The GOP majority on the House Oversight Committee is at war with their Democratic counterparts over what they say is a false narrative being crafted about President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

Republican committee staff authored a new talking points memo sent to GOP lawmakers on Tuesday morning that is aimed at discounting Democrats’ recent leaks of information on Epstein, accusing them of releasing information on a selective basis to paint a picture that is not there.

‘Throughout the Oversight Committee’s review of the federal government’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell criminal investigations, Democrats have demonstrated a sustained pattern of misconduct — misrepresenting witness testimony, selectively leaking cherry-picked documents, and manipulating emails and images — to fabricate yet another politically motivated hoax targeting President Trump,’ the memo, obtained by Fox News Digital, said.

‘As a result, nothing Democrats post or leak on this matter can be taken at face value.’

The memo also encourages Oversight Republicans to take aim at ‘Legacy Media,’ which it says ‘uncritically amplified these falsehoods, acting as a willing conduit rather than performing basic due diligence.’

‘This reckless combination of partisan distortion and media malpractice undermines the Committee’s work, misleads the public, and distracts from the serious responsibility of ensuring accountability, transparency, and justice for the American people,’ the memo said.

What had initially begun as a bipartisan investigation quickly devolved into partisan infighting.

Democrats have argued that Republicans are using the probe to give Trump cover, while the GOP said the left is distorting facts to create a false narrative that Trump participated in Epstein’s crimes.

The pair were known to have a close friendship decades ago but had a falling out in the early 2000s before accusations of sexual contact with minors first surfaced. To date, the president has denied involvement — and not been implicated — in any of Epstein’s crimes.

Among the memo’s highlights are Oversight Democrats releasing three emails sent to the committee by Epstein’s estate which appear to suggest that Trump ‘knew about’ various illicit activities of Epstein’s, including one which refers to him as ‘that dog that hasn’t barked.’

Republicans said they selectively released three emails out of a tranche of 20,000 pages of documents at the time.

‘When CNN questioned the redactions, Democrat Committee members falsely claimed Republicans were responsible. After Republicans released more than 20,000 pages, Democrats then claimed this transparency was intended to ‘disorient’ and ‘distract’ from their fabricated narrative,’ the memo said.

In a later release of photos from Epstein’s estate, Republicans accused Democrats of having ‘censored adult women’s faces to smear President Trump.’

For example, one of the photos censored, they said, ‘shows President Trump standing next to adult Hawaiian Tropic women models.’

Democrats have not always mentioned Trump directly in their releases, but he has been a regular feature of the emails and photos they have made public.

‘It is time to end this White House cover-up and bring justice to the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful friends,’ Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement on one of the releases.

‘These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world. We will not rest until the American people get the truth. The Department of Justice must release all the files, NOW.’

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is facing a Dec. 19 deadline to release its files related to Epstein, pursuant to a near-unanimous vote in the House and a unanimous vote in the Senate.

Fox News Digital reached out to Oversight Committee Democrats for a response to the memo.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., is delaying Bill and Hillary Clinton’s depositions before Congress until January.

In a letter sent to their attorney on Monday evening, Comer warned that a failure to appear for their new dates would result in immediate contempt of Congress proceedings.

‘They’re saying now that he’s going to a funeral on that day, so we’ve been going back and forth with the lawyer,’ Comer told Fox News Digital the same evening. ‘We’re going to hold him in contempt if he doesn’t show up for his deposition.’

The letter said, however, that they failed to provide ‘alternative dates’ for their testimonies.

‘Therefore, the Committee has chosen the date of January 13, 2026, for the deposition of President Clinton and January 14, 2026, for the deposition of Secretary Clinton. If your clients do not comply with these new dates, the Committee will move immediately to contempt proceedings,’ the letter said.

The Clintons were originally subpoenaed over the summer to testify in the House Oversight Committee’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein.

They were part of a long list of former presidential administration officials called in for closed-door meetings with the panel’s lawyers.

To date, just two people have shown up in person — former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr and former Trump administration Labor Secretary Alex Acosta.

