A (0:00)

This podcast is supported by MIDI Health. Are you in midlife? Feeling dismissed, unheard or just plain tired of the old healthcare system? You're not alone. In fact, even today, 75% of women seeking care for menopause and perimenopause issues are left entirely untreated. But it's time for a change. It's time for Mitty. Mitti's not just a healthcare provider. It's a women's telehealth clinic founded and supported by world class leaders in women's health. Their clinicians provide one on one face to face consultations where they truly listen to your unique needs. They offer a full range of holistic, data driven solutions. That isn't one size fits all care. This is care, uniquely tailored for you. At Mitti, you will find that their mission is clear to help all women thrive in midlife and giving them access to the health care they deserve. Because they believe midlife isn't the middle at all. It is the beginning of your second act. Ready to feel your best and write your second act script? Visit joinmitty.com today to book your personalized insurance covered virtual visit. That's joinmitty.com MIDI the Care Women deserve what's up everyone?

B (1:18)

And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing where they had a vote on whether or not the whole the Clintons in contempt. Well, it turns out that nine Democrats voted with Republicans to hold President Bill Clinton in contempt and three Democrats voted with Republicans to hold Hillary in contempt. And I want to just give a shout out to those Democrats that went across party lines and did that. In our previous episode, I was talking about how it's unbelievable to me that you could be as big of a hypocrite as some of these people are, call for justice from one side and not demand it of your own people. Well, these nine Democrats, they're stepping up to the plate and they should be given credit for going against the grain and demanding accountability here. And honestly, if we really want to get over the finish line, we're going to need some people that we never thought would step up to step up. And I find this to be a very, very encouraging sign. Although I will say Robert Garcia, Mr. Big Mouth, you know the guy talking about accountability every time he opens his yap. Well, he decided to vote against holding the Clintons accountable. And you know what his excuse was? Oh, it's politically motivated. Imagine trying to pitch that to the survivors. Oh, well, you know, I wanted to help you out. But got to put party above people. Sorry about that. Now let me get back up on my soapbox and wax poetic a little bit more about how I'm demanding accountability. People like this are hurtful to the overall cause. And I've said it from the very beginning, and I know people don't want to hear it. People want to hear only about, you know, the people, they dislike being scumbags. But breaking news, the the vast majority of these elected people, these elected officials are scumbags. If you think they care about you, congratulations. You are exactly the target they're looking for. Today's article is from Politico, and the headline, nine Democrats Vote to Hold Bill Clinton in Contempt of Congress for Evading Epstein Testimony. This article was authored by Haley Fuchs. Nine Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted with Republicans Wednesday to recommend holding former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena to testify as part of the panel's investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Democrats sided with Republicans in voting for a separate measure to recommend also holding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt. And look, this is the way forward, folks. We can't be putting the party over what's right. If people were involved in this or people were involved in covering it up or enabling them, then they have to be called forward. And it shouldn't matter what political party they're part of. And I think that anybody that has the courage to step outside of that box should be complimented and supported. Their votes underscore the continued pressure Democrats are under to remain consistent in their calls for transparency and accountability in the Epstein case, no matter the person or the party affiliation or the dire consequence. Well, unfortunately, with this story, that's how it has to be. And it's going to take people of real courage to hold people accountable. And that goes for you, too, folks. You have to have the courage to step up and go against the grain and swim up river and tell the powers that be, screw you. We're not going to accept this. We're not going to accept you protecting people who enable Jeffrey Epstein. We're not going to accept the fact that you spent so much time with them and then you want to ignore calls to give people an accounting of what went down. We're not going to accept it. We have fallen way too deep into these political holes that we find ourselves in, and we end up never being able to crawl out again. And that leads to nothing but political absolutism. And when you're engaging in political Absolutism, forget it. You're going to miss all the nuance. You're going to miss reading between the lines, and you're going to be a purist, no matter if that leads you directly off a cliff. And unfortunately, that's the point we're at. Way too many people are way too dug in and, and not willing to listen to anybody else. God forbid somebody has an opinion that's different than yours. Right? The contemporary reports now head to the House floor. Assuming the measures advance, the administration could choose to prosecute the former first couple, which could lead to potential jail time for one or both. I highly doubt that's going to happen as far as jail time. They'll come to some kind of agreement and they'll get the Clintons on record, but it's not going to be the way that we think it should be. It'll end up being some kind of tape deposition, something like that. They're not going to go through with it. They're going to end up buckling. And look, maybe that's just the cynic in me taking over once again. But one thing that I can tell you for sure is that throughout this whole entire thing, for all these years, there's never really been any kind of real accountability. So I just have a hard time believing that that's going to end now, especially when there's so many people that are still playing politics that are still worried about if their side's gonna get dinged by this. I have bad news. Both sides are more than dinged. Both sides are neck deep. And that's the biggest problem for Hillary Clinton especially. It could mark the culmination of President