Comer Says Clintons Face Contempt Charges In Epstein Probe
The chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform warned former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday that they could face contempt of Congress charges if they do not comply with subpoenas requiring their testimony next week or in early January regarding their associations with Jeffrey Epstein.
House Dems Vote To Continue DHS Shutdown As Senate Blocks Funding Again
Read More
In July, the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee approved by voice vote the issuance of subpoenas to 10 individuals, including the Clintons.
The subpoenas seek testimony connected to the federal investigations into crimes committed by Epstein and his longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, Newsmax reported on Friday.
Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) issued the subpoenas in August to require testimony from 10 individuals, including the Clintons.
The Clintons had originally been scheduled for depositions in October, but Comer said in November that, following discussions with their attorney, David Kendall, the dates were rescheduled to Dec. 17 for former President Clinton and Dec. 18 for former Secretary Clinton, the report said.
“It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes,” Comer said in a statement. “Throughout that time, the former President and former Secretary of State have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the Committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony.
“If the Clintons fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January, the Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings to hold them accountable,” he added.
Comer’s comments came just hours after Democrats on the committee released a set of photographs taken from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including images of President Donald Trump, former President Clinton, and Britain’s Prince Andrew.
The 19 photos made public represent a small fraction of the more than 95,000 images the committee received from Epstein’s estate.
Epstein died by suicide in August 2019 while in federal custody awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein has been public for years, including reports that he traveled on Epstein’s private aircraft after leaving office.
A spokesperson for the former president has previously said that he ended contact with Epstein well before the financier’s 2019 arrest and was unaware of the criminal conduct alleged against him.
Those earlier connections have drawn renewed attention as Congress seeks additional investigative records related to Epstein and pursues testimony from individuals who had prior interactions with him.
Others who received subpoenas include former Attorneys General Merrick Garland, Bill Barr, Alberto Gonzales, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, and Eric Holder, along with former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller.
Sessions and Barr both served as attorneys general during Trump’s first term, Newsmax noted.
FBI Assistant Director Dan Bongino could soon leave his position following internal clashes with the Trump administration over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, according to reporting by journalist Rachel Bade.
Bade wrote on her Substack, “The Inner Circle,” that Bongino has run afoul of senior officials over his response to the Epstein materials, though it remains unclear whether he would be fired or leave voluntarily.
According to Bade, Bongino’s conduct left “senior staff complaining that he put his personal reputation with MAGA World ahead of the team’s best interests.”
Bongino reportedly had a “fiery confrontation” with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the release of a Department of Justice and FBI memo stating there was no Epstein client list and no evidence that Epstein was blackmailing prominent individuals.
ABC News reported at the time that the memo contradicted long running speculation surrounding Epstein’s activities and death.
Axios reported this summer that Bongino was so upset by the dispute with Bondi that he failed to report to work, prompting speculation among colleagues that he may have quit.
Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court seems ready to impose stricter controls on the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by federal courts, which could protect state lawmakers from challenges that mix race and partisanship in the redistricting process.
The impending decision carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations cautioning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.
In the re-arguments of Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority expressed a willingness to consider an approach supported by the Trump Justice Department.
This could complicate the ability of plaintiffs to succeed in claims of racial vote dilution in areas where voting patterns closely mirror party affiliations—a defining characteristic of contemporary Southern politics.
The situation arises from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court has found likely to violate Section 2 by funneling Black voters—who represent approximately one-third of the state’s population—into a single majority-Black district out of a total of six.
In 2024, lawmakers took action by adopting a remedial plan that established a second district of this kind. However, white voters took legal action, claiming that the adjustments constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge ruled in their favor.
The case, initially presented last March, has returned, as the justices have requested new briefs regarding the constitutionality of Section 2.
Last summer, Louisiana changed its position, now advocating for the Court to restrict or abolish race-conscious districting. Black voters who launched the initial challenge stood by the remedial map, asserting that it effectively addresses the documented dilution of minority voting power.
Conservative justices displayed hesitation to completely overturn Section 2, a provision established in 1965 and reinforced in 1982 to prevent practices that deny minorities equal access to the electoral process.
In reference to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which prevented federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymandering, Mooppan contended that states could justify their maps by citing valid partisan objectives, even when these objectives intersect with racial demographics.
This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths, for example, without violating Section 2, provided the intent isn’t solely racial.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the 2023 Allen v. Milligan ruling that requires the establishment of a second majority-Black district in Alabama, examined whether this framework is consistent with Allen and the Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles criteria.
The test mandates that plaintiffs demonstrate a minority group is not only sizable and cohesive but also experiences majority bloc voting that undermines their electoral candidates. Roberts appeared focused on aligning the proposal with established norms, steering clear of a complete transformation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an influential voice in the Allen case alongside Roberts and the liberal justices, raised the possibility of a “sunset” clause for Section 2 remedies, referencing precedents that restrict race-based policies to temporary solutions.
Voting rights organizations aligned with the Democratic Party are already warning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.
Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is invalidated, it could significantly increase the likelihood of Republicans maintaining control over the House of Representatives for years.
Research has identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that could be redrawn to benefit Republicans, contingent on the current legal and political landscape remaining unchanged.
Nineteen of these changes are directly tied to the potential loss of Section 2 protections.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court ruling, there’s now a push in some states to consider creating their own version of a “Voting Rights Act.”
May you like
Zakiya Summers, a Democrat from Mississippi, and Johnny DuPree, a Democrat from the state senate, both introduced bills that would make a state-level version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The law would set up a Mississippi voting rights commission. This commission would have to give its approval before any changes to election policy or practice could be made in certain areas. It would also protect people who don’t speak English very well and add other protections.
