Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to sit for in-person depositions in the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein — but only after six months of stonewalling and a contempt of Congress vote bearing down on them like a freight train, the Dailywire reported.

Attorneys for the Clintons emailed Oversight Committee staff late Monday, stating that the pair would accept Chairman James Comer's demands and "will appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates." The attorneys requested that Comer agree not to move forward with the contempt proceedings in exchange for their compliance.

Comer isn't backing down yet. The Kentucky Republican noted that he was not immediately dropping charges, stating that an agreement has not yet been finalized.

The reversal came hours after Comer rejected what he called "unreasonable" demands from the Clintons' legal team — including Bill Clinton's offer to sit for a mere four-hour transcribed interview and Hillary Clinton's offer to submit a sworn declaration rather than appear in person. The chairman made clear that America's most famous political couple does not get to rewrite the rules that apply to everyone else.

Six Months of Delay Tactics

The former president and secretary of state had resisted the subpoenas for months after the Oversight panel issued subpoenas for their testimony in August, as it opened an investigation into Epstein and his associates. Their attorneys argued against the subpoena's validity.

Comer laid out the timeline in his Monday letter to the Clintons' 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.

The deposition dates moved from October to December to January. Each time, the Clintons found new reasons not to show. When January came, they simply didn't appear.

Comer's frustration was evident:

Your clients' desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people's desire for transparency.

The Clinton team's Saturday letter proposed that Bill Clinton sit for a four-hour transcribed interview — not a deposition under oath — limited to "matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein." Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, would merely submit a sworn declaration. No in-person testimony at all.

Why Comer Said No

The chairman systematically dismantled each of Clinton's demands. On the four-hour time limit for Bill Clinton, Comer noted it would give the former president an "incentive to attempt to run out the clock by giving unnecessarily long answers and meandering off-topic."

Comer added what may be the understatement of the investigation:

This is a particular concern where a witness, such as President Clinton, has an established record of being a loquacious individual.

Comer noted that, under the transcribed interview format rather than a sworn deposition, Bill Clinton could "refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted." The committee's bipartisan subpoenas require depositions under oath and transcribed — a standard the Clintons apparently believed did not apply to them.

On Hillary Clinton's request to submit written testimony, the committee "has made clear on numerous occasions the necessity of her in-person testimony and unacceptability of simple sworn declarations."

Democrats Break Ranks

The most telling detail in this saga is the bipartisan nature of the contempt effort. The Republican-controlled Oversight Committee advanced criminal contempt-of-Congress charges last month. Nine of the committee's 21 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the charges against Bill Clinton and calling for full transparency in the Epstein investigation. Three Democrats also supported advancing the charges against Hillary Clinton.

Nearly half the Democrats on the committee voted to hold a former Democratic president in contempt. That's not partisan overreach — that's accountability.

The difference in Democratic support between the two contempt votes is notable. Some Democrats argued that Hillary Clinton should be allowed to submit written testimony or should not have faced a subpoena for testimony in the first place. But when it came to Bill Clinton — the one with documented ties to Epstein stretching back to the late 1990s and early 2000s — even Democrats wanted answers under oath.

The Epstein Connection

Bill Clinton's relationship with Epstein has reemerged as a focal point for Republicans amid the push for a reckoning over the convicted pedophile, who died in 2019 in a New York jail cell as he awaited trial over sex trafficking charges. Clinton was among a group of high-profile men who had well-documented relationships with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The former president flew with Epstein on his private plane. Photos from Epstein's estate released by the Justice Department include an image of Ghislaine Maxwell — now serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme — swimming in a pool with Bill Clinton. Another shows one of Epstein's accusers, Chauntae Davies, giving the former president a shoulder massage.

Bill Clinton's chief of staff, Angel Ureña, said in December that the former president "knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light." After receiving subpoenas, the Clintons argued they "already provided the limited information they possess about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the Committee."

If they've provided everything they know, why the six months of legal maneuvering to avoid sitting for a deposition under oath?

What Happens Now

House Speaker Mike Johnson said a deadline of Tuesday at noon had been set to "work out the details," and both he and Comer said a full House vote remained possible this week to hold the former president and former secretary of state in contempt for their repeated refusals to testify.

If it's not done satisfactorily, then we'll proceed with the contempt.

At issue is whether the Clintons have accepted the standard deposition terms outlined in the subpoenas: transcribed, filmed depositions in February with no time limit.

This could mark the first time Congress holds a former president in contempt and threatens prison time. If found in contempt, the Clintons face large fines and potentially jail time. A vote by the full House would trigger a referral to the Department of Justice, which would then decide whether to prosecute.

Historically, Congress has given deference to former presidents. No one has ever been compelled to testify before lawmakers, although a few have voluntarily done so.

The Clinton Playbook

The Clintons' response to this investigation follows a familiar pattern: delay, negotiate conditions, claim victimhood, and hope the news cycle moves on. The Clinton team has accused Comer of playing politics while ignoring that nine Democrats on his own committee voted against a former president from their own party.

Ureña's response to Comer's Monday rejection dripped with wounded entitlement:

They negotiated in good faith. You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don't care.

The problem with that framing is that the Clintons never appeared under oath to tell anyone anything. They sent lawyers with demands for special treatment. They offered alternatives that would limit their exposure. They dragged the process out for half a year while victims of Epstein's crimes waited for answers.

Now, facing the first-ever contempt of Congress vote against a former president, they've suddenly discovered the virtue of cooperation. The question is whether this latest offer is genuine compliance or another delay tactic designed to run out the clock.

Comer isn't taking any chances. The contempt vote remains on the table until the Clintons actually sit for depositions — on the committee's terms, not theirs.

Bill Clinton spent six months betting that Congress wouldn't actually hold a former president in contempt. He appears to have lost that bet.