Skip to content 
Hillary Clinton Appears First
Hillary Clinton appeared for her closed-door deposition on February 26, 2026.
Lawmakers questioned her for more than six hours as part of the Oversight Committee investigation.
She told lawmakers that she had no knowledge of crimes committed by Epstein or Maxwell.
She also said she did not recall ever meeting Epstein.
Her testimony marked the first of two consecutive days in which the former first couple faced congressional questioning.
The appearance also brought an end to months of dispute over whether she would answer questions in person.
Bill Clinton Testifies the Following Day
Bill Clinton appeared before lawmakers on February 27.
During his deposition, he denied knowing about Epstein’s criminal conduct during the period in which they had interacted.
He maintained that he had seen nothing indicating the crimes Epstein was committing and said he had stopped associating with Epstein years before Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea.
Clinton also rejected suggestions that photographs showing him around Epstein established knowledge of criminal behavior.
The former president’s testimony was historically notable because a former president appearing under congressional subpoena is highly unusual.
Bill Clinton’s Association With Epstein Remained a Central Issue
Bill Clinton’s past association with Epstein had long generated public scrutiny.
Clinton has acknowledged traveling aboard Epstein’s aircraft in connection with charitable work.
He has denied wrongdoing and maintained that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
During the February deposition, he again emphasized that he had not witnessed misconduct that would have alerted him to what Epstein was doing.
Those denials became central to his response to lawmakers attempting to understand the extent of Epstein’s relationships with powerful public figures.
Hillary Clinton Said Her Connection Was Limited
Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the investigation was different from that of her husband.
She maintained that she had no substantive relationship with Epstein and no knowledge of his criminal conduct.
Her attorneys had previously questioned why her testimony was necessary at all.
The committee nevertheless insisted that she appear personally rather than satisfy the subpoena through a written declaration.
That disagreement was one of the issues that prolonged negotiations before the contempt fight intensified.
Both Sides Accused the Other of Politicizing the Investigation
The dispute unfolded in an intensely partisan environment.
Republicans argued that congressional subpoenas must apply equally regardless of a witness’s political prominence.
Comer repeatedly emphasized that the subpoenas had originally received bipartisan approval and portrayed the contempt proceedings as necessary to defend Congress’s authority.
The Clintons and their allies argued that the investigation was being used to target political opponents.
Their attorneys maintained that they had already provided the limited information they possessed and argued that compelling extensive depositions was unnecessary.
Democrats Also Raised Questions About the Scope of the Inquiry
Democrats on the committee did not present a completely uniform position during the dispute.
Some joined Republicans in supporting contempt measures, particularly against Bill Clinton.
At the same time, Democratic lawmakers argued that scrutiny involving Epstein should apply consistently to all prominent individuals whose relationships with him had drawn questions.
That included calls for broader examination of other politically connected figures.
The result was an investigation that remained deeply political while also producing moments of bipartisan agreement about transparency and congressional authority.
The Steve Bannon Comparison Had Limits
Some commentary surrounding the Clinton dispute compared it with the criminal contempt prosecution of Steve Bannon.
Bannon was convicted after refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena and ultimately served time in federal prison.
That history demonstrated that contempt of Congress can carry consequences beyond political embarrassment.
However, the Clinton situation did not reach the same stage.
The full House never finalized the contempt referral after the Clintons agreed to appear for depositions.
Because they ultimately complied with the committee’s demand for testimony, speculation about whether a Washington grand jury would indict them became largely hypothetical.