Donald Trump's decade long hostility towards his 2016 political rival, who he repeatedly called to be put behind bars for using a private email server while leading the State Department. And that's the poison pill, right? If this does advance to the doj, the Clintons are going to have a case, an argument, and that's because Donald Trump opened his fat yap. Oh, we're going to go after the Clintons and Larry Summers, talk about polluting the jury pool before anything even kicks off. And we already know that the courts aren't too favorable to, to Donald Trump's at this point. So what, you think they're gonna go through with this? You have to understand that the Clintons, they have the best lawyers in the business. And the way that Donald Trump has polluted the water, it's gonna make it very difficult for there ever to be any kind of real court case against the Clintons over contempt or anything else. And you can thank Donald Trump for that, too. No witness, not a former president or a private citizen, may willfully defy a duly issued congressional subpoena without consequence, said House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer. But that is what the Clintons did, and that is why we are here today. Representatives Maxwell Frost of Florida, Raja Krishna Morcia of Illinois, Summer Lea, Pennsylvania, Emily Randall of Washington, Latifah Simon of California, Melanie Stansberry of New Mexico and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, along with Representatives Stephen lynch and Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts, join Republicans in voting in favor of holding Bill Clinton in contempt. Two Democrats, Yasmin Ansari of Arizona and Dave Min of California, voted present. So Dave Min is another one who's run around yapping about this, that and the other thing, and he votes present. Way to stand up for the survivors, buddy. Way to stand up for justice. Coward, Lee Stansberry and Talib voted in favor of holding Hillary Clinton in contempt, with one Democrat, Min recording himself as present. I'm really not a fan of people voting present. Either vote yay or nay or just don't attend the vote. Stop with the present bullshit, take a side and man the fuck up. Comer issued subpoenas to the Clintons as part of his committee's Epstein probe. Though Bill Clinton has not been implicated in any illegal activity, he had well documented relationship with the late disgraced financier. And lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been eager for information about what he might know. And that's really the gist of it, right? This isn't a persecution. This isn't Bill Clinton on trial. This is a fact finding mission. And Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are doing everything in their power to make sure that the facts stay muddied. So you have to ask yourself why? Why are they so hesitant to get under oath and talk about Jeffrey Epstein? Now I have a few opinions as to why and over the past seven years I've laid out those opinions very clearly. So this isn't something new for me. And when we're talking about the Clintons, certainly not new in the overall story. And you want to talk about how power protects power, you're seeing it in real time. Can you imagine if Alex Acosta would have tried to ignore the subpoena and carry it on the way he did? Or Bill Barr? Forget it. All of these senators and these congressmen and women, they would have came down on him like a piano falling from a 400 story building. But when it comes to the Clintons, forget it. Some people are so deep into the demagoguery that there's no saving them and there's no hope for them. But Republicans have sought to position Epstein as an alternative boogeyman to Trump, who also has not been accused of coordination in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, but has been at the center of Democrats focus in demanding all federal case files related to Epstein be released. Well, not just Democrats. I'm not a Democrat, but I agree with them. Every single file should be released. That's what the law calls for. That's what should happen. This isn't rocket science here. And in fact, it's not even a debate. The law is what it is. Enough bullshitting, enough nonsense, enough gaslighting and enough whataboutism. The time for talk is over. Now is the time for action. The Clintons have maintained that Comer subpoena are not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose and are therefore invalid. They have also accused Comer of pursuing partisan antics designed to put them in prison. Like other public figures who received subpoenas from the oversight panel and the Epstein probe, the Clintons submitted sworn declarations to the panel. In their written statements, the former first couple attested to their lack of knowledge about the criminal activity of both Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. You mean co conspirator, right? You mean fellow all around scumbag. You mean bipedal serpent. That's what you mean when you say Glenn Maxwell, correct? The Clintons also, through their legal team, negotiated with the panel for months to determine terms for an appearance before lawmakers and staff. Bill Clinton had offered to sit down for an interview with Comer and his staff. But Comer rejected the proposed conditions. The Clinton shouldn't be treated better or worse than anybody else. They should have the same treatment that Bill Barr and Alex Acosta had. The same stipulations, the same guidelines, the same everything. But no, that's not good enough for Bill and Hillary. They have to have special conditions. They have to do special things because in their mind, they're very special people. In a statement on social media on Wednesday morning before the contempt vote, a Clinton spokesperson said, we have offered to help, but we have helped. And to this very moment, we are ready to help. But the Republicans refused to say yes. What does that even mean? If you were ready to help, you just go and be deposed. We don't need all of the histrionics, we don't need all the. And we don't need the lies. Stop it. Representative Robert Garcia, the committee's top Democrat, voted against the contempt resolution, saying he also wanted Bill Clinton to answer his panel's questions, but arguing Comer was applying different standards to witnesses. Oh, give me a break, dude. This guy's such a clown. I've told you from the beginning. I know people out there might like him because he goes after, you know, their boogeyman, Donald Trump, but the dude's an absolute clown. Not a serious person, not a serious lawmaker, and not somebody I take serious at all when it comes