[House Report 119-469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
House Calendar No. 58
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session } { 119-469
======================================================================
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 SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
_______
January 27, 2026.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, having
considered this Report, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the Report be approved.
The form of the Resolution that the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform would recommend to the House of
Representatives citing Hillary R. Clinton, former Secretary of
State, for contempt of Congress pursuant to this Report is as
follows:
Resolved, That Hillary R. Clinton, former Secretary of
State, shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure
to comply with a congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
detailing the refusal of Hillary R. Clinton, former Secretary
of State, to appear for a deposition before the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform as directed by subpoena, to the
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end
that former Secretary Hillary R. Clinton be proceeded against
in the manner and form provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary................................................ 2
Authority and Purpose............................................ 3
Background on the Investigation.................................. 4
A. The Committee Seeks Information from Witnesses and
Entities as Part of Its Investigation...................... 5
B. After Months of Correspondence and Rescheduling, Secretary
Clinton Defies the Subpoena................................ 7
C. Secretary Clinton's Purported Reasons for Non-Compliance
with the Subpoena Are Without Merit........................ 11
i. The subpoena seeks testimony related to a valid
legislative purpose.................................... 11
ii. Secretary Clinton was subpoenaed to advance the
Oversight Committee's investigation, not to harass or
embarrass her.......................................... 15
iii. The subpoena is not an impermissible exercise of law
enforcement authority committed to coordinate branches
of government and the existence of a Department of
Justice investigation into Mr. Epstein's and Ms.
Maxwell's sex-trafficking ring does not relieve
Secretary Clinton of her obligation to appear for a
deposition............................................. 17
iv. The separation of powers does not render the subpoena
unenforceable.......................................... 18
D. Precedent Supports the Committee's Position to Proceed
with Holding Secretary Clinton in Contempt................. 19
Conclusion....................................................... 20
Committee Consideration.......................................... 20
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 20
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 23
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 23
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 23
Earmark Identification........................................... 23
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 23
Minority Views................................................... 24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hillary R. Clinton, former Secretary of State (Secretary
Clinton), willfully failed to comply with a deposition subpoena
issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
(Oversight Committee) relating to its investigation of (i) the
alleged mismanagement of the federal government's investigation
into Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell, (ii) the
circumstances and subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein's
death, (iii) the operation of sex-trafficking rings and ways
for the federal government to effectively combat them, (iv)
ways in which Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sought to curry favor
and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities, and
(v) potential violations of ethics rules related to elected
officials.
After more than five months of negotiations, Secretary
Clinton refused to appear for her scheduled deposition on
January 14, 2026. Secretary Clinton's unwillingness to comply
with the subpoena, even after the Oversight Committee agreed to
postpone her deposition date, at her request, for nearly a
month, has substantially interfered with the Oversight
Committee's investigation.
The testimony sought by the subpoena is relevant to the
Oversight Committee's investigation. Specifically, Secretary
Clinton's testimony related to the activities of Mr. Epstein
and Ms. Maxwell and their efforts to establish relationships
and curry favor with influential individuals while operating a
sex-trafficking ring. In addition, given her service as
Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton is in a position to
provide firsthand information regarding efforts by the federal
government to combat international sex trafficking. Her
testimony may inform the Oversight Committee's consideration of
legislative reforms designed to combat the operation of sex-
trafficking rings as well as efforts to shield them from
scrutiny.
Secretary Clinton has invoked no valid reason for refusing
to appear for a deposition, and the Oversight Committee's
efforts to persuade her to testify have reached a dead end.
Accordingly, the Chairman of the Oversight Committee recommends
that the House of Representatives find Secretary Hillary R.
Clinton in contempt for her failure to comply with the subpoena
issued to her to provide testimony at a deposition.
AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
Congress holds an essential responsibility, through powers
expressly granted by the Constitution, to conduct legislative
oversight. That authority, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the
United States, has been recognized on numerous occasions. The
Supreme Court held in McGrain v. Daugherty that ``the power of
inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential and
appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.''\1\ The
Supreme Court has stated further that ``[a] legislative body
cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
information respecting the conditions which the legislation is
intended to affect or change.''\2\ ``The power of the Congress
to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative
process. That power is broad.''\3\ If a witness refuses to
comply with a duly issued congressional subpoena, Congress is
entitled to combat such refusal with a certified contempt
citation, to be referred to the executive branch for the
criminal prosecution of the contemnor.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
\2\Id. at 175.
\3\Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).
\4\2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192, 194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oversight Committee is a standing committee of the
House of Representatives, duly established pursuant to the
rules of the House of Representatives, which are adopted
pursuant to the Rulemaking Clause of the U.S. Constitution.\5\
House rule X grants to the Oversight Committee broad
jurisdiction over federal ``[g]overnment management'' and
reform, including the ``[o]verall economy, efficiency, and
management of government operations and activities.''\6\ House
rule X further grants the Oversight Committee broad oversight
jurisdiction, including authority to ``conduct investigations
of any matter without regard to clause 1, 2, 3, or this clause
[of House rule X] conferring jurisdiction over the matter to
another standing committee.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5.
\6\Rule X, cl. 1(n), Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives,
119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025).
\7\Rule X, cl. 4(c)(2), Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives,
119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House rule XI clause 2(k)(6) states that ``the chair shall
receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena
additional witnesses.''\8\ Additionally, House rule XI clause
2(m)(1)(B) specifically authorizes the Oversight Committee ``to
require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony
of such witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it
considers necessary.''\9\ It also includes the authority for
the Oversight Committee to create its own ``rule[s] authorizing
and regulating the taking of deposition by a member or counsel
of the committee, including pursuant to subpoena under clause
2(m) of rule XI.''\10\ House Rules further provide that the
``power to authorize and issue subpoenas'' may be delegated to
the Committee chairman.\11\ The subpoenas discussed in this
report were issued pursuant to these authorities by Chairman
James Comer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Rule XI, cl. 2(k)(6), Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025).
\9\Rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B), Rules of the U.S. Representatives,
119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025).
\10\Id.; Rule X, cl. 4(c)(3), Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025).
\11\Rule XI, cl. 2(m)(3)(A)(1), Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deposition subpoena issued to Secretary Clinton is part
of the Oversight Committee's review into the possible
mismanagement of the federal government's investigation of Mr.
Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, the circumstances and subsequent
investigations of Mr. Epstein's death, the operation of sex-
trafficking rings and ways for the federal government to
effectively combat them, ways in which Mr. Epstein and Ms.
Maxwell sought to curry favor and exercise influence to protect
their activities, and potential violations of ethics rules
related to elected officials. As explained in detail below, the
requested testimony would further the Oversight Committee's
investigation into these issues and the consideration of
possible legislative reforms. Secretary Clinton's refusal to
comply with the Oversight Committee's deposition subpoena is
therefore hindering the Oversight Committee's investigation.
BACKGROUND ON THE INVESTIGATION
On July 6, 2019, federal authorities arrested Mr. Epstein
and, two days later, an indictment was unsealed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District for New York charging
him with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to engage in
sex trafficking of minors.\12\ According to the indictment, Mr.
Epstein sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at
his homes in Manhattan, Palm Beach, and other locations.\13\
Among other things, the indictment alleged that Mr. Epstein
solicited girls as young as 14 years old to engage in sex acts
with him in exchange for money.\14\ This was not the first time
that Mr. Epstein had been investigated for committing sex
crimes. In 2008, he pleaded guilty in Florida state court to
two prostitution offenses, and, in exchange, he and his co-
conspirators received immunity from federal prosecution through
a non-prosecution agreement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Just., Jeffery Epstein Charged In
Manhattan Federal Court With Sex Trafficking Of Minors (July 8, 2019).
\13\See Indictment, United States v. Epstein, 19 Crim. 490
(S.D.N.Y. 2019), at 1.
\14\Id. at 2-3.
\15\See In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 10, 2019, while in federal custody at the
Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, New York, Mr.
Epstein died.\16\ The Chief Medical Examiner of New York City
ruled his death a suicide.\17\ Subsequently, on June 28, 2022,
Ms. Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiring
with Mr. Epstein to sexually abuse minors.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\William K. Rashbaum, et al., Jeffery Epstein Dead in Suicide at
Jail, Spurring Inquiries, The N.Y. Times (Aug. 10, 2019); see also
Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Just., Statement from Attorney General
William P. Barr on the death of Jeffery Epstein (Aug. 10, 2019).
\17\Memorandum from U.S. Dep't of Just. and Fed. Bureau of
Investigation on Review of Investigative Holdings Relating to Jeffrey
Epstein (July 7, 2025), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/
1407001/dl?inline.
\18\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Just., Ghislaine Maxwell Sentenced
To 20 Years In Prison For Conspiring With Jeffery Epstein To Sexually
Abuse Minors (June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The facts and circumstances surrounding both Mr. Epstein's
and Ms. Maxwell's cases have received immense public interest
and scrutiny. On February 11, 2025, the Oversight Committee and
its Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets (Task
Force) sent a letter to the Department of Justice (Department)
requesting a briefing regarding documents in the Department's
possession concerning ``the investigation into and prosecution
of Jeffrey Epstein.''\19\ On May 8, 2025, the Task Force sent
another letter to the Department requesting the public release
of ``the entirety of the Epstein files'' and a briefing
regarding the release of these files.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, Anna Paulina Luna, Chairwoman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, Task Force on the Declassification of Fed. Secrets, to
Pamela Bondi, U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just. (Feb. 11, 2025).
\20\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, Anna Paulina Luna, Chairwoman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, Task Force on the Declassification of Fed. Secrets, to
Pamela Bondi, U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just. (May 8, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. THE COMMITTEE SEEKS INFORMATION FROM WITNESSES AND ENTITIES AS PART
OF ITS INVESTIGATION
On August 5, 2025, Chairman James Comer of the Oversight
Committee, pursuant to the Subcommittee on Federal Law
Enforcement's voice vote on a motion to subpoena and the
Oversight Committee's subpoena authority, issued subpoenas to
ten individuals: former Attorneys General Alberto R. Gonzales,
Eric H. Holder, Loretta E. Lynch, Jefferson B. Sessions III,
William P. Barr and Merrick B. Garland; former FBI Directors
Robert S. Mueller III and James B. Comey; former Secretary of
State Hillary R. Clinton; and former President William J.
Clinton to give testimony about any knowledge they might have
of the activities of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and the
federal government's investigation and prosecution of Mr.
Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Subpoena to Alberto R. Gonzales, Former U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't
of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Eric H. Holder, Former U.S. Att'y
Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Loretta E. Lynch,
Former U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to
Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Former Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug.
5, 2025); Subpoena to William P. Barr, Former U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't of
Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Merrick B. Garland, Former U.S. Att'y
Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Robert S. Mueller III,
Dir., Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to James B.
Comey, Dir., Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to
Hillary R. Clinton, Former Sec'y of State of the U.S. (Aug. 5, 2025);
Subpoena to William J. Clinton, Former President of the U.S. (Aug. 5,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Clinton's subpoena required her to appear for a
deposition on October 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.\22\ The cover
letter accompanying the subpoena explained that Secretary
Clinton's husband, President William J. Clinton, ``flew on
Jeffrey Epstein's private plane four separate times in 2002 and
2003 on trips for [Secretary Clinton's] family's foundation,
the Clinton Foundation.''\23\ The cover letter also indicated
that Secretary Clinton's husband ``was allegedly close to Ms.
Maxwell.''\24\ Furthermore, ``Ms. Maxwell's nephew worked for
[Secretary Clinton's] 2008 presidential campaign and was hired
by the State Department shortly after [she] became Secretary of
State.''\25\ Lastly, the cover letter explains how, ``given
[Secretary Clinton's] past service as Secretary of State, the
Committee believes [she] may have knowledge of efforts by the
federal government to combat international sex-trafficking
operations of the type run by Mr. Epstein.''\26\ In sum, the
cover letter explained how, ``[g]iven [Secretary Clinton's]
family's past relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell,
the Committee believes that [Secretary Clinton has] information
regarding their activities that is relevant to the Committee's
investigation.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Subpoena to Hillary R. Clinton, Former Sec'y of State of the
U.S. (Aug. 5, 2025).
\23\Shane Galvin, Bill Clinton denies visiting Jeffrey Epstein's
private island in upcoming memoir `Wish I had never met him', The N.Y.
