Refugees

The statement you referenced is **accurate** and directly from Rep. James Comer's official X post on January 20, 2026. He explicitly rejected a proposal from the Clintons' lawyers for an informal, off-the-record "conversation" in New York involving only Bill Clinton (not Hillary), limited to Comer (and possibly the ranking Democrat), with no other committee members and crucially **no official transcript**.

This came as the House Oversight Committee prepared to advance contempt resolutions against both Bill and Hillary Clinton for defying bipartisan subpoenas to appear for sworn, transcribed depositions related to the committee's probe into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking network, federal handling of the cases, and potential reforms.

### Timeline and Key Facts

- **Subpoenas Origin**: Issued in August 2025 after unanimous approval by the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee (bipartisan voice vote in July 2025). They sought testimony on topics including the Clintons' documented social ties to Epstein (e.g., Bill Clinton's flights on Epstein's plane), Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State in countering sex trafficking, and her acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell.

- **Non-Appearance**: Bill Clinton's deposition was scheduled for January 13, 2026; Hillary's for January 14, 2026 (after prior rescheduling due to cited reasons like funerals). Neither appeared, despite negotiations.

- **Clintons' Position**: Their legal team (including David Kendall) argued the subpoenas were invalid, politically motivated, lacked legislative purpose, and offered alternatives like public hearings or written declarations. They disputed some characterizations but proposed the limited, no-transcript setup as a compromise.

- **Comer's Rejection**: As detailed in his post, he called it "ridiculous" and "untenable," citing entitlement to special treatment, Bill Clinton's history (impeachment for perjury-related issues in 1998, law license suspension), the need for transparency (comparing to released transcripts from Bill Barr and Alex Acosta), and the insult to the public demanding answers on Epstein's crimes.

- **Contempt Proceedings**: A markup session occurred on January 21, 2026 (today in this timeline), to consider and advance resolutions recommending the full House hold both in contempt of Congress. Comer emphasized during the session that "subpoenas are not mere suggestions" and displayed materials highlighting Epstein connections. If passed by the committee (likely along party lines), it could proceed to a full House vote, potentially referring to the DOJ for criminal prosecution (fines/jail time possible, though rare and enforcement complex historically).

### Broader Context and Partisan Divide

The probe is ongoing since 2025, targeting various former officials. Republicans portray the Clintons' defiance as evading accountability and special treatment for elites. Critics (including Democrats on the committee) argue it's selective/political targeting, noting inconsistencies in pursuing other witnesses (e.g., DOJ records) and broader Epstein ties (including figures like Donald Trump). No accusations of wrongdoing against the Clintons have been made in this context—they maintain cooperation via other means and challenge the subpoenas' validity.

This aligns with coverage from the Oversight Committee's site, major outlets (NYT, CNN, ABC, NBC, Guardian, Politico, Fox-affiliated), and real-time X discussions (including Comer's post and committee hearing clips). Developments could continue, such as the committee vote outcome or any appeals/legal challenges. If you're referring to a specific aspect or need more on updates, let me know!

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Clinton royalty

The post you shared is a **direct quote** from Rep. James Comer (@RepJamesComer), the Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. He posted this statement on X (formerly Twitter) on January 20, 2026, amid ongoing developments in the committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and associated networks.

### Key Details from Comer's Statement and Related Reporting

- The House Oversight Committee issued **bipartisan subpoenas** (approved unanimously by Republicans and Democrats on a subcommittee in July 2025) requiring **Bill Clinton** and **Hillary Clinton** to appear for **transcribed, under-oath depositions**.

- Both Clintons did not appear for their scheduled depositions (Bill Clinton's was set for January 13, 2026, and Hillary Clinton's around January 14, 2026, after prior rescheduling attempts).

- In response to looming **contempt of Congress** proceedings, the Clintons' lawyers (including longtime attorney David Kendall) proposed an alternative: an informal "conversation" in New York with only Comer (and possibly the ranking Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia), limited staff, **only involving former President Bill Clinton**, **no other committee members**, and **no official transcript**.

- Comer rejected this as "ridiculous" and "untenable," arguing it shows entitlement to special treatment, lacks accountability (no formal record), and contradicts the subpoenas' requirements.

- He highlighted Bill Clinton's past (impeachment for perjury-related issues in 1998 and suspension from law practice) as a reason for insisting on sworn, transcribed testimony.

- For Hillary Clinton, he cited her relevant knowledge: her role as Secretary of State on countering international sex trafficking, personal acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Clintons' family ties to Epstein.

- The committee has released other transcripts (e.g., from former AG Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta) for public transparency, contrasting with the proposed no-transcript setup.

- **Contempt proceedings** were scheduled to begin on January 21, 2026 (today in the query's timeline), with a markup session to vote on resolutions holding both Clintons in contempt. If passed by the committee, it could advance to a full House vote, potentially referring the matter for criminal prosecution (though enforcement is rare and politically complex).

### Broader Context

This is part of a longer-running Oversight Committee probe (starting in 2025) into Epstein/Maxwell's sex-trafficking network, federal handling of related cases, and potential legislative reforms. The subpoenas targeted multiple figures (e.g., former officials like James Comey, Merrick Garland), but the Clintons' defiance drew particular attention due to their documented social ties to Epstein (e.g., Bill Clinton's flights on Epstein's plane, photos, etc.). The Clintons and their team have argued the subpoenas lack a valid legislative purpose, are politically motivated, and that they've cooperated in other ways (e.g., written declarations). One Clinton spokesperson disputed aspects of Comer's characterization, saying they "never said no to a transcript."

The situation remains highly partisan: Republicans frame it as accountability and no one being above the law; critics see it as selective targeting amid other ongoing political probes.

This matches breaking news coverage from sources like the committee's official site, The New York Times, ABC News, Fox News, The Hill, and others as of January 21, 2026. The contempt markup was set for today, so further developments (e.g., vote outcome) may emerge soon.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals