House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is escalating pressure on Bill and Hillary Clinton, setting firm January deposition dates and warning that failure to appear will trigger immediate contempt of Congress proceedings. The Kentucky Republican's hardball tactics signal his determination to obtain sworn testimony from the power couple regarding their relationship with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
In a letter sent Monday evening to the Clintons' attorney, Comer rescheduled Bill Clinton's deposition for January 13, 2026, and Hillary Clinton's for January 14, 2026, after the former president cited a funeral conflict for his original date. The chairman made clear these dates are non-negotiable and that the Clintons will face consequences if they continue evading congressional oversight.
"We're going to hold him in contempt if he doesn't show up for his deposition," Comer told Fox News Digital, revealing his frustration with what he characterized as the Clintons' ongoing delay tactics.
The Clintons' Pattern of Evasion
The Clintons were originally subpoenaed over the summer to testify before the House Oversight Committee as part of its comprehensive investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's network of powerful political, business, and cultural figures. They joined a long list of former presidential administration officials called for closed-door depositions with committee lawyers.
To date, only two individuals have appeared in person: former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr and former Trump administration Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. Others have deferred their subpoena dates or submitted written statements citing various personal matters—a pattern the Clintons attempted to replicate.
However, Comer is refusing to allow the Clintons the same accommodations granted to witnesses who lacked relevant information or faced serious health issues preventing testimony. His letter specifically rejects the Clinton legal team's arguments that their clients deserve equal treatment with these other witnesses.
"Your correspondence with the Committee continues to ignore the Committee's arguments, misstates relevant facts, and seeks information about the Committee's investigation to which neither you nor your clients are entitled," Comer wrote, dispensing with diplomatic language typically used in congressional communications.
The Clinton-Epstein Connection
Comer's letter emphasizes a critical distinction separating the Clintons from witnesses who received deferrals: their personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's co-conspirator who was convicted of sex trafficking minors.
"For example, unlike these other individuals, President Clinton and Secretary Clinton had a personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell," the chairman stated bluntly, establishing the factual basis for treating the Clintons differently than other potential witnesses.
The committee's investigation has already released photos and documents showing Bill Clinton and other powerful figures, including President Donald Trump, socializing with Epstein to varying degrees. However, the extent and nature of these relationships differ significantly, with Clinton's connections to Epstein far more extensive and concerning than previously acknowledged.
Flight logs from Epstein's private jet, infamously dubbed the "Lolita Express," show Bill Clinton made numerous trips on the aircraft, including international flights to Africa and Europe. These trips occurred during the period when Epstein was allegedly trafficking underage girls, raising serious questions about Clinton's knowledge of or participation in Epstein's criminal activities.
The 50th Birthday Book
Evidence released by the committee includes handwritten entries in a book compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday celebration. Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump contributed to this commemorative volume, though the nature and timing of their relationships with Epstein diverged dramatically.
Media scrutiny initially focused almost exclusively on Trump's entry, reflecting the partisan bias that has characterized much Epstein coverage. However, the committee's releases revealed Clinton's entry alongside Trump's, forcing more balanced coverage of the bipartisan nature of Epstein's political connections.
Trump's social interactions with Epstein occurred primarily in the late 1990s and early 2000s, during a period when Epstein cultivated relationships with numerous high-profile figures in New York society. Trump later banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago resort after Epstein allegedly made inappropriate advances toward the teenage daughter of a club member, demonstrating Trump's willingness to sever ties when Epstein's predatory behavior became apparent.
Clinton's relationship with Epstein continued longer and involved more extensive interactions, including the multiple flights on Epstein's private jet and visits to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean—a location where much of Epstein's alleged abuse occurred.
The Legal Disclaimer
The House Oversight Committee has been careful to note that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have been implicated in any wrongdoing related to Epstein's sex trafficking operation. Their social engagements with Epstein appear to have ended long before his 2019 federal indictment on sex trafficking charges and his subsequent death in federal custody, officially ruled a suicide but subject to persistent questions and conspiracy theories.
This legal disclaimer, however, does not diminish the legitimate oversight questions surrounding the Clintons' relationship with a convicted sex trafficker. Congress has every right to investigate how Epstein cultivated relationships with powerful political figures, what those figures knew about his criminal activities, and whether any used their influence to protect him from accountability.
The Constitutional Rights PAC Position
The Constitutional Rights PAC supports Chairman Comer's efforts to obtain testimony from the Clintons and holds that no American—regardless of wealth, power, or political connections—should be above congressional oversight. The Clintons' attempts to avoid sworn testimony under oath reinforce perceptions that political elites operate under different rules than ordinary citizens.
Several critical questions demand answers under oath:
What was the nature and extent of Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? Flight logs show numerous trips together, but the purposes of these trips and activities during them remain unclear. Did Clinton socialize with Epstein beyond these documented flights? Did they communicate regularly? What did Clinton know about Epstein's lifestyle and associates?
