WASHINGTON – In a bold move, House Republicans are gearing up to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress over their involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. This initiative, set to begin on Wednesday, could lead to the unprecedented scenario of a former president facing one of Congress’s most severe penalties.

The contempt charges represent an initial maneuver that could potentially lead to a criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice. If these proceedings were to succeed, the Clintons might face imprisonment.

However, before the House Oversight Committee’s meeting on Wednesday to finalize these charges, there were indications of a possible resolution. Both Clintons, who are prominent figures in the Democratic Party, seemed to be considering a compromise to provide their testimony. Moreover, the full House’s approval of contempt charges remains uncertain, as it requires a majority vote—a threshold that Republicans have struggled to meet in recent times.

The implications of such contempt charges are significant, possibly resulting in hefty fines or even jail time. Traditionally, these charges are seen as a measure of last resort, but in recent years, lawmakers have shown a greater willingness to employ them. The committee’s chair, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, initiated the contempt actions after the Clintons failed to comply with a subpoena demanding their testimony related to the Epstein investigation.

This confrontation marks another twist in the ongoing and complex Epstein saga, as Congress delves into how Epstein was able to exploit numerous teenage girls over many years. Epstein’s death in 2019, by suicide in a New York jail cell while awaiting trial, left many questions. Released case files have since revealed Epstein’s connections with both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, among other influential figures.

Clinton, Trump and many others connected to Epstein have not been accused of wrongdoing. Yet lawmakers are wrestling over who receives the most scrutiny.

“They’re not above the law. We’ve issued subpoenas in good faith,” Comer told The Associated Press on the eve of the contempt proceedings. “For five months we’ve worked with them. And time’s up.”

Comer rejected an offer Tuesday from an attorney for the Clintons to have Comer and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Robert Garcia, interview Bill Clinton in New York, along with staff.

How the Clintons have responded

The Clintons released a scathing letter last week criticizing Comer for seeking their testimony at a time when the Department of Justice is running a month behind a congressionally mandated deadline to release its complete case files on Epstein.

Behind the scenes, however, a longtime attorney for the Clintons, David Kendall, has tried to negotiate an agreement. Kendall raised the prospect of having the Clintons testify last Christmas and Christmas Eve, according to the committee’s account of the negotiations.

The Clintons have also argued that the subpoenas are invalid because they don’t serve any legislative purpose and say that they did not know about Epstein’s abuse. They have offered the committee written declarations about their interactions with Epstein.

“We have tried to give you the little information we have. We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific,” the Clintons wrote in a letter to Comer last week.

How contempt proceedings have been used

Contempt of Congress proceedings are rare, used when lawmakers are trying to force testimony for high-profile investigations, such as the infamous inquiry during the 1940s into alleged Communist sympathizers in Hollywood or the impeachment proceedings of President Richard Nixon.

Most recently, Trump’s advisers Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were convicted of contempt charges for defying subpoenas from a House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot by a mob of the Republican president’s supporters at the Capitol. Both men spent months in prison.

The Jan. 6 committee also subpoenaed Trump in its inquiry, but Trump’s lawyers resisted the subpoena, citing decades of legal precedent they said shielded ex-presidents from being ordered to appear before Congress. The committee ultimately withdrew its subpoena.

No former president has ever been successfully forced to appear before Congress, although some have voluntarily appeared.

The Democrats’ response

Democrats have largely been focused on advancing the investigation into Epstein rather than mounting an all-out defense of the Clintons, who led their party for decades. They’ve said Bill Clinton should inform the committee if he has any pertinent information about Epstein’s abuses.

A wealthy financier, Epstein donated to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton’s joint fundraising committee ahead of her 2000 Senate campaign in New York.

Democrats embraced the call for full transparency on Epstein after Trump’s return to the White House, particularly after Attorney General Pam Bondi stumbled on her promise to release the entirety of the unredacted Epstein files to the public. The backlash scrambled traditional ideological lines, leading Republicans to side with Democrats demanding further investigation.

The pressure eventually resulted in a bipartisan subpoena from the committee that ordered the Justice Department and Epstein estate to release files related to Epstein. Republicans quickly moved to include the Clintons in the subpoena.

Comer indicated Tuesday that he would insist that the subpoena be fulfilled by a transcribed deposition of Bill Clinton.

“You have to have a transcript in an investigation,” he said. “So no transcript, no deal.”