What legal avenues exist if the Clintons refuse to answer questions during a congressional deposition?
Executive summary
If Hillary or Bill Clinton refused to answer questions in a congressional deposition, the government and the committee have a limited toolkit: invocation of constitutional privileges by the witness, committee enforcement through contempt and criminal referral, and the option to seek judicial enforcement or civil sanctions depending on the posture of the testimony; each step is constrained by legal rules and precedent about privileges, committee procedure, and court review [1] [2] [3]. For ordinary depositions in litigation, refusal to answer is handled through objections, motions to compel, and sanctions up to contempt or dismissal—procedures that illustrate the civil-law analogues committees may mimic when seeking compliance [4] [5] [6].
1. Constitutional protections the Clintons can assert: Fifth Amendment and privilege
A witness may lawfully decline to answer specific questions that would incriminate them by invoking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination; attorney-client communications and other recognized privileges likewise protect discrete topics from compelled disclosure [1] [7]. These privileges are narrowly applied—invoking them generally protects only the subject matter covered by the privilege or the specific incriminating risk—not a blanket refusal to testify about unrelated topics [1] [7].
2. Congressional enforcement: contempt of Congress and criminal referral
When a witness summoned by Congress “refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry,” federal statute makes that refusal a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment; Congress can vote to hold a witness in contempt and refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution under that statute [2]. Congressional committees also retain internal tools—adverse publicity, subpoena enforcement, and public pressure—that are distinct from court-centered civil discovery remedies and that can shape the political consequences of refusing to answer [3].
3. Judicial enforcement and civil analogues: motions to compel and sanctions
In ordinary civil depositions, if a deponent refuses to answer non‑privileged questions, the opposing party may file a motion to compel in the court where the action is pending and seek sanctions; courts can compel answers, impose fees and costs, and in some extreme cases dismiss claims or enter default judgments when parties flout discovery orders [4] [5] [6]. Committees seeking to convert a congressional standoff into a judicial enforcement action face separation-of-powers and Speech or Debate protections that complicate courts’ willingness to intervene in certain congressional procedures, as explained in Congressional Research Service analysis [3].
4. Tactical avenues for committees and respondents: negotiation, protective orders, or terminating testimony
Practically, disputes over questions are often resolved at the deposition through objections, conferral, or by seeking a protective order or court ruling afterward; counsel may instruct a client not to answer only in limited circumstances (to preserve privilege, enforce a court-ordered limit, or present a motion) and terminating the deposition remains an available remedy in some situations [4] [8]. When negotiations fail, the questioner can pursue additional discovery methods or court processes to obtain the information if it is not privileged, a point courts and practitioners often emphasize as an alternative to blanket refusal [4] [6].
5. Risks, limits and political context: legal sanctions vs. political leverage
Refusal to answer non‑privileged questions can expose a witness to contempt, fines, or even criminal prosecution under the statute governing congressional subpoenas, while in civil litigation the practical risks include sanctions, fee awards, and case-dispositive orders—yet both tracks involve significant legal thresholds and procedural fights over privilege and relevance [5] [2] [4]. Political considerations and the Speech or Debate Clause create additional layers: congressional committees can wield political leverage and public forums in ways courts will not, and courts are often cautious about intruding on congressional prerogatives, which means enforcement outcomes turn as much on strategy and politics as on straightforward law [3].
6. Bottom line: multiple but imperfect remedies
There is no single automatic remedy if a high‑profile witness declines to answer; available avenues—invoking privilege, congressional contempt and criminal referral, court motions to compel, civil sanctions, and negotiation or protective orders—must be calibrated to constitutional protections, procedural rules, and political realities, and each carries legal hurdles and strategic tradeoffs that both committees and witnesses will exploit [1] [2] [4] [3].