A House committee hearing focused on whether Congress should hold the Clintons in contempt over their refusal to comply with subpoenas related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, with lawmakers citing months of resistance, disputed travel records, and comparisons to past contempt cases involving Trump advisers.

Rep. Eli Crane opened the exchange by urging the committee to move forward with contempt charges, arguing that the Clintons have defied lawful subpoenas tied to the release of Epstein-related files.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, this committee hearing is about whether or not we’re going to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress. I strongly recommend that we do, especially in pertaining to the release of the Epstein files and trying to get to the bottom of what exactly went on there and how Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to continue doing what he was doing and abusing so many people for so long,” Crane said.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Crane contrasted the Clintons’ refusal to comply with subpoenas with the treatment of Trump-era officials who faced prison time.

“It’s interesting when I look at the history of the Congress and look at the fact that Peter Navarro, Trump trade advisor, who defied the January 6 committee subpoena, was sent to prison for four months. Steve Bannon, also a former Trump advisor defied the January 6 committee subpoena, he was sent to prison for four months and several others,” he said.

Turning to the scope of Epstein’s access to the Clinton White House, Crane questioned committee Chairman James Comer about Epstein’s visits.

“Mr. Comer, how many times, Mr. Chairman, how many times did Mr. Epstein go to the White House, in your recollection, sir?” Crane asked.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“According to the evidence that we’ve obtained, it appears he went 17 times during the Clinton presidency,” Comer replied.

Crane followed up by comparing that figure to Comer’s own experience.

“Is that more times than you’ve gone to the White House, Chairman?” Crane asked.

“I’ve been member of Congress for nine years, and, you know, fairly, fairly high up on the on the pecking order, I’ve been to the White House, I believe, nine times in nine years. So he went to the Clinton White House, double the number of times that I’ve been to the White House in my entire congressional career,” Comer said.

Crane then asked about former President Bill Clinton’s flights aboard Epstein’s plane.

“Mr. Chairman. How many times did Mr. Mr. Clinton fly on Mr. Epstein’s plane?” he asked.

“At least 26 times, according to the flat logs that were subpoenaed from the estate,” Comer said.

At that point, Rep. Stephen Lynch interjected with a point of order disputing how the trips were counted.

“Point of order, Mr. Chairman, those were, those were four different trips, four trips. And every time they regased the plane, they counted that as another trip. But it was Asia, Africa, and they they had to refuel. So every time they stop to refuel, they counted that as another leg of the trip. There are four trips, not 27,” Lynch said.

Comer responded briefly, saying, “That’s almost like I didn’t inhale.”

Crane reclaimed his time and argued that even under Lynch’s explanation, the travel justified further questioning.

“That’s still, that’s still enough trips for us to want to be able to ask the Clintons questions about their involvement with Epstein. Is that true, Mr. Chairman?” Crane asked.

“Yes sir,” Comer replied.

Crane criticized Democrats for what he described as selective outrage over Epstein.

“I hope that my Democrat colleagues, who all of a sudden have found religion this Congress, and now they want the Epstein files, even though, over the last four years, when they had control of Washington DC, you didn’t hear a peep about Jeffrey Epstein out of any of them,” Crane said.

He then asked Comer about the length of time the committee has attempted to secure the Clintons’ testimony.

“My understanding is you’ve been working for the last four or five months to get Clinton’s in here, is that correct?” Crane asked.

“Five months. Yes sir,” Comer said.

Crane cited proposed interview dates that fell when Congress was not in session.

“Did they tell you that they would come in over December, 24 and 25th Christmas Eve and Christmas day?” Crane asked.

“They have implied that they would come in. Yes,” Comer said.

Crane said the proposal showed an effort to avoid testimony.

“That just goes to show that they’re trying to dodge suggesting dates that they know. None of us are in session,” he said.

Crane also asked about conditions set by Clinton attorneys that would have barred recording interviews.

“The other thing I believe that they said is that you and the ranking member could fly up to New York, but you couldn’t record any of the conversations. Is that correct?” he asked.

“That is correct,” Comer said.

Comer said such an arrangement was unacceptable for a congressional investigation.

“You have to have transcripts, and the media wants transcripts. Well, you have to have transcripts. We don’t do the notes,” Comer said, adding that the Clintons have accused the committee of lying and claimed the subpoenas were unlawful.

Crane concluded by alleging that Clinton attorneys attempted to stop the vote once contempt proceedings became imminent.

“My chief of staff told me that he’d been contacted by the Clinton attorneys at least three times to try and stop this,” Crane said.

Comer agreed, saying the Clintons appeared to stall for months and then rely on political pressure once the vote approached.

“They could stall, stall, stall, and then when it finally came to this vote, they felt like they could count on the Democrats objecting,” Comer said, adding that Americans want answers and that “the Clintons have obstructed for five months.”

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.