Post (Nov. 15, 2024).
\24\Subpoena Cover Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform, to Hillary R. Clinton, Former Sec'y of
State of the U.S. (Aug. 5, 2025).
\25\Rudy Takala, Ghislaine Maxwell's Nephew Worked on Mideast
Policy in Hillary Clinton's State Department, Mediaite, (Aug. 21,
2020).
\26\Subpoena Cover Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform, to Hillary R. Clinton, Former Sec'y of
State of the U.S. (Aug. 5, 2025).
\27\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That same day, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to
the Department for records related to Mr. Epstein including,
but not limited to, documents contained within the case files
regarding United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (19-cr-490) and
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20-cr-330) and documents
and communications relating or referring to the death of Mr.
Epstein.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Subpoena to Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just.
(Aug. 5, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 18, 2025, the Oversight Committee conducted a
deposition with former Attorney General William P. Barr in
accordance with the subpoena transmitted to him on August 5,
2025.\29\ Mr. Barr testified to any information he possessed
related to the crimes perpetrated by Mr. Epstein and the
federal government's investigation into Mr. Epstein and Ms.
Maxwell.\30\ Aside from Attorney General Barr, Secretary
Clinton, and President Clinton, the other seven individuals
subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee affirmed in writing,
subject to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, that they lacked any
information relevant to the investigation or otherwise had
serious health issues that prevented their testimony.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, Chairman
Comer Announces New Actions in Oversight Committee's Investigation of
Federal Government's Handling of Epstein and Maxwell (Sept. 16, 2025).
\30\Deposition of William P. Barr, Former U.S. Att'y Gen. (Aug. 18,
2025).
\31\See Letter from Jefferson B. Sessions III, Former U.S. Att'y
Gen., to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform
(Aug. 28, 2025); Letter from Merrick B. Garland, Former U.S. Att'y
Gen., to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform
(Sept. 24, 2025); Letter from Robert K. Kelner on behalf of Eric H.
Holder, Former U.S. Att'y Gen., to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Sept. 26, 2025); Letter from Alberto R.
Gonzales, Former U.S. Att'y Gen., to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Aug. 22, 2025); Letter from James B. Comey,
Former Dir. of Fed. Bureau of Investigation, to James Comer, Chairman,
H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Oct. 1, 2025); Letter from
Theodore V. Wells Jr. on behalf of Loretta E. Lynch, Former U.S. Att'y
Gen., to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform
(Oct. 17, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 2025, the Oversight Committee issued a
subpoena to the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Estate) requesting
unredacted versions of cash ledgers, message logs, calendars,
and flight logs.\32\ In response, the Estate has, to date,
produced thousands of documents pertaining to the
investigation.\33\ Then, on September 19, 2025, R. Alexander
Acosta, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida and former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor,
appeared voluntarily for a transcribed interview with the
Oversight Committee.\34\ He testified about his involvement in
the Department's investigation of and non-prosecution agreement
with Mr. Epstein when he was U.S. Attorney.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Subpoena to the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 25, 2025).
\33\Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform,
Oversight Committee Releases Records Provided by the Epstein Estate,
Chairman Comer Provides Statement (Sept. 8, 2025); Press Release, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, Oversight Committee Releases
Additional Epstein Estate Documents (Nov. 12, 2025).
\34\Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, Chairman
Comer Statement on Transcribed Interview with Alexander Acosta (Sept.
19, 2025).
\35\Transcribed Interview of R. Alexander Acosta, Former U.S. Att'y
for the S. Dist. of Fla. (Sept. 19, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, on January 7, 2026, the full committee
authorized, by voice vote, three more motions to subpoena Les
Wexner, Darren Indyke, and Richard Kahn,\36\ all of whom had
personal or business relationships with Mr. Epstein. As of the
drafting of this report, the Oversight Committee is in the
process of preparing these subpoenas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota:
Part 1, 119th Cong. 2. (Jan. 7, 2026) (Voice Vote on Motion to Direct
the Committee to Authorize and Issue Subpoenas for Leslie H. Wexner,
Darren K. Indyke, and Richard D. Kahn to Appear for a Deposition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. AFTER MONTHS OF CORRESPONDENCE AND RESCHEDULING, SECRETARY CLINTON
DEFIES THE SUBPOENA
Secretary Clinton, through her attorney, accepted service
of the subpoena on August 13, 2025,\37\ and her attorney stated
that ``[t]he subpoena[] will be responded to in an appropriate
manner.''\38\ On September 30, 2025, counsel for the Oversight
Committee conveyed to Secretary Clinton's attorney, David E.
Kendall, that the Oversight Committee expected Secretary
Clinton to appear for her scheduled deposition.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Email from David E. Kendall to Committee counsel (Aug. 13,
2025, at 11:44AM).
\38\Id.
\39\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Oct. 22, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 2025, just over two months after the
Oversight Committee issued its subpoena, Mr. Kendall
transmitted a letter to the Oversight Committee requesting that
it allow Secretary Clinton to submit a written declaration
instead of sitting for her deposition, while acknowledging that
``[t]he Committee is entitled to what little information the
Clintons have about Epstein and Maxwell.''\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Oct. 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oversight Committee declined this request. On October
22, 2025, the Oversight Committee replied to Mr. Kendall and
conveyed its skepticism that Secretary Clinton only had
``little information'' about Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.\41\
Even if that happened to be the case, the Oversight Committee
explained that such information should be provided in a
deposition setting, where the Oversight Committee can best
assess its breadth and value.\42\ The Oversight Committee
emphasized that ``it is the Committee--not . . . Secretary
Clinton--that will determine the value of the information [she
has].''\43\ In sum, the Oversight Committee, confirmed that
Secretary Clinton must comply with its subpoenarequiring her to
appear for a deposition.\44\ Subsequently, the Oversight
Committee rescheduled Secretary Clinton's deposition for
December 18, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Oct. 22, 2025).
\42\Id.
\43\Id.
\44\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 3, 2025, Mr. Kendall sent a reply letter
claiming that Secretary Clinton does not ``have anything to
offer for the stated purposes of the Committee's
investigation.''\45\ On November 21, 2025, the Oversight
Committee replied to Mr. Kendall that Secretary Clinton must
provide in-person testimony to the Oversight Committee.\46\ On
December 10, 2025, Mr. Kendall replied to the Oversight
Committee's November 21 letter, again arguing that Secretary
Clinton has ``no relevant information justifying a
deposition.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Nov. 3, 2025).
\46\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Nov. 21, 2025).
\47\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Dec. 10, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following numerous letters, phone calls, and email
correspondence, on December 12, 2025, Secretary Clinton
indicated she was unable to testify on December 18, 2025, due
to her attendance at a friend's funeral.\48\ Mr. Kendall
instead raised the prospect of Secretary Clinton testifying on
December 25, 2025.\49\ Oversight Committee counsel stated that
the Oversight Committee was unable to depose Secretary Clinton
on Christmas Day but would accommodate any date during the
weeks of January 5-9 or January 12-16, 2026.\50\ Mr. Kendall
stated he was unable to commit to his client appearing during
those weeks.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\Email from Daniel Ashworth, Gen. Counsel, H. Comm. on Oversight
and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Dec. 12, 2025, at 5:05PM).
\49\Id.; Phone Calls from Daniel Ashworth, Gen. Counsel, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Dec. 12, 2025, at
2:35PM, 3:07PM, 4:41PM). Phone Call from David E. Kendall, to Daniel
Ashworth, Gen. Counsel, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, (Dec.
12, 2025, at 2:34PM, 4:15PM).
\50\Id.
\51\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2025, the Oversight Committee sent another
letter to address each of the claims in Mr. Kendall's December
10, 2025, letter.\52\ The letter accommodated Secretary
Clinton's request to postpone the deposition scheduled for
December 18, 2025, in light of her friend's memorial
service.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Dec. 15, 2025).
\53\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oversight Committee rescheduled Secretary Clinton's
deposition for January 14, 2026.\54\ The Oversight Committee
further gave notice to Mr. Kendall that, should Secretary
Clinton fail to comply with the subpoena on the new date, the
Oversight Committee would move immediately to initiate contempt
of Congress proceedings.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\Id.
\55\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3, 2026, Mr. Kendall sent a letter in response
to the Oversight Committee's letter, arguing that a deposition
would be ``unfair'' to Secretary Clinton.\56\ Mr. Kendall
attached to the letter another letter setting forth what
Secretary Clinton could state in a sworn written
declaration.\57\ The letter was from Mr. Kendall himself, not
Secretary Clinton. Mr. Kendall once again claimed that the
Oversight Committee's decision to allow other subpoenaed
individuals to submit sworn statements instead of appearing to
give live testimony should be extended to Secretary Clinton as
well since she had ``no relationship whatsoever to the law
enforcement efforts'' involved in the Epstein
investigation.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 3, 2026).
\57\Id.
\58\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2026, the Oversight Committee replied to Mr.
Kendall by letter for a fourth time to reiterate that it alone
sets the terms for how investigations are conducted, including,
but not limited to, which witnesses to interview, in what order
to interview them, and whether or not to compel testimony in
any time, place, and manner of its own choosing.\59\ The letter
pointed out that counsel, yet again, failed to include any
legal arguments for why the Oversight Committee's subpoena was
invalid, instead relying on insufficient political and
prudential arguments.\60\ To address the concern about the
Oversight Committee's ``intense and myopic focus'' on the
Clintons, the Oversight Committee noted in its letter that of
the ten individuals subpoenaed to testify pursuant to this
investigation--individuals continually brought up by counsel--
only two had defied their subpoenas from the Oversight
Committee: President Clinton and Secretary Clinton.\61\
Finally, the Oversight Committee clarified that if Secretary
Clinton failed to appear for her respective deposition, it
would ``leave the Committee no choice but to initiate contempt
of Congress proceedings.''\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Jan. 8, 2026).
\60\Id.
\61\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Jan. 8, 2026).
\62\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 12, 2026, Mr. Kendall and new counsel from
Jenner & Block transmitted one final, last-minute letter
raising arguments as to why Secretary Clinton should not be
required to sit for a deposition before the Oversight
Committee. They asserted--yet again--that Secretary Clinton has
``no information pertinent to the . . . investigation.''\63\
The letter was sent to the Oversight Committee at 11:02 p.m.
EST approximately thirty-six hours before Secretary Clinton was
scheduled to appear to testify at her deposition--and mere
hours before President Clinton's deposition.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026, at
11:02PM).
\64\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the morning of January 14, 2026, Secretary Clinton
failed to comply with a congressional subpoena by not appearing
to testify at this deposition.\65\ The day prior, 13 minutes
after President Clinton was required to appear for his
deposition, Secretary Clinton, with President Clinton, emailed
a written declaration to the Oversight Committee, outlining
what she deemed to be all relevant information sought by the
Committee.\66\ However, the Oversight Committee had expressly
stated on numerous occasions prior to January 13, 2026, that a
written statement in lieu of live testimony would not be
sufficient and that Secretary Clinton was required to appear
for her deposition.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, Chairman
Comer: Chairman Comer: Bill and Hillary Clinton Are Not Above the Law
(Jan. 14, 2026).
\66\Letter from Former President William J. Clinton & Former Sec'y
of State Hillary R. Clinton to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 13, 2026).
\67\See Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Oct. 22, 2025); Letter from
James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David
E. Kendall (Nov. 21, 2025); Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Dec. 15, 2025); and
Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't
Reform, to David E. Kendall (Jan. 8, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In her statement, among other things, Secretary Clinton
acknowledged that she had interacted with Ms. Maxwell. By way
of explanation, she declared that Ms. Maxwell ``began a
personal relationship'' with a ``mutual friend'' while
Secretary Clinton knew her but failed to identify this ``mutual
friend.''\68\ Secretary Clinton also asserted that during her
time in public office, ``I never had any responsibility for, or
involvement with, the Department of Justice's handling of the
Epstein and Maxwell investigations or prosecutions.
Furthermore, as a private citizen after leaving office in
January 2013, I did not direct, oversee or participate in the
handling of the investigations or prosecutions of the Epstein
or Maxwell cases.''\69\ Nowhere in the declaration, however,
did Secretary Clinton address whether she had knowledge from
her tenure as Secretary of State of federal government efforts
to combat international sex-trafficking operations, a topic of
interest specifically identified by the Committee in the cover
letter accompanying her original subpoena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\Letter from Former President William J. Clinton & Former Sec'y
of State Hillary R. Clinton to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 13, 2026).
