ReportWire

Tag: House Oversight Committee

  • Bill Clinton faces grilling from lawmakers over his connections to Jeffrey Epstein

    [ad_1]

    Former President Bill Clinton is testifying Friday before members of Congress investigating convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, answering for his connections to the disgraced financier from more than two decades ago.The closed-door deposition in Chappaqua, New York, will mark the first time a former president has been compelled to testify to Congress. It comes a day after Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sat with lawmakers for her own deposition.Bill Clinton has also not been accused of any wrongdoing. Yet lawmakers are grappling with what accountability in the United States looks like at a time when men around the world have been toppled from their high-powered posts for maintaining their connections with Epstein after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges in Florida for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl.Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that she had no knowledge of how Epstein had sexually abused underage girls and had no recollection of even meeting him. But Bill Clinton will have to answer questions on a well-documented relationship with Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, even if it was from the late 1990s and early 2000s.Hillary Clinton said Thursday that she expected her husband to testify that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s sexual abuse at the time they knew each other.Republicans were relishing the opportunity to scrutinize the former Democratic president under oath.“The Clintons haven’t answered very many, if any, questions about their knowledge or involvement with Epstein and Maxwell,” Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee, said Thursday.“No one’s accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” he added.Republicans finally get a chance to question Bill ClintonRepublicans have wanted to question Bill Clinton about Epstein for years, especially as conspiracy theories arose following Epstein’s 2019 suicide in a New York jail cell while he faced sex trafficking charges.Those calls reached a fever pitch late last year when several photos of the former president surfaced in the Department of Justice’s first release of case files on Epstein and Maxwell, a British socialite who was convicted of sex trafficking in December 2021 but maintains she’s innocent. Bill Clinton was photographed on a plane seated alongside a woman, whose face is redacted, with his arm around her. Another photo showed Clinton and Maxwell in a pool with another person whose face was redacted.Epstein also visited the White House several times during Clinton’s presidency, and the pair later made several international trips together for their humanitarian work.In the lead-up to the deposition, Bill Clinton has insisted he had limited knowledge about Epstein and was unaware of any sexual abuse he committed.“I think the chronology of the connection that he had with Epstein ended several years before anything about Epstein’s criminal activities came to light,” Hillary Clinton said at the conclusion of her deposition Thursday.Comer has pledged extensive questioning of the former president. He claimed that Hillary Clinton had repeatedly deferred questions about Epstein to her husband.Has a precedent been set?Democrats, who have supported the push to get answers from Bill Clinton, are arguing that it sets a precedent that should also apply to President Donald Trump, a Republican who had his own relationship with Epstein.“We’re demanding immediately that we ask President Trump to testify in front of our committee and be deposed in front of Oversight Republicans and Democrats,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Thursday.Comer has pushed back on that idea, saying that Trump has answered questions on Epstein from the press.Democrats are also calling for the resignation of Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Lutnick was a longtime neighbor of Epstein in New York City but said on a podcast that he severed ties with Epstein following a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Lutnick and his wife.The public release of case files showed that Lutnick actually had two engagements with Epstein years later. He attended a 2011 event at Epstein’s home, and in 2012 his family had lunch with Epstein on his private island.“He should be removed from office and at a minimum should come before the committee,” Garcia said of Lutnick.Comer on Thursday said that it was “very possible” that Lutnick would be called to testify.

    CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. —

    Former President Bill Clinton is testifying Friday before members of Congress investigating convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, answering for his connections to the disgraced financier from more than two decades ago.

    The closed-door deposition in Chappaqua, New York, will mark the first time a former president has been compelled to testify to Congress. It comes a day after Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sat with lawmakers for her own deposition.

    Bill Clinton has also not been accused of any wrongdoing. Yet lawmakers are grappling with what accountability in the United States looks like at a time when men around the world have been toppled from their high-powered posts for maintaining their connections with Epstein after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges in Florida for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl.

    Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that she had no knowledge of how Epstein had sexually abused underage girls and had no recollection of even meeting him. But Bill Clinton will have to answer questions on a well-documented relationship with Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, even if it was from the late 1990s and early 2000s.

    Hillary Clinton said Thursday that she expected her husband to testify that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s sexual abuse at the time they knew each other.

    Republicans were relishing the opportunity to scrutinize the former Democratic president under oath.

    “The Clintons haven’t answered very many, if any, questions about their knowledge or involvement with Epstein and Maxwell,” Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee, said Thursday.

    “No one’s accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” he added.

    Republicans finally get a chance to question Bill Clinton

    Republicans have wanted to question Bill Clinton about Epstein for years, especially as conspiracy theories arose following Epstein’s 2019 suicide in a New York jail cell while he faced sex trafficking charges.

    Those calls reached a fever pitch late last year when several photos of the former president surfaced in the Department of Justice’s first release of case files on Epstein and Maxwell, a British socialite who was convicted of sex trafficking in December 2021 but maintains she’s innocent. Bill Clinton was photographed on a plane seated alongside a woman, whose face is redacted, with his arm around her. Another photo showed Clinton and Maxwell in a pool with another person whose face was redacted.

    Epstein also visited the White House several times during Clinton’s presidency, and the pair later made several international trips together for their humanitarian work.

    In the lead-up to the deposition, Bill Clinton has insisted he had limited knowledge about Epstein and was unaware of any sexual abuse he committed.

    “I think the chronology of the connection that he had with Epstein ended several years before anything about Epstein’s criminal activities came to light,” Hillary Clinton said at the conclusion of her deposition Thursday.

    Comer has pledged extensive questioning of the former president. He claimed that Hillary Clinton had repeatedly deferred questions about Epstein to her husband.

    Has a precedent been set?

    Democrats, who have supported the push to get answers from Bill Clinton, are arguing that it sets a precedent that should also apply to President Donald Trump, a Republican who had his own relationship with Epstein.

    “We’re demanding immediately that we ask President Trump to testify in front of our committee and be deposed in front of Oversight Republicans and Democrats,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Thursday.

    Comer has pushed back on that idea, saying that Trump has answered questions on Epstein from the press.

    Democrats are also calling for the resignation of Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Lutnick was a longtime neighbor of Epstein in New York City but said on a podcast that he severed ties with Epstein following a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Lutnick and his wife.

    The public release of case files showed that Lutnick actually had two engagements with Epstein years later. He attended a 2011 event at Epstein’s home, and in 2012 his family had lunch with Epstein on his private island.

    “He should be removed from office and at a minimum should come before the committee,” Garcia said of Lutnick.

    Comer on Thursday said that it was “very possible” that Lutnick would be called to testify.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Will the Justice Department Even Try to Hold Epstein’s World Accountable?

    [ad_1]

    The DoJ apparently has better things to do.
    Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

    The United States Department of Justice is getting lapped by both Congress and the British authorities on follow-up investigations around the Epstein files. There’s no excuse for either. As British police arrest astonishingly powerful men for their dealings with Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. House of Representatives tries to force titans of finance and politics to answer tough questions, our Justice Department lags far behind. It’s not even clear the DoJ is doing anything at all.

    Over in the U.K., law-enforcement officials have arrested former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and former ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson. (Technically, both have been arrested but not yet formally charged, under a wrinkle in British legal procedure.) The putative defendants reportedly face potential charges of “misconduct in public office” for allegedly providing confidential government documents, including sensitive financial information about investment opportunities, to Epstein. (British authorities have accused neither man of participation in Epstein’s child sex-trafficking ring.)

    The British case is based in part on emails contained in the U.S. Justice Department’s own Epstein files, which were released less than a month ago. In a matter of weeks, British police investigated and arrested a former prince (Andrew) and a lord (Mandelson); have subjected both men, and others around them, to extensive questioning; and have conducted searches at properties associated with the subjects. Meanwhile, the most memorable step taken by our Justice Department since the release of the files was Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s public-service announcement that “the American people need to understand that it isn’t a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.”

