The House Oversight Committee Votes In Favor Of Holding The Clinton's In Contempt (1/22/26)

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has voted to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress after both refused to appear for deposition in the panel’s investigation into their connections — direct or indirect — with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and related matters. The committee approved contempt resolutions on largely party-line votes (34-8 for Bill Clinton and 28-15 for Hillary Clinton), with support from a handful of Democrats alongside Republicans, signaling rare bipartisan frustration over their non-compliance with lawful subpoenas issued more than five months earlier. Committee Chairman James Comer argued that the Clintons’ repeated refusals, delay tactics, and negotiated “interview offers” short of formal, transcribed testimony flout congressional authority and impede efforts to uncover potential ties between powerful figures and Epstein’s abuse network. The measures now head to the full House, where a vote is expected in coming weeks that could formally refer the contempt matters to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution — an unprecedented step against a former president and first ladyThe Clintons’ camp has pushed back fiercely, dismissing the subpoenas as legally invalid and politically motivated, arguing that they lack a legitimate legislative purpose and far exceed customary congressional oversight. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton submitted sworn declarations denying substantive knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct and offered alternative forms of cooperation, including interviews outside formal committee settings; those offers were rejected by Comer, who insisted on transcribed, on-the-record testimony. Critics of the contempt push — including some Democrats and legal analysts — contend that singling out the Clintons amid broader delays by others (including the Justice Department itself) reflects selective pressure and political theater rather than a clear path to accountability. Nonetheless, the advancing contempt proceedings underscore the escalating tension between Congress and powerful former officials in the long, messy unraveling of the Epstein saga.to contact me:[email protected]:9 Democrats vote to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for evading Epstein testimony - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congress’s contempt hearing for Bill and Hillary Clinton marked a rare and explosive moment in the Epstein investigation, as lawmakers openly accused two of the most powerful figures in modern American politics of defying lawful subpoenas and obstructing congressional oversight. Committee members laid out a record of repeated refusals, delay tactics, and carefully negotiated alternatives that avoided sworn, transcribed testimony, arguing that the Clintons were attempting to place themselves above the very authority they once wielded. Chairman James Comer framed the hearing as a test of whether congressional subpoenas still carry weight when directed at political royalty, emphasizing that no former president or cabinet official is exempt from oversight. Several lawmakers expressed open frustration that months of negotiations had produced nothing but written declarations and off-the-record offers, while the investigation into Epstein’s network remained stalled. The hearing underscored how extraordinary it is for Congress to contemplate contempt proceedings against a former president and first lady, yet also how determined the committee had become to force testimony at last. What had once seemed politically untouchable was now formally on the record as potential contempt.The Clintons’ defenders denounced the hearing as political theater, arguing the subpoenas lacked legitimate legislative purpose and were designed to generate headlines rather than facts. But supporters of the contempt push countered that the spectacle existed only because the Clintons refused to comply with the same legal obligations imposed on ordinary witnesses. Lawmakers warned that allowing such defiance to stand would permanently weaken congressional authority and signal that elite figures can simply run out the clock. The hearing made clear that this fight is no longer about Epstein alone, but about whether oversight applies equally to the powerful and the forgotten. With contempt resolutions advancing toward a full House vote and possible DOJ referral, the proceedings transformed the Epstein investigation into a constitutional confrontation between Congress and political legacy. More than a procedural dispute, the hearing became a public reckoning over accountability, privilege, and the long shadow Epstein still casts over American institutions.to contact me:[email protected]:House Oversight Committee recommends holding Clintons in contempt in Epstein probe - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The PROMIS software scandal and the Jeffrey Epstein case, while separated by decades and context, share strikingly similar hallmarks. PROMIS began as a prosecutorial tool but was allegedly modified by intelligence services like Mossad to include backdoors, enabling covert surveillance when installed in foreign governments and financial institutions. Robert Maxwell, the British media tycoon and suspected Mossad operative, was said to have played a major role in distributing this compromised software worldwide. His involvement linked media, finance, and espionage, and his mysterious death only deepened suspicions. PROMIS thus became emblematic of how intelligence agencies use front men, plausible enterprises, and legal suppression to conceal operations while extracting information and leverage from their targets.Epstein’s operation followed a parallel structure. Through Ghislaine Maxwell — Robert Maxwell’s daughter — the same networks of access and intelligence may have carried forward into a different form of compromise: sexual blackmail rather than software surveillance. Epstein’s properties were wired for monitoring, his connections spanned politics and finance, and his prosecution was undermined by plea deals and sealed files, much like PROMIS inquiries were stifled by classified reports and redactions. In both scandals, powerful people were protected, evidence was obscured, and key figures died under suspicious circumstances. The echoes between PROMIS and Epstein suggest not isolated scandals but a recurring playbook of intelligence tradecraft: fronts, leverage, secrecy, and coverups designed to protect those at the very top.