House members are eyeing a new phase in their monthslong investigation into the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: a race to produce results that match the stunning Epstein fallout across the globe and satisfy an electorate clamoring for accountability.

This week’s interviews of Bill and Hillary Clinton — who are scheduled to testify to lawmakers under subpoena and behind closed doors about their relationships with Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell — could be a pivotal moment in this effort.

Bill Clinton has maintained that he was an acquaintance of Epstein’s but stopped communicating with him at least a decade before his arrest in 2019, and he has not been accused of wrongdoing.

His spokesperson Angel Ureña posted on social media in 2019 that the former president traveled on Epstein’s plane four times internationally in 2002 and 2003, but that Secret Service details were present “on every leg of the trip.” Hillary Clinton has said she has no memory of meeting Epstein at all.

But the Clintons’ depositions before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee come as the recent arrests in Britain of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, and ex-ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson, have only intensified the pressure on Congress to produce similarly dramatic impacts closer to home.

That means both Clintons will be put under a microscope for any potential transgression, whether it relates to the late financier’s sex trafficking conviction or not.

“Obviously, the committee wants to see some people be held accountable,” said Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) in an interview in advance of the high-profile depositions. The former president will testify Friday, and the former secretary of state Thursday, both in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Roughly 19 members are expected to be on hand for the depositions, and Comer said he suspected questions to focus on what interactions the couple had with Epstein — in the White House or elsewhere.

“I think what you’re seeing in Britain is, the charges against Prince Andrew and the former ambassador weren’t sex-related crimes. They were more with respect to treason and selling secrets and things like that,” he explained. “We were just fascinated how Epstein was able to surround himself with so many high-profile government figures, not just in the United States, but in other countries, so I think there will be a lot of questions.”

Linking Bill or Hillary Clinton to any type of criminal charge would be a win for Republicans, who are facing growing pressure to take down any powerful person with ties to Epstein — even as President Donald Trump’s own connections to the late financier present persistent questions and ongoing political liability. That’s especially true as the Justice Department faces criticism for its haphazard release of the Epstein files, including allegations from Democrats that the administration is covering up for the commander-in-chief.

“The DOJ hasn’t released all the files … terabytes of data, millions of files,” said GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, a member of the Oversight panel. “We need to bring in witnesses, people that will actually give us information and tell us the truth. Because so far, you know, people aren’t being honest.”

Countless public figures and elected officials have communicated with Epstein over the years, and many of those communications are not criminal in nature — even if there has been a reckoning for some of those individuals. Larry Summers, for instance,announced Wednesday he would resign from Harvard University, an institution he once led, as a result of his association with Epstein highlighted in the files.

That means that delivering accountability is not so simple, and lawmakers are fighting an uphill battle to put anyone behind bars in connection with Epstein. Obstacles include a key witness who won’t cooperate — Epstein’s imprisoned co-conspirator Maxwell, who has invoked the Fifth Amendment — and the fact that records might show investigative targets mingling with Epstein but not engaging in specific illegal acts.

“Most of our big investigations have ended with criminal referrals,” Comer said. “This is a complicated investigation. A lot of the major players have died.”

Meanwhile, even Democrats, who have cast themselves as the champions of transparency in the Epstein saga, now appear willing to go hard in their questioning of Bill Clinton after the caucus was initially divided over whether the former first couple should be held in contempt for failing to appear for previously-scheduled depositions.

“Our job is to, regardless of how powerful the person with knowledge of this abuse and trafficking ring is, to find out what they know, who else is implicated, what they’ve seen, what they participated in,” said Rep. Emily Randall (D-Wash.), a member of the Oversight Committee. “We definitely are there to ask questions that will help us uncover more information. Not to throw softballs.”

At the same time, Democrats are cognizant that the GOP sees an easy target in Bill Clinton, who is featured in multiple images released by the DOJ. None of those photos indicate illicit or illegal activities, but Republicans and the White House have used them anyway to elevate the former president as an alternative bogeyman to Trump, who remains Democrats’ main target.

Trump has also not been charged with any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has maintained his innocence.

“I don’t think anybody should be spared,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, in an interview earlier this week. “But [Republicans are] going to have a hard time just pinning it on Bill Clinton, I think, because there’s just too many others. … The minute they go to Bill Clinton, they gotta go to Trump as well, because there’s really significant stuff about Trump in there.”

The House Oversight investigation dates back to July, when Democrats and a handful of Republicans in a subcommittee hearing voted to subpoena the Justice Department for all of the materials in its Epstein investigation.

That vote launched a formal probe that led to other subpoenas for individuals in Epstein’s orbit, along with the release of documents and images from the Epstein estate, including the now-infamous “birthday book” where Trump allegedly wrote Epstein a message accompanied by a lewd drawing.

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) forced a House vote in November to compel DOJ to release its complete Epstein archive, and the department has since presided over a staggered document dump that has been criticized by members of both parties as misleading and incomplete.