    The contrast extends to the tone at the top. King Charles — an actual monarch who wears a literal crown and carries a scepter to work — has told British investigators (in American parlance) to do what you gotta do. Or, in the proper King’s English: “What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly: The law must take its course.” Other heads of state should follow the king’s hands-off example — in a case against his own brother Andrew, no less.

    Our own president isn’t quite of the same mind. He has long dismissed the Epstein case as a hoax, though it’s unclear what exactly he claims is fake. And he recently urged the American public to just get over it already. “I think it’s time now for the country to maybe get onto something else, like health care,” Trump responded when asked about the Epstein matter.

    The DoJ has dutifully adopted Trump’s recommended approach: myopia blended with dissembling and a pinch of proactive excuse-making. As Blanche explained earlier this month, “There’s a lot of correspondence. There’s a lot of emails. There’s a lot of photographs. But that doesn’t allow us necessarily to prosecute somebody.” Not exactly the tenacious prosecutorial posture Blanche and I learned during our concurrent early days at the Southern District of New York. But hey, if our Justice Department isn’t going to make meaningful use of its own Epstein files, at least others will.

    And then there’s Congress, which has taken a flawed but aggressive approach to its Epstein investigation. While a bipartisan (but mostly Democratic) coalition of lawmakers forced passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee has pressed forward with a series of aggressive subpoenas for testimony. Yes, the subpoenas are largely for political show, and no, the House has not extracted any damning admissions — but it’s putting powerful people on the spot and making them face meaningful questioning under oath.

    Last week, billionaire Les Wexner — whose name the DoJ originally redacted from a document listing him as an unindicted “co-conspirator” but then unredacted after Representative Thomas Massie publicly called out the redaction — faced five hours of questioning from the Oversight Committee. Wexner, a close associate of Epstein’s, claimed no knowledge of his friend’s criminality. Wexner also denied allegations that he had sexually abused Virginia Giuffre, who testified in 2016 that, as a minor, she had been trafficked to have sex with Wexner multiple times. (She died by suicide in 2025.)

    The beauty of being a federal prosecutor is you don’t have to take a blanket denial as the final word, even from an arrogant billionaire. People disclaim wrongdoing all the time. Sometimes they’re telling the truth; other times they aren’t. So ordinarily, given the lead provided by Congress, DoJ prosecutors may take Wexner’s testimony and subject it to rigorous testing — talk to other witnesses, examine emails and texts, check out phone, financial, and travel records. Yet we’ve seen no indication of DoJ doing any such thing.

    This week, the Clintons take their turn at the Oversight Committee’s deposition table. After a prolonged back-and-forth during which they played themselves into a strategic corner, the former First Couple relented and agreed to testify under the looming threat of a contempt-of-Congress charge supported by some bipartisan votes.

    The Hillary Clinton subpoena was an obvious stretch by a congressional committee seeking to drag in a boldface name. She had nothing to do with Epstein; the best that Republican committee chair James Comer could do in defense of the subpoena was to note that — brace yourself — Clinton had hired Ghislaine Maxwell’s nephew to work on her 2008 presidential campaign and later at State. Yes, that’s the headliner. Clinton proceeded to tear the committee a new one with her opening statement on Thursday and, predictably, nothing of relevant substance came of her testimony.

    But Bill Clinton will have to squirm when he answers questions today. The committee surely will confront the former president — a frequent flier on Epstein’s private jet — with photographs that show him partying with Epstein (not a crime, remember, per the deputy AG); swimming in a pool with Maxwell and a female whose identity has been redacted, and reclining in a hot tub at night, hands behind his head, along with a female whose image has been blacked out.

    Meanwhile, we’ve seen no sign that the Justice Department has subpoenaed or otherwise sought to interview Wexner or Clinton or any other powerful Epstein associate — and certainly not the most powerful of all former Epstein pals, Trump himself. (Notably, even the aggressive House Oversight Committee hasn’t sought testimony from the current president.)

    The DoJ’s apparent inaction is particularly galling given that prosecutors hold far more potent investigative tools than Congress does. Prosecutors have the vast resources of the Justice Department and FBI at their disposal, while Congress must make do with minimal investigative staff. Prosecutors can obtain search warrants and wiretaps, while Congress can’t. And prosecutorial subpoenas generally can be broader in scope than congressional subpoenas and are enforced more rigorously by the courts.

    The Justice Department has been flailing for months now to justify its inactivity. Back in July 2025, top DoJ officials released a memo declaring that, after an exhaustive review of over 300 gigabytes of information, “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

    Since then, the Justice Department has offered mixed messages (at best) about its ongoing investigative efforts. And while prosecutors could be moving stealthily behind the scenes, entirely undetectable to the public — I’m dubious, but it’s possible — we’ve seen zero public indication of actual in-the-field enforcement activity: no search warrants, no subpoenas, no interviews with key players, no arrests.

    Meanwhile, the British authorities and Congress forge ahead. It’s an embarrassing moment for our Justice Department’s leadership and a telling indictment of its own stubborn — and perhaps purposeful — indifference.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Elie Honig

    Source link

  • Hillary Clinton’s Epstein deposition: Everything she told lawmakers

    [ad_1]

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that she does not recall ever encountering Jeffrey Epstein, in a closed-door deposition to the House Oversight Committee on Thursday.

    “I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. So it’s on the record numerous times,” Clinton told reporters after the deposition.

    Earlier in the day, Clinton shared her opening statement of the deposition on X.

    “The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not,” Clinton said. “As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein.”

    She continued, “I never flew on his plane or visited his island. I have nothing to add to that.”

    Clinton also told reporters that the end of the deposition was “quite unusual.”

    “I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about pizzagate, one of the most vile bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet,” she said.

    Representative Robert Garcia, a California Democrat and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, called on committee Republicans to release the transcript from the deposition.

    “What I can say is that she, again, never met Jeffrey Epstein, never went to the island, never went to the plane and had no knowledge of any of his crimes,” Garcia told reporters.

    Representative James Comer, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters that he will not be releasing many details, but that the committee will try to get the video out “as quickly as possible, hopefully within the next 24 hours.” He said the transcript will be released as soon as Hillary Clinton’s lawyers approve it, adding that is the standard rule of a deposition.

    Clinton also said she wanted to commend Comer for raising questions about the areas of the investigation Clinton thought should be explored further.

    Why It Matters

    The closed-door depositions in the hometown of Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in Chappaqua, a typically quiet hamlet about 30 miles north of New York City, come after months of tense back-and-forth between the former high-powered Democratic couple and the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee. It will be the first time that a former president has been forced to testify before Congress.

    Epstein was a sex offender and disgraced financier who was found dead in New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Epstein had social connections with many prominent people, including President Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, with Trump saying his relationship with him ended years before his death.

    Epstein visited Bill Clinton in the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After he left office, the former president flew multiple times on Epstein’s private jet.

    “Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”

    What To Know

    Hillary Clinton said the committee’s focus should be on the federal government’s handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein. She said lawmakers subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials but heard testimony from only one. She also said five former attorneys general were allowed to submit statements saying they had no relevant information.

    “You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today,” Hillary Clinton told the panel.

    She said the committee has made “little effort” to call individuals who show up most prominently in the released files.

    “This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors, as well as the public who also want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors. And I am furious on their behalf,” she added.

    The former first lady also spoke about her work to stop abuses women and girls face in the U.S. and around the world, including human trafficking, forced labor and sexual slavery.

    “If you are new to this issue, let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein was a heinous individual, but he’s far from alone,” she said. “This is not a one‑off tabloid fascination or a political scandal. It’s a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll.”

    She criticized the Trump administration, saying it “gutted” the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Office by cutting more than 70 percent of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked to prevent trafficking crimes.

    “The message from the Trump administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer: Combating human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump White House,” Hillary Clinton said.

    She outlined what actions she said a committee with elected officials committed to transparency would take in this inquiry, including ensuring the full release of Epstein‑related files, demanding testimony from prosecutors who negotiated Epstein’s plea deal and getting to the bottom of reports that the Department of Justice withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accused President Donald Trump of “heinous crimes.”

