February 6, 2026 l By Dalena Reporters
WASHINGTON, United States — Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has publicly urged the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee to hold a public hearing on her upcoming testimony in the ongoing congressional probe of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, saying transparency is essential in the high-profile investigation.
The appeal came as the investigation enters a critical phase. The Oversight Committee, led by Republican lawmakers, has scheduled closed-door depositions under oath for both Hillary Clinton and her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton with her set to appear on February 26, 2026, and Bill Clinton on February 27, 2026.
In a statement and social media posts, Hillary Clinton said the couple has already cooperated with committee requests “in good faith” and shared what they know, but she argued that holding their testimony behind closed doors undermines public confidence in the process. She challenged the committee chairman to “stop the games” and make their testimony public, noting that cameras and open proceedings would better serve transparency and accountability.
Her call has been echoed by Bill Clinton, who also urged that the hearings be open, framing closed-door sessions as less transparent even as both have agreed to participate. Proponents of a public hearing say it would ensure that the proceedings are fully visible to the American public and help clarify matters related to the investigation.
The House Oversight probe is focused on the massive “Epstein files” a trove of government documents, court filings, and investigative records connected to Epstein’s sex trafficking and abuse network and how relationships with wealthy, powerful figures were recorded and handled. While the Clintons have not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, their names and interactions with Epstein have appeared in the files, prompting lawmakers to seek direct questioning.
Republican lawmakers have resisted the push for an open hearing, with the committee chair saying the closed-door format is intended to focus on substantive investigative work and protect procedural integrity, though he has indicated that transcripts or recordings may be released later.
The debate over open versus closed testimony highlights tensions in Washington over how best to balance transparency, due process and political scrutiny in a probe that has drawn public attention and controversy, and could have broader implications for how investigations involving former senior officials are conducted.