Comer reconsiders contempt rulings against Clinton after agreeing to depositions

The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee said he is reconsidering moving forward with contempt of court rulings after former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to sit behind closed doors on the committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

The House of Representatives was expected to vote on Wednesday on two resolutions regarding contempt of Congress against the Clinton family, until the Clinton family agrees to Republican demands on Monday evening.

Clinton spokesman Angel Urena said, “They negotiated in good faith. You didn’t.” Published on X. “They tell you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former and former President The Foreign Minister will be there. “They are looking to set a precedent that applies to everyone.”

Last month, the House Oversight Committee They voted for a bipartisan advance Decisions The Clintons held Congress in contempt Failure to adhere to it Subpoenas relating to sexual offenders Epstein.

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Monday evening that he needed more clarity on what the Clinton family would offer.

“The Clinton family’s attorney said they agreed to the terms, but again these terms lack clarity and they have not provided any dates for that they “Affidavits,” Comer said. “The only one The reason they announced their agreement to the terms is because the House of Representatives moved forward with contempt. “I will explain the terms they agreed to and then discuss the next steps with my committee members.”

to Months later, the Clintons insisted that the subpoenas had no legal basis. Comer, A But Republicans responded, saying the Clintons were not above the law and should comply with the subpoena.

Besides defying subpoenas to testify before a House committee, no Bill Clinton and no Hillary Clinton He has been accused of wrongdoing and both have denied having any knowledge of Epstein Crimes. There is no Epstein survivor or One partner has previously made a public allegation of wrongdoing or Inappropriate behavior by the previous President or His wife in Connection with its predecessor Relationship with Epstein.

In a letter dated January 31, Clinton’s legal teams wrote to the committee outlining the parameters of a potential interview — along with a request for the committee to withdraw the subpoena and contempt decision — and proposing a four-hour written interview instead of a sworn deposition.

The letter states that the interview must take place in New York City – and is open to all panelists – While the scope of the questions “will be limited to matters relating to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein.” The President also requested that he appoint his own transcriber, along with a court reporter who works for the House of Representatives.

“This framework is consistent with your priorities as communicated by Committee staff and as… “It was determined during the business meeting on January 21,” said the letter, signed by Clinton’s lawyers Katherine Turner and Ashley Kalin. “Pursuant to your request for this comprehensive written proposal, we ask that you respond in kind should any specific area of ​​disagreement persist to continue this effort in good faith to avoid legal action that will prevent our clients from providing testimony in addition to the sworn statements they have already provided.”

Coomer wrote on Monday, citing “serious concerns about the offer,” starting with the proposed scope restrictions — predicting that President Clinton “will refuse to answer questions” about his personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Coomer also objected to the proposed four-hour interview time limit, and the president’s attempt to divide questioning periods into 30-minute periods — rather than 60-minute periods — alternating between Republicans and Democrats.

“A difficult time limit provides the witness with an incentive to try to waste time by providing unnecessarily long answers and meandering off topic. This is of particular concern when a witness, like President Clinton, has an established record of being a talkative individual,” Comer said.

He added of President Clinton’s relationship with Epstein and Maxwell: “Limiting President Clinton’s testimony to four hours is not enough time for the committee to gain a full understanding of President Clinton’s personal relationship with them, his knowledge of the sex trafficking ring, and his experience in their efforts to gain support and exert influence to protect themselves.”

Finally, Comer took issue with the suggestion of a written interview, rather than sworn testimony.

“The written interview is voluntary, which means that the person may refuse to answer questions in the absence of any assertion of privilege or constitutional right,” Comer noted. “The conditions requested would enable President Clinton to refuse to answer any questions he wants for any reason he wants, and to leave as the committee’s only recourse to subpoena President Clinton’s testimony again, effectively restarting this entire process from the beginning.”

As for Hillary Clinton, the lawyers’ letter echoes her sworn declaration, stating that she “has never held an office responsible for or been involved in the Department of Justice’s handling of these investigations or prosecutions,” adding, “The same is true of the average citizen after leaving office in 2013.”

The attorneys also asked Comer to withdraw the subpoena and contempt order “so that we can continue to work in good faith toward an agreement that meets the committee’s needs while taking into account the limited information that Secretary Clinton can provide.”

In response, Comer emphasized the “necessity” of Hillary Clinton’s personal testimony along with the “inadmissibility of simple sworn statements.”

“The Clinton family’s desire for special treatment is frustrating and an insult to the American people’s desire for transparency,” Comer concluded.