The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee said he is reconsidering moving contempt resolutions forward after former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to sit for closed-door depositions in the committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
The House had been expected to vote as soon as Wednesday on two contempt of Congress resolutions against the Clintons, until the pair agreed Monday evening to the committee’s demand for testimony.
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña posted on X. “They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”
Last month, the Oversight Committee voted to advance two bipartisan resolutions holding the Clintons in contempt for failing to comply with subpoenas tied to the Epstein inquiry. Chairman James Comer said Monday he needs more clarity on what the Clintons are offering.
“The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again and they have provided no dates for their depositions,” Comer said. “The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt. I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members.”
For months, the Clintons had maintained the subpoenas lacked legal merit. Comer has pushed back, saying the Clintons are not above the law and must comply with subpoenas.
Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and both deny knowing about his crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has publicly accused either of inappropriate behavior related to Epstein.
In a Jan. 31 letter, the Clintons’ lawyers outlined parameters for a proposed interview and asked the committee to withdraw its subpoena and contempt resolution. They proposed a four-hour transcribed interview in New York City, open to all committee members, with questioning limited to matters related to investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein. The letter also said the former president wanted to designate a transcriber in addition to a House-employed court reporter.
“This framework is consistent with your priorities as communicated by Committee staff and as identified during the business meeting on January 21st,” attorneys Katherine Turner and Ashley Callen wrote. They asked the committee to respond if there remained specific areas of disagreement to continue efforts to avoid legal proceedings and permit their clients to provide testimony in addition to sworn statements they had already submitted.
Comer replied Monday, saying he had “serious concerns with the offer.” He said the proposed scope restriction could allow the former president to refuse to answer questions about his personal relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Comer also objected to the four-hour limit and to breaking questioning into alternating 30-minute blocks between Republicans and Democrats rather than longer periods.
“A hard time-limit provides a witness with the incentive to attempt to run out the clock by giving unnecessarily long answers and meandering off-topic,” Comer said, adding that four hours would not allow the committee to fully probe the former president’s relationship with Epstein and Maxwell, his knowledge of their alleged sex-trafficking, or efforts to influence others on their behalf.
Comer also criticized the proposal for a transcribed interview rather than a sworn deposition, saying a transcribed interview is voluntary and would permit a witness to decline to answer questions without asserting privilege or constitutional rights, forcing the committee to reissue subpoenas and restart the process.
The Clintons’ lawyers reiterated that Hillary Clinton “never held an office with responsibility for, or involvement with, DOJ’s handling of these investigations or prosecutions,” and said the same was true of her role as a private citizen after leaving office in 2013. They asked Comer to withdraw the subpoena and contempt resolution so negotiations could continue toward an agreement that “meets the Committee’s needs while accounting for the limited information Secretary Clinton can provide.”
Comer emphasized the necessity of in-person testimony and rejected the adequacy of simple sworn declarations. He called any request for special treatment “both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency.”
