If you thought the Super Bowl was the only high-stakes drama this month, you haven’t been watching C-SPAN.
After a six-month game of legal chicken that nearly resulted in a criminal contempt vote on the House floor, Bill and Hillary Clinton have officially “caved.” Hillary is scheduled to sit for a filmed, transcribed deposition on February 26, with the former President following on February 27.
The investigation centers on the government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, and specifically, the $52 million player option—wait, wrong script—specifically, the “philanthropic” ties between the Clinton Foundation and Epstein’s inner circle.
For bettors, the burning question isn’t just what they’ll say, but if they’ll say anything at all.
The “No” Side: -150 (The Strategic Choice)
Why is “No” the favorite? Because the Clintons are the masters of the “long-form” answer. Taking the 5th Amendment is a PR nightmare—it’s essentially a visual admission that “the truth might hurt me.”
Hillary Clinton recently told the press in Munich, “We have nothing to hide,” and has even called for the hearings to be held in public to “disinfect” the situation with sunlight. You don’t call for a public hearing if you plan on sitting there in silence like a bored teenager in detention. From a “capper’s” perspective, the Clintons likely believe they can out-talk and out-maneuver Chairman James Comer. They aren’t going to give him the “silent” soundbite he wants for a campaign ad.
The “Yes” Side: +110 (The Legal Safety Net)
However, at +110, the “Yes” side is tempting for anyone who understands how depositions work. While they might talk freely about 95% of the topics, all it takes is one specific question about a flight log or a Foundation donor for their lawyers to jump in.
In a deposition, “exercising the 5th” doesn’t mean you stop talking entirely—it means you refuse to answer a specific question that could lead to self-incrimination. Given that the Department of Justice is simultaneously running its own probe into the Epstein files, the Clintons’ legal team would be borderline negligent if they didn’t have a “red zone” of topics where they invoke their constitutional rights.
The Insider’s Verdict: This is a battle of Optics vs. Law. The Clintons want the optics of being “transparent,” but they need the legal protection of the 5th.
The smart money is on NO (-150). The Clintons have built a forty-year career on the “I do not recall” defense, which is legally distinct from the 5th Amendment. “I don’t remember” isn’t an admission of guilt; it’s a failure of memory. Expect a lot of foggy recollections, but very few moments of actual silence.
The Pick: NO (-150)
