The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn out process.
Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting.
Subpoena for the Epstein files
Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its August recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena.
The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.'
As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Attorney General Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter.
Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft.
The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.'
Will Congress depose Ghislaine Maxwell?
Comer has said that he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking.
In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if it could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she will likely be asked about.
Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted 1 1/2 days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week.
Democrats, however, warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted.
'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, told reporters this week.
The House wants to subpoena others
Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Bill Clinton, former Sen. Hillary Clinton as well as the former attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush.
It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will actually play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.'
How will Pam Bondi comply?
Trump is no stranger to fighting against congressional investigations and subpoenas. And as with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information.
Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.'
If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress.
It's practically unheard of for one political party to vote to hold one of its own members in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has also cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP.
Growing pressure on the Trump adminitration for disclosure
Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation.
'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., a committee member.
The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
At least 34 killed in attack on Congo church by Islamic State-backed rebels, official says
GOMA, Congo — The death toll from an attack on a Catholic church in eastern Congo by Islamic State-backed rebels has risen to 34, according to a civil society leader. 'The bodies of the victims are still at the scene of the tragedy, and volunteers are preparing how to bury them in a mass grave that we are preparing in a compound of the Catholic church,' Dieudonne Duranthabo, a civil society coordinator in Komanda, in the Ituri province, told the Associated Press. At least five other people were killed in an earlier attack on the nearby village of Machongani, where a search is ongoing. 'They took several people into the bush; we do not know their destination or their number,' Lossa Dhekana, a civil society leader in Ituri, told the AP. Both attacks are believed to have been carried out by members of the Islamic State-allied Allied Democratic Force, or ADF, armed with guns and machetes. The military has confirmed at least 10 fatalities, while local media reports put the total death toll at more than 40. Duranthabo said attackers stormed the church in Komanda town around 1 a.m. Several houses and shops were also burned. Lt. Jules Ngongo, a Congolese army spokesperson in Ituri province, confirmed 10 killed in the church attack. Video from the scene shared online appeared to show burning structures and bodies on the floor of the church. Those who were able to identify some of the victims wailed while others stood in shock. A United Nations-backed radio station said 43 people were killed, citing security sources. It said the attackers came from a stronghold around 7 miles from the center of Komanda and fled before security forces could arrive. Duranthabo condemned the attack 'in a town where all the security officials are present.' He added: 'We demand military intervention as soon as possible, since we are told the enemy is still near our town.' Eastern Congo has suffered deadly attacks in recent years by armed groups, including the ADF and Rwanda-backed rebels. The ADF, which has ties to the Islamic State, operates in the borderland between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and often targets civilians. The group killed dozens of people in Ituri this month in what a U.N. spokesperson described as a bloodbath. The ADF was formed by disparate small groups in Uganda in the late 1990s amid reported discontent with President Yoweri Museveni. In 2002, following military assaults by Ugandan forces, the group moved its activities to neighboring Congo and has since been responsible for the killings of thousands of civilians. In 2019, it pledged allegiance to Islamic State. The Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo, known as FARDC, which has long struggled against the rebel group, has been facing attacks since the renewed hostilities with the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels. Kabumba and Adetayo write for the Associated Press and reported from Goma and Lagos, Nigeria, respectively. AP writer Saleh Mwanamilongo contributed to this report.
New York Post
20 minutes ago
- New York Post
How the Hunter Biden cover-up continues to this day
In the same week that Hunter Biden burst back onto the public stage to play the victim and lash out at Democrats, we also heard from his one time protector turned reluctant nemesis, Special Counsel David Weiss, with similarly self serving and disingenuous testimony to Congress. Weiss, the former US Attorney in the Bidens' home state of Delaware who presided over the troubled five year investigation into the former First Son, told the House Judiciary Committee that there just wasn't enough evidence to justify charging Hunter under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). His investigators 'couldn't put together a sufficient case,' he said in June testimony released last week. Advertisement That's pretty rich, considering that those very IRS investigators complained bitterly about the obstruction and slow walking they faced on Weiss' watch every time they pursued an investigative trail that led to Joe Biden and the lucrative foreign lobbying Hunter did in his father's name. That's why