Speaker 1: 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 Clinton's 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, buddy,
but Epstein's survivors. Today, we have an article from CBS
News and the headline House Overside Committee to vote on
holding Clinton's in contempt in the Epstein probe. This article
was authored by Caitlin Yillick. The House Overside 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 it's going to be damning or incriminating.
Are you really going to carry on the way Bill
Clinton is or are you're just gonna go to the deposition,
tell them what you know and then slam it in
their face. Look, I've told you I didn't know shit,
but here you are asking these dumb ass 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 legal lees, 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 talked a big game when all of
this was first breaking about holding people account 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 faiths,
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 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 going to 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,
he most certainly does. And the whole idea is to
never get up there and speak under oath. The committee
scheduled to meet at ten am 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 gonna 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 they shouldn't even be in. I mean, look at
that Lindsay Halligan. Lady. This lady has never even been
a line prosecutor, but all of a sudden, she's this
big wig and 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 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 fucking 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 there's 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 and titles
them to special treatment, Comer said in a statement. A
Clinton spokesperson denied the transcript stipulation, saying interviews are on
the record and under oath. The committee subpoena 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 the
whole host to 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 Coomer
of trying to embarrass and punish mister 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've 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 legal leads 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'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 were
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 cover 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, a couple
other people that have come forward, but nothing that has
ever stuck. And of course the sam 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 going to 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 Swarren 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 two thousand and two
and two thousand and three. 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 twenty nineteen 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 to 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 mister 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. 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 Gallainne 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 mister Epstein
or miss Maxwell's criminal activities, their declaration said, and irrespective
of any intent either 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
that you guys were close, Billy Boy, seventeen trips to
the Hitehouse, 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 Shob, 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 mister Trump and officials
in his administration if Democrats have control of Congress and
the executive branch. So what is that a passive threat?
And mister Shob 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. Shab, 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 shit 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 Catherine Rumler, you know, the big
shot lawyer in Jeffrey Epstein's best friend who worked 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 that it
has some specific legislative interest in having her testify. Shobs
said that's a harder argument to make given what exists
in the public record. Schobs 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 Zoro Ranch, and I've
had multiple people confirmed 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 Miss Maxwell and her family's relationship with mister 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 this committee,
especially because they don't give a shit 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 four? What about the
subpoenas for everybody else that was involved. We haven't seen
any of that. No Jest Scaly, 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,
it's far from perfect. All right, folks. That's going to
do it for this one. And now that we're finished
with the Acosta interview with the OIG investigators, the next
document we're going to start taking a look at is
the deposition given by Cortey Wilde. As for this one,
all of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box.