Read the Clintons’ Legal Letter to Comer

Hon. James Comer January 12, 2026 Page 2

Secretary Clinton are offering this further accommodation pursuant to the traditional process for managing specific legal and fairness objections such as those at issue here.

As you know, absent a valid purpose, and in light of the fact that President and Secretary Clinton have already shared more information with the Committee voluntarily than the Committee could obtain via the compulsory process, it is clear the Subpoenas themselves—and any subsequent attempt to enforce them—are nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals, as President Trump has directed.¹ Precedent arising from Senator Joseph McCarthy’s abuse of congressional investigative powers in the 1950s and in other more recent contexts makes clear the Constitution protects private citizens and former presidents alike from invalid and legally unenforceable subpoenas such as these.

That precedent as it applies to these Subpoenas is covered herein. Counsel’s letters to the Committee on October 6, 2025; November 3, 2025; December 10, 2025; and January 3, 2026, and all the information therein are hereby incorporated by reference.

*

*

*

I.

The Subpoenas to President and Secretary Clinton are Invalid and Legally Unenforceable Because They Seek Testimony with No Connection to a Valid Legislative Purpose.

Well-established Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the Subpoenas at issue here must be in furtherance of a valid legislative purpose concerning a subject where legislation could be had. The Court imposes an additional requirement that the testimony sought is related to and in furtherance of that purpose. On both fronts, the Subpoenas fail to meet these standards. Moreover, the Committee’s belated attempt to remedy these defects by amending the purpose of the investigation has the opposite effect—it confirms there was no valid purpose for the Subpoenas in the first place.

a. The Subpoenas are not related to a valid legislative purpose.

The power to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas is not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, but the Supreme Court has held that each House has the power to “secure needed information” in order to legislate. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 161 (1927). This power, however, is a mere “adjunct to the legislative process,” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 197 (1957), and it is therefore subject to numerous limitations. Most importantly, a congressional subpoena is valid only if it is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.” Id. at 187. It therefore must serve a “valid legislative purpose,” Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955), and it must “concern[] a subject on which ‘legislation could be had.”” Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491,

1 President Trump said in a December 26, 2025, social media post: “The Dems are the ones who worked with Epstein. Release all of their names, embarrass them.”