What does this sound like to you?

Well, I mean, obviously the vice president's response is absolutely laughable.

I mean, clearly he knows exactly what they're talking about, and we've seen this time and time again in the Trump administration.

It is full of grifters, it is full of corruption, it is full of pay to play.

And clearly they have no regard for the good government responsibilities of what it means to serve in a role of public trust.

And this is just one more example of it.

We've seen it time and time again from the president to his children, to cabinet officials, to people serving in the White House.

If that's true, though, the reality might be worse.

So I think I want to begin, just because we're 44 days out from the midterms, with your read of the extent to which Epstein, the survivors' stories are still on the minds of voters and part of the broader story of the kind of check on this administration that many Americans are looking for in just a matter of weeks.

Yeah, I mean, I think this is part of the broken promises of Donald Trump to the American people.

He promised to release the Epstein files that engaged in the largest cover-up in American history and the largest sex trafficking criminal ring we're aware of in the history of the United States.

The people who've been accused of these crimes are still at large.

The attorney general has refused to prosecute these crimes or even release the files.

He's defying congressional subpoenas and they're breaking the law.

And so that's why we have this discharge petition to amend the law, to give us hard tools to hold the administration in criminal contempt.

What will members of Congress do to stop this?

Do you buy that?

I mean, everything that Donald Trump and his family do these days appears to be a conflict of interest.

What we have seen over the last year is that Donald Trump personally conducted more stock trading than all of the members of Congress combined.

So we know the American people want to see a ban on stock trading in Congress, but Donald Trump is literally sitting in the West Wing trading stocks every day while he's making decisions about these companies.

And I think it's ironic, illustrative, that this week he's calling AI fears around these artificial intelligence models that have escaped their sandboxes a hoax, while he's literally heavily leveraged chip companies like NVIDIA and others who are literally building the infrastructure for the AI boom.

And so clearly he has a conflict of interest, and clearly that is informing his policy stance on what could be potentially one of the most dangerous technologies we're facing in the modern era.

The fact that you have Republicans who are now at least expressing some concern or some discontent, do you think there is anyone among them, especially those who are not returning in this next session, who have the appetite to join Democrats in investigative work? procedures?

I mean, I certainly hope so, because we need some Republicans with some backbones to actually do their jobs.

Mm.

Since the advent of our mar- modern food assistance programs.

Just in the last year, over five million Americans have lost access to food because of those cuts.

The vast majority of which, and this is what we're seeing in New Mexico, are seniors and people on fixed incomes and people with disabilities.

That is, in my opinion, disgusting.

It is unacceptable.

And we see it right now in the farm bill work that they're-

[laughs]

If that even happens, does it matter?

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think we can all observe that this is not the first time that the president has been in bed with Russian oligarchs.

This is why he got impeached during his first term is that he was doing favors for his friends in Russia.

And frankly, Donald Trump is acting more and more every day like his bestie, Vladimir Putin.

But it matters for the American people because being a president, being in public office is a public trust.

And our founding fathers put in the Constitution an emoluments clause to stop and prevent this kind of corruption.

In this new world, what does that look like? What's the value of subpoena power if people just refuse to show?

Congresswoman, that is a need that the Kennedy Center ended up filling.

Well, I think it's important to remember that all of these institutions and buildings that Trump is trying to reshape are, like you said, a form of cultural capture.

But it's also about exercising power.

This is bigger than Donald Trump just trying to put his name on a building.

This is Donald Trump trying to put his stamp on our culture permanently and capture it for political purposes.

You know, I introduced a bill this week with Representative Mifume and Representative Jonathan Jackson of Illinois to tell Donald Trump to get his hands off the Smithsonian.

Because when you look at the history of the United States, when you look at the history of countries where we had leaders that were trying to capture institutions to try to exercise power, to try to— try to roll back the clock on social progress and justice.

Congresswoman, what is this about? And, you know, we laugh here because you don't want to cry, but this is sad stuff to see in the United States of America.

Listen, what are you guys doing

here? So we are actually introducing a bill called the Smithsonian Integrity Act today to tell this administration to get their dirty hands off the Smithsonian.

Because, as you know, they're trying to rewrite history.

They're trying to erase history.

They're trying to basically... change the story of America and erase the stories of the people all across this country.

They're trying to defund the Smithsonian's.

We're concerned they're going to try to dismantle, for example, the African-American Culture and History Museum.

I'm just taking you behind the scenes a little bit, just for a second.

So if the Democrats take over one or both chambers, what are some of the investigations into the Trump administration being floated by your peers? Which ones would you push for?

Well, I think obviously the Epstein files is at the top of our list.

