James Comer Rejects Clinton Offer for Written Testimony in Epstein Probe

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is not backing down from his demand that Bill and Hillary Clinton appear for in-person depositions regarding their connections to deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. This is not a request. This is a lawful subpoena, and the Clintons’ attempt to substitute written answers for sworn testimony should raise serious questions about what they are trying to avoid.

The facts are straightforward. Comer initially issued subpoenas in August requiring the former president and former secretary of state to appear before the committee investigating Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. The Clintons’ attorney, David Kendall, responded in November with a proposal that his clients submit written answers instead, claiming this would be “the most efficient and equitable way to proceed.”

Here is where logic enters the equation. If the Clintons truly have “little to contribute,” as Kendall asserts, then appearing for a deposition should pose no problem whatsoever. Written testimony allows for careful crafting, legal review, and strategic omission. In-person depositions require immediate answers under oath, with follow-up questions that can expose inconsistencies or evasions. The preference for one over the other tells you everything you need to know about the Clintons’ comfort level with transparency.

Comer made his position crystal clear in a Friday statement. “Given their history with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, any attempt by the Clintons to avoid sitting for a deposition would be in defiance of lawful subpoenas and grounds to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings,” he wrote. Bill Clinton’s deposition is scheduled for December 17, with Hillary Clinton’s following on December 18.

The Clintons’ documented relationship with Epstein cannot be dismissed as inconsequential. Bill Clinton has acknowledged traveling on Epstein’s private jet, though he claims he never visited Epstein’s island and stated in his 2024 memoir that he wished he had never met the financier. These admissions, while notable, do not constitute the full accounting that survivors of Epstein’s crimes and the American public deserve.

Kendall’s letter attempted to frame the Clintons as cooperative, stating they “welcome legitimate oversight in this matter that is grounded in fact.” Yet simultaneously refusing to appear for the most basic form of congressional testimony undermines that claim entirely. If you welcome oversight, you comply with subpoenas. If you have nothing to hide, you answer questions under oath.

The timing of this confrontation is significant. The investigation into Epstein’s network continues to reveal the extent of his connections to powerful figures across politics, business, and entertainment. The Epstein estate has agreed to hand over his “birthday book” to lawmakers, potentially revealing additional names and relationships. Transparency in this matter is not optional, and it certainly should not be negotiable based on one’s political connections or legal maneuvering.

Comer’s committee remains committed to delivering accountability for Epstein’s victims. The survivors of these heinous crimes deserve more than carefully worded written statements filtered through attorneys. They deserve the truth, obtained through rigorous questioning of everyone connected to Epstein’s operation.

The Clintons can comply with the lawful subpoenas, or they can face contempt of Congress proceedings. Those are the options. Attempting to dictate the terms of their own testimony is not among them.

Related: DHS Reports Massive Spike in Assaults Against ICE Agents Following Democrat Rhetoric