean so we started out this deposition by asking you about a number of individuals 50 plus individuals and the specific question was whether you had spoken to
[3:01:04]them regarding Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. So I'm going to highlight four and I'm going to tell you why we asked you about them. So, do you know uh Senator Bob Kerry? >> I do know Senator Bob Kerry.
[3:01:15]>> Okay. And was he not the chair of the Democrat senatorial uh committee when you got elected to uh the Senate? >> I thought it was Bob Toroselli, but I
[3:01:27]could be wrong. >> Okay. Well, he was the chair of the DSC for the eight years prior to you getting there. He left office when you got sworn in, but um obviously there's a lot of
[3:01:37]overlap. He's a prominent uh member. He was uh he resigned in disgrace because of his association with Jeffrey Epstein. So there's a commutive property uh he's
[3:01:46]in your orbit. He had to resign. Next person is Casey Wasserman. >> Yes. >> Representative was Bob Kerry one of the names that was listed. >> Bob Kerry was >> he wasn't listed in the original list
[3:01:58]that council >> shared with the witness. I don't see >> apologies. He was not listed. If he was not listed I was just seeking that clarification.
[3:02:07]>> Thank you. Um, Casey Wasserman. Do you know Casey Wasserman? >> I do. >> Okay. And was he a former trustee of the Clinton Foundation?
[3:02:17]>> I I don't know. He he wasn't during the time that I was involved. >> Okay. Well, it is alleged that he was a former trustee of the Clinton Foundation and he also had to resign in disgrace from his
[3:02:27]company and obviously there's an association there. So, do you know Larry Summers? >> I do know Larry Summers. >> Okay. and he was obviously former Treasury Secretary, campaign adviser. Apparently, he didn't give you good
[3:02:39]advice, but y'all obviously have a long-standing relationship. He also was forced to resign in disgraced because of his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, but I've never talked to these people about >> I understand. But you understand you were the Secretary of State. You were
[3:02:51]the first lady and you were a United States senator and you have all of this power and influence and these connections and when there's just this enormous amount of smoke that I'm going to go over it. It is appropriate for us
[3:03:02]to then ask you questions because we're trying to get to the bottom of this to make sure it doesn't happen again and to hold people accountable. It might not be you, >> but all of the people you just read, it seems to me should have been ahead of me being subpoenaed than me, but that's
[3:03:13]okay. I'm here and I want to keep following. >> You know George Mitchell? >> I of course knew George Mitchell. >> Okay. Obviously, um he also had to resign in disgrace. So that was the
[3:03:23]purpose of the people that we were trying to get your associations with. So obviously I'm not going to go over this too much in length, but I've been in Congress for seven years and I've only been to the White House, I don't know, a
[3:03:34]dozen times. Uh Jeffrey Epstein doesn't even live in DC and he would went to the White House 17 times in two years. So that's that causes us to wonder what's
[3:03:42]going on there. Um obviously President Clinton flew on the Lolita Express over two dozen times. That gives us more questions. Um he is your
[3:03:53]husband. So we are just curious about all of these things and that's the purpose of this. You say the fact that Jeffrey Epstein donated $20,000 to the joint fundraising committee. You were
[3:04:05]not allowed to solicit that, but it is record of who gave money. And so you would, if somebody gave $20,000 to my JFC, I would know eventually and I would
[3:04:15]say thank you. You never thanked him for his contribution. >> Not that I'm aware of. I didn't. First time I knew about it is when I was preparing for this uh testimony. >> Obviously um all the members of Congress have to deal with fundraising is
[3:04:27]probably the worst part of the job. But generally speaking, when people give you uh a large amount of money, you say thank you. So that I think to me. They gave it to the joint committee. >> The joint the JFC has uh disclosure
[3:04:38]requirements and you'd be able to tell and it was for you for your behalf to get you elected. So again, I mean you're >> Let the witness finish cutting her off. >> I've told you all I know, which is that I did not know.
[3:04:50]>> There's dozens of pieces of information that create a pattern. And you're here because that pattern causes us to have questions to understand. >> What are your questions? You I did I know anything about his crimes? I've
[3:05:01]told you no, I did not. Did I know anything about her crimes? No, I did not. Was I in a position of responsibility to investigate those crimes? No, I was not. >> Again, there's a pattern. You gave the
[3:05:16]best line of the deposition. Patterns. Lawyers look at patterns to try to uh assess veracity and classify information to understand uh truth. And so, we are
[3:05:27]here trying to seek truth. And um we appreciate you being here, but it is appropriate for us to ask you questions about all these things. Jeffrey Epste all day and I will try to the best of my
[3:05:37]ability to keep answering them. >> Trust me, your husband's going to have a much worse day tomorrow. Um the Clinton Global Initiative um was used in the uh
[3:05:47]plea uh Jeffrey Epste's lawyers used Epstein's role in facilitating the
[3:05:56]Clinton Global Initiative to justify his plea deal. Um that was entered into evidence earlier. Obviously, Gla Maxwell has alleged that this is part of her uh
[3:06:08]one of her successes to facilitate setting it up. And um there's been reports that a million dollars was wired for the launch party. So, there's just all of this data, all these different
[3:06:19]pieces of information that come together that cause us to be here. And so I I mean we've obviously discussed the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell was at your daughter's wedding, which um again is
[3:06:30]not indicative of anything, but when you take all of this and you put it together and you look at it holistically, it causes us to have these questions. So given all of that information that I just went over, that we've gone over today, do you understand why you're
[3:06:42]here? Do you think it's appropriate for for us to ask questions of someone that's in such a position of authority and has all of this smoke? I mean, maybe there's no fire with you, but in order
[3:06:53]for us to get to the bottom of it, the American people want this transparency and accountability. So, I mean, do you understand why we are doing this or do you think this is just a waste of time?
[3:07:03]>> You'll have to determine whether it is or it isn't uh a waste of time. But, you know, you make all of these assumptions. I don't believe anything Jeffrey Estee
[3:07:14]says. So, whatever he said, I would discount completely. I don't believe very much of what Galene Maxwell said in the very first exhibit you gave me was
[3:07:24]what she told you know Blanch Todd. So it's your job to figure out what is and isn't true. But more importantly
[3:07:34]what's relevant to your investigation and >> what's relevant to our investigation is that people at the highest levels of government were involved in a >> sex trafficking. >> I was not involved.
[3:07:45]And I'm here to answer you even connecting those. >> You're here to help us get to the bottom of it. >> I've been doing my very best. >> Well, you tried to avoid let her answer full question. >> I mean, I've been doing all I can to I
[3:07:56]How can I answer questions about a person that I don't believe I ever even met, although maybe I was in the same room once who gave money to a joint
[3:08:06]funding committee that I did not have knowledge of. I I'm doing the best I can to answer your questions. >> I appreciate that. Uh again, patterns uh
[3:08:16]is what we're following and um I think we're going to have a lot more questions for the president tomorrow. Thank you. >> McGuire except represent McGuire from
[3:08:27]Virginia. >> Mr. Chairman,
[3:08:42]>> can I just have a time check so I know where we are. >> We have approximately 15 minutes left. >> Uh Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today. >> You know, I think uh the American people, I represent Virginia's fifth
[3:08:54]district uh to come with Virginia and the whole United States, we all want transparent accountability, and I would imagine you want the same thing. Is that right? >> Um human trafficking, rape, torture,
[3:09:05]these things are unspeakable evil. Would you agree with that? >> I would. You know, I was a Navy Seal veteran uh during the time your husband was in the presidency and we did a lot of missions to go against the cartels
[3:09:15]and go after human traffickers and people who did all these unspeakable things. Uh question for you. Have you read the released Epstein files?
[3:09:25]>> Um I've read excerpts as they've come to my attention. >> Would you agree that there are unspeakable acts of violence against women, minors, and other people in there? >> I'm told there are.
[3:09:37]and just curious what your knowledge is. How many files uh how many Epstein filed documents were released during the four years of the Biden administration? >> I don't have any information about that.
[3:09:48]>> So what I'm being told is zero. >> And and just how many files do you think have been released Epstein files since President Trump is in his second term? >> Many I've been told.
[3:09:59]>> I've been told over three million. Um and again we both agree that we want transparency and accountability. I don't think it's a Democrat, Republican or independent thing. I think it's a I think it's just an American thing. We
[3:10:10]want accountability and we need to have it. Um, so would you agree that no one is above the law? >> I certainly would.
[3:10:20]>> Yeah. So, um, since taking office, President Trump has done a lot to fight human trafficking. um his admin uh secured the border in just a matter of weeks. And human
[3:10:31]trafficking numbers and the rape and all these unspeakable acts still exist in the world and even in our country, but they've gone down significantly. And of course, we've been going off the
[3:10:40]cartels and human traffickers extremely aggressively ever since he took office in his second term. Uh Congress and President Trump, we signed into law on January 2nd the Traffick and Survivors
[3:10:52]uh Relief Act. Have you heard about this? Mh. >> So he's we're definitely making progress. So I heard you earlier say that we weren't doing anything. >> I was talking about the state department. >> Well, we we we work together, but I'm
[3:11:03]with you. Also, not it's just a twice. I heard you say that you didn't know about the donation from Maxwell and according to FC and our research uh you can as a candidate even back in the 90s
[3:11:14]coordinate with a JFC joint fun. >> Could you correct your your statement? You said that she didn't know about Maxwell. Do you need >> No, no, no. I'm just saying she said that twice she couldn't >> talking about FC.
