[0:00]man. She filed a police report the same day because he allegedly followed her in a park the week before. This is Scott Spivey killed, shot with a bullet in the back,
[0:11]shot at 17 times, not prosecuted by my attorney general. So, I'm going to ask you unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter those
[0:20]three images into uh the record. This is Welen Boyd. This is Scott Spivey's killer who shot him in the back and has never really been investigated or
[0:30]prosecuted for that killing in South Carolina. I would like to enter that into the record. Mr. Chairman, >> without objection to order. >> This is Logan Federico. She was executed
[0:40]a year ago, yesterday to the day, by a man named Alexander Dicki. Alexander Dicki was a convicted criminal. He had 39 arrests, 25 felony charges. He
[0:52]executed this beautiful 22-year-old daughter of Steven Federico in cold blood after stealing a gun. If her killer, Alexander Dicki, hadn't
[1:03]been let out by a rogue magistrate judge or a prosecutor solicitor that didn't care, she would be alive today. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter her image and her killer's image into the record.
[1:15]>> Without objection to order, >> I have another image. This is Eric Bowman. Eric Bowman beat his wife and has been alleged and is being investigated for other abuses against
[1:25]women and potentially underage girls. He was just let out free, Mr. Chairman, out of jail in South Carolina. He is a predator. I have reported him to law
[1:36]enforcement. He's being he's under investigation, but I have written bill after bill about predators like Eric Bowman, about voyerism, about these sort of criminal sexual allegations. I would like to enter his image into the record
[1:48]>> without objection to order. >> I have two more. C >> can can we get it? Your your time's expired, but I'll uh recognize you for a UC later on if because I want to make sure everybody stays within their their five minutes. Chair recognize Mr. Bell
[2:00]from Missouri. >> You know, first and foremost, I think uh we're doing a disservice uh to the victims in this case when we
[2:09]refer to it as the Epstein files. It's it's sex trafficking evidence and let's call it what it is. Um, and as a
[2:19]prosecutor, we prosecuted these kind of cases when I was DA back home in St. Louis County. And I met with every single victim and victim's family
[2:30]because I wanted them to know that I was here for them. and and and I thought it was important that that we look them in the eye and let them know that we're going to do everything we can to bring them justice and treat them with the
[2:42]dignity and respect that they deserve. And this is no different. Um, that said, I think in DC, what I've learned in my
[2:51]11 months here is that this DC disease that um of staying in this partisan bubble
[3:02]um is is something that you have to continue to um to be aware of so that you don't um fall into these same
[3:12]hypocritical traps. And I talked to Jamie Raskin because I just wanted to get some some perspective on the law. And when we talk about um
[3:24]the legal analysis, first and foremost, you can't read a statute. You learn this in constitutional law first day. You can't read a statute and understand the law. You have to understand how it's
[3:35]interpreted by the courts. And the courts have been clear that if there is if there is negotiations that does not
[3:44]meet the threshold for criminal contempt and this the the the examples are clear on that. When Steve Bannon was held in contempt, he did not negotiate. He did
[3:56]not reply. He did nothing. Meadows when he started to um reply then Trump told him not to and then he's he ceased with
[4:05]his communications with this body. And so the so in this case I agree 100% with our ranking member. I want to hear
[4:17]from the Clintons. I think the victims deserve we want to hear all the evidence. But what I know as a prosecutor is that we don't start doing depositions before we listen to the
[4:28]evidence. Now, if there's not evidence, okay, then there's other things to consider. But the evidence is here. There is evidence that has been that has
[4:39]been dually voted on to be presented to the American people by in a bipartisan manner. And we and of
[4:50]of of this of this evidence, we've received 1%. 1%. I mean, put this in perspective.
[5:00]There's 0%. And then the only thing you can do next is go to one. That's it. We've got nothing. And now we're doing and now we're going to bring the the
[5:09]Clintons in before we even have the evidence. That makes that that makes zero sense, which is close to the one that I talked about.
[5:19]And so there's a legal analysis here. There's about what are we doing to ensure that we are doing a a real investigation to get these victims the
[5:30]the the justice that they deserve. And so Gelain Max Gelain, whatever her name is, she needs to be brought into this body. And and I'm hearing that, oh well,
[5:41]she's going to plead the fifth. First of all, then let her. But secondly, legally on most of these questions, she can't plead the fifth on grounds that she's going to be incriminated. She's already
[5:52]a criminal. So what? So, so let's bring her in. Let's do those things. Let's bring in every single person. I don't care what they are, Democrat,
[6:02]Republican. And I've said this publicly, and my mother got on me about this. I don't care if my mother is in the is in the Epstein files. We need to see 100%
[6:11]of the Epstein files to ensure that we are doing doing right by these victims. The illegal analysis does not support
[6:22]criminal contempt. A real investigation, a fair bipartisan investigation would would lead us to the conclusion
[6:32]that we want to hear from the Clintons, that we want to hear from everyone. But right now, we don't even know who else is in the Epstein evidence
[6:43]because Pam Bond Bondi has not turned over that evidence. And that's the massive violation that we're seeing that
[6:52]my my my part my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't don't seem to have any urgency about the massive massive violation of the law. And Pam
[7:02]Bondi needs to be here to answer those questions. But that is like, oh well, we'll put it off. We'll get there. We're We're working with them. I'll yield the rem I'm sorry, ranking member.
[7:13]>> And before I recognize Mr. Gil, I I want to point out February 11th, Pam Bondi will be in front of the House Judiciary Committee. >> February 9th. >> February 9th, I'm sorry. February 9th.
[7:24]February 9th. >> February 9th is Miss Maxwell. >> Miss Maxwell. And uh Miss Max Yeah. February 9th, we're deposing Miss Maxwell. February
[7:35]11th, Pam Bondi will be in front of this committee. So, there's a lot of wheels moving right now. Chair recognized Mr. Gil from Texas. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I just think
[7:44]it's worth uh pointing out that the uh obvious reality here is that the Clintons are doing everything they possibly can to not come testify uh
[7:54]before the committee or have any uh real transcript uh or information about his engagement and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over a long period of time. I
[8:06]mean, we've been working for five months to nail down a date for a deposition, working in good faith in the entire time the Clintons have been evading this
[8:17]committee. At one point, even deciding that they were going to propose Christmas Day, Christ's birthday, as a date for a deposition. I mean, that's
[8:27]not good faith. At one point they proposed that instead of doing a deposition, they're going to have Chairman Comr and a staffer and a
[8:38]notetaker go up to New York New York City where they could create where they could ask Mr. Clinton questions and create two different sets of records
[8:49]about what Clinton said. That's obviously quite different than having an official court reporter
[8:59]precisely write down uh the words from the former president. Competing staff notes are simply not going to cut it. Um so we've spent 5 months working on this.
[9:09]It's about time that they comply with a lawful subpoena like many other people have. And there's some suggestion that we're selectively choosing who to enforce
[9:20]these subpoenas against. I mean, as you've pointed out, multiple times. Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House
[9:28]17 times. He flew at least 26 times on Epstein's private plane. There's a clear longstanding obvious
[9:38]connection between the Clintons and the Epstein. And I think we need answers for that. Um, and I I hope that we get that and I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle uh will join us in that. And with that said, I'm happy
[9:49]to yield two minutes to my colleague, Miss Anna Paulina Luna. >> Thank you. Um, I'd like to just say that I do agree with some of the sentiment of
[9:58]both um both my colleagues to include uh Mr. Bell who actually just spoke to wanting justice for the victims. But it's important to note that the reason why the files have been delayed in
[10:10]release is because of Judge Paul Engelmmyer in New York. This judge specifically ordered the SDN the SDNY to do a second review and for those
[10:20]documents to then be certified by US Attorney Jay Clayton. So if you want to get mad at someone, look no further than Judge Paul Angermmy, who then also at
[10:30]the same time just denied Massie and Roan's motion to appoint a special master. So we can argue back and forth all day long about where are the files. I want to see the files, too. I want everyone to come in and answer
[10:41]questions. But look no further than this person. By the way, this person's not a Democrat or Republican. I think this person actually might be an independent. But if you're wondering where the files are at, that is the truth of the matter. That's it. As soon as those files come
[10:52]out at the DOJ, we're going to get them. And by the way, I will remind people that weren't here earlier. Todd Blanch will get on a phone call with people here. And after this, I'm going to go walk over Todd Blanch's cell phone
[11:02]number to Chairman Garcia and to Chairman Comr so they can both get on on a call. I think it's important to open dialogue. Okay. But the point is is that we have to know the facts and those are the facts. So look no further than Judge
[11:13]Paul Engelmire. Again, he's the one person that appointed the review, a second review. And then once those documents are then reviewed, then it goes to the DOJ. But you can't fasttrack the process. >> Last question.
[11:25]>> Yes. >> Okay. Are are you are you suggesting that 99 the reason for not receiving 99% of these files is this judge? Not 20% of
[11:36]the files, 30%, half of them. 99% of the files, some of which are already public. From what I've been from what I've been told and this is why I would encourage you guys to talk directly to the DOJ on
[11:48]this is that there was a second review ordered. I don't know who all is in charge over in New York specifically doing that second review. But I do know that at least with the DOJ they are officially done reviewing all the
[11:59]documents that they had had left. Right? They had 500 attorneys. I actually um said this earlier that NSC Southern District of Florida SCN and the FBI were there was 500 lawyers working on this to review all the documentation. They're
[12:11]officially done with that. Now, I don't know what the second review process is because I'm not internally at the DOJ, but what I will tell you is when you have this judge then also turning around and denying Roana and Massiey's motion to appoint a special master, which I
[12:22]think Mr. Connor can probably speak on. I think that that's shady and I think that it's really terrible that we're sitting here arguing at, you know, each other pointing figures when it's this one guy who no one seems to be
[12:32]mentioning that's actually stonewalling it. So, I'm here for it. I want all the documents and I do think that we're going to get those documents. Do I think it's going to be rushed? Absolutely not. I don't want to rush the process, but I will also encourage you guys, just as I
[12:43]did this morning, I got a victim's specific information. The DOJ has said that they will release whatever files they have pertaining to her to her directly and she had not up until recently been able to I think up until
[12:53]today get that because frankly a lot of these uh victims portals go to just I think empty inboxes. But the point is is that it's important to for context. So that's I yield my time. >> I have a question for the chair. Question.
[13:04]>> Well, you're rich before before I begin. I have a question for the chair. I just want to clarify when you said Pam Bondi is coming on February 11th, is she coming to this committee? >> She's coming to the judiciary committee. >> So are is she coming to this committee at all?
[13:15]>> Well, we'll see how the judiciary >> is she scheduled to come to this committee at this point. >> I've said she's not scheduled to come to the committee. She's coming in front of the judiciary committee. Okay. >> Chairman chair, you're recognized, Mr. >> I'd like to yield 30 seconds to ranking
[13:27]member Garcia. >> Thank you. Just really briefly, I appreciate Representative Luna's u you know interest. I know in the survivors, so I do appreciate that. I just want to be very clear and clarify. Judge Inglemmy Meyer has nothing to do, his rulings have nothing to do with the
[13:38]legal subpoena passed by the oversight committee last July. Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch and the DOJ have been in defiance of a legal subpoena of this committee that has nothing to do with the Connor
[13:50]Massie law that keeps getting referred to. And so when you're saying that uh Judge Eagle Meyer is the reason, that is actually not the case as it relates to the subpoena. And so they are still violating the law and have been since
[14:02]July to be clear. Thank you, Mr. Uh, thank you. And I just want to begin by echoing the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As someone who spent my career as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, as a law professor, uh, the
[14:14]rule law is important. Uh, no one should be above the law, including presidents and former presidents, and congressional subpoenas are an important part of that rule of law, and I think the Clinton should be here. I think it's very
[14:24]shameful that they're not. Uh, but I also have to admit, I'm very troubled by this criminal contempt motion. Uh, as a lawyer, I know that I don't know this area of law, criminal contempt. So, what
[14:34]I did is what any decent lawyer does. I asked people who do know this area. I called a number of colleagues, former colleagues, people who are former DOJ attorneys, experts in this area. And it's hard to get 10 lawyers to agree on
[14:46]anything, but they all agreed that this was unprecedented, that under a normal administration, a normal DOJ that's not politicized, they would never bring criminal contempt charges in these circumstances. And I say non-politicized
[14:57]DOJ uh because many of us are very concerned that this Department of Justice has become weaponized under this administration under Pam Bondi. We have seen them go after Trump's political
[15:08]enemies including people like Adam Schiff and Leticia James with bankrupt charges. We've seen them refuse to investigate an ICE agent who clearly shot and killed a woman at point blank. We've seen them fire line attorneys who
[15:19]refuse to go along with indictments that they describe as political and illegal. Now, the closest comparison to this particular criminal contempt case is Steve Bannon. And there's wellestablished president here. Steve
[15:31]Bannon uh refused to answer, saying he would only answer questions from this committee if Trump told him to do so. That wasn't like delaying or obfiscating. That is willful defiance
[15:42]and that's what the courts found and that's why he went to jail. A and again, while I think that the Clinton should be here, what we're proposing here is a very serious matter, bringing criminal charges against a former president of the United States. And I listened to you
[15:53]very carefully, Chair Comr, for the last hour. And I heard you describe them as delaying, as dragging their feet, negotiating for 5 months. But I never once heard you say they just outright
[16:03]refused to comply with the subpoena. And dragging your feet is not the same as non-compliance. It's not the same as contempt. And so if we think they're dragging their feet or obfiscating, there are lesser things we can do,
[16:13]including civil contempt. And I I have to ask like why are we not thinking about alternative measures rather than bringing criminal contempt against a former president? And I also want to
[16:23]point out that on November 14th and I want to ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. Donald Trump wrote a true social post in which he demanded that folks in the Republicans go after Bill Clinton, Reed Hoffman, and Larry
[16:35]Summers in relation to Epstein. That later that day, Pam Bondi announced that they would be bringing investigations. And now that we saw later that this committee brought uh subpoenas against
[16:46]the Clintons. Uh this seems very political and the people I talked to in my district view this entire matter as politicized. They view this as why Bill Clinton. And look, if Bill Clinton is
[16:55]guilty, let's put him in jail. But what I have a problem with right now is that we seem to be doing something that is unprecedented for Bill Clinton. We're bringing criminal charges against him potentially that we would not do for any
[17:07]other individual in these same circumstances. And that again is not my opinion. And it's the opinion of everybody I talk to say it's not a close matter. And so I have deep concerns that this looks like a political witch hunt
[17:17]against Trump's critics that it will be referred to Department of Justice that we have seen as politicized. Many of us had deep concerns that they are breaking the law on a daily basis. Uh so so I I
[17:29]have trouble with this. I don't know yet how I'm going to vote, but I'd love to hear from you, Mr. R why we did not pursue alternative measures particularly when the Clintons by all accounts were actively negotiating and whether you
[17:39]thought that their uh offers were not sufficient they don't strike me as non-compliance or defiance of this subpoena >> Mr. Men >> Mr. Will you think for five months? I
[17:50]mean, you just want to keep negotiating for 12, >> 11 more months and hope >> non-compliance is my question to you. Why not civil contempt? >> Nobody's buying what you're selling.
[17:59]We've been negotiating for five months. >> Why not civil contempt or some alternative? >> Can I make a suggestion? Actually, >> I don't yield my time to you. I yield it to Mr. >> I've already back then.
[18:10]>> All right. Chair chair now recognize Mr. Higgins. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. requesting unanimous consent to enter into the record the minutes of the hearing
[18:21]conducted um by the federal law enforcement subcommittee on July 23rd of 2025 over which I presided as chair.
[18:33]That was the subcommittee to clarify for America where the original subpoena driven by the the Democrats and Miss Lee
[18:44]the original motion to subpoena the so-called Epstein files was introduced. Unanimous consent to to present
[18:54]>> without objection. So ordered. Yes, [clears throat] sir. So within that these minutes, here's the original
[19:03]the the original motion from the Democrats. Move that the subcommittee issue a
[19:11]subpoena. Listen carefully. You alleged journalist and you the beloved American citizen readers paying attention to this.
[19:23]move that the subcommittee issue a subpoena to the Department of Justice for the full complete unredacted Epstein files to be delivered concurrently to
[19:35]the majority and minority of the subcommittee on federal law enforcement of the committee of oversight and government reform. That's it.
[19:47]That was that was the motion presented by the Democrats.
[19:55]That motion immediately struck me as very poorly written
[20:03]because it had no recognition of of recognizing and and adhering to
[20:13]the existing longstanding criminal justice procedure designed to protect the innocent. It had no timeline.
