Clintons Agree to Testify in House Epstein Investigation Ahead of Contempt of Congress Vote
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shift course as the Republican-led House pushes contempt proceedings
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State **Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify in a U.S. House of Representatives investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, in an effort to head off or address a planned contempt of Congress vote over their previous refusal to appear. �
New Hampshire Public Radio +1
Background: A Standoff Over Subpoenas
The House Oversight Committee — chaired by Republican Rep. James Comer (Kentucky) — has been probing the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein case and a wide release of related documents. As part of that inquiry, the panel issued subpoenas to both Clintons last August seeking sworn testimony about their past interactions with Epstein and his associates. �
wlrn.org
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton initially refused to sit for depositions, challenging the validity of the subpoenas, describing the investigation as politically motivated, and arguing that other former officials had provided written statements instead of in-person testimony. �
wlrn.org
The New Agreement to Testify
Late Monday, attorneys for the Clintons informed the Oversight Committee that both would appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates in response to the subpoenas, reversing their earlier refusal. �
wlrn.org
Their legal team asked that House Republicans agree not to proceed with contempt proceedings if the Clintons comply with deposition requests. �
wlrn.org
However, Oversight Committee Chair James Comer said that no formal agreement has been finalized yet, noting that nothing is in writing and that he may still insist on terms that meet the committee’s requirements. �
wlrn.org
Contempt of Congress: Why It Matters
The threat of a contempt vote emerged after months of stalemate. The Oversight Committee already advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges against both Bill and Hillary Clinton due to their earlier refusals to testify. If contempt resolutions are approved by the full House, they could be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice, which could pursue prosecution — potentially involving fines or even jail time under rare circumstances. �
wlrn.org
Historically, holding a former president in contempt of Congress would be virtually unprecedented. Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the political and legal implications of such a move. �
wlrn.org
Political Reactions and Debate
Republicans, especially Comer, have stressed they want sworn depositions rather than limited interviews or written declarations, and have criticized offers from the Clinton legal team that seemed to limit scope or format. �
wlrn.org
Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have pushed back on contempt moves, arguing they are politically motivated and inconsistent with the committee’s handling of other witnesses. Some Democrats opposed contempt for one or both Clintons earlier as well. �
wunc.org
The Clintons’ camp has accused Comer of politicizing the probe and failing to hold the previous Trump administration accountable for delays in releasing the Department of Justice’s Epstein case files. �
wlrn.org
What’s Next: Negotiations and Depositions
At this stage:
The Clintons have agreed in principle to appear for depositions.
The committee has not formally dropped contempt proceedings and insists on conditions it views as necessary for compliance.
A full House vote on contempt could still be scheduled if negotiations do not resolve the procedural impasse. �
wlrn.org
Both sides are negotiating elements such as:
The format of testimony (e.g., transcribed interview vs. sworn deposition)
Location and timing of the depositions
Whether contempt votes will be postponed or withdrawn once testimony is scheduled. �
wlrn.org
Context: The Wider Epstein Inquiry
This development unfolds against the backdrop of a massive release of Epstein-related documents by the Department of Justice earlier this year, which included mention of many high-profile figures and intensified legislative scrutiny of the financier’s networks. �
The Guardian
Although neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of criminal wrongdoing in connection with Epstein’s offenses, their past association with him—especially Bill Clinton’s travel on his plane in the early 2000s—has made them focal points in the congressional inquiry. �
wlrn.org
Why This Story Matters
Whether or not the Clintons’ agreement will actually prevent a contempt vote, it is significant because:
It involves former top U.S. officials agreeing to testify to Congress — a rare occurrence.
It illustrates how politics and oversight can collide when investigations touch well-known public figures.