[3:11:25]>> No, right. That's right. Twice she said you couldn't communicate with the JFC. >> Well, that's what I was told. Maybe >> according to FC in the report that we did in the last couple hours, you could do that. Not a big deal. Just letting you know that.
[3:11:35]>> All right, some questions. Um, so, uh, Madam Secretary, since you claim you never met or communicated with Mr. Epstein, how is that possible seeing that Mr. Epste visit the White House several times? I may be repeating some
[3:11:46]of the other questions several times during your husband's presidency. I >> I object because that's speculative. Congressman, >> I'm not advising her not to answer, but it's speculating. She doesn't know.
[3:11:56]>> I I don't know. >> It's okay. >> I don't know how many times he visited. I've been told, but I don't know for my own uh information or personal experience. >> Yeah. Apparently, he was there 17 times,
[3:12:08]but you know, at least there's more than a dozen. All right. Secretary Clinton, did you ever ask uh Miss Maxwell about the validity of the Epstein crimes when he was first accused? >> I don't recall any conversation with her
[3:12:19]about that. And how well did you know her? >> Not very well. >> All right. Secretary Clinton, how do you feel about your husband being named in the Epstein files?
[3:12:28]>> Well, I I think it's uh you know, something that uh is unfortunate. Um and I'm sure that he will tell you that he
[3:12:38]wished he had not flown on Epstein's plane. So that's, you know, it's it's unfortunate in my opinion. >> Secretary Clinton, did Miss Maxwell's
[3:12:48]nephew, Mr. Alexander Gerzi, I may be saying that wrong. Work for your 2008 campaign. >> As I said earlier, he volunteered for my campaign. He did a good job. My campaign
[3:13:00]staff hired him. He was an excellent employee and then uh he had a a very relevant educational uh background and
[3:13:11]uh went to work in the state department. And Secretary Clinton, was uh Miss Maxwell um nephew, Mr. Alexander Gerasi, hired by the State Department shortly after you became Secretary of State?
[3:13:23]>> Yes, he was. >> And Secretary Clinton, by all accounts at this time of his hiring, uh Mr. Alexander Gerzi had limited foreign policy experience. Was he hired as a
[3:13:33]favor for Mrs. Melville? >> Not at all. I had no idea that he was related to her and I have absolutely no recollection or reason to believe that she was at all uh involved.
[3:13:45]>> Well, the people that I represent and I think our country cares about most out of this whole thing is that what can we learn so we can prevent people human committing human trafficking in
[3:13:56]our country and the world. I think that's what we all care about. We care about that. And then how did someone with such egregious behavior penetrate the highest level of government? Are world leaders compromised? Are American
[3:14:08]politicians compromised? Um, as you read the Epstein files and read the reports, overwhelmingly Epste donated more to Democrats by far than he did Republicans. Are you served as Secretary
[3:14:19]of State from 2009 to 2013? Is that correct? >> That's correct. The State Department leads the United States efforts to globally uh globally combat human and sex trafficking. Is that a fair
[3:14:30]characterization? >> It is a responsibility of the State Department uh to uh try to um hold countries uh accountable through our
[3:14:40]annual report and to work with countries to try to encourage them to improve their laws and their enforcement. Um in fact, Secretary of State is responsible for submitting an annual traffic
[3:14:51]inpersons or TIP report. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> And um Secretary Clinton, can you please explain what this report is? What is the purpose of the report? What was your role in the creation of this report? And
[3:15:03]did you have a final approval of the contents of this report, the TIP report? >> This report uh I believe it's legislatively mandated. uh is put together by the experts in the state
[3:15:14]department and people who are responsible for uh following uh developments uh in trafficking uh through our embassies around the world.
[3:15:25]And what it does is to try to uh assess uh whether countries are taking trafficking seriously, whether they have adequate laws, whether they're enforcing
[3:15:35]those laws, whether judges are trained, whether law enforcement, uh takes the crimes seriously, and then every year uh the office responsible for the TIP
[3:15:46]report uh evaluates and describes what a country was doing. And in egregious cases where countries are ignoring it,
[3:15:56]where the problem is getting worse, uh there can be sanctions uh employed. But usually the effort to stay out of the uh
[3:16:06]report in a negative way helps us diplomatically to persuade countries to take uh more action. >> Okay. So to be clear, were tip reports submitted to Congress during your tenure?
[3:16:17]>> Yes. And was human trafficking in the United States increasing or decreasing during that time? >> In the United States, I'm not as, you know, familiar with the year-to-year uh
[3:16:28]numbers, but human trafficking has been a very big problem in the United States and elsewhere. And, you know, as you pointed out, uh, all kinds of criminal
[3:16:38]organizations, uh, gangs, cartels, uh, find it profitable to, uh, traffic human beings. So it it kind of goes up and
[3:16:48]down depending upon how effectively uh we're enforcing our laws or other nations are enforcing theirs. >> So during the bid administration open border policies, we don't know the number. We think 15 to 20 million
[3:16:59]illegal criminal aliens, the cartels. You probably saw in Colorado where Trreni Aagua took over an apartment complex at gunpoint and one guy called the police. They cut his fingers off and
[3:17:09]said if you call the police again, we're going to cut off your hands. So would you agree that having a secure border is very important to prevent these cartels and these human traffickers from coming
[3:17:18]into our country and victimizing the American people? >> I have been in favor of secure border borders and effective humane immigration
[3:17:28]policy for as long as I've thought about it. And when I ran for the Senate, when I ran for president, I advocated uh for
[3:17:38]security at our borders, but also additional resources so that we could process the people uh who came to our borders in a more uh efficient and timely way. I voted for comprehensive
[3:17:50]immigration reform on a bipartisan basis when I was in the Senate. So, yes, I uh absolutely agree that we need secure borders. >> Yeah. So what are the tools because we want to get to the bottom of we whatever
[3:18:00]you know this unspeakable evil whoever's at fault we need to stop it from happening again. So I'm just wondering what other tools does the state department have to fost foster international cooperation and addressing
[3:18:10]international sex sex trafficking? How can we utilize these tools? Now obviously we've been very effective in the first year of President Trump's second term but going back into what you run when you were there what could we
[3:18:21]do? I I think you know the efforts that we attempted to deploy uh in terms of sanctions uh in terms of pressure
[3:18:31]coercive uh diplomacy to try to make countries uh uh you know either have the laws or comply with the laws uh were the tools that we use diplomatically. Law
[3:18:42]enforcement uses other uh tools. Uh we are not a law enforcement agency in the State Department, but we did our part to try to work uh jointly with uh law
[3:18:53]enforcement, not only uh the Department of Justice, but law enforcement uh in other countries. And I think that that's why it was, you know, hard to understand
[3:19:04]why one of the decisions made in the State Department was to, you know, gut that office because I do think it plays a role. I mean it's not the you know law
[3:19:14]enforcement role but it is a uh an importantformational educational diplomatic uh um effort that can pay off and now we don't have the
[3:19:25]resources that we need there in my opinion. Do you think that world leaders or maybe American politicians are compromised with people in the Epstein network to allow them to have this evil
[3:19:36]go on in our country, New Mexico, Epstein's island and all that? >> I have no information about any of that. >> If you if I take you at your word or we take you at your word, uh you let
[3:19:46]Epstein and his close associates close to your family, close to the Clinton foundh found Foundation. Um do you feel like you made a mistake? I never met
[3:19:56]him, so I I have no way of uh you know, judging. I I never met him. And um you know, I'm I'm I wish he'd been stopped in 2008 instead of given a slap on the
[3:20:08]wrist like he was. >> Thank you. >> And uh with that, we will end this majority's hour now. We can go back on the record.
[3:20:30]Ma'am, I have just a few questions about things you discussed in the previous round, then I'll turn it over to a member of the committee. Uh, there were a few cases of mistaken identity, I
[3:20:42]think, in the previous hour. >> Yes. So, for one, uh, we understand that Bob Torricelli was the DSCC chairman
[3:20:52]when you ran for Senate, not Bob Kerry. I think you got that one right, and we just wanted to confirm that. Yes. For you.
[3:21:01]In addition, John Scully is a businessman who at one point was the CEO of Apple. Steve Scully is some kind of IT person
[3:21:13]in the Virgin Islands. Am I correct to say that you do not know Steve Scully, the IT guy in the Virgin Islands? >> That is correct. >> Great.
[3:21:23]You were asked several times and I just want to get it clean here in one place whether your husband visited Mr. Epstein's island in the US Virgin
[3:21:33]Islands. Firstly, to be clear, you yourself did not visit Mr. Epstein's island. Is that right? >> That is right. >> And am I right that it's your
[3:21:43]understanding that your husband also did not visit Mr. Epstein's island? >> That is my understanding. And I think uh
[3:21:52]there is significant uh evidence to back that up, including uh that the Secret Service uh actually
[3:22:01]went on the record uh to say they had never been on the island and that uh my husband had never signed off Secret Service protection.
[3:22:12]>> You took my next question, which was to clarify that as far as >> Let's clarify it again. Maybe they'll hear it. >> We'll double clarify it. that as far as you know, your husband did not separate
[3:22:22]himself from his Secret Service detail in order to fly on Mr. Epstein's plane. >> As far as I know, he has never signed off on Secret Service protection.