We need and we demand justice not only for the Epstein victims themselves, but for all people who have been victims of sexual assault and crimes.

And so that is one of the major areas that the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee are looking at.

How do we stand up some sort of investigatory body that is real and that is able to actually get to the bottom of this case.

Obviously, we're going to investigate the president, his family, and all of his cronies who've been profiting off of the presidency illegally, making over $2 billion alone last year.

And insider trading, even from this summer's stock trading disclosures that the president published just this week.

As someone who has an active duty family member, what is your reaction to how the Pentagon has handled this situation?

What were your takeaways from his remarks?

Well, I think my takeaways are similar to what we've seen over the last six years, and that is that Donald Trump is a sore loser, and he cannot take that he lost the 2020 election.

But it's really important that the American people understand that this is bigger than just Donald Trump relitigating his 2020 false election denialism claims.

He is really setting the groundwork in motion for 2026, and that is...

Because Donald Trump is losing right now.

Across the board in every major national poll, we know that Republicans and Donald Trump are going to lose the midterms.

And that's because they have passed historically unpopular legislation.

How concerning is this exchange? Is it a foreshadowing of Clayton's likely tenor if he is confirmed as DNI?

I, I can only imagine.

Yeah, I mean, it was a very bizarre morning, an unprecedented morning for our Epstein investigation and the Oversight Committee.

This morning, we had a recorded interview with Leon Black, and, uh, there had been m- months, I believe, of negotiations with him about coming in, what the nature of his testimony would be.

And basically, he got through his opening statement, and when the majority attorney started asking him difficult questions about his relationships with women, about potential abuse, about NDAs, he basically referred to his attorneys and said, "We're not answering questions about NDAs or about my private life." And our attorneys for the committee continued to ask the difficult questions.

They recessed out of the committee room for a few minutes, and then he came back and said, "Okay, I'll answer a question about this one relationship." And then, uh, they started asking questions about the NDA again, and basically they left the room, and then they stormed out of the, um, of the investigation and completely stopped answering questions.

And his six attorneys and communication person, uh, gave a statement to the press and basically accused us of, um, of some sort of premeditated political move, which is completely false, and then he left the building.

But that's never happened before.

Yeah

What stood out to you from his testimony?

You know, listen, I think one of the things that was most interesting about Mr. Gates' testimony is that he knew all about Jeffrey Epstein's reputation.

He knew about his sexual misconduct.

And not only did he eschew that relationship, he actually actively sought it out.

And I think that was one of the more stunning revelations from today's testimony.

You know, I think many of us were under the impression that maybe Epstein had reached out to Mr.

Gates, that he had sought that connection because of his scientific interest.

Do you think that's not the case? Do you think he had another agenda? Is that is that what you're saying?

Um, what stood out to you from, from his testimony?

You know, listen, I think one of the things that was most interesting about Mr. Gates' testimony is that he knew all about Jeffrey Epstein's reputation.

He knew about his sexual misconduct, and not only did he eschew that relationship, he actually actively sought it out, and I think that was one of the more stunning revelations from s- today's testimony.

Um, you know, I think many of us were under the impression that maybe Epstein had reached out to Mr.

Gates, that he had sought that connection because of his scientific interest.

But what Mr.

Gates revealed today is that he actively sought to try to make connections to Jeffrey Epstein in order to woo donors to donate to his international global health work.

I'm wondering what your reaction was to that.

And Congresswoman, how was that dealt with in the interview? Because I know that that was part of the discussion.

Yeah.

Well, we asked extensive questions about the entire process and the lack of compliance and breaking of the law, and the fact that the Department of Justice have still not provided documents that we subpoenaed all the way back in July and August.

Pam Bondi did not appear for her subpoena deposition.

This was a voluntary transcribed interview.

They still have not released, by Pam Bondi's own admission, she said that there were six million files that were responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and they've only released three million of those files.

And so we asked extensive questions about the process by which the files were reviewed, how they were produced, how the redactions were made.

Um, do you give her any credit that she showed up, uh, today even though she didn't answer the questions in the way that you wanted her to answer?

What, if anything, did you learn today?

Well, I think we learned that the cover-up continues.

It's very clear that this administration is trying to cover up the Epstein files, is trying to stop this case from being investigated, is not interested or curious about actually seeking justice for survivors and prosecuting potential perpetrators that clear as day appear for the public to see in the files, including potentially administration officials, if not the president himself.

And so I think that was very clear.

Pam Bondi, as was just stated, was afforded the luxury of appearing in front of the committee after she was subpoenaed pursuant to a legally binding deposition to appear before the committee under oath.