to this topic, especially since he won't hold his own people accountable. Folks, that tells you who he is. And if you're somebody that leans left, I would be very cautious of Robert Garcia antennae survivors out there. I'd be very careful what I was saying to Robert Garcia in private or in confidence. Doesn't seem like a trustworthy man to me. Where's the pressure to get Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the files? Are you crazy? That's all we do is pressure her. That's all we've been doing. Where's the pressure to get your people to tell the truth? Mr. Garcia, how about a little help that way instead you're focusing on the committee's focus on whoever you perceive to be your enemies and the enemies of Donald Trump. Well, that's true, but it shouldn't matter because the Clintons should be held accountable for their actions. They should be held accountable for their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And at the very least, they should have to answer for it under oath. And Robert Garcia couldn't even do that. Couldn't even be bothered to force that. So when this guy starts yapping about Donald Trump or anybody else, you know what he's doing. He doesn't care about the survivors, he doesn't care about justice, he doesn't care about you. He cares about politics and he cares about moving his politics forward and trying to use this as a cudgel to bash the other side. And you know who the real victims are here. You know the real casualties are the survivors once again. Because while these idiots are playing whack a mole, the political edition, the DOJ is still not in compliance and they're still engaged in a cover up. And I think we need to focus a lot more on that. There's no doubt about it. But we can do two things at once. And while we're demanding transparency and justice from the Justice Department, we should also be demanding that of Jeffrey Epstein's confidants and the people that put air in his tires and help this whole entire thing continue along over the decades and in my opinion, the Clintons are a fantastic place to start. So we'll close this one out with me giving props to those Democrats that stepped across the aisle and did the right thing and to the ones that didn't. Well, I don't want to hear from you about Jeffrey Epstein ever again. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a look at the letter that the Clintons sent to James Comer explaining why they are ignoring the subpoena that was sent to them by Congress January 12, 2026 Dear Chairman Comer, we write in response to your letter of January 8, 2026, which you threaten to initiate contempt proceedings of against former President William Jefferson Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This letter on behalf of Williams Connally LLP and Jenner Block LLP is the most recent in the over five month long correspondence regarding the subpoena for testimony issued to President and Secretary Clinton on August 5, 2025 by you as Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. President and Secretary Clinton have already provided the limited information they possess about Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell to the Committee. They did so proactively and voluntarily, and despite the fact that the subpoenas are invalid and legally unenforceable, untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers, your continued insistence that the former President and Secretary of State can be compelled to appear before the Committee under these circumstances, however, bring us toward a protracted and unnecessary legal confrontation that distracts from the principal work of the Congress with respect to this matter, which, if conducted sincerely, could help ensure the victims of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell are all afforded some measure of justice for the crimes perpetrated against them, however late. But perhaps distraction is the point to avoid such a confrontation and accommodate the Committee to the maximum extent possible without undermining their core constitutional prerogatives. President and Secretary Clinton, as an extraordinary accommodation to assist the legitimate aspects of the Committee's work and in addition to the information previously provided in a series of letters from Council, are willing to certify their draft declarations contained in the letter from David Kendall on January 3, 2026, in which each of the areas of inquiry that you have raised was addressed, no matter how tenuous as the record shows the Committee's attempt to compel in person testimony from President and Secretary Clinton runs afoul of the clearly defined limitations on Congress investigative power propounded by the Supreme Court on of the United States. That fact is underscored by the Committee's very different treatment of witnesses who genuinely possess information relevant to the stated purpose of its inquiry. Unlike President and Secretary Clinton, which affirms that these subpoenas for in person testimony are intended to obtain something other than information with a nexus to the Committee's legislative objective, the President and Secretary Clinton are offering this further accommodation pursuant to the the traditional process for managing specific legal and fairness objections such as those at issue here. As you know, absent a valid purpose, and in light of the fact that the President and Secretary Clinton have already shared more information with the Committee voluntarily than the Committee could obtain via the compulsory process, it's clear the subpoenas themselves and any subsequent attempt to force them are nothing more than a ploy and to attempt to embarrass political rivals as President Trump has directed. Precedent arising from Senator Joseph McCarthy's abuse of congressional investigative powers in the 50s and in other more recent contexts makes clear the Constitution protects private citizens and former Presidents alike from invalid and legally unenforceable subpoenas such as these. That precedent as it applies to these subpoenas is covered herein. Counsel's letters to the Committee on October 6, 2025, November 3, 2025, December 10, 2025 and January 3, 2026, and all the information therein are hereby incorporated by reference. 