Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton moved late Monday toward compliance with House subpoenas tied to the congressional investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, signaling through their attorneys that they are prepared to sit for sworn depositions as lawmakers pressed ahead with a potential contempt of Congress vote that could mark a historic escalation by Capitol Hill.
The development unfolded as House Republicans advanced resolutions that would hold both Clintons in criminal contempt for failing to comply with subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee last August. The committee is examining Epstein’s network of associates and the federal government’s handling of investigations into his activities before his death in a New York jail in 2019.
Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chair of the Oversight Committee, acknowledged receiving an email from lawyers for the Clintons indicating the former president and former secretary of state would appear for depositions on dates to be mutually agreed upon. The attorneys also asked Comer to halt contempt proceedings in exchange for that cooperation.
Comer declined to immediately withdraw the resolutions, telling reporters that no binding agreement had been finalized. He said discussions were ongoing and emphasized that clarity on timing and conditions remained unresolved. While leaving open the possibility of accepting the Clintons’ offer, Comer stressed that the committee would decide its next steps only after reviewing concrete terms.
The standoff reached a critical point as the House Rules Committee delayed consideration of the contempt resolutions while negotiations continued. The pause came just as Republican leaders were preparing to move the measures toward a floor vote, an action that could expose a former president to fines or even jail time if the Justice Department were to pursue prosecution. Congress has never before advanced criminal contempt proceedings against a former president, reflecting the gravity of the moment and the institutional tensions at play.
Earlier Monday, Comer rejected a proposal from the Clintons’ attorneys that would have allowed Bill Clinton to participate in a four-hour transcribed interview while Hillary Clinton responded to questions through a sworn written declaration. In a letter to counsel, the committee reiterated that both subpoenas required in-person, sworn depositions.
“The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas,” Comer said, underscoring his insistence that the committee’s authority be fully respected.
The subpoenas stem from the Oversight Committee’s broader inquiry into Epstein and his associates. The panel issued demands for testimony not only to the Clintons but also to a slate of former Justice Department and FBI leaders, including former Attorneys General Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales, as well as former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller. The committee said it was seeking testimony related to what it described as the “horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein.”
For months, attorneys for the Clintons challenged the validity and scope of the subpoenas, arguing that Hillary Clinton had no meaningful connection to Epstein and that Bill Clinton had already addressed his limited interactions with the financier. As the Oversight Committee escalated toward contempt proceedings, those objections gave way to renewed talks aimed at avoiding a floor vote.
Last month, the Republican-led committee advanced contempt charges with notable bipartisan support. Nine Democrats joined Republicans in backing the measure against Bill Clinton, while three Democrats supported advancing contempt against Hillary Clinton, citing the need for transparency in the Epstein investigation.
Republicans have focused particular attention on Bill Clinton’s past association with Epstein, which dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s. Clinton’s name appeared in flight logs and photographs connected to Epstein, though Clinton has consistently denied any wrongdoing. His office has said he traveled on Epstein’s plane in connection with Clinton Foundation work before Epstein faced criminal charges and cut ties with him well before Epstein’s 2006 arrest for soliciting sex from a minor.
The Clintons and their allies have accused Comer of politicizing the investigation while failing to aggressively pursue the release of remaining Epstein-related files held by the Justice Department. They argue that the Trump administration bears responsibility for delays in making those records public.
Angel Ureña, a spokesperson for the Clintons, responded sharply to Comer’s posture Monday, saying the former president and former secretary of state had engaged constructively while the committee had not. Ureña said the Clintons had already testified under oath about what they know and accused Republicans of prioritizing confrontation over substance.
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed that criticism earlier in the day, signaling skepticism within his caucus about supporting contempt resolutions. Jeffries said Democrats would confer later in the week but made clear his opposition, characterizing the effort as political retribution rather than a serious attempt to obtain information.
“They don’t want a serious interview, they want a charade,” Jeffries said, while also pressing the Justice Department to release all remaining Epstein materials.
The Associated Press has noted that Congress historically has shown deference to former presidents, none of whom has been compelled to testify before lawmakers. While a handful have appeared voluntarily in limited contexts, the prospect of a contempt vote against a former president represents a sharp break from precedent and raises questions about congressional norms and separation of powers.
According to NBC News, Ureña reiterated in a public response that the Clintons would appear and welcomed what he described as a precedent that should apply equally to all witnesses. Still, the timing and location of any depositions remained unclear late Monday.
In a statement issued Monday night, Comer said that although the Clintons’ attorneys claimed agreement with committee terms, they had yet to provide specific dates or final assurances. He said the committee would clarify the conditions and then determine how to proceed.
From a broader perspective, the confrontation reflects the enduring political aftershocks of the Epstein case, which continues to draw scrutiny across administrations and party lines. It also highlights the expanding use of contempt powers by Congress in an era of heightened polarization, where oversight battles increasingly carry symbolic as well as legal weight.
Whether the Clintons’ willingness to testify will defuse the conflict or merely delay a historic vote remains uncertain. What is clear is that the Oversight Committee’s push has already forced a rare negotiation involving a former president and a former secretary of state, placing the Epstein investigation at the center of a consequential debate over congressional authority, accountability and political motive.
AP/NBC
