Clintons Agree to Testify in House Epstein Probe as Contempt Vote Looms

WASHINGTON (JN) – Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, stepping in just as lawmakers moved toward holding them in contempt of Congress. The late development paused, but did not end, a confrontation that could have marked an unprecedented moment for congressional authority over former national leaders.

The dispute centers on how and when the Clintons would comply with subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee. While their attorneys offered terms for cooperation, the Republican chair leading the probe insisted on sworn depositions under the committee’s conditions. Negotiations late Monday delayed a planned procedural step toward a full House vote on contempt.

The episode highlights the political and legal sensitivities surrounding the congressional inquiry into Epstein, whose connections to powerful figures have remained under scrutiny since his death in federal custody in 2019.

Subpoenas, negotiations, and a paused vote

Rep. James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee, confirmed Monday evening that attorneys for the Clintons had contacted committee staff to say the former president and former secretary of state were prepared to appear for depositions on “mutually agreeable dates.”

However, Comer said no formal agreement had yet been finalized and indicated he was not prepared to immediately withdraw contempt proceedings. “We don’t have anything in writing,” he told reporters, adding that whether the offer would be accepted would depend on the terms.

Earlier in the day, Republican leaders had been advancing a contempt resolution through the House Rules Committee — the final procedural step before a vote on the House floor. The Rules Committee later postponed action as discussions continued.

If passed and referred for prosecution, the contempt resolution could carry the possibility of fines or imprisonment under federal law, though enforcement would depend on action by the Department of Justice.

Dispute over terms of testimony

A letter from the committee to the Clintons’ attorneys indicated that the former president had offered to participate in a four-hour transcribed interview related to Epstein investigations and prosecutions, while Hillary Clinton offered to submit a sworn declaration.

Comer rejected that proposal, insisting both comply with the committee’s subpoenas by appearing for sworn depositions in person.

“The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas,” Comer said.

The Clintons’ legal team had previously challenged the validity of the subpoenas issued in August, arguing they were flawed. But as the committee advanced criminal contempt charges last month, negotiations intensified.

Nine Democrats on the 21-member committee joined Republicans in supporting contempt proceedings against Bill Clinton. Three Democrats supported advancing similar charges against Hillary Clinton, reflecting bipartisan support within the panel for compelling their testimony.

Focus on Bill Clinton’s past ties to Epstein

Republicans have pointed to Bill Clinton’s past association with Epstein as a key reason for seeking his testimony. The former president, like several other prominent figures, had a documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

The Oversight Committee’s inquiry is part of broader congressional and public interest in understanding how Epstein’s network operated and whether influential individuals were shielded from scrutiny.

Clintons criticize the investigation’s focus

A spokesperson for the Clintons, Angel Ureña, criticized Comer’s approach, accusing him of politicizing the investigation while failing to press the Justice Department over delays in releasing case files related to Epstein.

“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” Ureña said in response to Comer’s statements. “They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care.”

Democrats have argued that the investigation should focus more on why the Department of Justice has not released all materials related to Epstein, rather than targeting former officeholders.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said his caucus would discuss the contempt resolutions later in the week but did not commit to a unified position. He described himself as a “hard no” on contempt, saying the committee’s approach risked turning the process into a political exercise.

“They don’t want a serious interview, they want a charade,” Jeffries said.

A rare confrontation over congressional authority

The prospect of holding a former president in contempt of Congress would be without precedent. Historically, former presidents have not been compelled to testify before Congress, though some have appeared voluntarily.

The Rules Committee’s decision to delay advancing the resolution underscores the delicate balance between congressional oversight authority and long-standing norms surrounding former national leaders.

As negotiations continue, both sides appear to be weighing legal exposure, political optics, and institutional precedent. Whether the Clintons’ agreement to testify will avert a full House vote remains uncertain, pending the terms that the committee and the Clintons’ legal team ultimately settle.

For now, the investigation into Epstein continues to reverberate through Congress, drawing in figures whose past connections to the late financier remain the subject of persistent public and political scrutiny.