It demonstrates ongoing bipartisan tensions over both the Epstein investigation and broader questions about congressional authority and transparency. �
wlrn.org
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Zahid Hussain and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Companies Are Ditching Business With ICE
As national protests against immigration enforcement intensify — especially after recent shootings by ICE agents in Minneapolis — pressure on corporations with contracts or ties to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is rising sharply. In response to public backlash from consumers, employees, activists, and even shareholders, some companies are now ending or reconsidering their business relationships with ICE. � Houston Chronicle +1 Capgemini Divests U.S. Subsidiary Over ICE Contract One of the most high‑profile examples of this shift comes from European technology and consulting firm Capgemini. Capgemini announced it will divest its U.S. subsidiary, Capgemini Government Solutions (CGS), which had a multimillion‑dollar contract providing services to ICE — including controversial “skip tracing” tools used to locate individuals targeted for enforcement. � Gizmodo +1 The company’s leadership acknowledged the backlash and reputational risk linked to the contract, noting that the unit accounted for only a small fraction of total revenue — but that public and governmental scrutiny made the association untenable. � AP News Capgemini’s shares even rose after the announcement, signaling that some investors view the move as a proactive response to reputational concerns. � Reuters This decision is notable not just because Capgemini is a major global firm, but because it reflects international scrutiny on U.S. immigration enforcement policies and corporate participation. U.S. Companies and ICE Contracts Under Fire While Capgemini’s move is one of the clearest examples of divestment, a broader debate is unfolding around U.S. companies with active or historical ties to ICE: Avelo Airlines Ends Deportation Flights Houston‑based Avelo Airlines confirmed that it will stop operating deportation flights for ICE out of Arizona, a decision that sparked mixed reactions from local media and activists. � Houston Chronicle Public Pressure on National Brands Activists have increasingly called out major corporations for their perceived neutrality or silence over ICE policies, including targeting companies like Target during protests demanding they cut ties or take public stances against enforcement operations. � FOX 13 Seattle In Minneapolis and other cities, major employers such as General Mills, Target, and Caribou Coffee have faced pressure as local communities struggle with the impacts of ICE activity. � Star Tribune Shareholders and Internal Critics Criticism isn’t limited to external protests. Shareholders of firms like Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) have asked leadership to divest from federal contracts tied to ICE, arguing that such business deals conflict with corporate values. � The Nome Nugget Companies Still Contracting With ICE — And Why It Matters Despite these moves, many corporations still maintain ICE contracts or work indirectly with the agency through government service arrangements. For example: Large contractors such as Palantir Technologies have ongoing data and operational contracts with ICE, playing a core role in building enforcement technology platforms. � Wikipedia Many Fortune 500 firms provide goods, services, or technology support to ICE field offices — from delivery services to IT systems — although some of these contracts are relatively small and set to expire in the coming months. � aol.com Advocates argue that exposing and challenging these relationships can put further pressure on both corporations and policymakers in Washington, particularly in light of renewed debates over immigration policy and the agency’s expanding role under the Trump administration. Why Companies Are Cutting Ties or Facing Pressure There are several key reasons why businesses are reconsidering their relationships with ICE: 1. Brand and Reputation Risk Public backlash over corporate ties to controversial enforcement actions — especially those that have resulted in deaths or heavy‑handed operations — threatens consumer loyalty and brand value. This is particularly true for companies with strong global consumer bases. 2. Employee and Shareholder Activism Workers and investors increasingly expect companies to act in line with ethical values. When a business is linked, even indirectly, to enforcement activities that harm communities, internal pressure can grow for leadership to take action — as seen with BSNC and other shareholder challenges. � The Nome Nugget 3. Political and Regulatory Scrutiny International and governmental criticism, including from French officials in Capgemini’s case, elevates the reputational stakes of continuing controversial contracts. � AP News 4. Public Campaigns and Boycotts Across U.S. cities, campaigns such as “ICE Out” are calling for companies to publicly denounce or discontinue support for ICE, leading to protests targeting major brands. � FOX 13 Seattle Not Just Divestment — A Broader Corporate Reckoning The trend is part of a broader conversation about corporate responsibility, ethics, and the intersection of business and public policy: Grassroots movements and advocacy groups are pushing for more transparency and accountability from corporations that hold government contracts, particularly those involving enforcement or surveillance technologies. � The Nation Some activists believe that reducing corporate support for enforcement agencies could weaken those agencies’ capacity to carry out controversial operations, essentially forcing policy change through economic means. � Reddit However, not all companies are willing or able to end contracts — especially if they involve long‑term government procurement or critical technology infrastructure. This underscores the complexity of disentangling private sector interests from federal enforcement systems. What Comes Next As protests and public debates over immigration enforcement continue, it’s likely that: More companies will face scrutiny over their ties to ICE and related agencies. Consumer and employee campaigns may grow, especially on social media and grassroots organizing platforms. Investors may increasingly weigh ethical considerations when evaluating corporate governance and risk exposure. The broader trend reflects a moment where corporate values, public policy, and civic activism intersect — with companies weighing not just profitability but social and ethical impact.
