Bill and Hillary Clinton Refuse to Testify in Epstein Inquiry

The couple escalated their battle with Representative James R. Comer, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, who said he would move to hold them in contempt of Congress.

Bill and Hillary Clinton refused on Tuesday to testify in the House’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation, escalating a monthslong battle with its Republican leader, Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, who quickly said he would take steps to hold them in contempt of Congress.

“Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences,” the Clintons wrote in a lengthy letter to Mr. Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which was obtained by The New York Times. “For us, now is that time.”

Read the Clintons’ Personal Letter to Comer

Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote a lengthy letter to Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee, refusing to testify in Congress.

Read Document 4 pages

Mr. Comer’s relentless efforts to force them to testify reflect his overall approach to his panel’s Epstein inquiry. He has sought to deflect focus from President Trump’s ties to the convicted sex offender and his administration’s decision to close its investigation into the matter without releasing key information. Instead, he has worked to shift the spotlight onto prominent Democrats who once associated with Mr. Epstein and his longtime companion Ghislaine Maxwell.

“Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House 17 times while Bill Clinton was president,” Mr. Comer said on Tuesday, speaking to reporters after holding Mr. Clinton’s scheduled deposition with a chair left empty to call attention to the former president’s absence. He added: “No one’s accusing Bill Clinton of anything, any wrongdoing. We just have questions.”

Mr. Comer has repeatedly threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear for live depositions behind closed doors, typically a first step in referring someone to the Justice Department for prosecution. He had set a deadline of Tuesday for Mr. Clinton to appear, and Wednesday for Mrs. Clinton.

But hours before the deadline, the Clintons made clear that they had no intention of presenting themselves on Capitol Hill to be questioned by Mr. Comer and members of his committee. They did so by submitting an eight-page legal letter laying out why they considered the subpoenas “invalid and legally unenforceable,” then followed up with a scorching missive that they signed jointly, promising to fight Mr. Comer on the issue for as long as it took.

In the letter, the Clintons noted that they had proactively provided Mr. Comer with sworn statements similar to ones he had accepted from seven or eight other former law enforcement officials he had also subpoenaed and then excused from testifying before the committee. The Clintons have repeatedly said they have no knowledge relevant to the investigation.

On Tuesday, they went further, publicly going to war against Mr. Comer on the matter with moves that appeared to lay the predicate for what could be a messy legal battle. In a letter that touched on Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown, his use of the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies and even Republicans’ opposition to extending health care subsidies, the Clintons accused Mr. Comer of potentially bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a politically driven process “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

“We are confident that any reasonable person in or out of Congress will see, based on everything we release, that what you are doing is trying to punish those who you see as your enemies and to protect those you think are your friends,” they wrote.

In the letter, the Clintons said they had anticipated that Mr. Comer would still direct his committee to seek to hold them in contempt, and they expected him to “release irrelevant, decades-old photos that you hope will embarrass us.”

On Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill, Mr. Comer said he was disappointed in Mr. Clinton’s decision to refuse a lawful subpoena and said he would move next week in committee to hold the former president in contempt. That would take a vote of the panel, followed by a vote of the full House. Should it pass, it would be up to the Justice Department to prosecute the matter, in which penalties include a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for as long as a year.

Mr. Comer also noted that there had been bipartisan support to subpoena the Clintons. Over the summer, as Democrats on the oversight panel teamed with a few breakaway Republicans to force through a subpoena of the Justice Department, G.O.P. lawmakers amended the measure with several other names, including the Clintons, and the package passed with a bipartisan vote.

The Clintons said in their letter that they anticipated Mr. Comer would argue that the decision about whether to testify was not theirs to make.

“But we have made it,” they wrote. “Now you have to make yours.”

The Clintons had worked to beef up their legal team before Mr. Comer’s deadline. They brought on Ashley Callen, co-chair of the congressional investigations practice at Jenner & Block, who had previously worked as general counsel for Speaker Mike Johnson and other top Republicans, to interface with G.O.P. members on the House Oversight Committee. Ms. Callen also previously worked as a deputy staff director on the House Oversight Committee under Mr. Comer.

They also sought assistance from Abbe Lowell, the veteran lawyer famous for representing clients in the middle of political scandals.

Before that, the Clintons had been working behind the scenes for months to avoid appearing on Capitol Hill to testify. Their longtime lawyer David E. Kendall previously sent three letters explaining in detail his argument that the Clintons should be required to provide only sworn statements to the committee.

In a more aggressive legal letter sent to Mr. Comer at 11 p.m. on Monday, Ms. Callen and Mr. Kendall wrote that the subpoenas were “invalid and legally unenforceable” because they did not have any valid legislative purpose. They also said they were “unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers.”

Mr. Comer’s insistence over months that the Clintons appear, the lawyers said, “brings us toward a protracted and unnecessary legal confrontation.”

Citing specific case law about congressional subpoenas and constitutional precedents, the lawyers wrote that the subpoenas were nothing more than “an effort to publicly harass and embarrass President and Secretary Clinton and an impermissible usurpation of executive law enforcement authority.”

The committee’s attempt to compel the Clintons to testify in person ran afoul of limitations on Congress’ investigative power that have been outlined in cases before the Supreme Court, the lawyers said.

And they noted that the Supreme Court had stated in the past that there must be a “nexus” between the investigations’ legislative aims and the witnesses from whom information was sought. Mr. Comer had not established why the Clintons’ appearance would be relevant, they said.

The lawyers encouraged Mr. Comer to “de-escalate this dispute.”

Michael Gold contributed reporting.

Related Content