Rep. James Walkinshaw says "complying with a congressional subpoena is not optional"
James WalkinshawMember of the House Oversight Committee, in an MS NOW interview
Rep. James Walkinshaw answers a question about Leon Black and the Oversight Committee subpoena, on MS NOW's "On the Line with Alicia Menendez," Sept. 3, 2026.
Excerpt from 0:56 to 1:20 of the MS NOW video. Taken from MS NOW's own video page. The MS NOW YouTube upload cited for this source shows the same video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: MS NOW. Excerpt used for news reporting and commentary
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Walkinshaw's answer about 1:05 to 1:20)
Asked on MS NOW whether the committee should hold Black in contempt immediately, Rep. James Walkinshaw answered "Absolutely". He said Black will have to answer the committee's questions and that "If he continues to refuse, he should be held in contempt".
“Absolutely. Look, complying with a congressional subpoena is not optional. Mr. Black is going to have to come in and answer these questions. Whether it happens now, a week from now, or a month from now, it absolutely will happen. If he continues to refuse, he should be held in contempt.”
Interview
Official statement
Original text
Original text
Where this statement fits
Was the House justified in holding Leon Black in contempt of Congress over the Epstein inquiry?
On June 26, 2026, Leon Black appeared voluntarily for a transcribed interview in the House Oversight Committee's Epstein investigation. The committee said he declined to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements, and Chairman James Comer issued two subpoenas that day, one for a deposition and one for nondisclosure agreements. Black did not appear for the September 3 deposition and sued the committee that day; his attorneys said he had produced the only confidentiality agreement within the committee's stated purpose and that the subpoenas exceed its authority. The committee voted 41-0 on September 15 to recommend contempt, and the House agreed to the resolution by unanimous consent on September 16 with no recorded vote. Comer and Ranking Member Robert Garcia said Black defied the subpoenas, while Black's attorneys called the action retaliatory. The CourtListener copy of the lawsuit docket, last updated September 18, listed no ruling on Black's claims, and as of September 25, 2026 we could not locate a public Justice Department decision on the referral.
Source and context
Interview
About this source
MS NOW interview with a member of the Oversight Committee on the day Black did not appear for his deposition. The anchor asks whether the committee should hold Black in contempt immediately.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Watch the clip from this source at the top of the page.
Official statement
About this source
Chairman Comer's statement on September 3, 2026, when Black did not appear for his deposition and had filed a lawsuit.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
Committee roll call sheet for the vote to report the contempt resolution. It records 41 ayes and 0 noes, with 20 Republicans and 21 Democrats voting aye and six Republican members not recorded.
Original text
About this source
Official record of the House floor action on H. Res. 1543: Comer's request for unanimous consent, the absence of objection, and agreement to the resolution.
Before the quotation
Black had sued the committee and Comer and did not appear for his September 3, 2026 deposition. The anchor asked whether the committee should hold him in contempt immediately.
After the quotation
The Oversight Committee voted 41 to 0 on September 15, 2026 to recommend contempt, and the House agreed to the resolution by unanimous consent on September 16.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the decision to hold Black in contempt, Walkinshaw answers "Absolutely" when asked whether the committee should hold Black in contempt immediately. He then says contempt should follow if Black continues to refuse. He supports the action itself, so the label is a defense rather than mixed or conditional.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Leon Black
More from this case
Read the full caseFormer House counsel Michael Stern writes that Black's lawsuit "must fail" and that the committee "is entitled to question Black under oath"
“Black’s lawsuit must fail because it is well-settled that courts lack power to restrain congressional committees from issuing or enforcing a subpoena, regardless of the recipient’s claim that the subpoena violates constitutional privilege, was improperly motivated, or is otherwise unlawful. ... COGR is entitled to question Black under oath in a formal deposition even if Black had answered every pertinent question in a voluntary interview.”Read statement
Sen. Ron Wyden says "Black is doing everything in his power to dodge questions from Congress"
“No surprise Black is doing everything in his power to dodge questions from Congress.”Read statement
Rep. Yassamin Ansari says "Congressional subpoenas are binding, not suggestions"
“The House just unanimously approved our Oversight contempt resolution for Leon Black ... Congressional subpoenas are binding, not suggestions.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Rep. James Walkinshaw says "complying with a congressional subpoena is not optional"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/2665-asked-on-ms-now-whether-the-committee-should
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Rep. James Walkinshaw says "complying with a congressional subpoena is not optional"". First published: 2026-09-26. Last updated: 2026-09-26. https://disputeindex.com/events/2665-asked-on-ms-now-whether-the-committee-should