    Instead, she argued, the committee has compelled her testimony despite her lack of direct knowledge, calling the effort a “distraction from President Trump’s actions.”

    “What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover‑up?” she asked.

    When Will Bill Clinton Testify About Epstein?

    Bill Clinton is expected to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee on Friday.

    Was Hillary Clinton Mentioned in the Epstein Files?

    Hillary Clinton was mentioned in the Epstein investigative files released by the Department of Justice. She was mentioned in 802 documents, over 60 percent of which were related to her campaigns, fundraising and political messaging or her work as secretary of state, The Wellesley News reported.

    What Happens Next

    Bill Clinton is expected to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee on Friday.

    Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill and Hillary Clinton face House showdown over Epstein ties

    [ad_1]

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein filesDuring his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.“It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.“Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”Bill Clinton’s ties to EpsteinBy last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercelyAs each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.“We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.Conservative attacks on the ClintonsThe Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.“Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.Still, some dynamics have changed.The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.“It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    WASHINGTON —

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.

    For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.

    The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.

    Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein files

    During his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

    For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.

    “It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.

    “Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”

    Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein

    By last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.

    Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.

    The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.

    The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.

    Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”

    The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercely

    As each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.

    Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.

    Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.

    That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.

    “We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.

    Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.

    One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.

    Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

    Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.

    Conservative attacks on the Clintons

    The Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.

    “Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.

    Still, some dynamics have changed.

    The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.

    He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”

    Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.

    “It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill and Hillary Clinton face House showdown over Epstein ties

    [ad_1]

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein filesDuring his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.“It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.“Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”Bill Clinton’s ties to EpsteinBy last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercelyAs each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.“We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.Conservative attacks on the ClintonsThe Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.“Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.Still, some dynamics have changed.The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.“It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    WASHINGTON —

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.

    For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.

    The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.

    Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein files

    During his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

    For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.

    “It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.

    “Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”

    Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein

    By last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.

    Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.

    The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.

    The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.

    Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”

    The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercely

    As each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.

    Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.

    Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.

    That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.

    “We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.

    Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.

    One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.

    Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

    Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.

    Conservative attacks on the Clintons

    The Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.

    “Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.

    Still, some dynamics have changed.

    The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.

    He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”

    Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.

    “It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Minnesota agency investigating over 150 providers receiving funding from state child care program

    [ad_1]

    The Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families, amid the ongoing fraud scandal in the state, said Friday that it’s looking into 158 providers who receive funding from a program aimed at making child care affordable for its residents.

    The state agency earlier this month said it had 55 open investigations involving providers receiving Child Care Assistance Program funding, which officials say supports 23,000 children and 12,000 families in accessing health care, and invested $306.6 million for affordable child care for Minnesota in fiscal year 2024.

    “DCYF remains committed to fact-based reviews that stop fraud, protect children, support families, maintains the public trust, and minimize disruption to communities that rely on these essential services,” the state agency said in a statement on Friday.

    Conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley, in a video posted last month, alleged nearly 12 day care centers in Minnesota that are receiving public funds are not actually providing any service. 

    The state agency said that it was already investigating four of the facilities discussed in the video when it was released. Officials said Friday they had “no public information to share” about the probes.

    According to the DCYF, nine of the facilities mentioned by Shirley were “operating as expected” when investigators recently conducted on-site checks.

    On Jan.  5, the state agency announced a round of “additional on-site compliance checks.”

    “Following standard practice, each of these site visits was opened as an investigation until records obtained during the visit were reviewed,” officials said in the release.

    CBS News conducted its own analysis of nearly a dozen day care centers mentioned in the video: all but two have active licenses, according to state records, and all active locations were visited by state regulators within the last six months.

    Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, R-Kentucky, said Friday that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison will testify before the group in March during a hearing on fraud and the “misuse” of federal funds in the state. Republicans on the committee launched an investigation into Walz’s handling of a series of multimillion-dollar fraud schemes in Minnesota last December. 

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Nick Lentz

    Source link

  • Minnesota Gov. Walz, AG Ellison to testify at House Oversight Committee hearing on fraud in March

    [ad_1]

    Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison will testify at a House Oversight Committee hearing on fraud and the “misuse” of federal funds in the state in March, Chairman James Comer, R-Kentucky, said on Friday.

    Republicans on the committee launched an investigation into Walz’s handling of a series of multimillion-dollar fraud schemes in Minnesota last December. Members, at the time, asked in letters the governor and Ellison for “documents and communications showing what your administration knew about this fraud and whether you took action to limit or halt the investigation into this widespread fraud.”

    “Americans deserve answers about the rampant misuse of taxpayer dollars in Minnesota’s social services programs that occurred on Governor Walz’s and Attorney General Ellison’s watch,” Comer said in a news release on Friday.

    The hearing is scheduled for March 4. WCCO has reached out to Walz and Ellison for comment.

    Republican Minnesota state Reps. Kristin Robbins, Walter Hudson and Marion Rarick, along with Brendan Ballou, a former prosecutor for the Justice Department who is appearing as the Democrats’ witness, testified in front of the committee earlier this month.

    Robbins said, as chair of a fraud prevention committee in the Minnesota House, she’s been “working to uncover the massive fraud under Tim Walz, propose solutions and hold state agencies accountable.”

    She also testified that her committee has evidence that, as far back as 2012, money has been sent back to al Shabaab, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization and al Qaeda affiliate based in Somalia. The Treasury Department said last month that it would investigate whether tax dollars from Minnesota’s public assistance programs made their way to al Shabaab.

    Democrats on the committee acknowledged concerns about fraud during the Jan. 7 hearing, but said the response should not punish communities unjustly, while pointing to what they said was hypocrisy among their GOP colleagues in taking fraud allegations seriously.   

    Walz has defended his handling of the crisis, saying his administration has “spent years cracking down on fraudsters” and has accused President Trump of “politicizing the issue to defund programs that help Minnesotans.”

    On Dec. 31, A spokesperson for Walz said in response to the Jan. 7 hearing, without expanding, “We’re always happy to work with Congress, though this committee has a track record of holding circus hearings that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.”

    Ellison’s office said on Dec. 31, without evidence, that the attorney general and the state’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit have “prosecuted over 300 Medicaid fraud cases and won over $80 million in recoveries and restitution for the people of Minnesota.”

    Former U.S. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson in December said the total amount of fraud in Minnesota’s Medicaid programs could be $9 billion or more. Walz called Thompson’s statement “sensationalism” and said that it doesn’t “help” the state tackle the problem that he vowed to fix.

    Caroline Cummings

    contributed to this report.

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Nick Lentz

    Source link

  • Epstein’s inner circle Les Wexner, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn subpoenaed to testify before House Oversight Committee

    [ad_1]

    Jeffrey Epstein‘s inner circle, Les Wexner, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, were formally issued subpoenas Friday to testify before the House Oversight Committee, as key associates of the convicted sex offender. 

    “Oversight Democrats fought hard to get these subpoenas and forced the vote on Republicans. Now, the Committee will hear directly from the individuals most closely involved in Epstein’s inner circle. We will not stop until we get answers,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in a statement.  

    Indyke, Epstein’s lawyer; Khan, his accountant, and Wexner, his billionaire financial client and longtime benefactor, were identified as critical to the investigation by Epstein survivors. Documents released in earlier lawsuits and among the recent U.S. Department of Justice trove show a complex and tangled relationship between Epstein and the three men.

    Daniel H. Weiner, an attorney for Indyke and Kahn, said in a statement to CBS News that the two accepted the subpoenas and intend to cooperate with the committee, but added that the allegations in the subpoena are “false.” 

    “It is worth emphasizing that not a single woman has ever accused either Mr. Indyke or Mr. Kahn of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she reported to them any allegation of Mr. Epstein’s abuse,” Weiner said in the statement. “Indyke and Kahn did not socialize with Mr. Epstein, and they have always rejected as categorically false any suggestion that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that they were aware of Mr. Epstein’s actions while they provided legal and accounting services to Mr. Epstein.” 

