WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Hon. James Comer
Hon. Robert Garcia
December 10, 2025 Page 3

That means, of the original eight individuals (aside from my clients) subpoenaed in August, only one has testified live, Attorney General Barr, who was Attorney General in 2019 when Epstein was investigated, indicted, and killed himself in federal custody.’ HOGR’s insistence that its work requires appearances from only three of the original ten witnesses called, two of whom are named “Clinton”, lays bare the partisan motivations behind insisting that my clients give live testimony. There is no credible basis for seeking such testimony.

President Clinton left office nearly twenty-five years ago. While in office, the Epstein matter was not before any part of the federal government, nor was it in the public domain. Furthermore, he had no relationship with Mr. Epstein for nearly twenty years before Mr. Epstein’s death. Mr. Epstein was first charged in 2006 by the State of Florida for a misdemeanor, executed a federal non-prosecution agreement in 2007, and pleaded guilty to two state felony charges in 2008. For context, and to note the historically high bar Congress has set until now, the Chairman has observed, “There have been two presidents in the last century that have been subpoenaed by Congress…. and neither ended up testifying in front of Congress.” (Washington Examiner, Aug. 6, 2025). No former President has appeared before Congress since 1983, forty-two years ago (and President Gerald Ford did so to discuss the upcoming celebration of the 1987 bicentennial of the enactment of the Constitution).² That is for good reason. Any legislative request for testimony from a current or former President inevitably raises separation of powers issues.³ While the Committee has indicated it respects the restraints of executive privilege when a President is asked for information (as Congress itself asks the Executive Branch to respect the Speech or Debate Clause), it is bound by Constitution, tradition, and practice to recognize the

1 I would note that in reviewing the 127-page transcript of Attorney General Barr’s testimony before the Committee, the word Clinton appears seven (7) times:

Secretary Clinton is mentioned three (3) times (once in conjunction with the Clinton Foundation). Two (2) were regarding President Trump’s actions relating to Russia and the 2016 election, far afield from the Epstein matter. The third reference was whether she somehow planted President Trump’s name in the Epstein files, despite her last serving in government nearly thirteen years ago. Barr’s testimony undercuts this conjecture.

President Clinton is mentioned three (3) times. In response to questions from the Committee, Barr states that there was no evidence President Clinton visited the island of Little St. James.

2 Further illustrating this separation of powers concern, President Reagan was not asked to appear before the congressional committees reviewing the Iran-Contra events, and President Clinton himself provided information privately to the independent (and not congressional) 9/11 Commission on a matter of national security and international relations.

3

See Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 612-13 (2024) (reviewing the importance of maintaining the separations of power involving requests of Presidents in explaining presumptive privilege).