House GOP Pushes to Hold Clintons in Contempt Over Epstein Subpoenas/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ House Republicans have initiated efforts to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify in the ongoing Epstein investigation. The Clintons argue the subpoenas lack legislative purpose, while negotiations for testimony continue. The high-stakes political standoff intensifies scrutiny of Congress’s handling of the Epstein case.
Clintons Face Contempt Threat Over Epstein Probe Quick Looks
- House Oversight Committee moves to hold the Clintons in contempt
- Contempt could lead to criminal prosecution and possible jail time
- The Clintons deny wrongdoing and question the legality of subpoenas
- Chairman James Comer says the Clintons have responded with “defiance”
- Republicans demand in-person testimony; Clintons offered written statements
- Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia urges full release of Epstein files
- Ghislaine Maxwell and Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify in coming weeks
- No former U.S. president has ever been held in contempt by Congress
- Epstein documents release delayed by the Justice Department
- The dispute becomes a flashpoint in post-2024 political realignment
Deep Look
House Republicans Threaten Contempt Charges Against Clintons Over Epstein Investigation
In a historic escalation, House Republicans are moving to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued in the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. If approved, the contempt proceedings could trigger criminal referrals to the Department of Justice — marking the first time a former U.S. president could face such punishment from Congress.
At the center of the controversy is the House Oversight Committee’s effort to compel the Clintons to testify as part of its expansive probe into how Epstein was able to abuse underage girls for years without being brought to justice. Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY) opened a hearing Wednesday by accusing the Clintons of defying lawful subpoenas.
“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions — they carry the force of law and require compliance,” Comer said. “What we have received from the Clintons is not cooperation but defiance.”
Clintons Push Back, Cite Invalid Subpoena
Through their legal team, the Clintons have rejected the subpoenas, arguing they lack a clear legislative purpose. They claim that they were unaware of Epstein’s criminal behavior and have already provided written declarations detailing their limited interactions with him.
In a letter sent to Comer last week, the Clintons wrote, “We have tried to give you the little information we have. We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific.”
Behind the scenes, negotiations have been ongoing. Clinton attorney David Kendall reportedly floated the idea of arranging testimony over the Christmas holiday. However, Comer rejected a proposal to conduct a private interview in New York, insisting on a transcribed deposition before committee staff.
“You have to have a transcript in an investigation,” Comer said. “So no transcript, no deal.”
Contempt as a Rare But Growing Tactic
While contempt of Congress has historically been used sparingly, recent years have seen a rise in its application. Trump advisers Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were both convicted of contempt for defying subpoenas during the House’s investigation into the January 6 attack. They served prison time as a result.
No former president has ever been successfully compelled to testify before Congress. Past efforts, such as the January 6 committee’s subpoena to Donald Trump, were withdrawn after legal challenges.
Still, Comer appears determined to test precedent. His push to hold the Clintons accountable could lead to a criminal referral, which, if pursued by the Department of Justice, carries the possibility of fines or even imprisonment.
Democrats Call for Transparency, Question Motives
While Democrats on the committee haven’t mounted a full-throated defense of the Clintons, they’ve accused Comer of playing politics by focusing narrowly on the former president and first lady.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), the committee’s top Democrat, said the priority should be transparency — starting with the Justice Department’s delayed release of unredacted Epstein files.
“No president or former president is above the law,” Garcia said. “But let’s not pretend this is about justice when subpoenas are selectively enforced.”
Garcia criticized Comer for focusing on the Clintons while allowing former attorneys general to submit written statements instead of live testimony. He also questioned the committee’s decision to prioritize the Clinton subpoena over others, including Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime confidante.
“It’s interesting that this subpoena is the only one Republicans are obsessed with,” Garcia said.
More Testimony on the Horizon
Despite the partisan clashes, the committee is moving forward with additional witness interviews. Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a lengthy prison sentence for sex trafficking, is expected to speak with the committee next month. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has faced criticism for delaying the full release of Epstein-related documents, is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in February.
Republicans and Democrats alike have voiced frustration over the Biden Justice Department’s failure to meet a congressional deadline to release complete Epstein case files. The delay has unified both parties in demanding accountability and has fueled bipartisan support for subpoenas to both the Epstein estate and federal agencies.
Still, the inclusion of the Clintons in the probe remains controversial. While they have not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, their political prominence and past connections to Epstein have made them focal points in the investigation.
Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 while awaiting trial. Since then, a cascade of documents and allegations have linked him to dozens of powerful individuals, including Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew, and others. Yet the political consequences of those connections vary, depending on which party controls the investigative process.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.