[20:25]There was no timeline mandated in their own motion that would that would force the DOJ to
[20:36]comply with said timeline. There was no there was no mandate for a particular
[20:45]percentage of release. There was no prohibition for
[20:53]actions in performance of compliance with their motion which would become a subpoena from the oversight committee.
[21:03]It was just it was no it was not even ne the identification of of epste just said epstein files. Epstein who you think the DOJ has not prosecuted more than one
[21:15]Epstein in the history of the DOJ. It was a was very poorly written. So
[21:24]Republicans noting that there were a lot of people missing from this if we were going to do this allow it to move to a lot of people missing. So Mr. Barry
[21:35]introduced. I I remind my colleagues that this is my time. You recognize that the decorum of this oversight committee.
[21:46]Perhaps you'll be recognized to speak. Mr. Perry introduced a motion to amend the motion to subpoena
[21:56]by the amendments to include William Jefferson Clinton. Imagine that. Use the whole name. and Hillary Diane Rodm Clinton amongst
[22:07]others. But of everybody on Scott Perry's list, the most defiant has been the Clintons and the the oversight committee has been
[22:19]very patient. I submit for the record unanimous consent. I asked Mr. Chairman, the actual subpoena produced on August the
[22:29]5th had a had a hearing on July the 23rd. The subpoena was produced on August the 5th. Without objection,
[22:38]ordered. Everyone has essentially complied to the wishes of of the committee. Who's in control? We are with a majority. We
[22:48]determine. The most defiant has been the Clintons. That's why we're here today. Back in July, after Scott Perry introduced an amendment to the Democrats
[23:00]motion expanding the list to include the Clintons and others, including Republicans. Miss Mace
[23:10]introduced an amendment to the motion to subpoena saying, "I move to amend Miss Lee's motion to include the redacting of names of victims and any personally
[23:21]identifiable information of said victims and any possible child sexual abuse materials." And the the subpoena itself, and I'm
[23:31]closing, Mr. Chair, the subpoena itself stated that the DOJ is to provide all the material requested
[23:41]and recognizing redactions required by law. >> So you're talking about a million documents. >> It takes time to redact a million
[23:52]documents, but the DOJ is performing and is delivering and the Clintons time. I'll give I'll give Walkshaw an extra minute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[24:03]>> Before Before we go to Mr. Walkenshaw, Miss Mace has two more unanimous consent request and I'm going to give Mr. Walkenshaw an extra minute if everyone's okay with that. Miss Mace. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
[24:14]my colleagues, too. Um the the whole Epstein saga and working with people on both sides aisle on the Epstein files and the working with the victims has
[24:23]been extremely enlightening. >> Consent. Can you say can you present the unanimous consent? >> Oh, here's the unanimous consent. Okay. >> Um through the Epstein thing, this is a tweet that I did about judges. I learned
[24:35]that, you know, not all the judges have been forthcoming with information and files. I tweeted out on November 28th, impeach corrupt judges, especially South Carolina judges. I've done this about a
[24:46]dozen times or more. I'm guilty as charged. The uh last week an attorney named Robert Murding. I would like to enter his image into the record, too, >> without objection to order. uh he is trying to hold me in contempt and told a
[24:57]judge I be should be thrown in jail for among other things tweeting out that judges should be held in uh that that judges should uh be impeached. This is what happens to survivors. This is what
[25:05]happens to victims. Um and >> and I'm sorry I would like to enter my predator bill into into unanimous consent >> without objections ordered. And thank you.
[25:17]>> All right. Thank you. Chair recognized Miss Walkenshaw for six minutes. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll restate what others have said, which is that anyone who has information relevant to
[25:28]our investigation, including President Clinton, should talk to the committee. And I'm glad that he's agreed to do so.
[25:38]I have read, Mr. chairman, that one of the sticking points in the negotiation between you and the Clinton's lawyers
[25:46]has been your demand that questions be asked about nonpstein related issues.
[25:57]And it surprised me because I I'm sitting here today listening to your intense interest in understanding more about the Clintons and their
[26:07]relationship with Epstein. So, I'm curious why you have for five months demanded that you and other members of this committee be able to ask questions
[26:18]unrelated to our investigation of the Epstein files and Epstein's sex trafficking. And I'm happy to yield. Mr. Chairman,
[26:28]>> I don't know what you're talking about. Everything that we've uh pertained to with respect to the deposition pertains to the Epstein files. >> Okay. So, you haven't demanded that the conversation, the questions be limited to the
[26:40]>> staff attorneys. The staff attorneys are communicating with the Clinton attorneys. That's the communication going back and forth. We will This investigation is about the Epstein files. >> Okay. So, you're willing and you'll say
[26:51]here publicly, you're willing to have that conversation that limits the conversation, the questions just to the Epstein issue and files. >> Okay. All right. I think the Clinton's
[27:02]lawyers have been under a different impression. So, we made a little progress. >> Made a little progress on the negotiation here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're 32 days past the
[27:13]statutory deadline in months since this committee's uh subpoena, and Congress has received, as we've heard, just 1% of the files, more than 5 million pages
[27:24]remain hidden. Instead of holding the attorney general accountable for this failure, the majority is trying to change the subject today. Frankly, I
[27:35]find it insulting. We have to bring our attention back to the people who should be our focus. The survivors of Epstein's horrific sex trafficking operation. The
[27:46]women and girls who were exploited, abused, ignored for years. They deserve the truth, transparency, and justice without delay.
[27:56]without excuses and without any political protections for the powerful or the wealthy. That's what we should be doing. Not scoring partisan points, not
[28:06]creating distractions, working to uncover the full scope of his crime so the survivors can see accountability. And if we're truly serious about
[28:18]justice, we can't ignore one of Epstein's most welldocumented associates, President Donald J. Trump. We have
[28:28]documented communications, including a signed birthday note from Donald Trump containing explicit sexual references and referencing wonderful secrets.
[28:39]Wonderful secrets between them. emails from Epstein saying that Trump quote knew about the girls. Donald Trump acknowledging he knew Epstein was a quote creep and that
[28:49]Epstein recruited girls and women from Mara Lago. Trump saying he wants to cover up the files because quote, "My friends will
[29:00]get hurt." If we're committed to transparency and justice, why is that off limits for this committee? Why is his name absent? Why no discussion of
[29:11]Attorney General Bondi's refusal to comply for months with this committee subpoena? Why no contempt for Attorney General
[29:21]Bondi? What we're witnessing today is not oversight. It's not accountability. It's part of a cover up, a diversion.
[29:32]And it didn't start today. Despite clear legal requirements in a law that Donald Trump signed, a subpoena that you signed, Mr. Chairman, and repeated
[29:41]public promises, Attorney General Bondi has failed to release the files. It's entirely within her control. And yet, only 1% has been produced
[29:53]more than a month late. And even that sliver is so heavily redacted that it mocks the law. It mocks the law. and it
[30:02]mocks this committee's subpoena. Let's be honest about the transparency that Attorney General Bondi has
[30:11]provided. This is DOJ Epstein data set number four. It's number four. Data set number four. This is part of
[30:28]the 1% that folks have been talking about this today. I'll close with this. Attorney General Bondi and the Trump administration missed their deadline. They're ignoring
[30:39]our subpoena. They've withheld 99% of the files and they have obscured the little that they did release. It's not a coincidence.
[30:50]It's intentional. It's about protecting one man, Donald J. Trump, from accountability. Release the files. I yield back. >> Chair recognizes Mr.
[31:02]>> Chair unanimous consent request. >> Okay, I'll recognize you for that. >> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter to the record a political article entitled Klay Higgins explains why he
[31:11]was the lone no vote on Epstein files release. >> Without objection, so ordered. Chair recognizes it'll be on our side, Mr. Perry, then Mr. Magcguire. Mr. Perry.
[31:21]>> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'm disappointed uh at where we're headed here. Um, look, I think that legitimately both sides want all the
[31:32]information. I know I sure do with the proviso that the victims and innocent people are not damaged in the release of that.
[31:44]What's interesting to me is is that the only time my f my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about any of this is when they can bring up the current president's name, but
[31:54]they're not interested at all in anything else. And and I would just say this regarding the timeline, cuz I'm frustrated with it, too. You know what would have been great? Would have been awesome if we could have truncated the
[32:06]timeline when the Democrat DOJ was in power under a Democrat president and there was any investigation whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't
[32:18]interested in these victims at all when they could have done something about it. Nar a word was said and certainly nothing was done. All this advanced work
[32:28]could have been done by them had they cared. But this is not about caring about anybody. This is all political theater because because they hate the current president of the United States.
[32:38]I get it. It's disappointing to me. These victims should have their day and they should all this information regardless of who it touches should be
[32:48]out with the proviso that the innocent are protected. I know that's not of any interest to you. I get it. That's unfortunate. I yield the balance of my time to the
[33:00]gentleman from Louisiana. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked unanimous consent to receive into the record the
[33:10]actual subpoena presented uh to the honorable Pam Bondi by this committee regarding the DOJ's
[33:21]uh release of the investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein that was dated the 5th of August. I'd like to enter into
[33:32]unanimous consent associated with that entry the letter written by this committee on August the 5th to Attorney General Pam Bondi
[33:44]referencing the subpoena and giving specific instructions >> without objection ordered. I'd like to
[33:50]also enter into the record the actually I don't believe this has been released
[33:59]prior to right now is the schedule associated with the subpoena. This is one, two, three, four pages of specific
[34:11]instructions uh from this committee regarding the subpoena uh delivered on August the 5th.
[34:22]>> Now, unanimous without objection to that schedule as as well. >> I'm sure the media will be fascinated with that. So the so the professionalism
[34:33]that the that this committee has pursued to clarify for the citizenry the professionalism that this committee
[34:43]has embraced and pursued has has been squared away. impeccable.
[34:54]And that includes recognition that the Department of Justice, as stated in the subpoena,
[35:05]I is is to comply with with redaction procedures of established law and criminal justice,
[35:15]longstanding procedures. So, I heard someone mention 5 million files. that it's the first time I've heard 5 million files, but I know that there were originally a quarter of a
[35:26]million files and the Trump administration found another 600,000 files. So, we were talking about to round it off a million files. Every one
[35:38]of those individual documents [snorts] has to be reviewed by uh agents of the the DOJ and their
[35:49]supervisors before they can be officially approved for release. That's the law. The DOJ has 400 agents working full-time
[36:01]on just releasing these documents. Now, you may argue that at the end of the day, you want to see the release of what they completed that day. Would say
[36:11]that's a fair that's a fair narrative for discussion. But the but to say that DOJ is not fully engaged in complying
[36:21]with our subpoena is not accurate. It's not intellectually sound. And Mr. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
[36:31]to offer into the record these official and legal subpoena documents. I yield >> without objection. So, >> Mr. Chair, have unanimous consent request. >> Okay, Mr. Frost,
[36:41]>> I have two articles. One is from Politics PA. Quote, Representative Perry referred to the House Ethics Committee for refusing subpoena >> without objection to order. >> The other one's a CNN article. GOP reps
[36:53]Perry and Biggs formally object to subpoena from House January 16. >> Without obje objections ordered. Chair recognizes Miss Crockett from Texas.
[37:02]>> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Um I have sat here listening and I am quite perplexed. It does take me back to my
[37:11]legal days. Um, and so when I think about a subpoena, one of the things that we normally look at when we are trying to determine whether or not contempt is
[37:22]going to be ushered into the conversation is whether or not there's been substantial compliance. And what it means to actually look like you have substantially complied. it
[37:34]means that you're taking reasonable steps to follow a court order that you're acting in good faith and typically that serves as a defense. So
[37:43]if we are still crafting the parameters of said subpoena, for instance, my colleague um Mr. Walkenshaw just asked
[37:53]whether or not this would be limited to the Epstein um subject matter. For me, if they responded at all, then there is some
[38:03]sort of compliance, which they did. They didn't just throw the bird. They didn't just say, "Forget it." But more importantly, I just want to point out
[38:14]that we are living in an age of hypocrisy because my other colleague just pointed out that Mr. Perry sits here and somehow sits in judgment of
[38:25]others. Frankly, that is what people are kind of getting annoyed by is the hypocrisy because Mr. Perry still has an outstanding subpoena that was never complied with. In addition to that, he
[38:37]talked about we need to care for the victims. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, and I will yield my time, but I don't believe that Mr. Perry ever signed off on the discharge petition in the
[38:48]first place. So, I don't know if he is just doing what he believes is politically expedient. But I will tell you this, I refuse to be a puppet
[38:57]because Democrats tend to be of goodwill. We always want to do the right thing. We are always trying to follow the rules and follow the law. Unfortunately, we are living with an
[39:09]administration that does not care. We just want some type of parody. So for instance, we all want to hear from President Clinton. If for some reason
[39:19]you said we will give you say Pam Bondi and then we've got President Clinton with it or say maybe President Trump and
[39:30]President Clinton, two presidents because we know that both presidents actually had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But what looks political and looks like one can get away with
[39:40]everything, especially since that's what the Supreme Court has stated. That's why it looks like it's just gamesmanship. You only care about following the rules so long as you can
[39:50]invoke those rules on what is typically perceived as your political enemies. This is why we are falling apart in this country. We are supposed to be about
[40:00]checks and balances. It should not matter whether or not you're associated with the Democratic Party, the Republican party, independent, or whomever, whether you're rich, whether you're poor, whether you're middle class, whether you're black, immigrant,
[40:12]or whatever. But it seems like we only have a political agenda in this committee. And that's why everything goes off the rails. You only love law enforcement when they're going after
[40:22]black, brown, immigrants, that kind of folk, right? But on January 6, you didn't care about law enforcement because they still don't have their plaques up. We continue to do the right
[40:34]thing and say yes, apply the rules equally across the board and then y'all play in our faces and you only apply it to one side. I am asking for one commitment and then I will yield to the
[40:46]ranking member. Mr. Chair, will you commit to me as the chair of probably the most important committee in this Congress, especially in this moment
[40:56]where people are concerned about the level of corruption that exists within this committee? Will you promise me that
[41:05]you are good for doing whatever is right and following the evidence no matter who is on the other side of that evidence?
[41:15]>> Yes. And that is why I subpoenaed the estate and >> we had no idea what was Nobody knew. Nobody knew what was in the estate documents and I without hesitation
[41:26]subpoenaed the estate. We've subpoenaed the Department of Justice >> and that's where we got the birthday letter. We we we subpoena state. Hold on, Mr. Subpoena. Okay, we got the birthday letter, but we can't just get
[41:37]the evidence and then not follow up on the evidence that we actually get. I will relinquish the rest of my time to the chair. >> Thank you. I just want to just really clarify one Thank you very much. Um, Representative Crockett, just just to
[41:47]back to Mr. Walker's point, I think it's important to clarify that in communication, Mr. chair with your with your team and the back and forth with the emails. The Clinton team made it
[41:57]clear that they wanted to answer questions about Epstein, but that was not something that your team agreed to only about Epstein
[42:07]>> and that and so that's I just want to make sure we clarify and I appreciate you clarifying Mr. Comr that you said that you would limit the questions to only Epstein. Is that correct? >> That is correct. What the Clinton said
[42:19]that is not true. what their lawyer said is is a complete lie. >> Well, I'm glad I'm glad that you clarified for them because it's been their impression that it's been I'm just telling you it's been their impression. >> He's paid him too much money then over
[42:30]the last 5 months. >> Sir, I'm not I'm just reading um emails and I'm just read the back and forth between them and your and your and your team. It's been their impression that those questions were going to be beyond just Epstein. And so, I'm glad that's
[42:42]been clarified. So, thank you, Mr. Wenshaw. >> Chair recognized Mr. Magcguire from Virginia. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. Five months is plenty of time. The Clintons are doing everything they can to avoid questioning and the American
[42:54]people want to hear from the Clintons. You know, Bill Clinton brought Epstein to the White House uh 17 times. He had him on and Bill Clinton was on the Epstein airplane 26 times. So, the
[43:06]American people want to hear from them. I don't understand why our friends on the left can't understand that. They support these crazy policies like open borders, 20 million people coming to our country. They've been robbing, raping,
[43:17]and killing the American people. You know, Lake and Rally would still be alive. And instead of uh protecting criminal, I'm excuse me, law-abiding citizens, they defend the criminals, and they want to have a defund the police
[43:28]movement. It makes no sense. These criminals they put back on the street, recommmit the same crime, and they're like, why' they commit the same crime? All Americans have the same goal, the
[43:39]same American dream. We want to live, work, and raise our family in peace. We just might disagree on how to get there. But the Democrats seem to always be wrong. The American people don't want
[43:50]boys undressing in girls locker rooms, but for some reason the Democrats support that. Five months is plenty of time. The American people want to hear from the Clintons, and they said they
[44:01]had no relationship, but they definitely did. And with that, I yield the remainder of my time back to Miss Luna. >> Thank you. So, um I just kind of want to point out first of all specifically to
[44:11]the letter um the hand sketch that was allegedly the president's I believe there's a $10 billion lawsuit that was filed that according to the president um the organization that published that is
[44:22]actually trying to currently settle. So just to clarify uh but aside from that I wanted to actually ask Mr. in a question if he's here still if he'd be willing to
[44:33]um vote for a contempt in the Clintons if they refuse to come in and testify on a fine of about $1,000 a day until they comply with the subpoena. But I don't
[44:43]know if he's here. Is he still here? No. Okay. Well, I think that that's just something to consider. um you know, we have the ability to do those those fines and I think that that needs to be considered especially if you know
[44:54]optically there is um reason for pause for Democrats not wanting to vote for that based on the fact that President Clinton was a former president. I understand the optics of that and I also
[45:06]understand re-elections. However, nonetheless, the Clintons are defining a subpoena. So sometimes financially people can be motivated, especially if there's a fine, and that's something that we actually all reserve the right
[45:16]to vote on. And I think that that's actually a very good option, especially being that most Americans would go to jail for defying subpoenas. And so I do not think that there needs to be any um special accommodations made, especially
[45:28]given the nature of this. But I do think that that can be a tool to motivate. So, I'd like to suggest that to you, Chairman Comr, also to you, Raiki Member Garcia, um that that would be a good method that we specifically reserve if
[45:40]we choose to use alternative means of contempt. >> Representative, uh would you yield to me for a question? >> Yes. >> So, it it seems like you're open to changing this um what we're voting on
[45:51]today so that way we can get to a place where we actually hear from them. Is that right? Is that what I'm hearing? >> But I want Yes. I would like to have the Clintons coming into Congress to give a transcribed deposition. I think that
[46:02]Chairman Comr has made that clear, but I also think having just Garcia and Comr drive all the way up to New York without that. I think that optically that sends a very bad message as the separation of
[46:13]powers and the authorities Congress has. And then I also too think that, you know, um it's kind of a slap in the face to people that typically would not have those accommodations made for them.
