By Annie Grayer
3小时前
发布于2026年2月2日，美国东部时间下午2:01
众议院监督委员会主席詹姆斯·科默（James Comer）在2026年1月21日的听证会上，背景为前总统比尔·克林顿的照片。
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/AP/File
代表比尔·克林顿和希拉里·克林顿的律师就国会调查杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）案中的藐视国会投票发起最后一搏，试图避免这一投票，但遭到监督委员会主席詹姆斯·科默的拒绝。
“自您的当事人首次收到委员会传票以来已近六个月，自原定作证日期起已超过三个月，且自未能按委员会合法传票要求出席作证以来已近三周，”科默在信中写道，“您的当事人寻求特殊待遇，这既令人沮丧，也冒犯了美国人民对透明度的渴望。”
CNN获取的这封信件显示，克林顿团队多日来一直在寻找脱身之法。自两党议员1月投票因克林顿夫妇拒绝出席与爱泼斯坦调查相关的当面作证而对其处以藐视国会罪以来，这对前总统和前国务卿的律师已多次与共和党主导的委员会进行讨论。
科默拒绝克林顿夫妇的最新提议后，几乎确保众议院本周将就藐视国会决议进行最终投票。
根据1月31日的信件，克林顿律师团队提出了前总统自愿接受转录采访的条件：他将在纽约市接受为期四小时的采访，仅限于爱泼斯坦调查的范围。律师表示，两党议员及其工作人员可提问，且克林顿夫妇和委员会均可派自己的转录员到场。
尽管律师仍在推动委员会撤回对希拉里·克林顿作证的传票，但表示她可提交第二份宣誓声明，或采用与丈夫类似的形式进行当面采访。
作为交换，克林顿律师阿什利·卡伦（Ashley Callen）和大卫·E·肯德尔（David E. Kendall）要求科默撤回针对他们的传票和藐视国会决议。
比尔·克林顿多次否认与已故性犯罪者爱泼斯坦有不当关联。
科默称克林顿律师的提议“不合理”，并表示无法接受此类条款。他拒绝将采访从宣誓作证改为自愿采访，并驳回了律师试图限制采访范围的要求。科默指出，如果前总统在8月首次收到作证传票时就接受自愿采访，情况本可能不同。
“但考虑到他已未能出席作证，且数月拒绝向委员会提供当面证词，委员会不能简单相信克林顿总统会在转录采访中拒绝回答问题，导致委员会再次陷入当前困境，”这位肯塔基州共和党人写道。
科默补充说，若委员会同意设定四小时的采访时限，克林顿可能会试图“拖延时间”。他还质疑，既然委员会将派官方法庭速记员到场，为何克林顿夫妇仍要求自己的转录员。
科默在信中还提及前总统乔·拜登之子亨特·拜登的案例：在委员会投票对其处以藐视国会罪后，亨特同意进行当面作证而非自愿转录采访。
最终，科默也拒绝了希拉里·克林顿的相关提议。
Clintons’ latest offer to avoid contempt vote rebuffed by Republican chairman
By Annie Grayer
3 hr ago
PUBLISHED Feb 2, 2026, 2:01 PM ET
Committee Chairman James Comer, flanked by images of former President Bill Clinton, during a House Oversight Committee meeting on January 21, 2026.
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/AP/File
Attorneys representing Bill and Hillary Clinton made a last-ditch offer to avoid a House contempt of Congress vote in the congressional Jeffrey Epstein probe, but were rejected by Oversight Chair James Comer.
“It has been nearly six months since your clients first received the Committee’s subpoena, more than three months since the original date of their depositions, and nearly three weeks since they failed to appear for their depositions commensurate with the Committee’s lawful subpoenas,”Comer wrote. “Your clients’ desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency.”
The correspondence, obtained by CNN, reveals that the Clintons’ team has been in search of an off-ramp for days. Attorneys for the former president and former secretary of state have been in discussion with the Republican-led committee multiple times since lawmakers from both parties voted in January to hold the Clintons in contempt for refusing to appear for in-person depositions as part of the panel’s investigation into Epstein.
By rejecting the Clintons’ most recent offer, Comer has all but ensured that the House will hold a final vote this week on the contempt resolutions.
According to the letter dated January 31, the Clintons’ lawyers laid out the terms under which the former president would sit for a voluntary, transcribed interview. He would sit for four hours in New York City for an interview limited to the scope of the Epstein probe, they said. Lawmakers from both parties and their staff could ask questions, and the lawyers said both the Clintons and the committee could have their own transcriber present, according to the letter.
Even though the lawyers continued to push for the panel to drop its subpoena for Hillary Clinton’s testimony, they said she could submit a second sworn declaration or appear for an in-person interview in a similar format to her husband.
In exchange, Clinton attorneys Ashley Callen and David E. Kendall asked Comer to withdraw the subpoenas and contempt resolutions against them.
Bill Clinton has repeatedly denied wrongdoing related the Epstein, the late convicted sex offender.
Comer rejected the offer from the Clintons’ attorneys as “unreasonable” and said he could not accept such terms.
He could not agree, he said, to changing the interview from a sworn deposition to a voluntary interview, and rejected the way in which the attorneys sought to limit the interview’s scope. Comer noted if the attorneys had offered a voluntary interview when the former president first received his subpoena for testimony in August, the situation could have played out differently.
“But given that he has already failed to appear for a deposition and has refused for several months to provide the Committee with in-person testimony, the Committee cannot simply have faith that President Clinton will not refuse to answer questions at a transcribed interview, resulting in the Committee being right back where it is today,” the Kentucky Republican wrote.
Clinton, he added, would have incentive to attempt to “run out the clock” if the committee agreed to a firm, four-hour time limit for an interview. And the Republican chairman questioned why the Clintons wanted their own transcriber, if an official court reporter provided by the panel would be present.
In his letter, Comer referenced how the process played out for former President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who agreed to sit for an in-person deposition, not a voluntary transcribed interview, following a committee vote to hold him in contempt.
Ultimately, Comer also rejected the proposals laid out for Hillary Clinton.
发表回复