WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said the committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The announcement comes as the committee widens its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking network and how federal agencies handled key parts of the Epstein cases.
Comer said the Clintons did not show up for closed-door depositions scheduled for this week, even though both were subpoenaed. The committee now plans to treat the missed appearances as subpoena defiance, an unusual step involving two high-profile figures and a subpoena approved with bipartisan support at the subcommittee level.
The subpoenas were issued in August 2025. They were approved unanimously by the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee, including Democratic members. The panel requested testimony about the Clintons’ known contacts with Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Committee leaders say the broader goal is oversight of federal law enforcement decisions tied to Epstein’s crimes, including plea deals and prosecutions.
Comer made his statement after Bill Clinton did not appear for a January 13 deposition. Hillary Clinton also did not appear on January 14. “The Clintons are not above the law,” Comer said. He added that the committee spent five months trying to reach an agreement, and that a subpoena is a legal order, not a request.
The committee has scheduled a markup on January 21, 2026, to consider contempt resolutions for both Clintons. If the committee approves them, the next steps could include a vote by the full House and a referral to the Department of Justice.
What Contempt of Congress Means
Contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor under federal law (2 U.S.C. § 192). It applies when someone willfully refuses to comply with a valid congressional subpoena for testimony or documents tied to a committee inquiry.
Congress has long claimed this authority as part of its power to investigate for lawmaking purposes. The Supreme Court backed that role in cases such as McGrain v. Daugherty (1927).
The usual path starts with a committee vote. If the committee reports a contempt citation and the full House (or Senate) approves it by majority vote, the matter is certified and sent to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for possible prosecution.
A conviction can bring a fine of up to $100,000 and up to one year in jail, with some readings of the law requiring at least one month.
Criminal contempt cases are still uncommon, but they have become more frequent in recent years. Under the Biden administration, the Justice Department pursued several of these cases, and some defendants served jail time.
What Could Happen Next for the Clintons
If the Oversight Committee approves contempt resolutions on January 21, and the full House (now led by Republicans) also votes yes, the referrals would go to the DOJ. A case does not automatically become a prosecution. The department can decline, push for compliance, negotiate, or bring charges.
The Clintons’ attorneys have said the subpoenas are “invalid and legally unenforceable.” They argue the committee lacks a real legislative purpose and is using the process for politics. In a joint letter, the Clintons offered sworn statements saying they did not know about Epstein’s crimes. They also criticized the investigation’s direction and said they would prefer to testify in a public hearing.
Their legal team has also stressed that neither Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing. The attorneys say the Clintons shared more voluntary information than some other subpoenaed witnesses, including former attorneys general. On the Democratic side, committee members have largely skipped the depositions and described the effort as partisan.
Recent Precedent: Former Trump Officials Sent to Jail in Contempt Cases
Republicans point to recent contempt prosecutions tied to the House Select Committee investigation of the January 6 attack. During the Biden administration, the Justice Department brought cases that led to convictions and prison time for two former Trump officials who refused to comply with subpoenas.
- Steve Bannon, a former Trump chief strategist, was convicted in 2022 on two contempt counts after refusing to provide documents and testimony. He served a four-month prison sentence in 2024 after losing his appeals.
- Peter Navarro, a former White House trade adviser, was convicted in 2023. He began serving a four-month federal sentence in March 2024, becoming the first former White House official jailed on a contempt of Congress charge.
Supporters of the current Oversight push say those outcomes show the statute has real teeth when the DOJ chooses to act. They argue the same standard should apply to the Clintons.
Bill Clinton’s Documented Links to Jeffrey Epstein
The subpoenas are tied to documented connections between Bill Clinton and Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in 2019 while awaiting trial. Flight logs show Clinton took multiple trips on Epstein’s private jet between 2001 and 2003. Reports often describe four trips that included more than a dozen separate flights. Clinton’s representatives have said the travel was connected to Clinton Foundation work and international trips.
Clinton’s camp has also said he ended contact with Epstein in 2005, before Epstein’s later legal crises. The former president has denied knowing about any crimes and has denied visiting Epstein’s private island.
More recently, Justice Department releases connected to the Epstein Files Transparency Act included photos showing Clinton with Epstein and Maxwell, which renewed attention. No evidence has surfaced that Bill Clinton engaged in misconduct, and Maxwell has denied deeper ties. Even so, committee leaders say they want testimony to see whether these relationships point to failures in federal enforcement or decisions that deserve review.
With the January 21 markup approaching, the standoff is shaping up as a test of congressional subpoena power and how far oversight can go, even when it involves former top officials. Republicans say the issue is equal accountability. Democrats say the effort reflects selective outrage and partisan aims.