[3:22:33]>> One last one for me. Uh, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was attorney general at the time that Mr. Epstein
[3:22:41]received his sweetheart deal. As far as you know, was former attorney general Gonzalez required to physically come in for his deposition as you are today?
[3:22:52]>> As far as I know, uh, former attorney general Gonzalez was not required to come in. He gave a statement, uh, very short statement saying he didn't know
[3:23:03]anything and was excused from appearing. Uh but I think uh it would be useful for the committee to probe the uh
[3:23:15]information that was available between Alex Acasta and uh the Department of Justice uh during that period of time
[3:23:24]when uh Jeffrey Epstein was charged with crimes. Lastly, I will just read the names of some other individuals who were subpoenaed by this committee in
[3:23:35]connection with this investigation. And I'll just ask you if it's your understanding that those individuals were required to physically come in for a deposition. Uh, former Attorney
[3:23:45]General Jeff Sessions, >> it is my understanding he was not required. >> Former FBI director Robert Mueller, >> he was not required.
[3:23:57]Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, >> she was not required. >> How about former Attorney General Eric Holder? >> He was not required. >> And former Attorney General Merrick
[3:24:08]Garland, >> he was not required. >> And former FBI Director James Comey, >> he was not required. >> Thank you, >> Madam Secretary. Good afternoon, Congressman.
[3:24:19]>> Thank you for your patience today. Uh, as we've discussed today, you served in a variety of official roles from 1993 to 2013, first lady, senator from New York,
[3:24:31]Secretary of State. During your time in any of these positions, did you have responsibility for the investigation or the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein?
[3:24:42]>> I did not. >> During your time in these positions, were you ever involved in any investigation or prosecution of Jeffrey Epste? I was not.
[3:24:52]>> Which agency, just given your experience and knowledge, what are some of the agencies or agencies that would have been involved or were involved in those kind of investigation and prosecutions?
[3:25:01]>> I don't know um personally, but just looking at the uh responsibilities of various agencies, it would be local,
[3:25:11]state, and federal law enforcement. And at the federal level, obviously the Department of Justice, it might well have been uh uh border control and other
[3:25:23]um FAA or TSA, other agencies that had anything to do with transportation. >> But in your experience, not first ladies, senators or secretaries of state.
[3:25:35]>> In my experience, none of the above. >> In any of your roles, did you ever seek to influence the governments? any level of government's activities, investigations or prosecutions related
[3:25:46]to Jeffrey Epste? >> I did not. >> Similarly, during your tenure in these positions, did you have responsibility for the investigation or prosecution of Galain Maxwell? >> I did not.
[3:25:58]>> Were you involved in the investigation or prosecution of Galain Maxwell? >> I was not. Thank you. >> During your tenure, did you ever seek to influence
[3:26:08]any level of government's investigation or prosecution of Galain Maxwell? >> I did not. >> Okay. One of the things that was discussed earlier was the conversation
[3:26:18]between Galain Maxwell and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch after which Gain Maxwell was transferred to a lower security, more comfortable prison
[3:26:30]situation. Are you familiar with that sequence of events? >> I have read about that. Yes. >> And when we this committee deposed Gain Maxwell, her attorney
[3:26:40]um requested a pardon on her behalf or rather stated that if she were pardoned, she would be at liberty to share more information with this committee and others. Are you familiar with that? Have
[3:26:51]you read about that? I read about that >> and the media has asked President Trump if he's considering a pardon, >> excuse me,
[3:26:59]>> of Gain Maxwell and he to date has not ruled out a pardon or clemency for Gain Maxwell and because we've talked with you today about your role as Secretary
[3:27:11]of State in trying to ensure that there are stronger policies, laws, protections to prevent sex trafficking. ing, child
[3:27:22]trafficking, human trafficking. I just want to ask you from your perspective, what signal would it send to those in the United States or around the world
[3:27:32]who might want to engage in those crimes if somebody convicted of those crimes were pardoned by the president of the United States? >> I think it would send absolutely the wrong signal. In your experience, I'll ask again, do
[3:27:48]first ladies or secretaries of state or senators oversee or involved in specific sex trafficking investigations?
[3:27:58]>> No. As I said earlier, Congressman, the Secretary of State has a responsibility
[3:28:04]to try to use diplomatic uh authority uh the power of sanctions to convince other countries to improve their laws and
[3:28:15]enforce them. In your opinion, uh, and and you've maybe touched on some of this, who should this committee be speaking to if we wanted more
[3:28:24]information on specific federal sex trafficking in investigations, previous, current, future? I think the Department of Justice, which is the
[3:28:35]primary law enforcement uh agency of our government, uh and perhaps some of the uh individual US attorneys and attorneys
[3:28:45]general uh that might have units devoted to trying to uh prevent and prosecute um human trafficking.
[3:28:54]>> Thank you. That's all I have. And we can go off the record. All right, we will go on the record. It
[3:29:12]is uh 4:17 in the afternoon. Uh Mr. Burlson has a few questions for you. >> So, I'm going to begin with some light-hearted different questions. Um
[3:29:23]and you're welcome to ignore them or if you want to, but um while I have you here, I just have to ask. So when your when your husband was president, um that is Lawrence Rockefeller had an effort to
[3:29:34]try to disclose UFOs, UAPs. Um when you were running for president, John Podesta publicly stated that you would disclose
[3:29:44]these files with if given the chance if you had been president. Um are you pleased to see that these files may be disclosed finally? >> I am pleased. As I say, I think they
[3:29:55]have to be carefully scrutinized so that no national security information is disclosed, but this is an issue of real
[3:30:06]importance to so many people and I I think whatever can be disclosed should be disclosed. >> Was there a program that that specifically that that was referencing
[3:30:16]that you were aware of? I I was not as you mentioned John Podesta who was one of my adviserss was uh deeply uh interested in the issue and
[3:30:28]if I had been elected I certainly would have listened to his advice. >> Well, thank you for indulgence on that. Um, as you know, um, Alexander Aosta,
[3:30:38]um, who, um, gave Epstein the 2009 plea deal, he said whenever he was asked that he belonged to intelligence and to leave
[3:30:47]it alone. Um, were you and I think you've answered this before, but if you could answer more directly, were you or anyone in the Obama administration through your role in the State
[3:30:58]Department or even afterwards in the Clinton Foundation ever briefed on Epstein having any US intelligence ties? >> I was not. >> Were you ever briefed of him having any
[3:31:08]foreign intelligence ties? >> I was not. >> Okay. Um Epstein filed a foyer request in 2011 seeking any CIA records about
[3:31:19]himself. That would have been during your time as Secretary of State. Um through so through your role were you made aware of that foyer request? >> I was not. >> Okay. Um
[3:31:31]>> was it ever responded to? >> That's a good question. >> I know nothing about it. >> Um in they typically they haven't responded to us on our foyer request.
[3:31:42]Um, in 2014, Epstein met with William Burns, um, who was then a senior State Department official, um, and later a CIA director. Um, >> excuse me, could you say what year that was again?
[3:31:54]>> In 2014. >> In 2014, he met with William Burns. >> Epstein met with William Burns. >> Um, as the as Secretary of State at that time, were you aware of that meeting?
[3:32:05]>> I wasn't Secretary of State in 2014. >> Okay. Were you aware of of the meeting, Mr. Okay. And and finally, um, Galileain Maxwell's
[3:32:16]father was Robert Maxwell, who was widely reported as being MSAD or MI6 intelligence asset. Um, did did in in any of your conversations with Maxwell
[3:32:27]or people connected to her, did did they ever mention Robert Maxwell's intelligence background or any ongoing foreign or domestic intelligence connections through your conversations or interactions?
[3:32:38]>> I I have never uh talk to anybody about whether that is true or not. I don't know. >> Um
[3:32:49]in Were you aware that when uh Maxwell attended your wedding, she was skipping a court-ordered deposition in the Epstein victim's civil lawsuit? >> Excuse me. Do you mean her wedding or do you mean her daughter's wedding?
[3:33:00]>> Her your daughter's I'm sorry. When she when she attended your daughter's wedding, were you aware that she was skipping a court ordered? >> I I had no idea. I don't know anything about that. >> Is this the first time you're hearing that?
[3:33:12]>> It is the first time I'm hearing that. >> Um but at the time she was going through that investigation. >> I knew nothing about it. Um at the time and so I can't respond.
[3:33:22]>> Okay. Um later Chelsea vacationed with Maxwell in 2009 and reportedly remain >> that was before the wedding. >> She vac Yeah. Okay. Before that she
[3:33:32]vacationed 2009, was reportedly friendly with her. Um, are you aware what was the nature of that relationship? >> I think you've described it. It was a friendly relationship.
