No one in Congress is blocking Epstein documents. No one is Congress is doing that.

That's Speaker Mike Johnson, who's been trying to quell the commotion in the House this week over the Jeffrey Epstein case. It's a topic that's taken over Capitol Hill this week. And while President Trump seems very eager to turn attention away from the Epstein files, it doesn't look like this story is dying down any time soon. There are Democrats and Republicans pushing for more answers. And the issue is exposing some divisions within the GOP. Lauren Fox covers Congress for us here at CNN. We spoke on Thursday afternoon, and she gave me a download of all the Epstein drama on the Hill. I'm CNN Senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, in for David Chalian, and this is the CNN Political Briefing. Lauren, thank you so much for joining me.

Thank you for having me.

To start, can you give me just a few words you'd use to describe the mood and really what the talk on Capitol Hill this week is about when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein.

I think the phrase that comes to mind was avoiding the inevitable. That was the goal of the speaker, and, at the end of the day, this was a force that was moving through the House, and there was no stopping it. At some point, there was going to have to be an inflection moment, and I think that's what we saw last night.

And can you just say what happened last night?

Yeah, so last night, right as the last votes of this summer session are coming to a close, the House Oversight Subcommittee is meeting, and they are basically taking a vote to do several things, but basically issue a subpoena that would release the Epstein files with victims' names redacted, as well as require a subpoena of communication between former Biden officials and the Department of Justice. And it would also require some depositions of high profile people, including some Democrats like Hillary and Bill Clinton. There's also a request for a deposition from former FBI Director James Comey. And I think what's so fascinating is that you had eight members vote for it, two vote against it. But three Republicans joined with Democrats to get that subpoena across the finish line in this subcommittee. And this was a moment that leadership had really been trying to avoid all week, in fact, had shut down multiple other committee work in order to avoid this scenario from playing out.

I want to kind of walk back as to how we got to that moment. Who have been, you know, for the last couple of weeks since the story has started to take over the White House, Washington, and really the country in different areas, on Capitol Hill, who have been the loudest voices on this?

Yeah, some of the loudest voices have been some of Donald Trump's closest allies on the Hill. And I think when you're talking about this issue, it's really important, even though it's hard to separate it out, to try to distinguish between this isn't about them being frustrated with Donald Trump. This is about the fact that they are now between Donald Trump, who they are loyal to, and constituents who are rallying for them to release more information about this issue. And this goes back to people like Representative Ralph Norman, who is on the House Rules Committee and had initially voted with Democrats on one of their amendments in that committee. This is about people like Representative Eric Burlison, who I've talked to several times over the course of the last several weeks, who says that he's getting hundreds of calls on this issue specifically. And he says he's really loyal to the president. He trusts Donald Trump. But, on the other hand, this is something that's really important to his voters, and he feels like he has to speak out. So some of these folks are people who you often see talking and defending Donald Trump on a myriad of other issues, but, on this issue, just felt very strongly that more information needed to come out.

'I think that's really fascinating because really what we generally see on the Hill is that even if they were the loudest voices at some point on some issue, as soon as President Trump shifts the narrative, they also tend to fall in line. But I do think that this idea of re-election and constituents calling them might have triggered some of this, even causing them to continue to double down, don't you think?

Absolutely. And I mean, I think one of the most sort of salient moments that I had happened for me when I was, like, standing on the House steps yesterday with Burlison. And I was just asking him like, are you frustrated with the speaker? Are you frustrated with a president? And he said, I'm really, I'm not frustrated with their actions. I just feel really strongly that this issue is so symbolic. And I just want to read what he said. He said, "The American people have felt like this government keeps secrets from them for decades, right? Here we have one big national scandal slash conspiracy that we were this close to getting the details on. So that's why the fact this isn't happening is just fanning flames of more conspiracy. People are assuming the worst and they are going to until the details are released." And I know that, you know, that's a little lengthy, but I think it summarizes for me, like, why Republicans feel like Donald Trump needs to get this information out, because if he doesn't, their argument as defenders of the president is people are just going to assume things that we don't want them assuming before the midterms, right?

Yeah, and I think one of the things that we've tried to convey at the White House and remind people of because it sometimes gets lost, is that one of reasons that President Trump won in 2016 and won again this cycle was because of this idea that he ran on being an outsider and bringing down this quote, you know, "elite." And that elite applied to the Epstein case because people think it is rich elites getting away with something bad. And so this actually fits into that narrative, too, and that's really become the narrative of the modern day Republican Party. So, I want to take us back to this vote. Who were the Republicans that sided with the Democrats?

