The Clintons agree to testify in congressional probe of high-society sex offender Jeffrey Epstein amid contempt threat.
Published On 3 Feb 20263 Feb 2026
Share
Former United States President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, will testify in a congressional investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a spokesperson for the ex-president said.
The decision by the Clintons announced on Monday could head off a planned vote in the Republican-led House of Representatives to hold the high-profile Democratic Party veterans in contempt for refusing to appear before lawmakers, which could lead to criminal charges.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“The former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone,” the Clintons’ deputy chief of staff, Angel Urena, said in a post on social media.
Urena posted the announcement above a House Oversight Committee statement from earlier on Monday that accused the Clintons of “defying lawful subpoenas” and of “trying to dodge contempt by requesting special treatment”.
“The Clintons are not above the law,” the Oversight Committee said.
Last week, the Oversight Committee recommended the couple be held in contempt for refusing to testify about their relationship with Epstein.
The Clintons had offered to cooperate with the committee’s probe into Epstein, but refused to appear in person, saying the investigation was a partisan exercise aimed at protecting President Donald Trump, who was a longtime friend of Epstein.
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson welcomed the news from the Clintons, but did not say whether the chamber would drop its planned contempt vote.
“That’s a good development,” he said. “We expect everyone to comply with Congress’s subpoenas.”
Democrats say the House probe is being weaponised to attack political opponents of Trump – who has not been called to testify despite being long associated with Epstein – rather than to conduct legitimate oversight.
Trump spent months trying to block the disclosure of investigative files linked to Epstein, but pressure from his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base and some Republican lawmakers forced the president to order the release of millions of documents in the case.
Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane several times in the early 2000s after leaving office. He has expressed regret about the relationship and said he knew nothing about Epstein’s criminal activity.
Hillary Clinton said she had no meaningful interactions with Epstein, never flew on his plane and never visited his private island.
The Epstein affair continues to cast a long shadow over US politics, and now, the United Kingdom’s, entangling prominent figures including the disgraced former-prince Andrew and ex-UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson.
UK police said on Monday they are reviewing reports of alleged misconduct involving Mandelson, whose name surfaced more than 5,000 times in the US Justice Department files on Epstein.
The veteran British politician was fired as ambassador to the US last year after emails came to light that showed him calling Epstein “my best pal” and advising him on seeking early release from prison.
Mandelson has apologised to Epstein’s victims and denied wrongdoing.
An exciting yet excruciating playoff loss to the Seahawks doesn’t diminish the Rams’ accomplishments this season. Their ability in coming back to win so many games that appeared lost showcased their resilience time after time, week after week. Thanks for the memories.
Marty Zweben Palos Verdes Estates
When are the Rams and coach Sean McVay going to stop ignoring special teams? Open the checkbook and hire the best special teams coach available. They also need to draft a shutdown corner or two. You don’t need another receiver.
So Bill Plaschke wants to put the blame on the Rams’ loss in the NFC title game solely on Sean McVay? The defense’s atrocious cornerbacks don’t deserve most of the blame? And Plaschke’s blood-boiling need to make the grand statement way before anything is certain doesn’t prove the Plaschke Curse is alive and well? He not only jinxed them once but twice. They lost to Seattle and lost control of the No. 1 seed immediately after the first prediction they’d go to the Super Bowl and then lost again to Seattle after the second. Will someone please take this guy’s laptop away from him until the Rams actually make the Super Bowl!?!?!
Danny Balber Jr. Pasadena
Bill Plaschke in his column blames the decisions made by coach McVay, which have some merit, for the Rams losing in the NFC championship game. Of course, there is no mention of the prediction made by Plaschke the week before about the Rams winning quite confidently and going on to Super Bowl LX. The Rams and McVay never had a real chance being under the Plaschke curse.
Wayne Muramatsu Cerritos
I can only hope that if I ever decide to enter a sporting competition, Bill Plaschke predicts I will not win it.
Andrew Sacks Riverside
My dad used to tell me to only watch the end of NBA games, because they are always tied going into the last minute. The NFL is now very much like that, as evidenced by most of this season’s playoff games. And I wouldn’t have it any other way! While I’m bummed about the Rams’ finish, here’s to 2025-26, the best NFL season in recent memory.
WASHINGTON — The House, with Rep. Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose) emotionally recalling his own experiences in a camp for Japanese-American internees during World War II, today gave final congressional approval to a bill expressing a national apology and providing a $20,000 tax-free payment to every surviving internee.
The bill, whose total price tag is $1.25 billion, passed by a vote of 257 to 156 and now goes to President Reagan, who has already promised to sign it and “close a sad chapter in American history.”
The bill provides for the tax-free payments to an estimated 62,000 former internees who are still living.
It acknowledges “the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment” of the 120,000 men, women and children, mostly West Coast residents of Japanese ancestry, in the months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, propelling the United States into the war.