[3:33:43]>> Is it safe to say that she was closer to Gain Maxwell than than you were? >> I had very little contact with Gain Maxwell. So, I can't speak to anybody
[3:33:53]else's relationship, only my own. >> But but you it's safe to say that she was closer. >> I'm not going to characterize it because I don't know. >> Okay. Um
[3:34:02]Chelsea was also in attendance at the at the wedding in Morocco um in 2002. Um it's also been documented Epstein was
[3:34:11]there as well as Maxwell. Um did at that time she would have been 21 maybe 22 years old. Do you have any concerns or have you asked your daughter about any
[3:34:22]any maybe potential inappropriate? These questions about concerns that predate the charges and plea uh pleas of uh
[3:34:33]Epstein are very hard to answer because people did not know >> at the time >> at the time and you know all the questions about you know the contribution to the joint committee people didn't know I mean right and so
[3:34:45]>> in retrospect nobody would have had any uh you know uh contact uh with someone like that and you know those people who continued to
[3:34:56]have contact with him after he plead guilty um are in a different group because >> that happened and they still maintain contact with him. I think we're all
[3:35:07]experiencing that where we're where we're having a revelation of what we didn't know at the time, but in reflecting back um certainly it's appropriate to ask questions. And so my
[3:35:18]question is did knowing what happened at that time, have you had a conversation with her? Was there any inappropriate activity during that time? >> You know, at the time nothing was known
[3:35:30]and nothing unourred occurred and then there was no further contact with him. So I can't really uh speculate about uh about that further.
[3:35:40]>> Um you know we can all agree I think that Jeffrey Epste was a monster um that he was empowered or enabled by Gain Maxwell. I think we we can all agree
[3:35:51]with that. Correct. >> I can't characterize their relationship. I think you can agree that he committed crimes. He was not fully held accountable for them, which could have
[3:36:02]stopped his predatory practices perhaps that continued for quite some time afterwards. And then he was finally indicted for serious crimes and he was
[3:36:12]in prison and then he mysteriously died. And with with her um she was, you know, finally uh indicted, tried and convicted. And I think you have to look
[3:36:24]at it in the chronological way in which it unfolded. >> Yeah. I think that there's varying degrees of culpability. She was certainly going beyond just being silent in her knowledge about the horrible acts
[3:36:35]that he was doing, but she was actually enabling it. >> That's what she was convicted of. >> That's right. Um, but if she had not been enabling, if she had not been taken those steps, if she had just been silent,
[3:36:47]>> are you asking her to speculate? >> I'm asking, would you would you agree that she would be culpable as well, just in her silence? I have no information about that, so I'm not going to speculate.
[3:36:58]>> Okay. Um All right. With that, I I'm I'm done. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next is uh repres >> could I This is sort of like off
[3:37:09]subject, but didn't you all require in the latest uh defense authorization that the UFO information has to >> What? >> They ripped it out. They killed it.
[3:37:21]>> Oh, I thought that had gone through. That was my amendment and it got ripped out. >> Oh, okay. Well, you've just you I didn't know that. So, thank you for enlightening me. Okay. >> Yeah, they've been killing us. >> I didn't know that.
[3:37:32]>> Next up's Representative Perry from Pennsylvania. >> Good afternoon, Madam Secretary.
[3:37:50]>> Good afternoon. live in a particularly beautiful part of the country. >> Thank you. >> Good for you. >> It's very pretty up here. >> Um, Madam Secretary, once it was
[3:37:59]revealed publicly that you and President Clinton were connected, I'm going to use that term, uh, to Jeffrey Epstein and Gain Maxwell, did you discuss the
[3:38:10]subject with your daughter? I'm, you know, not going to, you know, talk about what I did or didn't discuss with family members, but I can tell you
[3:38:20]that it uh was something that was of grave concern to us. >> I imagine it was, and I know that you're I I'd imag Look Look, I think we could probably get a long way here if we could
[3:38:31]discuss or have a view into your discussion with your husband. I suspect you're going to object to that. >> You're right, Congressman. Thank you for But it seems like these are reasonable
[3:38:41]questions. Did your Did your daughter discuss it with you? >> I Well, we were horrified by what was later uh >> horrified in what way? We were all horrified of what we learned about
[3:38:53]Jeffrey Epstein, Galileain Maxwell, the victims, >> right? But but >> right >> did you discuss with your daughter when you say you were horrified the the
[3:39:04]connection with her father and this Epstein episode? >> My husband's connection with Jeffrey Epstein
[3:39:14]began and ended before he was charged with >> I get that. But I >> and so in retrospect, we all say, "Oh my gosh, that was like horrific and why
[3:39:25]didn't more people know and why didn't more people speak out at the time?" But I think the chronology is critically important. If we were talking about post
[3:39:37]crime that there was a continuing connection with him, that would be unacceptable, right? >> But it ended before he was charged. I I
[3:39:48]understand that, which is why I particularly said once it was revealed publicly, I get that continuing to be involved with someone like that after it was knowledgeable to everyone would be
[3:40:00]almost an unforgivable sin. However, I'm married, too. Not as long as you, ma'am, but there would be questions in my
[3:40:09]family. Even if it went back before we were married, there would be questions. And so I'm I'm I'm I don't interrupt you, but I don't understand the question.
[3:40:19]>> So my question is, did your daughter discuss it with you? That was my particular question. >> I think I can't recollect any specific conversation, but of course we discussed
[3:40:29]the horrific crimes that he was accused of. >> But nothing about her father's connection to it. >> Her father's connection began and ended. >> Okay.
[3:40:40]>> Before he was charged with crimes. Did your daughter ever mention to you that she discussed this matter with her father?
[3:40:50]>> I don't recollect that. >> Did you see the photos of your husband with young girls related to Jeffrey Epste? >> I saw the few photos that my lawyers showed me.
[3:41:01]>> Did you also see the photos of your husband with Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell? >> I have seen such photos. >> They're they're out there, right? Yes, I >> imagine you're familiar, but I just want
[3:41:12]to make sure. >> Since seeing these photos, have any questions about the content, locations, general circumstances come to your mind?
[3:41:22]>> No. That it was unfortunate that he ever, you know, did anything with Jeffrey Epste. >> There was no curiosity. >> Excuse me. Are you asking um for an
[3:41:33]opinion or is there a fact that she can share with you that would be helpful? Well, I did say were there any questions? >> So, if I saw I'll give you an example. If I saw a picture with my wife,
[3:41:44]>> it's just really hard to be relevant. If my wife saw pictures with me as a grown man hanging out with obviously or close to
[3:41:54]underage women, regardless if it was before we were married or not, it would be a question. And so what I'm asking you is did any questions regarding those
[3:42:05]photographs come to your mind? I am going to uh just as clearly as I can state say I don't see the relevance of your question and I am not going to
[3:42:17]talk about conversations that I had with my uh family especially my husband >> and for clarity is the are you all
[3:42:27]asserting spousal privilege >> for clarity we're looking for the relevance of her conversations with her husband and what she might have thought about her conversations with the custo
[3:42:38]how does that help further the legislative purpose of this committee as they investigate >> the prosecution and investigations of Jeffrey Epstein >> I think Mr. Perry's questions directly
[3:42:50]relate >> to her daughter to what my state of mind her state of mind what possible relevance does my state of mind have to your investigation >> I believe Mr. Perry's questions and Mr.
[3:43:01]Perry can step in if you would like are directly related to her relationships >> with her husband >> with Mr. Epstein and Miss Maxwell and
[3:43:10]her opinions as it relates to relation opinions. I >> I am not here to give opinions. I'm here to answer factual questions and I have answered okay
[3:43:20]>> for many hours now that I had no relationship because I never met the guy to my best recollection >> and I'm not implying and you shouldn't
[3:43:29]avere that I've made that connection I'm not implying that okay >> you're still married Madam Secretary still married correct okay
[3:43:39]>> can you identify the man in these photos >> uh I can't see them across the table >> let me give him a So, just for the record, you would like
[3:43:53]her to identify pictures of her spouse. >> You need her here to testify on pictures of her spouse, >> the 42nd president of the United States of America. That's uh that is my uh husband.
[3:44:08]>> Okay. How about the location? >> I have no knowledge of the location. I have no context for the location. And I know nothing about the location. >> If if you were informed that that's on Mr. Epstein's plane that
[3:44:20]>> Would you like her to speculate based on your >> No, no. I ma'am, if you'd let me ask the question. If you were informed that was on Mr. Epstein's plane that is
[3:44:31]known to have frequented not only the island but other locations where sexual abuse, horrific se sexual abuse occurred.
[3:44:40]Would you have any questions about those photos and who's in them? >> Objection. Calls for speculation. States facts, not in evidence. Uh, you can I'm
[3:44:51]not instruct you not to answer. >> Well, no. I I I I'm not going to speculate. I'm not going to. >> Do you know the names of any of the young girls in those photos with your >> faces are blacked out, Congressman?
[3:45:01]>> I I understand that. I'm But the photos are out there. >> But are you saying she should be able to know who indiv I think what I'm saying is is that >> the photos are >> what I'm saying is that in a normal
[3:45:13]relationship you would probably ask the person that you're sleeping with who that person in the photo is. >> There was so many things that I would just like that to stay I'd like that to
[3:45:24]stay on the record. Thank you. >> Question of which you could give a factual answer >> would be helpful. >> Are you aware of a single misstatement of fact from any person who you know or
[3:45:34]believe to be an Epstein victim? I am got no uh knowledge of all the statements of fact that >> so at this point the answer would be no. I
[3:45:45]>> I don't know. I have no way of knowing. >> Please don't mischaracterize her statements. >> Are you aware that your husband's name is noted multiple times in the just Jeff
[3:45:56]Jeffrey Epstein flight logs. >> I I think everyone knows that he flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane as did many other people including Donald Trump.