[46:24]>> Yeah. Yeah. With that also, you know, being a part of this, I think that, you know, Bill Clinton specifically said he wants the files to be released. And I think that we also need to consider the fact that there is a judge. I know Mr.
[46:35]Garcia disagrees with me on this, but based on the email that I have seen on um Judge Paul Angelmeer, you know, if you have someone that is ordering the
[46:45]DOJ to do a final a second scan of the files, if it's politically motivated, that's impeding an investigation. And I'm tired of judges if they get involved in
[46:56]investigations in Congress trying to obstruct. And so I just putting this out there, I'm going to be trying to impeach that judge unless he can basically give a waiver, let the DOJ release the files immediately.
[47:07]>> Yeah. And and just real quick, I just want to say on the general thing, I I agree. I mean, I think it would be best if the ranking member and chair can huddle and figure out how we can change it so we can actually hear from them because my concern too and the other
[47:19]thing is there's no faster way to make sure that we never actually hear from them in person than moving forward a criminal contempt that says put them in jail. I mean, we're we're we're just not going to hear from them for our
[47:29]investigation. And so I mean I agree if they can come to something to figure out how can we move forward in a way where we're actually there's a pathway to hear from them I I'm I'm for that. So
[47:41]>> so typically I do not I do not agree with what the Clintons are doing. Okay. And I think that they need to come in here to explain. But I do think that when you go after someone's pocketbook I think that they quickly change their tune and I think that they might be
[47:52]compelled to come in. I also don't want to set the precedence though that you know just because you're a president means you're outside of this you know uh justice and that's basically what it
[48:02]would be doing and so chairman I will let you direct the ship on this but that is my suggestion. >> Thank thank you chair recognizes Missari. >> Thank you. I'm going to start by yielding to the ranking member.
[48:13]>> Thank thank you and I want to just respond to Miss Lun and Mr. Maxwell as well. Uh just to be clear I think two things can be true. Uh, it can be true that that we want to hear from the Clintons and that it's important that we
[48:25]hear from them and that we want to we want to enforce our subpoena. I think it can also be true that they have also begun clearly making efforts to answer questions by declaration to negotiate
[48:36]coming in to give testimony. They've made offers to obviously be in uh their initial offer was to do that testimony uh in outside of Washington DC with the
[48:46]leadership of the committee and staff. They have been open to transcription. And so I just want to re-emphasize that I think there is room here to continue to negotiate and get the testimony that
[48:57]we need. In addition, I am incredibly thankful that we're finally moving forward on ensuring that Galain Maxwell come before this committee, that we're going to get Pam Bondi finally in front of this Congress. We need to release the
[49:09]files, get that testimony, and of course ask the questions that this committee has of President Clinton. I think that is all fair and I hope that's the direction that we end up moving in. Thank you, Miss Unsari.
[49:20]>> Thank you. Um, given much of what we've heard today, and especially in light of some of the hypocrisy that we've heard today, I just want to walk through the timeline of Donald Trump's cover up of the Epstein files because I think it's
[49:32]important for folks to remember how we got to this point. This was a series of deliberate decisions made at the highest levels in the White House and the Department of Justice to keep the truth
[49:42]hidden from the American public and the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his allies abuse. Let's start with what the president said during his campaign trail
[49:52]repeatedly. At multiple points in 2024 when running for office, Donald Trump said he would quote declassify the Epstein files. He used it as a rallying
[50:02]cry to win over voters. In October 2024, JD Vance said, quote, "Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list." But the moment Trump and Vance had power in
[50:12]the White House to act, that commitment disappeared. That's when the cover up began. On February 27th, 2025, Pam Bondi said that she was releasing the Epstein
[50:24]files with her statement, quote, "This Department of Justice is following through on President Trump's commitment to transparency and lifting the veil on the disgusting actions of Jeffrey
[50:34]Epstein and his co-conspirators." Then it became clear, very clear, that Donald Trump did not in fact want information about Jeffrey Epste and his crimes
[50:43]revealed to the public. Starting in July 2025, Donald Trump began to gaslight the public. He said, quote, "Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This
[50:54]guy's been talked about for years." This is the point when Congress stepped up. On July 23rd, Congresswoman Summer Lee moved in this very committee to subpoena
[51:03]the full and unredacted Epstein files. And just to be clear, because of that subpoena, the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi have been required by law to provide the Epstein files to this
[51:15]committee since the summer of 2025. They have been in gross illegal violation of the subpoena this entire time. To my Republican colleagues on
[51:26]this committee, do you remember that subpoena, the lawful congressional oversight commit uh subpoena from July 23rd? Pam Bondi has been in violation of
[51:36]that for six months now. At the same time, members on both sides of the aisle filed a discharge petition that would have put a vote on the floor for the Epstein Files Transparency Act. For a
[51:48]moment, the petition was one signature away from forcing a vote in the full house. And what did Mike Johnson do? He shut down Congress. He refused to swear in our colleague Adalita Grihalva for a
[51:59]historic seven weeks in order to keep her name off the list. He forced the American public to endure a government shutdown to protect Donald Trump and to cover up the Epstein files. And when it
[52:09]finally came to the floor and it became clear that the bill would pass overwhelmingly, only then did he endorse and then sign the bill so that he wouldn't lose. This required the DOJ to
[52:21]release the unredacted Epstein files publicly by December 19th. The DOJ has blown past that deadline, releasing only 1% of the files, which is patently
[52:31]absurd. And the files they did release were heavily redacted, which is completely illegal according to the law. On December 23rd, the DOJ said they miraculously discovered over 1 million
[52:42]files related to Epstein. All of these patterns are an attempt to slow down the release and fail to meet the lawful deadlines are consistent and coordinated. This is all part of an
[52:54]intentional coverup. Which leads to the unavoidable question. Who is the president protecting when we know he only cares about one person? Guys, I'll
[53:03]end with my question to the chairman. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, has violated the subpoena issued by this committee. We should be holding her in
[53:14]contempt to remain fair and to remain transparent. And so I ask that you do that if you really truly want to be fair and and care about the justice for the victims here.
[53:23]>> May I respond? >> We have been very clear. We expect those documents. She has complied. She has turned over documents. In the beginning
[53:35]in the beginning you all complained and said the first document drop >> didn't have enough for D to get this. And I believe Mr. Chairman
[53:48]that we will get those documents very get those documents very soon. I have been assured we are going to get those documents very soon. >> I hear you but with all due respect given [clears throat] everything that
[53:58]she herself stated in February of last year her own statements in front of the entirety of the American public saying we have the documents they are ready to
[54:08]go. The the sub the subpoena from this committee was issued in July >> and nobody on our side nobody on our side is defending Pam Bondi. I can >> she should be held in contempt if we are
[54:19]>> she is complying with they have turned documents over. They have turned documents over and every time they do you all complain about too many redactions not enough redactions. So
[54:29]>> that's that is unacceptable. It has been six months. >> Your time your time's expired and we want the documents. We've made that very clear. Chair recognizes uh Mr. Crane.
[54:40]>> Can can I do unanimous consent first? >> Okay. Before I recognize Mr. Crane, we'll we'll let uh >> Thank you. I just want to do a a unanimous consent uh request. This is actually uh an email that has been sent
[54:51]to your your your team, Mr. Kr, and our team from the from the Clinton lawyer and the Clintons that has that's that basically says to be clear, we are not
[55:02]objecting to a to a transcript and never have. Please make that clear during today's testimony that was sent to you, Mr. Comr. So, I just want to reemphasize they are not objecting to a transcript.
[55:12]Thank you. >> And before before I recognize Mr. Crane, let me reply. We just got that email and
[55:20]we have spent five months trying to get acceptable terms that I think everyone in within uh any sense of fairness would
[55:32]agree needs to be uh needs to occur. After we hold this vote, hopefully it'll be a bipartisan vote. They're going to have two weeks before this bill is on
[55:43]the floor. They're going to have two weeks before this this this the full House votes on it. And make no mistake to the Clintons and their lawy, this bill will pass. And
[55:53]I believe it will pass with Democrat votes. Even though I've heard leadership, Democrat leadership is is whipping to try to get you all to vote vote no on this. They have had five months to comply with
[56:09]this and and to defend the indefensible and and try to act like Bill Clinton's a victim here, I think is a stretch. We know who the victims are. And I think if
[56:19]you ask the victims, do you want to hear from Bill Clinton? I'm pretty confident I know what the answer will be because we our staff has communicated with their attorneys. Chair
[56:30]recognizes Mr. Crane. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, obviously this committee hearing is about whether or not we're going to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress. I strongly
[56:41]recommend that we do um especially in pertaining to the release of the Epstein files and trying to get to the bottom of what exactly went on there and how
[56:52]Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to continue um doing what he was doing and abusing so many people for so long. Um, it's
[57:01]interesting when I look at the history of the Congress and look at the fact that Peter Navaro, former Trump trade adviser who defied the January 6
[57:13]committee subpoena, was sent to prison for 4 months. Steve Bannon, also a former Trump adviser, defied the January 6 committee subpoena. He was sent to
[57:23]prison for four months. And several others. So, it's going to be really telling to see how my Democrat colleagues v vote on this one. Um, Mr. Comr, how many times uh Mr. Chairman,
[57:34]how many times did uh Mr. Epste go to the White House in your recollection, sir? >> According to uh the evidence that we've obtained, it appears he went 17 times
[57:44]during the Clinton presidency. >> Is that more times than you've gone to the White House, chairman? >> I've been uh member of Congress for nine years and you know, fairly fairly high up on the on the pecking order. I've
[57:56]been to the White House, I believe, nine times in nine years. So, he he went to the Clinton White House double the number of times that I've been to the White House in my entire congressional career.
[58:06]>> Mr. Chairman, um how many times did uh Mr. Mr. Clinton fly on Mr. Epstein's plane? >> At least 26 times according to the flight logs that were subpoenaed from the estate.
[58:18]>> Right. Or Mr. Chairman, >> those were those were four different trips. Four trips. And every time they regassed the plane, they counted that as
[58:26]another trip. But it was Asia, Africa, and and they they had to re refuel. So every time they stopped to refuel, they counted that as another leg of the trip.
[58:36]There are four trips, not not 27. That's almost like I didn't inhale, [laughter] >> uh, reclaiming my time. That's still that's still enough trips for us to uh
[58:46]want to be able to ask the the Clintons questions about their involvement with Epstein. Is that is that true, Mr. chairman. >> Yes, sir. Right. So, like I said, I hope
[58:56]that uh my Democrat colleagues who all of a sudden have found religion uh this Congress and now they want the Epstein files even though over the last four years when they had control of
[59:08]Washington DC, you didn't hear a peep about Jeffrey Epstein out of any of them. And so I think it's going to be real telling, you know, how my Democrat colleagues who claim to be all about the
[59:19]victims, how they actually vote on uh on these uh contempt charges for the Clinton family. And I just think it's interesting, too, that uh Mr. Chairman,
[59:29]my understanding is you've been working for the last four or five months to get the Clintons in here. Is that correct? >> Five months. Yes, sir. Did they did they tell you that they would come in over uh
[59:40]December 24th and 25th, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day? >> They have implied that they would come in. Yes. >> Okay. So, that just goes to show that they're trying to dodge suggesting dates
[59:52]that they know none of us are in session. Um, you know, and I I think I think that's uh that's pretty despicable. The the other thing I believe that they said is that you and
[1:00:03]uh the ranking member could fly up to New York, but you couldn't record any of the uh conversations. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Does that sound like any congressional deposition you've ever heard of, sir?
[1:00:14]>> No. And it would be it would be my word against Mr. Garcia. And I'm pretty confident I know whose side uh the the uh New York Times would take and the Washington Post would take and MSNBC
[1:00:26]would take. Look, an investigation, you have to have transcripts, and the media wants transcripts. Well, you have to have transcripts. We don't do the notes
[1:00:38]and and the Clintons have already accused us of lying, and they accused us of saying this was an unlawful subpoena, which I appreciate Mr. Garcia admitting that it is a lawful subpoena. So, I yield back.
[1:00:50]>> I I also want to point out one thing that I think has been pretty interesting. When I flew into Washington DC yesterday, my chief of staff told me that he'd been contacted by the Clinton
[1:01:00]attorneys at least three times to try and stop this. So, it it it looks as if they it looks as if they tried to resist
[1:01:09]you for about 5 months and once we finally pulled the trigger on it, now they're realizing um that this could go very poorly for them. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? That's how it appears that
[1:01:20]they could stall stall stall and then when it finally came to this vote they felt like they could count on the Democrats objecting and a few of the
[1:01:29]Republicans that uh the media would go to and you know the moderates and and say oh is this going to affect your election? This going to affect your election? At the end of the day I think
[1:01:40]even the media wants to hear from Clinton. We all want to see the documents. So we everyone in America that's keeping up with this, which is a majority of Americans, they want answers and we're trying to get answers here
[1:01:51]today and the Clintons have obstructed for five months. Five months. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Chair recognizes uh Mr. Tib. Oh, wait, wait, wait, >> Miss Randall. I'm sorry.
[1:02:03]>> Uh thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member. >> Uh thank I just want to again just clarify that um that the Clintons have no have not objected to a transcript.
[1:02:14]I just want to clarify that Mr. Comr which you just mentioned and I think that in this moment of negotiation which you've been in and your you've been in with them this entire time. There's progress being made and they've not
[1:02:25]objected to the transcript. Let's talk to the let's talk to President Clinton and let's get a transcript of it. Let's have the committee there and the staff there and move forward. Thank you.
[1:02:35]If if may I respond? We won't start to stop the talk. May I respond? They did object to a transcript, Mr. Garcia. They did object to a transcript. They're just now changing because they see that
[1:02:46]public opinion is not on their side. Chair recognized Mr. Randall. And And you've got We'll give you five minutes. We'll give you five minutes. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Um, you
[1:02:56]know, I want to I want to start by saying it is I do not feel it is my responsibility to defend the former president of the United States as a member of Congress in a separate and
[1:03:08]co-equal branch of government from the executive branch. And as a individual person who is um responsible to my constituents, it is not my job to defend
[1:03:19]the former president of the United States. Just like it is not your responsibility, Chair Comr, to carry out the political retribution of the current president of
[1:03:29]the United States. It is also not this committee's job to yield to the judiciary committee to
[1:03:41]question uh the subjects of our subpoenas.