IRS Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Special Agent Joseph Ziegler blew up their successful careers and became whistleblowers. Hunter's business model during his father's vice presidency and beyond revolved around foreign lobbying — including for the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma that was paying him a million dollars a year, Chinese government-linked firms BHR and CEFC, and an oligarch client in Romania. Advertisement In fact, the very first email this newspaper published from Hunter's infamous laptop was from a Burisma executive, thanking him for arranging a meeting with his father the previous night. It wasn't just any old meeting, either. Hunter had invited VP Biden to a private dinner at Georgetown restaurant Cafe Milano in April 2015 to meet his partners from Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan, as his former 'best friend in business' Devon Archer told Congress. In their upcoming tell-all book, 'The Whistleblowers v the Big Guy,' Shapley and Ziegler point out that, along with that Burisma bombshell, emails and communications they recovered from the laptop showed that Hunter's relationship with DC lobbying shop Blue Star Strategies was tied to his position on the Burisma board and that the firm had been hired 'to influence U.S. government officials on Burisma's behalf.' Advertisement 'These connections raised red flags about potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act FARA and any comprehensive warrant would naturally include references to individuals who may have been involved, even tangentially.' And so, when their team drafted a search warrant related to potential FARA violation, Weiss' top U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf ordered them to remove all references to 'Political Figure 1,' the DOJ pseudonym for Joe Biden. 'Please focus on FARA evidence only. There should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here,' Wolf wrote in an August 2020 email, according to their whistleblower testimony to Congress. Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Whenever their investigations might lead to Joe Biden they found subpoenas were denied, interviews were canceled or not allowed, and Hunter's lawyers were tipped off before search warrants could be executed. Prosecutors cited bad 'optics' or questioned whether the 'juice was worth the squeeze' For instance, Shapley testified that Wolf refused to approve a search warrant for a guest house Hunter had been staying in on Joe's palatial Delaware estate as part of FARA-related evidence collection. When they discovered incriminating WhatsApp messages Hunter wrote to a business partner at Chinese energy company CEFC on July 30, 2017, citing his father, the investigators were blocked from using phone location data to confirm that Joe really was in the room. 'I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,' Hunter wrote, demanding $10 million. 'I am very concerned that the Chairman has either changed his mind and broken our deal without telling me or that he is unaware of the promises and assurances that have been made have not been kept.' Advertisement Hunter also threatened that his father would retaliate if the Chinese did not do as he commanded: 'I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.' Here was Hunter explicitly claiming his father was involved in his business negotiations. Apart from the fact that Joe claimed that he knew nothing about his son's overseas business dealings, Shapley and Ziegler decided there were serious tax implications to the conversation, but they were blocked from pursuing them. They weren't even allowed to find out if Hunter had sent the message from Joe's house. 'The message was clear,' Shapley and Ziegler write in 'The Whistleblowers v. the Big Guy.' 'Although we were investigating Joe Biden's son — who, it seemed, had often involved his father in his shady overseas business dealings — none of our materials were supposed to mention Joe Biden. Advertisement 'Even when we needed material that might be in one of Joe Biden's homes or storage units, we couldn't mention him. The document might leak to the press, and that would make the Biden campaign look bad. 'And in the summer of 2020, there was nothing that the leadership of the FBI wanted less than to make Joe Biden look bad. Doing so might help elect Donald Trump for a second time.' How different was the way the FBI handled Donald Trump compared to Joe Biden. Whether it was the fake Steele Dossier the FBI treated as if it were legitimate evidence, or the raid on Mar a Lago, there was no concern about the 'optics' of investigating a sitting president or presidential candidate when it was Trump. Advertisement As for FARA, the once little-used law against lobbying the US on behalf of foreign interests has been selectively used to target Trump allies and Democrat enemies. For example, Paul Manafort, former chairman of Trump's 2016 campaign, was charged with FARA. So, too, was Gal Luft, the original Hunter Biden whistleblower, who told FBI and DOJ officials in a March 2019 secret meeting in Brussels that Hunter and his uncle Jim Biden were on the payroll of the Chinese. His accurate information was buried and then, one week before Republicans took back the House in 2022, Luft was charged with FARA and other violations. He is currently languishing in jail in Cyprus while Hunter escaped scot free. Advertisement In the last days of his presidency, Joe issued a uniquely tailored pardon for his son, stretching back 11 years and covering Hunter's conviction on gun charges and guilty plea on felony tax evasion charges that Weiss was forced to press after the sweetheart plea deal he'd stitched together with Hunter's lawyers fell apart in the wake of Shapley and Ziegler's revelations. In the end, Weiss forced the IRS to remove Shapley and Ziegler from the investigation as soon as he suspected Shapley had blown the whistle. The Office of Special Counsel last year determined that the IRS had illegally retaliated against the pair by removing them from the investigation after they made protected disclosures to Congress about DOJ interference in the probe. All the obstruction and interference and slow walking past statutes of limitation happened under the benign leadership of David Weiss. So spare us his mealy mouthed justifications for squibbing what should have been the most consequential political corruption investigation in history.