1. The Subpoena the President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable because they seek testimony with no connection to valid legislative purposes. Well established Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the subpoenas at issue here must be in furtherance of a valid legislative purpose concerning a subject where legislation could be had. The Court imposes an additional requirement that the testimony sought is related to and in furtherance of that purpose. On both fronts, the subpoena fails to meet these standards. Moreover, the Committee's belated attempt to remedy these defects by amending the purpose of the investigation has the opposite effect. It confirms there was no valid purpose for the subpoena in the first place. Part A the Subpoenas are not Related to a Valid legislative purpose. The power to conduct investigation and issue subpoena is not enumerated in the constitution of the U.S. but the Supreme Court has held that each House has the power to secure needed information in order to legislate. This power, however, is is a mere adjunct to the legislative process, and it is therefore subject to numerous limitations. Most importantly, a Congressional subpoena is valid only if it's related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. It therefore must serve a valid legislative purpose and it must concern a subject on which legislation could be had. Because of that limitation, Congress cannot issue a subpoena for the purpose of of law enforcement since those powers are assigned to the executive and judiciary branch. Moreover, the Constitution limits Congress authority when investigating the private affairs of individuals who hold no office under the government. The former President and Secretary of State did not direct, oversee or have any involvement with federal investigation of Epstein or Maxwell when holding office. This Committee has repeatedly made clear that is therefore investigating the former President and Secretary of State's alleged personal relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The Supreme Court has long invalidated such free willing hunts that inquire into the private affairs of a citizen. It's therefore not apparent how these subpoenas for in person testimony are intended to inform Congress in an area where legislation may be had. Again, the Committee's stated legislative purpose for its inquiry is to conduct oversight of the federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking law generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Because the Court is clear that Congress ability to conduct oversight on a subject stems from its ability to legislate on that subject, and because Congress cannot legislate the private affairs of individuals nor use subpoenas engage in functions within the exclusive powers of the executive branch, such as criminal investigations and prosecutions, Congress cannot validly issue subpoenas that purport to support an investigation of specific prosecutorial decisions like those for Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. B. The testimony sought by the subpoenas has no pertinence to the stated purpose of the Committee's investigation. To the extent that there are any aspects of your investigation that fall within the Committee's legislative jurisdiction, however, the information sought via the subpoena is totally unrelated because President and Secretary Clinton have no connection to federal law enforcement efforts aimed at Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The Supreme Court's decision in East Lynn considered what the valid legislative purpose standard means in practice. In doing so, it asked whether the Challenge Committee's investigation was related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. As part of that inquiry, the Court in Eastland considered the propriety of making the subpoena target a subject of the investigation and subpoena. It therefore considered whether the specific target of the subpoena was permissibly coerced by Congress, the court is clear the Committee must demonstrate that President and Secretary Clinton's testimony is specifically related and and in furtherance of his task to investigate the enforcement of sex trafficking law. It is not. In other words, simply repeating the objectives of your investigation over and over in letters to Council as you have done, is not sufficient to establish specifically why President and Secretary Clinton's appearance is related to and in furtherance of those objectives. There must be a nexus between the investigation's legislative aims and and the specific witnesses from which information is sought. And with respect to the Committee subpoena to President and Secretary Clinton, there is no nexus. Neither has any information about the federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking law generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The topics of the Committee purports to investigate the absence of a relationship between the information sought by the subpoena and and the Committee's stated legislative purpose for its investigation and the Committee's decision to accept written declarations from the very witnesses for whom such a relationship may exist, therefore mean the subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable for failing to meet the Eastland standard. You have also stated that the President and Secretary Clinton are not entitled to any further information about the relevance of the Committee's questions to a permissible legislative purpose. But in addition to the requirement of a valid legislative purpose, witnesses called before the Committee are entitled to understand how the specific questions that would be posed to them are pertinent to the Committee's stated and valid subject of inquiry. This pertinency requirement is the prerequisite to both the Committee's jurisdiction and to the criminal contempt statute, which the Supreme Court has recognized are closely related. The recipient of a Congressional subpoena also has the right to be adequately apprised of the inquiry subject matter and the pertinency thereto of the questions. Therefore, responding Rather than try to meet this bar, you have declined to expand upon the questions you intend to ask, instead responding to a request for clarity on the scope of questioning that President and Secretary Clinton are not entitled to any further information or even to identify areas of questioning where a President and Secretary Clinton could give information related to the stated purpose of your investigation. Moreover, to date, you have not clarified the pertinency of President and Secretary Clinton's testimony and how it could possibly inform the Committee's oversight of the Federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking law generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. In a way that the information in their declarations would not. Neither have you explained why it was appropriate to forego in person depositions for certain