[1:03:47]It is not our job to defer to anyone else's interest. And in fact, we have the opportunity at
[1:03:59]any time to amend the rules of our committee should you choose to take action that our rules keep us from taking like that. That is a that is
[1:04:10]a tool that you as committee chair and we as a committee have. And I I also want to say, you know, I'm I'm not a lawyer. I'm a regular person. Um
[1:04:22]I'm one year into this job and contrary to attempts by my Republican colleagues to put the burden of decisions made by Congresses of the past on our shoulders, I was sent here by my constituents just
[1:04:34]a year ago. And it's to them, to my neighbors who I am accountable, not to party leadership, not to
[1:04:43]anybody else, but to my constituents. So I want to talk about what they are seeing and hearing right now. They are seeing
[1:04:52]just as Miss Ansari previously said, Donald Trump and JD Vance and Pam Bandi switch allegiances,
[1:05:03]decide they no longer want to pursue accountability and full release, unredacted release of the Epstein files.
[1:05:10]But they are also seeing a system that has failed survivors
[1:05:19]and regular people over and over that that privileges the powerful and
[1:05:28]well-connected over regular people. you know, regular people who don't have the luxury of saying, "I'm not going to
[1:05:39]come to court and I want to be free of any accountability." regular people who see us
[1:05:51]acting and carrying out the demands of the president, former presidents, rich people, people who come
[1:06:01]to lobby us, folks who have access to power in a way that regular people don't. And I think we've all made very clear all of
[1:06:12]us on both sides of this day that we want to hear from the former president of the United States about any information that he has related to
[1:06:24]Epstein's ring of trafficking and assault of women and girls. But we also and you know Chair Comr you have said over and over over and over and over that it's been five months that
[1:06:35]you've been in negotiations with the Clintons. It has been six months since this committee subpoenaed the Department of Justice for full release of the files
[1:06:46]and and I'm I'm down I'm down to hold anybody accountable. I'm down for us to enforce our congressional subpoenas to
[1:06:57]uphold our power as a separate and co-equal branch of government. But I want to call the question, will my colleagues on the other side of this
[1:07:06]deis also has [clears throat] been subpoenaed by this committee and and in a bipartisan law pass on the floor of the house? Are
[1:07:17]we is it just political theater? Are you just trying to point fingers and say like, "It's you, it's you, it's not us, it's them." Or are we here to do the work of holding
[1:07:28]accountable people who have committed heinous crimes against women and girls and people who might know about them? Are we doing that work or are we just pointing fingers and trying to
[1:07:38]consolidate our own political power? That's a question I know that the my constituents have and it is one that I'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the deal. Thank you. I yield back.
[1:07:48]Chair rec any members seek recognition? Chair recognizes Miss Talib from Michigan. >> Um Mr. Chair, I think many of us were
[1:07:58]there with the survivors and uh I'd like to bring them into the room because I think it's really important. You know, it's not just one president, but now two that have been connected to
[1:08:10]the Epstein um sex trafficking. One of them even testified about walking into the house, the butler opening the door. There was administrative assistant
[1:08:21]having no idea she was walking into a horrific scheme that was
[1:08:31]sending young girls to the powerful, to the rich, the elected officials. And one of the first pictures she said she saw
[1:08:39]was of Clinton with his arms around Epstein. She saw another one of Trump with
[1:08:48]Epstein. And I just remember her almost trying to convince us like understand that I had no idea as if somehow she was guilty. Do you all remember that?
[1:08:59]>> And so I'm here to tell you I'm ready to vote, but I'm also just taken aback and disgusted because I didn't need a birthday card to say the president of the United States, current president of
[1:09:10]the United States had something. I didn't need to see the photos by the chairman today of Clinton. I all I needed to do was hear the survivors tell us please do something. These are
[1:09:21]people that have impacted their lives forever. What I just don't understand, Mr. Chair, and and this is with all due respect, I just don't get why Bondi cannot be held
[1:09:32]in contempt. Why we're not for I don't care if she says that she wants to plead the fifth. So what? do it in front of the American people. Same thing with Maxwell.
[1:09:44]She's telling the committee she's going to plead the fine, have her come before this committee to do it in front of the American people. The fact of the matter is, are you saying that if anybody wants to plead the fifth, they don't have to be forced
[1:09:55]to come before this committee? That doesn't make any sense. What excuse is that? That doesn't make any sense. The fact that I continue to tell you all what is the most consistent thing
[1:10:05]survivors have asked us to do? follow the money. How come we haven't forced JP Morgan Chase before this committee? How come we haven't allowed Bank of America to come before this committee? Mr.
[1:10:16]Chair, it is so disgusting. And this is why it's everybody's so distracted by this this whole thing of like, oh, you know, the Clintons, Trump, and
[1:10:27]everything, but who was funding it? [snorts] Literally JP Morgan turned a blind eye to evidence of sex trafficking. Even after his 2008
[1:10:38]conviction, hear me out. After he was convicted, they still hid suspicious activity reports that should have been reported. You know, you you see the fact that
[1:10:48]continuing them saying, well, in 2028 agreed to pay what? 290 million of settle lawsuit. I don't care. >> You come here and because it's the
[1:10:59]truth, y'all. You guys got to realize Epstein's not the last person. There's probably another Epstein out there right now doing sex trafficking right now. We
[1:11:10]should hold everybody in contempt that had anything to do to cover this up, including bank executives that still have their jobs. >> The fact of the matter is, we know what
[1:11:22]this is. You want to talk about uh Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, but talk about everybody involved because it does look like you're only
[1:11:33]doing this to distract everyone when we know not one but two presidents were involved.
[1:11:42]And those young ladies shaking when they were testing pregnant because they didn't know if they could trust us. Some of them literally said, "We had no
[1:11:52]idea what we were walking into, but they were connected to the rich. They were connected to the presidents." You heard them say that over and over again. But one of the things they
[1:12:03]continue to say is follow the money because Mr. chair, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, JP Mory, all these people, they will not be the last folks that allowed
[1:12:14]a sex trafficker to harm young women, children. And so, we have to SET A VERY GOOD
[1:12:22]president precedent that we will not sit back and say, "Well, Maxwell's gonna plead the fifth. Bondi is gonna plead the fifth." I don't care. You're a public servant. Come before this
[1:12:34]committee. Maxwell, you were directly involved. HOW MANY TIMES DID the survivors mention her? How many times saying that she lured them in? She was primarily involved. And Mr. Chair, you
[1:12:45]and I had conversations and you said, "Give us names." They gave us names and you know it. So why you all focused only on them? And let me tell you, you know where I stand. I I will
[1:12:57]hold anybody in contempt that will not give us information. I don't care how many lawyers, they bounce up on us. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chair, shame on us for not forcing Bondi before this
[1:13:08]committee. Shame on us for not forcing Maxwell before this committee. Shame on us for not forcing JP Morgan Chase to answer questions that many of us have of
[1:13:17]them of $1.5 billion in suspicious activity because somebody had to fund this madness, this horrific actions by these men. With that, Mr. Chair, I
[1:13:27]yield. And uh Miss Talib, if I may respond to some of that before I recognize Miss Boowbert's next. I >> Okay. Oh, okay. Okay.
[1:13:40]I believe with all my heart, you are as sincere as anyone on this committee about wanting to get answers about the truth. And I believe your heart is pure.
[1:13:52]Maxwell is coming in front of this committee and we've tried >> no let us decide that today when like when >> it is it's nailed down February the what what night the 9th she's coming and and
[1:14:03]you'll be able to ask her questions that's one of the things Clinton wanted was only me and Garcia Maxwell's coming anyone who wants to ask her questions on this committee will be able to so that's >> I think the American people want answers
[1:14:13]from President Clint I'm not trying to argue with you Mr. I just want to respond to Pam Bondi is coming before Congress in two weeks. I am confident she is going
[1:14:24]to be grilled by both parties on the discharge petition. If you didn't want I don't want to and Miss Randall, you mentioned something about the
[1:14:35]judiciary committee. Believe me, I don't want to work with the judiciary committee on any investigation. Okay? But when we passed that discharge petition, that got them involved.
[1:14:45]>> But we had just let me explain. Pam Bond is going to be in front of the judiciary committee. We'll see how that goes. We'll see if there's been a document dump. >> Mr. Chair, we can't >> after that.
[1:14:56]The last thing, this is the most important thing. months ago, I approached Miss Talib, Miss Lee, and Miss Stanbury, and I said,
[1:15:08]"Please, if you all get a chance, and I know you all are all sincere, >> try to get some names
[1:15:17]from these these women and and we will continue to try to get documents into the I am if I didn't want to know that Mr. Lee, you're out of order." I'm just
[1:15:27]ripping. We want to hold everyone accountable. We don't care or we don't care if they're billionaires. We don't care if they're Republicans. We don't care who they are.
[1:15:39]>> Do you agree to work with me though? We got to get the bank executives here because Mr. Chair, you you and I know that this is still being funded in some other way. Epstein's dead, but we know
[1:15:50]there's another person out there doing the same thing. We know it because the banks cover it up. These suspicious activity forms. We're literally these reports that had to be filed, they were
[1:16:00]there for a reason so we can stop. >> And and last thing and then I'm going to open it. I think uh do see if there's any other members, but we are going in looking at suspicious activity reports.
[1:16:12]Both Republicans and Democrat staff's going in looking at suspicious activity reports as we speak. I'm I'm all about looking at suspicious activity reports. Now, time's expired. Does any other
[1:16:22]member seek recognition? Mr. Mr. Fallon from Texas. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to share a quote with you. I thought it was interesting.
[1:16:32]No one is above the law and no one should be escaping accountability. And Hillary Clinton said that. And according to the LA Times, there's another quote. No man in this country is so high that
[1:16:42]is he above the law. I agree with both of these quotes. Al Gore said that when he was a member of this chamber, uh, Bill Clinton's own vice president. I hope every member of this committee uh,
[1:16:53]agrees with those quotes. So we have to ask ourselves, are we a rule of law nation or are we not? When a citizen of these United States is
[1:17:04]subpoenaed by this Congress, they should comply plain and simple regardless of who they are. We all get accused of things and we should do everything we can to because accusations nothing but
[1:17:13]that to prove it false if it's untrue. Jeffrey Epstein was a rapist, pedophile, sex trafficker. In street parliament, he was a scumbag, lowife, and slimeball.
[1:17:24]And some some of the things that I've read in these files, he was evil incarnate. He's also dead. I didn't even know who he was until he wasn't.
[1:17:34]So why are we here talking about a dead guy? Because he was associated with powerful people, some of which are highly likely to have participated with him in some of
[1:17:45]the worst kind of criminal activity. And if they did, they should pay. they should face justice whether they're rich or poor, famous or anonymous, mighty or
[1:17:56]meek. So, is that what we're doing today? Are we pursuing justice and transparency? Because transparency makes an easier and shorter path to the truth. We should be
[1:18:07]pursuing the truth. But some on this committee and in this Congress are pursuing fame and campaign fortune and exploiting this issue not in the pursuit
[1:18:18]of justice but in the pursuit of raising hundreds of thousands of dollars using a false premise as a battering ramp. Jeffrey Epstein. Uh, and here's the false premise that
[1:18:29]Epstein was a a creature of the political right and they're protecting him and they he was pounding around with Donald Trump and those in his orbit
[1:18:39]and that's why the Republicans released the files. Now, that's incendiary, but is it true or is it just a cheap
[1:18:48]woke fantasy? Well, here's the facts and the facts matter. So, let's look at tell the tape. How many confirmed visits to the White House under Bill Clinton? There were 17. Jeffrey Epstein visited
[1:19:00]the Clinton White House 17 times. How many times he visit the Donald Trump White House? Zero. How about documented political donations? 21,000 to the
[1:19:09]Clintons, zero to Trump. Documented non-Clinton political contributions. 118,000 to the Dems, 18,000 to the GOP. For a total of 89% to the Democrats and
[1:19:21]the Clintons, 11% to the GOP. Now to the matter at hand. Epstein files released by the oversight Democrats from 2019 to 2023 when they were in charge of this
[1:19:30]committee. Zero. Epstein released files by the oversight Republicans from 2023 to present. 53,000
[1:19:40]pages. Epstein files released by the Biden Department of Justice in the four years he was in office. Again, zero. Epstein files released by the Trump DOJ
[1:19:52]2025 to present. 125,000 pages and a member of this committee completely jumped the shark again and right after Charlie Kirk was
[1:20:03]assassinated by a left-wing loon and it was a time where we really need to turn down the temperature and practice some civility said and I quote, "Republicans
[1:20:13]have been so busy protecting pedophiles and rapists that they forgot what this committee is supposed to be about." Well, I tell you what this committee is supposed to be about, Mr. Chairman. about transparency and truth. And on
[1:20:24]this matter, the Republicans have led and we produced results and the Democrats have done squat and bumpus. For the record, you know, that kind of
[1:20:35]incendiary rhetoric, while it may make headlines and make people famous or perhaps better stated, infamous and raise loads of woke cash,
[1:20:46]maybe even get you invited to Hollywood parties. But at what cost? Those kind of lies create division and damage. And they're ludicrous, absurd, lazy, and perhaps
[1:20:57]worst of all, unoriginal. And I don't think it's going to translate much to uh journey to the upper chamber. I hope it doesn't
[1:21:07]translate to that. The Trump administration, Republicans on this committee and on this issue have served Lady Justice by account of about 178,000
[1:21:18]to zero. So the Clintons should come in, honor [clears throat] the subpoena and testify. And you know why, Mr. Chairman? In the pursuit of truth. Mr. Chairman, I
[1:21:28]yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. >> Chair recognizes Miss Stainsbury from New Mexico. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You'll have to forgive me if I do not
[1:21:39]give a slow clap to our colleague across the aisle for his Academy Award-winning appearance just now in front of the committee, but I want to just address some of the things that I heard here
[1:21:49]today and to talk about why we're here. What I've heard here this morning in front of this committee is exactly why the American people hate politics.
[1:21:59]Because the American people don't care if you're a Republican, if you're a Democrat, if you're an independent, whether you vote or you don't. They want the Epstein files and they want justice
[1:22:11]and accountability. And they don't give a damn whether or not it's Democrats or Republicans or who is implicated. They want accountability.