CBS News
21 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Sen. Chris Van Hollen on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," July 27, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Sen Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 27, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now by Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who is one of those appropriators we were just speaking about with the budget director. You just heard everything he laid out. There were no specifics on when these clawbacks could be coming, but they're on the table. He says they don't want to shut down. He didn't seem to say they want, you know, a continuing resolution. Do you know what's coming? SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Not really. The one thing we know, and you asked Russ Vought about this, was he says that the process is too bipartisan right now, meaning that they want to use this process just to ram through the agenda and the overall agenda we saw when they passed the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill, which was beautiful for billionaires, but not really for anybody else, which is to provide tax cuts for very wealthy people at the expense of everybody else. And I do want to say Margaret, I heard him deny that that bill increased the deficit and debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just said it increased our debt by 3.5 trillion before added interest. MARGARET BRENNAN: He's using an accounting gimmick in regard to the benchmark. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: As- and Republicans have called out this accounting gimmick, so when-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --And it was accepted-- SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, they sort of unilaterally imposed it, it was not accepted by Democrats, and it was a departure from previous efforts. But you know, then they come back and they say that they want to cut these important programs, NIH and other things to reduce the deficit, when, in fact, what they're doing it for is to help try finance those tax cuts for very wealthy people. MARGARET BRENNAN: So it's just heading us towards pretty unchartered territory and very unclear whether we will be able to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats are going to be blamed if there's a shutdown, don't you think? I mean, how do you sidestep this? SEN. VAN HOLLEN : We certainly don't want a government shutdown. And I think everybody has heard Russ Vought say that they want a less bipartisan process. What that tells me is they're willing just to use their powers to try to shut down the government if they don't get their way. And what's ironic about this Margaret is you have Russ Vought calling for these deep cuts to education NIH, when he has asked for an increase for his OMB budget. He asked for a 13% increase for his OMB budget. He's asked for more people to join the OMB staff, while he's talking about RIFing people at other departments, like the Department of yeah- getting rid of firing people at the Department of Veterans Affairs and other important priorities. So it's hard to take the OMB Director seriously when he says that they didn't increase the debt and when he says he wants to cut things except for his own budget and staff. MARGARET BRENNAN: But if they do head towards a government shutdown, why would there be any benefit unless it is to prioritize funding certain agencies and de-prioritizing other agencies. Well, that goes back to the executive, doesn't it, that authority? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, that ultimately, though you need, for example, four Republican senators to stand behind what he's calling for. And what they've called for is sort of just a double cross on the process, right? That's what the so-called rescissions, is just a Washington name for double cross. They support one thing, one day, President even signs off, and then they come back and say they changed their mind. And what we're asking is for four Republican senators just to publicly declare that when they say they're going to fund the Veterans Affairs Department that they actually mean it. MARGARET BRENNAN: That they won't later agree to claw that money back. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Exactly MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. So one of the things the Trump administration is clear and did get clawbacks of is foreign assistance. However, there's an exception. In June, the administration announced it would give $30 million to this Israeli-backed organization called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the GHF, I know you're familiar with it. It delivers aid through armed military contractors who stand behind the Israeli military in four designated zones that Gazans then have to get themselves to in order to receive the aid. The State Department says they're sending this money. Have they? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: To my knowledge, they have, although we've asked for the details, we haven't gotten them. In fact, just today, I'm sending a letter to Secretary Rubio, signed with 20 of my colleagues, calling for more information, but also calling for defunding this. American taxpayers should not be spending one penny to fund this private organization backed by mercenaries and by the IDF that has become a death trap. Over 1000 people have died from being shot and killed as starving people crowd to try to get food at just these four sites. MARGARET BRENNAN: The- just to be clear here, the State Department says they're going to send $30 million. Reuters had reported that there were documents they obtained showing 7 million had already been sent to these, what you call, armed mercenaries. But the Trump administration says this is the best way, this is the only way, to keep money- to keep food out of the hands of Hamas, which financially benefits off reselling it to desperate starving people. Is there another way to feed desperate starving people? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Yes. And this is a- a big lie, the claim that when the UN organizations were delivering food to Palestinians civilians, that it was being systematically diverted to Hamas. I want to say loudly and clearly, this is a big lie. Trump is-- MARGARET BRENNAN: The systematic part of that. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: The systematic, but that is their claim. They claim that essentially, large amounts of aid are being diverted to Hamas. What we know now, from testimony of American officials, Cindy McCain, and just this week, high level Israeli military officials, is that there's no evidence to support that. AID, USAID, just released a report saying there's no evidence to support that. So what the Netanyahu government did was scrap a delivery system that was working at delivering food and assistance in favor of this other effort. That was a pretext, this claim that Hamas was systematically diverting food. The real goal of this other effort is to use food as a weapon of war and population control. MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a violation of international law. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Yes, it is. MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a human rights abuse. Senator Lindsey Graham was on "Meet the Press" this morning, and I want to ask for your reaction to something he said, because he was very strong in his words. He said, because the ceasefire talks fell apart, Israel is reassessing. He said to expect a full military effort by Israel to take Gaza down, quote, "like we did in Tokyo and Berlin. They're going to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin, take the place by force, start over again, present a better future." The United States is a huge supporter of the State of Israel. Is there anything that could prevent what he says is about to happen? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, the United States should make very clear that it's unacceptable to use U.S. weapons to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians and civilian infrastructure. So-- MARGARET BRENNAN: Because this sounds like an occupation. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, we also know, just this week, members of the Netanyahu coalition, in fact, government ministers, called for essentially erasing Gaza, and they said, it will become a Jewish state, statelet. And part of- so- this was one of the-- MARGARET BRENNAN: Netanyahu did say he didn't agree with his statement. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, here's the problem though, Margaret, we continually see that Netanyahu, at the end of the day, does cater to his most far right wing of his- of his government, people like Ben Gvir, people like Smotrich. That is what has allowed him to stay in power, and so at the end of the day, he takes the most extreme positions. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Van Hollen, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back with a lot more "Face the Nation." Stay with us.