[3:46:06]>> Understood. understood. I don't know about that last one, but did you ever discuss that fact with anyone or any organization that your husband's name
[3:46:17]appeared on the flight logs? >> I don't recall. I mean, I've talked about it with my lawyers and and others assisting in my preparation, but I I can't recall specifics.
[3:46:28]>> Are you aware of trips made by your husband on Jeffrey Epstein's numerous helicopters, whether piloted by Galain Maxwell or anyone else? >> Objection. States facts, not in evidence. >> I've never heard that.
[3:46:39]>> Are you aware of the allegation? >> No, I was not. >> You the allegation does exist in the record. >> Is that something you're curious about? M
[3:46:48]>> I I have no awareness of it. >> Questions are complete. Thank you, ma'am. >> Next question is Miss Boowbert from Colorado. Miss Clinton, Madam Secretary, um, while
[3:47:16]we said on the record today, are you under oath? >> I am. >> Okay. Have you ever lied while being under oath? >> I have not. >> Have you ever lied in a deposition? >> I have not.
[3:47:28]>> Okay. Thank you. Have you ever transmitted any information to Epstein or Galain Maxwell about the United States government? >> I have not.
[3:47:38]>> Um, as been has been mentioned many times here today, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane at least 26 times, multiple international trips um from 2002 to 2003, often with Maxwell. Uh,
[3:47:50]when and how did you first learn of these trips and did you um discuss them or review them with him prior to taking the trips? It's a compound question. I'm going to object to the la latter part of
[3:48:00]it and instruct her not to answer on the grounds of >> when and how did you learn of these first trips >> of these trips? >> I I don't recall uh how I learned about
[3:48:09]them. I knew that he was traveling uh on a number of different planes owned by a number of different people and I don't recollect having conversations about the
[3:48:20]planes. We talked about the work. We talked about the meetings that he had. We talked about his efforts to try to persuade uh countries to invest in
[3:48:31]lowcost agenc. >> I did not. I don't have any recollection of that. >> Uh Mr. Clinton, uh when did you first learn that your husband was spending
[3:48:40]time extensively with a registered sex offender? He did not after he was he was convicted years after Bill stopped having any.
[3:48:51]>> Were Were there any activities that raised any red flags to think that he could be charged of sex crimes during the time? >> Are you asking if he has awareness? >> Yes. >> Of Jeffrey Epstein?
[3:49:02]>> Of of any red flags being brought to your awareness to your family's awareness while your husband was spending time with Jeffrey Epstein? I I have no recollection of anyone bringing
[3:49:13]any red flags to me. >> Um, so if have any of the victims uh in of Epstein or Maxwell ever reached out
[3:49:24]to you in any way? >> I don't recall that. >> For you do not recall any reason a victim may have reached out to you or your council? Excuse me. question was
[3:49:36]whether or not any victim reached out to her and she said she did not have an awareness of that. >> Moving on, Miss Clinton, are you aware of anyone ever telling your husband that they had damaging information about him
[3:49:47]that they would release? >> I have no awareness of that. >> Did Epstein ever ask you or Mr. Clinton for any favors of any kind? >> I never talked to Jeffrey Epstein.
[3:49:57]>> Did Maxwell ever ask you or Mr. Clinton for favors of any kind? She did not ask me. >> Did Epstein have any connection to or association with the Clinton Foundation?
[3:50:09]>> Um, there's been the allegation that he did, but I don't have any uh factual uh basis for knowing one way or the other. >> Okay. And we have discussed today uh the
[3:50:18]small amounts um donated um historically um and the $20,000 to the uh to your campaign, the 1999 Senate campaign, $25,000
[3:50:30]um via affiliate You state for the record it was not to the campaign. So if you wouldn't mind just stating >> $20,000 to Hillary's 1999 Senate campaign. >> It was a joint >> stateint campaign.
[3:50:42]>> Joint campaign. Okay. >> Sure. >> Fine. >> Um Okay. So we have talked about those connections. Um, in past public statements, um, as in 2017 speeches and
[3:50:52]interviews, you described, uh, Pizza Gate as a baseless conspiracy theory alleging you and others ran a child sex trafficking ring from a Washington
[3:51:01]pizzer pizzeria basement. Have you reviewed any 2025 2026 Epstein files that were released that you believe
[3:51:10]reference or relate to those specific 2016 claims regarding the Podesta emails comet ping pong pizza used as code possibly. >> I'm sorry.
[3:51:22]>> You're asking her about whether she's reviewed emails in files which relate to the wacky pizza gate scam. >> You could characterize it however you want. I just would like to know if she's
[3:51:32]familiar with any of them. >> Your question is about whether or not she has reviewed any emails in the Epstein release files about >> Pizzagate.
[3:51:43]>> Correct. >> Pizzagate was totally made up. It was an outrageous allegation that ended up
[3:51:53]hurting a number of people that caused a deranged young man to show up with his assault rifle and shoot up a local pizzeria.
[3:52:03]I can't believe you're even referencing it. You should be >> there. There are connections to the the language. >> All the Qanon people believe there are. So
[3:52:13]>> I don't know what people believe at it. Um, but you've accused certain parties and I I think even right now today of um uh promoting uh slow walking or
[3:52:23]information um in ways that fuels conspiracies. In your view, did any Epstein Maxwell related investigations
[3:52:32]or file handling pre or post 2019 contribute to or intersect with the spread of Pizzagate style theories about
[3:52:43]Democrat figures? >> Objection. I have no way of answering. That is the most speculation ridiculously. >> Have you or your representatives identified any Epstein file content that
[3:52:55]has been misinterpreted online to revive those claims? And what steps, if any, have you taken to clarify? >> Again, object the ground of
[3:53:06]>> I think that this is all very reasonable. Well, first of all, I don't follow the crazy conspiracy
[3:53:15]stories that are online. I regret that anybody does. I find it quite sad, but also disturbing that people would believe some of what is put forth like
[3:53:27]pizza gate. So, I have taken no steps to review anything that might have any connection to something which I think is
[3:53:37]totally bogus. >> John Podesta, your 2016 campaign chair, appears in some Epstein file context, um, social overlaps or mentions. Uh,
[3:53:48]were you aware of any of the Podest Podesta related communications in the released files? Can you please provide examples or the evidence that you would like us to review or the exhibits that
[3:54:00]reflect that in order to be able to >> I can get some exhibit to that when you provide those? >> I I will get those and I will skip that question until generally if she's aware.
[3:54:12]>> Generally, she is asking if she's aware of specific information that is in the files that you all are relying on. Please provide the witness with copies of that material. >> Doesn't know or has no recollection, she's welcome to state. So,
[3:54:22]>> we're also welcome to actually see the information that you're speaking to. >> Again, the representative is asking general general question. >> I mean, really, I mean, I expected a lot of interesting questions today, but
[3:54:31]Pizzagate was not on my list. >> That's okay. We're asking all sorts of things here. >> You certainly are. You certainly are. >> We're We're just trying to get the truth out to the American people.
[3:54:42]>> Very helpful. Um, are you aware of any files um that were on Anthony Weiner's laptop um in a folder that was titled in uh insurance
[3:54:54]life insurance um with a um zip file titled Frapple, right? Like a chairman's ruling in the scope. Is this within the scope, Mr. Chairman?
[3:55:05]>> Chairman rules that it's not within the scope. >> Mr. Chairman, based on what you said in the public hearing, is this within the scope? >> We can go off your record for a moment. >> Mr. Chairman, is this within the scope?
[3:55:14]>> Go off the record and consult. >> We'll go back on the record.
[3:55:27]>> Madam Clinton, uh, you have stated that you do not recall meeting Jeffrey Epste and have no links to him. Have you reviewed any photos, emails or records from the released Epstein files that
[3:55:37]might refresh your recollection um of any encounter, event or introduction involving him? >> Excuse me. Before you are stating that with respect to her an interview or with respect to what she has stated here
[3:55:49]today? >> I I'm asking in general, has anything that you have viewed since the release of the Epstein files brought any sort of recollection of an encounter with
[3:56:00]Epstein? Not that I recall. >> You acknowledged meeting Gla Maxwell on a few occasions in connection with the Clinton Global Initiative. Please
[3:56:10]describe >> each meeting in detail. >> I did not. I said that uh actually in response to a question um which posited
[3:56:22]that she had come to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013. I stated I did not have any involvement in that and I do not recall seeing her
[3:56:31]there but uh I have seen photos that she has been there and in 2013 she was very active promoting this ocean uh work that
[3:56:42]she was doing and apparently everybody from the UN to CNN to the TED talk people thought it was worth giving her a platform.
[3:56:53]Madam Clinton, uh, one of the jobs you did for the CGI, uh, was, um, helping, um, and maybe even directing, uh, the planning of the annual meetings. Is that correct?
[3:57:04]>> No, I the staff plans the annual meeting and they make a report and we offer suggestions. >> Uh, in 2013, Maxwell was recognized um,
[3:57:14]a a committed to action leader. She she made a commitment in 2013 along with hundreds maybe thousands of other people.
[3:57:24]>> So I find it notable um that in 2011 uh Doug Band uh says that he directed the Clinton Foundation staff to bar Maxwell
[3:57:33]from receiving an invite to CGI or uh the Clinton Foundation events. Uh, I would like to know um who um who
[3:57:42]overruled uh Doug um B's suggestion to bar M based on hearsay states facts not in evidence. You can ask the witness if she knows anything about that.