[1:22:22]And that is what the survivors are asking us for. They are asking us to do our jobs, to make good on the promises that we made them when they came and met
[1:22:33]with us, and to actually in good faith conduct an investigation. Now, I always think it's important to pull back the curtain for the American people about what happens in these
[1:22:45]committees. And I was not shocked and surprised, but you know, I think it's important to note that when I stepped out of the committee a few moments ago,
[1:22:55]the press the press were huddled on the Republican side of this committee room to take statements from the Republicans. They're not out in the kind of like neutral area. They're standing outside
[1:23:06]the Republican door so that after this vote is taken, our Republican colleagues can walk out and make a statement to the press. Now, I think that that's
[1:23:15]important to note for the public here because this is not about true accountability because if this was actually about getting to the bottom of
[1:23:26]this case and actually holding individuals accountabil accountable for the crimes that were committed by Jeffrey Epstein, by Galain Maxwell, by the associates and the many, many people
[1:23:38]who are implicated in this case, what would be happening right now in this committ committee is that Pam Bondi and DOJ officials would be sitting right
[1:23:48]there on the witness panel answering questions under oath because they are breaking the law. They are not complying with our subpoena. They are not complying with the Epstein Transparency
[1:23:59]Act. And on the day, the final deadline that they were supposed to release their final explanation about why they may have redacted some files. And in fact,
[1:24:10]they have, as has been stated many times, only released less than 1% of the files. Donald Trump used the United States military to invade a foreign country and steal their oil. And while
[1:24:22]we're sitting here and our colleagues are trying to create a spectacle for the media, every single newspaper in the United States and the world's headline is about how Donald Trump right now is
[1:24:34]in Europe embarrassing the United States, how he is threatening our NATO allies to invade Greenland,
[1:24:45]humiliating the United States. And I have to say, I was home over the weekend for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations to honor the life and legacy of Dr. King. And the question
[1:24:56]that I got over and over again from my constituents is what is in those files that is so bad that President Trump
[1:25:07]is invading Venezuela, threatening our NATO allies, and sending thousands of armed paramilitaries troops onto our streets to create violence and chaos in
[1:25:19]American cities. That is what the American people are actually asking us. And so I will be honest, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled that the individuals
[1:25:30]who are the subject of today's hearing did not appear on their scheduled date. No one is above the law,
[1:25:40]but I do know based on the correspondence that they have been corresponding with you regularly to try to resolve this issue. But I don't believe that's what this
[1:25:53]hearing is actually about. Because if it was actually about getting justice and about getting the truth, we would have DOJ here. We would be holding Pam Bondi
[1:26:03]in contempt and we would be hearing from the survivors themselves. And so I have to agree with my colleagues that I believe that this is
[1:26:13]part of a extended smokeokc screen to try to cover things up. And so I do ask my colleagues across the aisle, if you are earnest about getting to the truth and getting to justice, then bring DOJ
[1:26:25]in here and hold them accountable because that is actually what the American people want. I yield back. >> And uh lady yields back before I recognize Mr. Biggs. I want to point out
[1:26:35]again for the eenth time, Pam Bondi is coming in front of Congress under oath and there'll be lots of opportunities to ask her questions about the Epstein
[1:26:47]files. >> Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? >> She's violated a subpoena from this committee and she's held in contempt for that. >> That's a fact. >> Here's the difference. She has they have been turning over documents. Now, I've
[1:26:58]said it a hundred times. It's not as quick as we would like, but they're turning over documents. And I've been very clear today and in hundreds of interviews. >> You can't be serious at one point turning over documents. What's the
[1:27:10]deadline for them? What when do you expect the full >> Well, in our subpoena, there was no deadline. And then we voted for the discharge petition and there's a there's a deadline. The discharge petition is in judiciary. She's coming in front of
[1:27:21]judiciary. Now, that's >> that is a fact. Don't try to miss Bill Clinton's not a victim here. And the media is not going to I think Republican side on anything. So, let's bond. I
[1:27:32]think Pam Bond recognizes Mr. Bigs. It's Mr. Biggs. Five minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um um I I will just point out I the
[1:27:43]previous speaker was talking about peeling back so the public can see what goes on in a committee. I mean, um, I just came from another committee where
[1:27:54]we're talking about, uh, massive fraud around the country and in particular in Minnesota. And, uh, I'm glad that two Democrats could find time out of their busy schedule to even attend that
[1:28:06]hearing. What a shame. What a shame. Um, so I when someone says, "What is in the files so bad?" I'll ask this question. What is in the
[1:28:16]files? It's so bad that the Democrats for four years. >> Yeah. >> For four years when they had control of this committee didn't release a single document, didn't call a single witness,
[1:28:28]didn't make any motion. In fact, for those four years, go back and look. Did they ever say anything about
[1:28:36]Epstein? No, they didn't. But wanting to make a press, want to get it on the press. That's why you're making the issue today. Because let's let's
[1:28:46]talk about why we want need to talk with uh do this contempt is because President former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton basically strung us along as we were
[1:28:57]bending over backwards trying to accommodate their schedule. They didn't show up after we finally had to get a a subpoena form. And I just I have right here, this
[1:29:08]is just interesting to me. Uh this is a a little note written by little little note written by Mr. Clinton, former President Clinton uh to Jeffrey Epstein's on Jeffrey Epstein's 50th
[1:29:20]birthday. Jeffrey, happy 50th. It's reassuring, isn't it, to have lasted as long across all the years of learning
[1:29:29]and knowing, adventures and [snorts] no illegible word. And also to have your childlike curiosity, the drive to make a difference, and the solace of
[1:29:39]friends. He rode on that plane many times. He was apparently uh close friends with him. Jeffrey Epstein claims that, and I don't
[1:29:50]know if we should believe anything Epstein says for sure, but I mean Epstein says that he helped set up and fund uh the Clinton Foundation and and former President Clinton in his in his
[1:30:02]note. I mean, he this is what he wants. He doesn't want to come in and testify. He wants to do the same thing that he did in previous times. Just okay, we're going to send a little note that ought to do it. He says he says something to
[1:30:14]the effect that he spent significant time in the Clinton Foundation after he left the presidency. Well, if the if uh if Jeffrey Epstein set it up, then
[1:30:25]there's some reason to ask questions there of both he and uh the former Secretary of State. They were given a subpoena. It was a lawfully issued
[1:30:34]subpoena by a standing committee. By the way, I happened to be at that that subcommittee hearing. I was there when every Democrat voice voted that out.
[1:30:46]Nobody objected and said they didn't want him to be subpoenaed, but he was subpoenaed and he didn't show
[1:30:54]up. So, here we are. And uh with M Mr. Chairman, I'll yield time to you if you need it. I appreciate it. I think that uh
[1:31:05]everything that that uh needs to be pointed out we've pointed out. So uh I will then I'll yield sir. >> Okay chair any other member seek
[1:31:16]recognition? >> Chairman >> Mr. Infu. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the ranking member and I particularly want to underscore the
[1:31:27]ranking members opening statement and that was that oversight Democrats want the truth about Jeff. Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and accountability for everyone
[1:31:38]everyone involved. He said, and I agree, we want transparency. We want the facts. And above all, we want this committee to
[1:31:47]use its oversight tools in a serious and responsible way. I would be remiss if I did not thank on behalf of all of us the efforts of Representative Roana of this
[1:31:59]committee and representative Massie. Thank God they stood in the way of things and took the heat to get the discharge petition up and voted on. And
[1:32:10]I want to also point out something that I think is important and that is consistencies. M Mr. Chairman, the action that the majority has been
[1:32:20]proposing today departs from this committee's established practices, including its long timestanding acceptance of written testimony and the
[1:32:32]level of accommodation this committee has traditionally traditionally required before proceeding to criminal contempt, not civil, criminal contempt.
[1:32:41]I'm glad, as the ranking member has stated, that the Clintons have agreed to testimony and to a transcript and to
[1:32:52]meet. I agree also that that meeting should not be taking place in New York. It sends the wrong reason for anybody that uh gets something from this committee, they should come to the committee. It's just that plain and
[1:33:04]simple. But it departs in many instances with the way this committee has moved on. And I say that because we never know this time next year uh who might hold
[1:33:15]that gamble and who on either side may want to go after the current president uh his sons, his wife, his family, and anybody connected to him as a department
[1:33:26]head. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's a slippery slope. Now, does Bill Clinton have to defend himself? Absolutely. Yes. It is a bit curious,
[1:33:36]however, why we are going after Mrs. Clinton. Uh, I've not seen anything, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said earlier, that suggests that she ought to be a part of this in any way or has done
[1:33:48]something wrong or is complicit in this matter. And I would hope that uh there's some consideration, Mr. Chairman, to withdrawing at the very least that particular resolution. That just makes
[1:33:59]me think that this is a fishing expedition and that we want to dust her up a bit if we get her before this committee. Now, a couple of quick things. We're being asked
[1:34:10]to move forward holding a former president of the United States, again, not in civil contempt, in criminal contempt of Congress. And I'm going to tell you why it's an extraordinary step.
[1:34:22]Not that it's unprecedented, it's extraordinary, but it is unprecedented in the fact that we did not do that with Richard Nixon. We did not do that with Donald Trump. There was a subpoena, but
[1:34:32]there was never an attempt to find them in criminal contempt of the Congress or of this committee. It's an extraordinary remedy that's usually reserved for situations where a witness has clearly
[1:34:44]and willfully defied Congress after extraordinary processes have been exhausted. The majority has not demonstrated that standard
[1:34:54]>> so far. I do want to say also that we're in a situation where I don't think that anybody on the Republican or on the Democratic side of this committee is
[1:35:05]trying to defend uh former President Clinton. They're trying to find a way to make sure that we're consistent. So the reason we keep hearing the need to have
[1:35:15]Pan Bondi before this committee is that we're getting ready to bring criminal contempt charges before there's been an investigation. Usually that happens
[1:35:25]after the investigation. And the notion that somebody was going to come before this committee, Mrs. Maxwell, and take the fifth, I don't care. She's already a
[1:35:34]convicted criminal. She can't take the fifth. But we can do the actions we ought to be about. And that is to make sure that both of them are before this committee. And then to make sure also or
[1:35:46]to suggest it's up to you and the ranking member that th that meeting takes place and those transcripts are made available and that that Mr. Clinton comes before the committee with council
[1:35:58]so that we then are in a position to move forward. We're taking a big jump here without doing some of the things that we we normally do. Now I'm glad
[1:36:07]that Miss Lee brought up the matter of victims. She's not here right now, but all of us sat in that room with those victims. It was gut-wrenching and all of us made a commitment that we would prove
[1:36:19]that this institution could and would do the right thing. So, we're challenged here, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that you and the ranking member can give us a way
[1:36:30]to proceed here that both of the concerns on both sides are addressed. But if we just move straight as we're going now without an investigation, it
[1:36:40]begs the question, what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Uh Miss Simons next. Before I recognize her, I I just want to add with respect to the Hillary
[1:36:51]Clinton subpoena. You all voted for that. This committee voted for that in a bipartisan manner. Her name was on that list. And uh with respect to Pam Bondi
[1:37:02]again, she's testifying in front of Congress in less than two weeks. Chair recognized Miss Simon. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um just a quick comment and I have a friendly question
[1:37:14]for my colleague, Miss Luna. And I'll say a friendly question. Um um I've worked with victims for decades. So few opportunities present themselves
[1:37:31]for victims to sit face to face with folks who hold power, to beg and plead that everyone who had anything to do
[1:37:40]with their harm be held to account. So few opportunities.
[1:37:49]I have been a victim advocate where brilliant young women who have been trafficked across this country have stood in courtrooms and were demanded to testify against their traffickers. And
[1:38:01]they did with such power and grace in fear that their lives may be taken because of
[1:38:12]of that that braveness. And a number of those young women that I witnessed take all that they had to confront their demons. They were murdered
[1:38:23]because they took a stand. And so when we did stand in front and sit in front of those victims and they gave us their all, um I hope that this is not the only
[1:38:35]opportunity, Mr. Chair, to speak on their behalf. from our president to everyone in those files.
[1:38:51]Forget all the political games. If these women who are connected with the largest sex trafficking ring
[1:39:01]in modernday American history cannot get justice, what about the girls in every single state?
[1:39:10]I mean, it is what it is. That being said, Miss Luna, you talked briefly about a proposal. She >> She's not in. >> She's out. >> That's
[1:39:22]>> um There was a proposal put on the table um to rethink how we might have a conversation about the Clintons or President Clinton coming in and having a
[1:39:33]conversation um with this body. And I guess that time has passed, but I know that I would love to hear from the
[1:39:44]president of the who the former president of the United States. I would love to hear from the attorney general. I would love to hear from the current president of the United States. Um the
[1:39:54]victims deserve to be heard. The victims deserve for the files to be released in their
[1:40:05]entirety. and the victims deserve for us to get to the bottom of this matter. I yield back. Well, I actually would like to yield my time to the ranking member.
[1:40:17]>> Actually, I'm I'm okay right now on time. I might I might come back around, but back to Mr. Comr and the Republicans. Thank you, Miss Simon. >> Okay. U
[1:40:31]do any other members seek recognition? See, seeing none, we are going to [snorts] there's an amendment at the
[1:40:41]desk. Well, let's let's Miss Lee, [snorts] >> what purpose do you seek recognition? >> I have an amendment at the desk.
[1:40:53]>> Will the clerk distribute the amendment to all members? Uh, the clerk will designate the amendment. >> An amendment to the amendment in nature of a substitute to the William J. Clinton contempt report as offered by Miss Lee of Pennsylvania.
[1:41:04]>> Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. Uh the gentleoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um
[1:41:15]I think that even listening to this debate throughout our hearing today, our markup today, I I think it's really clear that at the heart of this effort to release the Epstein fowls are very
[1:41:26]real human beings who have experienced unimaginable harm. They have been repeatedly victimized by the indifference of the US government and the injustice that they face. They
[1:41:38]deserve peace and healing and justice. When my motion to subpoena the Epstein fouls passed, this committee resolved to get that justice for those survivors.
[1:41:49]And I thank Mr. Excuse me, Chairman Comr for pushing this effort forward by issuing additional subpoenas for the Epstein estate and the banks.
[1:41:59]And we know that without the full fouls from the DOJ that that is just not enough. That's why I'm introducing this amendment which holds general at uh
[1:42:09]Attorney General Pam Bondi in civil contempt for failing to comply with the August 5th subpoena. And I urge my colleagues to support it. And we believe that we should start with civil contempt
[1:42:20]because we are serious about this investigation. We want these files and we want to hear from them and we must start there. The Department of Justice
[1:42:30]needs to be the priority. We can move to non-compliance by anyone else in including Glain Maxwell after we have received those fouls. It has been 5
[1:42:40]months and we're still missing over 5 million pages of documents purportedly. The Department of Justice has only released 1% of those fouls. They have stonewalled this committee since August
[1:42:52]and they have failed to provide even the most basic updates. How is that not an insult both to the authority of this committee and the survivors? Without the
[1:43:03]full files, how can we know who might have legitimate knowledge or who might be culpable? We wouldn't have to speculate on the Clintons or anyone else's involvement if we had all of
[1:43:15]those fouls. And to be clear, I'm certainly not opposed uh to the president and secretary Clinton's uh being held accountable for violating the subpoena. But the fact that this effort
[1:43:26]to hold the Clintons in contempt was fasttracked and is happening before any action against the Justice Department is just evidence that the Republicans on this committee are not taking this investigation seriously. It is an
[1:43:37]unequal application of law. And again, it is a bit ironic that these contempt resolutions empower the Justice Department to imprison possibly two
[1:43:49]people for defying the exact same subpoena that they themselves are defying. If this committee wants to be taken seriously, we would be addressing
[1:43:59]all the bad actors in this investigation, not cherrypicking them for political points. The Justice Department needs to be held accountable for their non-compliance and lack of transparency. They have been selectively
[1:44:11]producing information, shielding powerful people, and obstructing any efforts for oversight. And if we don't hold them accountable, Mr. Chair, we are
[1:44:21]too. Just this past Friday, Attorney General Bondi asked a New York federal judge to deny an appointment of a special master to monitor the release of the Epstein fouls. They don't want a
[1:44:32]neutral third party making sure they follow the law. I think all of us should be questioning what the Justice Department is doing that they don't want the American people to see. We can't
[1:44:43]just take them at their word uh that they'll eventually get around to releasing the fouls. Quite frankly, they have put up uh the same, if not far less
[1:44:53]of an of of a um action as the Clintons have. what little information they've released so far has either already been made public or has been a mess of just
[1:45:04]sketchy redactions. A group of survivors sent a letter to the Justice Department's Inspector General complaining that the redactions had been quote selective. They pointed out that
[1:45:14]multiple times the names of alleged abusers appear to be redacted, yet some survivors names and identifying information were released. To be clear, the subpoena I move to secure does not
[1:45:26]allow for reductions unless it would protect the identity of a survivor or contains child sex abuse materials. They have had plenty of time to work with this committee to protect survivors identities. This is bigger than one
[1:45:36]case. It's about rich and powerful people being protected by each other and institutions. It's about a system that has enabled Jeffrey Epste and Gain Maxwell and whoever their co-conspirators are to buy favors and
[1:45:47]silence from our government. This effort is the one time we could get some real accountability and reclaim the power of this system. Republicans don't drop the ball by allowing Pam Bondi and the
[1:45:59]Department of Justice to play us for fools. Mr. Chair, you are setting a precedent that non-compliance with this committee will result in immediate contempt proceedings. So, I challenge you and my Republican colleagues to put
[1:46:09]your money where your mouth is and pass this amendment and holding Pam Bondi in contempt. Uh, I yield back. >> Gentle yields back. I'll recognize
[1:46:17]myself just for a amendment. Uh look, I oppose this amendment and I hope everyone on the committee opposes this.
[1:46:27]That's because Attorney General Bondi and the Department of Justice. They have released documents. Again, not at the speed or pace that any of us want, but
[1:46:37]they are complying with our subpoena. That is a fact. I oppose your amendment, M. because you amend the uh criminal uh
[1:46:47]to civil. And I think that most of what I'm hearing from my colleagues on the other side of the aisles, everyone wants to hear from the
[1:46:57]Clintons. They've had an opportunity for five months. They will have another opportunity uh between today's vote and the floor to come in and answer
[1:47:08]questions. Pam Bondi is coming in front of Congress in [snorts] less than two weeks to answer questions. Your colleague, Miss Crockett, I again, I don't want to speak for Miss Crockett, but I'm pretty confident Miss Crockett's
[1:47:20]going to grill >> Pam Bondi, right? >> You agree with me? I I I would have won that bet. >> She come with the facts. >> H >> is she coming with the facts?
[1:47:31]>> Well, we'll see. I think that's a good She may. >> I hope she does. So, I oppose this now. Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia.