    Indyke first began working with Epstein in 1986 at a small boutique law firm in New York City that handled Epstein’s real estate deals. He later claimed Epstein as a mentor and was exclusively employed by Epstein by the 1990s. Indyke helped establish Epstein’s corporate and personal base of operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He was involved in almost every aspect of Epstein’s business and personal affairs and was paid millions of dollars for his services, according to court documents. 

    Kahn also worked closely with Epstein, managing his finances and investments. He managed other minutiae for Epstein, such as renovations on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.  

    Indyke and Kahn recently settled a lawsuit alleging they facilitated Epstein’s trafficking network. Court documents show they were accused of facilitating sham marriages between women Epstein was abusing for immigration purposes.  

    Epstein worked with Wexner, a billionaire who founded The Limited clothing company, from the mid-1980s as his financial manager and had broad control over Wexner’s fortune. They parted ways after Epstein’s 2006 arrest but stayed in touch, documents show. 

    Attorney Brad Edwards, who has represented many of Epstein’s victims, told CBS News: “Epstein is dead. If anyone has questions they would ask of Epstein on any topic, those questions should either be directed to Darren, Rich or Leslie [Wexner].” 

    Epstein appointed Indyke and Kahn as executors of his will. They now control the estate.   

    CBS News has reached out to Wexner for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

    The House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed several figures in the convicted sex offender’s network since last August, when former U.S. Attorney General William Barr testified about his pledge to personally lead the investigation into Epstein’s death in a Manhattan detention center.

    In the months since then, various people have testified — while the panel has accepted written statements from others — with scant new information on Epstein released. On Wednesday, the committee recommended holding former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt after the pair refused to appear in person before the Republican-led panel. The Clintons submitted sworn declarations to the committee last week.

    Ghislane Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend who is serving 20 years in federal prison for a sex trafficking conviction, is scheduled to appear before the committee on Feb. 9. Her lawyers told members that she plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

    Wexner is set to testify Feb. 18, Kahn on Feb. 25, and Indyke is scheduled for March 5, 2026.

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Bill and Hillary Clinton Could Soon Become Criminal Defendants

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Kenny Holston/Getty Images

    Republicans have thirsted for a criminal prosecution of a Clinton — Bill, Hillary, any Clinton will do — since the 1990s. Thirty years and several near-misses later, they may finally get their wish.

    The Clintons almost certainly aren’t going to prison, or even getting convicted. But with characteristic hubris, Bill and Hillary have walked themselves to the brink of federal charges by defying bipartisan congressional subpoenas on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. And it’s a good bet that our current Justice Department — which apparently makes critical decisions by a sophisticated litmus test that asks, “Do we like you, or not?” — will pursue criminal contempt charges.

    The Clintons have, of course, had previous brushes with the law. We all remember the impeachment (and acquittal) of Bill Clinton over his false testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But nearly lost to history is that Clinton barely avoided a federal indictment. On his final day in office in January 2001, Clinton agreed to a deal with prosecutors that spared him criminal charges for perjury and obstruction in exchange for a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, a $25,000 fine, and a public statement acknowledging that he had testified falsely. For my latest book, I asked Robert Ray, who replaced Ken Starr as Independent Prosecutor in late 1999, whether he would have indicted Clinton had he not agreed to the deal. Ray responded, “We were more than prepared to pull the trigger, if necessary.”

    A decade and a half later, Hillary Clinton narrowly dodged an indictment for her use of a private email server while secretary of state. Shortly before the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey unilaterally announced that Clinton had been “extremely careless” but that the Justice Department would not pursue criminal charges; he then announced the case’s re-opening, eleven days before the election. Clinton was spared an indictment, but Comey’s public comments probably cost her the presidency.

    Yet for all the political drama and close prosecutorial calls, the Clintons could soon find themselves sitting at the defense table over a pair of comparatively mundane subpoenas.

    In August 2025, the House Oversight Committee — led by Republican James Comer, a serial over-promiser who habitually teases shocking revelations about prominent Democrats but never delivers — subpoenaed both Clintons for in-person testimony over their connections to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Both subpoenas were approved unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Committee.

    Through their lawyers, the Clintons engaged in a monthslong pushback campaign. They argued to the Committee that the subpoenas were unrelated to any legitimate legislative purpose; were intended to harass and embarrass; and were overbroad and unduly burdensome. Indeed, it’s not clear Hillary would know anything of substance about the details of Epstein’s criminal enterprise. And while Bill Clinton would have a hellacious time explaining newly-revealed photographs of his nighttime frolic in a pool with Maxwell and an unidentified female, it’s difficult to articulate how testimony about his dealings with Epstein thirty years ago might somehow inform the drafting of anti-human-trafficking legislation now, as the Committee disingenuously claims.

    But the Committee holds broad subpoena power, and Comer was unswayed by these legal arguments. Comer declined the Clintons’ offer to provide written statements in lieu of live testimony and, ultimately, the parties reached no resolution.

    Listen to The Counsel podcast

    Join a team of experts — from former prosecutors to legal scholars — as they break down the complex legal issues shaping our country today. Twice a week, Elie Honig and other CAFE Contributors examine the intersecting worlds of law, politics, and current events.

    Last week, the Clintons launched a self-important, last-ditch public relations campaign. In a letter signed personally by both Bill and Hillary (not their lawyers), the Clintons wrapped themselves in all manner of high-minded irrelevancy. They cited “[p]eople [who] have been seized from their homes by masked federal agents,” the mass pardons of January 6 rioters, Donald Trump’s targeting of universities and law firms, and the recent fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. “Every person has to decide when they have seen or heard enough, and are ready to fight for this country, its principles, and its people, no matter the consequences,” the Clintons wrote with a self-important flourish. “For us, now is that time.” Yet the Clintons conspicuously failed to explain how their cited examples had anything to do with whether Bill Clinton should tell Congress what he knows about Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking network.

    Now the Clintons have worked themselves into a jam. They made a curious tactical decision not to file a lawsuit in advance to “quash” (invalidate, essentially) the subpoenas; while they still might formally challenge the subpoenas in court, it’s likely too late. When the designated days arrived last week for the Clintons to testify, they both failed to appear. At that point, the Committee had all it needed to pursue contempt: presumptively valid subpoenas (and no court order invalidating them); two dates for testimony; and no-shows by both Bill and Hillary.

    On Wednesday, the Oversight Committee voted to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress. Notably, nine Democrats joined their Republican colleagues to vote for contempt for Bill Clinton, while three Democrats voted for contempt against Hillary. The matter will next move to the full House for a vote. If it passes — Republicans hold a slim majority, and several Democrats on the Committee voted for the subpoenas and contempt — then the matter will be formally referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.

    That’ll leave the final call to DOJ leadership. Both attorney general Pam Bondi and deputy attorney general Todd Blanche have made clear that political retribution is their highest aspiration. Witness, for example, the spectacularly failed payback prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James, and the recent full-bore investigations of seemingly every prominent Democrat in Minnesota — but not the ICE officer who fatally shot Good.

    And consider that, during the Biden administration, lightning-rod Trump confidantes Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for four months each for contempt after they, too, defied Congressional subpoenas. Navarro and Bannon made less of an effort than the Clintons have to engage with the Committee, and were more defiant in general, but those are thin distinctions. At bottom, the Clintons did the same thing as the two Trump loyalists.

    If the Justice Department does indict the Clintons for contempt, don’t count on the cases getting anywhere. The cases would have to be charged in Washington D.C., which is overwhelmingly pro-Democratic and anti-Trump. Trump received less than 7 percent of the vote in D.C. in all three of his presidential runs; Bill Clinton topped 84 percent in both of his campaigns, and Hillary topped 90 percent in hers. A grand jury might well refuse to indict, even under the low “probable cause” standard, and it’s almost impossible to conceive of a D.C. trial jury unanimously voting to convict Bill or Hillary.

