Hillary Clinton took to X on Wednesday, demanding that her upcoming testimony before the House Oversight Committee be conducted in public — cameras on, no closed doors. The former secretary of state, who, along with former President Bill Clinton, agreed to sit for transcribed depositions later this month, framed the move as a challenge to Committee Chairman James Comer.

It was quite the pivot. Less than a month ago, the Clintons were defying congressional subpoenas entirely.

Now they want the spotlight. The shift tells you everything about how this saga has unfolded — and who's actually been driving the bus.

From Defiance to Depositions

The Oversight panel issued subpoenas for testimony in August 2025 as it opened an investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. According to USA Today, the Clintons defied those subpoenas, and the Republican-controlled committee advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges last month. Only then — at the eleventh hour, as the House geared up for a contempt vote — did the Clintons reverse course.

Hillary Clinton is now scheduled to appear on February 26, with Bill Clinton sitting for his deposition the following day, February 27. The agreement came after months of what Comer described plainly in a February 3 press release:

The Clintons completely caved and will appear for transcribed, filmed depositions this month. We look forward to questioning the Clintons as part of our investigation into the horrific crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and for survivors.

That word — "caved" — matters. The Clintons spent months resisting lawful subpoenas. They sent a scathing letter to Comer on January 13, declaring they would not participate in what they called the "dismantling of America." In that letter, the Clintons argued the committee chair should be focused on preventing crimes like Epstein's from happening again and accused him of playing "partisan politics."

Then the contempt vote loomed, and suddenly, cooperation was back on the table.

The Public Hearing Gambit

Clinton's February 5 posts on X carried the tone of someone spoiling for a fight — but only on terms she gets to set. She wrote:

For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith. We told them what we know, under oath. They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.

And then the direct challenge:

Let's stop the games. If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let's have it—in public. You love to talk about transparency. There's nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.

The framing is unmistakable. Clinton wants to cast herself as the one demanding transparency — the one who showed up, cooperated, and got stonewalled by partisans. It's a familiar posture. The Clintons have operated this way for decades: resist, delay, then reappear on offense as though the resistance never happened.

Clinton alluded to sworn statements she and Bill Clinton submitted to the committee in January. Whether those affidavits satisfy the committee's investigative needs is a different question from whether they check a legal box. A sworn written statement is not the same as sitting across from a member of Congress and answering follow-up questions in real time. Comer's subpoenas called for depositions — not paper submissions, not press conferences, and not public hearings choreographed for cable news.

Why Public Hearings Aren't the Power Move She Thinks

A public hearing sounds like accountability. It can also be theater — and the Clintons know how to perform. Depositions, by contrast, are methodical. They're recorded. They allow for sustained, detailed questioning without grandstanding from either side. There's a reason congressional investigators prefer them when they're actually trying to get answers rather than generate clips.

Comer told reporters the Clintons would not be treated differently than everyone else and that the subpoenas called for depositions, not a public hearing.

That's a reasonable sequence. Sit for the deposition first. Answer the questions under the format required by the subpoena. Then, if there's appetite for a public session, that conversation can happen. What Clinton is proposing—skipping the deposition format in favor of a public spectacle—reverses the process. It prioritizes optics over substance.

The Broader Investigation

Epstein pleaded guilty to child prostitution-related charges in Florida in 2008 and died by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. The questions surrounding his network of associates — who knew what, who facilitated what, and who looked the other way — have festered for years. This investigation exists because those questions remain unanswered.

The Justice Department released 5,300 files on January 30 as part of a law requiring the release of investigative documents from its Epstein probes. The volume of material is staggering. Sorting through it — separating signal from noise, duplicates from new evidence — will take time. But the committee's work is about more than documents. It's about testimony from individuals who moved in Epstein's orbit.

Bill Clinton's deputy chief of staff, Angel Urena, stated on social media on February 2 that "the former President and former Secretary of State would be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone."

A precedent that applies to everyone. That's the right instinct — and it's exactly why the deposition format matters. Everyone who has appeared before this committee has done so under the same terms. The Clintons don't get to rewrite those terms from X.

What Cooperation Actually Looks Like

There's a pattern here that deserves attention. The Clintons were subpoenaed. They refused. The committee moved toward contempt. They agreed to appear — but only after months of delay. Now, days after the agreement was announced, Hillary Clinton is publicly attacking the committee's process and demanding different terms.

At every stage, the Clintons have sought to control the narrative rather than simply comply with a lawful congressional investigation. The January 13 letter. The sworn written statements offered as a substitute for live testimony. The social media offensive. Each move is calibrated to make the committee look unreasonable while the Clintons position themselves as the adults in the room.

But adults in the room don't defy subpoenas for months. They don't wait until a contempt vote is imminent to show up. And they don't try to dictate the format of an investigation they're subjects of — not chairs of.

The Stakes for Survivors

Lost in the political back-and-forth are the people this investigation is supposed to serve. Epstein's victims — survivors of trafficking and abuse — have waited years for a full accounting of what happened and who enabled it. Every month of delay, every procedural fight, every social media volley extends that wait.

Comer's stated goal is transparency and accountability for survivors. Clinton says she wants the same thing. The depositions are scheduled. The cameras will be rolling. The transcripts will be produced.

February 26 and 27 are on the calendar. The only question left is whether the Clintons show up to answer questions — or to perform. Washington has seen enough performances. The survivors deserve answers.