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew has finally been stripped of every last royal title and honor he once clung to like a lifeline. King Charles III, evidently tired of cleaning up his brother’s messes, used his royal prerogative to remove Andrew’s styles, ranks, and knighthoods—everything from “His Royal Highness” to the Duke of York and beyond. The disgraced royal, now simply Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has also been ordered to vacate the lavish Royal Lodge, marking a total fall from grace for the man who once strutted around as the Queen’s favorite son. The move is being described as unprecedented, but in truth, it’s been a long time coming. After years of scandal, arrogance, and shameless denial over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the crown finally decided that Andrew’s dead weight was too heavy to carry any longer.For Prince Andrew, this wasn’t just a fall from grace—it was a full-scale implosion of everything he thought made him untouchable. Even stripped of his titles, he’s still clinging to denial like it’s his last shred of nobility, pretending the world just “doesn’t understand.” The man who once swaggered around royal circles with smug entitlement now stands exposed as the cautionary tale of what happens when arrogance meets consequence. His downfall isn’t tragic—it’s poetic justice. He built his own downfall one disastrous decision at a time, from his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein to his laughable denials and public meltdowns. The final insult isn’t that he lost his titles—it’s that the titles ever disguised what he really was: a spoiled, self-serving opportunist who mistook birthright for character.to  contact me:[email protected]:'Boorish and entitled' Andrew is now an 'ordinary member of the public': King stripped his brother of his prince title and ordered him to leave Royal Lodge after being 'consistently embarrassed' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2008, Alex Acosta negotiated and approved a non-prosecution agreement that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to avoid federal prosecution on sweeping sex trafficking allegations, instead pleading guilty to two state prostitution charges and serving roughly 13 months with extensive work-release privileges — a disposition that prosecutors and judges later called “a national disgrace.” The deal effectively shut down an ongoing federal investigation that included dozens of underage victims and potential evidence of a broader trafficking network, and it was negotiated in secret without timely notice to the victims, which violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act according to a federal ruling. The agreement also included broad immunity language that could have shielded unnamed co-conspirators, halting deeper inquiry into Epstein’s inner circle and emboldening his continued abuse.Critics across the political spectrum have characterized Acosta’s decision as extraordinarily lenient and a catastrophic failure of prosecutorial judgment, one that denied justice to survivors and set back efforts to hold Epstein accountable. A Department of Justice review concluded that while Acosta’s conduct did not constitute professional misconduct, he exercised “poor judgment” in structuring the agreement and failing to ensure victims were consulted or fully informed. The leniency of the deal, and Acosta’s defense of it — including citing “evidentiary issues” and the fear of losing a trial — has been condemned as excusing grave harm and prioritizing procedural convenience over victim rights and public safety.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein had a professional relationship with Gypsy Gita, a spiritual wellness guru who reportedly provided massage services to high-profile individuals including Prince Andrew. Gita worked for Epstein from around 2001 to 2005, and has stated that he met the Duke of York at least three times, providing massages on two occasions at Epstein’s New York residence—what he described as “a weird, warped world.” Gita characterized Andrew as appearing “aloof,” “strange and arrogant,” noting that he “didn’t know who Andrew was,” despite his prominent status—highlighting the chilling normalcy with which elite figures moved within Epstein’s orbit.While not central to trafficking allegations, Gita’s encounters with Prince Andrew underscore the broader ecosystem of exploitation that Epstein cultivated. As someone invited into his inner circle, Gita had direct access to both Epstein and his elite guests. The interactions between Gita and Prince Andrew, though framed in wellness and spirituality, reflect how grooming and recruitment networks extended beyond the well-known figures like Ghislaine Maxwell, touching even seemingly benign associates who contributed to the veneer of legitimacy around Epstein’s world.