Others have deferred their subpoena dates or opted to send in written statements due to various personal matters, but it appears Comer is not allowing the Clintons to sidestep an in-person grilling.

In his letter, the Republican leader even went so far as to criticize the Clintons’ lawyer for asking for the same treatment.

‘Your correspondence with the Committee continues to ignore the Committee’s arguments, misstates relevant facts, and seeks information about the Committee’s investigation to which neither you nor your clients are entitled,’ the letter said.

‘As the Committee stated clearly in its November 21, 2025, letter to you, the Committee’s decision to forego in-person depositions for certain other individuals was because those individuals ‘lacked any relevant information to the Committee’s investigation or otherwise had serious health issues that prevented their testimony.’’

Comer said the former president and former secretary of state ‘are not similarly situated and therefore your argument that they are receiving unfair treatment — which you continue to repeat — is baseless.’

‘For example, unlike these other individuals, President Clinton and Secretary Clinton had a personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,’ he wrote.

Photos and other documents released by the committee so far have shown Bill Clinton and other powerful figures, including President Donald Trump, socializing with Epstein to varying degrees.

Both Bill Clinton and Trump were shown to have handwritten entries in a book compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday, though until then much of the media scrutiny had been focused on Trump’s entry alone.

Neither of the Clintons have been implicated in any wrongdoing related to Epstein, however, and their social engagements with him appear to have ended long before his 2019 federal indictment on sex trafficking charges and subsequent suicide.

With less than a week before the Department of Justice must release a tranche of case files related to Jeffrey Epstein, Democrats have continued to seize on the politically expedient topic, which has roiled the Trump administration and caused fractures in the Republican Party.

On Friday, House Democrats released 19 photos from Epstein’s estate that included several images featuring President Donald Trump and other public figures. The White House blasted the move and reiterated its position that the Epstein matter is a ‘Democrat hoax.’

Friday’s disclosure came as Democrats have claimed all year that Epstein’s case has newfound salience because Trump, once among Epstein’s many wealthy friends before Epstein was accused of trafficking underage girls, tried to suppress the files when he took office. Republicans counter that Democrats had full access to the documents for four years under the Biden administration and neither released them nor uncovered information damaging to Trump.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital claims of Democratic inconsistency ‘are seriously detached from reality’ and pointed to his own investigations dating back to 2019 into former Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s handling of a 2008 plea deal with Epstein.

Raskin argued the Democratic Party has not shifted, but rather that the Trump administration has.

‘Trump abruptly killed the ongoing federal investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators when he took office,’ Raskin said, alleging the administration undertook a ‘massive redaction project’ to hide evidence of Trump’s ties to Epstein. The forthcoming file release is expected to contain significant redactions and include reasons for each one.

‘Democrats have always fought to support an investigation of Epstein’s co-conspirators,’ Raskin said. ‘We have always been on the side of full transparency and justice for the victims.’

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., repeated that point Friday after the photos were published, saying, ‘All we want is full transparency, so that the American people can get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’

The heightened Democratic push for transparency comes after years during which the party showed more intermittent interest in Epstein’s case, which some Democrats have attributed to the sensitivity of seeking information while Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking case was pending and while some of Epstein’s victims were pursuing litigation.

But the Democrats’ new, unified fixation on Epstein this year came as Republicans struggled to manage the issue.

The files became a political thorn for the administration after Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chaotic rollout in February of already-public files by the DOJ, which enraged a faction of Trump’s base who had been expecting new information.

The DOJ said at the time that it would not disclose further files because of court orders and victim privacy and said the department found no information that would warrant bringing charges against anyone else. In a turnabout, however, Bondi ordered a review, at Trump’s direction, of Epstein’s alleged connections to Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton.

The president, who was closely associated with Epstein but was never accused of any crimes related to him, also relented to monthslong pressure to sign a transparency bill last month that ordered the DOJ to release all of its hundreds of thousands of Epstein-related records within 30 days. Among the most vocal supporters of the bill was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., which resulted in her highly public falling out with the president, whom she once fervently supported.