\69\Letter from Former President William J. Clinton & Former Sec'y
of State Hillary R. Clinton to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 13, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 16, 2026, two days after the Oversight Committee
noticed the markup of the contempt resolutions for the
Clintons, counsel for the Clintons made an offer for the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee to
travel to New York to conduct an interview with President
Clinton.\70\ The offer implicitly excluded the participation of
other members of the Committee and staff attorneys, and
precluded any verbatim transcript of the interview, instead the
``Chairman and Ranking Member would each be accompanied by a
staff member to take notes.''\71\ Furthermore, the offer
seemingly excluded the Committee from conducting an interview
with Secretary Clinton. In exchange for this incredibly limited
offer, the Committee would halt its markup of the contempt
resolutions and withdraw its subpoenas for both President and
Secretary Clinton.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\Email from Jon Skladany, to Mark Marin, Staff Dir., H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 16, 2026, at 10:21PM).
\71\Id.
\72\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oversight Committee stated that the parameters of this
offer, would not ``allow the Committee to appropriately further
its investigation.''\73\ In particular, the Committee
highlighted that ``the lack of an official record, limitations
on staff questioning, and the inability for the vast majority
of Committee members to attend'' were ``far outside the normal
and well-established operating procedures of the Committee when
it conducts compulsory depositions.''\74\ The Committee did
agree to ``discuss an accommodation on the location,'' of both
President and Secretary Clinton's deposition.''\75\ Further,
the implication in the Clinton's counsel's proposal that the
Committee would not depose Secretary Clinton raises significant
concerns to the Committee's investigation. The Committee
believes that Secretary Clinton's on-the-record testimony is
necessary for the Committee's investigation given her knowledge
from her time as Secretary of State of the federal government's
work to counter international sex-trafficking rings, her
personal knowledge of Ms. Maxwell, and her family's
relationship with Mr. Epstein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\Email from Mark Marin, Staff Dir., H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform, to Jon Skladany (Jan. 17, 2026, at 12:11PM).
\74\Id.
\75\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 2026, the Clintons' counsel made a
counteroffer for which the only notable change was to allow an
additional staffer each for the majority and minority, who
would be able ask questions.\76\ Further, this offer maintained
the implication that the Committee would not depose Secretary
Clinton. The Committee declined this counteroffer because it
``fail[ed] to address the previously stated concerns regarding
the necessity of an official record and the inability for the
vast majority of Committee members to attend.''\77\ As of the
drafting of this report, the Committee has not received further
offers for Secretary Clinton to testify pursuant to the
Committee's duly issued subpoenas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\Email from Ashley Callen, to Mark Marin, Staff Dir., H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 19, 2026, at 1:31PM).
\77\Email from Daniel Ashworth, Gen. Counsel, H. Comm. on Oversight
and Gov't Reform, to Ashley Callen (Jan. 19, 2026, at 7:11PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, after more than five months of negotiations with
Mr. Kendall and other counsel representing the Clintons, during
which the Oversight Committee accommodated Secretary Clinton's
scheduling concerns, Secretary Clinton still chose to defy her
subpoena and failed to appear to testify before Congress. As
the events described above make clear, the Oversight
Committee's efforts to persuade Secretary Clinton to comply
with its duly issued deposition subpoena have reached a dead
end.
C. SECRETARY CLINTON'S PURPORTED REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
SUBPOENA ARE WITHOUT MERIT
Through counsel, Secretary Clinton has offered several
bases for her defiance of the Oversight Committee's subpoena,
particularly in her letter to the Oversight Committee, dated
January 12, 2026.\78\ Secretary Clinton contends the Oversight
Committee's subpoena is ``invalid and legally unenforceable''
because: (i) the Oversight Committee shows ``no connection to a
valid legislative purpose,''\79\ (ii) the subpoena is ``an
effort to publicly harass and embarrass . . . Secretary
Clinton,''\80\ (iii) the subpoena is an impermissible exercise
of law enforcement authority committed to coordinate branches
of government,''\81\ and (iv) the subpoena ``run[s] afoul of
the separation of powers doctrine.''\82\ These excuses, most of
which were largely recycled from communications that took place
throughout the months of negotiation outlined above, are
unpersuasive and rejected by the Oversight Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026).
\79\Id.
\80\Id.
\81\Id.
\82\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. The subpoena seeks testimony related to a valid legislative purpose
Through counsel, Secretary Clinton has attempted to argue
her way out of the subpoena by claiming it was invalid because
it served no legislative purpose and that her testimony was not
intended to inform Congress in an area where legislation may be
had.\83\ Before addressing that specific argument, it is
important to recognize the breadth of the Oversight Committee's
oversight authority. The Supreme Court has recognized that
Congress holds an essential responsibility to perform rigorous
oversight,\84\ stating that ``[a] legislative body cannot
legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information
respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to
affect or change.''\85\ So, for example, to develop legislative
reforms designed to combat sex trafficking, it is entirely
reasonable for Congress to closely examine the large sex-
trafficking ring run by Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and the
methods that they used to avoid detection and accountability
for so many years. It is also reasonable for Congress to
examine efforts by the federal government to combat
international sex trafficking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026)
(quoting Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 506
(1975)).
\84\See generally McGrain, 273 U.S. at 174; Watkins, 354 U.S. at
178.
\85\McGrain, 273 U.S. at 174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, House rule X further grants the Oversight
Committee broad oversight jurisdiction, including authority to
``conduct investigations of any matter'' at ``any time.''\86\
That includes broad jurisdiction over federal ``[g]overnment
management'' and reform, including the ``[o]verall economy,
efficiency, and management of government operations and
activities.''\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\Rule X, cl. 4(c)(2), Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025); Rule X(A)(n)(4, 10),
Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, 119th Cong. (2025)
(emphasis added).
\87\Rule X, cl. 1(n), Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives,
119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the Oversight Committee's investigative and
legislative purposes for issuing a subpoena to Secretary
Clinton have been made exhaustingly clear to her counsel: the
Oversight Committee is investigating (i) the alleged
mismanagement of the investigation into Mr. Epstein and Ms.
Maxwell, (ii) the circumstances and subsequent investigations
of Mr. Epstein's death, (iii) the operation of sex-trafficking
rings and ways for the federal government to effectively combat
them, (iv) ways in which Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sought to
curry favor and exercise influence to protect their illegal
activities, and (v) potential violations of ethics rules
related to elected officials. The potential legislative reforms
that may be impacted by the investigation include, but are not
limited to, (i) improving federal efforts to combat sex
trafficking, (ii) increasing certain ethical requirements on
current and former elected officials, and (iii) reforming the
use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in
sex-crime investigations.
While Secretary Clinton has also claimed that her testimony
would have no ``pertinence to the stated purpose of the
Committee's investigation,''\88\ that argument is unavailing
for at least two reasons. First, given her service as Secretary
of State, Secretary Clinton is in a position to provide
firsthand information regarding efforts by the federal
government to combat international sex trafficking. For
example, what tools does the State Department have to foster
international cooperation in addressing international sex
trafficking and how does it utilize them? This is information
that would be useful for Congress in considering legislative
reforms to combat international sex-trafficking rings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, there is substantial evidence that the Clinton
family had relationships with both Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell
for many years during the time when they were operating a sex-
trafficking ring.\89\ It is likely no accident that Mr. Epstein
and Ms. Maxwell maintained close relationships with powerful
and influential people such as the Clinton family while they
were operating a sex-trafficking ring. Those relationships were
probably intended to shield their activities from scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\Michael Gold, Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They
Connected, The N.Y. Times (July 9, 2019); Kelsey Vlamis, Ghislaine
Maxwell once said she couldn't take a deposition because her mom was
sick, but then was photographed at Chelsea Clinton's wedding, lawyers
say, Business Insider (Oct. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, while Secretary Clinton was running for the
U.S. Senate in New York in 2000, Mr. Epstein contributed
$20,000 to her campaign.\90\ She then served as the U.S.
Senator from 2001 to 2009, the exact time period in which
President Clinton claims in his own statement to the Oversight
Committee to have had a relationship with Mr. Epstein of which
his wife, Secretary Clinton, presumably would have been
aware.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\Soo Rin Kim, Jeffrey Epstein donated to several Democrats
throughout 1990s and early 2000s, ABC News (July 12, 2019).
\91\Letter from Former President William J. Clinton & Former Sec'y
of State Hillary R. Clinton to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 13, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, both Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell were involved
with the Clinton Foundation, where Secretary Clinton served on
the board of directors and was directly involved with many of
the foundation's initiatives.\92\ For example, in 2006, the
Clinton Foundation received a $25,000 donation from the
C.O.U.Q. Foundation, ``a charity organization formerly run by
Mr. Epstein.''\93\ Additionally, in a 2007 letter to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Mr.
Epstein's lawyers claimed that Mr. Epstein helped start the
Clinton Foundation.\94\ And in 2013, Ms. Maxwell was honored by
the Clinton Global Initiative at an event, supposedly for her
work on ocean conservation.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\Kenneth P. Vogel, Hillary Clinton quits Clinton Foundation,
Politico (Apr. 12, 2015).
\93\Michael Gold, Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They
Connected, The N.Y. Times (July 9, 2019).
\94\Letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt, Law Office of Gerald B.
Lefcourt P.C., to Jeffrey Sloman & Matthew Menchel, The U.S. Att'y's
Off. S. Dist. of Fla. (July 6, 2007); Malia Zimmerman, Billionaire sex
offender Epstein once claimed he co-founded Clinton Foundation, Fox
News (last updated July 6, 2016).
\95\Edward Helmore, Maxwell honored at Clinton event years after
sexual abuse allegations emerged, The Guardian (Aug. 25, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, there is evidence that Secretary Clinton had a
social relationship with Ms. Maxwell. For instance, in 2010,
Ms. Maxwell was invited to and attended the wedding of
Secretary Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton.\96\ Secretary
Clinton's own declaration even makes clear that she interacted
with Ms. Maxwell, suggesting that they met through a mutual
friend.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\Kelsey Vlamis, Ghislaine Maxwell once said she couldn't take a
deposition because her mom was sick, but then was photographed at
Chelsea Clinton's wedding, lawyers say, Business Insider (Oct. 22,
2020).
\97\Letter from Former President William J. Clinton & Former Sec'y
of State Hillary R. Clinton to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 13, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Clinton is, therefore, in a position to provide
information to the Oversight Committee regarding the activities
of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell during the time when they were
operating their sex-trafficking ring. And such testimony, for
example, could inform the Oversight Committee's knowledge of
that sex-trafficking ring or the ways in which Mr. Epstein and
Ms. Maxwell sought to use their relationships with influential
people to discourage examination of their unlawful activities.
That testimony, in turn, could inform Congress's consideration
of legislative reforms designed to combat sex-trafficking rings
and efforts to conceal sex trafficking.
Similarly, Secretary Clinton contends that she should be
excused from testifying on the record because of a lack of
personal knowledge and instead allowed to submit a written
certification lacks merit.\98\ First, Secretary Clinton has not
certified that she has no knowledge of federal efforts to
combat international sex trafficking, one of the topics
specifically identified in the cover letter accompanying her
subpoena. Second, unlike the other witnesses subpoenaed by the
Oversight Committee, Secretary Clinton could offer testimony in
her personal capacity about her time spent with Ms. Maxwell\99\
and those in the orbit of her and Mr. Epstein, including her
husband, and her observations. Further, based on her
relationship with Ms. Maxwell, and her relationship with
President Clinton, she could speak to Mr. Epstein's and Ms.
Maxwell's relationship with powerful individuals writ large.
President Clinton was a passenger on at least five trips
consisting of a total of 26 flights on Mr. Epstein's private
airplane, which was allegedly used for sex trafficking.\100\
The Oversight Committee presumes Secretary Clinton's
familiarity with these facts, and perhaps others that could be
uncovered during her deposition. There is no evidence
whatsoever that any of the witnesses who were permitted to
submit written certifications to the Oversight Committee in
lieu of testifying had relationships with Mr. Epstein or Ms.
Maxwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Oct. 6, 2025).
\99\Edward Helmore, Maxwell honored at Clinton event years after
sexual abuse allegations emerged, The Guardian (Aug. 25, 2025).
\100\Malia Zimmerman, Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex
offender's jet much more than previously known, Fox News (last updated
May 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is noteworthy that counsel for Secretary Clinton raised
this issue, that the duly authorized subpoena is invalid and
legally unenforceable, for the first time in their letter to
the Oversight Committee on January 12, 2026--the night before
the deposition of her husband was set to commence and a day-
and-half before her scheduled deposition.\101\ The Oversight
Committee negotiated with Secretary Clinton's attorney for more
than five months and, despite the numerous back-and-forth
emails, calls, and letters during this time, January 12, 2026,
was the first time that counsel made a legal claim for
invalidity of the subpoenas. In fact, Mr. Kendall had pushed
for President Clinton and Secretary Clinton to appear for
depositions on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, respectively,
in accordance with the Oversight Committee's duly issued
subpoenas.\102\ And he previously acknowledged that the
Oversight Committee ``is entitled to what little information
the Clintons have about Epstein and Maxwell.''\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026).
\102\Email from Daniel Ashworth, Gen. Counsel, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Dec. 12, 2025, at
5:05PM); Phone Calls from Daniel Ashworth, Gen. Counsel, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Dec. 12, 2025, at
2:35PM, 3:07PM, 4:15PM, 4:41PM).
\103\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Oct. 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Secretary Clinton was serious about this claim, her
counsel could have argued the validity of the subpoena at any
point during the months of negotiations. Instead, counsel
waited until mere hours before her husband's scheduled
deposition to make this assertion. The subpoena was duly issued
by the Chairman; therefore, the subpoena remains valid and
legally enforceable.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\Subpoena to Hillary R. Clinton, Former Sec'y of State of the
U.S. (Aug. 5, 2025); Rule XI, cl. 2(k)(6), Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025); Rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B),
Rules of the U.S. Representatives, 119th Cong. (Jan. 16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reiterate, Secretary Clinton's knowledge of the federal
government's efforts to combat international sex trafficking
may assist Congress in developing legislative reforms to combat
such trafficking, and her potential knowledge about Mr. Epstein
and Ms. Maxwell may inform Congress's understanding of their
sex-trafficking ring and efforts to curry favor and exercise
influence to protect those activities, which, in turn, may
assist Congress's exploration of potential legislative remedies
to more effectively combat sex trafficking. Therefore, the
argument posed by Secretary Clinton's counsel that the
Oversight Committee lacks a legitimate legislative purpose to
pursue this testimony is not persuasive.
ii. Secretary Clinton was subpoenaed to advance the Oversight
Committee's investigation, not to harass or embarrass her
While Mr. Kendall argues that the subpoena is invalid
because it is intended to ``harass and embarrass'' Secretary
Clinton,\105\ that claim falls far from the mark. As recounted
above, the Oversight Committee has continuously and clearly
stated the legislative purpose behind its investigation into
Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and its rationale for seeking
testimony from Secretary Clinton. Moreover, this argument does
not fit the facts here: if the Oversight Committee's purpose
was to harass and embarrass Secretary Clinton, that purpose
would seem to be best accomplished by subpoenaing her to
testify at a public hearing, not a closed-door deposition,
which is designed to elicit information from the witness in a
private setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of the harassment claim, Secretary Clinton's
counsel alleges that she and President Clinton are being
treated differently from other witnesses. Specifically, counsel
claims that the Oversight Committee ``singl[ed] out the
Clintons'' by issuing subpoenas to multiple witnesses and not
accepting written proffers from the Clintons.\106\ It is
critical to note that the Oversight Committee sets the terms of
its oversight, including deciding which witnesses to interview,
in what order to interview them, and whether or not to compel
testimony in a time, place, and manner of its own
choosing.\107\ Federal courts have consistently held that
witnesses may not ``impose [their] own conditions upon the
manner of [congressional] inquiry.''\108\ That is because ``a
witness does not have the legal right to dictate the conditions
under which he will or will not testify''\109\ or ``to
prescribe the conditions under which he may be interrogated by
Congress.''\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Nov. 3, 2025).
\107\See, e.g., Todd Garvey, Cong. Research Serv., LSB11093,
Committee Discretion in Obtaining Witness Testimony (Dec. 22, 2023).
\108\Eisler v. United States, 170 F.2d 273, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1948).
\109\United States v. Costello, 198 F.2d 200, 205 (2d Cir. 1952);
see also United States v. Brewster, 154 F.Supp. 126, 134 (D.D.C. 1957)
(finding a witness guilty of Contempt of Congress because ``a witness
has no right to set his own conditions for testifying'').
\110\United States v. Hintz, 193 F.Supp. 325, 335 (N.D. Ill. 1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, Secretary Clinton is not similarly situated to the
other witnesses from whom the Oversight Committee has accepted
written certifications. As mentioned above, none of these other
witnesses (former Attorneys General and FBI Directors) had a
personal relationship with Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. They
were called to testify about knowledge they might have had of
the federal government's investigation and prosecution of Mr.
Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. And they were excused from their
depositions because they could certify that they had no
personal knowledge of those investigations and prosecutions to
share with the Oversight Committee. As indicated above, there
is substantial evidence that, during the time when Mr. Epstein
and Ms. Maxwell were operating a sex-trafficking ring,
Secretary Clinton did have a personal relationship with Ms.
Maxwell, and there were extensive ties between the Clinton
family and Mr. Epstein.\111\ In addition, Secretary Clinton has
knowledge of federal government efforts to combat international
sex trafficking from her years of service in the federal
government, especially at the U.S. Department of State.\112\
Given the combination of these two factors, the Oversight
Committee's decision to demand in-person deposition testimony
is, therefore, entirely reasonable, and certainly does not rise
to the level of demonstrating that the subpoena is designed to
harass and embarrass her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\Kelsey Vlamis, Ghislaine Maxwell once said she couldn't take a
deposition because her mom was sick, but then was photographed at
Chelsea Clinton's wedding, lawyers say, Business Insider (Oct. 22,
2020); Edward Helmore, Maxwell honored at Clinton event years after
sexual abuse allegations emerged, The Guardian (Aug. 25, 2025).
\112\Fact Sheet, Understanding Human Trafficking, U.S. Dep't of
State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Jan. 20,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, a survey of the Oversight Committee's
investigative activities belies any suggestion that its
subpoena is designed to embarrass Secretary Clinton. The
Oversight Committee's broad efforts to conduct a fair
investigation are highlighted by the nine other individuals the
Oversight Committee subpoenaed the same day as Secretary
Clinton,\113\ of which only Attorney General Barr, a
Republican, sat for a deposition;\114\ a wide-ranging subpoena
to the Department of Justice for documents, again the same day
as Secretary Clinton's subpoena;\115\ a voluntary transcribed
interview with former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of Florida Alex Acosta, again a Republican;\116\ a subpoena for
a deposition of Ms. Maxwell, whose attorney has stated she
intends to assert her Fifth Amendment right;\117\ a subpoena
for Mr. Epstein's estate that has led to the Oversight
Committee receiving thousands of pages of documents;\118\ and
most recently, three more motions to subpoena Les Wexner,
Darren Indyke, and Richard Kahn,\119\ all of which had personal
or business relationships with Mr. Epstein, whom were voice
voted by the full Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\Subpoena to Alberto R. Gonzales, Former U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't
of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Eric H. Holder, Former U.S. Att'y
Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Loretta E. Lynch,
Former U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to
Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Former Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug.
5, 2025); Subpoena to William P. Barr, Former U.S. Att'y Gen., Dep't of
Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Merrick B. Garland, Former U.S. Att'y
Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to Robert S. Mueller III,
Dir., Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to James B.
Comey, Dir., Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Aug. 5, 2025); Subpoena to
Hillary R. Clinton, Former Sec'y of State of the U.S. (Aug. 5, 2025);
Subpoena to William J. Clinton, Former President of the U.S. (Aug. 5,
2025).
\114\Deposition of William P. Barr, Former U.S. Att'y Gen. (Aug.
18, 2025).
\115\Subpoena to Pamela J. Bondi, Att'y Gen., Dep't of Just. (Aug.
5, 2025).
\116\Transcribed Interview of R. Alexander Acosta, Former U.S.
Att'y for the S. Dist. of Fla. (Sept. 19, 2025).
\117\Subpoena to Ghislaine Maxwell (July 23, 2025); Hailey Fuchs,
Ghislaine Maxwell will plead Fifth in House Epstein probe, Comer says,
Politico (Nov. 21, 2025).
\118\Subpoena to the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 25, 2025).
\119\Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota:
Part 1, 119th Cong. 2. (Jan. 7, 2026) (Voice Vote on Motion to Direct
the Committee to Authorize and Issue Subpoenas for Leslie H. Wexner,
Darren K. Indyke, and Richard D. Kahn to Appear for a Deposition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither has the Oversight Committee subpoenaed Secretary
Clinton to expose her private affairs for the sake of exposure.
While her counsel argues that the Supreme Court has ``long
invalidated such freewheeling hunts that `inquir[e] into the
private affairs of the citizen,'''\120\ that is not the purpose
of this subpoena. As an initial matter, the Committee has
already explained in its letters to Secretary Clinton's
counsel, how Secretary Clinton's testimony is relevant to its
oversight investigation, including knowledge that she would
have gained from her service as Secretary of State. Moreover,
the Oversight Committee has shown that there is evidence
connecting Secretary Clinton to Ms. Maxwell and her family to
Mr. Epstein at the time that they were operating a sex-
trafficking ring.\121\ This is no ``freewheeling hunt,'' but a
targeted subpoena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026)
(quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 195 (1880)).
\121\Michael Gold, Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They
Connected, The N.Y. Times (July 9, 2019); Dan Adler, From Jeffrey
Epstein's Home to a Bill Clinton Dinner, More Details About Ghislaine
Maxwell Emerge, Vanity Fair (Sept. 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. The subpoena is not an impermissible exercise of law enforcement
authority committed to coordinate branches of government and
the existence of a Department of Justice investigation into Mr.
Epstein's and Ms. Maxwell's sex-trafficking ring does not
relieve Secretary Clinton of her obligation to appear for a
deposition
Contrary to the claims of Secretary Clinton's counsel,\122\
the subpoena to Secretary Clinton was issued as part of a
legislative oversight investigation, not a law enforcement
effort. The Oversight Committee is not, nor has it ever claimed
to be, a criminal investigative body. As discussed above, the
Committee is investigating to gather information to determine
whether legislative reforms are necessary, including to more
effectively combat sex trafficking. It is not seeking to assess
whether any individuals, including Secretary Clinton, violated
the law. Secretary Clinton's knowledge of federal government
efforts to combat international sex trafficking is pertinent to
the Oversight Committee's investigation. Additionally, the
evidence discussed above indicates that Secretary Clinton had a
relationship with Ms. Maxwell and her family had a close
relationship with Mr. Epstein. Issuing a subpoena to Secretary
Clinton was not a ``freewheeling hunt'' of a private citizen,
nor was it a law enforcement operation.\123\ Instead, the
subpoena was a natural next step to gathering information as
part of a larger effort to craft legislation to combat sex
trafficking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026).
\123\Id. (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 195 (1880)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Clinton's counsel has also invoked concerns about
a Department of Justice investigation related to Epstein and
Maxwell, stating that ``[n]o responsible attorney would allow a
client to testify in any Legislative Branch [sic] proceeding
while this investigation . . . continues.''\124\ The Supreme
Court has recognized that Congress's oversight authority is not
restricted by ongoing civil and criminal investigations,
including those initiated by the Department of Justice.\125\
And to the extent that witnesses, including Secretary Clinton,
are concerned that answers to the Oversight Committee's
questions could incriminate themselves, they are permitted to
assert their Fifth Amendment right on a question-by-question
basis during their deposition. Here, however, the Committee
notes that any decision by Secretary Clinton to invoke the
Fifth Amendment during a deposition would appear to be at odds
with the representations made by her counsel to the Oversight
Committee regarding the nature of her relationships with Mr.
Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 3, 2026).