[1:47:41]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just start by saying I strongly support the amendment proposed by Congresswoman Lee. Uh the House majority keeps saying that they believe that no one is above the law. Oversight Democrats certainly believe
[1:47:53]that. But the attorney general is violating it with impunity in support of a White House cover up every single day. We want accountability for her failure to comply with our subpoena for the full
[1:48:03]Epstein files that's been in place since the summer. She fails to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. She fails to comply with the subpoena put in place by Representative Lee and the
[1:48:14]committee. This is clearly a White House directed cover up. Now, over a month after the deadline, only 1% of these files have been released. No explanation has been given for illegal redactions,
[1:48:25]again, in violation of the law. Epsi survivors have reported that their names have appeared in uh in parts of the document that were not redacted. And every day she continues to withhold
[1:48:36]files and conceals the truth. She continues to give Glain Maxwell special treatment by moving her to a less secure prison that we all are aware, which is completely shameful. [snorts] Now, Chairman Comr, you claim, of
[1:48:47]course, that the attorney general was complying with our subpoena. I mean, that is absolutely false. 1% of the documents since a subpoena in place
[1:48:58]during the summer is not complying with our subpoena. Now, in August 5th, 2025, this comma this committee issued that subpoena compelling her to produce
[1:49:07]documents and communications. That subpoena unambiguously required the attorney general to do that no later than August 19th of 2025. August 19th,
[1:49:18]not December, August 19th of 2025. On August 22nd, the DOJ made a single production of approximately 33,000 pages to this committee. All of those
[1:49:29]documents, however, were already public. The DOJ has made no additional productions to the committee pursuant to the subpoena. The DOJ has failed to provide specific information in response
[1:49:39]to repeated requests from Democratic oversight staff as to why the DOJ's timetable continues to move and why it's not fulfilled as production or the law. Now, in response to letters from our
[1:49:51]committee on November 25th, the DOJ transmitted a single letter in response to the committee's inquiries. They claimed that the DOJ was working to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which now, of course,
[1:50:03]we know they actually weren't doing because we actually haven't received very much. The letter made no reference to the committee subpoena, no reference to DOJ's plan for compliance.
[1:50:14]The corrupt failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not just a crime. It also shows that the attorney general has made no attempt to actually comply with our subpoena. Now,
[1:50:25]oversight Republicans might be happy to give President Trump and Pam Bondi a free pass to break the law, but this committee shouldn't do so. This amendment will allow us to go to court
[1:50:36]to force Pam Bondi to comply with our subpoena and to finally bring the Epstein files to light. I urge adoption and I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Any other members
[1:50:46]seek recognition? Who's next on your side? Lynch. Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, look, as the ranking member pointed out, uh,
[1:50:56]we've got about 1% of the documents. Uh, I take exception to the the declaration by the chairman that that Pam Bondi and
[1:51:08]Department of Justice is actually producing documents, is cooperating. So, we've got we've got the 30,000 documents that they sent us in August was a dump
[1:51:18]and it was largely already made public. It wasn't it wasn't prepared. I I'll give you a comparison. We've got a handful of attorneys that work for the
[1:51:27]estate of of Jeffrey Epstein and and they have given us more in the same amount of time than the Department of Justice has given. I want to point out
[1:51:37]that there are 100,000 employees at the Department of Justice. And I know very recently uh the US attorney for the Southern District of New York has now
[1:51:47]put a considerable number of people on the case redacting uh documents. But but that was 6 months after we he started to do that Clayton
[1:51:58]started to do that after 6 months after we had originally requested the documents. So this is a stall tactic. They they haven't given us any of the
[1:52:07]documents. remember uh back in back in February of 2025,
[1:52:15]uh Pam Bondi said publicly that she had a client list of the
[1:52:25]perpetrators in the Epstein, excuse me, client list was sitting on her desk right now to review. That was back in February of 2025.
[1:52:36]She went on later on in March 3rd, 2025. Uh she told Sean Hannity that a truckload of evidence had arise arrived
[1:52:47]that FBI director Cash Patel is going to get me and himself really a detailed report as to why all these documents and
[1:52:55]evidence had been withheld. Close quote. However, in July 25, July 2025, Bondi and the FBI released an unsigned
[1:53:05]memorandum in concluding that the review found no evidence no evidence that Epstein had a client list or that he blackmailed prominent associates and
[1:53:16]this is obviously contradicting her earlier public statements and faced significant backlash. This is a >> this is clearly obstruction of justice
[1:53:27]on the part of of Pam Bondi. Um we have every bit of reason to to infer that she
[1:53:36]has no intention at all of producing these documents. uh she has made a mockery out of this this whole process
[1:53:46]uh in including allowing uh witness tampering and having uh Galileain Maxwell convicted of of uh trafficking
[1:53:55]in this instance uh removed from a from from one jail to a much more comfortable position. Why is that not witness tampering? We should we should ask your
[1:54:05]questions about that. And the idea that that some other committee is going to do this is is an abdication of our responsibility on this committee. I
[1:54:15]believe uh we should not look we we are the ones that we had the the victims sit down in front of us
[1:54:26]and tearfully ask for justice from this committee. And we we promised that. We promised that we would do everything we poss. We didn't say, "Well, we'll we'll check with the
[1:54:37]judiciary committee and we'll let them do the work." We said we would take on this responsibility, which is ours, Mr. Chairman. This the this is the rightful
[1:54:46]jurisdiction for this case and we should demand people with evidence to produce that evidence so that we can proceed in our work. We haven't done that thus far.
[1:54:57]We've we've let we've let Pam Bondi distort and obstruct uh the just the justice that's that's due to these to
[1:55:07]these victims. It it's shameful. It really is. And uh I want to hear from everyone who has a connection to this. I want to hear from every single witness
[1:55:19]that might be able to provide evidence to this committee. And I think Pam Bondi with the millions and millions and millions of documents is at the top of
[1:55:29]that list. And she has she has thwarted justice long enough. Uh she is a lap dog to the president. She is trying to protect the president who is all over
[1:55:41]this case. All over this case. And uh I'm hopeful that eventually he'll be a a witness before this committee at some point. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Before I
[1:55:51]recognize uh Scott Perry, if I may, this committee has done everything that the victims asked that day in that
[1:56:03]hearing. They asked that we subpoena the estate. I didn't we had no idea what was in that state documents. Could have been could have been all Republicans. Had no idea. Could have been billionaire. Could have been donors to the Republican party. Could have been donors to the
[1:56:14]Democrat party. Had no idea. without hesitation, I signed that subpoena for the estate. And then with respect to what you with
[1:56:24]your criticism of of Bondi, I don't disagree with anything you said in your criticism of the current attorney general. And I think she's going to have
[1:56:34]to answer those questions in front of Congress, in front of the American people in two weeks. And I'm confident she's going to be asked those questions. And I expect to hear answers
[1:56:44]from the crit from the uh criticism that you leveled against her. No one's defending her. Again, we expect to get the documents. They have produced some.
[1:56:54]We aren't satisfied with the pace and she's going to be in front of Congress in two weeks to answer that exact criticism. Chair recognized Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr.
[1:57:06]Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address the unjustified and cowardly claims made against me by members of this committee after I left. And maybe
[1:57:17]they were afraid to face me while I was here, but I'm here now and I'm going to face you. Just to be clear, if you have this job, you should know that any subpoena from
[1:57:27]another Congress is invalid in the next Congress. It dies with the last Congress. That's minimum information that you should know if you're going to serve in Congress. So, just let me
[1:57:38]inform you of that if you didn't know that. Regarding the so-called subpoena, it is unjust and it is immoral to get a group of your friends together who have
[1:57:49]a predetermined outcome, put them together in a room, and then use the power of the federal government to pre prevail on your political enemies.
[1:57:59]The subpoena that was served to me or my council was not valid because there was no valid committee serving it.
[1:58:07]I did not violate any law and I reject the claims or the aerance that I did. The Democrat party sought to by use of
[1:58:23]the awesome and and just the grand power of the federal government
[1:58:34]to destroy my reputation as a person who was not charged with anything, was not accused of anything, was not the target of investigation.
[1:58:43]you wish to dirty me up and bankrupt me so you can get rid of me. It is outrageous. And I have not mentioned that at all. But since you
[1:58:54]brought it up, but since you brought it up, I felt it would appropriate at this time to clear my good name. And as the years have gone by, more information has come
[1:59:06]out to prove what I just said was absolutely accurate. What happened during that period of time when you were in the majority was you
[1:59:17]set up a star chamber with predetermined outcomes and then sought to destroy in any way possible your political enemies by fashioning lies and then repeating
[1:59:28]them over and over again which you do to this day which you do to this moment. Now, when I spoke earlier, I didn't mention the subpoena. I mentioned the truth. And that's what this committee
[1:59:39]should be all about, wherever it comes from and whoever it touches. And I believe that to my soul, which is why I have been on this bandwagon long before you have ever been on it and much
[1:59:51]more than you have ever done. Much more than you have ever done legitimately and sincerely. So, I just uh I thank the chairman for
[2:00:04]allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight and hopefully and hopefully that won't happen in the future. Now, regarding the Clintons, as you know, I offered the
[2:00:16]amendment, the resolution to bring everybody in, attorneys general from both sides of the aisle, but with the Clintons in particular, because of their particular knowledge of Mr. Jeffrey
[2:00:27]Epstein and his exploits with underage women. It is horrific. As a father, as a father of two young daughters,
[2:00:38]I would just say that the perpetrators of whatever happened ought to be thankful that their fathers don't know about it. But I sure hope that they do know soon.
[2:00:48]And I sure hope that there is justice for all the victims and that we don't seek to destroy the lives of those uninvolved for political
[2:00:59]purposes. What this which is what quite honestly this whole theater this whole charade has been about. This should have been easy. Is Mr. Clinton an American citizen? We appreciate that he was the
[2:01:10]president, but according to his wife, he's not above the law and neither is she. This is a lawful subpoena with plenty of time. The committee has been and the chairman has been more than
[2:01:20]generous trying to work it out. But it's pretty obvious to anybody with eyes in their head that the Clintons feel like they're above the law and they're going to get special treatment as Secretary Clinton did the last time she was
[2:01:32]subpoenaed. I'll remind everybody that she worked out a deal to come in with her so-called attorney but was her aid behind closed doors on a Saturday
[2:01:41]without without any transcript. That's where we're headed. I'll yield the balance of my time to the gentle lady from Colorado if she wants it. >> Thank you, Mr. Perry. I I just think
[2:01:53]that all of this is is rich. I mean, we have every Democrat here just with their typical talking points claiming they want to hold the Clintons accountable and hear from them. So, I I think it's
[2:02:04]time we move on and and and get to the actual point of this. We had the Clintons defy a lawful subpoena and that is what we are here to discuss. But Democrats want to bring up anything but
[2:02:16]that. And if this continues, I'm going to call the question. So continue with your Clintons and how you are going to protect them or defend them or I'm going to call the question. We're going to
[2:02:28]have the vote and end all of this nonsense rhetoric that's going on. Mr. Chairman, I yield. >> Gentle lady yields back. Cherry M. Stanberry is next on the list, I think.
[2:02:37]No. Okay, >> Frost. Who's next? I just go by what >> the ranking member wants. >> What's on the list? >> So, who's next?
[2:02:53]>> Mr. Frost. >> Frost from Florida. >> I just want to speak in support of this amendment um that has been put forth by Representative Lee. Look, at the end of the day, the United States Congress
[2:03:05]voted damn near damn near unanimously. One member of Congress voted against releasing the Epstein files. Happens to be a Republican on this committee. But damn near unanimously, we said, "We want
[2:03:16]the files." Months before that in the subcommittee in a subcommittee on this committee, we said we we uh issued a subpoena for the files as well. they
[2:03:26]have failed to comply with the law, not just on one uh law that we passed, but also on a lawful subpoena that this committee put forth. And so I I just
[2:03:37]want to speak in support of Representative Lee's uh uh motion here, an amendment here, because we have to go at this everywhere. We want to hear from everyone. We want to hear from former president. We want to hear from anyone
[2:03:49]who's implicated. We want to hear from anyone who has information that might help us get justice for the victims. But it is obvious that my Republican colleagues are doing anything they can
[2:03:59]to play defense for the administration. 1% of documents is unacceptable. 1% of documents is unacceptable when you've had months and months and months
[2:04:10]since June or July of last year to produce these documents when we sent a lawful subpoena to the Department of Justice. 1% of documents is unacceptable for a bill passed by the United States Congress that they are in violation of.
[2:04:22]They're breaking the law right now as we speak and all we're asking for is accountability here for everyone. And so th this amendment I think is very
[2:04:33]simple. I know the chairman keeps bringing up the fact that Pam Bondi is going to come to the judiciary committee. The judiciary committee is not the committee that is leading the investigation on this. We are the
[2:04:44]oversight committee. And so he she can go over to the judiciary judiciary committee all she wants like she by the way is supposed to like every other attorney general has in the history of this country shows up before the
[2:04:56]judiciary committee at least once a year or once in Congress for to talk about a lot of different business. But we have a very specific thing we need to ch talk with her about and it is talking with
[2:05:06]her about the fact that she is breaking the law and that the administration is obviously slow rolling putting forth the Epstein files. And I do not buy this thing that, oh well, they're taking
[2:05:18]their time to redact it and this and that. We all know that's a load of BS. We all know that that is a a talking point that perhaps the administration gave some of my colleagues that they are
[2:05:29]just repeating over and over and over again. But when you have the entire Department of Justice or, you know, a lot of people working on this, you should be able to produce documents in a much faster way. And the
[2:05:40]law was clear. And by the way, it's the law that we all voted on. So if you thought that the timetable was unfair, you should have voted no. But you voted
[2:05:49]yes. We all voted yes except one. Um and so I think this is a very sensible amendment that everyone should vote yes on. Um because it is important that we have accountability across the board no
[2:06:01]matter who you are. Um I will yield. Do you want my time ranking member? I'll yield uh the balance of my time to uh the ranking member. >> Thank you. Uh thank you again. Um Mr.
[2:06:12]Frost, just to to conclude, uh we obviously have and support Representative Lee's amendment. We think it's important. It's important to get
[2:06:21]Pam Bondi uh to actually produce the files and it's certainly important to move this debate forward. And so I just again want to re reiterate and reinforce our support as we wrap up this debate uh
[2:06:32]on the on this amendment. And so thank you, Mr. Kumer. >> Thank you. We have one more uh speaking request on our side and that's Mr. Bigs from Arizona. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And turns out
[2:06:44]apparently I was mentioned as well. When I was uh I was conducting that that hearing that uh on Minnesota fraud and other fraud that the Democrats were so
[2:06:54]interested in that only two of them bothered to show up. That was interesting. Well, so let let's talk about the the illicit subpoenas because
[2:07:05]I think some some of my colleagues may not remember this, but the resolution that we all passed that passed out of here to uh install the J6 committee gave
[2:07:17]to then minority leader Kevin McCarthy um specific authority to name the members from the Republican side that would sit on that J6 committee. So he
[2:07:29]named them, but Speaker Pelosi didn't like those guys. So she said, "No, they they can't be on the committee." So she booted them and replaced them with people that she felt
[2:07:40]would be more amenable to get to uh accomplish the desired political outcome that she wanted the J6 committee to have. And that was so she put two
[2:07:52]individuals, you will remember Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger on there having removed uh and no other no other Republicans were on there. And so not
[2:08:03]only did she violate the resolution, but the resolution all called for a certain number to be on there and there were not that number. So the committee itself was
[2:08:12]illicit. And it was not a standing committee like this is where you have uh jurisdictional authorities.
[2:08:22]That committee by that point was no longer a committee. It was a it was an effort to railroad people um including including myself. And and things have
[2:08:33]been said about me repeatedly that have been debunked. Everything's been debunked that was said about me. But we here we have it today. And the
[2:08:43]and Mr. Perry was right. This was designed to go after spe certain specific people. I'm still not quite sure why I was one, but I was one. And
[2:08:52]uh bringing it up today uh is actually kind of an abhorrent tactic because it was an illicit com committee didn't have
[2:09:02]authority to issue an illicit subpoena. Um whereas this committee issued a legitimate subpoena. Not only did it provide the subpoena, but it actually worked for months trying to get the
[2:09:13]Clintons and accommodate their schedule, including continuing this at least once so the Clintons would find it more convenient to come and respond to the deposition.
