The refusal of President and Hillary Clinton to heed a subpoena from Congressman James Comer to testify about their relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein sets up a clash between Republican lawmakers and the political power couple that has resided for decades at the pinnacle of power — and could now face the possibility of prison.  

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, 79 and 78 respectively, have now responded to the specter of criminal contempt with two letters to Mr. Comer — one legal, composed by their lawyers, and one personal, signed in their own names. The personal one declares to Mr. Comer that, “Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time.” 

Mr. Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, is vowing to begin contempt proceedings next week, and Speaker Mike Johnson supports that effort. The Clintons contend that Mr. Comer is pushing a process that is “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.” They contend that the subpoenas are “invalid and legally unenforceable, untethered to a valid legislative purpose.”

Mr. Comer, the Clinton’s argue, is angling for “ a protracted and unnecessary legal confrontation that distracts from the principal work of the Congress.” They venture that “perhaps distraction is the point” of the investigation, which has now surfaced the possibility of legal jeopardy for the pair. The Kentucky lawmaker had set a deadline of this week for the 42nd president and 67th secretary of state to appear under oath.

There is precedent for a prison sentence. During the Biden Administration, Merrick Garland’s Justice Department  moved with alacrity to charge two top advisors to Mr. Trump, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, with contempt of Congress when they refused —  citing reasons similar to those now being cited by the Clintons — to testify before the Democrat-controlled January 6 committee. Both men served brief prison sentences.

Mr. Clinton’s relationship with Epstein dates to the early 1990s and included several trips to the White House. After Mr. Clinton left office, he traveled on Epstein’s private jet multiple times. Mr. Clinton has denied knowledge of Epstein’s relationships with young girls and his criminal activities. Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell, now serving time in prison, has denied any Clinton involvement in crimes.  She told the DOJ that “I don’t believe he had an independent friendship, if you will, with Epstein.”

Still, the relationship between the two men is amply documented in photographs, including some released last month following the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. One includes the former president lounging in a hot tub, and another features him with a younger woman. In their letter to Mr. Comer the Clintons call these “irrelevant, decades-old photographs” intended to “embarrass” them. 

Epstein also had a giant painting of Mr. Clinton hanging prominently in his mansion on New York’s Upper East Side. In the portrait, Mr. Clinton is wearing a women’s blue dress – likely a reference to Monica Lewinsky – and pumps. Mrs. Clinton’s ties to Epstein and Ms. Maxwell are murkier. Epstein was a donor to her campaigns and Ms. Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding where she was famously memorialized, peering out conspicuously from the crowd of guests, as Mr. Clinton led his daughter down the aisle. 

The Clintons now accuse Mr. Comer of “trying to punish those you see as your enemies and to protect those you think are your friends.” In remarkably strident language, they also accuse Mr. Comer and his allies of engaging in the “dismantling of America” but declare that it “takes more than a wrecking ball to demolish what Americans have built over 250 years.”  

In a sign of the stakes, the Clintons have retained a lawyer who has long been a Republican rainmaker, Ashley Cannon. The Times reports that they are also conferring with as a stalwart of the legal resistance to President Trump, Abbe Lowell. His clients have included Hunter Biden and Letitia James. He also, many years ago, in his capacity working for House Democrats, helped defend Mr. Clinton during his impeachment. The Clintons’ lawyers write that Mr. Comer’s relentless pursuit of their client “brings us toward a protracted and unnecessary legal confrontation.”     

Congress’s power to issue subpoenas is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has held that lawmakers possess the power to subpoena if the summons is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.” The Clintons allege that the “goal” of the investigation is summarized in a Truth Social post from Mr. Trump: “The Dems are the ones who worked with Epstein, not the Republicans. Release all of their names, embarrass them, and get back to helping our Country!” 

Mr. Comer claims that the legislative purpose is to “conduct oversight of the federal government’s enforcement of sex trafficking law generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.” The Clintons call the probe “an effort to publicly harass and embarrass President and Secretary Clinton and an impermissible usurpation of executive law enforcement authority.” 

 The Clintons make a final argument against testifying that appears to be pitched toward a future day at the Supreme Court. They contend that “no former president has appeared before Congress since 1983, and President Ford did so voluntarily to discuss the upcoming celebration of the 1987 bicentennial of the enactment of the Constitution. This is for good reason, since any attempt to require testimony from a former president trenches on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.”

In 71 Federalist Alexander Hamilton warned of the temptation of Congress to “exert an imperious control” over the presidency. The Clintons cite the high court in, of all cases, United States v. Trump, where the justices ruled that presidential prerogative is ‘“fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.’         

Once Congress votes to issue a referral for contempt, the actual work of prosecuting falls to the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is under pressure to push through key prosecutions. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Trump was frustrated with her struggles to successfully prosecute some of the legal adversaries who pursued him relentlessly prior to his 2024 reelection.