But while several high-profile individuals have suffered reputational blows from their associations with Epstein laid bare in newly-public documents, no arrests have been made in the U.S. as a direct result.

Lawmakers remain eager to show that their work has still been effective, and that hunger has led to some missteps. For one, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) publicly accused EPA administrator Lee Zeldin of taking campaign money from a Jeffrey Epstein — but the former Republican congressman actually received the money from a physician with the same name.

And Khanna read aloud a number of names on the House floor that of men who were initially redacted from the DOJ files — some of which reportedly had no apparent connection to Epstein.

In an interview this week, Khanna said Congress’ work must culminate in prosecutions for those involved in Epstein’s scheme.

“We need to look at what Britain’s doing, what France is doing, what Norway is doing, and have those kind of prosecutions here,” he said.

“I just want to see prosecutions,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) also said in an interview.

After the Clintons are deposed Thursday and Friday, the committee has scheduled testimony from two co-executors of Epstein’s estate. Earlier this month, the panel heard from billionaire businessman Les Wexner, a onetime client of Epstein whose fortune helped fuel Epstein’s wealth. The former CEO of Victoria’s Secret insisted he severed ties with Epstein around the time that authorities were investigating sex crimes allegations against the late financier and accused Epstein of stealing from and lying to him.

While some members of the panel are clamoring to subpoena more witnesses, Comer suggested his committee’s strategy could now shift as the midterms approach and the 119th Congress comes to a close. The panel, he said, could soon turn to new questions — including some that have been the subject of conspiracy theories.

“Was Jeffrey Epstein a spy? Was he an agent?” Comer said. “Was he trading secrets with the U.S. government, the Israeli government — you know, the Middle Eastern government?”

“I’m trying to make sure the committee understands we’ve got to really focus on a timeline here,” Comer said. “It took six months to get the Clintons in.”

President Donald Trump wants Congress to sidestep internal debates and extend a key surveillance program — and he has made the demand directly to key Hill Republicans.

At issue is the foreign spy program known as Section 702, which is set to lapse on April 20. Lawmakers in both parties want to put new restrictions to prevent the intelligence community from searching program data for Americans without a warrant.

Trump has instead asked for a straight extension with no changes, according to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton and three other senior lawmakers who were granted anonymity to discuss the private request.

“President Trump has requested a simple, clean extension and I support the commander-in-chief on this vital national-security decision,” Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a statement.

Trump recently told House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that he wanted a clean extension, according to a congressional aide familiar with the discussion.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Crawford told him this week Trump wants a straight extension.

“The chairman and a variety of other people have told me that the president is pushing [an] 18-month clean authorization,” Himes said.

Spokespeople for the White House, Johnson, Crawford and Jordan didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s backing for a clean extension comes as top White House staffers have been privately lobbying for a clean extension of at least 18 months, including top domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller. Some intelligence community allies have privately floated going even longer — up to three years, according to one GOP lawmaker granted anonymity to discuss private discussions with the administration.

Even with Trump’s private edict, a clean extension faces an uncertain path in the House, where a bipartisan coalition of privacy hawks have long demanded sweeping changes to the spy power. People familiar with the vote-counting effort don’t believe it can clear the two-thirds-majority bar for fast-track passage, and GOP lawmakers and senior aides are skeptical their party could unite behind a necessary procedural measure to put it on the floor.

Himes said that while Trump’s vote of confidence could help rally Republicans, it could scare off some Democrats.

“We now have a president who has shown disdain for the law, disdain for the Congress, and an awful lot of my Democrats are going to point that out and say, ‘Hey, I supported this when we actually had a president who supported the law — tell me again why I should support it now,’” he said.

Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday he believes Rep. Tony Gonzales’ primary election, now six days away, will be a referendum on the serious sexual harassment allegations plaguing the Texas Republican.

“I’ve said to him publicly and privately, he’s got to address that directly and head on with his constituents,” Johnson told reporters. “There’s a primary there in less than a week, these things will play out.”

Gonzales has been accused of having an affair with a staffer and pressuring her for sexually explicit photos. That staffer later died by suicide.

While Johnson and fellow House GOP leaders have not pulled their endorsement of Gonzales, several rank-and-file Republicans have called for their colleague’s resignation and many are unsure Gonzales can prevail against his challenger at this point.

Gonzales told reporters Tuesday he was “not resigning” from Congress.

On Wednesday morning, Johnson again called the allegations against Gonzales “alarming and detestable” and deflected when asked by reporters why he had not yet come down harder on the lawmaker.

“How do you know I haven’t?” Johnson said.

He added, “I don’t usually go into detail on private conversations I’ve had with members, but I’ll tell you that what I’ve said publicly is these are very serious allegations. He’s denied much of it. We have to allow the due process here to play out, as always.”