Did Bill Clinton refuse to testify under oath in any major investigations?

1. The headline fact: he testified under oath to a grand jury

Contrary to simplified claims that Clinton “refused to testify under oath,” contemporary records show President Clinton did give sworn grand-jury testimony on August 17, 1998, becoming the first sitting president to do so in a federal grand-jury investigation ^{[1] [4]}. Primary transcripts and published accounts document that he was sworn and examined by Independent Counsel staff ^[4].

2. Where the “refused” narrative comes from — voluntary invitations and delay

Kenneth Starr’s report and later summaries criticize Clinton for turning down or delaying voluntary invitations to testify during the early phases of the probe; Starr’s narrative says Clinton “refused six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury” and “delayed testimony for seven months,” framing that behavior as part of obstruction allegations ^[2]. The distinction here is between informal or voluntary requests and formal compelled proceedings where he eventually testified under oath ^[2].

3. Impeachment findings: lying under oath and obstructing justice

The House Judiciary Committee and the subsequent impeachment articles focused not only on whether Clinton testified, but on whether he lied under oath and obstructed justice. The House approved two articles related to perjury before a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998 — charges rooted in sworn statements and conduct surrounding testimony ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Legal nuance: sworn deposition vs. grand-jury testimony vs. trial testimony

Clinton’s legal record during these matters includes multiple sworn statements in different forums. He was deposed in the Paula Jones civil case (a sworn deposition) and later testified before the grand jury; portions of videotaped depositions were shown to the Senate during the impeachment trial, but Clinton did not appear live to testify at his Senate impeachment trial ^{[6] [2] [7]}. Reporting and legal analysis emphasize these procedural differences ^{[6] [7]}.

5. How sources interpret “refusal” — competing readings

Some accounts and prosecutors framed Clinton’s early reluctance to appear voluntarily as obstruction or willful delay ^[2]. Defenders and other observers have pointed to the eventual sworn appearances and argued over the materiality and interpretation of his language and definitions (for example over what “sexual relations” meant), highlighting that much debate turned on semantic and procedural questions, not simply a binary “refused” or “testified” judgment ^{[8] [7]}.

6. Modern echoes — subpoenas and whether a former president can decline

In 2025 reporting about the congressional Epstein probe, committees issued subpoenas to Bill Clinton and set deposition dates; commentary in legal outlets noted several enforcement paths if a former president declined to appear, including contempt or court enforcement — illustrating that refusal to comply with a subpoena is distinct from refusing voluntary interviews and would raise enforceable legal questions ^{[9] [10]}. Reuters and the BBC documented congressional efforts to arrange Clinton’s testimony in that later probe ^{[11] [12]}.

7. Bottom line and limitations of available reporting

Available sources show Clinton both gave sworn testimony (grand jury, depositions) and was criticized for delaying or declining voluntary appearances early in the Starr investigation — which prosecutors characterized as refusal or obstruction ^{[4] [2]}. Sources do not uniformly characterize every interaction the same way, and the legal record hinges on where, when, and under what terms Clinton spoke; available sources do not mention any blanket, across-the-board refusal to testify under oath in every major investigation ^{[4] [2]}.