charge

WASHINGTON — Former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finalized an agreement with House Republicans on Tuesday to testify in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein this month, bowing to the threat of a contempt of Congress vote against them.

Hillary Clinton will testify before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 26 and Bill Clinton will appear Feb. 27. It will mark the first time that lawmakers have compelled a former president to testify.

The arrangement comes after months of negotiating between the two sides as Republicans sought to make the Clintons, both Democrats, a focal point in a House committee’s investigation into Epstein, a convicted sex offender who killed himself in a New York jail cell in 2019, and Ghislaine Maxwell, his former girlfriend.

“We look forward to now questioning the Clintons as part of our investigation into the horrific crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and for survivors,” Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.

The negotiation with the Clintons

For months, the Clintons resisted subpoenas from the committee, but House Republicans — with support from a few Democrats — had advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges to a potential vote this week. It threatened the Clintons with the potential for substantial fines and even prison time if they had been convicted.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that any efforts to hold them in contempt of Congress were “on pause.”

Even as the Clintons bowed to the pressure, the negotiating between GOP lawmakers and attorneys for the Clintons was marked by distrust as they wrangled over the details of the deposition. They agreed to have the closed-door depositions transcribed and recorded on video, Comer said.

The belligerence is likely to only grow as Republicans relish the opportunity to grill longtime political foes under oath.

Comer told the Associated Press that Republicans, in their inquiry with the Clintons, were “trying to figure out how Jeffrey Epstein was able to surround himself with all these rich and powerful people.”

Comer, a Kentucky Republican, also said that the Clintons had expressed a desire to make the proceedings public, but that he would insist on closed-door testimony with a later release of a transcript of the interviews. He added that he was open to holding a later public hearing if the Clintons wanted it.

How Clinton knew Epstein

Clinton, like a number of other high-powered men including President Trump, had a well-documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Neither Trump nor Clinton has been credibly accused of wrongdoing in their interactions with the late financier.

Both Clintons have said they had no knowledge that Epstein was sexually abusing underage girls before prosecutors brought charges against him.

The Clintons argued that the subpoenas for their testimony were invalid and offered to submit sworn declarations on their limited knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. But as Comer threatened to proceed with contempt of Congress charges, they began looking for an offramp.

Both Clintons have remained highly critical of how Comer has handled the Epstein investigation and argue that he is more focused on bringing them in for testimony rather than holding the Trump administration accountable for how it has handled the release of its files on Epstein.

However, as Comer advanced the contempt charges out of the House Oversight Committee last month, he found a number of Democrats willing to help. A younger generation of more progressive Democrats showed they had few connections with the Clintons, who led the Democratic Party for decades, and were more eager to show voters that they would stand for transparency in the Epstein investigation.

Nine Democrats out of 21 on the Oversight panel voted to advance charges against Bill Clinton, and three Democrats joined with Republicans to support the charges against Hillary Clinton. As the vote loomed this week, House Democratic leaders also made it clear that they would not expend much political capital to rally votes against the contempt resolutions.

That left the Clintons with little choice but to agree to testify or face one of the most severe punishments Congress can give.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Mérida, February 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez met with US Chargé d’Affaires Laura Dogu in Miraflores Presidential Palace on Monday afternoon.

According to Communications Minister Miguel Pérez Pirela, the meeting took place “in the context of the working agenda” between Caracas and Washington. National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez was likewise present.

Dogu confirmed the high-level audience with Venezuelan leaders via social media, saying that she reiterated Washington’s intended “three-phase plan” for the Caribbean nation.

“Today I met with Delcy Rodríguez and Jorge Rodríguez to reiterate the three phases that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has proposed for Venezuela: stabilization, economic recovery and reconciliation, and transition,” she said.

The US diplomat arrived in Caracas on Saturday, vowing that her team is “ready to work.” US State Department officials had visited the Venezuelan capital previously to assess conditions for the reopening of the US embassy.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil was the first high-ranking official to meet with Dogu, writing that the country’s authorities are looking to work on “issues of bilateral interest” with US counterparts. On Monday, Gil announced that Félix Plasencia will be Venezuela’s diplomatic representative in the US and will travel to Washington in the coming days.

This diplomatic rapprochement follows the January 3 US military strikes that killed dozens, while special operations teams kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady and Deputy Cilia Flores.

In the weeks since, the Venezuelan government has emphasized its commitment to reestablish ties with the Trump administration, with Rodríguez pledging that she is not afraid to address “differences” with Washington through diplomatic channels.

