Hillary Clinton May Be Held in 'Criminal Contempt of Congress' After Refusing to Show Up for Jeffrey Epstein Deposition
Executive summary
Hillary Clinton failed to appear for a scheduled closed-door deposition in the House Oversight Committee’s probe of Jeffrey Epstein, and Republican chair James Comer announced the panel will move to hold both Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress after they defied subpoenas [1] [2]. A contempt vote by the GOP-controlled House would be largely symbolic but could trigger a Justice Department referral and, theoretically, criminal prosecution carrying statutory penalties; whether prosecutors pursue charges is uncertain and politically fraught [1] [3].
1. What happened: the no-show and the committee’s response
The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton in August for depositions related to Epstein and scheduled closed-door testimony this week; Bill Clinton did not appear for his deposition and Hillary Clinton likewise did not show up for her scheduled appearance Wednesday, prompting Comer to announce contempt proceedings [4] [1] [2].
2. The legal mechanics: how contempt works and what it could mean
If the full House votes to hold someone in criminal contempt, the chamber can refer a contempt citation to the Justice Department, which then decides whether to prosecute; criminal contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000, though many contempt referrals do not end in prosecution [1] [3] [5].
3. The Clintons’ defense and the committee’s counterargument
The Clintons’ lawyers sent a letter describing the subpoenas as “invalid and legally unenforceable” and arguing they were untethered to a valid legislative purpose and politically motivated, and the former president and first lady also supplied sworn statements they said contained the “little information” they have about Epstein [6] [2] [7]. Republicans led by Comer respond that the subpoenas were lawfully issued by a bipartisan committee vote and say compliance is required; Comer announced plans to hold votes to advance contempt next week [6] [8] [1].
4. Criminal risk: real but uncertain
While Comer and other Republicans have vowed to “hold both Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress,” the pathway from a House contempt vote to actual criminal indictment and jail time is uncertain — the Justice Department must decide to prosecute, historically many contempt referrals stall, and the political stakes of prosecuting a former president and secretary of state would make any enforcement decision momentous and legally contested [8] [1] [3]. Media coverage notes the penalties on the books, but also that not every contempt finding leads to prosecution, and past high-profile contempt cases have varied outcomes [3] [7].
5. Political context and likely outcomes
The move is both investigatory and political: Republicans frame it as seeking answers about Epstein; Democrats and Clinton allies call the effort partisan and point to the Clintons’ written denials and lack of allegations of wrongdoing against them in Epstein’s files [6] [9] [7]. Even if the House votes to hold Hillary Clinton in contempt, the most likely near-term results are continued legal wrangling, appeals about enforceability and legislative purpose, and a Justice Department decision that will be litigated or deferred — meaning contempt would be a potent political rebuke but not an assured route to criminal conviction [1] [6] [7].
6. Bottom line: may be held — prosecution doubtful and contested
Hillary Clinton may be held in criminal contempt by a Republican-controlled House if members follow through on Comer’s plan and vote to advance contempt charges after her no-show, but a referral to the Justice Department does not guarantee prosecution, and any attempt to criminally enforce a contempt citation would be steeped in legal challenges and partisan controversy [1] [3] [6]. Reporting shows both sides assert legal and political rationales — Republicans asserting lawful subpoenas and Democrats and the Clintons arguing invalidity and partisanship — so the final legal outcome remains unresolved in the reporting [6] [2].