The Epstein saga has also plagued the administration because some of Trump’s allies, now in top roles in the DOJ, once promoted the existence of incriminating, nonpublic Epstein files, including a supposed list of sexual predators who were his clients. FBI Director Kash Patel, for instance, said in 2023 the government was hiding ‘Epstein’s list’ of ‘pedophiles.’ But the DOJ leaders failed to deliver on those claims upon taking office.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., meanwhile, faced accusations from Democrats that he kept the House in recess for about two months to avoid votes on Epstein transparency legislation. Johnson shot back that Democrats had, in his view, been lax on the Epstein case until this year.

‘We’re not going to allow the Democrats to use this for political cover. They had four years,’ Johnson told reporters at the time. ‘Remember, the Biden administration held the Epstein files for four years and not a single one of these Democrats, or anyone in Congress, made any thought about that at all.’

The House Oversight Committee has also spurred infighting over how Epstein material has been handled, as it has been actively engaged in subpoenaing, reviewing, and releasing large batches of Epstein-related records from both the DOJ and Epstein’s estate, including Friday’s photos.

In response to the photos, which were released by committee Democrats, committee Republicans said the Democrats ‘cherry-picked’ them and that they ‘keep trying to create a fake hoax by being dishonest, deceptive, and shamelessly deranged.’

Erika Kirk has announced that she is to meet privately with commentator Candace Owens marking the first direct conversation between the two after a period of public discussion and differing perspectives that emerged after her late husband’s death.

Kirk shared the update in a brief statement on X on Sunday, saying both women had agreed to pause all public commentary until after the meeting.

‘Candace Owens and I are meeting for a private, in-person discussion on Monday, December 15,’ Erika said.

‘@RealCandaceO and I have agreed that public discussions, livestreams, and tweets are on hold until after this meeting. I look forward to a productive conversation. Thank you,’ Erika added.

The planned discussion between Erika and the former Turning Point USA employee reflects an effort by the women to address weeks of mounting tensions over conspiracy theories online in a more thoughtful and personal setting.

At a recent CBS town hall Erika expressed the emotional toll of widespread online speculation surrounding her husband’s passing, ‘Stop. That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop.’ when asked what she had to say to people making unfounded claims.

‘When you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family, when you go after the people that I love, and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they’re in on this, no,’ Erika also said on ‘Outnumbered’ Dec. 10.

The relationship between the two women has deteriorated sharply in recent months, despite their earlier history of collaboration and personal friendship.

The recent events have placed them on different sides of a sensitive moment and their decision to meet privately shows signs of a mutual desire to speak directly while reducing misunderstandings and avoiding further speculation.

Kirk, who now leads TPUSA, has been focused publicly on preserving her husband Charlie Kirk’s legacy since his tragic death in September.

After more than eight years of Democrat lawfare against President Trump, his aides and his allies, the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi is bringing much-needed accountability — which is what American voters demanded in our last presidential election. But Democrat activist judges are doing what they do best: weaponization and sabotage.

In South Carolina, Clinton-appointed Judge Cameron Currie — handpicked by a Biden-appointed judge — wrongly disqualified Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, the bold and fearless prosecutor who had secured an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey for lying and obstruction of a Senate investigation into his politicization, weaponization, and corruption of the intel agencies and law enforcement to go after political enemies and protect political allies. The government is appealing that decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Now, another Clinton-appointed judge in the District of Columbia, Colleen Kollarr-Kotelly, has interfered even more egregiously with the government’s case. This ruling threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.

Comey was indicted on two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstruction of Congress. The indictment stemmed from the events surrounding Operation Crossfire Hurricane, more colloquially known as the Russiagate hoax. Comey used his longtime friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, as a conduit to leak material unfavorable to President Trump to media outlets. In addition to being a law professor, Richman was a government contractor. He and Comey communicated frequently via email on government and private accounts. Communications on a government email account enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy — the standard under the Fourth Amendment as a result of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States (1967) — because the government can monitor its own email servers.