Yeah, so you had people like Scott Perry, who is a real conservative member in the House Freedom Caucus, Brian Jack, and then Nancy Mace, all voting with Democrats. And one of the really interesting moments happened because Mace was coming down the House steps after votes, and I caught up with her, and she was headed back to the committee. So this is before they have this vote. And she's in conversation, she says, with her Democratic counterparts to try to make this a subpoena that everyone can support. So not only was this just presented to them, and they voted on it, but there were some concerns she had about victims' identities, and she wanted to make sure that those were protected. And there were active conversations happening with Democrats about how this subpoena could be structured in a way that it could get Republican votes. And one of the easiest things to do on Capitol Hill, if you want to do something, but it's sort of a sticky situation, is to find a technical reason why you're not going to do it and use that as your excuse. In this case, I thought it was fascinating that they were trying to have some conversations about how to make this appealing to not just the Democrats, but also a couple of Republicans. And Democrats were willing to accept some of those conversations.

So, behind the scenes, President Trump has been absolutely livid that they can't get away from this story. He has asked his advisors, why are people so focused on this? And, as we've seen play out publicly, he has done everything in his power to try and shift the narrative unsuccessfully. But I am curious what you're hearing from Republicans in the House about how they feel about the president's reaction to all of this.

They've been so careful, Kristen, in how they position themselves with the president. Most of the arguments that you hear are Republicans saying, this is in Donald Trump's best interest to get this information out, right? That this isn't us versus him. This isn't us versus them. This is about we're all on the same team, and people have questions, and we're all just going to rally together. They've been very careful to be critical of Donald Trump. Now, there's been some quiet grumblings about the speaker's handling of this and whether or not, you know, he should have just allowed this to go forward sooner. But it's important to keep in context there, too, that Speaker Johnson is in this really tough position because Donald Trump is his number one ally that he needs in order to keep his members in line in such a narrow majority. So, that has been such a fascinating dynamic to watch play out, because members are always a little more willing to give deference to the president. And, in this case, even though they believe that they want information, and Trump wants them to move on, no one's out there saying, publicly, Donald Trump is wrong in this situation, and Donald Trump is hiding something. That is absolutely not the position of the Republican Party. It's a very nuanced breaking moment in my mind. That doesn't mean it's not significant, but it is so much more nuanced than just Republicans in the House versus Donald Trump.

Okay, so I'm glad that you brought up House Speaker Mike Johnson because I want to dive deeper into that. But first, let's take a quick break. We'll be right back. Let's talk about House Speaker Mike Johnson, because this has really put him in an interesting, to say the least, position. How has he been handling all of this?

This has been a progression. In the beginning of the week, it felt like he was really trying to implore his members that this is a Democratic distraction, that it's us versus the Democrats. We're not going to fall for this. And behind closed doors in their conference meeting was basically arguing to members, you just have to give the president and the administration a little more time. We have requests for grand jury material that Pam Bondi is going to make. Let's let this all play out. Fast forward a couple of days. He holds a press availability. I am standing there. And I expected him, because this is a moment where lawmakers are going to go home, and they're going to sell all these accomplishments and all these things that they've been doing, I really expected him to just be reading remarks about the, you know, "One Big Beautiful Bill" and the rescissions package that they just passed. He starts with talking about this very issue. And, to me, that reflected an acknowledgment that this has to be dealt with and that he has to continue to try to be out ahead of it. And my first question to him was, did this get away from you? Did the Republican conference get away from you? And of course, he continued to use the line, there's no daylight between me and the conference; there's not daylight between our conference and Donald Trump. And then we asked, do you support James Comer, the Oversight Chairman who has subpoenaed Ghislaine Maxwell? At that point, that's what had happened. And he said, of course he supports James Comer, but then in the next sentence said, but we do have questions about whether or not Maxwell's testimony or deposition, any information she shares with us, is that trustworthy? And I thought that that was a really interesting juxtaposition that he was trying to make there, because James Comer told the speaker last week, if this issue comes to a head in my committee, we're probably gonna have to deal with it, and I just think that Johnson has known that this is boiling or simmering, and I think this just hit a point where he really did start to see there was no stopping this train.

