WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Hon. James Comer
Hon. Robert Garcia November 3, 2025 Web page 2
compel Lawyer Normal Bondi to launch what you’ve acknowledged is a big trove of unseen recordsdata, which the general public thus far remains to be ready to see launched.
Your October 22 letter doesn’t present a persuasive rationale for why deposing the Clintons is required to satisfy the mandate of your investigation, significantly when what little data they’ve could also be effectively obtained in writing.
You state that your investigation into the “mismanagement” of the Epstein and Maxwell investigations and prosecutions requires the depositions of three people: former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Clinton, and former Lawyer Normal William Barr – who was serving within the first Trump Administration when Jeffrey Epstein dedicated suicide in federal custody. Compounding this inexplicable alternative of deponents, you even have chosen to not depose the handfuls of people whose hyperlinks to Mr. Epstein have been publicly documented.
My shoppers have been personal residents for the final 24 and 12 years, respectively. President Clinton’s time period ended six (6) years earlier than allegations surfaced in opposition to Mr. Epstein. Former Secretary of State Clinton’s place was under no circumstances associated to legislation enforcement and is totally afield of any facet of the Epstein matter. Whereas neither of my shoppers have something to supply for the acknowledged functions of the Committee’s investigation, subpoenaing former Secretary Clinton is on its face each purposeless and harassing. I set forth in my October 6 letter the information that she didn’t know Epstein, didn’t journey with him, and had no dealings with him. Certainly, after I met along with your workers to study your foundation for together with former Secretary Clinton, none was given past desirous to ask if she had ever spoken along with her husband about this matter. Setting apart the plainly related consideration of marital privilege, that is a wholly pretextual foundation for compelling former Secretary Clinton to look personally on this matter.
It’s incumbent on the Committee to deal with essentially the most fundamental questions relating to the premise for singling out the Clintons, significantly when there isn’t a apparent or obvious rationale for it, given the mandate of the Committee’s investigation. Your October 22 letter doesn’t present such a justification. And your earlier statements, belied by the information, that President Clinton is a “prime suspect” (for one thing) due to visits to Epstein’s island betokens bias, not equity. You stated, on August 11:
“All people in America desires to know what went on in Epstein Island, and we have all heard experiences that Invoice Clinton was a frequent customer there, so he is a major suspect to be deposed by the Home Oversight Committee.”
“1
Regrettably, such statements aren’t the phrases of an neutral and dispassionate factfinder. In truth, President Clinton has by no means visited Epstein’s island. He has repeatedly acknowledged that, the Secret Service has corroborated that denial, Ghislaine Maxwell’s current testimony to Deputy Lawyer Normal Blanche reconfirmed this, as did the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre in her
Fields, “Comer: Invoice Clinton ‘Prime Suspect’ in Epstein Investigation,” The Hill (Aug. 12, 2025).