For his part, US President Donald Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he maintains positive relationships with Venezuelan leaders, including the acting president.

Since the January 3 strikes, the White House has claimed control over Venezuelan crude sales, with proceeds reportedly deposited in US-administered accounts in Qatar before a portion is returned to the South American nation. Last week, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved an oil reform granting expanded benefits for private corporations that drew praise from US officials.

Caracas severed diplomatic ties with Washington in 2019 after the Trump administration recognized the self-proclaimed “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó as the country’s legitimate authority.

A formal reestablishment of diplomatic relations hinges on the White House formally recognizing the Venezuelan acting government, a move that is also a necessary step before any process of debt renegotiation.

Rodríguez announces Amnesty Law, Helicoide closure

Venezuelan acting authorities have combined the restoration of ties with Washington with a fast-moving domestic legislative agenda.

On Friday, during the Supreme Court’s 2026 opening ceremony, Acting President Rodríguez announced a new “General Amnesty Law,” intended to cover acts of political violence that have occurred in Venezuela from 1999 to the present.

In her speech, Rodríguez explained that the law aims to “heal the wounds” resulting from political confrontation.

“I request the full cooperation of the Venezuelan parliament so that this law may contribute to healing the wounds left by confrontation, violence, and extremism,” she told attendees. “May it serve to redirect justice in our country and restore coexistence among Venezuelans.”

The legislative proposal will reportedly exclude those who have been convicted or are facing charges of homicide, drug trafficking, corruption, and serious human rights violations.

Alongside the new law proposal, Rodríguez announced the closure of the Helicoide detention center in Caracas, with plans to turn it into a recreational center. The facility, run by the SEBIN intelligence agency, has held multiple high-profile opposition figures accused of crimes including treason and terrorism.

Human rights organizations over the years have denounced grave human rights violations against Helicoide prisoners. Dozens of prisoners have been gradually released in recent days. 

Javier Tarazona, director of the NGO Fundaredes, was among those released during the weekend. He had been detained since 2021 on terrorism and treason charges. Luis Istúriz, a leader from the far-right Vente Venezuela party, also exited the Helicoide on Sunday following 18 months behind bars. He had begun a 30-year sentence on charges of terrorism and conspiracy.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello affirmed in a Monday press conference that the amnesty law is about promoting “coexistence and peace” and will see authorities review the cases of people who have “undoubtedly committed crimes.”

“Those who benefit from the amnesty will be given an opportunity to return to politics,” he said, adding that the amnesty project was a government initiative that had no influence from “NGOs and foreign governments.”

Edited and with additional reporting by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON — The Republican chair of a House Committee rejected an offer Monday from former President Clinton to conduct a transcribed interview for a House investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, pushing the threat to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress closer toward a vote.

The impasse comes as the full House is headed toward potential votes this week on criminal contempt of Congress charges against the Clintons. If passed, the charges threaten Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with substantial fines and even incarceration if they are convicted.

Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said on social media that he would insist on both Clintons sitting for a sworn deposition before the committee in order to fulfill the panel’s subpoenas. A letter from the committee to attorneys for the Clintons indicates that they had offered for Bill Clinton to conduct a transcribed interview on “matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein” and for Hillary Clinton to submit a sworn declaration.

“The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said.

The Republican-controlled Oversight panel had advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges last month. Nine of the committee’s 21 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the charges against Bill Clinton as they argued for full transparency in the Epstein investigation. Three Democrats also supported the charges against Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein has re-emerged as a focal point for Republicans amid the push for a reckoning over Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 in a New York jail cell as he faced sex trafficking charges.

Clinton, like a bevy of other high-powered men, had a well-documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He has not been accused of wrongdoing in his interactions with the late financier.

After Bill and Hillary Clinton were both subpoenaed in August by the House Oversight Committee, their attorney had tried to argue against the validity of the subpoena. However, as Comer threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings, they started negotiating toward a compromise.

Still, the Clintons remained highly critical of Comer’s decision, saying that he was bringing politics into the investigation while failing to hold the Trump administration accountable for delays in producing the Department of Justice’s case files on Epstein.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has refused to order the pretrial release of a man charged with placing two pipe bombs near the national headquarters of the Democratic and Republican parties on the eve of a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on Thursday that Brian J. Cole Jr. must remain in jail while awaiting trial. Ali upheld a decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh, who ruled on Jan. 2 that no conditions of release can reasonably protect the public from the danger that Cole allegedly poses.