    But it’s not clear the Justice Department, or Comer, or Trump would care about the ultimate outcome. After more than three decades of futile yearning for a Clinton indictment, Republicans have never seen an opportunity quite like the one the Clintons have handed them now. The prospect of a Clinton criminal charge — even if unlikely to succeed — might just be too much to resist.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Elie Honig

    Source link

  • Jack Smith says

    [ad_1]

    Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw two criminal investigations into President Trump during the Biden administration, testified publicly for the first time at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Scott MacFarlane has details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Oversight Committee to hold hearing on alleged fraud in Minnesota public assistance programs

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing next week on alleged fraud in Minnesota public assistance programs, Chairman James Comer, announced Wednesday.

    The hearing is set to take place Jan. 7 and will include testimony from Minnesota GOP state lawmakers who have investigated public assistance fraud, Comer said. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, both Democrats, have also been asked to testify at a second hearing on Feb. 10, Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said.

    “The U.S. Department of Justice is actively investigating, prosecuting, and charging fraudsters who have stolen billions from taxpayers, and Congress has a duty to conduct rigorous oversight of this heist and enact stronger safeguards to prevent fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, as well as strong sanctions to hold offenders accountable,” Comer said in a statement.

    The House Oversight Committee is investigating allegations of money laundering and fraud in Minnesota’s public assistance programs. Comer earlier this month asked Walz and Ellison to turn over to House investigators documents and communications about the state’s programs and has sought transcribed interviews with state officials.

    “Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison have either been asleep at the wheel or complicit in a massive fraud involving taxpayer dollars in Minnesota’s social services programs,” Comer said. “American taxpayers demand and deserve accountability for the theft of their hard-earned money.”

    Republican state Rep. Walter Hudson, one of the three Minnesota lawmakers who is set to testify before Congress next week, told CBS News Minnesota he hopes the hearing will offer “nuance and perspective” on the fraud issue.

    “What we’ve seen in the past few days in the wake of the Nick Shirley video is a lot of sensationalism from a lot of different angles and attempts to turn this into a partisan boxing match, when a point of fact, just a few months ago, this was a very bipartisan issue,” Hudson said.

    More than 90 people face federal charges as a result of what a top prosecutor in Minnesota said was “industrial-scale fraud.” The prosecutor, Joe Thompson, said earlier this month that the total amount of fraud in Minnesota could reach $9 billion billed across 14 Medicaid programs that have been deemed “high risk” for fraud. Walz and other state officials, however, have questioned that amount.

    The scandal began when the nonprofit Feeding Our Future, which is based in Minnesota, was accused of stealing from the Federal Child Nutrition Program by falsely claiming to distribute meals during the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 75 people have been charged in the COVID-era fraud scheme, and at least 56 have pleaded guilty.

    Since then, federal prosecutors have uncovered alleged fraud schemes involving a now-defunct housing stabilization program in Minnesota and a Medicaid-backed state program that provides services to children with autism. Homeland Security agents are also conducting investigations into child care centers in the state after a conservative YouTuber named Nick Shirley posted a video online over the weekend alleging that nearly a dozen centers that receive public dollars are not providing any services.

    A CBS News analysis of the day care centers mentioned by Shirley found that all but two have active licenses, according to state records, and state regulators visited the active locations within the last six months. While the centers were cited for safety, cleanliness and other issues, there was no recorded evidence of fraud.

    Still, in response to the allegations, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday that it has frozen federal child care payments for Minnesota.

    President Trump has denounced Minnesota leaders for their handling of the programs and attacked Somali immigrants, claiming they have “ripped off” the state. Many, but not all, of the defendants charged in the fraud schemes are of Somali descent.

    In response to the Trump administration’s decision to withhold child-care funding to Minnesota, Walz accused the president of “politicizing the issue to defund programs that help Minnesotans.”

    “This is Trump’s long game,” he wrote on social media. “We’ve spent years cracking down on fraudsters. It’s a serious issue — but this has been his plan all along.”

    Joe Walsh

    contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP Minnesota lawmaker hopes U.S. House committee hearing on fraud will provide

    [ad_1]

    Republican Minnesota state Rep. Walter Hudson is one of the three local lawmakers planning to testify next week at a House Oversight Committee hearing on alleged fraud in the state. 

    He hopes the hearings raise awareness of the fraud problem on a national scale, but with a bit more focus than flair.

    “What we’ve seen in the past few days in the wake of the Nick Shirley video is a lot of sensationalism from a lot of different angles and attempts to turn this into a partisan boxing match, when a point of fact, just a few months ago, this was a very bipartisan issue,” Hudson said.

    He referenced how, back in May, the DFL-controlled state Senate passed a bill to establish the Office of Inspector General to prevent and find fraud in state spending. The bill had overwhelming bipartisan support, passing 60-7.

    “For some reason between then and now, it’s broken down into these partisan corners of the boxing ring. And my hope is that the outcome from next week’s meeting will be drive it back towards nuance and perspective and getting serious about tackling a problem,” Hudson said.

    Although Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Ellison aren’t required to attend, Hudson feels it’s in their best interest to testify and share their side of the story.

    “If the things that the governor has been claiming about his efforts to get ahead of this, as he puts it, are true and merited, then that’s something that the American people should know. And he should view this as a great opportunity to break through the noise of what’s been being said over the past few weeks in order to set the record straight as he sees it,” Hudson said.

    Walz testified before the House Oversight Committee last summer on Minnesota’s immigration policies. It led to some tense exchanges with lawmakers, including Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer.

    With Walz’s run for a third term looming, political experts believe the scrutiny from his critics in Congress could hurt his campaign.

    “You’re going to have a lot of members of Congress, Republicans, who are going to use this as an opportunity to basically go after him,” said David Schultz, a professor of political science at Hamline University. “It’s probably not worth it for him. Also, I’m not sure he’s in a good position being able to provide credible explanations regarding the allegations of fraud.”

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Wagner

    Source link

  • Claims about Trump in Epstein files are ‘untrue,’ the Justice Department says

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Tips provided to federal investigators about Donald Trump’s alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s schemes with young women and girls are “sensationalist” and “untrue,” the Justice Department said on Tuesday, after a new tranche of files released from the probe featured multiple references to the president.

    The documents include a limousine driver reportedly overhearing Trump discussing a man named Jeffrey “abusing” a girl, and an alleged victim accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. It is unclear whether the FBI followed up on the tips. The alleged rape victim died from a gunshot wound to the head after reporting the incident.

    Nowhere in the newly released files do federal law enforcement agents or prosecutors indicate that Trump was suspected of wrongdoing, or that Trump — whose friendship with Epstein lasted through the mid-2000s — was investigated himself.

    But one unidentified federal prosecutor noted in a 2020 email that Trump had flown on Epstein’s private jet “many more times than previously has been reported,” including over a time period when Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s top confidante who would ultimately be convicted on five federal counts of sex trafficking and abuse, was being investigated for criminal activity.

    The Justice Department released an unusual statement unequivocally defending the president.

    “Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the Justice Department statement read. “To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

    “Nevertheless, out of our commitment to the law and transparency, the DOJ is releasing these documents with the legally required protections for Epstein’s victims,” the department added.

    The Justice Department files were released with heavy redactions after bipartisan lawmakers in Congress passed a new law compelling it to do so, despite Trump lobbying Republicans aggressively over the summer and fall to oppose the bill. The president ultimately signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law after the legislation passed with veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

    One newly released file containing a letter purportedly from Epstein — a notorious child sex offender who died in jail while awaiting federal trial on sex-trafficking charges — drew widespread attention online, but was held up by the Justice Department as an example of faulty or misleading information contained in the files.

    The letter appeared to be sent by Epstein to Larry Nassar, another convicted sex offender, shortly before Epstein’s death. The letter’s author suggested that Nassar would learn after receiving the note that Epstein had “taken the ‘short route’ home,” possibly referring to his suicide. It was postmarked from Virginia on Aug. 13, 2019, despite Epstein’s death in a Manhattan jail three days prior.

