The long-running congressional inquiry into the activities, associations, and influence networks surrounding the late financier Jeffrey Epstein entered a new phase this week as House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer intensified efforts to compel testimony from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The committee, which has been reviewing newly released documents and examining the broader social and political connections tied to Epstein, has argued that both Clintons may possess information relevant to its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
The Oversight Committee initially issued subpoenas in August requiring both Clintons to sit for depositions scheduled for October. However, neither appeared on the appointed dates, citing scheduling conflicts and other logistical issues through their legal counsel. The missed depositions prompted months of exchanges between committee staff and attorneys representing the former president and former secretary of state, though negotiations made little concrete progress.
Chairman Comer, in remarks made last week, expressed clear frustration with what he described as continued attempts to avoid in-person testimony. He indicated that the matter could escalate if the Clintons do not appear voluntarily, referencing past instances in which witnesses were criminally charged for failing to comply with congressional demands.
“We expect the Clintons to come in,” Comer said. “Or I expect the Clintons to be met with the same consequences that Bannon and Navarro were met with when the Democrats were in control.”
His comment referenced Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, two former advisers to President Donald Trump who were charged with contempt of Congress during the previous Democratic House majority after refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the January 6th Committee. Both were later convicted in federal court.
Although Comer did not explicitly state that the committee intends to pursue similar charges immediately, his remarks signaled that the panel is prepared to escalate efforts if cooperation is not forthcoming.
A Written Statement Rejected
The Clintons’ legal team recently proposed an alternative to appearing in person: submitting a written summary outlining what they characterized as the “limited” information the couple had regarding Epstein. According to correspondence released by the committee, the attorneys argued that neither of the Clintons had substantive involvement with Epstein and that their personal interactions were minimal.
However, Chairman Comer rejected the proposal and insisted that written summaries could not replace sworn testimony. In a formal response, he argued that the committee has the right to conduct in-person questioning, especially since the Clintons acknowledged they had at least some relevant information.
“Given the admission that your clients possess some relevant information, your position amounts to a demand that the Committee forgo in-person testimony, potentially relevant to its legislative oversight,” Comer wrote.
He also disputed the legal team’s assertion that testimony regarding personal interactions is irrelevant to congressional oversight because the events occurred outside official government duties.
“Your suggestion that your clients’ testimony would not be relevant because these interactions occurred outside their official roles misses the Committee’s point,” Comer added. “It is precisely the fact that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton each maintained relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in their personal capacities that is of interest to the Committee.”
Committee members have stressed that their investigation is not focused solely on political figures but instead on understanding how Epstein cultivated influence, built networks across multiple industries, and maintained high-level connections even after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor.
Why the Committee Wants the Clintons’ Testimony
Jeffrey Epstein’s relationships have long drawn scrutiny, but interest intensified after federal authorities arrested him in 2019 on sex trafficking charges. Before his death later that year while in federal custody, investigators uncovered a substantial network of contacts across business, politics, academia, and international diplomacy. The House Oversight Committee argues that understanding those relationships is essential for assessing potential vulnerabilities in federal oversight systems, influence operations, and failures in law enforcement coordination.
For more than a decade, Bill Clinton’s interactions with Epstein have been the subject of speculation and reporting. Public flight logs indicate that the former president flew on Epstein’s aircraft multiple times in the early 2000s. Additionally, Epstein visited the Clinton White House more than a dozen times between 1993 and 1995. Clinton has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s illegal activities.
Hillary Clinton’s connections to Epstein are less direct but have been discussed in media reports, including campaign contributions Epstein made before his 2008 plea deal and the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell—Epstein’s longtime associate—at Chelsea Clinton’s 2010 wedding.
While none of these connections imply wrongdoing by the Clintons, the committee maintains that firsthand testimony is necessary to determine whether Epstein attempted to cultivate political relationships for influence or legitimacy and whether existing laws adequately guard against similar situations.
The Clintons’ Position
In public statements over the years, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have distanced themselves from Epstein. After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, a spokesperson for Bill Clinton said the former president had “not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade” and had “never been aware of any of his alleged crimes.”
Their legal representatives have conveyed similar positions to the committee, arguing that the Clintons’ knowledge of Epstein was limited, largely social in nature, and not connected to government activity.
They also noted that the passage of time—some interactions date back more than two decades—should be taken into consideration when evaluating the relevance and reliability of any testimony.
The Clintons have not publicly responded to Comer’s latest remarks, and their attorneys have not indicated whether they plan to attend the newly scheduled depositions.
What Comes Next
With written statements rejected, the committee has set new dates for the Clintons’ depositions:
- Bill Clinton: December 17
- Hillary Clinton: December 18
If they do not appear, the Oversight Committee could vote to refer the matter to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress charges. Whether the Justice Department would pursue such charges against former high-ranking government officials is uncertain and would likely spark legal debate.
In similar cases, courts have ruled that Congress has broad authority to issue subpoenas for legislative purposes. However, the DOJ maintains discretion in deciding which referrals to prosecute.
The Larger Epstein Document Release
The renewed focus on the Clintons comes as thousands of pages of previously sealed court filings—emails, texts, flight logs, and visitor records—have been released in recent weeks. These documents list interactions with numerous prominent individuals across various fields, including business executives, former government officials, and international diplomats. Many of the contacts appear to be routine, superficial, or unrelated to unlawful conduct, but their release has prompted calls for transparency.
Epstein’s wide range of professional and social connections has raised ongoing questions about how he maintained influence after his first conviction and why certain institutions continued to associate with him.
The Oversight Committee insists that understanding these details is essential for developing potential reforms.
Conclusion
Chairman Comer’s warning underscores what may become a defining moment in the committee’s investigation. Whether the Clintons appear for their December depositions will likely determine the next phase of congressional action, including potential contempt proceedings.
The inquiry itself remains focused on mapping Epstein’s network and understanding how high-profile individuals intersected with his financial, social, and philanthropic activities. Regardless of the outcome, the push to secure testimony from two of the most recognizable political figures in recent American history ensures the issue will remain in public focus for months to come.