What did Bill Clinton know about Epstein's criminal activities? Given Clinton's extensive interactions with Epstein during the period when Epstein was trafficking minors, it strains credulity to suggest Clinton had no awareness of Epstein's behavior. Did Epstein discuss his activities? Did Clinton witness suspicious behavior? Did anyone warn Clinton about Epstein?
Did the Clintons use their influence to protect Epstein? Epstein received an extraordinarily lenient plea deal in 2008 from then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta (who has testified before the committee). Did the Clintons or anyone associated with them communicate with prosecutors about Epstein's case? Did they provide character references or otherwise intervene?
What was Hillary Clinton's relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell? While less documented than Bill's interactions, Hillary also had connections to both individuals. What was the nature of these relationships? Did she attend social events with them? Did she facilitate Bill's relationship with Epstein?
Did the Clinton Foundation receive donations from Epstein or his associates? Epstein was known for using charitable contributions as a means of cultivating relationships with powerful figures. Any financial ties between Epstein's network and the Clinton Foundation would raise significant questions about potential conflicts of interest.
The Broader Epstein Investigation
The House Oversight Committee's Epstein investigation represents one of Congress's most significant efforts to understand how a serial sex trafficker operated for years with apparent impunity while maintaining relationships with some of the world's most powerful people. The investigation has already revealed troubling information about Epstein's connections to intelligence services, academic institutions, scientific foundations, and political figures across the ideological spectrum.
Epstein's 2019 death in federal custody while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges eliminated the possibility of a public trial that would have exposed his network of enablers and potentially implicated powerful figures. With Epstein dead and Ghislaine Maxwell choosing not to cooperate with prosecutors beyond her own case, congressional investigation represents one of the few remaining avenues for public accountability.
The committee has faced accusations from Democrats of selectively focusing on Clinton while downplaying Trump's connections to Epstein. However, the evidence suggests Trump's interactions with Epstein were more limited and ended earlier than Clinton's extensive relationship. Additionally, Trump has cooperated with Epstein investigators in the past, while the Clintons have consistently evaded scrutiny.
Contempt Proceedings
If the Clintons fail to appear for their January depositions, Comer has promised immediate contempt proceedings. This would mark a significant escalation in Congress's confrontation with the powerful couple, who have historically avoided accountability for various controversies throughout their decades in public life.
Congressional contempt can take two forms: criminal contempt referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution, and civil contempt proceedings in federal court to compel compliance. Given the Trump administration's control of the Justice Department, criminal contempt referrals would likely receive more serious consideration than they did during the Biden years when the DOJ frequently declined to prosecute contempt referrals against Democratic-allied witnesses.
However, contempt proceedings against such high-profile figures would trigger intense political and media scrutiny. The Clintons would undoubtedly characterize any contempt action as partisan persecution, and their media allies would amplify this messaging. Democrats would rally to their defense, potentially creating a political circus that could complicate Comer's investigation.
Despite these challenges, the Constitutional Rights PAC believes Comer must follow through on his contempt threat if the Clintons defy their subpoenas. Allowing politically connected elites to ignore congressional oversight with impunity would establish a dangerous precedent undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
The Public Interest
The American people deserve to know the full extent of Jeffrey Epstein's connections to powerful political figures and whether any of those figures used their influence to protect him or participated in his crimes. The Clintons' refusal to provide straightforward testimony under oath only intensifies public suspicion about what they're hiding.
If the Clintons have nothing to hide regarding their relationship with Epstein, they should welcome the opportunity to testify publicly and dispel any concerns. Their continued evasion suggests they fear questions they cannot answer without either admitting damaging facts or committing perjury.
The Epstein scandal represents one of the most significant political-criminal conspiracies in American history, involving sex trafficking of minors, blackmail of powerful figures, potential intelligence operations, and institutional corruption across multiple levels of government and society. Understanding how this operation functioned and who enabled it is essential to preventing similar abuses in the future.
Looking Forward
Chairman Comer's January ultimatum to the Clintons will test whether congressional oversight retains any meaningful power over political elites in the Trump era. If the Clintons appear and testify honestly, it could provide important information advancing public understanding of the Epstein scandal. If they continue evading, Comer must make good on his contempt threat to preserve congressional authority.
The Constitutional Rights PAC will closely monitor this situation and continue demanding accountability for all powerful figures connected to Jeffrey Epstein, regardless of their political affiliations. Justice for Epstein's victims requires uncovering the full truth about his network of enablers, and the Clintons' testimony under oath represents an important step toward that goal.
No one is above the law, and no one is above congressional oversight. The Clintons will finally have to answer for their relationship with one of history's most notorious sex traffickers.
