Woody Allen once said that “80% of success in life is just showing up.” In the cases of Bill and Hillary Clinton regarding their dealings with Congress, that percentage might as well be 100%. The couple has chosen to ignore formal subpoenas from the House of Representatives, prompting the House Oversight Committee to consider contempt proceedings.
Chairman James Comer has initiated an investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case, which includes subpoenas for both Clintons to provide testimony. As of now, they have not faced any criminal charges.
Rather than attending court, the Clintons released a bold letter stating:
“Everyone must decide when they’ve seen enough, when they’ve had enough, and whether they’re ready to fight for this country, its principles, and its people, no matter the outcome. For us, that time is now.”
Additionally, new documents related to Epstein reportedly contain images of Bill Clinton without a shirt in a bathtub and his interactions with Michael Jackson.
The committee might concur that “now is the time” to move forward with contempt proceedings.
On August 5, 2025, the committee approved the subpoenas. While former President Clinton’s initial testimony date was set for October 14, 2025, it has since been rescheduled for December 17, 2025.
In December, the deposition was postponed again to allow the Clintons to attend a funeral, but they later rejected alternative dates suggested by their lawyer, David Kendall.
The decision to issue subpoenas received bipartisan support, a rarity for this often-fractured committee. Even some Democrats, such as Rep. Ro Khanna from California, have expressed that the Clintons should comply.
Subpoenas used to carry significant weight. While some lawyers argue that the testimony is unnecessary and distracting, that doesn’t justify ignoring legally issued subpoenas.
The Clintons’ stance echoes Hunter Biden’s decision to hold a news conference outside Congress instead of participating in his own deposition. He was notably supported by Democrats like Eric Swalwell.
After public comments disparaging Clinton, Comer faced accusations of being a “paid obstructionist,” leading to some disarray.
In the past, Democrats would have been outraged by such defiance of Congressional subpoenas.
President Biden has reiterated that ignoring a subpoena is unacceptable. Following the subpoenas issued to Republican lawmakers during the January 6 investigation, he stated, “I hope the committee pursues them and holds them criminally responsible.”
When Trump’s aides, Stephen Bannon and Peter Navarro, neglected to appear before the House, they faced backlash from the majority party, including Swalwell.
I noted back then that those individuals showcased a blatant disdain for Congress.
Now, however, this defiance seems to be viewed as acceptable by people like Congressman Dan Goldman from New York, who often prioritizes political interests over institutional integrity.
This persistent defiance could lead to serious legal consequences, possibly even prison time, under the Biden administration.
In 2021, Hillary Clinton publicly ridiculed Bannon after his contempt charge, suggesting he was gearing up for a “slow” weekend in anticipation of his potential conviction.
This is an interesting twist; the Clintons seem to be adopting the strategy that led to Bannon’s indictment.
When Bannon was charged, I pointed out that appearing in court and invoking the Fifth Amendment might have spared him. The committee would then have had to grant immunity for compelling testimony. The worst strategy? Simply not showing up.
That’s exactly what the Clintons have done.
In fact, I sense that Mr. Clinton might be sleepless over the prospect of facing criminal charges, as they have spent years evading such situations. Given that this is a Republican-led House and administration, the stakes feel higher.
What’s particularly striking is the Clintons’ apparent lack of any substantive defense. They seem to have opted for an open stance of defiance. Those who criticize the notion of a two-tiered justice system may find this situation epitomizes entitlement—believing the rules don’t apply to them.
They appear to be asserting a sort of unwritten immunity, which could put even a sympathetic federal judge in a position where trial becomes the only option. While David Kendall is a seasoned attorney who might find legal alternatives, I’m quite baffled by their current legal approach. At this moment, it seems there’s a glaring absence of sound legal strategy, essentially hinting, “I just don’t want to.”
In some ways, they seem to be recycling Bill Clinton’s earlier rhetoric regarding the Lewinsky controversy—pleading for a shift in focus away from the past and urging attention towards the challenges ahead.
This tactic succeeded despite a federal ruling deeming Clinton had lied under oath, as defendants like him can always negotiate the nuances of language. Here, though, it’s not about semantics. The act of testifying carries weight. If contempt is claimed as a defense, it would be hard to argue that it isn’t genuine contempt.