Cole, 30, pleaded not guilty to making and planting two pipe bombs outside the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., on the night of Jan. 5, 2021.

Cole, who lived with his parents in Woodbridge, Virginia, has been diagnosed with autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder. His attorneys say he has no criminal record.

Cole has remained jailed since his Dec. 4 arrest. Authorities said they used phone records and other evidence to identify him as a suspect in a crime that confounded the FBI for over four years.

Prosecutors said Cole confessed to trying to carry out “an extraordinary act of political violence.” Cole told investigators that he was unhappy with how leaders of both political parties responded to “questions” about the 2020 presidential election — and said “something just snapped,” according to prosecutors.

“While the defendant may have reached a psychological breaking point, his crimes were anything but impulsive,” they wrote. “Indeed, the defendant’s pipe bombs — and the fear and terror they instilled in the general public — were the product of weeks of premeditation and planning.”

Defense attorneys asked for Cole to be freed from jail and placed on home detention with electronic monitoring. They say a defense expert concluded that the devices found near the RNC and DNC headquarters were not viable explosive devices.

“In fact, there was no possibility of death, injury or destruction as the devices were harmless,” they wrote.

If convicted of both charges against him, Cole faces up to 10 years of imprisonment on one charge and up to 20 years of imprisonment on a second charge that also carries a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When Rep. John D. Dingell was new to Congress, Buddy Holly ruled the charts, Rosa Parks refused to budge from her seat on a segregated bus and Dwight D. Eisenhower occupied the White House.

And on Capitol Hill, congressional committee chairmen ruled like feudal lords over federal policy, pursuing pet causes and waging vendettas with near impunity.

In time, Dingell became one of the most fearsome.

Now Dingell, the longest-serving member of the House, and other veteran Democrats are poised to take charge of the most powerful committees when Congress convenes in January.

In the four decades that Democrats were the dominant party, chairmen’s foibles, however egregious, did not threaten the party’s grip on power. But with narrower margins of control and an electorate willing to switch allegiances, there is no such assumption these days.

The question now is whether the “old bulls” like Dingell know it, and if they know it, whether they can adjust.

“This majority is not the kind of majority that we used to have, and it remains to be seen whether they understand that,” said one senior Democratic staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Building an empire

For 14 years, Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, presided over the Energy and Commerce Committee. Under his forceful and often uncompromising leadership, the panel expanded into an empire that famously claimed jurisdiction over “everything that moves, burns or is sold” in the United States.

It was in part because of the reputation of longtime chairmen like Dingell that former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican insurgency that took control of Congress in 1995, imposed term limits for committee chairs, restricting them to three consecutive two-year terms.

But the Democrats have kept the tradition of assigning committee chairmanships by seniority. And that will elevate some of the most veteran — and oldest — members of Congress to committee leadership posts.

All but one of the new Senate chairmen are at least 60, and three are in their 80s. Three also have served for more than four decades.

The oldest is Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who is 89 and is about to retake the helm of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He sometimes tires, aides say, but he still has full command of his senses and the respect of his peers.

It is in the House, however, where the phenomenon has attracted more attention. That’s partly because Democrats have been shut out of power for 12 years, while their Senate colleagues have been in the minority for just four. And it’s partly because of the irascible personalities of some of the incoming chairmen, known collectively as the “old bulls.”

The three best-known are Dingell, Rep. John Conyers Jr. from a neighboring district in Michigan, and Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York. They are 80, 77, and 76 years old, respectively.

No green bananas

About two-thirds of the incoming House chairmen are older than 60.

“I don’t buy green bananas,” Rangel quipped recently, referring to his age.

Conyers, who served on the panels that considered the impeachment of Presidents Nixon and Clinton and who has mused about the possibility of impeaching the current president, is expected to take the helm of the Judiciary Committee.

Rangel, one of the most outspoken members of Congress, is set to lead the Ways and Means Committee, which sets tax policy.

On Capitol Hill, staffers trade stories about the old bulls and their infirmities, shaking their heads over Dingell’s hearing problems or Conyers’ “senior moments.” But the same staffers insist that the incoming chairmen are not only capable of taking the reins, but of handling them better than anyone else.

“There is a lot to the concept of seniority,” said Jeremy Mayer, who studies Congress at George Mason University in Virginia.

