Written By: Ryan Tantalo
A new wrinkle emerged in Congress’ Jeffrey Epstein investigation last Friday. House Oversight Committee Chairman, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky), threatened to pursue contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton and former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if they do not sit for depositions related to Congress’ Epstein investigation.
The Clintons were initially subpoenaed in August, along with a number of Justice Department officials and political figures. Since then, several of the subpoenas have been withdrawn, and only one person, former Attorney General William Barr, has appeared to testify in person.
The Clintons’ subpoena was not withdrawn, and they were initially slated to appear this week. The Clintons’ attorney informed the Committee that they could not attend this week due to a funeral. The deadline has now been extended to January 13 and 14. Comer threatened that “the committee will move immediately to contempt proceedings” if the Clintons do not comply with the new dates. He also stated that the Clintons did not provide sufficient justification to forego in-person testimony and provide written statements instead.
Clinton Attorney David Kendall accused Comer of pursuing “weaponized legislative investigations,” and said that the committee was holding the Clintons to a different standard than the other individuals who were allowed to forego in-person depositions. He added accusations that Comer was targeting the Clintons “to catalyze a public spectacle for partisan purposes.”
The battle over the Clintons’ testimony is part of the larger political and cultural battle regarding Epstein, the notorious financier and sex criminal, whose high-profile network overlapped with Wall Street, Washington D.C., the British Royal Family, and Ivy League academia.
Following the August subpoenas, the Epstein investigation has built up steam in recent months as new releases of documents and photos have prompted questions about Epstein’s ties to former President Bill Clinton and current President Donald Trump. Both men have denied any wrongdoing and have publicly distanced themselves from Epstein.
Nonetheless, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to provide testimony about Epstein. It remains to be seen whether the two will appear, and if not, whether Comer will follow through on his threat to pursue contempt proceedings.
No former president has appeared before Congress since 1983, when Gerald Ford did so voluntarily. No former president has ever been compelled to do so. In 2022, then-former President Trump was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 select committee, but that subpoena was ultimately withdrawn and Trump never testified.
Contempt of Congress
Congress has the implied power to hold individuals who interfere with its duties in contempt. In Marshall v. Gordon, the Supreme Court stated that “in virtue of the grant of legislative authority there would be a power implied to deal with contempt in so far as that authority was necessary to preserve and carry out the legislative authority given.” Modern contempt actions largely focus on individuals who refuse to appear or provide testimony in a Congressional investigation or hearing.
Contempt concerns often arise in high-profile, politically charged investigations. For example, the Watergate investigation and the Jan. 6 investigation raised questions of whether subpoenaed individuals would comply or face the risk of contempt.
To hold a person in contempt, either chamber of Congress needs a simple majority vote. Congress can hold a person in contempt for refusing to testify or otherwise obstructing a Congressional inquiry.
Prosecution of criminal contempt is rare, but it carries the possibility of a fine and/or up to a year in jail. A criminal citation for contempt of Congress would be forwarded to the local U.S. Attorney’s office, which is not obligated to pursue the charges.
In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt for refusing to turn over documents. He was ultimately not prosecuted, a predictable outcome given the fact that he oversaw the Justice Department.
In 2022, Trump Advisor Steve Bannon, however, was indicted and convicted on contempt of Congress charges related to the Jan. 6 investigation. He served a four-month prison sentence.
Here, potential prosecution would be conducted by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department, under President Trump. Recently, Trump has publicly encouraged prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The president has been accused of installing loyalists to prosecute his political enemies.
In August, following the announcement of the Clinton subpoenas, Comer himself suggested at the possibility of a prosecution by a politically hostile Justice Department: “[i]f someone doesn’t comply with a subpoena, we’ve seen it happen in the past, in both my committee, as well as on the January 6 committee, when the Democrats had the majority, and you can hold them in contempt of Congress, and with a Republican attorney general, that’s something that I think the Clinton legal team is going to think long and hard about.”
If criminal contempt is not pursued, other options include civil enforcement and “inherent contempt.” Inherent contempt would allow the House to conduct a summary proceeding and incarcerate the accused (only until the end of the current session of Congress).
Conclusion
Nearly a month remains until the Clintons’ scheduled deposition date, leaving plenty of time for negotiation. But, if the Committee does not agree to a written statement, or other compromise, in lieu of in-person appearance, Comer may have the opportunity to follow through on his threat. In that scenario, either the Clintons will be compelled to appear, or they may be held in contempt of Congress. Either outcome would be unprecedented.
Sources
Aaron Pellish, Comer threatens the Clintons with contempt for refusing to be deposed in Epstein probe, Politico (Dec. 12, 2025, 7:05 PM), https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/12/12/congress/comer-threatens-the-clintons-00689936
Annie Grayer, House Oversight chair offers Clintons new deposition dates in Epstein investigation, threatens contempt if they don’t comply, CNN (Dec. 15, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/15/politics/clintons-epstein-deposition
Annie Grayer, House Oversight Committee subpoenas Justice Department for Epstein files, high-profile former officials for depositions, CNN (Aug. 5, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/05/politics/subpoenas-doj-epstein-files-clintons-barr-mueller-garland-congress
Annie Karni, Inside the Clintons’ Fight to Avoid Testifying in the House Epstein Inquiry, The New York Times (Dec. 14, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/14/us/politics/clintons-epstein-inquiry.html
Chairman Comer: Clintons Must Appear for Depositons or Face Contempt of Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Dec. 12, 2025), https://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-comer-clintons-must-appear-for-depositions-or-face-contempt-of-congress/
Contempt of Congress, Cornell Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress (last visited Dec. 17, 2025).
House panel’s contempt efforts face uncertain legal road, American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/06/house-panel-contempt-efforts/ (last visited Dec. 17, 2025).
Jan. 6 panel subpoenas Trump, NPR (Oct. 22, 2022, 1:31 PM), https://www.npr.org/2022/10/21/1130563441/trump-subpoena-jan-6-committee
Josh Christenon, Bill, Hillary Clinton deposition in Jeffrey Epstein investigation pushed back to next month, NY Post (Dec. 16, 2025, 7:41 AM), https://nypost.com/2025/12/16/us-news/bill-hillary-clinton-deposition-in-jeffrey-epstein-investigation-pushed-back-to-next-month/
Kayla Epstein, What comes next in the James Comey and Letitia James cases?, BBC (Nov. 25, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jwyvdln7yo
Luke Broadwater, Jan. 6 Committee Withdraws Its Subpoena of Trump, The New York Times (Dec. 29, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/29/us/politics/jan-6-committee-trump-subpoena.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521, 541 (1917)
Rory Little, Selective and vindictive prosecution, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 17, 2025), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/selective-and-vindictive-prosecution/
Todd Garvey, Civil Enforcement of Congressional Authorities, Congress.gov (June 8, 2021), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/TE10064
Zach Schonfeld, Steve Bannon asks Supreme Court to throw out contempt conviction, The Hill (Oct. 13, 2025), https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5553047-bannon-appeals-supreme-court/