\125\In Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929), the Court
noted that the pendency of litigation does not stop Congress's ability
to investigate. In that case, the Court held that Congress's authority
``directly or through its committees, to require pertinent disclosures
in aid of its own constitutional power is not abridged because the
information sought to be elicited may also be of use in'' civil or
criminal suits. Sinclair, 279 U.S. at 295. Similarly, in Hutcheson v.
United States, 369 U.S. 599 (1962), the Court explained that ``a
congressional committee . . . engaged in a legitimate legislative
investigation need not grind to a halt whenever responses to its
inquiries might potentially be harmful to a witness in some distinct
proceeding . . . or when crime or wrongdoing is exposed.'' Hutcheson,
369 U.S. at 618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. The separation of powers does not render the subpoena unenforceable
Counsel's final contention, that the subpoenas
``potentially run afoul of the separation of powers
doctrine,''\126\ does not provide a justification for declining
to attend the deposition. At most, raising separation-of-powers
issues serves as a defense for whether to answer a specific
question posed by the Oversight Committee, not whether to
appear before the Oversight Committee. As Secretary Clinton has
failed to appear for her deposition, the issue of potential
separation-of-powers concerns is moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\Letter from David E. Kendall & Ashley Callen to James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Jan. 12, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Clinton's attorney did not directly assert a
separation-of-powers defense for Secretary Clinton, the
Oversight Committee notes that President Clinton and Secretary
Clinton ``have been private citizens for the last 24 and 12
years, respectively.''\127\ Secretary Clinton interacted with
Ms. Maxwell in her personal capacity as a private citizens, and
her husband maintained a relationship with Mr. Epstein in his
personal capacity as a private citizen.\128\ Additionally,
there is no valid separation-of-powers concern with Secretary
Clinton appearing for a deposition to provide the Oversight
Committee generally with her knowledge of federal government
efforts to combat sex-trafficking operations. Therefore,
counsel's attempt to raise separation-of-powers issues provides
no defense here and, in any event, issues of applicable
privileges should have been raised in a deposition setting on a
question-by-question basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\Letter from David E. Kendall to James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Nov. 3, 2025).
\128\Michael Gold, Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They
Connected, The N.Y. Times (July 9, 2019); Kelsey Vlamis, Ghislaine
Maxwell once said she couldn't take a deposition because her mom was
sick, but then was photographed at Chelsea Clinton's wedding, lawyers
say, Business Insider (Oct. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. PRECEDENT SUPPORTS THE COMMITTEE'S POSITION TO PROCEED WITH HOLDING
SECRETARY CLINTON IN CONTEMPT
The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that ``the power to
investigate is inherent in the power to make laws because `[a]
legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
absence of information respecting the conditions which the
legislation is intended to affect or change.'''\129\ Further,
``[w]here the legislative body does not itself possess the
requisite information--which not infrequently is true--recourse
must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught
that mere requests for such information often are unavailing,
and also that information which is volunteered is not always
accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential
to obtain what is needed.''\130\ Accordingly, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192
provides that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or
be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of
up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.\131\ Like
any ``ordinary federal criminal statute,'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192
``requires a criminal intent--in this instance, a deliberate,
intentional refusal to answer.''\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504
(1975) (quoting McGrain, 273 U.S. at 175).
\130\Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504-05.
\131\The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A
misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3559(a)(6). By that classification, the
penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192
increased from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3571(b)(5).
\132\Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 165 (1955).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has held individuals in contempt for failing to
comply with duly issued subpoenas. In the 116th and 117th
Congress, the Democrat-controlled House ``approved six criminal
contempt of Congress citations'' for such misconduct.\133\ In
fact, after congressional Democrats held White House officials
Stephen Bannon and Peter Navarro in contempt of Congress, the
Department of Justice successfully pursued criminal charges
against them.\134\ In the 118th Congress, under Republican
control, the House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick
Garland in contempt of Congress; however, the Biden Department
of Justice--headed by Merrick Garland--declined to pursue
criminal charges.\135\ Additionally, during the 118th Congress,
the Oversight Committee adopted a resolution recommending the
House find Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for his refusal
to comply with a lawful subpoena, but this resolution was not
voted on by the full House because Hunter Biden ultimately
agreed to testify before the Oversight Committee.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB10974, Criminal Contempt Of
Congress: Frequently Asked Questions, 3 (2023).
\134\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Just., Former White House Advisor
Convicted of Contempt of Congress (Sept. 7, 2023); Press Release, U.S.
Dep't of Just., Stephen K. Bannon Found Guilty by Jury of Two Counts of
Contempt of Congress (July 22, 2022).
\135\Rebecca Beitsch, Republicans vote to hold Garland in contempt
of Congress, The Hill (June 12, 2024).
\136\Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform,
Oversight Committee Approves Resolution Recommending the House of
Representatives Find Hunter Biden in Contempt of Congress (Jan. 10,
2024); H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, Resolution Recommending
That The House Of Representatives Find Robert Hunter Biden In Contempt
Of Congress For Refusal To Comply With A Subpoena Duly Issued By The
Committee On Oversight And Accountability (Jan. 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Clinton has not properly asserted any claims of
privilege, nor has she asserted any basis for immunity from
answering questions. In correspondence with her attorney prior
to the scheduled date of the deposition, the Oversight
Committee addressed and rejected Secretary Clinton's
justifications for not complying with the terms of the
subpoena.\137\ The Oversight Committee specifically notified
Secretary Clinton, via her attorney, that her failure to appear
for the deposition as required by the subpoena would lead to
the Oversight Committee initiating contempt of Congress
proceedings.\138\ Secretary Clinton's failure to appear for the
deposition in the face of this clear advisement and warning by
the Oversight Committee constitutes a willful failure to comply
with the subpoena under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\See Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Oct. 22, 2025); Letter from
James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David
E. Kendall (Nov. 21, 2025); Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David E. Kendall (Dec. 15, 2025);
Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't
Reform, to David E. Kendall (Jan. 8, 2026).
\138\Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform to David E. Kendall (Dec. 15, 2025); Letter from James
Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to David E.
Kendall (Jan. 8, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Oversight Committee has attempted for more than five
months to convince Secretary Clinton to comply with its
deposition subpoena. However, Secretary Clinton has made clear
that she will not appear for her deposition and she has not
offered any valid legal justification for refusing to do so.
Secretary Clinton's actions have impeded an Oversight Committee
investigation and its ability to perform its Constitutional
oversight duties. Secretary Clinton's willful refusal to comply
with the Oversight Committee's subpoena constitutes contempt of
Congress and warrants referral to the U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia for prosecution as prescribed by law.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On January 21, 2026, the Committee met in open session, and
with a quorum being present, to consider this Report, and
adopted by voice vote an amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Chairman James Comer that made certain
technical edits as well as adding language describing
negotiations between the Committee and Secretary Clinton and
further language addressing Secretary Clinton's role as
Secretary of State and the insight that position affords into
international sex trafficking, and ordered the Report and the
Resolution contained herein to be favorably reported, as
amended, to the House by a recorded vote of 28 ayes to 15 noes,
with 1 voting present.
ROLL CALL VOTES
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
Committee states that the following recorded votes occurred
during the Committee's consideration of the Report:
1. A motion by Chairman James Comer to report the Report
for a Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives
Find Hillary R. Clinton in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to
Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform favorably to the House, as
amended, was agreed to by a recorded vote of 28 ayes to 15
noes, with 1 voting present (Rollcall No. 4).
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's findings and recommendations
are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this Report.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this
Report is to enforce the Committee's duly issued subpoena to
obtain testimony and recommend holding former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton in contempt of congress.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of this Report establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
EARMARK IDENTIFICATION
This Report does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
The Committee finds the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to be
inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the Committee did not
request or receive a cost estimate from the Congressional
Budget Office and makes no findings as to the budgetary impacts
of this Report or costs incurred to carry out the Report.
MINORITY VIEWS
Oversight Democrats strongly oppose the Majority's
resolution recommending that the House of Representatives cite
Hillary R. Clinton for contempt of Congress.
Oversight Democrats have been, and remain, steadfastly
committed to pursuing the facts surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's
and Ghislaine Maxwell's horrific crimes from any and all
sources of relevant information. Oversight Democrats are
committed to working to secure sworn testimony from Secretary
Clinton.
This resolution, however, is above all an attempt to
distract the American public from Oversight Republicans'
wholesale failure to conduct a serious investigation or to
secure justice for the survivors of Epstein's crimes. The
Majority has selectively fixated on William ``Bill'' Clinton,
former president of the United States, and Hillary Clinton,
former secretary of state--in accordance with the expressed
wishes of President Trump, who has characterized this
Committee's investigation as a ``Democratic hoax'' and ordered
the Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi to target his political
enemies--while ignoring numerous other witnesses and sources of
probative information. These potential witnesses and sources of
probative information include President Donald Trump himself,
who continues to use the power of the Presidency to forcefully
resist and oppose transparency or accountability in the Epstein
case.
Oversight Republicans have likewise failed to take any
action in response to Attorney General Pam Bondi's flagrant
disregard of the subpoena this Committee issued to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for the complete Epstein files. To
date, DOJ has produced only a relative handful of materials
pursuant to the subpoena, while admitting that it has more than
five million pages of Epstein-related documents that it has not
yet produced--even though more than five months have passed
since this Committee issued a subpoena to DOJ for those
materials, and despite numerous requests to DOJ from Oversight
Democrats for clarification as to when DOJ expects to complete
its production.\1\ Moreover, rather than seeking testimony from
known individuals who had longstanding ties to Epstein--
including President Trump--the Majority, tellingly, has opted
to focus on two prominent former Democratic officials--one of
whom, Secretary Clinton, plainly lacks firsthand knowledge
regarding Epstein's crimes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Department of Justice Is Reviewing Over 5.2 Million Jeffrey
Epstein Files, PBS News (Dec. 31, 2025) (online at www.pbs.org/
newshour/nation/department-of-justice-is-reviewing-over-5-2-million-
jeffrey-epstein-files); Subpoena to The Hon. Pamela J. Bondi (Aug. 5,
2025) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/
08/2025.08.05-Subpoena-and-Schedule-to-DOJ.pdf).
\2\House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Republicans,
Press Release: Chairman Comer Subpoenas Bill and Hillary Clinton,
Former U.S. Attorneys General and FBI Directors, and Records Related to
Jeffrey Epstein, (Aug. 5, 2025) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/
release/chairman-comer-subpoenas-bill-and-hillary-clinton-former-u-s-
attorneys-general-and-fbi-directors-and-records-related-to-jeffrey-
epstein/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Minority believes that this committee's resources would
be far better spent, and the interests of Epstein's survivors
and the American people in transparency and justice far better
served, by a genuine, bipartisan effort to pursue the truth.
Sadly, this proceeding, which is driven by a blatantly partisan
effort to target the Clintons, falls far short of this goal.
I. Criminal Contempt is Warranted Against Attorney General Pam Bondi,
Who has Brazenly Defied This Committee's Subpoena and Failed to Produce
the Epstein Files
While relentlessly pursuing the Clintons, the Majority has
failed to take any action to obtain the millions of pages of
Epstein-related documents that this Committee directed Attorney
General Bondi to produce pursuant to a duly issued subpoena
five months ago. Though those materials would unquestionably
shed significant light on Epstein's criminal enterprise and the
individuals connected to it, the Majority has opted to ignore
DOJ's non-compliance with its subpoena and, relatedly, its
total failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency
Act. Instead, the Majority has focused selectively and
exclusively on two former Democratic officials--one of whom,
according to Oversight Republicans' own characterization, lacks
significant knowledge regarding Epstein.
On August 5, 2025, this Committee issued a subpoena to
Attorney General Bondi in her official capacity, requiring her
to produce seven categories of documents and communications
relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The subpoena
unambiguously required Attorney General Bondi to do so no later
than August 19, 2025.\3\ DOJ made a single production of
approximately 33,000 pages of documents to the Committee on
August 22, 2025, all of which, were already public.\4\ DOJ has
made no additional productions pursuant to the subpoena since
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Subpoena to The Hon. Pamela J. Bondi (Aug. 5, 2025) (online at
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025.08.05-
Subpoena-and-Schedule-to-DOJ.pdf).