[3:57:53]>> I know nothing about that. Um >> Miss Bober, the federal rules of evidence don't apply in depositions with me with with >> That's f I don't know anything about it.
[3:58:03]>> Okay. Um and so would you also not um have any indication um that who she was personally recommended by to receive such a >> I was secretary of state. I was not
[3:58:15]involved with the CGI planning or operation. >> Your husband presented that award or is that true? >> I have no idea. >> Okay. Um and then um just a couple of uh
[3:58:26]of more questions. Um so re regarding the Epstein files um there are many files where Jeffrey Epstein seems to speak as though he does know you
[3:58:35]personally. Um in in one file um EFTA 00657115 um Mr. Epstein um is is commenting and
[3:58:51]um he quotes, "Hey, Hillary Clinton is much prettier in person." This was Tuesday, September 20th, 2011. And then another >> Congress,
[3:59:02]>> I'm not going to object to that. >> Congress, can we see the documents because we don't think the >> we don't think the documents, not that
[3:59:14]you're not pretty say that >> Jeffrey Epste has also commented that >> um meetings with Hillary are not easily discreet. Has he ever connected someone
[3:59:25]to meet with you? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. I'm going to let my colleagues ask some questions and maybe I'll be back. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I'm going to let staff
[3:59:35]>> um Secretary Clinton, just to circle back on a few things. Um you mentioned that your daughter Chelsea had a friendly
[3:59:47]relationship. Is that correct? With Miss Maxwell? >> I believe so. And um did Chelsea tell you what made the relationship friendly?
[3:59:58]>> Again, it was through Ted Wade, the longtime friend of uh ours. That's that's how you know I certainly uh met uh met her.
[4:00:10]>> So Chelsea met Ghislaine Maxwell through Ted Weight as well. >> I believe that's right. And I believe you testified earlier Ted Weight's been a family friend for like 30 years or something to that effect.
[4:00:22]>> Early 90s. Yes. >> And um having a friend that long you never discussed Miss Maxwell with Mr. Wait. >> My I I don't don't discuss the
[4:00:32]relationships of my friends. That's up to them. >> And so to be clear, you you never discussed Miss Maxwell's relationship with Mr. Weight with Mr. Weight.
[4:00:42]>> Not that I recall. you know, shortly as my my memory is that shortly after the wedding on July 31st,
[4:00:51]2010. Shortly after that, they broke up. And shortly after that, he married somebody else. I know nothing about the
[4:01:01]relationship. I'm just describing what I believe was the chronology. >> Understood. And um upon that breakup, as you said, Mr. Wait never said anything to the effect of why they broke up. He
[4:01:12]not to me. He didn't. >> Um, circling the 2013 CGI annual conference has been brought up uh on a few occasions today. >> Yes, indeed.
[4:01:24]>> Um, I believe you said you did not remember seeing Miss Maxwell there. Is that correct? >> I do not recall seeing her there. >> And you had no interaction with her at all? >> Not that I recall.
[4:01:35]Uh, after this um 2013 annual conference of CGI, did anyone raise any concerns to you about Miss Maxwell being there?
[4:01:46]>> Not that I recall. >> Did, separate from just the 2013 event, did Mr. Band ever raise concerns about Miss
[4:01:56]Maxwell to you? >> Not that I recall. And again, just to clarify, did Mr. Band
[4:02:09]ever attempt to blacklist Miss Maxwell from any Clinton Foundation or CGI events? >> Not that I know of, but I I can't say that I would have known.
[4:02:19]>> When did Mr. Band um leave the foundation? >> I don't know. >> I don't know.
[4:02:30]>> Does 2012 sound possible? Not I'm not going to she's answer the witness answered the question. >> It was dur if it was during my time as secretary of state I I wouldn't have any
[4:02:41]reason to know who would have final decisions over the
[4:02:54]um list of individuals or entities that would get recognized at a CGI event. >> It was a staff decision. Um, if the staff made the decision, would
[4:03:06]the board have any input on that? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> They might make suggestions as to people that should be contacted or followed up
[4:03:17]with, but I don't know specifically and I certainly don't know anything about uh about her uh involvement. >> Understood. And suggestions, what type of
[4:03:28]suggestions would they make on individuals or entities? Oh, they might say, you know, this person's doing great work on affordable housing or this person has done some really exciting uh,
[4:03:40]you know, hygiene work trying to improve the well-being of people in some countries. It would be things like that. So, maybe invite this person because we can maybe introduce this person to
[4:03:51]somebody who's interested in doing the same kind of work and maybe they can make a commitment together. Are you aware of President Clinton having a lunch or other type of meal
[4:04:03]with Miss Maxwell in 2014? >> I I don't recall knowing that. >> Have you since been made aware of that fact?
[4:04:14]>> Yes, I have been. >> And was that in preparation for this deposition? >> It was. Are you aware of any other more recent
[4:04:26]meetings between Miss Maxwell and any members of your family? >> I am not. >> Does the Clinton Foundation often use
[4:04:45]jets of other individuals for foundation business? >> Yes. And that is still a common practice today. >> I don't know how common it is, but it it has been in the past.
[4:04:56]>> And um were there any other type of aircrafts that you are aware of President Clinton traveling on with Mr. Epstein?
[4:05:06]>> I am not aware of any other. >> Secretary Clinton. Um do you know who
[4:05:16]Nicholas Sarosi is? >> I do. is a former president of France. >> And do you recall when he was president of France? >> He was president while I was secretary
[4:05:27]of state, but I don't know, you know, the his actual years of term. I'm going to introduce as majority
[4:05:48]exhibit 17 an email from the Department of Justice's release of Epstein related files. Give us one second. We will provide that to you all.
[4:06:00]>> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Also, while we have a break, I think that Congressman Perry, you wound up with at least three of your pages here. >> Two.
[4:06:10]>> Yeah, that's true. Here. So, I want to give them back to you because they may have notes or something. >> Sure. >> Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
[4:06:30]>> Thank you. >> Um, Secretary Clinton, this is a email.
[4:06:40]The top of the page says to um a Oliver Colom. I will stipulate to you that he was an adviser to President Sarcoi. Um
[4:06:50]it is bait stamped EFTA 01949592. Um the original email here is from Mr.
[4:07:02]Colom and he asked could you organize a discrete meeting between Sarco and Hillary Clinton in New York? If not, who should we ask? Mr. Epstein replies, "Meetings with Hillary are not easily
[4:07:13]discreet when um we started to touch on this earlier. Are you aware of Mr. Epstein or any of his staff reaching out to anyone on your staff to set up a
[4:07:24]meeting?" >> I am not aware. And I I find it kind of uh weird because I know Sarcoi he would not have needed if
[4:07:36]if you know somebody was seeking a meeting with me and Sarosi he would not have needed to go through anybody else. He could have contacted me directly. >> Understood. >> And just to be clear um have you seen
[4:07:52]this email exchange previously? >> Yes. And that was in preparation for today's deposition. >> Yes. >> But no prior awareness of this.
[4:08:01]>> None whatsoever. >> Did Mr. Epstein or any of his agents
[4:08:15]attempt to set up any other meetings with you? >> Not that I know of, but I have no idea what they thought they were trying to uh do. Um, Secretary Clinton, um, we've touched
[4:08:39]on this a little bit, but just to make sure the record is totally clear here. You have said that you have never been to Mr. Epstein's island. Is that
[4:08:48]correct? >> I am so tired of answering that question. If you have one centilla of evidence to the contrary, put it
[4:08:57]forward. I have never been on his island. Period. I've never been in his homes, his offices, his anything. I don't know how many times you have to
[4:09:09]say the same thing over and over and over again. And I just am struggling with the relevance of all of this. But no, I never have been. >> And based off that response, I would
[4:09:21]include you've never been to Mr. Epstein's Manhattan town home. >> I have not. >> His New Mexico ranch. >> No, I have not. >> His Palm Beach residence? >> No, I have not. >> His Paris apartment.
[4:09:32]>> Didn't know he had one. Haven't been there. You know, I also find it very
[4:09:51]interesting because I went back and looked at the transcripts of all of your other depositions and none of the Republicans asked a single
[4:10:07]question to any witness about Jeffrey Epstein. or any question that would help provide answers for his victims to any of the
[4:10:18]people you deposed. In fact, the only questions that were asked were asked by the chairman to attorney general bar. And what were they about? They weren't
[4:10:30]about Jeffrey Epstein. They weren't about Gain Maxwell. They weren't about victims and survivors. They were. General Bar, I may jump in for a couple
[4:10:40]of questions. Were you aware of the involvement of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign in the Russian collusion investigation involving President Trump? >> A deposition of Miss Clinton? I'm
[4:10:52]>> Well, I'm just saying you have kept me here for hours asking the same questions over and over again. >> I've given the same answers over and over again. Not a single Republican at
[4:11:03]any of your depositions has asked a question about Epstein or Maxwell. And it does seem to me that if the members were truly interested in getting to the
[4:11:12]truth, you would have asked Bara Wexner. You didn't even show up at >> Secretary. I believe we are very close to finishing.
[4:11:22]>> Uh Madam Secretary, did Jeffrey Epstein ever request any meetings with your State Department officials? Not that I'm aware of. >> That's been asked and answered counsel.
