“They negotiated in good faith,” Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote in a post to X. “You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”

Comer said in a statement shortly after that the committee needed to clarify the terms under which the Clintons would be testifying before agreeing to holding depostions for them.

“The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again and they have provided no dates for their depositions,” Comer said. “The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt. I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members.”

The initial offer was made as the House is set to vote on the resolution to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress this week, after they failed to show up for their depositions with the committee for its Epstein investigation last month.

“For the aforementioned reasons, the Committee must decline the unreasonable offer in your January 31, 2026 letter,” Comer wrote in a letter to their attorneys. “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. Your clients’ desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency.”

According to the Jan. 31 letter, the offer states the former president would sit for four hours for a voluntary, transcribed interview in New York City, limited to the scope of the Epstein investigation, where lawmakers from both parties and their staff could ask questions. The letter added that both the Clintons and the committee could have their own transcriber.

The Clintons’ lawyers pushed for the committee to drop Hillary Clinton’s subpoena, but said that if the committee refused, she could appear for an in-person interview in a format similar to her husband’s.

Comer rejected the terms of the offer, calling them “unreasonable.” He pointed out that in a voluntary, transcribed interview, the witness is allowed to leave questions unanswered, unlike a deposition, and that a time restraint allows the witness to “run out the clock.”

The Clintons were set to appear before the oversight committee last month, but they no-showed for their depositions. Comer said he had been in contact with their lawyers for months, trying to work out a date, but the Clintons were not complying.

WINNER OF SYLVESTER TURNER’S TEXAS SEAT HAS JUST WEEKS BEFORE NEXT ELECTION

The Clintons wrote a letter to Comer earlier last month, saying they gave the committee the “little information we have,” as it points to the government’s “failure” in investigating Epstein’s crimes, adding they are prepared to “forcibly defend” themselves.

“The decisions you have made, and the priorities you have set as chairman regarding the Epstein investigation, have prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role,” the couple wrote.