\4\House Oversight Panel Releases Some Epstein Files as Pressure
Mounts, New York Times (Sept. 2, 2025) (online at www.nytimes.com/2025/
09/02/us/politics/epstein-files-release-house-oversight.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the agency has failed to provide specific
information in response to repeated requests from Democratic
Oversight staff as to DOJ's anticipated timetable for
completing its production.\5\ Significantly, the agency's
blanket refusal to provide meaningful detail to the Committee
about its compliance with the subpoena stands in sharp contrast
to the Clintons, whose counsel engaged in substantive
correspondence with Committee staff, unilaterally offered
information about the scope of their knowledge, and negotiated
with the staff over their appearance before the Committee
following the issuance of their subpoenas.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Emails from Committee Staff to Department of Justice dated Aug.
22, 2025, Aug. 26, 2025, Sept. 10, 2025, and Oct. 8, 2025 (on file with
Committee).
\6\See Clintons Say Comer Is ``Lying With Impunity'' About Epstein
Inquiry, Release Written Declarations, ABC News (Jan. 14, 2026) (online
at https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clintons-comer-lying-impunity-
epstein-inquiry-release-written/story?id=129223202); Report, Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute to the Committee Report for the
Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Former
President of the United States William J. Clinton in Contempt of
Congress for Refusal to Comply With a Subpoena Duly Issued by the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at 8-12; Report, Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute to the Committee Report for the
Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Former
United States Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in Contempt of
Congress for Refusal to Comply With a Subpoena Duly Issued by the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at 8-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a clear sign that DOJ may have failed to even undertake
preliminary steps necessary to comply with the Committee's
subpoena, the limited release of files under the Epstein Files
Transparency Act indicates that the Department failed to take
adequate steps to even determine the number of Epstein-related
documents in its possession. In December 2025--while searching
for documents to publicize in compliance with the Epstein Files
Transparency Act, not the Committee's subpoena--DOJ abruptly
announced that it had discovered a new tranche of more than one
million potentially relevant documents within the agency.\7\ In
January 2026, however, DOJ provided yet another estimate to a
federal district court, reporting that ``there are more than 2
million documents potentially responsive to the [Epstein Files
Transparency] Act that are in various phases of review.''\8\ In
addition, DOJ reportedly has sought to recruit additional DOJ
staff to review what it identified as 5.2 million additional
pages.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\DOJ Says It Could Take ``A Few More Weeks'' to Process Epstein
Files After Receiving More Than 1 Million Additional Docs, NBC News
(Dec. 24, 2025) (online at www.nbcnews.com/
politics/justice-department/doj-weeks-process-epstein-files-1-million-
additional-documents-fbi-rcna250847).
\8\Letter from Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, Todd Blanche, Deputy
Attorney General, and Jay Clayton, Attorney, Southern District of New
York, to The Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge, at
2 (Jan. 5, 2026) (online at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/
gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.826.0.pdf); see also
DOJ Says Millions of Epstein Files Have Yet to be Released, Politico
(Jan. 5, 2026) (online at www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/doj-epstein-
files-timing-delays-00712169).
\9\Justice Dept. Is Now Said to Be Reviewing 5.2 Million Pages of
Epstein Files, New York Times (Dec. 30, 2025) (online at
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/30/us/politics/esptein-files-5-million-
pages.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximately 33,000 documents that DOJ has produced
pursuant to the subpoena to date plainly constitute a minuscule
fraction of the responsive documents that DOJ has acknowledged
having in its possession. These facts raise the question of
whether Attorney General Bondi ever intended to comply with the
Committee's subpoena originally issued in August of 2025. Had
DOJ been conducting a fulsome and comprehensive search for
documents in response to the Committee's subpoena, these
additional documents would have been discovered long before
December.
The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192, provides
for criminal penalties against any person who ``willfully makes
default'' on their obligation to ``produce papers upon any
matter under inquiry'' by Congress pursuant to subpoena. Unlike
the Clintons, Attorney General Bondi's conduct satisfies this
standard. Not only has Attorney General Bondi come nowhere near
to meeting her obligation to produce the materials covered by
this Committee's subpoena, but she has also ignored the staff's
repeated requests for information about DOJ's compliance, and
has failed even to ensure that DOJ has in place sufficient
processes to ascertain the scope of relevant documents, despite
having those materials in its possession for years. These
failures more plausibly reflect a conscious choice to ignore
Congress's lawfully issued subpoena than mere inadvertence or
negligence. Hence, Attorney General Bondi has plainly violated
her obligations under the subpoena ``willfully,'' as the
statute requires.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\See Wheeldin v. United States, 283 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1960)
(noting that to satisfy the willfulness requirement under Sec. 192,
``evil intent is not necessary, and . . . a deliberate and conscious
intent to disobey the subpoena is all that is needed'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than pursue this overt instance of congressional
contempt, the Majority has opted instead to ignore and deny it,
to make the Clintons the focus of this Committee's time and
resources, and attempt to distract from their own and the Trump
DOJ's failure to investigate this matter competently and from
President Donald Trump's own obvious and extensive ties to
Jeffrey Epstein, as set forth below.
II. This Resolution is a Patent Attempt to Distract From the Majority's
Failure to Conduct a Serious Investigation Into Epstein's Crimes
Oversight Republicans, acting at the direction of President
Trump, have failed to conduct a serious and thorough
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, opting instead to
protect the White House and mislead the public. The Majority's
singling out of the Clintons through these contempt proceedings
reflects its aim to place politics above justice for Epstein's
victims and truth for the American people.
Further demonstrating the Republicans' partisan objectives
are their failure to pursue several other areas of inquiry from
sources that would very likely shed significant light on
Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes and the government's
investigation and prosecution of both. As discussed above, the
Majority has refused to make any serious efforts to enforce
this Committee's subpoena to DOJ or the Epstein Files
Transparency Act and obtain the millions of pages of Epstein-
related documents in DOJ's possession. The Majority has
likewise ignored President Trump's years-long and evidently
close relationship to Epstein and failed to pursue multiple
witnesses with firsthand knowledge regarding Epstein and
Maxwell.
1. THE MAJORITY'S FAILURE TO SEEK INFORMATION
FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP
It is well established, through public reporting, materials
produced to the Committee by Epstein's estate, and President
Trump's own statements, that President Trump had close personal
ties to Epstein for several years--including the period of time
during which Epstein and Maxwell engaged in sex trafficking and
sexual abuse.\11\ Despite this extensive evidentiary record,
the Majority has made no effort whatsoever to question or
otherwise obtain information from President Trump regarding
Epstein and Maxwell. Remarkably, while the Majority's letters
enclosing its subpoenas to the Clintons claimed that a
deposition was necessary ``[g]iven [President Clinton's] past
relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell,'' the Majority
disregards its own standard of factual relevance when it comes
to Donald Trump.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Trump's History with Jeffrey Epstein: Here's The Full Timeline
Ahead of Epstein Files Release, Forbes (Dec. 18, 2025) (online at
www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/12/18/trumps-
history-with-jeffrey-epstein-heres-the-full-timeline-ahead-of-epstein-
files-release/).
\12\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, to President William J. Clinton at 13 (Aug. 5, 2025)
(online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2025/08/2025.08.05-Subpoena-Cover-Letters.pdf); Letter
from Chairman James Comer to Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
at 25 (Aug 5, 2025) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025.08.05-Subpoena-
Cover-Letters.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein dates
back at least to 1985, when Epstein was living in Palm Beach
and Trump bought Mar-a-Lago.\13\ Epstein and Trump were in
constant contact during this time, speaking on the phone and
frequently visiting each other's offices and properties.\14\
The two men were close friends for years, frequently attending
parties together. In one instance, Epstein allegedly visited
Trump's casino in Atlantic City with a 19-year-old girl.\15\ In
1992, Trump hosted a party at Mar-a-Lago with Epstein, one
other man, and dozens of ``calendar girls,'' at least two of
whom Trump allegedly harassed or assaulted, according to a
lawsuit filed by one of the women.\16\ As reflected in the
flight logs produced by DOJ in December 2025, Trump flew on
Epstein's plane at least eight times, accompanying Epstein and
Maxwell, a 20-year-old woman, and two women who the DOJ
believed could be credible witnesses in their prosecution of
Maxwell.\17\ In 1993, Epstein allegedly brought Stacey Williams
to Trump Tower, where Trump is accused of assaulting her.\18\
Epstein also allegedly brought a 14-year-old victim and another
victim to meet Trump, the latter of whom reported that Trump
leered at her and Epstein said, ``she's not for you.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Trump's History with Jeffrey Epstein: Here's The Full Timeline
Ahead of Epstein Files Release, Forbes (Dec. 18, 2025) (online at
www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/12/18/trumps-
history-with-jeffrey-epstein-heres-the-full-timeline-ahead-of-epstein-
files-release/).
\14\Id.
\15\I've Told the Story About Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein for
Years, Slate (July 29, 2025) (online at https://slate.com/news-and-
politics/2025/07/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-files-list-fbi-
news.html).
\16\Inside the Long Friendship Between Trump and Epstein, New York
Times (July 19, 2025) (online at www.nytimes.com/2025/07/19/us/
politics/inside-trump-epstein-friendship.html); Jeffrey Epstein Was a
`Terrific Guy,' Donald Trump Once Said. Now He's `Not a Fan.,' New York
Times (July 9, 2019) (online at www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/
trump-epstein.html).
\17\Trump Travelled on Epstein's Plane More Than Previously
Thought, Newly Released Prosecutor's Email Says, BBC (Dec. 23, 2025)
(online at www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74xgp81pqgo).
\18\Former Model Accuses Donald Trump of Groping Her in 1993, New
York Times (Oct. 25, 2025) (online at www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/
business/donald-trump-stacey-williams-jeffrey-
epstein.html).
\19\An Accuser's Story Suggests How Trump Might Appear in the
Epstein Files, New York Times (July 20, 2025) (online at
www.nytimes.com/2025/07/20/us/politics/epstein-employee-trump-
investigation.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, Trump contributed a crude drawing of a
woman's naked body to Epstein's ``birthday book'' in 2003, with
a note that referred to having ``certain things in common'' and
to ``another wonderful secret.''\20\ That book also included a
photograph of Epstein with a giant check, referring to Epstein
``sell[ing] a `fully depreciated''' young woman to Trump.\21\
Moreover, according to recent reporting, multiple young female
masseuses were dispatched from Mar-a-Lago to Epstein's home,
even after some of those young women complained that Epstein
was harassing them.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Epstein's Full `Birthday Book' Has Been Released. Here's What's
Inside, TIME (Sept. 9, 2025) (online at https://time.com/7315609/
epsteins-birthday-book-trump-clinton/).
\21\Id.
\22\Mar-a-Lago Was Key to Jeffrey Epstein's Criminal Enterprise,
The Nation (Jan. 2, 2026) (online at www.thenation.com/article/
politics/mar-a-lago-jeffrey-epstein-donald-trump/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2019 email to Maxwell released by the estate of
Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein said that ``of course Trump knew about
the girls.''\23\ In another email from 2011, Epstein said that
Trump ``spent hours at [Epstein's] house'' with a known Epstein
survivor while she was being trafficked.\24\ Photographs
produced to the Committee by the Epstein estate and released by
the DOJ have depicted Trump and Epstein partying together, as
well as photographs of Trump and Epstein being displayed in the
latter's house, as survivors have attested to.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Trump's History with Jeffrey Epstein: Here's The Full Timeline
Ahead of Epstein Files Release, Forbes (Dec. 18, 2025) (online at
www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/12/18/trumps-
history-with-jeffrey-epstein-heres-the-full-timeline-ahead-of-epstein-
files-release/).
\24\Id.
