WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee has rejected an 11th-hour offer from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s attorneys to testify before the panel, as a House vote is expected to hold the 42nd president and former first lady in contempt of Congress.

Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) refused to accept a “proposed limitation on the scope of President Clinton’s testimony” and a sworn declaration from ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the request of their attorneys, according to a Feb. 2 letter obtained by The Post.

Instead, the Kentucky Republican again noted how prior declarations had been unsubstantial and failed to remark upon the couple’s “personal” relationships with deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

Both through their counsel had claimed “no knowledge relevant to the Committee’s investigation,” which Comer wrote “could not possibly be the case if, for example, they considered their personal relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell relevant to the purpose of the Committee’s investigation.”

“Limiting President Clinton’s testimony to four hours is insufficient time for the Committee to gain a full understanding of President Clinton’s personal relationship with them, his knowledge of their sex-trafficking ring, and his experience with their efforts to curry favor and exercise influence to protect themselves,” he said.

Comer added: “It has been nearly six months since your clients first received the Committee’s subpoena, more than three months since the original date of their depositions, and nearly three weeks since they failed to appear for their depositions commensurate with the Committee’s lawful subpoenas.”

“Your clients’ desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency,” the Oversight chairman also fumed.

The Clintons’ attorneys asked for the former president to be allowed to sit for a four-hour transcribed interview in New York City with Comer, Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and staff — in exchange for the withdrawal of subpoenas and the contempt resolutions against their clients.

They also asked for Hillary Clinton to be able to answer questions from the committee through sworn declarations, while allowing for in-person testimony in a similar form on an as-needed basis.

Reps for Jenner & Block LLP and Williams & Connolly LLP, who are representing the Clintons, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Clintons had publicly skipped their respective deposition deadlines last month, claiming that they were providing the panel with the same amount of information that others who had been subpoenaed did. 

An Oversight subcommittee approved a motion to slap subpoenas against multiple individuals, including the Clintons, for information on Epstein, last July. 

But attorneys for the Clintons claimed those subpoenas were invalid and not enforceable. One factor cited was the fact that Bill Clinton was a former president. Very few sitting or former presidents have been subpoenaed. Many who have, such as President Trump, defied those subpoenas. 

To the chagrin of Democratic leadership, the Oversight panel then advanced an effort to hold the Clintons in contempt on a bipartisan basis last month. That defection from Democrats, seemingly, motivated the Clintons to make overtures to Comer in a bid to talk him down, including the offer for a transcribed interview.

In his response letter, Comer explained that the Oversight panel would have been open to President Clinton’s proposal for a transcribed interview, even though that would enable him to decline questions under his 5th Amendment rights, if that offer had come earlier. 

“Had President Clinton initially offered to participate in a transcribed interview upon receiving his subpoena, the Committee might have considered that approach,” Comer chided. “But given that he has already failed to appear for a deposition and has refused for several months to provide the Committee with in-person testimony, the Committee cannot simply have faith that President Clinton will not refuse to answer questions.”

Comer also took issue with President Clinton’s proposal for a transcriber that the chairman claimed would “create an opposing transcript,” arguing that it raises concerns about impartiality. 

“The Committee can only think the purpose of the proposal for this second transcriber is to enable President Clinton to dispute the accuracy of his testimony and create confusion,” he wrote. 

Should the contempt measure clear the full House, it will then be sent to the Justice Department, which will determine whether or not to press charges. Contempt of Congress typically entails 1 to 12 months behind bars as well as a fine of up to $100,000 if convicted.