Clintons Forced to Testify: Congress Faces Off Over Explosive Epstein Ties

Paul Riverbank, 2/4/2026Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before Congress about their Epstein ties—an extraordinary move with bipartisan backing, setting a significant precedent for congressional investigations into powerful figures. The outcome could reshape how Congress wields its subpoena power in future high-profile cases.

Negotiations, by all accounts, dragged on behind closed doors. The House Oversight Committee, led by Kentucky Republican James Comer, had made it clear: witness statements or backchannel interviews wouldn’t cut it. Only live, in-person depositions—recorded for the Congressional record—would satisfy the panel. What began as a formal inquiry swelled, fueled by mounting frustration on both sides and repeated refusals to cooperate. At one point, Angel Ureña, who handles public messaging for Bill Clinton, fired off an unusually pointed note through social media, blaming Congress for bad faith and insisting the Clintons had already answered whatever could reasonably be asked. “They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone,” Ureña added, sounding almost weary but defiant.

Chairman Comer wasn’t about to yield. It’s a scene that played out in briefings and hallway interviews: “The Clintons,” he declared, “do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas.” For Comer, anything less than full compliance amounted to defiance—yet he stopped well short of surrender when the news arrived the Clintons would show. “We don’t have anything in writing,” Comer said, looking skeptical, “and it depends on what they say, frankly.” An earlier compromise floated by the Clintons’ legal team—Bill giving a recorded interview, Hillary offering a written sworn declaration—had been dismissed out of hand.

Despite recurrent headlines tying the former president to Epstein, Clinton has maintained he broke off all communication nearly twenty years ago. Still, the House Oversight Committee pressed on, advancing criminal contempt measures last month when the couple initially failed to appear. Intriguingly, this wasn’t strictly a partisan feud: nine Democrats joined Republicans in pressing charges against Bill Clinton, and three voted similarly with regard to Hillary. The consensus, at least publicly, was about transparency—a word that carried special weight considering how long rumors had swirled surrounding Epstein’s connections to public figures.

This marks an episode not seen in nearly half a century: a former commander in chief summoned to answer questions under threat of criminal sanction. Gerald Ford was the last ex-president to face committee questioning, back in 1983. The implications reach well beyond this case, raising the specter of future congressional investigations aimed at high-level officials—regardless of party or stature. Both Clintons, through aides and in carefully worded statements, have called the hearings a political cudgel wielded to embarrass rivals—drawing a straight line back to Donald Trump’s own orbit and influence.

While the Clintons’ deposition dates remain up in the air, the broader Epstein inquiry appears poised to widen. Questions have started bubbling up about British royalty and prominent UK officials, with renewed calls to subpoena Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson—both men previously linked to Epstein’s circle.

For Capitol Hill, the spotlight is likely to intensify. Observers, myself included, sense that beyond the immediate testimonies, a more fundamental precedent is quietly being written—one about the reach of Congressional oversight, and the rules by which even the most prominent figures are held to account.

It was nearly dusk in Washington when the news broke—Bill and Hillary Clinton, after months of tense brinkmanship, signaled they’d appear before Congress to address their connections with the late Jeffrey Epstein. Their decision, coming late on a Monday, sidestepped what had grown into a bitter public standoff with lawmakers who’d threatened unprecedented contempt charges.Negotiations, by all accounts, dragged on behind closed doors. The House Oversight Committee, led by Kentucky Republican James Comer, had made it clear: witness statements or backchannel interviews wouldn’t cut it. Only live, in-person depositions—recorded for the Congressional record—would satisfy the panel. What began as a formal inquiry swelled, fueled by mounting frustration on both sides and repeated refusals to cooperate. At one point, Angel Ureña, who handles public messaging for Bill Clinton, fired off an unusually pointed note through social media, blaming Congress for bad faith and insisting the Clintons had already answered whatever could reasonably be asked. “They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone,” Ureña added, sounding almost weary but defiant.Chairman Comer wasn’t about to yield. It’s a scene that played out in briefings and hallway interviews: “The Clintons,” he declared, “do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas.” For Comer, anything less than full compliance amounted to defiance—yet he stopped well short of surrender when the news arrived the Clintons would show. “We don’t have anything in writing,” Comer said, looking skeptical, “and it depends on what they say, frankly.” An earlier compromise floated by the Clintons’ legal team—Bill giving a recorded interview, Hillary offering a written sworn declaration—had been dismissed out of hand.Despite recurrent headlines tying the former president to Epstein, Clinton has maintained he broke off all communication nearly twenty years ago. Still, the House Oversight Committee pressed on, advancing criminal contempt measures last month when the couple initially failed to appear. Intriguingly, this wasn’t strictly a partisan feud: nine Democrats joined Republicans in pressing charges against Bill Clinton, and three voted similarly with regard to Hillary. The consensus, at least publicly, was about transparency—a word that carried special weight considering how long rumors had swirled surrounding Epstein’s connections to public figures.This marks an episode not seen in nearly half a century: a former commander in chief summoned to answer questions under threat of criminal sanction. Gerald Ford was the last ex-president to face committee questioning, back in 1983. The implications reach well beyond this case, raising the specter of future congressional investigations aimed at high-level officials—regardless of party or stature. Both Clintons, through aides and in carefully worded statements, have called the hearings a political cudgel wielded to embarrass rivals—drawing a straight line back to Donald Trump’s own orbit and influence.While the Clintons’ deposition dates remain up in the air, the broader Epstein inquiry appears poised to widen. Questions have started bubbling up about British royalty and prominent UK officials, with renewed calls to subpoena Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson—both men previously linked to Epstein’s circle.For Capitol Hill, the spotlight is likely to intensify. Observers, myself included, sense that beyond the immediate testimonies, a more fundamental precedent is quietly being written—one about the reach of Congressional oversight, and the rules by which even the most prominent figures are held to account.