other individuals, including the individuals who led the Department of Justice and FBI while the federal government investigated Mr. Epstein, while simultaneously insisting on in person depositions for the former President, whose time in office predates the federal investigation, and Secretary Clinton who who had no role in federal law enforcement while serving as Secretary of State. C. The Committee is unable to remedy these defects despite its shifting rationales for the subpoenas. Your January 8th letter appears to recognize the fatal lack of connection between the testimony sought by the subpoena and the stated purpose of the investigation. Rather than try to draw such a connection between the subpoena and off the repeated original purpose of your investigation, the letter no longer asserts that the legislative purpose is to conduct oversight of the Federal Government's enforcement of either sex trafficking law generally or as to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in particular, averring instead for the first time that investigation of how these individuals befriended powerful people to avoid scrutiny may assist Congress exploration of potential legislative remedies to more effectively combat sex trafficking rings. But the subpoena purpose cannot be amended via a subsequent letter, and the shifting rationales in all events undermine the credibility of both the originally stated purpose and the newly identified purpose, even leaving aside again whether this new purpose falls within the Committee's limited legislative jurisdiction. Indeed, the new purpose is entirely a non starter given information the President and Secretary Clinton have already provided, discussed below, showing the flimsiness of this pretext. 2. The subpoenas to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable because they are intended to harass and embarrass. It has been made clear the subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable for failing to have a connection to a valid legislative purpose and for failing to seek pertinent information stripped down. The subpoenas are therefore exposed for what they really are. An effort to publicly harass and embarrass President and Secretary Clinton in an impermissible usurpation of executive law enforcement authority. A insisting on an in person testimony can have no purpose but to harass and embarrass President and Secretary Clinton in Watkins v. U. S. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer. Broad as in Congress, power of inquiry is not unlimited and in particular there is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification. In terms of the functions of Congress, the Court emphasized that we have no doubt that there is no Congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure and that the public's right to be informed concerning the workings of its government cannot be inflated into a general power to expose where the predominant result is can only be an invasion of private rights of individuals. Yet transgressions of this fundamental limitation is the precise and only objective of the subpoenas at issue. Indeed, each of the Committee's flimsy predicates for questioning President and Secretary Clinton have already been addressed in correspondence with you. For instance, you stated that President Clinton may have visited Epstein's Island. In fact, he did not. You cited reports that President Clinton was a good friend to Mr. Epstein. In fact, President Clinton does not RECALL Speaking to Mr. Epstein for more than a decade prior to his arrest in 2019. You stated that Secretary Clinton's family appears to have had a close relationship with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. In fact, Secretary Clinton does not recall ever speaking to Mr. Epstein and she learned Ms. Maxwell's nephew was among one of the many thousands of of unpaid volunteers her campaign from August 5, 2025 letter that contained that information all these invalid predicates for questioning the President and Secretary Clinton have fallen away. You have further distinguished the subpoenas for their testimony from the others you issued by accepting sworn statements in lieu of testimony from five of the six former attorney generals responsible for overseeing the investigation into Mr. Epstein and by excusing the two former directors of the FBI during the relevant periods. Altogether, you may be unwilling to disclose the real purpose of the subpoena and your insistence on in person testimony, but President Trump has no such compunction on Truth Social. He disclosed the investigation's goal. The Dems are the ones who work with Epstein, not the Republicans. Release all their names, embarrass them and and get back to helping the country. The President and Secretary Clinton have no information pertinent to the stated legislative purpose of your investigation. More bluntly, President and Secretary Clinton were not part of the federal or state law enforcement apparatus during the relevant period and as such cannot advance your stated legislative purpose. The Committee's predicates for questioning them, each of which is unrelated to the federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking laws and its handling of the investigation into Mr. Epstein have all been addressed. We are therefore left to conclude that your strategy here is aligned with President Trump's direction to embarrass witnesses. Accordingly, the subpoenas are invalid and legally unenforceable. B the subpoenas are an impermissible exercise of law enforcement's authority committed to coordinated branches of government. The Supreme Court also made clear in Watkins that Congress, in its exercise of the investigative function, may not act as a law enforcement or trial agency. Why these functions of the Executive and judicial departments of government? No inquiry is an end in itself. It must be related to and in furtherance of legitimate task of Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated or are indefensible. That is precisely what is happening. Once again, we need not speculate that your refusal to afford President and Secretary Clinton the same opportunity to submit sworn declarations amounts to an attempt at trying them before a committee of the House Representatives. President Trump has been explicit that he seeks an indictment of President Clinton on Epstein related matters, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. Nevertheless, on November 14, 2025, President Trump directed the Attorney General to institute investigation of prominent Democrats explicitly including President Clinton, as improper as that was at least