[4:11:32]She says she's never talked to him. She said that repeatedly. >> Well, I guess they have to hear it over and over again for it to >> But I think I think you can rely on your
[4:11:42]>> Yeah, whatever. >> Did Miss Maxwell ever request any meetings between you and your State Department officials? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Are you aware of any communication
[4:11:55]between your State Department staff and Mr. Mr. Epste or Miss Maxwell? >> I am not. >> Yeah. Third and final round.
[4:12:10]>> This is my third and final round. That's that's for me. Okay. >> That should make you happy. You stated earlier it was false that Secret Service uh was dropped from some flights with President Clinton and Epstein. Correct. >> No, she did not say that.
[4:12:22]>> Who said that said that was false? >> Let the record reflect. Okay. So just for clarification, >> her husband has never signed off of Secret Service. That means anytime he is traveling >> or anytime he has gone anywhere. He has
[4:12:34]not signed off from Secret Service coverage, which means the Secret Service were with them. >> Okay. Did you know the Secret Service was foyed by Fox News.com in 2016 asking for this information and Secret Service
[4:12:45]refused to provide it? I have a document here uh which we can provide to you. the question that because they refused to provide it >> information to the press about flight logs because on a a five leg trip to
[4:12:55]Asia in 2016, it says from May 22nd to May 25th on a single secret service agent is listed on the flight logs and every other flight that he was on, they
[4:13:05]were listed on the flight logs. Um I had >> your question for the Secret Service or is your question for the secretary? >> Uh well, I I believe it was stated earlier that it was false. I'm clarifying that uh stated was false. Can
[4:13:17]we just make sure? Can you read back for the record so that you are actually stating the actual fact? >> I had stated earlier um this afternoon while we're uh burning time I suppose
[4:13:26]with the last final 10 minutes of this um it was about the Secret Service uh not traveling with Clinton. I asked a question about whether or not they traveled with President Clinton um at
[4:13:37]all times. And when I stated that they did not, I was I heard false. Uh we can get the transcript tomorrow, but this is a Fox News uh report that you all now have where it states that the Secret Service did not fly with President
[4:13:48]Clinton on all flight legs with with with him. So I wanted to clarify >> to be clarifi clarifying. You're saying that the Fox because Fox News reported that this that the Secret Service are lying.
[4:14:00]>> They weren't on the flight logs on a five-legg trip to Asia in 2002. >> I believe the secretary not for your testimony, Miss >> I'm not seeking to testify. I'm going to
[4:14:10]clarify that she's representing what the secretary said and that she's not representing it accurately. >> Okay, we can quibble over something else. Then uh earlier and I I don't know if this got did this get printed off
[4:14:21]earlier. This eight page uh interview with the victim 3501144. >> This article will be majority 18. >> Okay. So I have exhibit from majority
[4:14:32]19. >> I don't know if this got printed off. This is uh will be a document that I would like to enter as exhibit for majority. I guess what number are we on? >> 19.
[4:14:41]>> Um it is with victim 3501.144 and the document would be hyphen 032. I asked for to print it off earlier but I know that we've had issues with printing. Um
[4:14:51]>> go off the record for just a moment. >> Go off the >> We will go back on the record.
[4:15:01]>> All right. All right. So, this will be this will be the majority exhibit number n 19. And um you uh have not reviewed this docu. Have you seen this document before? >> I have never seen the document before. >> This is the first time you're ever
[4:15:12]seeing this document. Earlier today in my second round, I was asking questions and I uh made mention that about Clinton's Bill Clinton, President Clinton's visits to Epstein Island and
[4:15:23]that a possible cover up about those visits. And I was called a liar, I believe, by somebody on the other side of this table. And so I told you I don't think I did that um that I would provide this document and go over it with you.
[4:15:34]This is an interview by the FBI of an Epstein victim. It is 3501.144-032. And on page eight, which I'll I'll give
[4:15:45]back to you or I can read it to you. Um I'll give this back if you can uh read the last sentence. Would you please read? >> I I'm not interested in reading something. I have no idea what it is. If
[4:15:56]you want to read it, go right ahead. >> Okay, I'll read it. Um, I was called a liar over this. So, this particular victim stated on the record in an interview with the FBI, Epstein wanted Blank, the name of victim number one, to
[4:16:08]say that Blank, victim number two, was a liar and that President Bill Clinton was never on Epstein Island. So, I stated earlier for the record that uh Epstein
[4:16:18]directed victims to lie about your husband's visits to Epstein Island. I was called a liar. This is the document >> you were called that that is not accurate. The record will reflect in the court report. can read it back with respect to whether or not President
[4:16:30]Clinton had ever been on Epstein Island. If somebody had represented that, that would not be accurate. >> The uh I said that Jeffrey Epste this that Jeffrey Epstein directed this
[4:16:41]victim to uh state a lie about Bill Clinton never visiting the island. Now, on page seven for the record, which I know you've never seen, there's a fully redacted paragraph. And that fully redacted paragraph in the unredacted
[4:16:53]files of the DOJ DOJ, uh, reveal that President Clinton, they it redacts his name. And it also discusses notepads that the victim wrote down in phone
[4:17:04]calls with Jeffrey Epstein uh because she was told uh to lie about another victim and lie about Bill Clinton's visits to Epstein Island. I don't know why this information is redacted. And also the attachments in this file, by
[4:17:15]the way, there were notes. Uh you cannot see those at the DOJ. They are still redacted, which is the reason we're here today. We want to get to the bottom of this and get the truth. Um my next question is, um >> Excuse me. Was there a question?
[4:17:26]>> I'm making a statement. I want to know if she's ever seen this document before and she was aware. I was called a liar earlier. This victim was told by Jeffrey Epste. >> I just answering the question for the
[4:17:37]attorney. I have majority exhibit number 20 that I would like to enter into the record. Um, and this is a page 88 of a federal
[4:17:47]case between Virginia Guay and Delane Maxwell. On page 88, >> you hold one second. That's
[4:17:58]>> going to be 20. >> Yes, sir. >> You hold for one second, please. >> No, this is this is something else coming here. >> That That's 20. I think
[4:18:10]>> that's 20, right? He has in his hand 20. We are in your hand as >> the the other redacted page that we handed out was a cover page. >> A print out we got from the other document the handed you guys the exhibit
[4:18:21]19 she was talking about earlier. >> So we should be looking at exhibit 8 right now. Is that right? Not anything related to the other document. >> For the record it is labeled exhibit 20 in but the actual exhibit the actual
[4:18:32]document states exhibit 8 on the front status. >> That was just a cover page I had printed off just >> because these documents are hundreds of pages. I'm not an attorney. And just to be clear, it's a it's a
[4:18:43]single page of some exhibit to a court filing. And >> that's hundreds of pages long. >> There are two pages. >> Could you please represent for the record what court filing this is and what the title of the document is? >> This would be the Virginia Guay B.
[4:18:55]Maxwell federal lawsuit. It's case 115 CB07433- LAP. Uh filed on the 1st of January 2024. And it's page 88 of that documentation.
[4:19:06]>> The title of the filing. >> Um it's the lawsuit. Well, there are many. >> I don't have the cover page. I don't have the coverage. Is it document? >> You don't know what this is. Okay.
[4:19:17]>> Can we take a minute to read this, please? Thanks. >> This the first shaded paragraph I'm going to ask about. As much as we can just say
[4:19:49]>> for the record counselor and council, the document is a case in the southern United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
[4:20:00]>> um in Virginia Guay Juay be Gain Maxwell and I believe the congresswoman has already stated the case number that is listed at the top of the document.
[4:20:11]>> I was just asking what pleading it was. Is it the complaint? Is it discovery? I don't think the title of the document. >> This would be the defendant submission regarding search terms and notice of
[4:20:21]compliance with court order concerning forensic examination of devices. ready.
[4:20:36]>> Who's filed this document? Who who's who who is who is >> Ela Maxwell? >> Maxwell filed the document and it was
[4:20:47]>> objecting to to a search to to a discovery request. I I don't understand what >> Could you help us by providing some clarification D?
[4:20:56]That is the clarification that we have that this is her uh file her submission to the court regarding a forensic analysis. >> And by her, you mean Maxwell or Miss
[4:21:08]Maxwell's? >> Um again, it that is that is here. That is what this document is. >> Well, it's a single page of that
[4:21:18]document. >> Can we go off the record for a moment? We will go back on the record.
[4:21:30]May I ask a question? Okay. So, uh court filings, uh in this particular court filing, um it lists you amongst among 13 specific witnesses for whom Virginia was
[4:21:41]seeking all communications. There are no allegations against you. Um, but why do you believe you were included on this list with people like Prince Andrew, um, Alan Dersoit, Sydney Taylor, the Dubens,
[4:21:52]uh, Jean Lock, Brunell, Bill Clinton, and yourself? >> Objection. This calls for speculation. It's a partial document. Uh, the witness may answer if she can, but it's a list
[4:22:02]of names in a in a a search term description. >> I have no idea. >> Do you know did you know at any point that your comm your communications were sought after in this lawsuit?
[4:22:12]>> I know nothing about this. So, you were never made aware that your name was mentioned in this lawsuit. >> This first time I'm seeing this. >> No one's ever spoken to you about your name in a lawsuit?
