Clintons Call for Public Testimony in Epstein Inquiry, Shifting Pressure Back to Trump

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have escalated a political standoff on Capitol Hill by agreeing to testify before the House Oversight Committee — but only in public. Their move has reframed a Republican-led investigation that, critics say, was designed to redirect attention away from President Donald Trump and the growing scrutiny surrounding the partial release of documents tied to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In a letter sent this week to Representative James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, lawyers for the Clintons said the former president and former secretary of state would appear voluntarily for sworn testimony in February — provided the proceedings are conducted as open hearings rather than closed-door depositions. Mrs. Clinton proposed to testify on February 26, followed by Mr. Clinton on February 27.

“Though you have notably never asked the Clintons to appear in an open hearing,” the letter said, “we now believe that will best suit our concerns about fairness.” The Clintons argued that private depositions would allow selective disclosures and political spin, while a public forum would ensure transparency and accountability.

The offer marks a sharp turn in a dispute that began when House Republicans threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they did not comply with subpoenas related to the Epstein investigation. Mr. Comer and his allies have maintained that Mr. Clinton’s past association with Epstein warrants questioning and have defended their approach as part of a broader effort to examine failures in how federal authorities handled Epstein’s crimes.

At the same time, Democrats and some legal analysts say the focus on the Clintons has coincided with — and potentially distracted from — damaging revelations emerging from the Epstein document release. The Justice Department has acknowledged that the materials made public so far represent only a portion of the total archive, with millions of additional pages still under review or redacted.

In recent statements, Mr. Clinton has gone further, publicly urging the administration to release all remaining records, including any references to himself. “We need no such protection,” he said in a statement responding to the limited disclosure, adding that if full transparency is the goal, it should apply to everyone mentioned in the files.

The Clintons’ demand for a public hearing has complicated the political calculus for House Republicans. Mr. Comer has said that transcripts and video from depositions would eventually be released, arguing that closed-door questioning is standard practice and better suited for serious investigations. Public hearings, he said in recent television appearances, tend to prioritize “entertainment over substance.”

Yet the optics of the dispute have shifted. By volunteering to testify openly, the Clintons have turned the question of transparency back on Republicans — and, indirectly, on Mr. Trump. Democrats have seized on that dynamic, arguing that it is increasingly difficult to portray the Epstein inquiry as a partisan attack when the subjects of Republican subpoenas are asking to answer questions in front of cameras.

The episode also raises broader institutional questions. Compelling testimony from former presidents has long been considered extraordinary, with historical precedent favoring written responses or voluntary appearances. Mr. Clinton’s willingness to testify under oath in public, some observers say, could lower the informal barrier that has traditionally shielded former occupants of the Oval Office from congressional questioning.

“This could set a precedent,” said one former congressional counsel, speaking on background. “Once one former president agrees to appear publicly, it becomes harder to argue that others should be exempt.”

That possibility has heightened attention on Mr. Trump, whose name appears repeatedly in the Epstein materials released to date. While there is no public indication that the Oversight Committee plans to subpoena him, Democrats have argued that any standard applied to the Clintons should extend to the sitting president as well.

The White House has pushed back against that framing. Mr. Trump has said he has already answered questions about Epstein and has characterized the document release as exculpatory. He has also expressed unexpected sympathy for Mr. Clinton, telling reporters that it “bothers” him that the former president is being targeted — comments that some Democrats interpret as evidence of unease about where public testimony could lead.

For now, the next move belongs to Mr. Comer. He must decide whether to accept the Clintons’ terms and schedule open hearings or insist on private depositions at the risk of appearing resistant to transparency. Either choice carries political risk, particularly as the Epstein investigation continues to expand and as election-year pressures intensify.

What began as a procedural dispute over subpoenas has thus evolved into a broader confrontation over credibility, disclosure, and who ultimately bears responsibility for explaining one of the most troubling scandals in recent American history. Whether public testimony brings clarity or simply deepens partisan divisions remains uncertain. What is clear is that the Clintons’ challenge has shifted the spotlight — and raised new questions that are unlikely to fade quietly.