Key takeaways

• Rep. James Comer warns shutdowns never save money and hurt taxpayers.
• Comer claims Democrats, not Republicans, fuel the current shutdown to boost spending.
• He expects furloughed government workers to get paid eventually.
• Comer strongly opposes any Maxwell pardon for Jeffrey Epstein’s associate.
• He cites thousands of pages of DOJ records and victim accounts to back his view.

Rep. James Comer joined CNN to push back on President Trump’s threats about the government shutdown. He also spoke out against a possible Maxwell pardon. The conversation covered stalled budgets, worker pay, and high-stakes legal decisions.

Maxwell pardon faces strong pushback

In the CNN interview, Comer addressed two hot topics. First, he tackled Trump’s plan to cut pay for furloughed workers. Then, he warned against the idea of a Ghislaine Maxwell pardon. He shared his research and lessons from past shutdowns.

Why shutdowns never end well

Comer said history shows shutdowns cost more than they save. He noted that when the government shuts down, agencies still owe back pay. “You think you will save money, but you don’t,” he said. Agencies must pay salaries once the doors reopen. That creates a bigger bill for taxpayers.

He pointed out that past Republican-led shutdowns failed to cut spending. They only delayed costs. In contrast, he argued, Democrats now hold the line to boost their spending plans. He stated that Republicans back a leaner budget while Democrats want more funding.

How furloughed workers will get paid

Despite harsh rhetoric, Comer assured viewers that workers will see their paychecks. He said Congress will act to settle the bill. Moreover, he added that lawmakers know the public backs those workers. In his view, delaying their pay would hurt political support.

Trump’s move to threaten worker pay alarmed many. Yet Comer remained confident those threats would fail. He explained that the power to approve funds lies with Congress, not the White House. Thus, Trump cannot block pay on his own.

Maxwell pardon debate heats up

Next, Tapper shifted to the possibility of a Maxwell pardon. Ghislaine Maxwell served time for helping Jeffrey Epstein recruit and groom minors. The case drew global attention and sparked outrage worldwide. Many fear a pardon would undermine justice.

Comer made his position clear: he stands firmly against any Maxwell pardon. He said the evidence and victim accounts leave no room for doubt. “I do not think he should,” Comer stated. “I’ve seen enough from thousands of pages of documents.”

He described the mountain of records the Justice Department turned over to Congress. In addition, he and his team subpoenaed estate documents tied to Epstein and Maxwell. Through these files, Comer learned details of Maxwell’s role in trafficking.

Victim voices shape his view

Comer also met with survivors of Epstein and Maxwell’s abuse. He stressed the importance of listening to those who lived the horror. “Their stories confirm what we read in the files,” he said. “We must stand with them, not pardon her.”

He argued that a Maxwell pardon would betray the victims and send the wrong message. He warned it could discourage more survivors from coming forward. Furthermore, he claimed it could weaken future criminal prosecutions.

What happens next

Comer urged his colleagues to reject any Maxwell pardon. He called for transparency and full disclosure of all related documents. In his opinion, Congress must safeguard the rule of law.

Meanwhile, the shutdown fight rages on. Lawmakers continue negotiating over spending levels and key policy issues. Comer plans to keep pressing for budget discipline. He also promised to block any measure that shields Maxwell from punishment.

How key players respond

President Trump has not ruled out a pardon. His comments remain vague. He has threatened to use his pardon power but offered no clear plan. That uncertainty fuels more debate.

Democrats dismiss threats to cut worker pay as political posturing. They accuse Republicans of using furloughed employees as leverage. In turn, Republicans call out Democrats for running up the deficit. The stalemate persists.

Comer’s stance may sway fellow Republicans who worry about public backlash. If enough lawmakers oppose the Maxwell pardon, Trump could face pressure to back down.

Why this matters

Government shutdowns affect millions of Americans. Furloughed workers struggle without pay. Essential services can slow or stop entirely. Taxpayers end up footing bigger bills for back pay and unused services.

At the same time, a Maxwell pardon would shake public trust in the justice system. It would signal that powerful figures can escape accountability. For victims and their families, such a pardon could reopen painful wounds.

Comer sees both fights as connected. He believes fiscal responsibility and legal integrity should guide policy. By standing against the shutdown and a Maxwell pardon, he hopes to defend both taxpayers and victims.

Looking ahead

As negotiations continue, the nation watches closely. Will Congress break the shutdown deadlock? Can lawmakers secure back pay for workers without boosting spending? Most importantly, will any push for a Maxwell pardon fade away?

These questions will shape headlines in the days ahead. Comer and other leaders must navigate complex politics and moral choices. Meanwhile, victims of abuse await justice, and furloughed employees await their pay. The stakes remain high for everyone.

Frequently asked questions

What does Rep. Comer say about the government shutdown?

He argues that shutdowns never save money, cost taxpayers more, and that Democrats are driving the current shutdown to spend more.

Will furloughed workers get paid?

Comer believes Congress will act to ensure back pay, and workers should see their salaries once negotiations end.

Why does Comer oppose a Maxwell pardon?

He cites thousands of pages of Justice Department documents, subpoenaed estate records, and victim testimonies that highlight Maxwell’s guilt.

How could a Maxwell pardon affect future cases?

A pardon could undermine the rule of law, discourage victims from speaking out, and weaken the justice system’s deterrent effect.