\25\New Photos from Epstein's Personal Collection Show Trump,
Clinton and Much More, PBS News (Dec. 12, 2025) (online at www.pbs.org/
newshour/politics/new-photos-from-
epsteins-personal-collection-show-trump-clinton-and-much-more); Epstein
Files: A Number of Documents, Including Trump Photo, Reportedly Removed
from DOJ Release Site, CNBC (Dec. 20, 2025) (online at www.cnbc.com/
2025/12/20/trump-epstein-files-doj-photo.html?
msockid=0287591ce49b66382b174ffde58267de); Jeffrey Epstein Kept an
`8x10 Framed Picture' of Donald Trump on His Desk, Survivor Claims:
Trump Was `His Biggest Brag,' People (Sept. 3, 2025) (online at https:/
/people.com/epstein-kept-framed-picture-trump-on-desk-survivor-claims-
11802686).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to his relationship with Epstein, President
Trump has taken extraordinary measures to withhold information
about Jeffrey Epstein from the American public. For example,
despite promising to release the Epstein files while on the
campaign trail in 2024, President Trump instead chose to spread
misinformation about the origin of the files, noting on July
15, 2025, that the files ``were made up by Comey. They were
made up by Obama. They were made up by Biden.''\26\ Prior to
the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act by the House
of Representatives in November of 2025, President Trump
pressured Republicans to vote against the bill, even summoning
Rep. Lauren Boebert to the White House Situation Room to meet
with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, in an effort to influence her
vote.\27\ President Trump has gone as far as to bully a loyal
member of his own party and of this Committee, former Rep.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, when her support for releasing the
Epstein files and uncovering the truth clashed with his desire
to protect his ``friends,'' whom he believed might be named
publicly as abusers.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\What Trump has Said About Jeffrey Epstein Over the Years,
Including on 2024 Campaign Trail, ABC News (July 16, 2025) (online at
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-years-including-
2024-campaign-trail/story?id=123778541); Trump: Epstein Files `Were
Made Up By' Obama, Biden, Former FBI Director Comey, The Hill (July 15,
2025) (online at https://thehill.com/video/trump-epstein-files-
%e2%80%98were-made-up-by%e2%80%99-obama-biden-former-fbi-director-
comey/10892955/).
\27\Trump Ramps Up Pressure on G.O.P. to Thwart Epstein Vote, New
York Times (Nov. 12, 2025) (online at www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/us/
politics/trump-epstein-vote-boebert.html).
\28\`I Was Just So Naive': Inside Marjorie Taylor Greene's Break
with Trump, New York Times (Dec. 29, 2025) (online at www.nytimes.com/
2025/12/29/magazine/marjorie-taylor-greene-trump-maga-split.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the length, depth, and timing of his relationship
with Epstein, in addition to the conspicuous actions he has
taken to prevent the release of the files, President Trump
undoubtedly has significant and directly probative information
to share with the Committee. It is, therefore, astonishing and
unconscionable that the Majority has declined even to consider
requesting information from President Trump. Oversight
Republicans' refusal to do so betrays their partisan
intentions, lack of seriousness in conducting this
investigation, securing justice for survivors, and providing
transparency to the American people.
2. THE MAJORITY'S FAILURE TO PURSUE OTHER RELEVANT WITNESSES
In addition to President Trump, the Majority has made no
effort to seek information from other key individuals who were
close to Epstein, or who traveled, socialized, and did business
with him, and thus, have significant firsthand knowledge
regarding Epstein and Maxwell. Indeed, it is only because of
motions made by Democratic members to issue subpoenas to
additional witnesses that key Epstein enablers Les Wexner,
Richard Kahn, and Darren Indyke have been called to testify
before this Committee.\29\ And while Oversight Democrats sent a
letter to former Prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor requesting
information regarding Epstein's criminal activities, Oversight
Republicans have done nothing to pursue this critical line of
inquiry.\30\ Mr. Mountbatten Windsor was close friends with
Epstein and Maxwell for many years, and paid a settlement to an
Epstein survivor who accused the then-Prince of sexual
assault.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Democrats,
Press Release: Ranking Member Robert Garcia Statement on Forcing
Subpoenas of Epstein Co-Conspirator Les Wexner & Epstein Estate
Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn (Jan. 7, 2026) (online at
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-
member-robert-garcia-
statement-on-forcing-subpoenas-of-epstein-co-conspirator-les-wexner-
and-epstein-estate-
executors-darren-indyke-and-richard-kahn).
\30\Letter from Ranking Member Robert Garcia et. al, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform to former Prince Andrew Mountbatten
Windsor (Nov. 6, 2025) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/
imo/media/doc/2025-11-06.garcia-subramanyam-et-al-to-andrew-windsor-re-
ti-request.pdf).
\31\Prince Andrew Has Paid Settlement to Virginia Giuffre,
According to Her Attorney, CNN (Mar. 8, 2022)(online at www.cnn.com/
2022/03/08/us/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-settlement/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE MAJORITY'S DELAYED ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA TO
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Ghislaine Maxwell--to date the only individual charged as a
co-conspirator of Epstein--was convicted in 2021 of five counts
of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and is currently
serving a 20-year sentence for her crimes.\32\ DOJ also charged
Maxwell with two counts of perjury for lying about her and
Epstein's crimes during a 2016 deposition in a civil lawsuit,
but agreed to dismiss those counts following Maxwell's
conviction on the sex trafficking charges in the interest of
achieving closure for victims.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Department of Justice, Press Release: Ghislaine Maxwell
Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to
Sexually Abuse Minors (June 28, 2022) (online at www.justice.gov/usao-
sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prison-conspiring-jeffrey-
epstein-sexually-abuse).
\33\U.S. Offers to Dismiss Ghislaine Maxwell Perjury Case If Sex
Abuse Conviction Stands, Reuters (Jan. 10, 2022) (online at
www.reuters.com/world/us/us-offers-dismiss-ghislaine-maxwell-perjury-
case-if-sex-abuse-conviction-stands-2022-01-11/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell was central to Epstein's trafficking scheme and
possesses direct, firsthand knowledge about, among other
issues, recruitment, exploitation, and treatment of victims;
possible co-conspirators; and the high-profile connections that
allowed Epstein to evade justice for decades. Indeed, Chairman
Comer himself has acknowledged that Maxwell's testimony ``is
vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey
Epstein,'' and that ``it is imperative that Congress conduct
oversight of the federal government's enforcement of sex
trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the
investigation and prosecution of [Maxwell] and Mr.
Epstein.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, to Ghislaine Maxwell (Aug. 1, 2025) (online at
www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025.08.01-Letter-to-
Ghislaine-Maxwell.pdf); Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, to Ghislaine Maxwell (July 23, 2025)
(online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/
2025.07.23-Subpoena-Cover-Letter-to-Maxwell-FINAL.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given her pivotal role in arranging and facilitating
Epstein's years of sexual abuse, on July 22, 2025, the
Committee's Subcommittee on Government Operations voted to
approve a motion to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell for a
deposition, after which Oversight Republicans issued the
subpoena.\35\ Maxwell's lawyers asked the Committee to postpone
her deposition until after the resolution of her appeal to the
Supreme Court, and Oversight Republicans shortly thereafter
granted that request.\36\ In October 2025, the Supreme Court
rejected Maxwell's petition for a writ of certiorari, rejecting
her appeal.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, to Ghislaine Maxwell (July 23, 2025) (online at
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025.07.23-
Subpoena-Cover-Letter-to-Maxwell-FINAL.pdf).
\36\Letter from David Oscar Markus, Markus Moss PLLC, to Chairman
James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (July 29,
2025) (on file with Committee); Letter from Chairman James Comer,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Ghislaine Maxwell
(Aug. 1, 2025) (online at www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/
2025/08/2025.08.01-Letter-to-Ghislaine-Maxwell.pdf).
\37\Supreme Court Rejects Appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, Imprisoned
Former Girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein, Associated Press (Oct. 6, 2025)
(online at https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-epstein-maxwell-
appeal-a4ba832cd2a23a2c499cef23f1e30927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2025, Maxwell's counsel reportedly informed the
Committee that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination if the Committee enforced the
subpoena issued to her and required her to appear at a
deposition, as Congress is entitled to do.\38\ Oversight
Republicans made little effort to test this assertion, claiming
that it would not be a ``good investment'' for staff and
Members to travel to a deposition at which Maxwell would refuse
to answer substantive questions.\39\ This Committee, however,
is entitled to inquire about the circumstances surrounding a
witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment, and indeed, the
Majority has repeatedly required witnesses to do so on the
record during this Congress.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Ghislaine Maxwell Will Plead Fifth in House Epstein Probe,
Comer Says, Politico (Nov. 21, 2025) (online at www.politico.com/live-
updates/2025/11/21/congress/ghislaine-maxwell-plead-fifth-house-
oversight-00664640).
\39\See id.
\40\Another Biden Aide Invokes the Fifth Amendment In Deposition
Before House Panel, ABC News (July 18, 2025) (online at https://
abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-aide-invokes-amendment-deposition-house-
panel/story?id=123864994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Majority's professed concern about wasting
congressional time and resources on fruitless testimony rings
particularly hollow given their relentless pursuit of Secretary
Clinton, who plainly lacks firsthand information about the
crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, and whose on the record
testimony would therefore do little to advance the relevant
knowledge of the Committee.
On January 21, 2026--during the business meeting to
consider the present resolution, and without giving notice to
Oversight Democrats--Chairman Comer suddenly announced that the
Committee would conduct a deposition with Maxwell on February
9, 2026.\41\ While this is a welcome development in the
investigation, it appears that the Majority had secured a date
for Maxwell's testimony only after announcements that Oversight
Republicans would seek to hold the Clintons in contempt,
possibly--but unsuccessfully--to preempt arguments that
Oversight Republicans are selectively enforcing the Committee's
subpoenas against the Clintons.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\See Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Full
Committee Business Meeting (Jan. 21, 2026) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/markup/full-committee-business-meeting-83/).
\42\See Letter from David Oscar Markus, Counsel to Ghislaine
Maxwell, to Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform (Jan. 20, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also notable that the Majority has chosen to
disregard the shockingly preferential treatment that DOJ and
the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have accorded Maxwell
following her highly unusual prison interview by Deputy
Attorney General and Donald Trump's personal attorney, Todd
Blanche in July 2025, suggesting a quid pro quo by the Trump
Administration in exchange for her favorable testimony.\43\
After Maxwell provided answers supporting President Trump's
claims that he was not involved in Epstein's crimes, she was
transferred to a ``country-club''-like minimum security prison
camp in Bryan, Texas, despite BOP policies stating that sex
offenders such as Maxwell are ineligible for such
facilities.\44\ Multiple reports, including from
whistleblowers, attest to Maxwell taking meetings not permitted
for other inmates, having meals delivered to her dormitory
room, and being allowed to exercise and shower later than other
inmates.\45\ Throughout this period, Maxwell was openly
campaigning for a pardon from President Trump, a step which he
has refused to rule out.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Ghislaine Maxwell, Who Wants a Pardon, Says She Never Saw Trump
``In Any Inappropriate Setting,'' Politico (Aug. 22, 2025) (online at
www.politico.com/news/2025/08/22/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-
donald-trump-interview-00520352).
\44\Ghislaine Maxwell's Move to ``Country Club'' Prison Smacks of
Special Treatment, Experts Say, Washington Post (Aug. 5, 2025) (online
at www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/05/trump-epstein-
maxwell-sex-trafficking-prisons-corrections/).
\45\Lockdowns and a Mysterious Meeting: A Quiet Texas Prison Adapts
to Life With Ghislaine Maxwell, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 11, 2025)
(online at at www.wsj.com/us-news/ghislaine-
maxwell-prison-transfer-epstein-
b5efd6ac?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalinkwww); Whistleblower Who
Provided House Democrats with Ghislaine Maxwell Documents Speaks Out,
NBC News (Nov. 18, 2025) (online at www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/
whistleblower-provided-house-
democrats-ghislaine-maxwell-documents-spe-rcna244418).
\46\Supreme Court Rejects Epstein Associate Ghislaine Maxwell's
Appeal of Her Criminal Conviction, NBC News (Oct. 6, 2025) (online at
www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-epstein-
associate-ghislaine-maxwells-appeal-crim-rcna233281).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOP and DOJ have refused to respond to repeated requests
and letters from Oversight Democrats about this highly unusual
and suspicious set of circumstances, and Oversight Republicans
to date have declined to probe this apparent further attempt to
suppress the facts surrounding Donald Trump's involvement with
Epstein.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\Letter from Ranking Member Robert Garcia, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, to Director William K. Marshall III,
Bureau of Prisons (Aug. 1, 2025) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-08-01-rg-to-bop-
director-marshall-
re-maxwell.pdf); Letter from Ranking Member Robert Garcia et. al, House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Acting Attorney
General Mr. William Blier, Department of Justice (Sept. 3, 2025)
(online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-09-
03.garcia-et-al-to-doj-oig-re-maxwell-transfer.pdf); Email from BOP
Office of Legislative Affairs, to Oversight Committee Minority Staff
(Oct. 14, 2025) (on file with Committee); Letter from Ranking Member
Robert Garcia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to
Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Justice (Oct. 16, 2025)
(online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-10-
16.garcia-to-doj-re-maxwell.pdf); Letter from Ranking Member Robert
Garcia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Warden Dr.
