Clintons Decline to Comply with Subpoenas Bill and Hillary Clinton issued an eight‑page joint letter stating they will not appear for depositions scheduled by the House Oversight Committee, arguing the subpoenas are legally invalid and politically motivated. The letter, posted on social media, asserts they possess no relevant information and cites written statements from other officials as precedent. Their refusal applies to depositions set for Tuesday (Bill) and Wednesday (Hillary) and follows two prior postponements due to scheduling conflicts[2][3].

Committee Chair Moves Toward Contempt Proceedings Oversight Committee chair James Comer announced he will file contempt of Congress referrals next week if the Clintons continue to ignore the subpoenas, a step that could send the matter to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Comer warned that non‑compliance triggers a full House vote on contempt, which requires a simple majority to advance[1][2]. The threat of contempt underscores the committee’s intent to enforce its investigative authority despite the Clintons’ objections.

Speaker Johnson Labels Defiance Contemptuous House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly called the Clintons’ refusal “contempt of Congress,” stating that defying a subpoena by definition meets that standard and that survivors deserve answers[1]. Johnson suggested the issue will test the limits of congressional power and may lead to a full House vote on contempt, echoing the committee’s planned actions. His remarks frame the standoff as a broader accountability question rather than a partisan squabble.

Political Context and No New Allegations None of the articles report fresh charges against the Clintons; the dispute centers on the scope of congressional oversight and the legal enforceability of the subpoenas[1][3]. Democrats praise the refusal as a pushback against politically motivated inquiries, while Republicans emphasize rule of law and the upcoming 2026 midterm elections as a backdrop for heightened scrutiny[1][3]. The clash also highlights differing treatment of former President Donald Trump, who was not targeted for testimony, a point noted by Comer to illustrate historical precedent[2].