And James Comer allowed her to appear voluntarily on her own accord, and any time she was asked difficult questions about what was in the files, about the case itself, about whether or not things were being prosecuted, and what her conversations were with Donald Trump, she either answered she couldn't recall, she didn't know, Todd Blanch handled it or that she wasn't going to answer the questions at all.

In fact, multiple times, she didn't just claim privilege.

And just wanting to know or let you know how much that effort is appreciated, even though you're walking into a room that's made of concrete hearts.

Can you give us a quick high-level rundown? What happened? Did she answer your questions? Do you feel satisfied coming out of the testimony?

Yeah.

Well, I think one thing is very clear, that this administration is involved in an Epstein cover-up, and today was just yet another chapter in the cover-up because Pam Bondi was subpoenaed to be deposed by Congress under oath, and she refused to appear.

She did not appear on the date she was scheduled to.

And instead of appearing for her deposition, Chairman Comer allowed her to do a voluntary, uh, transcribed interview today.

And what happened throughout the entire interview in the room is there were Department of Justice attorneys sitting next to her, even though she was supposedly appearing in her personal, uh, capacity.

They claim that they were there to represent DOJ's equities.

Is that what you got as well from her testimony today?

Uh, what do you think Congress learned today that's important, uh, in a series of events that we and other outlets have documented showed, uh, incompetence, failures, if not worse, uh, from the then Trump DOJ overseeing that prison?

Well, I certainly agree with my colleague from Virginia, which is that the system over and over again has failed survivors.

And, you know, this was the first time that we've heard from Ms. Noel about her firsthand account of what happened that night.

Um, she herself, uh, stated in that interview that she does believe that it was a suicide, but she did say that there were irregularities, not just that evening, but in general, that there was understaffing, that she and her colleagues had been working long hours and doubles, that they had not done the normal checks.

Um, but my takeaway from the interview was not that it was unusual per Epstein.

In fact, I asked her that question, "Was there anything weird about that night or unusual about how the situation was handled?" And she said no.

But it's clear that the system was not well-managed and that she feels in, in her opinion that she was terminated as a, an...

So your view on, uh, on those issues and, and her credibility today.

Congresswoman, remind us why it is that we needed to put the spotlight back on Palm Beach, and did you get out of today's hearing what you hoped to receive?

You know, West Palm Beach is literally the scene of the crime, but it's also where Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise all began.

And I think one of the main focuses of this hearing, of course, was on the survivors, their stories.

And I think it's important to understand that in the decades since Jeffrey Epstein began abusing girls and women, and since they went to both federal, local, and state officials and reported these crimes, not a single Congressional hearing has ever been held in West Palm Beach to understand what happened there, why Jeffrey Epstein was never properly prosecuted under federal jurisdiction, and why he was allowed to continue to abuse women and girls, not just in West Palm Beach, but in places like New Mexico, the Virgin Islands, New York, Paris, the UK.

And that is because local officials there did not stop him, and the feds did not properly prosecute him.

So today was about hearing the stories of survivors, the advocates and attorneys who've been on the front lines, and to make sure that we were in the place where the abuse happened.

And I'll just say this.

Now we'll have Representative Stansbury.

All right.

Well, good morning, everyone.

And I just wanna start out by acknowledging our survivors who are here with us, and to those of you who spoke.

People tell you all the time that you're brave, and you are, but I know that it comes at great cost to yourself, great cost to your families.

But I want you to know, and part of why I asked the staff to hold up this picture, is because you are literally changing the face of the planet by standing up and telling your stories.

And even though the system is failing you again right now in Congress, you are changing the world by helping people who are survivors, who are victims, who have never had their stories told publicly, to know that they're not alone.

[laughing] [clapping]

Asking more of them now is a deflection of responsibility, not justice." Congresswoman, do you agree with them?

You know, I'll just say this, I was actually on a call with the survivors just moments after she gave that statement, and one of the survivors said that they felt personally offended by her statement because they felt like it was essentially saying that the survivor- it was on the survivors to come give public testimony and it's on them to tell their stories again to the American people.

And the entire point of this case is that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

For decades, the US Department of Justice has failed to investigate and to prosecute these cases.

We've called for public hearings hundreds of times.

We've asked for Comer to bring the Attorney General in front of the committee.

Uh, he has yet to produce former AG Pam Bondi, who's now trying to get out of it.

Mm-hmm.

In a video posted online, Congresswoman Manley, uh, sorry [laughs] Melanie Stansbury, a member of the House Oversight Committee, lays out that argument in stark terms.

Today, the United States stands at a crossroadIt is time to remove Donald Trump from the presidency.

