Executive Insights
- Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed to in-person depositions on Feb 2, 2026, avoiding a House contempt vote.
- House Oversight Chair James Comer insisted on strict depositions rather than the voluntary interviews initially offered.
- The investigation centers on the DOJ’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein probe and potential external influence.
- The agreement halted a historic vote that would have recommended criminal charges against a former President and Secretary of State.
- Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña stated the couple aims to set a precedent for compliance, despite criticizing the committee’s tactics.
High-Stakes Legal Showdown Ends in Last-Minute Agreement
Clintons Agree to 11th-Hour Deposition Deal to Avert Contempt Vote in Epstein Probe
In a dramatic de-escalation of a months-long constitutional standoff, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to sit for in-person depositions before the House Oversight Committee. The agreement, announced late Monday, February 2, 2026, comes just days before the full House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on holding the couple in criminal contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas related to the investigation into the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking probe.
The deal marks a significant victory for Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), who has aggressively pursued testimony from the Clintons regarding their knowledge of Epstein’s network and the Justice Department’s past decisions regarding the disgraced financier. The breakthrough occurred after the House Rules Committee had already begun procedural steps to bring the contempt resolution to the floor, threatening the Clinton agree with potential criminal referrals to the DOJ.
The 11th-Hour Concession
The standoff reached its breaking point when the Clintons agree legal team emailed the committee, stating they would “accept the terms” of the subpoenas and appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates. This move effectively paused the looming contempt vote, which would have been a historic rebuke of a former President and a former Cabinet official.
Angel Ureña, a spokesperson for Bill Clinton, confirmed the agreement in a defiant statement on X (formerly Twitter), accusing the committee of bad faith negotiations while asserting the Clintons’ willingness to cooperate.
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”
— Angel Ureña, Spokesperson for Bill Clinton
Timeline of the Escalation
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 2025 | Chairman James Comer issues deposition subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton as part of the probe into the government’s handling of the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. |
| January 21, 2026 | The House Oversight Committee votes to recommend holding the Clintons in contempt of Congress after they fail to appear for scheduled depositions. |
| January 31, 2026 | Clinton attorneys offer a limited “transcribed interview” in New York City with restricted scope. Chairman Comer rejects this as insufficient. |
| February 2, 2026 | Facing an imminent full House vote, the Clintons agree to in-person depositions in Washington, D.C., averting the criminal referral. |
Deposition vs. Transcribed Interview: The Key Dispute
A central point of contention was the format of the testimony. The Clintons initially offered a transcribed interview, a less formal proceeding that often allows for more negotiation over the scope of questions and the presence of counsel. Chairman Comer insisted on a deposition, a stricter legal proceeding where witnesses are sworn in, and the consequences for false statements or refusal to answer are more severe and direct.
Comer expressed skepticism even after the agreement was announced, noting that while the Clintons agreed to the terms, the specifics of the dates and scope still needed to be “clarified.”
- Comer’s Stance: “Subpoenas are not mere suggestions; they carry the force of law and require compliance. The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt.”
- Investigative Focus: The committee is probing why the Justice Department offered Epstein a lenient non-prosecution agreement in 2008 and whether high-profile figures, including the Clintons, exercised influence to shield him from federal scrutiny.
What Happens Next?
The agreement has paused the contempt proceedings, but the threat remains if the Clinton agree do not follow through with the scheduled appearances. The depositions are expected to take place in Washington, D.C., likely behind closed doors, though a transcript may be released subsequently. This testimony could provide critical insights—or at least high-profile political theater—regarding the Epstein files and the network of elites associated with Ghislaine Maxwell.
Subpoena compliance in this case sets a potent precedent for future congressional investigations into former executive branch officials, reinforcing the Oversight Committee’s power to compel testimony regarding personal conduct and past associations.
In-Depth Q&A
Q: Why did the House Oversight Committee subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton?
The Committee subpoenaed the Clintons as part of an investigation into the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. Lawmakers are seeking information on whether the Clintons had knowledge of Epstein’s trafficking network or used their influence to affect the federal investigation.
Q: What is the difference between a deposition and a transcribed interview in Congress?
A deposition is a stricter, more formal proceeding where witnesses are under oath, and the rules are enforced more rigidly regarding refusal to answer. A transcribed interview is generally more voluntary and cooperative, often allowing the witness’s counsel more leeway to negotiate the scope of questions.
Q: What would have happened if the House voted for contempt?
If the full House had voted to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress, the matter would have been referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (part of the Justice Department) for potential criminal prosecution, which can carry fines and jail time.
Q: Who is Angel Ureña?
Angel Ureña is the spokesperson and deputy chief of staff for former President Bill Clinton. He has been the primary voice for the Clintons during this dispute, accusing the committee of bad faith while announcing the final agreement to testify.
Q: When are the Clintons scheduled to testify?
While an agreement has been reached to appear for depositions, specific dates were still being finalized as of the February 2, 2026 announcement. The depositions are expected to take place in Washington, D.C.