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2018, Ghislaine Maxwell—despite years of public allegations connecting her to Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking operation—was invited to and attended Jeff Bezos’s elite and secretive literary retreat known as Campfire. The event, hosted by Bezos annually, brings together top authors, tech moguls, and media power players at a private location for a weekend of discussions, panels, and informal networking. Maxwell’s presence at the retreat raised eyebrows, not only because of her reputation by that point, but also because it demonstrated how seamlessly she continued to move through the highest levels of elite society even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Her attendance revealed a stunning level of normalization and acceptance within powerful circles, despite her growing notoriety.Maxwell reportedly arrived at the Campfire event alongside entrepreneur Scott Borgerson, a figure later revealed to be in a close relationship with her, though he denied any romantic involvement at the time. Attendees included influential figures from Silicon Valley, publishing, and entertainment—none of whom publicly objected to her presence. The revelation of her invitation has sparked renewed scrutiny into how the world’s wealthiest and most influential people continued to welcome Epstein’s known enablers into their inner circles long after the broader public became aware of their roles. It serves as yet another example of how elite spaces often insulate their own, regardless of the crimes that surround them.source:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-was-guest-at-jeff-bezos-event.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Speculation has swirled that Ghislaine Maxwell is writing a tell‑all memoir from prison, purportedly aimed at “correcting misinformation” about her involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and the broader scandal. Reports from early 2024 suggest she believes a book could vindicate her, with an anonymous source quoted saying she “really thinks she hasn’t done anything wrong and that her charges will be dropped when people read her story.” Manuscripts are said to be kept under extreme secrecy—stored across three legal lockers and moved paranoidly to prevent leaks.These claims have sparked concern and criticism among survivors and public commentators who fear that far from delivering accountability, the book—if published—could serve as a self‑exculpatory exercise. Legal experts note that while she may legally profit from such a memoir, victims would likely need to be notified under state laws and could seek restitution via civil claims. Maxwell’s reported efforts to capitalize on the Epstein scandal by “telling her story” have been interpreted as another attempt at self‑rehabilitation, rather than genuine introspection or acceptance of culpability.to contact me:[email protected]:Ghislaine Maxwell Could Make Millions From Jeffrey Epstein Scandal (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Monique Giannelloni said her interaction with Prince Andrew was the direct result of Ghislaine Maxwell deliberately setting the stage and controlling the circumstances. She explained that Maxwell framed the meeting as something special and prestigious, telling her she would be introduced to someone “famous,” language that softened what was actually a deeply imbalanced situation. When that person turned out to be Prince Andrew, the power disparity became immediately clear. Giannelloni described being young, inexperienced, and placed into a private setting with a member of the British royal family without meaningful context or informed consent. She emphasized that this was not a social encounter or an organic meeting, but a carefully orchestrated introduction where expectations were already implied. The way Andrew was presented to her carried an unspoken assumption of compliance rooted in his status.Giannelloni made clear that Prince Andrew did not appear confused, hesitant, or unaware of the dynamic at play. In her account, he carried himself with entitlement, fully comfortable in a situation arranged for his benefit. She described feeling pressure rather than choice, with Maxwell acting as the facilitator who normalized the encounter and removed her ability to freely decline. Giannelloni’s statements undercut later narratives portraying Andrew as an incidental figure or a man caught in misunderstanding. Instead, her account places him squarely within Epstein and Maxwell’s system of access, where young women were delivered to powerful men under the guise of privilege and opportunity. What she described was not awkward coincidence but calculated proximity, engineered to serve status and silence.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has rejected a bipartisan effort by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Department of Justice’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the DOJ to release all investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein by a December 19, 2025 deadline. The lawmakers argued that the department’s slow pace — with only a small fraction of millions of documents disclosed so far — and extensive redactions suggested noncompliance with the law and harmed survivors seeking transparency. They pressed Judge Paul Engelmayer to intervene in the matter of the files’ release, citing serious concerns about the DOJ’s handling of the disclosures.In his ruling, Judge Engelmayer acknowledged that the issues Khanna and Massie raised were “undeniably important and timely” and highlighted genuine concerns about whether the DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law. However, he concluded that he does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell to oversee or enforce compliance with the civil transparency statute, since the matter of releasing records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not part of that criminal case. The judge said the lawmakers lack standing to intervene in this context and suggested they pursue other avenues of oversight outside the Maxwell case, such as civil litigation or congressional tools, leaving the oversight fight over the release of the files to proceed through political and legislative, rather than judicial, channels.to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - MaxwellOrderJan21PAEBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.