WASHINGTON – The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted 34 to 8 Wednesday to pass a resolution to hold former President Bill Clinton, 79, in criminal contempt of Congress, after he refused to attend a scheduled deposition in the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee passed a similar resolution, 28 to 15, concerning former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Clintons were subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee in August 2025.
In his opening remarks, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the committee chairman emphasized that “subpoenas are not near suggestions,” and that they “carry the force of law and require compliance.”
“Not a former president, or a private citizen may willfully defy a duly issued congressional subpoena without consequence,” he stated.
After Congress holds witnesses in criminal contempt of Congress, if prosecuted and found guilty, they could face fines of up to $100,000, and possible imprisonment.
It’s rare for those found in contempt of Congress to get imprisoned. Trump advisors Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were jailed, after being found in contempt of Congress. However, no sitting or former U.S. president has ever been found in contempt of Congress.
Before the Clintons would face consequences, the full House and Senate would have to pass the resolution and Trump would have to sign it into law.
Republican lawmakers’ sharp focus on the Clintons “attracts, draws tension, draws fire away from Trump,” according to Matthew Dallek, a professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. “It puts one of their enemies at center stage.” Though, 9 Democrats voted to hold Former President Clinton in contempt.Ranking member Robert Garcia’s, D-Calif., opening statements highlighted that Bill Clinton has called for a full release of the Epstein files, something the chairman, and “no one else in this committee has actually done,” he said.
“It is shameful, illegal, and unconstitutional that the Department of Justice has released one percent of the files,” Garcia said.
Yesterday, Rep. Comer refused the Clintons’ offer to hold an interview under oath in Bill Clinton’s office in New York. According to him, the Cinton’s lawyers had the contingency that no official transcript could be recorded. In a post on X Tuesday, Comer slammed this request, stating that, “the absence of an official transcript is an indefensible demand that is insulting to the American people who demand answers about Epstein’s crimes.”
According to Garcia, the Clintons’ lawyers stated in an email sent today to both his team and Comer’s that they “are not objecting to a transcript and never have.” going against Comer’s remarks Tuesday.
Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif., recommended that instead of holding the Clintons’ in criminal contempt, a civil contempt order could be a more appropriate enforcement of the law.
“A civil enforcement of a subpoena can take place very quickly. Criminal trials will take a very long time, months, if not years, that will definitely run out the clock,“ stated Min, who voted present in both votes.
In a letter to Comer, the Clintons criticized Comer’s choice to target them in the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, and claimed that Comer has “forced the victims to relive their painful experiences, while doing little to give them and everybody else what’s deserved: truth and justice.”
“Continue to mislead Americans about what is truly at stake, and you will learn that Americans are better at finding the truth than you are at burying it,” the Clintons said.
With the continued pressures from the public and both political parties, the Department of Justice released thousands of the over 2 million documents related to Epstein in the DOJ’s possession last month, after the Epstein Files Transparency Act was passed by Congress, nearly unanimously.
