Rep. Andy Biggs to Newsmax: House Moving to Charge Clintons With Contempt

2. How Did We Get Here? The Epstein Investigation

The controversy stems from a House Oversight Committee investigation into Jeffrey Epstein — the powerful financier who abused and trafficked dozens of underage girls over many years before dying in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial.

The House GOP‑led probe seeks information about how Epstein operated, who he associated with, and how powerful people may have intersected with his activities — including flight logs, travel, donations, and other ties. Epstein’s relationships with political figures, celebrities, and business leaders have long been scrutinized, and lawmakers argue that transparency about these connections is crucial.

As part of that investigation, the Oversight Committee issued bipartisan subpoenas for testimony from Bill and Hillary Clinton. Representatives from both parties initially supported the subpoenas in committee, illustrating an unusual moment of cooperation — at least early in the process.

3. The Clintons’ Response: Refusing to Appear

According to reporting from Newsmax and associated coverage, the Clintons’ attorneys communicated back to the committee that the couple would not appear for the scheduled depositions. They argued the subpoenas were legally invalid and provided letters asserting that the Clinton team believed the process was flawed.

Bill and Hillary’s letter also stated flatly that they expected the committee would seek to hold them in contempt, writing:

“We expect you will direct your committee to seek to hold us in contempt. You will say it is not our decision to make. But we have made it.”

The Clintons asserted their decision was grounded in legal concerns about congressional overreach and protest over what they described as politically motivated oversight. Former officials often negotiate such terms with committees, especially when testimony could touch on executive branch privileges or classified matters — though the specifics in this case remain contested.

4. Republican Leaders Push Forward

Rep. Andy Biggs, speaking on Newsmax, explained that the House Oversight Committee had spent months negotiating with Clinton attorneys, adjusting schedules, and seeking cooperation — only to have the Clintons ultimately decline to appear. Biggs said that after negotiations and accommodations, it became necessary to proceed toward contempt charges.

Biggs also emphasized that the committee has been investigating alleged connections involving the Clinton Foundation and Epstein, stating that lawmakers want to “determine the facts” about the relationships.

Other Republican leaders, including House Oversight Chairman James Comer, have similarly framed the issue as one of enforcing congressional subpoenas — a matter of accountability and equal application of the law. Comer rejected a proposal from Clinton lawyers for an informal interview, insisting the committee’s legal requirements weren’t met and that testimony needed to be officially transcribed and recorded.

Even House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed support for the contempt approach, stressing that a refusal to appear before Congress when subpoenaed constitutes contempt.

5. Bipartisan Elements and Democratic Reactions

While the debate is highly partisan in many respects, the contempt resolutions in committee drew some Democratic support — unusual in modern politics. Progressive Democrats such as Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Raja Krishnamoorthi joined Republicans in advancing contempt measures against the Clintons in committee.

Those Democrats framed their votes less as partisan attacks and more as a push for transparency in the Epstein investigation. They argue that if powerful figures truly have nothing to hide, they should be willing to testify before Congress.

However, many Democrats — including party leadership — criticized the GOP’s focus on the Clintons when they believe more pressing matters, like release of additional Epstein files by the Justice Department, should be prioritized. Critics also accuse Republicans of engaging in political theater rather than substantive oversight.

6. Legal and Constitutional Questions

This situation raises important questions about separation of powers and executive privilege, even if the Clintons are now private citizens. Former presidents and top officials generally operate in a gray area when it comes to congressional subpoenas — courts frequently balance legislative investigatory authority against concerns about executive branch confidentiality.

In previous congressional inquiries, figures like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were held in contempt for refusing subpoenas and ultimately served jail time — but they were not former presidents or secretaries of state. A contempt finding against a former president could set a historic precedent, and the Department of Justice will have to decide whether to pursue charges.

Legal experts say that while refusal to comply with a valid subpoena is contempt, the question of what qualifies as a valid legislative purpose can be fiercely contested in court — particularly when powerful political figures push back on grounds of overreach or improper motive.

7. Political Ramifications

Aside from legal questions, the political stakes are enormous.

For Republicans, advancing contempt charges can serve as a signal that no one is above the law, a theme they emphasize in public messaging. It also keeps attention on the broader Epstein investigation and feeds a narrative that powerful elites evade accountability.

For Democrats, defending the Clintons — or criticizing the contempt push — allows them to spotlight what they see as excessive focus on political opponents while deflecting attention from GOP challenges, such as delayed release of key documents.

Public opinion may also play a role. Voters who feel that powerful figures should answer tough questions might support the contempt route. Others may view it as part of ongoing political feuding, distracting from legislative priorities.

8. What Comes Next

As of late January 2026, the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress, with separate votes tallying 34–8 and 28–15 respectively in committee — signaling at least some bipartisan support.

But a full House vote is still required before the matter can be formally referred to the Department of Justice. That vote is expected when Congress reconvenes after its current recess.

If the full House approves the contempt resolutions, the next major step — and perhaps the most consequential — will be whether the Justice Department decides to pursue prosecution. DOJ prosecutors will weigh the legal merits, potential defenses, and political implications of taking controversial action against two of the most prominent figures in recent U.S. political history.

9. Broader Reflections: Power, Accountability, and Rule of Law

At its core, this confrontation brings into relief deep tensions in American governance:

What does accountability look like for powerful public figures after they leave office?

How far can Congress go in compelling testimony from former presidents?

When do investigations cross from oversight into political theater?

Can bipartisan investigatory efforts survive in a polarized environment?

These questions don’t just affect the Clintons — they shape expectations for future investigations and the norms of congressional authority.

Some commentators see the contempt push as a needed reaffirmation of congressional power — that individuals who might wield influence in politics or media should still answer to lawful oversight. Others warn that using contempt charges against political adversaries sets a dangerous precedent that could be weaponized by future majorities.

10. Conclusion

The move to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress reflects a potent mix of legal process, political strategy, and institutional rivalry. It’s rare — unprecedented in many respects — and could reshape how Congress enforces subpoenas against former leaders. Whether the full House will refer the matter to the Justice Department, and whether prosecutors will pursue charges, remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: this is one of the most consequential clashes between congressional authority and powerful former officials in recent memory — one that will be debated in news cycles, courtrooms, and history books alike.