Rep. James Comer outlines contempt votes against Bill and Hillary Clinton if they skip the third scheduled deposition (February) for the Jeffrey Epstein probe, despite Democrats’ bipartisan support for compliance. The video-recorded session follows precedent from January 6 hearings, with no special treatment—though Luttnick and an 88-year-old witness named Lex are also being called. Over 1,000 references to Trump appear in Epstein’s documents, but he’s already answered questions, unlike the Clintons. Comer’s committee will review 3M pages in two weeks to decide if further oversight is needed, while other panels focus on unrelated cases like the Renee Good siblings’ testimony. The probe prioritizes victim justice over politics or spectacle. [Automatically generated summary]
Over on C-SPAN 3 at 9 a.m., White House Immigration Advisor Tom Homan will brief reporters on ICE and Border Patrol operations in Minnesota.
And at 10, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson testifies to the House Finance Committee on the annual report of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
You can also watch live coverage of these events on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at C-SPAN.org.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer spoke to reporters about the contempt of Congress charges that former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both face.
The chair says the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition in February on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
I didn't agree.
Just whatever, you know, we're going to come in and do the deposition.
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 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 up?
We offer to 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 through 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 votes 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, it could set a precedent.
I think 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.
This is 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, yeah, good question.
And, Congressman, there was a question earlier today.
The 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 this.
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.
I don't know.
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, 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 troll of documents?
There were 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 brought in Bill Barr and Alex Acosta already.
But the Lutnik, 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, look, we're looking at everything.
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 is 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 would 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 is, 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.
It's not for entertainment purposes.
It's not for political purposes.
It's to provide justice for the victims.
So thank you everybody.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
House Votes to End Shutdown00:01:52
Today, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant testifies on the state of the U.S. financial system and Trump administration economic policy.
It'll be the first of two hearings Secretary Besant is scheduled to appear at this week on Capitol Hill.
Watch the House Financial Services Committee hearing live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
Coming up this morning, we'll talk about the House voting to end the partial shutdown and temporarily fund Homeland Security, as well as other congressional news of the day.
First with Illinois Democratic Congressman Brad Schneider, then with California Republican Congressman Tom McClintock, and Michael Beckel with the nonprofit Issue One on efforts by Republicans to increase federal oversight of nationwide elections.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
By a vote of 217 to 214, the U.S. House approved a revised funding package to end the partial government shutdown that began Saturday.
21 Democrats voted yes and 21 Republicans voted no.
The funding measure covers 78% of the federal government through the end of September and includes a two-week funding extension for the Homeland Security Department.
Lawmakers have stated they'll continue to negotiate additional appropriations for Homeland Security.
The president later signed the funding measure.
Prior to the vote, House members debated the funding measure.