[4:22:23]>> Not that I recall. Do you think this lawsuit? Excuse me. Yes. A lawsuit or this lawsuit? >> This lawsuit. >> Okay. Sorry. >> This lawsuit. >> So, do you think do you think your staff would tell you if you were named in a
[4:22:34]lawsuit? Would they would they brief you on it if you were being named in a public filing or in a lawsuit? >> I don't know what this means. I have no idea. Your communications were sought by
[4:22:44]Virginia Guay Roberts in her suit against uh Gilling Maxwell. >> No, no lawyers that I'm aware of ever contact. >> No one ever told you. >> No, >> you're never made aware of that. >> Not that I recall.
[4:22:55]>> Did you ever vet the wedding guests of your daughter's wedding? Did you know Ghislaine Maxwell was coming? >> She came as Ted Weight's guest. >> But did you you were a former first lady, former senator, former secretary of state. You didn't vet individuals at
[4:23:06]events for your daughter. This was filed when? >> So would it have been 2024? >> Yeah. Well, the wedding was 2010.
[4:23:17]>> I moved on to another question about um the wedding, but I know that the chairman wants to ask some questions. So, >> he's got a few more, then I'll ask the last question. >> Um, Secretary Clinton, thank you again
[4:23:28]for being here today. Um, I have one final question for you and then I will turn it over to the chairman. Would you say that being
[4:23:40]associated with powerful or influential influential individuals would give someone credibility and in this case Mr. Epste used that as credibility around the world?
[4:23:50]>> I have no idea what he did or did not do. >> Understood. >> Sure. Madam Secretary, what if if you're following this, and I'm sure you are, in
[4:24:00]in Britain with the arrest of Prince Andrew and the former ambassador to the uh British ambassador to the United States, they were arrested, it's my understanding, not for sex crimes, but
[4:24:12]for potential treason or potential uh violation of uh national security protocol. One of the things that a lot of people and and you may call it conspiracy
[4:24:23]theories or whatever, but I believe I've seen it on CNN, I've seen it on Fox, I've seen it in the Washington Post, the New York Times. There's a lot of speculation that he may have been an asset. And I know several questions have
[4:24:34]been asked about that today. And you've given a lot of advice for the committee on how we can move forward. And our objective is to get the transparency to the American people, to get the truth to
[4:24:46]the American people. And and by the documents being released, the the state documents that that we subpoenaed, uh, as well as the DOJ documents, we're
[4:24:55]already seeing many powerful men and women held accountable. So, I feel like this admin, this investigation is uh
[4:25:05]moving in the right direction. But but one of the things where we're stumped is is how do we determine whether or not Epstein was a spy? Whether or not
[4:25:15]Epstein was trading secrets because he had people on the on the inside uh especially in the Obama administration. We're not saying you, but uh the Obama's
[4:25:26]former counsel that that then went to U Goldman Sachs. What where do we go in this investigation to try to determine whether or not he was
[4:25:38]an asset? >> You know, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate that question and I can't say that about many of the questions, but I really do appreciate that question and I
[4:25:47]think it's an absolutely essential question for you to try to uh examine and find answers for. And I think you
[4:25:56]said that you had uh either document requests or uh maybe even a subpoena to the CIA. Um the I would also include the
[4:26:06]DNI. I would include um you know any uh counter inelligence or uh appropriate u
[4:26:16]unit within the justice department. I think you have to cast a wide net. And now that um as you described uh the
[4:26:25]government in the UK is investigating um both uh Andrew Mountbotton and uh Peter Mendelson. Maybe they would
[4:26:36]cooperate with you in their investigation and maybe you know you could reach out to the intelligence agencies of other countries that you're looking at. Israel has been mentioned
[4:26:48]perhaps that is one to be I don't think Iran is going to cooperate but I think or Russia but I think you could you know certainly go to the UK and go to Israel and see if they would be at all helpful to you
[4:26:59]>> in in your experience as Secretary of State and and I know you were first lady but you were more active in my opinion than most first ladies in
[4:27:09]in the President Clinton's administration. Does he exhibit characteristics? Is there a pattern that would lead you
[4:27:19]and your expertise to believe that he was an asset? >> Well, there certainly is in the files and and I I do commend you for getting as much released as you you can. I I
[4:27:31]hope you can get it all released. uh you know, hints of relationships with powerful foreign leaders, pictures, uh
[4:27:41]emails, meetings. Uh he he was clearly somebody who traded off of information. >> Exactly. >> He liked to collect it and then he liked
[4:27:52]to use it. I don't know any more details than that. So, uh, he is certainly I said earlier, you know, the intelligence
[4:28:02]connections, the money connections, the crimes, those seem to me to be the, you know, the three major elements of your investigation. >> And obviously, as the last question
[4:28:14]before my questions, he he wanted to make the appearance at least that he had friends in high places. and you've seen the emails that have been released and I
[4:28:25]know you've testified today that you've never met Epstein, but he's implied to people that he was very close to the Clintons. He's implied that he was very close with Donald Trump. He's implied that he was close with a lot of people
[4:28:37]who uh even uh Wexter denied that he was very close. I don't know how many of us uh believe that, but it's what he said
[4:28:45]under oath. And it it's uh it's just amazing to me and I think most Americans who are following this how this guy
[4:28:54]could have Prince Andrew, you know, a regular a frequent visitor, have people from from, you know, the Saudi royal family, people uh at the highest levels
[4:29:06]in in several administrations and and that's why we brought you in. we're just trying to get answers and and again I think that one of the big questions and it looks
[4:29:17]like that's the direction Britain's going is was he was he a spy? Was he committing treason in in any country? So that's why uh you know we would uh
[4:29:28]welcome any advice if you have any thoughts after after this or anything else. >> You know Mr. Chairman, I want you to get to the bottom of this to the best of your ability
[4:29:38]>> and you know I I'm more than happy to offer whatever insight I might have as you say about the you know the framework
[4:29:48]of this um and also about any further actions to take and uh on trafficking to strengthen our our response >> and and that that's one more question. I think we've got one minute left or three
[4:29:59]two minutes left. So, you obviously stated in your uh opening statement that you were involved uh with human trafficking and and trying to uh you
[4:30:09]know prevent that. With what you've seen in the files, would what Epstein was doing with those girls recruiting other girls to come in? Does that meet the
[4:30:20]legal definition of human trafficking or is it more of uh prostitution? Because one of the things that we want to do at the end of this investigation and I I think Miss Mace will play a big role in
[4:30:30]that and and Miss Luna and all the and Miss Simon and and all the members in both parties hopefully is trying to strengthen the human trafficking laws.
[4:30:41]And some people have suggested that based on what they've seen maybe some of that wouldn't have the government could have prosecuted him on human trafficking because it didn't meet the definition.
[4:30:53]Do you have anything to add? Well, I again I don't know all the specifics that you have um at your uh disposal, but I've also read in some of the press
[4:31:04]that he was importing women from other countries. >> I so I do think there's a distinction a distinction probably between what happened in the United States but also
[4:31:16]what he was doing in other countries. So I I I think but but really Mr. Chairman, you have to study this and and analyze
[4:31:26]it and then advise your other colleagues in the Congress, your colleagues in the administration about laws that need to be changed and strengthened and resources that should
[4:31:38]be directed because it it at the end of the day, girls and women were abused. whether they were abused through solicitation of prostitution and >> the lies and the
[4:31:49]>> promises that were made to these, you know, young women and that in itself is just despicable. But then a system that, you know, got
[4:32:00]close to customs agents, got close to local prosecutors. I mean, this man was a master manipulator, a con artist of
[4:32:10]the nth degree. And so anything you can do to try to understand the way he operated
[4:32:19]uh and and how he really misled and duped so many people >> into thinking that, you know, he was
[4:32:30]intelligent and he was, you know, interesting and everything they say about him in their uh in the emails that have come out. So that would be a great
[4:32:41]public service to try to really understand this and and to break it down into the different categories that you're looking at. >> Hopefully we can do that in a bipartisan
[4:32:51]manner. I believe >> we'll go off the record. Thank you. We can go back on the record. Ma'am, I
[4:33:09]just have one clarification. It was an email chain that I don't think was actually introduced as an exhibit, so I can't point you to it, but it related to Howard Lutnik and some kind of event at
[4:33:20]Caner Fitzgerald. I just wanted to ask our understanding of that email chain is that you were not on it. It was Lutnik to Grath to Epstein and and we don't believe that you were part of that email
[4:33:32]chain. Is that also your best understanding? >> That that that is my best understanding. >> Okay. Is there anything you would like to clarify or add to your testimony here
[4:33:43]today? Well, I I I want to underscore how
[4:33:54]uh important it is to try to get answers to all of the questions that everybody has about
[4:34:02]uh what uh happened and who did what and try to have some measure of both um
[4:34:11]public awareness and accountability. Um, so I've answered these questions to the best of my ability and I, you know,
[4:34:23]offered to the committee that if I can be helpful in any way, I would certainly be helpful because I think that uh these issues are important ones and
[4:34:34]they need to be addressed. >> And your answers today were to the best of your recollection. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> All right. I think with that, unless you
[4:34:44]have anything else you'd like to add, >> my my lawyers, anything that you think we should clarify or >> Okay, good. When do you think we will have a transcript?
[4:34:54]>> We can go off the record.