Hillary Clinton arrived Thursday at the Chappaqua Performing Arts Center for a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee, the latest chapter in a congressional investigation into the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Bill Clinton's testimony will follow on Friday.

The former president and former Secretary of State finally agreed to the depositions after being threatened with contempt charges, the Daily Mail reported. That detail alone tells you something about how eager the Clintons were to cooperate.

Republicans, who hold the majority on the committee, drove the effort to bring both Clintons to testify. Democratic lawmakers are also attending. Chairman James Comer set the tone early Thursday: "Today is going to be a long day, and tomorrow is going to be even longer."

What Republicans Want to Know

The questions facing Hillary Clinton center on her connections to Epstein's orbit. She claims she never met Epstein and only met his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, on a few occasions. Republicans intend to press on those claims.

One thread involves an email discovered in the Epstein files. In November 2015, Epstein's assistant forwarded him an invitation from Howard Lutnick, now Trump's Commerce Secretary, to what was described as a "very intimate fundraising event" for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Lutnick donated $2,700 to her campaign, the maximum allowed by law at that time. It is unclear whether Epstein attended the event. He made no donations to her campaign, according to filings from the Federal Elections Commission.

Republican Representative Nancy Mace confirmed that asking Hillary about that email would be "on my list."

But the sharper focus falls on Bill Clinton. Republicans told the Daily Mail that new evidence has surfaced, including photos of the former president swimming with Maxwell. Representative Byron Donalds of Florida laid it out plainly:

"Bill in a pool, Bill on the plane, I think there needs to be a comprehensive review."

Clinton denies all wrongdoing.

A Historic Compulsion

Friday's session carries particular weight. Bill Clinton's deposition will reportedly mark the first time a former president has been compelled to testify in a congressional investigation against his will. The Clintons did not volunteer. They were dragged to the table by the threat of legal consequences.

Hillary Clinton told the BBC last week that she and her husband are "more than happy to say what we know, which is very limited and totally unrelated to their behavior or their crimes." That framing is instructive. Before a single question has been asked under oath, the answer is already packaged: we know nothing, and whatever we do know is irrelevant.

Representative John McGuire of Virginia offered the more realistic expectation:

"No matter what we do, I think they are going to plead the fifth or play games, but we are going to give them the facts and expose them to the American people."

Maxwell, for her part, already demonstrated how cooperative Epstein's circle intends to be. She was deposed as part of the same bipartisan investigation and pleaded the Fifth Amendment throughout.

The People Around Epstein

Several Republican members signaled that the depositions are not just about the Clintons themselves but about mapping the broader network that allowed Epstein and Maxwell to operate with impunity for years.

Representative Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin described the wider ambition:

"I'd like to know more about the people around Epstein, because maybe they will shed a light on what Bill was doing when he had contact with Epstein, and maybe give us the names of some more of the little people who know what's going on."

Grothman also pointed to witness accounts that remain unresolved:

"We know that there are people out there who have said that they saw Bill on Epstein Island ... we would like to track that down. Shouldn't we, for history's purposes?"

For history's purposes. That's the right frame. The Epstein case has always been haunted by the suspicion that powerful people received protection that ordinary defendants never would. A congressional investigation that names names and follows evidence wherever it leads is exactly what accountability looks like.

Survivors at the Center

Comer articulated the committee's stated goals earlier this week:

"The Clintons' testimony is critical to understanding Epstein and Maxwell's sex trafficking network and the ways they sought to curry favor and influence to shield themselves from scrutiny."

He added that the testimony could inform how Congress strengthens laws to combat human trafficking, calling the investigation's goal "straightforward: we seek to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and for survivors."

One of those survivors, Dani Bensky, attended Tuesday's State of the Union as a guest of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Bensky told the Daily Mail that lawmakers should cast a wide net when questioning the Clintons, though she acknowledged the investigation at this stage is "really broad strokes."

Representative Byron Donalds framed the broader stakes:

"I think what the American people are looking for right now is true accountability from people in power who were a part of sexualizing and abusing young women."

Contempt Was the Only Language They Understood

The procedural reality here deserves emphasis. The Clintons are among the most lawyered, media-savvy, politically insulated figures in American life. They have weathered scandals, investigations, and congressional hearings for three decades. They did not sit for these depositions because they wanted to help. They sat because the alternative was a contempt charge they could not spin away.

That tells you everything about the posture. Hillary Clinton's BBC interview, with its preemptive dismissal of any meaningful knowledge, was not candor. It was stage management. The real answers, if they come at all, will emerge under oath in a room without cameras.

Whether the Clintons offer substance or simply run out the clock with Fifth Amendment invocations and carefully rehearsed non-answers, the American public will see the performance for what it is. Transparency does not require cooperation from the witnesses. Sometimes the refusal to answer is the answer.