Woody Allen once said, “80% of success in life is just showing up.” When it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton and possible contempt by Congress, it could be 100%. The two politicians have decided to ignore the lawful subpoenas from the House of Representatives. For the House Oversight Committee, now is also the time for contempt proceedings.
Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and the House Oversight Committee are investigating the Jeffrey Epstein controversy and have subpoenaed the Clintons to testify. Neither has been charged with criminal conduct.
The Clintons didn’t show up and instead issued a heartbreaking letter stating:
“Everyone must decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, regardless of the consequences. For us, the time has come.”
NEW EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS INCLUDES PHOTOS OF BILL CLINTON TOPLESS IN HOT TUB, SOCIALIZING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON
The committee will likely agree that “now the time has come” and the consequences are the beginning of contempt proceedings.
On August 5, 2025, the committee approved the subpoenas. Former President Clinton’s statement was initially scheduled for October 14, 2025. It was subsequently moved to December 17, 2025.
In December, Comer postponed the depositions for a second time to give the Clintons a chance to attend a funeral. However, he said their counsel, David Kendall, subsequently refused to offer alternative dates.
EXPIRED DEADLINE FOR EPSTEIN UNDERLINES THE CHALLENGE OF VIEWING FILES IN 30 DAYS
The vote to issue the subpoena came on an unusually bipartisan basis for the often divided committee. Even Democratic members, such as Rep. Ro Khanna of California, said the Clintons should comply.
There was a time when subpoenas were considered more than discretionary matters. Counsel emphasized that the testimony is unnecessary and distracting. However, that is not a ground that a court would consider as a justification for knowingly ignoring a lawfully issued subpoena.
The Clintons’ position appears to be a repeat of the defiance of Hunter Biden, who chose to hold a press conference outside Congress rather than appear inside for his statement. He was joined by Democratic members such as Eric Swalwell of California.
COMER RIPS ‘PAID DISRUPTER’ AS LETTER ABOUT CLINTON-DISPRESENT PUSH DEGRADES INTO CHAOS
Democrats were once baffled by those who might defy congressional subpoenas.
President Joe Biden asserted that defying subpoenas cannot be tolerated. When subpoenas were issued to Republicans during the House investigation on January 6, Biden declared: “I hope the committee goes after them and holds them criminally accountable.”
Two Trump associates – Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro – refused to appear in the House of Representatives and were quickly held in contempt by a majority of the House of Representatives, including Swalwell.
I wrote at the time that these individuals also had unequivocal contempt for Congress.
Now, however, such resistance is seen as just and somehow excusable by figures like Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who has routinely chosen political interests over institutional ones.
The backlash could result in a criminal referral for the couple, charges that would mirror those under the Biden administration.
In 2021, Hillary Clinton mocked Bannon’s indictment for contempt of Congress, saying she was planning a “quiet” weekend as he prepared for a possible sentencing.
It’s an ironic moment. The Clintons are adopting the Bannon strategy that led to his conviction.
When Bannon was charged, I noted that all he had to do was appear and invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The committee would then have to grant immunity to compel testimony. The worst thing you can do is not show up.
That’s exactly what the Clintons just did.
In reality, I expect neither Clinton to lose any sleep over the prospect of a criminal indictment. They have spent their entire careers evading such prosecutions. Of course, this is a Republican-controlled House and a Republican administration.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
What’s most striking is the lack of any attempt to come up with a recognizable defense. The Clintons simply opted for open resistance. For those who have denounced a two-tier justice system, there is nothing more rightful and privileged than this letter. Such rules do not apply to the Clintons, who believe they have the freedom to decide when they will appear.
They are wrong and, like Bannon, have been left with no viable legal defense. They are simply asserting a kind of de facto Clinton immunity that would leave even a sympathetic federal district court judge with no real alternative to a lawsuit. Kendall is an experienced lawyer, and perhaps he will reveal a legal defense that eludes me. At this point I am baffled by the legal strategy. I don’t see any understandable legal strategy at all to effectively say, “We just don’t feel like it.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
They seem to be echoing the same tone that Bill Clinton delivered in the Lewinsky case: “I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to restore the fabric of our national discourse and turn our attention back to all the challenges and all the promises of the next American century.”
Even though a federal judge ruled that Clinton lied under oath, it worked. The problem is that a defendant like Clinton can always argue in a perjury case that “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In this case it does not depend on what the meaning of the word “witnesses” is. Whatever the meaning, showing up is a crucial element. It’s hard to argue that you aren’t in contempt if you make your contempt for the committee your defense.
CLICK HERE TO JONATHAN TURLEY