    “Our president shares our love of young, nubile girls,” the letter reads. “When a young beauty walked by he loved to ‘grab snatch,’ whereas we ended up snatching grub in the mess halls of the system. Life is unfair.”

    The Justice Department said that the FBI had confirmed that the letter is “FAKE” after it made the rounds on Tuesday.

    “This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual,” the department posted on social media. “Nevertheless, the DOJ will continue to release all material required by law.”

    The department has faced bipartisan scrutiny since failing to release all of the Epstein files in its possession by Dec. 19, the legal deadline for it to do so, and for redacting material on the vast majority of the documents.

    Justice Department officials said they were following the law by protecting victims with the redactions. The Epstein Files Transparency Act also directs the department not to redact images or references to prominent or political figures, and to provide an explanation for each and every redaction in writing.

    The latest release, just days before the Christmas holiday, includes roughly 30,000 documents, the department said. Hundreds of thousands more are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

    Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a statement in response to the Tuesday release accusing the Justice Department of a “cover-up,” writing on social media, “the new DOJ documents raise serious questions about the relationship between Epstein and Donald Trump.”

    Documents from Epstein’s private estate released by the oversight committee earlier this fall had already cast a spotlight on that relationship, revealing Epstein had written in emails to associates that Trump “knew about the girls.”

    The latest documents release also includes an email from an individual identified as “A,” claiming to stay at Balmoral Castle, a royal residence in Scotland, asking Maxwell if she had found him “some new inappropriate friends.” Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, has come under intense scrutiny over his ties to Epstein in recent years.

    Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Monday, Trump said the continuing Epstein scandal amounts to a “distraction” from Republican successes, and expressed disapproval over the release of images in the files that reveal associates of Epstein.

    “I believe they gave over 100,000 pages of documents, and there’s tremendous backlash,” Trump told reporters. “It’s an interesting question, because a lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people that really had nothing to do with Epstein. But they’re in a picture with him because he was at a party, and you ruin a reputation of somebody. So a lot of people are very angry that this continues.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • New Epstein Pictures, Same Old Greasy, Tired Gluttony on Display

    [ad_1]

    When Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019, he left behind an estate worth about $100 million in property and assets, along with years worth of physical and digital evidence. For most of this year, the House Oversight Committee has been releasing dribs and drabs from this vast cache, from a bizarre birthday gift including the distinctive signature of future president Donald Trump (Trump has denied writing the letter) to a set of emails documenting his tense interactions with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and emotional conversations with former Harvard president Larry Summers.

    But on Thursday, as the deadline for the release of the government’s full Epstein files drew near, the committee released some of the most disturbing photos yet—a cache that includes a set of abstract portraits of a young girl with the opening lines of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita written on her body in pen. (To underline the lack of creativity, one image includes an out-of-focus copy of The Annotated Lolita, a scholarly edition of the midcentury ode to kidnapping a young girl and forcing her into sexual slavery.)

    House Oversight Committee.

    Though less viscerally offensive, the rest of the images—there are 68 in total—are still loaded with information, giving us a clearer view of Epstein’s life in the decade after his 2008 conviction for sex crimes. Before his 2019 arrest and subsequent suicide, the financier’s reputation was suffering. Yet his wealth and supposed charm still gave him convening power. From a gathering that included New York Times columnist David Brooks to royal audiences in Saudi Arabia, Epstein was still hobnobbing with public figures, even if the meetings took place in private. (In a statement, the Times said that Brooks met Epstein at a 2011 event “with noted and important business leaders to inform his columns,” adding, “Mr. Brooks had no contact with him before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner.”)

    But the images also reveal the decrepitude of Epstein’s surroundings during this period. The Lolita photos show the commercial-grade bedding you might expect to find at a short-stay hotel, while a conference room in one photo sports chalkboards scribbled with calculus, and a dingy kitchenette. His private airplane, the so-called Lolita Express, was drab and cramped. In one image, Epstein is flanked by young women, faces redacted, as they sit in a room with gold-painted walls and dirty red banquette seating. His photos with Steve Bannon show that his office is decorated with an ornate credenza, a Romantic-era painting, and a few quartz paperweights—ugly, tawdry trinkets.

    [ad_2]

    Erin Vanderhoof

    Source link

  • Bowser slams ‘politically motivated’ House committee report on DC crime data – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser lambasted the House Oversight Committee’s report accusing the city’s police chief of leading a pressure campaign to alter crime data.

    This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
    In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

    Bowser slams ‘politically motivated’ House committee report on DC crime data

    In a letter sent Monday to the chair and members of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser lambasted its report accusing the city’s police chief of leading a pressure campaign to alter crime data and questioned the Republican-led committee’s political motivation, methodology and timing.

    The committee’s findings, released Sunday, accuse D.C. Chief of Police Pamela Smith of pressuring subordinates to change the classification of crimes, creating the illusion of a safer city.

    As part of its investigation, the committee said it interviewed the commanders of all seven D.C. patrol districts, and a former commander currently placed on suspended leave. In her letter, Bowser pointed out the committee elected not to interview Smith or any of her assistant chiefs.

    Bowser went on to accuse the committee of crafting a biased report based on one side of the story — the side she said the committee believed to be true before it even began its investigation.

    “Even a cursory review of the report reveals its prejudice: of the 22 block quotes presented as complaining about Chief Smith’s management style, 20 of them were made by only two command officials interviewed,” Bowser wrote.

    Smith is the second woman and first Black woman to serve as D.C.’s police chief. She announced Dec. 8 she’d be stepping down at the end of the month in order to spend more time with family after a nearly 30-year career in law enforcement.

    The committee, in its report, states it released the partial findings after her resignation “to add context to this decision,” and says its investigation will continue. But the committee’s chair, Republican Rep. James Comer, called on her step down immediately after the report’s release.

    “The interim report betrays its bias from the outset, admitting that it was rushed to release,” Bowser wrote.

    “Rather than letting the investigation proceed and risk losing the opportunity for attention grabbing headlines if it were released after Chief Smith’s retirement after nearly three decades of law enforcement service, the Committee stooped to ad hominem attacks using cherry-picked quotes without providing additional relevant context,” she continued later in her letter.

    It’s one of the stronger rebukes from Bowser toward Republicans, who’ve repeatedly targeted her city’s handling of crime and homelessness.

    When President Donald Trump’s administration seized more control over D.C.’s police department and deployed National Guard Troops on city streets in August, Bowser, while critical of the approach, largely cooperated.

    Since that law enforcement surge began, Trump and other members of his Republican administration have been taking credit for lowering crime in the nation’s capital, something Bowser mentioned in her letter.

    “The irony of the interim report’s questioning of the Department’s crime statistics, which have been widely lauded in the last several months, is not lost on me. We know that crime had spiked in 2023 and it is undisputed that under Chief Smith’s tenure, crime has decreased significantly. This is corroborated by independent data on visits to District hospitals for firearm injuries, she wrote.”

    Bowser wrote that she will hold any official accountable who does intentionally alter crime data, and that she stands ready to work with the committee to continue to reduce crime and improve public safety in D.C.