Tanisha Hall, Federal Prison Camp Bryan (Oct. 30, 2025) (online at
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-10-30.garcia-
to-fpc-bryan-warden-re-
maxwell.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Department of Justice is Functioning as a Weapon for Targeting
President Trump's Perceived Enemies
The Majority's single-minded pursuit of the Clintons takes
place against the backdrop of President Trump's explicit aim of
leveraging the federal government to target and punish those he
perceives as political enemies. The scale and scope of his use
of DOJ and other agencies for political retribution--targeting
at least 470 individuals, according to one analysis--is
unprecedented in American history. It also constitutes a
shocking rejection of long-held democratic norms that, until
now, had sought to ensure that law enforcement functioned to
protect the American people, and not to advance the personal or
partisan agenda of a president.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\Trump's Campaign of Retribution: At Least 470 Targets and
Counting, Reuters (Nov. 26, 2025) (online at www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/usa-trump-retribution-tracker/); The
Department of Justice's Broken Accountability System, Brennan Center
for Justice (Oct. 20, 2025) (online at www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/department-justices-broken-accountability-system);
Trump's Open Weaponization of the Government, CNN (Sept. 22, 2025)
(online at www.cnn.com/2025/09/22/politics/weaponization-trump-biden-
analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At President Trump's direction, DOJ has investigated and/or
prosecuted, based on flimsy legal pretexts, former National
Security Adviser John Bolton, New York Attorney General Letitia
James, former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff,
and, most recently, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, among
others.\49\ President Trump has likewise included former
President Clinton in his target list for the express purpose of
diverting attention from his own relevance to the Epstein
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Here's a List of the Individuals, Including Jerome Powell,
Targeted by the Trump Administration, ABC News (Jan. 12, 2026) (online
at https://abcnews.go.com/US/list-individuals-
including-lisa-cook-targeted-trump-administration/story?id=124968309).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2025, Attorney General Bondi reportedly informed
President Trump that his name appeared in the DOJ's Epstein
files ``multiple times.''\50\ On June 5, 2025, in a public
falling-out with President Trump, Elon Musk, the former senior
advisor to the President, posted on X: ``Time to drop the
really big bomb. @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That
is the real reason they have not been made public.''\51\ Yet,
casting aside the evidence of Epstein's relationship to
President Trump and others, on July 7, 2025, Attorney General
Bondi contradicted her previous statement that the Epstein
client list was ``on her desk'' by releasing a concise
memorandum announcing that there is no Epstein client list and
that the DOJ no longer saw value in releasing any additional
Epstein files.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name is Among
Many in the Epstein Files, Wall Street Journal (July 23, 2025) (online
at www.wsj.com/politics/justice-department-told-trump-name-in-epstein-
files-727a8038).
\51\Musk Says Trump Is `In The Epstein Files' Which is Why They
Haven't Been Made Public in Newest Slam, Independent (June 5, 2025)
(online at www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-
epstein-files-pam-bondi-virginia-giuffre-death-b2740239.html).
\52\A Timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein Investigation, Now 20 Years
Old, AP (July 23, 2025) (online at https://apnews.com/article/trump-
epstein-investigation-records-timeline-
545c371ee3dd3142355a26d27829c188); Memorandum from the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (July 2025) (online at
www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amidst the public outrage and bipartisan calls for
transparency that followed DOJ's apparent cover-up, President
Trump began demanding that the American people ``not waste Time
and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein'' and accused Democrats of
perpetuating a hoax.\53\ President Trump then directed Attorney
General Bondi to target prominent Democrats, including
President Clinton, writing in a November 14, 2025, Truth Social
post:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Trump Tells Supporters Not To `Waste Time' On Epstein Files.
They're Not Happy, NPR (July 14, 2025) (online at www.npr.org/2025/07/
14/nx-s1-5467151/trump-epstein-files-doj-fbi-maga); Trump Slams His Own
Supporters as `Weaklings' for Falling for What He Now Calls the Epstein
`Hoax,' Fox 13 Salt Lake City (July 16, 2025) (online at
www.fox13now.com/news/
national-news/trump-slams-his-own-supporters-as-weaklings-for-falling-
for-what-he-now-calls-the-epstein-hoax).
Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein Hoax,
involving Democrats, not Republicans, to try and
deflect from their disastrous SHUTDOWN, and all of
their other failures, I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi,
and the Department of Justice, together with our great
patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's
involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry
Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase [sic], any
many other people and institutions, to determine what
was going on with them, and him. This is another
Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing
to the Democrats. Records show that these men, and many
others, spent large portions of their life with
Epstein, and on his ``Island.'' Stay tuned!!!\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Nov. 14, 2025)
(online at https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/
115548785919046772).
Attorney General promptly responded to President Trump's
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
instruction within hours, posting on Truth Social:
Thank you Mr. President, SDNY U.S. Attorney Jay
Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted
prosecutors in the country, and I've asked him to take
the lead. As with all matters, the Department of
Justice will pursue this with urgency and integrity to
deliver answers to the American people.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi), Truth Social (Nov. 14, 2025)
(online at https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1989411168067440722).
Viewed in this context, the Majority's singling out of the
Clintons and complete disregard of President Trump's obvious
relevance to this investigation serves only to advance
President Trump's goal of deflecting attention from himself by
targeting the Clintons, and thus, further confirms the purely
partisan aim of these proceedings.
IV. Criminal Contempt is not the Best Available Means to Obtain
Testimony From the Clintons
The resolution seeking to hold Secretary Clinton in
criminal contempt is clearly not the best available means to
seek compliance with the subpoena or advance the Committee's
investigation.
In general, criminal contempt of Congress aims to punish
any person or entity who defies a congressional subpoena by
referring the non-compliant witness to DOJ for criminal
prosecution.\56\ Accordingly, the criminal contempt statute, 2
U.S.C. Sec. 192, provides for criminal penalties against any
person who ``willfully makes default'' on their obligation to
``produce papers upon any matter under inquiry'' by Congress
pursuant to subpoena. Criminal contempt is generally not
employed for the primary purpose of obtaining compliance.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 94 (D.D.C.
2008); Congressional Research Service, Contempt Power and the
Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and
Procedure (May 12, 2017) (online at www.congress.gov/
crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL34097/RL34097.23.pdf); Congressional
Research Service, Criminal Contempt of Congress: Frequently Asked
Questions (June 5, 2023) (online at www.crs.gov/Reports/LSB10974).
\57\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative to criminal contempt, Congress may seek
compliance with a duly issued subpoena through a civil suit in
federal court. Unlike criminal contempt, civil enforcement aims
to induce a violator into complying with a subpoena, rather
than merely punishing the person through imprisonment or other
criminal penalties for an alleged violation. Stated otherwise,
a successful civil enforcement suit generally aims compliance
with the congressional subpoena, so that Congress may
eventually obtain the information it seeks.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\See Committee on the Judiciary, Testimony of Todd Garvey,
Hearing on Civil Enforcement of Congressional Authorities (June 8,
2021) (online at www.crs.gov/Reports/TE10064); Congressional Research
Service, Congressional Subpoenas: Enforcing Executive Branch Compliance
(Mar. 27, 2019) (online at www.crs.gov/Reports/R45653).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the present case, rather than consider this option,
Oversight Republicans have insisted solely upon the punitive
measure of holding the Clintons in criminal contempt. Oversight
Republicans' refusal to pursue the mechanism of civil
contempt--designed to induce production of the requested
information--demonstrates their lack of genuine interest in
obtaining information from the Clintons, and exposes their
partisan aim of politicizing the contempt process at the
direction of Donald Trump.\59\ Oversight Democrats proposed a
motion to seek criminal contempt proceedings, which Oversight
Republicans unanimously voted down.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\Trump Calls for release of Any Epstein Files Naming Democrats:
``Embarrass Them,'' CBS News (Dec. 26, 2025) (online at
www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-calls-for-release-epstein-files-naming-
democrats/).
\60\See Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Full
Committee Business Meeting (Jan. 21, 2026) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/markup/full-committee-business-meeting-83/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Clintons, through their counsel, have engaged
in communication with Oversight Republicans about providing
information to the Committee and provided signed declarations
to the Committee, under penalty of perjury, outlining the scope
of their knowledge and relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell, an accommodation that Oversight Republicans
have accepted from other individuals subpoenaed as part of the
Epstein probe.\61\ The Clintons engaged in dialogue with
Congress regarding the Committee's demands during the very
markup of this resolution.\62\ Oversight Democrats support
further negotiations between the Clintons and the Committee in
order to secure testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\See Letter from Ashley Callen, et al., counsel to William
``Bill'' and Hillary Clinton, to Chairman James Comer, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (Jan. 12, 2026) (online at
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/13/us/politics/clinton-legal-
letter-comer.html); Letter from William ``Bill'' and Hillary Clinton to
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
(Jan. 13, 2026) (online at www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/13/us/
clinton-letter.html); see also Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Full Committee Business Meeting (Jan. 21, 2026) (online at
https://oversight.house.gov/markup/full-committee-business-meeting-83/
).
\62\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Secretary Clinton Appears to Lack Relevant Knowledge Regarding the
Committee's Investigation
While the Majority insists that Secretary Clinton's
testimony is essential to the Committee's investigation,
Secretary Clinton's sworn declaration and, indeed, the
Majority's own report on the present motion, make plain the
lack of any factual nexus between the Secretary and the matters
under investigation that would warrant her testimony.
Therefore, there is no discernible purpose in forcing Secretary
Clinton to testify, let alone in seeking to hold her in
criminal contempt, beyond harassing a political opponent of
President Trump.
Notably, the Majority fails to identify a single
interaction between Secretary Clinton and Epstein or Maxwell.
Instead, it resorts to a series of vague and generalized
assertions about Secretary Clinton's alleged involvement in law
enforcement policy, and her claimed proximity to other
individuals or entities that were in contact with or received
donations from Epstein.\63\ In effect, the Majority seeks to
shoehorn Secretary Clinton into the category of witnesses who
have relevant knowledge by drawing vague links between her and
other individuals who might.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\Report to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the
Committee Report for the Resolution Recommending that the House of
Representatives Find Former United States Secretary of State Hillary R.
Clinton in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena
Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at 13-
14 (online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20260121/118877/
BILLS-119-HResXX-C001108-Amdt-2.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Secretary Clinton's declaration negates each of
these claims. In her submission to the Committee on January 13,
2026, Secretary Clinton declared unequivocally and under
penalty of perjury that she ``had no personal knowledge'' of
Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes; ``never had any responsibility
for, or involvement with, the Department of Justice's handling
of the Epstein and Maxwell investigations or prosecutions;''
does not recall ever meeting Epstein; never flew on Epstein's
plan or visited his island; has no recollection of the
specifics surrounding her inactions with Maxwell; and has no
connection to Maxwell beyond having a friend in common.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\Declaration of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Jan. 13, 2026) (on file
with the Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, there remain multiple witnesses who, unlike
Secretary Clinton, unquestionably have extensive and specific
firsthand knowledge about the matters that the Committee is
investigating. The majority's failure to seek testimony from
those individuals, while relentlessly pursuing Secretary
Clinton, makes their partisan motivations all the more
apparent.
VI. Conclusion
From the inception of this Committee's investigation,
Oversight Democrats have been, and remain, firmly committed to
pursuing the facts surrounding Epstein's and Maxwell's horrific
crimes, and accordingly, obtaining information from all
individuals with relevant information. By brushing aside
Attorney General Bondi's utter disregard for this Committee's
investigative authority, ignoring President Trump's extensive
ties to Epstein and other pertinent witnesses, and legitimizing
President Trump's retribution campaign and weaponization of
federal law enforcement, this proceeding runs squarely counter
to that goal. Epstein's and Maxwell's victims, along with the
American people, deserve far better.
Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member.
[all]