Rep. James Walkinshaw says "complying with a congressional subpoena is not optional"
Member of the House Oversight Committee, in an MS NOW interview
“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.”
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)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
Case context: Was the House justified in holding Leon Black in contempt of Congress over the Epstein inquiry?
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
Was the House justified in holding Leon Black in contempt of Congress over the Epstein inquiry?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“an outrageous action that ignores the facts and the truth about Mr. Black ... The House of Representatives has rushed through every stage of this inquiry. ... The full House is holding him in contempt without any regard to the active litigation challenging the lawfulness of the Committee’s actions and the ethics complaint against Chairman Comer ... politically motivated and completely retaliatory by a Chairman who is focused solely on himself and his own political ambitions without any regard for the truth and the law. ... To think, he is being held in contempt over invalid subpoenas is ridiculous.”Read statement
“We just unanimously voted to hold Leon Black in contempt of Congress. His name appears in the Epstein files hundreds of times, and he gave Epstein $180 million. The survivors told us to follow the money and that is exactly what we are doing. ... Whatever happened, the reality is he has a lot of information, a lot of documents that are central to our investigation and he's refusing.”Read statement
“This vote is an important step towards justice and accountability. Leon Black has continued to defy two congressional subpoenas and we need to know why he gave Jeffrey Epstein $180 million dollars.”Read statement