The President of the United States used his social media platform to threaten to wipe a civilization from the face of the planet.

Let us be clear, not only is this activity unbefitting a president of the United States, but it is the threat of actual crimes against humanity and war crimes under international law.

And it is clear that Donald Trump is no longer, nor has he ever been, fit to serve as president of this United States and as the commander-in-chief.

And so that is why I am calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment by the Cabinet, why I am calling for the impeachment by Congress, and why I am calling for the passage of a war powers resolution in Congress to stop this president right now.

But that requires the Cabinet to act.

What do you say to voters who say, "Yeah, it'll never happen"?

So how is it that Congress as a whole, Democrats and Republicans, how is it that they haven't miserably failed at their jobs?

All right, you've invited the argument.

So let me just start with this.

Congress needs to reconvene immediately.

And at this moment, Tuesday afternoon, we have an out of control, maniacal president who is literally threatening war crimes.

And so the most immediate emergency is for Congress to be called back into session by the speaker, by the Senate to address the emergency situation, which is that we have a president who has clearly lost it and is threatening war crimes against a foreign country, which is not only could possibly result in the death of thousands, if not many, many more civilians in Iran, but threatens the national security of the United States.

So Congress needs to get back immediately.

Would you vote to cut your salary whenever TSA or FEMA or the Coast Guard, they don't get their money, you don't get your money? Would you be down for that?

So help us frame it.

Yeah, I mean, I think what is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him.

And I think that is what is so remarkable about this story is the network of powerful people and individuals who are in Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's orbit.

who even after they committed crimes against over a thousand women, sexual abuse, financial crimes, that you still have individuals who worked for them for decades, who were at the center of the very criminal activity, who are claiming they never saw anything and they never saw any misconduct.

But I think it's important to understand that both the lawyer and the accountant whose depositions were released today stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution of Jeffrey Epstein's will.

And the way the will is structured is that there is a survivor fund.

And at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.

What did that line of question and answer say to you when you heard it and knowing the stories personally from the victims?

Let's listen in

... to our lawful subpoena, uh, in a deposition.

So instead, I asked Chairman Comer if he would compel her to come to our deposition.

If she did not come, would he force her to, or if he would move for contempt hearings as he did for other people who did not respond to our subpoena.

Instead of answering as an adult, he said that I was bitching, um, which is again, something that would not be allowed if we were operating under the rules of this committee, because engaging in personalities is actually something that we are not able to do.

If C-SPAN and the public were there, I'd imagine that he would not act that way.

Neither here nor there, we expected AG Bondi to be adversarial, we expected her to be confrontational, and we expected her to not offer us much information, but that's why I introduced impeachment articles, because she has already been obstructing justice.

What happened behind closed doors?

Mm.

But what I can say is that yes, part of the overall investigation that we're doing here in New Mexico, we just launched a bipartisan truth commission to understand and to potentially prosecute crimes that were never prosecuted that Epstein and his associates committed here in New Mexico.

But the other piece of it is to understand why there was a failure in the justice system, because there were reports to the FBI and local law enforcement going back to the mid-'90s that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused girls in New Mexico.

In fact, we know that Annie Farmer had filed her FBI, ah, complaint as early as 1996, and there were other complaints filed through the Santa Fe police as well as our state authorities.

And New Mexico was conducting its own investigation into various crimes, and for whatever reason, in 2019, the US Department of Justice essentially asked New Mexico to stop investigating.

And as it's understood, they were asked to transmit all of the case files that they had been managing regarding these crimes to the federal DOJ.

But not only did they ask them to stop investigating, it's unclear whether the federal DOJ did anything with these files, and these files have not been disclosed as part of the federal Epstein Files Transparency Act.

I wondered if, like, the sea change that I think could happen with this would be this idea that the FBI changes the way they listen to women, right?

Help me understand what is going on here.

Well, I think that is at the heart of so much of this trial, going back to the early 2000s, when not only did Jeffrey Epstein not get prosecuted by the federal government, but they were actually investigating young women and girls who he raped and trying to put them on the stand to discredit them.

But fast forward, the only woman who has been prosecuted in this crime is his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.

And one of the things that's very peculiar in this case, I went back to look at the unredacted files this week, is that the vast majority of co-conspirators that were investigated were the women who groomed and assisted in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.

But none of the male perpetrators who committed crimes of rape and sexual abuse including potentially the president, who is accused in the files, have been called to testify and to account for what happened.

And obviously, this is a systemic representation of what happens in society.

Blame the victims.

What is it you want to know from him? And do you think that tomorrow's deposition will in any way mirror today's?