Clintons try to reach agreement for congressional Epstein testimony

Former US president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton were trying to reach a deal late on Monday to comply with a congressional subpoena for their testimony in a House investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Republican leading the probe said an agreement had not been reached.

Representative James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, was advancing criminal contempt of Congress charges against both Clintons on Monday evening for defying a congressional subpoena when a spokesman for the Clintons, Angel Urena, suggested they would testify, posting on social media that the pair “will be there”.

Mr Comer, however, said he was not immediately dropping the charges, which would carry the threat of a substantial fine and even incarceration if passed by the House of Representatives and successfully prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

“We don’t have anything in writing,” Mr Comer told reporters, adding that he was open to accepting their offer but “it depends on what they say”.

Mr Comer earlier on Monday rejected an offer from attorneys for the Clintons to have Bill Clinton conduct a transcribed interview and Hillary Clinton submit a sworn declaration.

The last-minute negotiating came as Republican leaders were advancing the contempt resolution through the House Rules Committee — a final hurdle before it headed to the House floor for a vote.

If passed, the charges threaten both Bill and Hillary Clinton with substantial fines and even incarceration if they are convicted.

Mr Comer said on social media that he would insist on both Clintons sitting for sworn depositions before the committee in order to fulfil the panel’s subpoenas.

A letter from the committee to attorneys for the Clintons indicates that they had offered for Bill Clinton to conduct a four-hour transcribed interview on “matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein” and for Hillary Clinton to submit a sworn declaration.

“The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas,” Mr Comer said.

The Republican-controlled Oversight panel advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges last month.

Nine of the committee’s 21 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the charges against Bill Clinton as they argued for full transparency in the Epstein investigation. Three Democrats also supported advancing the charges against Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein has reemerged as a focal point for Republicans amid the push for a reckoning over Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 in a New York jail cell as he faced sex trafficking charges.

Mr Clinton, like a bevy of other high-powered men, had a well-documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He has not been accused of wrongdoing in his interactions with the late financier.

After the Clintons were both subpoenaed in August by the House Oversight Committee, their attorney tried to argue against the validity of the subpoena. However, as Mr Comer threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings, they started negotiating towards a compromise.

The Clintons remained highly critical of Mr Comer’s decision, saying he was bringing politics into the investigation while failing to hold the Trump administration accountable for delays in producing the Department of Justice’s case files on Epstein.

Still, the prospect of a vote raised the potential for Congress to use one of its most severe punishments against a former president for the first time.

Historically, Congress has given deference to former presidents. None has ever been forced to testify before lawmakers, although a few have voluntarily done so.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Monday that his caucus would have a discussion on the contempt resolutions later in the week and his leadership team would decide whether to whip votes against them.

Mr Jeffries said he was a “hard no” on contempt and accused Mr Comer of focusing on political retribution rather than investigating the delayed release of case files.

Democrats also say the Justice Department has not yet released all the material it has on the late financier.

“They don’t want a serious interview, they want a charade,” Mr Jeffries said.