[2:09:23]Uh, leaving all other deflection aside, if you really want the Clintons to uh come in, answer these questions, then this would be the appropriate time to vote to hold them in contempt. And with
[2:09:34]that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you. Gentleman yields back. The question is now on the amendment offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. >> M Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. If
[2:09:46]>> I go ahead >> so that we know exactly what we're doing here because this has gone way off of where we started with Miss Lee's uh amendment. So the members of the
[2:09:57]committee know this resolves itself that the committee on oversight and government reform shall initiate judicial proceedings in any federal
[2:10:08]court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform to seek declaratory judgments affirming the duty of Patricia
[2:10:19]or Pamela J. Bondi, attorney general of the United States, to comply with the subpoena duly issued to her by the chairman of the committee on oversight
[2:10:30]and government reform as a part of investigating and the investigation into federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking law generally and
[2:10:41]specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Gain Maxwell. How we vote on this will be very telling. I support
[2:10:52]this amendment. I would urge other members of the committee to do so also if we are serious about equal practice and holding everyone accountable. I
[2:11:03]yield back, sir. Gentleman yields back. The question is now on the amendment
[2:11:13]offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. All those in favor of the Lee amendment signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it
[2:11:24]and the amendment is not >> recorded vote, please sir. >> A recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. >> For what? >> Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
[2:11:36]desk. >> Uh, the clerk will distribute the amendment to all members. The clerk will designate the men amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment of the nature
[2:11:47]of a substitute to the William J. Clinton contempt report as offered by Mr. Men of California. >> Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from California is
[2:11:58]recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> Chair Comr, I motion to amend your amendment in the nature of a substitute to authorize the House Oversight Committee to do three things. First,
[2:12:08]pursue federal court action to enforce a subpoena against former President Bill Clinton related to the sex trafficking investigation. Two, require the committee to report back any resulting
[2:12:19]litigation. And three, direct the House general counsel to represent the committee with the speaker's approval. Now, I have, as mentioned previously, spent my career trying to enforce the
[2:12:30]rule of law. I started as an SEC enforcement attorney, went on to become a law professor. I very strongly believe in the rule of law. But the rule of law is not just about um not having anyone
[2:12:42]above the law. It is also about not targeting people simply because you don't like them or because they're in a different political party or because they've done things you don't particularly care for. Going after an
[2:12:53]individual uniquely because of how they're positioned is also a gross violation of our powers and of the rule of law. And if you look at the precedent
[2:13:02]of how Congress has operated, uh we have three inherent powers when when it comes to contempt, uh inherent contempt, civil enforcement, and criminal contempt. Now,
[2:13:13]since we initiated criminal contempt back in the 1930s, we have rarely if ever used criminal contempt as a charge, and we have almost never leapt from
[2:13:23]civil enforcement to criminal contempt. The decision here to go from civil enforcement and to ignore that step, jumping to criminal contempt is in my
[2:13:32]view a a gross imposition, a gross abuse of power on our part. It is also counterproductive because if we launch criminal contempt proceedings, I think my colleague Mr. Biggs point out that we
[2:13:43]want the Clintons to testify. If we launch criminal contempt proceedings, we will not hear from the Clintons. That is a fact. They will be tied up in court. We have no guarantee that they will ever testify before this committee. civil
[2:13:54]enforcement will achieve the goal we want of getting the Clintons out here in before this committee. Uh now I I just think this is problematic. We talked earlier, Mr. Comr, and I still have not
[2:14:04]heard you to this point in time say anything about the Clintons defying the subpoena. I've heard you say obiscate, delay, drag their feet. We've had 5 months. But at no point in time do they say we're not complying with the
[2:14:15]subpoena. And to me, civil enforcement is an appropriate intermediate step. It makes sense because it allows a court to step in, secure compliance with the committee subpoena in a nonpartisan
[2:14:26]orderly way that follows the rule law. Court would be empowered to impose fines uh and actual imprisonment if the individual or entity refuses to comply with us. If we break from precedent,
[2:14:37]this is going to start potentially a chain reaction of partisan warfare with criminal charges. That is not not a road I believe we want to go down in this committee or in this Congress. I think civil contempt will achieve our goals uh
[2:14:49]and it will do so in a way that is consistent with the rule law. With that, I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. I'll recognize myself for a few minutes.
[2:15:00]The committee's consulted with the House Office of General Counsel as well as committee council uh who have expressed significant concern with shifting from criminal contempt to civil contempt
[2:15:12]because it would likely result in extended litigation that would go beyond his term. As Mr. Perry said, a subpoena is only good for a congressional term.
[2:15:23]He is already five months past his subpoena. The Clintons have lawed up there. There's no question in my mind that if
[2:15:34]we do this, they will ride this out and hope that that the the House flips and that you all are in control and you all just let them go get by without answering any questions, which I think
[2:15:46]is is terrible. So, I cannot support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Chair recognizes ranking member. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to support the men motion. I think I just
[2:15:57]want to reiterate something I think all oversight Dems have said today is that we all want to hear from President Clinton. We all want questions answered from President Clinton. I I don't think one member of this committee has stated
[2:16:08]anything differently. And this amendment is a way for us to secure compliance without immediately moving to criminal contempt while they have been trying to
[2:16:19]negotiate answering our questions. We can continue to let the legal process play out. Both the integrity of our investigation as a whole is critical as we move
[2:16:31]forward. This is an opportunity for us to get our questions answered from President Clinton. We will do that without empowering a Department of Justice that quite frankly has been
[2:16:40]corrupt and untrustworthy for many many months. We should continue to negotiate and work through an established process. Clearly, there's interest in negotiate from the Clinton
[2:16:52]side. Let's hear from President Clinton. Let's support this motion. I yield back. I >> If I may, and with all due respect, if if you want to hear from President Clinton,
[2:17:04]have him come in for the deposition. They've had five months to do that. For whatever reason, you've been unsuccessful. There's two more weeks before this will be voted on from the full house. We will
[2:17:15]hear from Bondi in between and we will go from there. We expect to hear from Bill Clinton. He's not above the law. Mr. Walker, Charles recognized.
[2:17:26]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of points. One, it it seems to me like we made some progress in the negotiation to talk to President Clinton here today. You have acknowledged your your your you
[2:17:38]and your team are no longer going to demand to be able to ask questions not related to Epstein. The Clintons have agreed to transcription of that
[2:17:49]conversation. So that >> you could go to New York and talk to President Clinton on the date that you all set. That's ready to go. We've heard from Miss Luna that it would be a bad look for you and the ranking member to
[2:18:00]have to drive to New York. They got airports there. You all could take a flight and go to New York and have the conversation that would move our investigation forward. I I'm supporting
[2:18:11]Mr. Men's amendment and the nature of a substitute. and and you know I I'll I'll share I I was a staff member for a member of this committee for more than a decade throughout the Obama
[2:18:21]administration multiple chairman of the committee and time after time after time Republicans who chaired the committee Democrats who chaired the committee negotiated with members of the
[2:18:33]administration or private individuals who they wanted to have come before the committee negotiated the terms. Not once did I see this kind of leap to criminal
[2:18:44]contempt. It is it is it is not consistent with the way that this committee has operated. It is not necessary. Mr. Men's amendment or you
[2:18:55]and the ranking member going to New York and having the transcribed under oath conversation with President Clinton would move our investigation forward. either of those are better options than
[2:19:06]pursuing criminal contempt, which would not get us a conversation with President Clinton, would not move our investigation forward, and would not get the survivors the transparency that
[2:19:18]they're demanding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I >> if I may, Mr. walkshot to reply to that. One reason that your counter offers today
[2:19:29]don't hold a lot of weight with me is the fact that we never demanded to their attorneys that we ask questions outside the realm of the Epstein investigation.
[2:19:40]We never that was never a thing. They have just made that up. So their dishonesty, you know, we've already admitted one lie when they said this wasn't a lawful subpoena. That was in the letter from Bill Clinton and Hillary
[2:19:51]Clinton to me. They said this is not a lawful subpoena. It is a lawful subpoena. Does anybody disagree with that? It is a lawful. Number two, we've never asked to ask questions outside of
[2:20:01]this. And and I'll give you an example. When we were negotiating with Hunter Biden's attorneys or judiciary was negotiating, we agreed when Hunter Biden came in to talk about the Biden
[2:20:12]influence pedaling and the money that they were receiving from foreign countries. We wouldn't ask about the stuff on the laptop. We wouldn't ask about the stuff in the suspicious activity reports about human trafficking
[2:20:23]and other things with we only asked about the influence pedaling which was what the investigation was >> and it's been the same with with the Clintons. So if they're attorneys are
[2:20:34]trying to spin out with the media, >> okay, >> that we wanted to talk about Monica Lewinsky or anything. That is not true. All we want to talk about is Epstein. That has always been the deal. And for
[2:20:46]them to say otherwise is a complete 100% lie by the Clinton attorneys. >> Well, I'm I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad that the Clintons
[2:20:55]have agreed to have the conversation transcribed. So, it seems to me that the only remaining barrier of the barriers you have identified is you don't want to
[2:21:05]go to New York. And from my view, this investigation, >> I'm going to New York this weekend. That's not a barrier. >> Go to the moon. Let's have the conversation. You can do it. Chair chair
[2:21:14]recognizes who's next. >> Mr. Miss Danbury. >> Thank you. I honestly I just want to get some clarification because I've heard so
[2:21:25]many different things here this morning. So, Mr. Chairman, you just said you're willing to go to New York. In fact, you're going to New York this weekend. Is that correct?
[2:21:36]>> The the committee has released the emails. So, we can you can see the communication between the >> be difficult. I really just want to understand are you willing to go to New York to conduct this interview and
[2:21:47]deposition >> with the with the committee with the staff. It's not going to just be we have we have negotiated this for five months. Miss Stansbury.
[2:21:56]>> No, I'm just asking to you all are and there's no there's they've had five months. >> Is the answer a yes? >> It sounds like it's a yes. My other
[2:22:07]question for you is that so it's my understanding that you guys have received both correspondence by phone, email, and uh from a written letter from
[2:22:18]the attorneys from the Clintons offering to do this on the record with you, with the staff, with the attorneys. Is that correct? >> I didn't I wasn't paying attention to
[2:22:31]your question. Okay. We're here uh pursuant to a motion you brought for contempt and the claim is that you have made reasonable accommodations
[2:22:42]and that uh they have not been responsive. But they have transmitted correspondence to all of the members of the committee including yourself and all
[2:22:52]of the members basically in including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone that they have offered by email and they have
[2:23:03]offered in a written letter from both themselves and the attorneys to meet with you on the record with the staff to give sworn statements. Is that correct? We we have negotiated for five. You you
[2:23:15]all are are trying to create a false narrative. You've had five months. You should have gotten the to the Clintons before the contempt vote. >> All I'm asking you is if that's true >> and if they weren't losing public
[2:23:25]opinion, Miss Stainsbury, >> they would be defying this now. That's the only reason there's there's negotiations at the last minute. >> But Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking. >> They don't get to make the rules. We make the rules. The chairman of the
[2:23:36]committee, we make the rules. >> But Mr. Mr. Chairman, is that the fact? That's all I'm asking. Is that factual? >> Just Just to be clear for the public,
[2:23:50]his staff are advising the chairman to not answer that question. >> Okay. >> No, the staff said they couldn't understand what the hell you were saying because you've blabbered for three minutes. But that's what But go ahead.
[2:24:01]>> Okay, Mr. Chairman, let me say it again. Is it true that the Clintons and their attorneys have had multiple
[2:24:10]conversations with you via phone, via email, and via written correspondence offering to give sworn statements on the record to you and the staff? Just a yes
[2:24:22]or no. >> The the Clinton said that we could take notes. Mr. Garcia and I the committee would like to ask questions as well. Were you not in receipt of a letter postmarked from their attorneys
[2:24:33]yesterday saying that they would uh give sworn statements under oath? >> That's not a record. >> Sworn. >> That's not a record.
[2:24:44]>> You're you're not in possession of the letter that their attorney sent yesterday to the entire committee. >> What their letter is stating isn't what you're stating.
[2:24:54]>> Okay. Well, I'm not going to read the letter. will make sure it's available to the public. >> Although I'm sure they'll make sure anything's available to the public. The problem is they've not been truthful. And >> but Mr. Chairman, the standard, the
[2:25:06]legal standard for contempt is non-ooperation. And so my question to you is, are you making reasonable accommodations? Are you cooperating? Are
[2:25:16]you in correspondence with them? And this is in direct relation to the motion that was made now for an amendment that essentially would use our civil
[2:25:26]compliance code in order to get full compliance from the committee. And you're saying you're opposed to it because they haven't complied. But I have not heard you lay out the case for compliance. So why would you oppose
[2:25:38]civil compliance? >> Miss Stainsbury, we have been negotiating for five months. In the meantime, every other person has complied with the subpoena that we've dealt with. legal standard for the
[2:25:48]court, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Well, I I see we have a lot of armchair lawyers here. I am not one, but
[2:26:00]uh Mr. Mr. [laughter] I do support your amendment and uh I think that while the chairman refused to answer questions on the record, I think we established that
[2:26:11]the there has been ongoing correspondence and that it does not meet the standard. Miss Simon.
[2:26:21]>> Miss Simon's recognized. >> I would like to yield my time to the ranking member. >> Thank you. I just want to clarify two things. Um the first is um in the
[2:26:31]comments. I know Mr. Chairman, you you had just discussed about um not going beyond the scope of the Epstein investigation with questions. To be clear though, during the Bill Bar that you were not interested during the Bill
[2:26:42]Bar deposition, you did go beyond the scope of the Epste questions. you ask questions about Russia and a bunch of other things. And so that has been a that testimony was public. That has been a pattern that has been in the in in the
[2:26:53]public realm. And so the reason the Clintons have pushed back on that is because you actually have gone beyond the scope of the Epstein investigation in depositions on this investigation
[2:27:04]with folks you have subpoenaed. I just want to be clear about that because you just mentioned that right now in in in your comments. And the second thing I want to say just to Miss Sansbury's point to to to to
[2:27:14]reiterate is regardless of when it w it was it was done, it's false to say that the Clintons haven't agreed to a transcript
[2:27:25]of the deposition, they have agreed to a transcript. They've done it in and they've reiterated that position in an email that they sent today. It's a position they've made before >> today
[2:27:37]>> to position sir. I mean, obviously it's a position that they've made before to your team. It's a position that they have made a few days ago. They've publicly said it in the press. In fact,
[2:27:48]it was covered, I think, today or yesterday in an article in the New York Times. And they again reiterated it during this testimony when you said that that's not that they've not agreed to.
[2:28:00]They've clarified the position. They are willing for it to be transcribed. Just want to clarify that. >> Chair recognizes. Who's next? No, I still have time. Uh, okay. >> If that's okay, chair, I would like to
[2:28:11]use the uh remainder of my time and yield it to uh Representative Min. >> Uh, thank you, Rep. Simon. Uh, I just want to add a couple points here. Uh,
[2:28:22]first, I just want to note something that I think has been a little bit conflated today. This vote today on the contempt proceeding is not about whether Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved
[2:28:32]with the Epstein sex trafficking ring. um if either or both of them were involved, they deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Uh the survivors deserve justice. But the vote
[2:28:42]that we are about to take later today is about whether the Clinton's actions in negotiating through their lawyers on the particulars of how, when, and where they might appear before this committee, whether that constitutes a willful
[2:28:54]defiance, and that is the legal standard, a willful default of the subpoena issued to them. And again, I want to point out that Chair Commer has repeatedly talked about negotiating for five months, delaying, and trying to run
[2:29:05]out the clock. Uh, I do not believe that that is willful defiance of the subpoena. Uh, that's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of every serious lawyer in this space that I've talked to that actually knows this area
[2:29:16]of the law. I I think we are going far a field here and going straight to criminal contempt. I would also just point out and rebut what the chair said about criminal contempt leading to the Clintons testifying here. If we issue
[2:29:27]criminal contempt proceedings, I don't know if you've followed how courts work. A civil enforcement of of a subpoena can take place very quickly. Criminal trials will take a very long time, months if not years. That will definitely run out
[2:29:39]the clock. We will never hear from the Clintons before this committee. And so I would urge you all to consider this amendment in the N to the amendment in the nature of a substitute because it will actually allow us to hear from the Clintons, maybe get the answers we want
[2:29:50]from them. Uh and particularly since Cherr, you've repeatedly said there is no basis in your mind that that the the committee is not accusing them of any wrongdoing. We're just simply seeking answers. If we want answers, if we want
[2:30:01]more information to get to the bottom of what happened with Epstein and this horrific child sex trafficking ring, we should be looking to civil contempt, civil enforcement, because that will actually get them before us, not
[2:30:11]criminal. With that, I yield back to Cher. Simon. >> I would like to yield my time to Miss Sansbury. Miss Stanbury says no. I would like to
[2:30:22]yield my time to the ranking member. I >> I think we've made our I think we've made our case. I think that we support the Mid Amendment. It's the right the right way to go and civil contempt is the right next action if we're going to go in this route. Thank you.
