Clintons Skip Congressional Subpoenas: Are They Above the Law?

On January 13 and January 14, 2026, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to appear for subpoenas ordering their testimony before the House Oversight Committee in its probe of Jeffrey Epstein and associates. Chairman James Comer announced the committee will move to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings after the Clintons declined those scheduled depositions and insisted the subpoenas were legally invalid. This is not a parade of happenstance; these were formal, bipartisan subpoenas with set dates that were ignored.

For conservatives who believe in equal justice under the law, the Clintons’ no-shows are infuriating but predictable, another sign that political elites expect different rules for themselves. The refusal to answer direct questions—while insisting on moral high ground—smacks of the arrogance that has hollowed public trust in Washington. If the law means anything, it means that former presidents and secretaries of state must comply with lawful congressional oversight just like any other citizen.

The Clintons’ legal team argued the subpoenas were “invalid and legally unenforceable” and accused the committee of political theater designed to embarrass them, but that defense rings hollow when the subpoenas were approved by committee voice votes and pursued for months. Republican leaders point out that this subpoena process was part of a larger, bipartisan effort to examine how the government handled Epstein’s case and whether there was a failure of oversight. Delays, demands for excuses, and selective cooperation should not be allowed to derail accountability.

It is especially telling that committee Democrats, who ostensibly care about getting to the bottom of abuses, largely failed to show up when the depositions were scheduled, leaving Republicans to carry the load and the public to draw conclusions about partisan double standards. When other witnesses were grilled and questioned, the reaction from the left was ferocious; yet when the Clintons duck responsibility, allies on the other side shrug or call it political retaliation. That inconsistency only deepens the public’s cynicism about a political class that punishes opponents ruthlessly while protecting its own.

Chairman Comer’s move to press contempt charges is not grandstanding; it is a necessary enforcement of congressional authority and the rule of law. Contempt is a serious step, but what precedent does Washington set if former presidents can ignore subpoenas with impunity? If Congress does not use its enforcement powers here, it signals to every public servant that accountability can be deferred indefinitely.

Let there be no confusion: demanding testimony about Jeffrey Epstein’s network and the government’s handling of that case is about justice for victims, not political score-keeping. Conservatives believe in robust oversight and in protecting the vulnerable, and that requires a full and transparent accounting from anyone who might possess relevant information. The Clintons’ trove of past contacts and photographs raises legitimate questions; answering them in a sworn setting would go a long way toward restoring confidence.

This moment is a test of whether Washington will apply the same standards to its ruling class that the rest of the country must live by. Republicans on the Oversight Committee need to follow through, and Congress must not let threats, legal posturing, or celebrity status block the path to answers. If contempt is voted and enforcement pursued, so be it—no one should be above the law.

Americans deserve a justice system and a Congress that enforce accountability without fear or favor, and conservatives will stand for that principle every time. If the Clintons truly have nothing to hide, the solution is simple: show up, testify under oath, and let the facts speak. If they keep running, then the public is right to demand consequences and permanent reforms that prevent power from becoming a shield.