‘A Monumental Injustice’
Mineta was 10 years old when he and his family were taken in 1942 from their home in San Jose to a prison camp established at the Santa Anita race track. Today he presided as Speaker pro tem as the House took final action on the compensation bill.
“This legislation touches all of us because it goes to the very core of our nation,” Mineta said in a speech closing debate. “I am deeply honored to serve in this body as it takes the great step of admitting and redressing a monumental injustice.”
But the bill was opposed by a number of members who, although they agreed the evacuation order was wrong, said cash payments were not appropriate.
Rep. Norman D. Shumway (R-Stockton) said: “There was a serious wrong done to many good American citizens. . . . But I do not see the remedy, the payment of $20,000, as the right answer.”
Nothing for Families
The Senate approved the measure by voice vote last week. The bill authorizes $1.25 billion for the payments, but the money will be provided over time with no more than $500 million to be appropriated in any one year.
The measure does not provide compensation to families of internees now dead; only those living when the bill becomes law will be eligible for the $20,000 payments.
The Japanese-Americans were rounded up and sent to the internment camps in the Rocky Mountains and the South under a 1942 executive order signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Despite arguments that the order violated the constitutional rights of those sent to the camps without any charge or trial, the Supreme Court ruled in 1944 the action was within the President’s powers as commander in chief in wartime.
In 1980, a special commission was created to examine the issue. It recommended that compensation be paid, concluding that the evacuation order was based on war hysteria and racial prejudice. No similar action was taken against Americans of German or Italian ancestry, although the United States also was at war with those two countries.
Aleutian Islanders
The bill directs the Justice Department to identify and locate eligible individuals, who will be notified and then have 18 months to accept payment.
It also provides restitution payments of $12,000 to residents of the Aleutian Islands who were relocated by the government during the war. In addition, the bill provides $5-million compensation for the Aleuts for destruction of their villages and community property, plus $1.4 million for destroyed church property.
Another $15 million is provided to compensate the Aleuts for the loss of Attu Island, which was turned into a national wildlife refuge following the war.
A year ago, Colorado firefighters Rick Balentine and Tim Cottrell were driving trucks carrying donations from Aspen to Los Angeles for victims of the Eaton and Palisades fires.
As they headed west, they planned to stop in Las Vegas and, while there, made a spontaneous decision to see the Eagles’ residency at the Sphere. Balentine and Cottrell bought resale tickets on StubHub for around $400 each. Cottrell used his credit card and received a confirmation email. But once they arrived to the venue, they weren’t allowed in. The seller failed to send the tickets.
All Cottrell could find was an email that said his tickets had been canceled, moments before the concert was to start. Other than getting their money back, there was no further explanation.
“We knew they were aftermarket tickets,” Balentine said, “but never in a million years did I think that tickets could get canceled.”
“I was very disappointed. There needs to be more protection out there, both for consumers and for artists, so people aren’t getting ripped off all the time.”
The rising demand for tickets has spurred a growing marketplace for all kinds of high-profile live events, including music tours and sports series like the upcoming World Cup. Whenever fans are unable to secure tickets on the primary market, through sellers like Ticketmaster or AXS, many will turn to the secondary market for resale tickets. Those tickets are typically sold through platforms like StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. Customers who bought their passes directly from Ticketmaster can also resell them on that platform.
The majority of secondary-market transactions can be easy, leaving both the reseller and the customer satisfied. But with the rise of speculative or fake tickets, like the ones Balentine and Cottrell bought, securing valid tickets from the resale market has become more challenging.
What are speculative tickets?
Speculative tickets are offered by resellers who list concert passes they don’t yet have in their possession, with the intention that they will ultimately acquire the tickets and deliver them to the buyer. According to 2025 data from Live Nation, one in three Americans has fallen victim to a ticketing scam. But under California’s bill, AB 1349, selling speculative tickets could be banned on all resale platforms in the state. On Monday, the bill passed in an assembly vote and is headed to the state Senate for review.
Thousands of fans enjoy Shakira’s performance at SoFi Stadium in August.
(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
Speculative tickets usually pop up as soon as a major artist announces a tour. Most recently, K-pop boy band BTS announced a world tour that includes four stops at SoFi Stadium. Before the general sale began Jan. 24, some sellers on Vivid Seats had already started listing tickets for over $6,000. Listings like these usually create a greater sense of scarcity, which can drive up ticket prices even more.
If enacted, the proposed legislation in California would require sellers to have event tickets in their possession before offering them for sale. The listing must include the location of the seat and specific refund rights. It prohibits a person from using software that automatically purchases more tickets than the specified limit, and it would raise the maximum civil penalty for each violation from $2,500 to $10,000.
The live music industry is a vital part of the state’s economy, contributing over $51 billion to California’s GDP and supporting over 460,000 jobs, according to the database 50 States of Music.
Ticketing fraud tends to affect more than just the consumer. Whenever an unknowing fan shows up to a venue with a fake ticket, it often falls on the venue and its staff to deal with the situation. Stephen Parker, the executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, said that if speculative tickets are banned in California, venues could save up to $50,000 in staffing expenses.
Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium, where many concerts and ticketed live events are held.
(Icon Sportswire/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
“They have to deal with fans who are crying, who are angry, who are upset because they thought they were going to go see their favorite artists that night, and they paid [over the] ticket’s face value only to not get a ticket that works or to not get a ticket at all,” said Parker.
Fighting ticket fraud and reining in a ticketing giant
There are currently dozens of legislative bills throughout the U.S. focused on event ticketing issues. Some states like Maryland, Minnesota and Maine have already passed restrictions on speculative tickets.
The action comes after both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, in 2024 and 2025. The DOJ’s lawsuit suggests breaking up the company, which it accuses of engaging in monopolistic practices. The complaint also alleges the company forces venues into exclusive ticketing contracts and influences artists to use only its services.
Founded in 1976, Ticketmaster has been the industry’s largest ticket distributor since 1995, with around 80% of live concerts sold through the site. The company merged with Live Nation in 2010.
Ticketmaster has also acquired a growing share of the resale market, under the platform Ticketmaster Resale. The site allows consumers to list, sell or find tickets to live events. The business functions similarly to other resale sites, but Ticketmaster does not allow speculative ticket sales on its platform.
The Federal Trade Commission is currently suing the company on accusations that it engaged in illegal ticket vendor practices for its resale business, like misleading artists and consumers with so-called “bait-and-switch pricing,” where advertised prices are lower than the actual total. Following the FTC’s complaint, the ticket seller made changes to its policies.
Additionally, Ticketmaster is no longer allowing users to have multiple accounts, which made it easier to purchase more tickets than the specified limit, and it is shutting down Trade Desk, the controversial software that helps resellers track and price tickets across several marketplaces.
Hundreds enjoy a performance by Banda Los Lagos during Jalisco Fest at the 2025 Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
“The FTC case against us is very frustrating because we think they’re sort of blaming the victim here. We’re the ones that are dealing with millions and millions of bots attacking us every day,” said Dan Wall, Live Nation’s vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs. “We’re trying to convince the federal government and state governments to get on the same page of recognizing where the problem is, which is overwhelmingly in the resale industry, and trying to do something about it.”
“We’re a much more artist and consumer-focused company, and so we don’t engage in the different kinds of business practices that are sketchy and unfair to the fans. We try to be a much more honest, legitimate outlet for getting resale tickets,” said Wall.
Critics find that the surge of anti-speculative ticketing bills around the country is a way for Ticketmaster to divert attention from its own legal troubles and shift attention onto the resale market. Live Nation is a key supporter of the California bill. Diana Moss, the director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, called AB 1349 “overkill” when it comes to the provisions and restrictions it places on the secondary market.
Fans cheer Sexyy Red at the Rolling Loud concert at Hollywood Park in March.
(Michael Owen Baker/For The Times)
“A lot of these bills in the states are a vehicle to disable the resale markets and hinder how they operate. Resale markets are important to consumers,” said Moss. “If you disable the resale market, then fans have no place to go — but back to Ticketmaster. That’s the whole game, disable the resale markets with legislation and regulation, and then everybody has to go back and deal with Ticketmaster and pay their monopoly ticket fees.”
Provisions in AB 1349 deem a ticket a license. The question of whether a ticket is a right or a license is an ongoing controversy in the ticketing world. Opponents of the bill are fearful that this change would give more power to Live Nation, as they could impose restrictions on how the ticket can be used, such as whether you’re allowed to sell your ticket on other platforms or if you can transfer it at all. Meghan Callahan, from the Empower Fans Coalition, a group that opposes the bill, equates this licensing change to taking a lease out on the ticket.
“Ticketmaster’s goal is to create less competition. This bill imposes restrictions on everybody else but themselves,” said Callahan. “They are trying to use consumer-friendly concepts and sneak in these other provisions to embolden their monopoly.”
Wall at Ticketmaster said that nothing on the consumers’ end would change if this bill were to pass, adding that tickets are already licenses “from the venue for you to come on the property during the time of the show and sit in that seat.”
“Honesty doesn’t favor one person or another. That’s what this [bill] is about,” said Wall.
Foreign Minister Cho Hyun answers lawmakers’ questions during a National Assembly committee hearing in Seoul on Wednesday. Photo by Asia Today
Jan. 28 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s opposition People Power Party and the ruling Democratic Party traded accusations Wednesday over U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks about restoring higher tariffs, with conservatives faulting the government’s diplomacy and liberals arguing Seoul must move quickly to pass pending legislation tied to a bilateral investment package.