    U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro said Monday her office has been investigating D.C.’s crime data reporting since August, and that no criminal charges will be filed as a result of that investigation. However, Pirro said her probe found “a significant number of reports had been misclassified, making crime appear artificially lower than it was.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Thomas Robertson

    Source link

  • Democrats release Epstein estate photos ahead of key Justice Department deadline

    [ad_1]

    Democrats serving on the House Oversight Committee released dozens of photos on Friday from the estate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including some of President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Some of the photos show Trump alongside women whose faces were blacked out. No additional context for the redactions was provided in the initial press release. “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats are “selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”Trump told reporters Friday that he had not seen the photos and downplayed their significance.“He was all over Palm Beach. He has photos with everybody. I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have photos with him, so that’s no big deal. I know nothing about it,” Trump said. Neither Trump nor Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing by Epstein’s known victims.Garcia didn’t specifically say whether the women whose faces were redacted in the photos were victims of abuse. He told reporters, “Our commitment from day one has been to redact any photo, any information that could lead to any sort of harm to any of the victims.”Garcia said that the photos were released in the interest of transparency. He said the panel is in the process of reviewing the rest of the 95,000 photos received from Epstein’s estate on Thursday evening, and the public should expect more pictures to come out. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee defended Trump and took aim at the Clintons. Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, issued a statement warning that they will initiate proceedings to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January. Comer said it has been more than four months since they were subpoenaed as part of the committee’s Epstein probe. Friday’s developments are renewing focus on the yearslong controversy ahead of next week’s Dec. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to release another trove of documents related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation and his death behind bars in 2019. The release of those files was required by Congress in a near-unanimous vote last month. The DOJ has promised maximum transparency, but some fear the documents will be overly redacted.More from the Washington Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    Democrats serving on the House Oversight Committee released dozens of photos on Friday from the estate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including some of President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton.

    Some of the photos show Trump alongside women whose faces were blacked out. No additional context for the redactions was provided in the initial press release.

    “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.

    White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats are “selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”

    Trump told reporters Friday that he had not seen the photos and downplayed their significance.

    “He was all over Palm Beach. He has photos with everybody. I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have photos with him, so that’s no big deal. I know nothing about it,” Trump said.

    Neither Trump nor Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing by Epstein’s known victims.

    Garcia didn’t specifically say whether the women whose faces were redacted in the photos were victims of abuse. He told reporters, “Our commitment from day one has been to redact any photo, any information that could lead to any sort of harm to any of the victims.”

    Garcia said that the photos were released in the interest of transparency. He said the panel is in the process of reviewing the rest of the 95,000 photos received from Epstein’s estate on Thursday evening, and the public should expect more pictures to come out.

    Republicans on the House Oversight Committee defended Trump and took aim at the Clintons.

    Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, issued a statement warning that they will initiate proceedings to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January. Comer said it has been more than four months since they were subpoenaed as part of the committee’s Epstein probe.

    Friday’s developments are renewing focus on the yearslong controversy ahead of next week’s Dec. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to release another trove of documents related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation and his death behind bars in 2019. The release of those files was required by Congress in a near-unanimous vote last month. The DOJ has promised maximum transparency, but some fear the documents will be overly redacted.

    More from the Washington Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump, Clinton seen in new batch of Epstein photos released by House Democrats

    [ad_1]

    Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, told reporters that the tranche of photos the committee received from Epstein’s estate includes images of “powerful men,” women and the late disgraced financier’s properties. He emphasized that Democrats are committed to transparency and vowed to release all the information they receive.

    Garcia said the committee received the photos “just last night” and had so far gone through roughly 25,000 of the 95,000 images that Epstein’s estate turned over. Some of the photos were sent to Epstein, while others he took himself, the California Democrat said. He called some of the yet-to-be-released photos “incredibly disturbing.”

    “The thing right now that’s the most important is there is one man who has the power to release the files and get to the truth and bring justice to the survivors, and that’s Donald Trump. And Donald Trump right now needs to release the files to the American public so that the truth can come out and actually get some sense of justice for the survivors,” he told reporters.

    Garcia said the committee needs to issue subpoenas to get the emails tied to the photos, as well as records from several banks that did business with Epstein. When asked about the redactions in the images, he said, “Our commitment from day one has been to redact any photo, any information that could lead to any sort of harm to any of the victims, and we’ve been committed to that, and we’ll continue to do that.”

    Garcia accused the White House of engaging in a “cover-up.”

    “That needs to end,” he said. “There are women who were now, who were raped when they were children, who just want justice. Let’s release the files immediately.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What the New Epstein Photos Show

    [ad_1]

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    In recent weeks, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have released tens of thousands of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein estate, reams of emails and photographs that have provided additional details about the private life of the sex-trafficking financier and the prominent people in his orbit. The committee says it received 95,000 new images from the estate on Thursday and has now released 19 photos that depict Epstein with several high-profile figures, including Donald Trump, former president Bill Clinton, and Microsoft founder Bill Gates. However, the panel did not include captions describing who or what is depicted in the photos, or when or where they were taken. “These disturbing images raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” the committee Democrats wrote on social media. Here, what’s included in the new tranche of photos, and what we’ve been able to discern about them.

    In one photo, Trump is smiling surrounded by six women whose faces have been redacted. In another, Trump is seated aboard a plan next to a blonde woman whose face has also been obscured.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    One image depicts a younger Trump standing beside Epstein and a laughing blonde woman at what appears to be a public event. CBS News notes that Trump and Epstein were photographed together at a Victoria’s Secret “Angel’s Party” in New York, which the estate-released photo appears to resemble.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Another image shows a pile of novelty Trump condoms for sale in the Manhattan home goods store Fishs Eddy.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    The estate released an image of a photo signed by Clinton. In the photo, Clinton can seen standing next to Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell as well as Epstein himself.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    In one photo, Gates is pictured next to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the son of Queen Elizabeth II whose association with Epstein and resulting allegations resulted in the loss of his royal titles. In another, Gates is seen standing in front of a plane beside an unknown pilot. In another image, a framed photo of Gates, apparently aboard a plane, can be seen on the wall above a dresser.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Again, the Committee provided no context for these images.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Trump adviser Steve Bannon is included in multiple photos. In one, Bannon is seated across from Epstein, who is behind a desk in what appears to be his office. In the other image, Bannon and Epstein can be seen taking a mirror selfie together. Bannon is also pictured talking with Woody Allen in a separate image.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    One photo shows Epstein speaking with the director, who is sitting in a directors chair, on an unknown set. Another shows Epstein, Allen, and a woman whose face is redacted sitting around a dinner table.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    One photo depicts Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary, his wife, Harvard professor Elisa New, and Woody Allen on what appears to be a private plane.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    In one image, Epstein is seen in an apparent outdoor tropical location with British billionaire Richard Branson, who is holding up a notebook with unidentifiable writing on it.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    In one photo, Epstein is seen wearing a Harvard University sweatshirt standing next to attorney Alan Dershowitz.

    Photo: U.S. House Oversight Committee

    This post has been updated throughout.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Nia Prater,Chas Danner

    Source link

  • UK leader suggests former Prince Andrew should testify in US investigation into Jeffrey Epstein

    [ad_1]

    Britain’s Prince Andrew, *** prince no more, his brother King Charles officially starting the process of stripping Andrew of his remaining royal titles and evicting him from the royal estate in Windsor. It’s the royal family’s strongest response yet to the disgraced Prince’s links to. Late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. It’s *** moment about justice, right? Epstein’s survivor Danielle Binsky responding to the news Thursday. I think it was incredibly hopeful for survivors, and it’s *** glimmer of hope that we haven’t seen, um, in *** really long time, if ever. The years-long controversy over Andrew’s friendship with Epstein intensified after the release of *** posthumous memoir by Virginia Giuffre, who alleged Andrew sexually assaulted her when she was *** teenager. Andrew has repeatedly denied all allegations against him. He claimed he never met Giuffre, who died by suicide in April at the age of 41. On Thursday, her family released *** statement reading in part, quote, Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family brought down *** British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage. Giuffre’s brother also spoke out on Thursday. I think this is *** big sense of vindication for her from. Not just the general public, but from the king himself to say I stand by survivors. Buckingham Palace also released *** statement reading in part, quote, Their Majesties’ wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been and will remain with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse. I’m Reid Benyon reporting.