Six years ago, even Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg, a judicial disgrace about whom we often have written, signed a warrant authorizing the search and seizure of emails on Richman’s computer and iCloud account and his account at Columbia. Richman was able to review all emails and withhold the information he deemed privileged from all but one account. Now, Richman — who was the recipient of many emails from Comey and the sender of many emails to him — has sought to reclaim those emails pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). This rule allows an individual to ask a court to reclaim his property obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and/or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Shockingly, Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and has ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4 p.m. on Monday.  Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling ordered the destruction of emails obtained pursuant to a warrant signed by another (Obama) judge six years ago.  She claims that the seized information relates to a new investigation; however, she is basing this assertion on a decision by Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick issued a suppression-like decision even though suppression was not briefed by the parties — yet another example of blatant and unlawful judicial sabotage by partisans in robes.

Collar-Kotelly has ordered that a copy of the emails be given to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in Virginia. This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly’s horrible ruling. The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal. The statute-of-limitations law allows the government only six months after an indictment’s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment. The inability to view this evidence would substantially increase the time necessary to seek an indictment.  Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government’s inability to review the emails to use as evidence and prepare for trial would massively hamper its case.

Kollar-Kotelly’s decision is more disturbing because it implicates the separation of powers. Usually, Rule 41(g) comes into play where a defendant has had property wrongly seized, and he moves to reclaim it. Here, Comey is not seeking to reclaim anything; Richman, a then-government contractor with whom Comey communicated extensively about government business, is seeking this evidence. Richman has run to a partisan Democrat judge not even involved in the criminal case — and not even in the same district — to procure the destruction of crucial evidence in that case in an obvious effort to assist his friend Comey. Comey cannot challenge the warrant against Richman because he lacks standing to do so. Incredibly, Kollar-Kotelly suggested that Richman could move to quash this evidence in Virginia.  She’s going way out of her way to help Comey. Judges presiding over cases often have excluded evidence against defendants as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is, however, extraordinary for a different judge — especially in a different district — to interfere in and dramatically hamper the prosecution’s case based on a claim by a third party of a wrongful search and seizure, especially when the evidence the government wishes to use consists of communications between that third party and the defendant — a defendant who was a senior government official.

The government obtained the evidence it wishes to use against Comey pursuant to a lawful warrant, even one signed by a highly partisan Obama-appointed judge. Now, a Clinton-appointed judge who is not presiding over the case — and is not even in the same district — is blatantly trying to aid Comey by preventing the government from using that evidence either to re-indict Comey or try him if the original indictment is reinstated. This ruling contravenes the normal way in which Rule 41(g) applies. The Clinton judge’s staggering timeline — destruction by tomorrow afternoon — also illustrates her agenda. She should have stayed a ruling of such magnitude to allow the appellate process to play out.  Instead, she has put the government in an incredibly precarious position: having to obtain a stay from either the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court in just a few hours. Kollar-Kotelly’s order had no legal basis, and a higher court must put a stop to it.

Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling is part of a larger pattern. Leftist judges like Obama-appointed D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who presided over President Trump’s January 6-related case, Boasberg, who signed off on the national disgrace that was Operation Arctic Frost, and many other Democrat judges did nothing to stop and did much to escalate the lawfare waged against President Trump, his aides, and his allies. Now, the Justice Department is seeking legal accountability for lawfare perpetrators like Comey. Currie and Kollar-Kotelly have endeavored to prevent — or, at the very least, drastically decrease the chances of — such legal accountability. Courts do not order the FBI to destroy evidence in pending investigations, except when the evidence is harmful to a lawfare perpetrator like Comey. The inconsistency between the treatment afforded lawfare perpetrators and lawfare targets threatens the very legitimacy of the federal judiciary. If higher courts do not reign in these rogue judges, Congress must do so through oversight, withholding of funds from judicial appropriations, and impeachment.  A system where the judiciary enables lawfare and then shields its perpetrators from legal consequences is unsustainable, and higher courts must put a stop to it.