By Gloria Nosa
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to appear in Washington, DC, for face-to-face depositions as part of the House investigation into disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, in a last-ditch effort to avert a looming contempt of Congress vote.
The late move comes after months of standoff between the Clintons and the House Oversight Committee over subpoenas compelling their testimony. Whether the offer will be accepted remains uncertain, as committee chairman James Comer has yet to formally approve the proposed terms.
A contempt vote—already advancing through the House—could carry serious legal and political consequences if it proceeds.
A spokesperson for the Clintons said the couple is prepared to comply fully with the committee’s demands and accused House leadership of escalating tensions unnecessarily. In a pointed public statement, Clinton spokesman Angel Ureña said the former president and former secretary of state were ready to testify under oath and expected the same standards to apply uniformly.
Chairman Comer, however, responded cautiously, saying the proposal lacked essential details, including firm dates for the depositions. He noted that the offer arrived only after contempt resolutions had gained momentum and said he would consult committee members once the terms were clarified.
Democrats on the committee struck a different tone. The ranking member expressed optimism that the agreement would move forward, insisting the Clintons had accepted every condition previously laid out by the chairman.
Representative Robert Garcia said lawmakers had long sought Bill Clinton’s testimony and welcomed the development, adding that negotiations with the Clintons’ legal team had been ongoing for weeks.
Earlier the same day, Comer had signaled readiness to press ahead with contempt proceedings, citing what he described as repeated noncompliance with subpoenas issued nearly six months ago. He accused the Clintons of resisting oversight and seeking preferential treatment, arguing that public confidence demanded accountability.
According to sources familiar with the process, the Clintons’ attorney formally submitted the in-person deposition proposal by email while the House Rules Committee was actively discussing the framework for a contempt vote. Later that evening, Rules Committee Chair Virginia Foxx announced the panel would temporarily pause action on the resolutions, while cautioning that proceedings could resume if talks collapse.
The Clintons’ legal team had previously floated alternative arrangements, including a voluntary, in-person interview in New York lasting up to four hours—an offer Comer rejected earlier that same day.
Documents reviewed by U.S. media outlets show sustained back-and-forth between both sides since January, when the committee voted to pursue contempt after the Clintons declined to appear for sworn depositions related to the Epstein investigation.
In earlier correspondence, Bill Clinton’s lawyers proposed a limited, transcribed interview focused solely on Epstein, allowing questioning by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, with legal counsel present. Bill Clinton has consistently denied any involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities.
While Hillary Clinton’s attorneys initially opposed a subpoena for her testimony, they later suggested she could submit a sworn statement or appear for an in-person interview under similar conditions.
In return, the Clintons’ lawyers sought withdrawal of the subpoenas and contempt resolutions—a request Comer flatly rejected. He argued that voluntary interviews could not substitute for sworn depositions and criticized attempts to restrict the scope and duration of questioning.
Comer also raised concerns about the Clintons’ insistence on separate transcription arrangements, questioning the necessity given the presence of official court reporters.
With tensions still high, the committee now faces a decision: accept the in-person testimony offer or move forward with contempt proceedings that could further escalate the political and legal stakes of the Epstein probe.