“Should the people who have been in Congress the longest have the most power? The simple answer is yes, because they have more experience and they can’t be steamrolled by the administration. Dingell, for instance, knows all the intricacies of the funding of at least seven federal agencies.”

Another argument in favor of seniority is that it limits intraparty fighting.

The party leadership elections this month illustrated how divisive competition for leadership posts can be. A rigid, impersonal system for naming chairmen is one way to keep the peace.

“Seniority has always been a way to prevent bloodshed,” Mayer said.

The downside is that it can foster autocratic behavior. In the past, Democratic leaders found the chairmen hard to control, in part because their positions did not depend on the party, and the chairmen tended to outlast the leadership.

Steven Smith, a social sciences professor who studies government and political parties at Washington University in St. Louis, says political parties have evolved since then.

“Before the 1980s, committee chairs pretty much went their own way. But since the 1980s, chairs are expected to look out for the party’s overall interest,” he said. “There will be some tension between committee chairs and party leaders on this.”

One potential point of tension is that many of today’s old bulls are old-fashioned liberals. Dingell introduces a proposal for nationalized healthcare in every session of Congress. Conyers has used his staff to pursue favorite concerns of left-wing bloggers, such as voting irregularities in the 2004 elections.

By contrast, the freshman class of Democrats includes a number of centrist or conservative Democrats, many of them uncomfortable with liberal positions on such issues as abortion, gun control and same-sex marriage.

Democratic leaders have already set their sights on 2008, with the goal of regaining the White House and expanding their margin of control in Congress.

“Democrats know that they won this election by appealing to the middle of the spectrum,” Smith said. “And they know that the first rule is to do no harm, to not alienate the folks who gave them the election.”

Doing that will require the incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), herself a traditional liberal, to keep her chairmen focused on issues that promote the party’s broader agenda, not necessarily their own favorite issues.

“For some, it will take a little relearning,” said Smith. “They will have to make a choice: Do they want to start making a record for themselves and their party going into 2008? And what kind of record do they want it to be — a record of legislation, or a record of position-taking and rhetoric?”

Toeing the line

So far, the old bulls have stayed on message — mostly.

Conyers has stopped talking about impeaching President Bush.

Dingell has lauded the benefits of bipartisanship while promising tougher oversight of the administration.

And Rangel has remained coy about the fate of the tax cuts passed by Republicans in recent years, though he caused some heartburn when he brought up his desire to bring back the draft.

Democratic insiders say the old bulls won’t overreach. They say they know better than most what it’s like to gain and then lose a majority. And they haven’t been in a deep freeze for the last 12 years; rather, they’ve been strategizing with their colleagues about how to return to power.

Steve Elmendorf, who served as senior advisor to former Rep. Richard Gephardt, who led the Democrats in both the majority and the minority, says there are two big reasons why no one in the party even whispers about challenging the old bulls, no matter how old or intemperate.

“One, a lot of these chairman worked hard to help win. And when you win, the people who helped are going to move up,” Elmendorf said. “Two, they have a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge. They served in the majority, and they can hit the ground running.”

maura.reynolds@latimes.com

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Likely chairmen

Democratic veterans in line to run key House committees:

John Conyers Jr.

Committee: Judiciary

Age: 77

First elected: 1964

District: Detroit area

Highlights: Conyers is the only Judiciary Committee member to serve during the impeachment hearings of Presidents Nixon and Clinton. He recently dropped calls for an investigation into whether President Bush should be impeached.

Quote: “The American people sent a clear message that they do not want a rubber-stamp Congress that simply signs off the president’s agenda.”

—

John D. Dingell

Committee: Energy and Commerce

Age: 80

First elected: 1955

District: southeastern Michigan

Highlights: The longest-serving congressman, Dingell ran Energy and Commerce for 14 years, expanding its reach to include two-fifths of all House bills. He oversaw the breakup of AT&T; and cable deregulation.

Quote: “We’re not after anybody,” Dingell said of his new power to subpoena Bush administration officials, but added that they will be “invited to come forward.”

—

Charles B. Rangel

Committee: Ways and Means

Age: 76

First elected: 1970

District: northern Manhattan

Highlights: As a member of Ways and Means, Rangel has worked for targeted federal tax credits to benefit impoverished urban communities, including New York City’s Harlem, his political power base for four decades.

Quote: “Since it appeared there would be a Democratic majority, I can’t tell you the number of pharmaceutical companies and health plans that have come to me and said we can work together to put together a plan to cover the 47 million uninsured.”