By Zahid Hussain6 days ago in The Swamp
Why Black History Matters in America?
The United States of America is celebrating their 250th anniversary in 2026. I'm proud to be an American and as someone who was born here, I wouldn't imagine myself living anywhere else. This is a country where opportunities are possible. Where anyone can be successful in anything they desire to do. Equality, community, and togetherness are the backbones of what America is and should be about. However, we have an administration who wants to erase and disregard those who have made positive, meaningful impacts in our country, specifically Black figures, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and Maya Angelou. President Trump and his administration have been constantly complaining and fighting against what they call the "Woke agenda". They use this excuse as a distraction from other issues they refuse to address, such as the high cost of living, climate change, and inflation. That equality is dividing America, when in reality, it's bringing us together. Being woke is not tied to a specific political party. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you can still care about other people and their plights. Compassion and empathy for others isn't tied to a political party, either. We were taught as children to treat others the way we want to be treated and not judge others because they're different from us. Caring about others isn't a personal attack on your beliefs. It doesn't make you any less of a person. People who are easily offended over African American figures, past or present, or anything related to it, are grasping at straws. Current and future generations need to know who people like Harriet Tubman and Shirley Chisholm were, especially in the classroom. Black History is part of American History. It should be recognized, not hidden or forgotten. Besides, you can't shield children from everything, just because your feelings are easily hurt.
By Mark Wesley Pritchard 6 days ago in The Swamp
‘Sana-mania’ Grips Japan as Ultra-Conservative Takaichi Expected to Secure Election Landslide
Japan’s political landscape is being swept by what commentators have dubbed “Sana-mania,” as Sanae Takaichi, a leading figure of the country’s ultra-conservative movement, appears poised to win a decisive victory in the upcoming election. With opinion polls pointing toward a landslide result, her rise reflects a growing appetite among voters for strong leadership, national identity, and tougher security policies amid regional uncertainty and domestic economic pressure. Takaichi, a former internal affairs minister and long-time ally of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has campaigned on a platform rooted in traditional values, expanded defense capabilities, and economic nationalism. Her blunt rhetoric and uncompromising positions have energized conservative supporters while alarming critics who fear Japan is moving away from its post-war pacifist orientation. A Wave of Popularity Over recent weeks, campaign rallies across major cities such as Osaka, Nagoya, and Tokyo have drawn unusually large crowds. Supporters wave banners emblazoned with her name and chant slogans calling for a “strong Japan.” Social media platforms have amplified her message, with hashtags linked to Takaichi trending nationwide. Political analysts describe the phenomenon as reminiscent of earlier political surges driven by charismatic figures who promised stability and national pride. Polls released by major Japanese media outlets show Takaichi holding a commanding lead over her rivals, particularly among older voters and those concerned about China’s growing military presence in the region. Younger voters, while more divided, have also shown interest in her promises of technological investment and economic reform. Policy Positions and Ideology At the core of Takaichi’s platform is a pledge to revise Japan’s interpretation of its pacifist constitution. She argues that current security threats—from North Korea’s missile tests to rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait—require Japan to develop stronger defense capabilities and closer cooperation with allies. She has also advocated increased military spending and a more assertive foreign policy, aligning with conservative factions that believe Japan must shed what they view as post-war constraints imposed by history. Her economic agenda emphasizes supply chain independence, protection of domestic industries, and incentives for