House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said he is reconsidering moving forward with contempt of Congress resolutions against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after both agreed to give closed-door depositions in the committee’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.
A House vote on two contempt resolutions had been expected as soon as Wednesday, but the Clintons’ agreement to sit for testimony prompted Comer to say he needs additional clarity about the terms. The Clintons’ team said they negotiated in good faith and would appear; a spokesperson accused Republicans of ignoring sworn testimony the former president and secretary of state have already provided.
Last month the committee advanced bipartisan contempt resolutions against the Clintons for failing to comply with subpoenas related to the Epstein inquiry. Comer has repeatedly said no one is above the law and must obey subpoenas. The Clintons have maintained the subpoenas lack legal merit. Neither has been accused of wrongdoing in the Epstein matter, and no survivor or associate has publicly accused either of improper behavior connected to Epstein; both deny knowledge of his crimes.
In a Jan. 31 letter, attorneys for the Clintons proposed parameters for a voluntary interview to replace the subpoena. They proposed a four-hour, transcribed interview in New York, open to all committee members, limited to questions tied to investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein. The letter requested withdrawal of the subpoena and contempt resolution and proposed allowing the former president to designate a transcriber in addition to a House-employed court reporter.
Comer responded that he had “serious concerns” with that offer. He said narrowing the scope could let the former president decline to answer questions about his personal relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. He objected to the four-hour time limit and to a plan to split questioning into alternating 30-minute blocks, warning a strict clock could encourage long, evasive answers and prevent a full probe of relationships, knowledge of alleged sex-trafficking, or efforts to influence others.
Comer also criticized the proposal for a transcribed interview rather than a sworn deposition, arguing a non-sworn, voluntary interview would allow witnesses to decline answers without invoking privilege or constitutional rights and could force the committee to reissue subpoenas.
The Clintons’ lawyers reiterated that Hillary Clinton never had responsibility for or involvement with the Justice Department’s handling of these investigations or prosecutions, including after she left office in 2013, and asked Comer to withdraw the subpoena so negotiations could continue.
Comer emphasized that in-person testimony under oath is necessary, dismissed sworn declarations as inadequate, and called any request for special treatment ‘‘frustrating’’ and an affront to the public’s desire for transparency. He said he will seek clearer terms from the Clintons’ counsel and then discuss next steps with committee members.