• House Democrats say forcing the Clintons to testify under contempt threat establishes a binding precedent for future oversight investigations
• Multiple Democratic lawmakers have explicitly named President Trump, his children and business associates as future subpoena targets
• Republicans concede the precedent risk while arguing the investigation into Epstein demands full transparency from all parties

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — House Democrats are warning that the Republican push to compel Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton to testify before the House Oversight Committee has created what they’re calling the “Comer precedent” — a new standard they vow to use against President Donald Trump, his family members and associates if Democrats recapture the House majority in 2026.

The warning comes after the Clintons agreed this week to sit for transcribed, filmed depositions on Feb. 26 and 27, ending a months-long standoff with Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) over the committee’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The couple relented only after the House prepared to vote on criminal contempt charges — a move that drew bipartisan support, with nine Democrats voting to advance contempt against the former president.

Democrats Name Their Targets

The rhetoric from Democratic lawmakers has been blunt and specific. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), a member of Democratic leadership, told NBC News that the path forward is clear.

“We are absolutely going to have Donald Trump testify under oath.”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), a member of the Oversight panel who voted in committee to hold Bill Clinton in contempt, went further in an interview with the Washington Examiner.

“It does set a precedent, and we will follow it … Donald Trump, all of his kids. Everybody.”

Frost told reporters the precedent applies broadly to future investigations.

“It sets new standards. It’s a new precedent that will follow for anyone — former presidents, their family, their spouse, whoever — depending on investigations that we do in the future.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), chair emeritus of the Progressive Caucus, framed the dynamic in strategic terms.

“This will make Donald Trump happy in the short term, but in the long term, a year from now, we have subpoena power. What goes around comes around.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), known for his combative exchanges with Comer on the Oversight panel, outlined an expansive list of potential investigations targeting Trump’s business dealings and family members.

“It will be crypto. It will be their business. It will be all the investments in the Middle East. It’ll be the Qatari plane? It’s going to be the latest thing with the UAE. It’s going to be all of it.”

Moskowitz added that Trump’s adult children should prepare for the consequences of the precedent their Republican allies established.

“When Junior and Eric and their children — not because I want this to happen, because I don’t — but when they’re all here, they can thank James Comer for that.”

Comer Concedes the Risk

When asked directly by NBC News whether he was setting a precedent Democrats could exploit, Comer acknowledged the possibility.

“It could set a precedent.”

However, the chairman dismissed calls to bring Trump before the committee now, arguing the president has already addressed questions about Epstein from the press. Comer has maintained that the investigation is focused on accountability for Epstein’s victims and that no one is above the law — language Democrats are now turning back against Republicans.

The White House pushed back against Democratic warnings, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson dismissing the threats as politically motivated.

“These Democrats — suffering from severe cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome — should focus on implementing good policies, like President Trump is, not falling for blue-anon conspiracy theories.”

The Epstein Investigation Context

The precedent debate is unfolding against the backdrop of an intensifying Epstein files investigation that has drawn scrutiny to powerful figures across party lines. The DOJ released more than three million pages of documents on Jan. 31, though Democrats on the Oversight Committee argue that represents only about half of the estimated six million pages collected.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on Oversight, accused the Trump administration of withholding files.

“Donald Trump and his Department of Justice have now made it clear that they intend to withhold roughly 50% of the Epstein files, while claiming to have fully complied with the law.”

Both Bill Clinton and Trump maintained well-documented relationships with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s before his conviction. Both have denied any wrongdoing, and neither has been accused of wrongdoing by law enforcement. The Clintons’ spokesperson, Angel Ureña, appeared to welcome the precedent implications, writing on social media that the former first couple looks forward to “setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who co-authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act that forced the DOJ to release the documents, called on Comer to apply the same standard to Trump.

“The precedent it sets is that Donald Trump better be showing up before Oversight on the Epstein matter. I hope Comer will pursue that with the same zeal he’s pursued the Clintons.”

Historical Precedent and Constitutional Questions

The forced testimony of a former president before Congress is historically unprecedented. No former president has ever been compelled to testify before lawmakers, although a few have voluntarily appeared — the last being in 1983 for a ceremonial occasion rather than an adversarial investigation.

The Jan. 6 Select Committee issued a subpoena to Trump in 2022 demanding documents and testimony, but that effort was never enforced before the committee dissolved. Democrats argue that the Comer precedent goes further because it carries the explicit threat of criminal contempt prosecution — a consequence the Clintons took seriously enough to reverse their defiance.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a retiring former House majority leader, noted the broader implications.

“It is a big deal. And it’d be interesting to see what former President Trump thinks of that premise.”

Meanwhile, the standoff over testimony format continues. Hillary Clinton is pushing for a public hearing rather than the closed-door depositions Comer has mandated. Comer responded that depositions will proceed as planned, adding that it would be “difficult” for the Clintons to plead the Fifth after publicly demanding transparency.

2026 Midterms Loom Large

The precedent question is inseparable from the 2026 midterm landscape. Democrats are widely projected to retake the House majority, and multiple lawmakers have made clear that subpoena power over Trump and his associates would be an immediate priority.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT) said Democrats have been thinking strategically about the long game.

“I think it’s important for us to get as much information as we can through all the people who knew Epstein in some capacity, but also to signal to Republicans, ‘We’re going to come after you guys, too, when we have the gavels back. We’re going to use our subpoena power.'”

Some Democrats aren’t willing to wait. Khanna and others have argued Trump should testify while still in office, pointing to his documented interactions with Epstein as sufficient grounds for the committee to demand his appearance now.

Republicans have largely brushed off those calls, but the bipartisan nature of the contempt votes — with nine Democrats supporting the move against Bill Clinton — complicates the GOP’s ability to characterize future Democratic subpoenas as purely partisan overreach.

If the Comer precedent holds, will it strengthen congressional oversight of powerful figures regardless of party — or will it accelerate the cycle of partisan investigations that both sides claim to oppose?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from NBC News’ reporting on the Clinton testimony and Democratic warnings, CNN’s coverage of the Clinton deposition agreement, the Washington Examiner’s reporting on the Comer precedent, official statements from the House Oversight Committee, House Oversight Democrats, reporting by The Hill on the deposition format standoff, PBS News on the Clinton testimony agreement, CBS News’ live coverage of the Epstein files release, CNBC’s reporting on prominent names in the Epstein files, and Fox News’ analysis of the Clinton testimony precedent.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10