companies to bring manufacturing back to Japan. Culturally, Takaichi has championed traditional family structures and opposed progressive social reforms. This stance has earned her strong backing from nationalist groups but criticism from civil society organizations and younger, urban voters who favor more liberal policies. Dividing the Nation While “Sana-mania” has electrified her base, it has also intensified polarization within Japanese society. Opposition parties warn that her leadership could undermine Japan’s diplomatic relationships and provoke unnecessary confrontation in East Asia. Some academics argue that her rhetoric risks reopening unresolved historical wounds related to Japan’s wartime past. Human rights groups have expressed concern about her views on education and media regulation, fearing that stricter controls could limit freedom of expression. Feminist organizations are divided: while some praise the possibility of Japan’s first openly nationalist female leader, others criticize her resistance to gender equality reforms. Nevertheless, Takaichi’s supporters see her as a symbol of resilience. “Japan needs a leader who will not bow to foreign pressure,” said one rally attendee in Kyoto. “She speaks with clarity and courage.” Regional and International Implications If elected in a landslide, Takaichi’s leadership could reshape Japan’s regional posture. Relations with China and South Korea may face renewed strain, especially over territorial disputes and historical issues. At the same time, ties with the United States are expected to strengthen, particularly in defense and technology cooperation. Washington has remained cautious in its public statements, emphasizing the importance of stability and alliance coordination regardless of election outcomes. Analysts suggest that a Takaichi government would likely support expanded military exercises and deeper intelligence sharing with Western partners. In Southeast Asia, reactions are mixed. Some governments welcome a stronger Japan as a counterbalance to China, while others worry about escalating tensions that could disrupt trade and security. Economic Uncertainty Japan’s economy remains fragile after years of stagnation, inflationary pressures, and an aging population. Takaichi has promised aggressive stimulus measures and tax reforms to boost growth, but economists question whether her protectionist tendencies could discourage foreign investment. Business leaders have expressed cautious optimism, noting her focus on innovation and digital transformation. However, they remain wary of policies that could isolate Japan from global markets at a time when cooperation is seen as essential for recovery. A Turning Point The upcoming election is widely viewed as a referendum on Japan’s future direction. A landslide victory for Takaichi would signal a shift toward assertive nationalism and a break from the cautious consensus politics that has dominated in recent decades. For supporters, her rise represents renewal and confidence. For critics, it marks a troubling departure from the values that guided Japan’s post-war reconstruction and diplomacy. As “Sana-mania” continues to dominate headlines, one thing is clear: the election is more than a contest of personalities. It is a defining moment for Japan’s identity, security, and role in the world. Whether Takaichi’s surge will translate into long-term stability or deeper division remains uncertain. What is undeniable is that her movement has already reshaped the national conversation, forcing voters to confront fundamental questions about tradition, power, and Japan’s place in an increasingly unstable global order.
By Fiaz Ahmed 2 days ago in The Swamp
~ Fired ~
— Ai Intrusion ~ Are you Next ~ Is Ai Evolution after your job? — Few workplaces haven't been affected. Ai is in supermarkets, at doctors' offices, and even monitoring farms. I just can't think of anything this machine is not getting into, can you? For instance: Education ~ Law and Tech jobs will one day have a major influence or be taken over by these inanimate machines, with accuracy and vigor. From mechanics' diagnoses to a wide variety of everyday jobs, including fast food workers, with this input having the ability to cut their unnecessary work hours. I'm certain all of us have been touched by this with our short stories and colorful headings, have you? Even comments are very questionable 'Non-Robot' insertions.
By Jay Kantor7 days ago in Journal
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.