Yeah, I think one of the most interesting things about Speaker Johnson is that he has really mastered how to handle President Trump in a way that so many of the other members have not. And it's paid off for him because Trump has several times gone against his own staunchest supporters trying to oust Speaker Johnson and had Johnson's back. And when you talk to people behind the scenes, they will acknowledge that Johnson is just somebody who has gotten through to Trump. And they have a relationship where they can talk multiple times, where they can work together. And that's not an easy thing when it comes to President Trump. I do want to kind of break down what happened in those moments where Johnson essentially ended votes and sent everyone home, because I think there's still a lot of questions as to why that happened and what exactly was going on.

'Yeah, and Speaker Johnson pushed really hard back against this narrative that he, you know, gave up and sent everyone home early. I mean, the reality is that this was supposed to be the last week of a session. It's not as if they were expected to be in town next week. But what is also true is that the House Republican Conference had wanted to vote on a series of tough immigration bills in an effort to try to put Democrats in this really hard position as they were all leaving town for this five-week summer recess. Well, what unfolded in the rules committee earlier in the week was that Democrats were pushing forward with these Epstein votes, and rather than have to rehash this all in the Rules Committee because those members had faced some backlash for taking votes, they shut down the Rules Committee and they being, the Rules Committee is largely seen as a key constituency of the Speaker, right? Nothing that they're doing there is happening without Johnson's consent. So Johnson, in some ways, by not allowing the Rules Committee to come back, it really neutered how much they could do on the floor. The only thing that they can do is anything under suspension, which means stuff that has broad bipartisan support. And at some point, you kind of run out of things that you're gonna be doing that way. They don't have more business that they need to get done. So, you know, they leave one day earlier than we expected them to. So that's really what unfolded there.

What do you feel like the hope for Johnson is in doing something like that. I mean, yes, I understand he's been pushing back on it, but obviously as you say, this was a way to avoid having a series of those votes. Now, what is his hope happens?

'Well, I think, in some ways, you're hoping that a five-week recess is going to give this story time to breathe. Things change, other events take place, the focus shifts, the media's focus shifts. You give yourself a little breathing room. But it's also possible when people go home, they talk to constituents, and people want more answers.

Yeah, I would say that, you know, generally speaking, five weeks is a lot of time in terms of news cycle, particularly in a Trump era. But I do kind of want to get to, if this does maintain the level of interest and focus that it currently has, I mean, what happens next when they come back, when Republicans and Democrats come back to the Hill? And, you know, not just what Johnson does, but are you sensing that this is going to blow up in any way?

Imagine a scenario, and this is obviously thinking a couple steps ahead, imagine a scenario where there's some kind of congressional hearing on this, right? Imagine a scenario where they get some information, and they have to discuss it in some way that becomes even more of a circus. I think that's certainly a possibility. It's also possible that, at some point, maybe the Senate gets involved. Now, they have made very clear that this is not an issue they want to delve into. The key chairmen have not expressed any interest in issuing subpoenas. But I'd be interested to see, if the fervor continues over recess, if senators start to feel some pressure.

One of the things that you've been very clear on is that these members, particularly these House members who are allies of Donald Trump's, is that they're very much trying to walk a line here while still supporting President Trump. What about the rest of the administration? Are you hearing grumblings from these very — because that's what we're hearing in the White House, is a lot of finger pointing at Department of Justice, at the FBI. Are you hear that on the Hill, too?

'I think so far, openly, people are, first and foremost, going to Trump's aid. Secondly, they'll argue, Pam Bondi's doing a fine job. There's not an over-exuberance of endorsement for Pam Bondi's handling of this. I think some people were a little confused by some of her previous comments and then where she ended up on the Epstein files. And I think they were willing to sort of lay that out and put on her that it was her responsibility to provide more clarity as to why she made those decisions. But I could certainly see that becoming a tension point if the White House starts to spin in that direction in a really dramatic way and House Republicans start to see that as a way to side with Donald Trump or to show that they are siding with Donald Trump, right? It's very similar to when we saw the initial story, the initial scoop from the Wall Street Journal last week, and the quickest and fastest response we got was, well, that's not real, or Trump's denying it, and we believe him. That kind of, if we have a common enemy, then we can show we're on Trump's side. I think that that strategy could certainly still play out.

Lauren, thank you so much for your time.

You got it. Thanks so much for having me.

That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN Podcasts. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Our senior producers are Faiz Jamil and Felicia Patinkin. Dan Dzula is our Technical Director, And Steve Lickteig is the Executive Producer of CNN Podcasts. Support from Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.