Clintons agree to Epstein probe depositions, then demand Comer switch to public hearing format

Hillary Clinton took to X on Thursday morning to demand that Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) scrap the planned depositions in the committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation and hold a public hearing instead. This, days after the Clintons' own lawyers formally accepted the terms of those very depositions.

The former Secretary of State is scheduled to sit for her deposition on Feb. 26, with former President Bill Clinton following the next day. But the Clintons now want cameras, microphones, and the full theater of a congressional hearing — a format Comer has flatly rejected.

The pivot tells you everything you need to know about the strategy.

Six Months of "Good Faith"

Hillary Clinton framed her push as a matter of transparency, claiming the couple had cooperated for months only to be stonewalled:

"For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith. We told them what we know, under oath."

"They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction."

The Oversight Committee sees it differently — and posted the receipts. The committee published email exchanges on X between its staff and the Clintons' lawyers, and fired back directly:

"The Clintons are going to Clinton and try to spin the facts."

According to the committee, Clinton lawyers Jonathan Skladany and Ashley Callen accepted the deposition terms on Tuesday. Those terms, the committee emphasized, mirror the conditions applied to every other witness in the investigation — including Republican witnesses like former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Secretary Alex Acosta. Nobody got special treatment. Nobody complained about the format until now, as The Hill reports.

The Camera Question

The flashpoint appears to be video recording. The Clintons' lawyers accused Comer of adding a last-minute requirement that the depositions be recorded on video, calling it a "new stipulation." The committee's response was surgical:

"Then they pretended that we were moving the goalpost when they received, along with the subpoenas, the House deposition guidance that explicitly mentions video recordings."

The committee added, pointedly:

"We are not going to debate the meaning of the word 'is.' We are going to get answers for the American people. The full truth."

That line lands with historical weight for anyone who lived through the 1990s. And it captures the committee's posture: this is a deposition, not a negotiation.

Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill attempted to flip the script, posting on X:

"At the 11th hour, James Comer asked for a camera, that's fine. He can have 1,000 cameras. The Clintons will do this publicly."

The bravado is notable, but it sidesteps the core issue. Nobody is preventing the Clintons from speaking publicly after their depositions. What they want is to replace the deposition — the format designed for sustained, uninterrupted questioning — with a hearing where each member gets roughly five minutes before the next one starts grandstanding.

Why Depositions Matter

Comer laid this out plainly during a Wednesday appearance on Newsmax:

"Depositions are always the preferred means of getting information from a witness."

"If you look at history, congressional hearings, they may be entertaining, but they're not very substantive. You go five minutes back and forth, members yelling and screaming at each other."

He's right. Public hearings generate clips. Depositions generate answers. The distinction matters enormously when the subject is a convicted sex offender's network and the witnesses are two of the most skilled political operators of the last half-century. A five-minute window is a gift to someone trained in deflection. An hours-long deposition under oath is not.

Comer confirmed the depositions will proceed as planned:

"So we're going to do the depositions. That's what the subpoena was for, and after the depositions, if the Clintons want more, they're more than welcome to come to the House Oversight Committee."

That's a clean offer. Answer the questions first. Then take all the public appearances you want.

The Fifth Amendment Problem

Comer also raised what could become the most consequential element of this entire episode — whether the Clintons will actually answer the questions put to them. He noted the contrast between their public posture and the reality of sitting across from investigators:

"They've been talking about a big game for the last 24 hours, that they want the American people to see, they want the American people to learn the truth and all that."

"Well, if the truth is you can't answer the questions, you plead the Fifth, then I think that's gonna be a mark that bans them from social gatherings and everything else, because most liberals in America are very concerned about getting the truth of Epstein."

That's not bluster — it's leverage. The Clintons have built their entire messaging campaign around a willingness to be transparent. If they invoke the Fifth Amendment during a deposition about Jeffrey Epstein, the political damage would be staggering, and not just from the right. Comer is betting that the left's own interest in the Epstein case creates a trap the Clintons cannot escape through spin alone.

The Pattern

Step back and look at the sequence:

• The Clintons were subpoenaed for sit-down depositions.
• They requested a closed-door deposition in New York. Rejected.
• They requested written testimony. Rejected.
• Comer began teeing up a House vote to hold them in contempt of Congress.
• Their lawyers accepted the deposition terms on Tuesday.
• By Thursday morning, Hillary Clinton was on X demanding a public hearing instead.

Every request the Clintons have made shares a single throughline: control. A deposition in New York puts them on home turf. Written testimony lets lawyers craft every syllable. A public hearing turns substance into spectacle, where practiced evasion thrives in five-minute increments and friendly members toss softballs. None of these formats serve the goal of getting thorough, sustained, under-oath answers about a convicted sex offender's connections to the most powerful people in American politics.

Comer described his own panel as a "very disruptive committee" with a "rough set of characters on both sides of the aisle." That candor reinforces the point. A hearing with that dynamic becomes a circus. A deposition stays on the rails.

What Comes Next

Feb. 26 and Feb. 27 are now the dates that matter. The subpoenas are issued. The terms are set. The Clintons' lawyers already agreed. Comer has committed to making both the video and transcripts of the depositions publicly available. Transparency isn't being denied — it's being sequenced. Answers first, then the public sees everything.

Hillary Clinton closed her X thread with a direct challenge:

"If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let's have it—in public. You love to talk about transparency. There's nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there."

It reads like confidence. But confidence doesn't usually need six months of rejected counteroffers, a contempt threat, and a last-minute social media campaign to arrive at the witness chair. The Clintons will testify — the only remaining question is whether they'll actually answer.