The dispute unfolded at a National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee hearing, where Foreign Minister Cho Hyun faced questions about what the opposition described as a sudden reversal after the government promoted a tariff outcome that did not require a formal agreement document.
People Power Party floor leader Song Eon-seok said the public had been led to believe tariffs would remain lower once legislation related to U.S.-bound investment was introduced and processed. He said Trump’s renewed tariff warnings felt like a betrayal to many South Koreans and criticized the government for opposing parliamentary ratification procedures, arguing major commitments should be handled through proper legislative channels.
Several People Power Party lawmakers pressed the government over the effectiveness of its communication channel with Washington, mocking earlier claims that a high-level “hotline” had been established and questioning whether Seoul had meaningful leverage if tariff threats resurfaced so quickly.
Rep. Ahn Cheol-soo said the government’s claim that negotiations were so successful they did not require a joint statement was not credible. He argued that if talks had been truly successful, the two sides would have presented the outcome publicly through a joint briefing.
Ruling party lawmakers countered that Trump’s unpredictability is well known and that repeated focus on ratification could slow Seoul’s ability to respond diplomatically and economically. They urged swift deliberation and passage of a special bill tied to U.S. investment commitments, saying similar memorandums and fact sheets with partners are often handled without full treaty-style ratification.
The dispute comes as South Korea moves to implement a bilateral memorandum and related measures that had been linked to tariff levels, while Seoul says it has not received an official U.S. notice of any change.
SACRAMENTO — Amid a national uproar over the recent killing of a Minnesota man by immigration agents, the California Senate on Tuesday approved proposed legislation that would make it easier to sue law enforcement officials suspected of violating an individual’s constitutional rights.
Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) creates a pathway for residents to take legal action against federal agents for the excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.
The bill, which cleared a Senate committee earlier this year, passed 30-10, along Democrat and Republican party lines.
Other states, including New York and Connecticut, are weighing similar legislation following widespread anger over the actions during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns and raids.
Existing laws already allow lawsuits against state and local law enforcement officials. But it is much harder to bring claims against a federal officers. Wiener said his bill would rectify those impediments.
Several state law enforcement agencies oppose the legislation, arguing it will also be used to sue local officers.
Tuesday’s vote follows the killing of 37-year-old Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday by federal officials, who tackled him to the ground, appeared to remove his holstered handgun and then shot Pretti several times in the back. During the debate on the state Senate floor Tuesday, several Democratic lawmakers called Pretti’s death an execution or murder.
Renee Good, a 37-year old mother of three, was also shot and killed by agents earlier this month in Minnesota in what federal officials have alleged was an act of self defense when she drove her vehicle toward an officer — an assertion under dispute.
The deaths, as well as the government’s insistence that immigration agents don’t require judicial warrants to enter homes, have outraged Democrats leaders, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws as they seek to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants.
Wiener, speaking to reporters before Tuesday’s vote, said that his legislation would reform the law to ensure that federal officials are held accountable for wrongdoing.
“Under current law, if a local or state officer shoots your mom…or publicly executes an ICU nurse, you can sue,” said Wiener. “That’s longstanding civil rights law, but in the current law, it’s almost impossible to file that same lawsuit against the federal agent who does the exact same thing.”
During Tuesday’s debate on the senate floor, Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) acknowledged the “chaos” in Minnesota, but criticized the bill as being about immigration politics. He urged his colleagues to focus on the state’s affordability crisis, rather than challenges to the federal government.
“We need to start focusing on California-specific issues like gas, gas prices,” said Strickland.
Strickland’s comments drew a rebuke from Sen. Susan Rubio, (D-West Covina) who said the bill wasn’t about immigration, but “about the egregious violation of people’s rights. and the murders that we are witnessing.”
“This is about equal justice under the law,” said Rubio, a one-time undocumented citizen.
Wiener’s bill now heads to the state Assembly. The senator, who is running to fill the seat by outgoing Rep. Nancy Pelosi, told reporters that he didn’t know if Gov. Gavin Newsom supports his legislation or if he would sign it into law if it passes the full Legislature.
Wiener’s proposed law was put forth after George Retes Jr, a California security guard was detained following a July raid in Camarillo. Retes, a U.S. citizen and Army veteran, said he was held for three days without the ability to make a phone call or see an attorney.
Retes has accused Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. The Homeland Security department said in a statement last year that Retes impeded its operation, which he denies.
Under U.S. Code Section 1983, a person can sue state and local officials who violate their constitutional rights. A state law also allows lawsuits against state and local officials for interfering with a person’s constitutional rights by force or threat.
When it comes to filing legal action against federal officials, lawsuits can be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations.
Those opposed to Wiener’s law include the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members. The group argues it would result in more lawsuits against local and state officials, essentially creating multiple paths for litigation.