[2:30:33]>> Like to yield my time back to the chair. Thank you. >> Chair yields back. Uh we the votes Mr. Biggs wants to be recognized and I think we're going to vote on the men amendment. >> Yeah, I'll be I'll be pretty quick. So when you take into the correct legal
[2:30:45]standard and you talk about willful and defiance. So you have a culpable middle state and you have the act. >> The act took place here when they didn't show up. That's the
[2:30:56]defiance. They didn't show up. Now the question is was it willful? Well the other piece of evidence you have that it was willful is they sent a little note saying this is all we're
[2:31:08]going to say. This is this is what happened here. And that's the evidence they it was willful. They knew that they knew about the subpoena because they negotiated with you. You even moved the
[2:31:19]time for them. They chose not to come when you reissued the the the date. You gave them the date that would that ostensibly was going to be more convenient. They continued to say they
[2:31:30]were going to come and then at the last minute they slipped a note in saying this is what I'm going to this is what I'm going to say. I'm not saying anything more. That's the culpable
[2:31:40]middle state. You've got willful defiance. Thus, contempt is appropriate. And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. Very good. Very
[2:31:51]good. The question is now on the men amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. No. In the
[2:32:01]opinion of the chair have it. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Uh pursuant to the previous order, the chair
[2:32:11]declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We will plan to convene immediately after the first vote series.
[2:32:21]With that, the committee stand will uh stands in recess. on. All right, now we're good. Okay, the
[2:32:43]committee will come back to order. Now, pursuant to notice, I call up a report containing a resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Secretary of State
[2:32:54]Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal. We have to finish Bill. Okay,
[2:33:08]>> Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. >> Point of order. >> Point point of order. State your point. >> Uh, are the amendments going to precede the vote on the two resolutions, or is
[2:33:17]it the other way around? >> Yeah, we'll vote on the amendments. We're going to roll everything to the end of the committee so we can have everybody back in here to vote on.
[2:33:28]>> Good. Thank you. >> All right. So I just read that. All right. As I was saying, pursuant to notice, I call up a report
[2:33:39]containing a resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a duly issued subpoena issued by this committee. The clerk will report the report which has been
[2:33:51]distributed in advance. >> A report containing a House resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find former Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a
[2:34:02]duly issued subpoena issued by the committee on oversight and government reform. >> I ask unanous consent that the report be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection. So ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment
[2:34:13]in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please report the amendment. >> An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered to the contempt report as offered by Mr. Comr of Kentucky. >> Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute
[2:34:24]will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the report. As with President Clinton, the committee
[2:34:35]believes that Secretary Clinton possesses information that is relevant to this committee's investigation. Specifically, Secretary Clinton's testimony may shed light on the activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Glain
[2:34:46]Maxwell and their efforts to establish relationships and curry favor with influential people. As former Secretary of State Clinton may also have information regarding the federal
[2:34:58]government's efforts to combat international sex trafficking, Secretary Clinton's refusal to discuss that information in person and on the record directly obstructs the committee's investigation. The committee must
[2:35:10]enforce these bipartisan subpoenas through bipartisan support of this contempt of Congress resolution. I urge all my colleagues to support this contempt report and I now yield to
[2:35:21]ranking member Garcia for his opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Comr. I just want to again just repeat that once again over Democrats have been clear that we want
[2:35:32]to hear from anyone with knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. Uh we made that clear earlier. We'll continue to make that to make that clear. One thing that's important to note is that on numerous occasions, Secretary
[2:35:44]Clinton has made statements both in the public and to this committee that she has no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein or his activities. And I just want to put that into the record. It's not clear to me, as it's not clear to many others, as
[2:35:55]to why Secretary Clinton has been a target of this investigation. The secretary submitted a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury that she had no memory of ever meeting
[2:36:05]Mr. Epstein never flew on his plane and never held any office with responsibility for investigating his activities. She testified to having met
[2:36:14]Glain Maxwell uh possibly in passing, but did not have a relationship with her. Now, oversight Republicans did not pursue subpoenas to former attorneys
[2:36:24]general and FBI officials who certified that they had no knowledge of the case. And Hillary Clinton should have her subpoena dealt with in the same way. Again, I think an having an asking
[2:36:35]questions of Secretary Clinton is appropriate to this committee. It's also appropriate that we deal with her case in the way we have dealt with others that have been able to answer in writing or have been dismissed by the majority.
[2:36:46]At least up to this point, the evidence that we've collected by our committee support Secretary Clinton's assertions. No one who is serious about justice for Epstein survivors believes that Hillary
[2:36:58]Clinton has somehow been involved in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. We also know that of course that Donald Trump is very clear about weaponizing against his opponents. In fact, he's
[2:37:10]famously of course led the call to lock her up since the 26 election campaign and is clearly moving forward to do the same. You know, a contemporary resolution against Hillary Clinton would
[2:37:21]expose a weaponization in this Epson investigation. If we have additional questions for Secretary Clinton, we should ask those. We should work with her and her team and we should get her
[2:37:32]to answer to ask to answer those in front of the committee. But again, this is a attempt to politicize and attack Donald Trump's political enemies.
[2:37:43]We need to ensure that we hear from folks that are critical of this investigation. And at the center of that are folks like Pam Bondi who will not be appearing in front of this committee to be clear but but the judiciary committee
[2:37:55]and Galain Maxwell which I'm I it's finally we're about to actually hopefully get some additional answers from her. And with that Mr. Chairman I yield back
[2:38:04]chair recognize uh chair recognize Mr. Bell from Missouri. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um,
[2:38:15]I I I found it interesting that that you acknowledge that Pam Beyond Blondie is not moving at a speed or pace
[2:38:24]to your liking. Um, and I think the biggest concern for many
[2:38:35]of us who are looking at not only ensuring a real investigation to give these victims, these survivors, the
[2:38:45]respect that they deserve and the justice that they deserve. But it it just appears over and over that we are not using the same standards
[2:38:57]um as a result of partisanship. Again, having conducted and and these types of
[2:39:07]investigations as a as a as as a district attorney, you don't you don't skip steps. If the evidence is there, you review the
[2:39:20]evidence and you follow where that evidence leads you. You review the evidence, develop your theory of the case
[2:39:32]and then you conduct your investigation based on the evidence. Now, there are times when you don't have the evidence
[2:39:39]and um um and you do have to try and investigate in in different me in different ways to try and try to um to
[2:39:49]get that that evidence. But in this case, we have the evidence. This Congress voted on a bipartisan
[2:39:59]basis to have that evidence released, but yet we're trying to skip steps for political
[2:40:10]points. And again, Mr. Chair, you acknowledged Pam Bondi not moving at the speed or pace that you like, but you were still comfortable
[2:40:21]with the 1% of the files that we got. 1% 99% not we still don't have anything not 20% not 30% we're missing or 40 or
[2:40:33]50 99% of the files that we're missing but yet there's no criminal contempt
[2:40:42]push with respect to Pam Bondi or any urgency but yet the legal
[2:40:50]analysis for criminal contempt is that there is that there is no cooperation, that there's no negotiation
[2:41:00]because the the case law, the courts have determined as long as there is is there is negotiation, good faith no negotiation, you have to give you have
[2:41:09]to give time for that. And that's not moving at the speed and pace or pace that you that that the committee uh prefers. But in this case, we're jumping
[2:41:19]right to criminal contempt. And and what I would say is like just about every member that on on my
[2:41:30]side of the aisle has said, we want to talk to anyone who has evidence pertaining to these survivors.
[2:41:42]Anyone. And if we go down and if and I want to hear from the Clintons, if this committee is successful in going down a criminal
[2:41:53]um pathway, we're not going to hear from them. And that defeats the purpose. You get your political points, but it defeats the purpose. And so at the appropriate
[2:42:04]time, if anyone were refusing to work with this committee, and as we've seen with the affidavit, this does not apply to the Clint the Clintons.
[2:42:15]If anyone refuses to to come to this committee without, you know, and just ignores it, then all
[2:42:26]of us will support um the appropriate remedies. But in this case, it's clear that it's a this is a partisan
[2:42:36]attack to try and score points as opposed to actually trying to do a real investigation to give the the survivors
[2:42:46]in this case the justice that they deserve. And um and and this committee, this Congress should be above that.
[2:42:56]I yield my time to the ranking member if he so chooses. >> I'm okay. Thank you, Mr. Church. [snorts] Uh, I'll recognize myself for a
[2:43:08]few seconds. Our report lays out that Hillary Clinton had both a personal relationship with Maxwell as well as a financial relationship with Epstein.
[2:43:17]She's had five months as well uh to come before this committee. uh we voted in a bipartisan manner to issue her a very lawful subpoena and
[2:43:28]she's chosen not to comply with that subpoena. So >> and Pam, >> any other members seek seek recognition? >> Mr. Lynch.
[2:43:38]>> Yeah. U Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So, we're not seeking information from Secretary Clinton
[2:43:50]because of of her own uh look, there's there's nothing in any of the documents uh that we've received from either the estate
[2:44:01]or from the Department of Justice. There's no indication from talking to the witnesses or the witnesses attorneys that Mrs. Clinton had anything to do
[2:44:11]with this. And yet we're we're trying to
[2:44:21]issue a a a criminal contempt charge because uh because of her reluctance to appear. None of those documents. There's no
[2:44:32]indication that she has anything to do with this. I'm not surprised that she's reluctant to appear. She had nothing to do with this. And if we're seeking the other the other
[2:44:42]count, the other the other basis for our inquiry from the from the the charge and from the resolution
[2:44:51]is that as her as in her official capacity as Secretary of State, she may have information regarding u
[2:45:02]sex trafficking in general, but that is not unique to Mrs. Clinton. We could summon the, you know, special under secretary for sex trafficking at the
[2:45:13]State Department if we really wanted to find out information of that nature. All we could summon any other secretary of state who
[2:45:21]has served since uh 2008, I think, when when some of this was first uncovered in depth, but it had nothing to do with the Secretary of State. Then it was between
[2:45:33]Mara Lago and Jeffrey Epstein. It went from young girls being trafficked from Mara Lago to
[2:45:43]Jeffrey Epstein's estate. And there's no nexus there between Donald Trump's club and the young girls that were trafficked
[2:45:53]to Jeffrey Epstein. There's no nexus there where the Secretary of State might intervene. So
[2:46:06]with all due respect, I think her name was put in there because of her the the animosity with which the president regards her.
[2:46:17]And and this goes back to, you know, a a political race uh between those two candidates and has nothing to do with the the information that that Secretary
[2:46:29]Clinton might be able to offer. I want to hear from everyone who has information on this. However, we have we
[2:46:38]don't have a shred of evidence that Mrs. Clinton has meaningful information to assist this committee. But I know where there is evidence.
[2:46:49]I know Pam Bondi has had millions and millions and millions of documents that she has refused to surrender to this committee for the past five months, six
[2:46:58]months. [snorts] I know where there's also other evidence. Sitting in a luxury prison,
[2:47:08]Gain Maxwell, who should be before this committee, should never have been taken out of that original prison by by
[2:47:16]President Trump's personal attorney. and by doing so made her less likely to be willing to offer testimony and
[2:47:26]evidence to this committee. That is witness tampering. When you take someone who's been convicted of a crime, remove them from
[2:47:36]uncomfortable settings, put them in a nice place, just keep your mouth shut, honey. That's all that's what that's what was going on there. We know that
[2:47:47]all of a sudden she gets a sweetheart deal. She's in a She's got They're bringing in pets for her. They're giving her the the the the royal treatment now. As long as you keep your mouth shut,
[2:47:58]honey. That's what they're saying to her. Just keep your mouth shut and don't mention the president. That's the scam that's going on here. That's witness tampering, plain and simple. And yet you
[2:48:09]have someone who served this country, Secretary of State, elected US Senator, has nothing to do with this. But because it it it gratifies the president that
[2:48:21]you dust her up and ruin her reputation. This is beneath what we should be doing. We should strike the motion
[2:48:32]to to summon her before this committee. We should we should drop this effort to to hold her in criminal contempt. I
[2:48:42]yield back. And with all due respect, if you didn't want to subpoena Hillary Clinton, the Democrats on the subcommittee should not have voted to subpoena Hillary Clinton.
[2:48:53]>> Mr. Comr, can I clarify that? >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, I just want to be clear that that we have the video. Uh, committee Democrats actually voted no by voice vote. >> You had an opportunity for a roll call
[2:49:05]and you declined. >> We we voted. We voted. >> You called for it and then staff came to you and you said, "Ah, Mr. Actually, you weren't there, so I actually don't think >> I watched the video, too. >> Would you like to show the video? I mean, the video is very clear. We
[2:49:17]actually all voted no. I just want to be clear that the in the initial vote, all Democrats voted no. Thank you. >> That's why we have recorded votes.
[2:49:28]And you all declined that. So, does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the
[2:49:39]Hillary R. Clinton contempt report. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[2:49:49]In the opinion of the chair, the the eyes have it in the amendment in the nature of substitute the report is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting the Hillary R.
[2:49:59]Clinton report as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. >> No. In the opinion the chair the eyes
[2:50:11]have it. The amendment to the nature of substitute to the report is agreed to. >> Recorded vote sir. >> A recorded vote was ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Pursuant to the previous order, the
[2:50:22]chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We plan to reconvene at 3:15.
[2:50:30]3:15. The committee stands in recess. We're missing the ranking.
[2:50:46]He's right there. Okay. You ready? >> Eddie. [clears throat] >> The committee will resume consideration of the amendment in the nature of a
[2:50:56]substitute of the William J. Clinton contempt report. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the
[2:51:06]amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Miss Lee from Pennsylvania. Members will record their votes using
[2:51:16]the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of the report. Hold this open to make sure everybody's
[2:51:32]>> here. Glenn hadn't voted.
[2:51:48]>> Fox are close. We're having a little technical
[2:52:04]difficulty here. Close it.
[2:52:21]>> Dr. Fox, what you say?
[2:52:51]>> [snorts] >> almost. here. Has every
[2:53:31]member record I see I see Dr. Fox. Has every member been recorded who wish to be recorded? >> No, sir. >> Does any member wish to change the vote?
[2:53:42]The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are
[2:53:52]19, the nays are 24. >> The the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
[2:54:04]The com the question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Men from California. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk
[2:54:16]will now open the vote on the men amendment to the amendment of the report. >> Amendment. Yeah.
[2:54:44]Have all members no >> been recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes's
[2:54:58]are 19, the nazs are 25. >> The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the
[2:55:10]William J. Clinton >> contempt report. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. In the all those opposed say no. In the opinion share the eyes having the amendment in the nature
[2:55:22]of a substitute to the report is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting the William J. Clinton contempt report as a amended. Members
[2:55:32]will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the William J. Clinton contempt report. >> Have all members been recorded who wish
[2:55:57]to be >> Okay, we're waiting on one more. Just >> has everybody voted now? >> Yes. >> Does any member wish to change their
[2:56:07]vote? >> The clerk will close the vote and report the vote total. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are
[2:56:19]34, the nays are eight with two voting present. >> Pursuant to this the the One second.
[2:56:31]>> The eyes have it. >> The eyes have it. Pursuant to this vote, the committee hereby favorably reports and adopts this report recommending that the House of Representatives find William J. Clinton in contempt of
[2:56:42]Congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by this committee. We will move to the report to the full house. Without objection, the motion to
[2:56:52]consider is laid upon the table. >> Mr. Chairman. Uh, pursuant to House Rule 9 clause clause 21, I just ask that members have the requisite two days to file with the clerk of the committee
[2:57:03]supplemental additional and minority and dissenting views. >> Without objection. Thank you. Without objection. >> The question is now on favorably reporting the Hillary R. Clinton
[2:57:13]contempt report as amended. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the Hillary R. Clinton contempt report. Have all members been recorded who wish
[2:57:44]to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the
[2:57:53]vote and report the vote total. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are
[2:58:02]28, the nays are 15 with one voting present. >> The eyes have it. Pursuant to this vote, the committee hereby favorably reports and adopts this report, recommending that the House of Representatives find
[2:58:13]Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by this committee. We will move the report to the full house. Without objection, the motion reconsiders laid on the table.
[2:58:25]>> Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 21, I just ask that members have the requisite two days to file with the clerk of the committee any supplemental additional or minority dissenting views for inclusion in the report.
[2:58:36]>> Without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to House Rule 11 clause two, committee members shall have the right to file with the clerk of the committee
[2:58:47]supplemental additional minority and descending views within two days without objection to ordered. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the report ordered reported today subject to
[2:58:58]the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.