the Attorney General and Department of justice are empowered under the Constitution to conduct criminal investigations, congressional committees or not. Still, you traded the chairman's gavel for the detective's magnifying glass a mere one week after you issued the subpoenas, referring falsely to President Clinton not as a witness but as a suspect. This approach to investigating the President and Secretary Clinton is, of course, entirely at odds with Watkins. Accordingly, for this additional reason, subpoenas are invalid and legally unenforceable. Part 3 the subpoena to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and unenforceable because they potentially run afoul of the separation of powers doctrine. There is one other significant constitutional barrier to inquiry should the committee wish to question President Clinton about his actions in office. The traditional limitations imposed by the separation of powers doctrine as we have pointed out, no former president has appeared before Congress since 83, and President Ford did so voluntarily to discuss the upcoming celebration of the 1987 bicentennial of the enactment of the Constitution. This is for good reason, since any attempt to require testimony from a former president trenches on the prerogatives of the executive branch. No president or former president has ever been compelled to testify by congressional subpoena because of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoena for the President's information. As the Supreme Court recently recognized in Trump v. U S, in explaining the President's presumptive privilege, it's fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could exert an imperious control over the executive branch and and aggrandize itself at the President's expense, just as the framers feared. For the foregoing reasons, the subpoenas issued to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable. Mindful of these defects, we trust you will engage in good faith to de escalate this dispute. This document was signed by Ashley Callan and David E. Kendall. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. Later on today, the House Oversight Committee is set to vote on holding former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton in contempt after the Clintons decided that they weren't going to appear after they were subpoenaed. So now the committee is going to vote today on moving forward with contempt charges. Of course, like usual, I have my doubts that anything will come of it because, well, people like the Clintons are never held accountable for anything they do, whether it's something big or something small. There's no accountability and there never will be. And if we're waiting for Congress to force that accountability, we're going to be waiting for a very long time. Because if they hold the Clintons accountable, they know eventually they're going to be held accountable and they can't have that right. Everybody has to have that plausible deniability. Everybody has to be protected. Well, everybody but Epstein survivors. Today we have an article from CBS News and the headline house Oversight Committee to Vote on Holding Clintons in Contempt in the Epstein Probe. This article was authored by Caitlyn Yellick. The House Oversight Committee is set to vote Wednesday on holding former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in criminal contempt after the pair refused to appear before the Republican led panel which is investigating the Justice Department's handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Now, there's a lot going on here. The Clinton should appear, but Donald Trump didn't do anybody any favors when he demanded an investigation into Bill Clinton and other people that were around Jeffrey Epstein. Because what it does is it gives the appearance that this is politically motivated. And for Trump, it most certainly is. But for anybody else who's been following along, they know that the Clintons played a huge role in the rise of Jeffrey Epstein. And they also know that it's time that we get some answers from Bill Clinton under oath. I mean, it's really not that big of a deal, right? He didn't do anything. Nobody's accusing him of doing Anything as far as the abuse. So why not just come forward and tell everybody what you know? Look, if you have nothing to say that's going to be damning or incriminating, are you really going to carry on the way Bill Clinton is or are you just going to go to the deposition, tell them what you know and then slam it in their face? Look, I told you I didn't know. But here you are asking these dumbass questions. So here I am answering them and now you people look like morons and I've been vindicated. But instead it's all of the legalese, all of the loopholes, all of the technicalities and all of the people that still carry water for this man. I just don't understand it and keeping it a buck. There's a lot of people on the left that talk to big game. When all of this was first breaking about holding people accountable and how everyone should get the same treatment. Well, here's your chance. And if you don't hold Bill Clinton accountable here, then you've lost the ability to be taken seriously when we're talking about this topic overall, there can't be any faves, there can't be anyone protected. Everybody that's involved has to step up and speak under oath at the very least. And then from there, who knows what happens? Maybe investigations, maybe an indictment, who knows. But the first step is getting these people under oath at the very least. And that task would have been a lot easier if you, if that brain dead moron Donald Trump didn't get up there and start yapping about this investigation and that investigation and this person should be investigated, that gave them built in cover. And you already know that the Clintons are political animals. Say what you will about them personally, but politically there aren't many better than Bill Clinton. And if you think that he's gonna be caught with his pants down, no pun intended, and not know what he's supposed to do here or what kind of counter move to make, you're crazy. He most certainly does. And the whole idea is to never get up there and speak under oath. The committee scheduled to meet at 10am to consider the matter. If the committee votes to recommend holding them in criminal contempt of Congress, the issue would advance to the full House for a vote on whether to find them in contempt and refer the matter to the Justice Department. The decision to prosecute would be up to the Justice Department, which would have to seek an indictment from a grand jury. Do you guys