Negotiations between Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee, and Bill and Hillary Clinton over their refusal to testify in his panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation broke down on Tuesday, hours before a scheduled vote to hold the couple in contempt of Congress.
Mr. Comer refused an offer to interview the former president under oath in his New York office, rejecting terms he said were untenable and vowing to go forward with the vote as planned on Wednesday. That would be the first step in a process that could potentially lead to the Clintons’ criminal prosecution.
The breakdown came after days of delicate negotiations between a top aide to Mr. Comer and lawyers for the couple over the conditions under which Mr. Clinton would sit for the interview, as the couple sought a compromise that could spare them a contempt vote.
The Clintons have remained adamant that they would not appear at a formal deposition with the committee, accusing Mr. Comer of pursuing a politically driven process “literally designed to result in our imprisonment” and promising to fight the chairman on the issue for as long as it takes.
Behind the scenes, their lawyers had been negotiating directly with Mark Marin, Mr. Comer’s staff director, seeking a deal that could result in the lifting of the subpoenas his panel has issued to both Clintons.
Their latest offer, according to people familiar with the matter, was an interview under oath in Mr. Clinton’s New York office with Mr. Comer and Representative Robert Garcia of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee, both of whom would be accompanied by a staff member taking notes.
But in a statement, Mr. Comer said the offer was unreasonable because it did not include an official transcript of the interview.
One of the people involved in the matter on behalf of the Clintons said they had never ruled out a transcript.
Mr. Clinton has repeatedly called for the Justice Department to release any files from its Epstein investigation that pertain to him. He was acquainted with the disgraced financier who died in prison in 2019 — an association the former president described in his memoir — but never visited his private island and cut off contact with him two decades ago. Mr. Clinton took four international trips on Mr. Epstein’s private jet in 2002 and 2003, according to flight logs, and an undated photograph of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Epstein signed by the former president was part of a batch of images released by House Democrats last month highlighting Mr. Epstein’s ties to powerful men.
The Clintons have noted in previous letters from their lawyers that they are being held to a different standard than the seven or eight former law enforcement officials Mr. Comer had also subpoenaed and then excused from testifying before the committee. Like those officials, the Clintons submitted sworn legal statements to Mr. Comer detailing everything they had to offer on the Epstein matter.
With Mr. Comer refusing to back down, the Clintons have recently beefed up their legal team, adding Ashley Callen, the co-chairwoman of the congressional investigations practice at Jenner & Block and a Republican lawyer who previously worked as general counsel for Speaker Mike Johnson. They have also brought in Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton aide who defended Mr. Clinton in his 1999 impeachment trial.
And in negotiations that stretched over the holiday weekend, Ms. Callen, working with Mr. Marin, offered up Mr. Clinton for a face-to-face interview with Mr. Comer. Such an interview, she noted, would have been the first time in history that a former president sat for in-person testimony, under oath, to assist with a congressional investigation.
In discussions on Jan. 16 regarding the “parameters” of the proposed interview with Mr. Clinton, Ms. Callen and the Clintons’ legal team told Mr. Comer’s aide that the former president would agree to discuss subjects within the committee’s legislative scope, meaning the Epstein investigation.
Days later, the Clintons offered “further accommodations” to address concerns about limits on who could question Mr. Clinton, according to a letter to Mr. Comer dated Jan. 20 that was obtained by The New York Times.
But Mr. Comer ultimately rejected the proposal, insisting that the Clintons appear in front of the entire House Oversight Committee for questioning and that there be no limits on the subjects its members could ask about. He argued that the Clintons’ offer fell “far outside the normal and well-established operating procedures of the committee when it conducts compulsory depositions.”
“The Clintons’ latest demands make clear they believe their last name entitles them to special treatment,” Mr. Comer said. “The absence of an official transcript is an indefensible demand that is insulting to the American people who demand answers about Epstein’s crimes.”
He added that testimony from Mrs. Clinton was equally necessary to his investigation.
Mr. Comer’s relentless efforts to force the Clintons to testify are in keeping with his approach to his panel’s Epstein inquiry. He has sought to deflect focus from President Trump’s ties to the convicted sex offender, and instead spotlight prominent Democrats who once associated with Mr. Epstein and his longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Kimberly Hamm, a partner at Morrison Foerster who previously served as general counsel to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, said that Mr. Comer appeared to have closed a legitimate avenue for gaining information for his inquiry, adding that there should be a “heightened standard” when it comes to a subpoena of a former president.
“There’s an accommodation process when you’re talking about a president or a former president,” Ms. Hamm said. “Contempt is punitive; it’s not about enforcement. If you want to get the information, agreeing to accommodations is one way of getting it.”
Ms. Hamm said the steps the Clintons had offered to the committee so far “seem like a way to get some information, if that’s the goal.”
In the Jan. 20 letter, obtained by The Times, Ms. Callen and the Clintons’ legal team wrote that Mr. Comer had insisted on a format “that would allow members of the committee to harass our clients, and indicated you would proceed with plans to hold our clients in contempt if they did not agree.”
Ms. Callen said that Mr. Comer had refused to allow questions to be limited to topics within the scope of the investigation, claiming that limitations on staff questions would not “allow the committee to appropriately further its investigation.”
“And then you stopped negotiating altogether,” she added.
Mr. Comer on Wednesday is expected to proceed with the vote in his committee to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress, which, if successful, would send the matter to the House floor.
The action puts Democrats in a difficult position: There would be little political upside to casting a vote that appeared to protect the Clintons from testifying. Should a contempt citation pass the House, it would be up to the Justice Department to prosecute the matter, in which penalties include a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for as long as a year.
The Clintons have now sent five legal letters to Mr. Comer, seeking to outline how they have bent over backward to offer transparency on the Epstein issue and how Mr. Comer’s efforts to bring them in before the committee amount to harassment.
“Jim Comer claiming to be looking for the truth about Epstein is as honest as O.J. looking for the real killer,” said Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide who has been helping them navigate the issue with Mr. Comer. “Everyone knew O.J. was protecting himself. Everyone knows who Jim Comer is protecting.”
In the most recent letter sent on Jan. 20, the Clintons’ lawyers stated that it was the committee that had made unreasonable demands of the Clintons, and that the committee’s entire approach bore “no resemblance to its well-established historical procedures for seeking and obtaining information procedures that dictate substance over form.”
And as they did in an eight-page legal letter they sent to the committee last week, they again argued that the subpoenas from Mr. Comer’s committee were “invalid and legally unenforceable.”
Annie Karni is a congressional correspondent for The Times.
The post Comer Rejects Clinton Interview on Epstein, Setting Up Contempt Vote appeared first on New York Times.
