Listen to the article
A spokesperson for former President Bill Clinton has forcefully rejected claims by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer that the Clintons refused to provide sworn testimony in the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein investigation, as the committee moves toward a contempt vote.
Angel Ureña, deputy chief of staff to the former president, accused Comer of mischaracterizing negotiations about testimony format and using procedural disagreements as justification for contempt proceedings.
“We never said no to a transcript. Interviews are on the record and under oath,” Ureña wrote on X. “Whether it was written or typed isn’t why this is happening. If that were the last or only issue, we’d be in a different position. You keep misdirecting to protect you-know-who and God knows what.”
The dispute centers on how testimony would be conducted and documented. Comer claims the Clintons’ legal team made an “untenable offer” that would have required him to travel to New York for a conversation with President Clinton where “no official transcript would be recorded and other members of Congress would be barred from participating.”
The Kentucky Republican condemned the proposal, saying the absence of a formal record “is an indefensible demand that is insulting to the American people who demand answers about Epstein’s crimes.”
The House Oversight Committee later responded to Ureña’s statements by posting what they described as communication records showing the Clintons requested only note-taking during interviews rather than formal transcription. “One of the Clinton’s pawns claimed to the fake NYT that they never ruled out a transcript,” the committee wrote. “The receipts tell a different story.”
This escalating confrontation comes as part of the committee’s broader investigation examining what connections the Clintons may have had with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The probe includes scrutiny of Hillary Clinton’s role in overseeing U.S. efforts to combat international sex trafficking during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Representative Brandon Gill, a Texas Republican serving on the committee, told Fox News that the panel had been exceptionally accommodating to the Clintons but was left with no choice but to pursue contempt charges given their refusal to comply with subpoenas.
“We’ve seen multiple pictures of Bill Clinton with Epstein victims on Epstein’s plane engaged in all kinds of things that look quite unsavory, and I think the American people want answers, and they want to know what a former U.S. president was doing with this disgusting pedophile,” Gill said.
The investigation has drawn significant public attention, with voices across the political spectrum weighing in. Even comedian Jon Stewart has publicly stated the Clintons should “absolutely” comply with congressional subpoenas related to the Epstein investigation.
For his part, Comer has accused the former First Couple of seeking preferential treatment, writing on social media: “The Clintons’ latest demands make clear they believe their last name entitles them to special treatment. The House Oversight Committee’s bipartisan subpoenas require the Clintons to appear for depositions that are under oath and transcribed.”
The dispute illustrates the contentious nature of congressional investigations involving high-profile political figures, particularly when they intersect with cases as notorious as Epstein’s. The convicted sex offender’s connections to powerful individuals across business and political spheres have remained a subject of intense public interest since his 2019 death in prison.
As the committee moves toward formal contempt proceedings, both sides appear to be hardening their positions, with fundamental disagreements about what constitutes appropriate testimony and whether the Clintons are being singled out for political purposes or rightfully questioned as part of a legitimate investigation.
Fox News Digital reported that it has reached out to the Clinton Foundation for additional comment on the matter.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The Epstein case has been shrouded in so much controversy and speculation. I hope this investigation can cut through the noise and provide the public with a clearer, more definitive understanding of what transpired.
Agreed, clarity and accountability are essential, regardless of political affiliations. The American people deserve the full truth on this disturbing case.
While the Epstein case raises many important questions, the partisan political dynamics around this issue are concerning. I hope the investigation can remain focused on uncovering the full truth, rather than becoming overly entangled in partisan posturing.
Well said. Maintaining objectivity and a commitment to facts will be crucial as this sensitive investigation progresses.
This dispute over testimony format highlights the challenge of balancing transparency and due process. I’m curious to learn more about the specific concerns and constraints that are shaping each side’s negotiating position.
While the details of this dispute are complex, it’s important that the investigation into Epstein’s activities is conducted thoroughly and impartially. Partisan gamesmanship should not be allowed to undermine the pursuit of justice.
This seems like a complex political dispute. I’m curious to learn more about the issues and perspectives involved in the Epstein investigation and the disagreements over testimony format. An official transcript would be important for transparency, but the Clintons’ concerns about the process also warrant consideration.
Agreed, both sides should aim for a fair, thorough, and well-documented process. Hopefully they can find a mutually agreeable solution to move the investigation forward.