really think that's going to happen? Now? They might look to indict, but I don't have any faith in this doj. Look at some of their major moves. Look at some of the people they've indicted. And how did it all work out? Not very well, right? You have all these lawyers that are being appointed to positions that, that they shouldn't even be in. I mean, look at that Lindsey Halligan lady. This lady has never even been a line prosecutor, but all of a sudden she's this big wig in the doj. It's ridiculous. I mean, the DOJ is certainly not the place to populate with your friends. But this administration, they don't give a shit. That's exactly what they're gonna do. On Tuesday, House Oversight Republicans said the Clinton's attorneys made an untenable offer for the GOP chairman and top Democrat on the committee to to travel to New York to speak to Bill Clinton. The proposal allowed each lawmaker to bring two staff members and the meeting would not be transcribed, according to the committee. So where are all these people out there saying that? The big problem was the Clintons wanted this to be public, they didn't want this to be public. And anybody saying that's a liar. And there's a whole lot of that going on, for sure. A whole lot of people that don't know what they're talking about acting like they're some kind of expert when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and what he was up to. And I'd be very, very cautious of those people because there is no scenario where this shouldn't be public, where it shouldn't be transcribed, and where we shouldn't have access to it. The Clinton's latest demand makes clear they believe their last name entitles them to special treatment. Comer said in a statement. A Clinton spokesperson denied the transcript stipulation, said saying interviews are on the record and under oath. The committee subpoenaed the Clintons in August along with former Justice Department officials dating back to George W. Bush administration. Since then, only Bill Barr, who has served as Attorney General during President Trump's first term, has provided closed door testimony to the committee. While the panel accepted written statements from the others. Not true. Acosta also gave testimony. You see, they don't even know the basics of the story. Folks, this is what I keep telling you. Be very, very cautious, because there's a lot of people out there that are looking to mislead you. A lot of people that are trying to use this topic as a political cudgel when that's not what it is. But there's a Lot of people out there that are making that attempt, and that's on both sides of the aisle. I keep seeing these people that never said a word about Jeffrey Epstein previously posit themselves as some kind of expert people from like, Midas Touch, whatever that is, and a whole host of other people that think they know what they're talking about, but they don't. And what they do is muddy the waters and give their viewers and their listeners false information. And that, of course, contributes to the misinformation that's out there. And it's just a cycle that continues to repeat. But like CBS News, get your shit together. How don't you know that? Acosta also gave testimony in letters to the committee last week explaining their decision not to appear. The Clintons and their legal team accused Comer of trying to embarrass and punish Mr. Trump's political rivals. Their lawyers vowed to fight the subpoena, calling them invalid and legally unenforceable because they did not have a valid legislative purpose. Here's the translation to that. The Clintons know a lot more than they have ever let on, and they don't want to go under oath and tell anybody what they knew because they're scared it'll come back to them. That's what they're saying. All this legalese they're using here is nothing more than them being scared to go under oath and talk about Epstein. And they should be called out for that. They should be forced to do that. And they shouldn't be protected over politics because Donald Trump called them out, too. Even though Donald Trump's an absolute moron. He. He's not wrong about the Clintons, not when it comes to Epstein. We need answers and we need them now. No one's accusing Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing. We just have questions. Comer told the reporters last week. Photos of Bill Clinton have appeared in the Epstein related material released by the Justice Department, along with references to the current president, though neither have been accused of wrongdoing. And that's a fact. Well, with Trump, I guess we could talk about the COVID up, because I think this is a crime that we're seeing being committed right here before our eyes. But as far as abuse with Jeffrey Epstein, we have, you know, the Katie Johnson report, couple other people that have come forward, but nothing that has ever stuck. And of course, the same goes for Bill Clinton, right? There's been no accusations that have been credible that he abused anybody. In fact, Virginia told us something completely different. So I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that Bill Clinton was out here abusing kids or helping traffic people, as in physically. But he was enabling Jeffrey Epstein. He was emboldening Jeffrey Epstein. And that relationship protected Jeffrey Epstein for decades. And Bill Clinton needs to answer for it. The Clintons submitted sworn declarations to the committee last week describing their interactions with Epstein. In his declaration, Bill Clinton said Epstein offered his private plane to the former president, his staff, and his Secret Service detail in support of the Clinton foundation philanthropic work between 2002 and 2003. Notice how he leaves out the part how Jeffrey Epstein gave him seed money for that foundation as well. We forgot that part, huh? Oh, Bobby, you're lying. I am? Cool. Ask Lefkowitz. You know, one of Epstein's lawyers who told us all about Epstein's gigantic donation and seed money to help Bill Clinton get his foundation off the ground. Remember that story? Oh, that's right. You didn't hear it because the legacy media has been lying to you for years. He denied ever visiting Epstein's private island in the Virgin Islands where a number of the late financiers alleged crimes occurred, and maintained that he had not been in contact with Epstein for more than a decade before his 2019 arrest. So you were in contact with him when he was molesting kids down in Florida, right? Oh, that's right. You were. Everybody knew what was up. How's your homie Sandy Berger doing? Did Sandy Berger tip off Jeffrey Epstein? A lot of talk about that. What does