Bill Clinton now faces the prospect of being held in contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena compelling him to testify about his long association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
According to WND, the former president is under renewed scrutiny after reports confirmed that he granted Epstein as many as 17 visits to the White House during his administration and frequently traveled aboard Epsteins private jet, infamously dubbed the Lolita Express. The House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., issued subpoenas to both Bill and Hillary Clinton as part of its broader investigation into Epsteins extensive network and possible institutional protection.
Everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up, and I think its important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee, Comer said Tuesday, underscoring that Democrats joined Republicans in demanding the former presidents testimony. He indicated that members intend to move on a contempt citation within days, signaling that the committee is prepared to escalate the matter rather than allow another powerful political figure to evade accountability.
For Congress to pursue contempt, members would have to vote the citation out of committee to refer it to a full vote in the lower chamber, needing a simple majority to pass. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would then have to certify the contempt citation to the federal attorney for the District of Columbia, where the attorney would then present the case to a grand jury to decide if the person held in contempt should be indicted. Bill Clinton had been scheduled to testify on Tuesday, with Hillary Clinton ordered to appear the following day, but their legal team has resisted, attempting to run out the clock on a process that could expose uncomfortable truths about their ties to Epstein.
One reason I think most Americans want President Clinton to answer some questions is because he visited the White House, Comer explained, drawing a direct line between public concern and the committees work. Jeffrey Epstein visited White House 17 times while Bill Clinton was president. Comer emphasized that, at this stage, there are no formal accusations against the former president, but he stressed that the committee has a duty to ask questions that many Americans believe should have been asked years ago.
The depositions were originally slated for last year but were delayed, giving the Clintons additional time to maneuver legally and politically. Comers latest letter to the couple set new dates and removed any ambiguity about the consequences of further defiance, stating, The Committee has chosen the date of January 13, 2026, for the deposition of President Clinton and January 14, 2026, for the deposition of Secretary Clinton. If your clients do not comply with these new dates, the Committee will move immediately to contempt proceedings.
The Clintons are only two among many current and former government officials summoned to provide testimony about Epsteins activities and connections. So far, former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr and former Trump administration Labor Secretary Alex Acosta have appeared, while others have either submitted written statements or requested rescheduling, demonstrating that cooperation is possible when there is a willingness to respect congressional oversight.
Comer sharply rebuked the Clintons legal team for its posture toward the investigation, telling their lawyer, Your correspondence with the Committee continues to ignore the Committees arguments, misstates relevant facts, and seeks information about the Committees investigation to which neither you nor your clients are entitled. He further reminded counsel that, As the Committee stated clearly in its November 21, 2025, letter to you, the Committees decision to forego in-person depositions for certain other individuals was because those individuals lacked any relevant information to the Committees investigation or otherwise had serious health issues that prevented their testimony.'
The chairman then drew a sharp contrast between those peripheral witnesses and the Clintons themselves, noting, Unlike these other individuals, President Clinton and Secretary Clinton had a personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Despite this, Clinton attorneys now argue that the subpoena for Bill Clinton is legally unenforceable, a claim that, if accepted, would effectively place a former Democratic president beyond the reach of the same legal standards applied to ordinary citizens and conservative officials.
Outside Washington, public frustration is mounting as many Americans see a familiar pattern of protection for politically connected elites. Social media users were openly calling for an arrest and condemning what they view as a two-tiered justice system, with one commenter pointedly asking, No one is above the law, right?
For conservatives who have long warned about selective enforcement and institutional bias, the Clinton-Epstein saga has become a test of whether Congress will insist on equal treatment under the law, even when it involves a former Democratic president and a onetime secretary of state.
As the House Oversight Committee edges closer to contempt proceedings, the central question remains whether the rule of law will prevail over political influence, or whether yet another high-profile Democrat will be shielded from the full consequences of defying lawful subpoenas.
Login