Lead
Former US president Bill Clinton testified behind closed doors to the House Oversight Committee on his past interactions with financier Jeffrey Epstein on Thursday in Chappaqua, New York. Lawmakers from both parties pressed him about documented flights and contacts as the committee seeks clarity on Epstein’s network. Clinton said he “saw nothing, did nothing wrong” and stressed he would not speculate about events from decades ago. Republicans and Democrats framed the session very differently as the committee moved through alternating one-hour rounds of questioning.
Key takeaways
- Bill Clinton testified to the House Oversight Committee in Chappaqua, New York, answering questions about his association with Jeffrey Epstein.
- The committee says Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane at least 27 times; Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times during Clinton’s presidency.
- Clinton stated under oath that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and repeatedly declined to guess about events he could not recall.
- Committee Republicans, led by chair James Comer, described the day as a step toward “seeking the truth” and signalled plans to release deposition video to the public.
- Democrats called the proceedings a precedent but warned against turning the hearing into a partisan “sideshow,” and urged that investigations be serious and even-handed.
- President Donald Trump commented publicly that he did not like seeing Clinton deposed and suggested the scrutiny was unequal.
- Lawmakers alternated one-hour blocks of questioning, with Republicans beginning because they control the committee.
Background
The House Oversight Committee convened depositions this week that include both Hillary and Bill Clinton, part of a broader probe into Jeffrey Epstein’s network and contacts. Epstein, who was charged federally with sex trafficking before his 2019 death, maintained relationships with many high-profile figures; investigators are examining who knew what and when. The committee chair, Republican James Comer, has said the goal is transparency and to interview “some of the most powerful people in the world.” Democrats on the panel have accused Republicans of partisanship and have demanded that witnesses from both parties be treated equivalently.
Calling a former president to testify is unusual and has drawn attention to committee procedures: depositions are sworn but are not court trials, and the panel set up alternating, timed rounds of questions. The Clintons’ testimony required several months of scheduling, according to the committee, reflecting the logistical and political sensitivity. Members also discussed release plans for deposition video, promising to make footage public, which would allow the wider public to judge demeanour and responses for themselves. The exchange follows prior public testimony from Hillary Clinton, which produced sharp disagreement between parties over tone and content.
Main event
The session opened with Clinton delivering an opening statement in which he said he had no knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity and that he would not “play detective” about events he could not clearly recall. He emphasized his reluctance to speculate about matters from decades earlier and reiterated his readiness to answer questions under oath. Committee members then proceeded through scheduled one-hour blocks of questioning, with Republicans leading and Democrats following.
Republicans highlighted specific documented contacts: the committee asserted Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane at least 27 times and that Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times during the Clinton administration. Clinton acknowledged some travel with Epstein tied to his post-presidential charitable work but maintained ignorance of any crimes. Democrats pushed back on what they described as partisan framing and emphasized that other witnesses, including President Trump, should be asked to testify where relevant.
Outside the hearing venue, partisan comments continued. Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna said Clinton was being cooperative and that the committee was gaining “a clearer picture,” while top Democrat Robert Garcia labelled parts of the prior day’s proceedings with Hillary Clinton a “disgrace.” The committee signalled an intent to publish video of depositions when practicable; Republicans said they hoped to release Hillary Clinton’s footage soon so the public could evaluate testimony for themselves.
Analysis & implications
The deposition marks a politically charged stage in the long-running public scrutiny of Epstein’s circle. For investigators, a former president’s testimony can supply factual detail about travel, meetings and organizational ties that documents alone may not resolve. Politically, the hearings risk reinforcing partisan narratives: Republicans cast the sessions as accountability; Democrats warn they may be used as political theater. How the committee treats evidence, and whether it pursues follow-up interviews with other figures, will shape perceptions of legitimacy.
If the committee releases video, the visual record could shift public interpretation more than text summaries. Visual cues—tone, hesitations, and non-verbal responses—tend to influence viewers’ judgments. That, in turn, could affect pressure on other potential witnesses to cooperate or on prosecutors and agencies to re-examine files. However, depositions are limited in scope and do not equate to criminal findings; they are one piece in a larger evidentiary puzzle.
Internationally, the hearings may revive attention on how elite networks facilitate exploitation and how institutions responded to warning signs. For policy makers, the episode underlines debates about oversight of powerful actors and the mechanisms for document preservation when investigations span years. The committee’s next steps—subpoenas, public releases, or referrals to law enforcement—will determine whether this phase produces substantive policy or legal consequences.
Comparison & data
| Item | Committee-stated figure |
|---|---|
| Clinton flights on Epstein’s plane | At least 27 times |
| Epstein visits to the White House during Clinton presidency | At least 17 times |
| Months to arrange Clintons’ depositions | About 7 months |
These counts come from committee statements summarizing travel and venue records cited during questioning. Such tallies can reflect documented logs but may not capture context for each trip. Investigators typically corroborate travel records with flight manifests, calendars, and witness recollections; differences in record-keeping over decades can create gaps that testimony seeks to fill. The committee’s figures frame the inquiry but do not imply criminal conduct by themselves.
Reactions & quotes
The hearing generated immediate public responses from political leaders and committee members, reflecting the partisan divisions surrounding the probe.
I don’t like seeing him deposed. But they certainly went after me more than that.
Donald Trump, US President (public remark)
President Trump voiced discomfort about watching a former president testify and compared the scrutiny to his own experiences, framing the process as uneven enforcement in his view.
I saw nothing, I did nothing wrong.
Bill Clinton (opening statement)
Clinton used his opening remarks to deny knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and to explain his limits in recollection, stressing that he would not offer conjecture about events decades later.
We’re here to conduct a serious investigation; we don’t want a sideshow.
Representative Maxwell Frost (Democrat, House Oversight Committee)
Democratic members urged the committee to keep focus on substantive questions and warned against tangential lines of inquiry that could undermine credibility.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the committee will release full deposition video on a specific timetable remains unconfirmed; Republicans said they hoped to publish footage soon but no firm date has been set.
- Allegations that evidence or files were deliberately deleted from Justice Department releases are contested; the department has stated documents were withheld for routine reasons, which remains under review.
- Any suggestion that Clinton had prior knowledge of Epstein’s crimes beyond what he testified to is not established by the deposition record and remains unproven.
Bottom line
The deposition of Bill Clinton is a high-profile step in Congress’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s network but is not itself a determination of criminal responsibility. It provides sworn testimony about contacts and travel that investigators can cross-check with records and other witnesses. The political context—sharp partisan framing and calls to expand questioning to other figures—means the hearings will likely remain contentious as the committee decides how to use the testimony.
For the public and investigators alike, the critical follow-ups are document reviews, corroborating testimony, and decisions on whether to pursue subpoenas or referrals. How the committee balances transparency with procedural fairness will shape whether the proceedings yield new facts or deepen partisan divides.