Bill Clinton know about that? Probably a question that should be asked under oath. Hillary Clinton in her declaration said she did not recall encountering Epstein or any specific interactions with him. She also said she never flew on his plane or visited his private island. Well, we know that Virginia and Mr. Scully both said that they saw Bill Clinton on the island. Without a doubt. So who do you believe, Bill Clinton or Virginia Roberts? That's the question you should ask yourself. If you believe Virginia about the other things, then you should believe her when she says that she saw Bill Clinton on the island. Remember, she didn't say that he was on the island doing anything bad. She's just telling you that she saw him there. And just because you went to the island doesn't mean that you were diddling kids. Let's get that clear, too. The problem is Bill Clinton has not told the truth from the very beginning, and people want to know why. If it was just this innocuous relationship and there was no real ties and there was nothing really going on, why would you be so worried about sharing what you knew about him or what you saw or where you guys were at, I would think that you'd want to do that to clear your name. The Clintons also did not recall when they met convicted Epstein associate Glenn Maxwell or their interactions with her, but said she was later in a relationship with a mutual friend of theirs. They did not remember exactly when their last interaction with Maxwell was beyond many years ago. Oh yeah, she just showed up to the wedding, huh? Just popped in. Wedding crashed the Chelsea Clinton wedding. Talk about brazen. No explanations, nothing. Just, oh, we haven't talked to her in years. Sorry. We're not going to show up for any kind of subpoena, though. To be clear, I had no idea of Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell's criminal activities, their declaration said. And irrespective of any intent either or may have ever had, I did not take any action for the purpose of helping them to avoid any type of scrutiny. Bill Clinton's declaration added the relationship itself Billy boy. The picture. Billy boy. The way that you guys were close. Billy boy. 17 trips to the White House. Billy boy. Him lobbying you for Les Wexner. Billy boy. The trip to Asia. Billy boy. We can go on. There are so many ties between the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein that it's ridiculous that we're even having this conversation. Jonathan Showb, a law professor at the University of Kentucky, said both Clintons have strong arguments for why they should not be compelled to testify. And the potential decision to prosecute puts the Justice Department in a tricky position that could have ramifications for Mr. Trump and officials in his administration. If Democrats have control of Congress and, and the executive branch, so what is that, a passive threat? And Mr. Sh another guy that has no idea about this story? Just because he's a lawyer doesn't mean he understands what's going on here. And I can't tell you how many lawyers have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to this story. Oh, you might know the law, but you don't know the nuance. You don't know the gray area, and you don't know how deep the ties run. There are some past Justice Department opinions that suggest, particularly with President Clinton, that a former president is immune from compelled congressional testimony. Sh who worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Obama administration, told CBS News, you mean the Obama administration that let the NPA stand, that it didn't do about Jeffrey Epstein? That let him run around and continue to abuse people? That same Justice Department? They should sit this one out, too. Maybe they should ask Katherine Rumler, you know, the big shot lawyer and Jeffrey Epstein's best friend who work for Obama. Or maybe Obama should tell us about the money that was donated to him by Diddy while Diddy was running around in his little criminal enterprise. Nobody's clean here. Every one of these politicians is dirty in one way or the other. That argument would not apply to Hillary Clinton, though the committee would have to establish that if it has some specific legislative interest in having her testify, Shaub said. That's a harder argument to make given what exists in the public record, Schaub said, referring to Hillary Clinton's absence in the Epstein files that have been made public. She would have stronger arguments in the prosecution to say that they don't have a legislative interest here. Well, she's lied. She said she was never at Zorro Ranch, and I've had multiple people confirm to me that she was. So if they're lying about basic things, what else are they lying about? And if they're innocent, they have nothing to share. Great. Let's hear it under oath. In Tuesday's statement, Comer said the committee seeking testimony from Hillary Clinton, given her knowledge from her time as Secretary of State of the federal government's work to counter international sex trafficking rings, her personal knowledge of Ms. Maxwell and her family's relationship with, with Mr. Epstein. When you have a convicted human trafficker at your daughter's wedding in a position of prominence, people are going to have some questions down the road. And I think that if the Clintons really want to straighten this out and they want to do the right thing and really remove their names from the conversation, they have to go and give these depositions under oath. That said, I highly doubt it's ever going to happen. And I have zero faith in James Comer or the GOP members on, on this committee, especially because they don't give a either. For them. This is optics. This is politics. It's not about holding people accountable. Where are the subpoenas for Sarah, Kellen, Vickers and the rest of the Core 4? What about the subpoenas for everybody else that was involved? We haven't seen any of that. No Jeff Scaley, no Leon Black, nothing. So, look, there's no doubt that the Clintons have an argument that they're being quote, unquote, targeted. But my position is they deserve it and they should be subpoenaed. And of course they should respect that subpoena and they should go and talk to Congress. But that's a perfect world. And as you all know, the world we live in is far from perfect. All right, folks, that's gonna do it for this one. And now that we're finished with the Acosta interview with the OIG investigators, the next document we're gonna start taking a look at is is the deposition given by Courtney Wilde. As for this one, all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.