House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) moved to hold Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress on Wednesday, one day after signaling he would do so when her husband, former President Bill Clinton, declined to appear for a deposition.
Oversight Republicans had scheduled mandatory interviews with the former first couple for Jan. 13 and 14 — but the Clintons informed Comer that they would decline to answer any questions in person about their “personal relationship” with deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein
“I think what’s most disappointing to the Oversight Committee is the fact that we have, in good faith, negotiated with the Clintons’ attorney for five months,” Comer said Tuesday. “Throughout the past five months, they’ve implied to us they are trying to make a date work.”
Members of the Oversight panel voted to subpoena the Clintons and half a dozen other former attorneys general, FBI directors and other federal officials for questioning about the Department of Justice’s investigative work on the Epstein case.
Epstein, 66, was found dead in a Manhattan jail in what was later ruled a suicide on Aug. 10, 2019.
The Clintons, in a written declaration to Comer submitted Monday, accused the Oversight chairman of targeting them over other witnesses, even though they had “no personal knowledge” of Epstein or his imprisoned accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell’s sickening crimes.
Bill and Hillary Clinton also tore into Comer for choosing to “release irrelevant, decades-old photos that you hope will embarrass us” — after several pictures were put out by the Department of Justice and Oversight Committee showing the former president at dinners and on trips with Epstein and Maxwell.
“President and Secretary Clinton have already provided the limited information they possess about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the Committee,” their lawyers wrote in a letter to the committee.
“They did so proactively and voluntarily, and despite the fact that the Subpoenas are invalid and legally unenforceable, untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers.”
