Rep. Jim Comer outlines the House’s bipartisan contempt motion against the Clintons over Epstein-related documents, with video depositions set for February after reviewing 3M pages. Democrats previously approved similar procedures during January 6th hearings, yet Clinton has never faced questions about Epstein’s wealth or victim oversight, unlike Trump. Comer insists the probe targets government failures—not political protection—while scheduling further witness depositions, including "Lex" and Howard Luttnick, who admitted visiting Epstein’s properties. The episode underscores a rare bipartisan push for accountability in high-profile cases, framing it as a long-overdue reckoning with systemic neglect. [Automatically generated summary]
Americans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.
Agree, just whatever, you know, we're going to come in and do the depositions.
That's what the contempt was over, and that's what the subpoena was.
So I think everyone knows the Clintons have agreed to the terms.
They issued a statement last night and they said they agreed to terms and the story came out.
I asked reporters, I said, what were the, then what's the date?
And they said, well, we don't know yet.
Well, that's a very important term is the date.
So I'm very pleased today that the terms were the rules of a standard deposition.
So they're not going to be treated any differently than anyone else.
And the dates will be in February in the next few weeks.
So the contempt motion is still on the table.
The contempt of Congress is for failing to show up.
This will be their third date that we've given the Clintons.
And three strikes and you're out.
The votes are there for contempt.
I think the Democrats, I think there are Democrats that will vote to hold him in contempt if he misses if the Clintons miss this next date.
So we're hopeful that they'll come in.
We can ask questions I think every American and every curious reporter would have, and then we'll move on.
Are you opening it to Congress?
We often do this in public also.
Yeah.
Look, it's going to be videoed.
It's going to be that the subpoena and the contempt was on a deposition.
If we get to the deposition and there's something meaningful to have a hearing, if they still want some more oversight, then I think the members of my committee would love to have them in for a public hearing.
So we're fine with that.
But the issue here is this original subpoena and the contempt was on the deposition.
So if they get to the depositions and they still want a public hearing, we'll try to do something because I think that I do it.
And I don't think it's any secret.
Depositions have historically been much more substantive than hearings.
Hearings are, unfortunately, have become more of an entertainment thing.
This is a serious investigation and it's bipartisan.
And again, I believe that there were going to be several Democrats that were going to vote to hold Clinton in contempt, but the ones that voted, many of the Democrats that voted for contempt in the committee called and said, if they come in in February, we want them one more chance and then we'll vote with them on the floor.
So I've worked with the Democrats.
We've worked for six months now with the Clintons and I'm happy to say that I'm pretty confident they're going to come in.
If they don't, the contempt vote will be.
Mr. Chairman, Democrats are now saying that this is setting a precedent, that in the future, perhaps President Trump could be called to testify.
Other presidents could call to testify.
What do you say to this argument about precedent?
Oh, look, you know, it could set a precedent.
I think, you know, one of the things that we're talking about today, the video, the deposition will be videoed, that was never a thing until the Democrats set a precedent to video the January 6th deposition.
So now there's a precedent to do videos.
This isn't about helping President Trump.
This isn't about protecting President Trump.
About doing two things, what we've said all along, getting the truth to the American people about what happened with the whole Epstein saga, and secondly, how did the government fail the victims?
That's the purpose of the whole investigation, and it's bipartisan.
And hopefully, the Clintons will hopefully have some information that'll be helpful to us getting answers.
You know, one question everybody has: how did Jeffrey Epstein accumulate so much wealth?
And I don't know.
I don't think anyone knows.
I've read every story about the Epstein.
So, that and obviously the documents, the three million pages of documents we're going through.
I know you all are going through, and we'll hopefully have had time in the next two weeks to have gone through all of those documents and see if there's any other questions that might be relevant to the Clintons.
So, good question.
And, Congressman, there was a question earlier today.
Democrats brought in the siblings of Renee Good.
You did not attend that event with Democrats.
Would you be open to hearing from the siblings of Renee Good?
It's my understanding.
You're talking about in Minneapolis?
Yes.
It's my understanding that the House Oversight or the House Homeland Security Committee is having hearings, and the Senate Homeland Security is having hearings about that.
So, there's already two committees, one in the House and one in the Senate, that are having hearings on that.
Is it worth conducting oversight?
Well, they're doing oversight.
We're not the only committee that provides oversight.
Homeland Security Committee, the one thing in the world they provide oversight over is Homeland Security-related issues, so that would fall under IS and all of that.
So, we'll see how their hearing goes.
If there are some other things that some loose ends, if we have to step in, we're always open to a hearing or a worthy probe or things like that.
But right now, both the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees are having hearings.
Mr. Chairman, President Trump's name is mentioned more than a thousand times in these documents.
Why not try to get more information from him?
Try to get him to testify.
Well, I've noticed that every time you all do a gaggle like this with President Trump, somebody asked him about Epstein.
So, he's been answering questions about Epstein.
But, well, has Bill Clinton ever answered any questions on Epstein or Hillary Clinton?
So, this is going to be a new opportunity, and we'll go from there.
So, obviously, if there's any damning investigation, you know, any damning evidence that names anyone, we're going to try to get the truth.
So, would that also include people like Howard Luttnick and others who were mentioned in this later term of documents?
There are a lot of administration officials.
I mean, there were thousands, you know, hundreds and hundreds of names.
Well, we brought in two administration officials.
We've brought in Bill Barr and Alex Acosta already.
But the Luttnick, it's my understanding that what he has said publicly is that he went to one of Epstein's properties with his wife and children.
I believe is what he said.
So, I mean, we're looking at every there are a lot of names that I think that are more suspicious that we'll look into.
But we're going to bring more people in.
We just scheduled another deposition today, nailed down another deposition in the Epstein investigation.
This isn't Lex, that individual.
So, that's one of the names that both Democrats and Republicans on the committee wanted to depose.
He's 88, so we're trying to make exceptions with respect to his age and physical condition.
But certainly, we nailed down that deposition.
That'll happen in a couple of weeks.
So, this investigation will move along.
Hopefully, we can get everything in that we need, depose everyone that I think most Americans feel like should be deposed, and then go from there.
We'll see what we have.
We'll see if we can answer the basic question: how did the government fail the victims?
And hopefully, we can provide some type of closure or justice for the victims, because that's what this investigation is about.