    UK leader suggests former Prince Andrew should testify in US investigation into Jeffrey Epstein

    Updated: 12:02 PM EST Nov 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    Pressure is increasing for the former Prince Andrew to give evidence to a U.S. congressional committee investigating the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after Britain’s prime minister suggested he should testify.Keir Starmer declined to comment directly about King Charles III’s disgraced younger brother, but told reporters traveling with him for the Group of 20 summit in Johannesburg that as a “general principle” people should provide evidence to investigators.”I don’t comment on his particular case,” Starmer said. “But as a general principle I’ve held for a very long time is that anybody who has got relevant information in relation to these kind of cases should give that evidence to those that need it.”The former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has so far ignored a request from members of the House Oversight Committee for a “transcribed interview” about his “long-standing friendship” with Epstein. Andrew was stripped of his royal titles and honors last month as the royal family tried to insulate itself from criticism about his relationship with Epstein.Starmer’s comments came after Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the committee’s ranking Democrat, and Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat from Virginia, said Andrew “continues to hide” from serious questions.”Our work will move forward with or without him, and we will hold anyone who was involved in these crimes accountable, no matter their wealth, status or political party,” they said in a statement released on Friday. “We will get justice for the survivors.”

    Pressure is increasing for the former Prince Andrew to give evidence to a U.S. congressional committee investigating the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after Britain’s prime minister suggested he should testify.

    Keir Starmer declined to comment directly about King Charles III’s disgraced younger brother, but told reporters traveling with him for the Group of 20 summit in Johannesburg that as a “general principle” people should provide evidence to investigators.

    “I don’t comment on his particular case,” Starmer said. “But as a general principle I’ve held for a very long time is that anybody who has got relevant information in relation to these kind of cases should give that evidence to those that need it.”

    The former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has so far ignored a request from members of the House Oversight Committee for a “transcribed interview” about his “long-standing friendship” with Epstein. Andrew was stripped of his royal titles and honors last month as the royal family tried to insulate itself from criticism about his relationship with Epstein.

    Starmer’s comments came after Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the committee’s ranking Democrat, and Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat from Virginia, said Andrew “continues to hide” from serious questions.

    “Our work will move forward with or without him, and we will hold anyone who was involved in these crimes accountable, no matter their wealth, status or political party,” they said in a statement released on Friday. “We will get justice for the survivors.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House expected to vote on bill forcing release of Jeffrey Epstein case files

    [ad_1]

    The House is expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the culmination of a monthslong effort that has overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.When a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills see the House floor, it appeared a long-shot effort, especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.” But both Trump and Johnson failed in their efforts to prevent the vote.Now the president has bowed to the growing momentum behind the bill and even said Republicans should vote for it. His blessing all but ensures that the House will pass the bill with an overwhelming margin, putting further pressure on the Senate to take it up.Trump on Monday said he would sign the bill if it passes both chambers of Congress, adding, “Let the Senate look at it.”Tuesday’s vote also provides a further boost to the demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.A separate investigation conducted by the House Oversight Committee has released thousands of pages of emails and other documents from Epstein’s estate, showing his connections to global leaders, Wall Street powerbrokers, influential political figures and Trump himself.Trump’s reversal on the Epstein filesTrump has said he cut ties with Epstein years ago, but tried for months to move past the demands for disclosure. On Monday, he told reporters that Epstein was connected to more Democrats and that he didn’t want the Epstein files to “detract from the great success of the Republican Party.”Still, many in the Republican base have continued to demand the release of the files. Adding to that pressure, several survivors of Epstein’s abuse will appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to push for release of the files. They also met with Johnson and rallied outside the Capitol in September, but have had to wait two months for the vote.That’s because Johnson kept the House closed for legislative business for nearly two months and also refused to swear-in Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva of Arizona during the government shutdown. After winning a special election on Sept. 23, Grijalva had pledged to provide the crucial 218th vote to the petition for the Epstein files bill. But only after she was sworn into office last week could she sign her name to the discharge petition to give it majority support in the 435-member House.It quickly became apparent the bill would pass, and both Johnson and Trump began to fold. Trump on Sunday said Republicans should vote for the bill.Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who sponsored the bill alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said Trump “got tired of me winning. He wanted to join.”How Johnson is handling the billRather than waiting until next week for the discharge position to officially take effect, Johnson is moving to hold the vote this week. He indicated the legislation will be brought to the House floor under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority.“I think it’s going to be an important vote to continue to show the transparency that we’ve delivered,” House Republican leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Monday night.House Democrats celebrated the vote as a rare win for the minority.“It’s a complete and total surrender, because as Democrats we made clear from the very beginning, the survivors and the American people deserve full and complete transparency as it relates to the lives that were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.What will the Senate do?Still, it’s not clear how the Senate will handle the bill.Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has previously been circumspect when asked about the legislation and instead said he trusted the Justice Department to release information on the Epstein investigation.But what the Justice Department has released so far under Trump was mostly already public. The bill would go further, forcing the release within 30 days of all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or continuing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted, but not information due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”Johnson also suggested that he would like to see the Senate amend the bill to protect the information of “victims and whistleblowers.”But Massie said the Senate should take into account the public clamor that forced both Trump and Johnson to back down.“If it’s anything but a genuine effort to make it better and stronger, it’ll backfire on the senators if they muck it up,” Massie said.___Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    The House is expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the culmination of a monthslong effort that has overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

    When a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills see the House floor, it appeared a long-shot effort, especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.” But both Trump and Johnson failed in their efforts to prevent the vote.

    Now the president has bowed to the growing momentum behind the bill and even said Republicans should vote for it. His blessing all but ensures that the House will pass the bill with an overwhelming margin, putting further pressure on the Senate to take it up.

    Trump on Monday said he would sign the bill if it passes both chambers of Congress, adding, “Let the Senate look at it.”

    Tuesday’s vote also provides a further boost to the demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.

    A separate investigation conducted by the House Oversight Committee has released thousands of pages of emails and other documents from Epstein’s estate, showing his connections to global leaders, Wall Street powerbrokers, influential political figures and Trump himself.

    Trump’s reversal on the Epstein files

    Trump has said he cut ties with Epstein years ago, but tried for months to move past the demands for disclosure. On Monday, he told reporters that Epstein was connected to more Democrats and that he didn’t want the Epstein files to “detract from the great success of the Republican Party.”

    Still, many in the Republican base have continued to demand the release of the files. Adding to that pressure, several survivors of Epstein’s abuse will appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to push for release of the files. They also met with Johnson and rallied outside the Capitol in September, but have had to wait two months for the vote.

    That’s because Johnson kept the House closed for legislative business for nearly two months and also refused to swear-in Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva of Arizona during the government shutdown. After winning a special election on Sept. 23, Grijalva had pledged to provide the crucial 218th vote to the petition for the Epstein files bill. But only after she was sworn into office last week could she sign her name to the discharge petition to give it majority support in the 435-member House.

    It quickly became apparent the bill would pass, and both Johnson and Trump began to fold. Trump on Sunday said Republicans should vote for the bill.

    Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who sponsored the bill alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said Trump “got tired of me winning. He wanted to join.”

    How Johnson is handling the bill

    Rather than waiting until next week for the discharge position to officially take effect, Johnson is moving to hold the vote this week. He indicated the legislation will be brought to the House floor under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority.

    “I think it’s going to be an important vote to continue to show the transparency that we’ve delivered,” House Republican leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Monday night.

    House Democrats celebrated the vote as a rare win for the minority.

    “It’s a complete and total surrender, because as Democrats we made clear from the very beginning, the survivors and the American people deserve full and complete transparency as it relates to the lives that were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.

    What will the Senate do?

    Still, it’s not clear how the Senate will handle the bill.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has previously been circumspect when asked about the legislation and instead said he trusted the Justice Department to release information on the Epstein investigation.

    But what the Justice Department has released so far under Trump was mostly already public. The bill would go further, forcing the release within 30 days of all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or continuing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted, but not information due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    Johnson also suggested that he would like to see the Senate amend the bill to protect the information of “victims and whistleblowers.”

    But Massie said the Senate should take into account the public clamor that forced both Trump and Johnson to back down.

    “If it’s anything but a genuine effort to make it better and stronger, it’ll backfire on the senators if they muck it up,” Massie said.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link