UPDATE: A House Oversight Committee hearing turned chaotic on October 25, 2023, as laughter erupted when committee chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) blanked on a crucial question about the Clintons’ willingness to testify. The incident occurred during a heated debate on whether to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for allegedly ignoring a subpoena related to their connections with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
During the session, Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) pressed Comer on whether the committee had received communications from the Clintons indicating their readiness to testify. “It’s my understanding that you guys have received correspondence by phone, email and a written letter from the attorneys from the Clintons offering to [testify] on the record, with you, with the staff… is that correct?” Stansbury asked.
In a moment that left many in the room stunned, Comer admitted, “I didn’t… I wasn’t paying attention to your question,” prompting laughter from both sides of the aisle and even from Stansbury herself. She quickly attempted to rephrase her question, emphasizing that the Clintons had sent multiple forms of correspondence, including a letter from their attorneys stating they were willing to meet.
As tensions escalated, Stansbury reiterated, “But they have transmitted correspondence to all of the members of the committee – including yourself – including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone, by email to meet with you, on the record, to give sworn statements. Is that correct?”
Comer initially diverted the conversation, mentioning that the Clintons had been given “five months” to respond before Stansbury pressed him again for a direct answer. “Yes or no,” she implored. The exchange intensified as Comer accused Stansbury of creating a “false narrative,” insisting that she should have contacted the Clintons prior to the contempt vote.
The hearing highlighted the growing tensions within the committee as it navigates the sensitive issue of the Clintons’ testimonies in connection with the Epstein case. Stansbury’s persistence in questioning Comer revealed not only the procedural complexities but also the high stakes involved in the matter.
As the uproar continued, Stansbury pointed out that Comer’s aides seemed to be advising him against responding directly. “Just to be clear for the public, his staff are advising the chairman to not answer that question,” she alleged. In a fiery retort, Comer fired back, “No, the staff said they couldn’t understand what the hell you were saying because you blabbered for three minutes!”
The hearing underscores a pivotal moment in ongoing discussions regarding accountability and transparency among high-profile figures in the Epstein investigation. With the potential for significant legal and political ramifications, all eyes are on how the committee will proceed following this dramatic exchange.
Stay tuned for further updates as this story develops. The implications of the Clintons’ testimony and the committee’s actions could reverberate far beyond today’s hearing.
