Woody Allen famously said, “80% of success in life is just showing up.” When it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton and possible congressional contempt, it may be 100%. The two politicians have decided to defy lawful subpoenas issued by the House. For the House Oversight Committee, now is also the time for contempt proceedings.
Chairman James Comer and the House Oversight Committee are investigating the Jeffrey Epstein controversy and have subpoenaed the Clintons to testify. Neither has been accused of criminal conduct.
Bill Clinton failed to appear previously and Hillary Clinton refused to appear on Wednesday. Instead, they issued a chest-thumping letter of defiance, declaring:
“Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time.”
The Committee is likely to agree that “now is that time” and the consequences are the start of contempt proceedings.
On August 5, 2025, the Committee approved the subpoenas. Former President Clinton’s deposition was initially set for October 14, 2025. It was then moved to December 17, 2025.
In December, Comer postponed the depositions for a second time to allow the Clintons to attend a funeral. However, he said that their counsel, David Kendall, then declined to offer any alternative dates.
The vote to issue the subpoena was taken on an unusual bipartisan basis for the often divided Committee. Even Democratic members on the Oversight Committee, such as Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said that the Clintons must comply.
There was a time when subpoenas were viewed as more than discretionary matters. Counsel has insisted that the testimony is unnecessary and a distraction. However, that is not a ground that any court would view as justification for knowingly and repeatedly ignoring a lawfully issued subpoena.
The position of the Clintons seems a repeat of the defiance of Hunter Biden, who chose to hold a press conference outside of Congress rather than appear inside for his deposition. He was accompanied by Democratic members like Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.).
At one time, Democrats were aghast at those who might defy congressional subpoenas.
President Biden maintained that defying subpoenas cannot be tolerated. When subpoenas were issued to Republicans during the House’s Jan. 6 investigation, Biden declared: “I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally.”
Two Trump associates – Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro – refused to appear in the House and were quickly held in contempt by a majority of the House, including Swalwell.
I wrote at the time that these individuals were also undeniably in contempt of Congress.
Now, however, such defiance is viewed as righteous and somehow excusable by figures such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.), who has routinely chosen political over institutional interests.
The defiance could result in a criminal referral for the couple, prosecutions that would mirror those under the Biden Administration.
In 2021, Hillary Clinton mocked Bannon’s indictment for contempt of Congress by saying that she planned for a “restful” weekend as he prepared for possible conviction.
It is an ironic moment. The Clintons are adopting the Bannon strategy that led to his conviction.
At the time of Bannon’s charge, I noted that all he had to do was appear and invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Committee would then have had to issue an immunity grant to compel any testimony. The worst thing that you could do is not appear.
That is precisely what the Clintons just did.
In reality, I expect that neither Clinton is losing any sleep over the prospect of a criminal charge. They have spent their career dodging such prosecutions. Of course, this is a Republican-controlled House and Republican Administration.
What is most striking is the lack of any effort to come up with a cognizable defense. The Clintons simply chose open defiance. For those who have denounced a two-tier justice system, there is nothing more entitled and privileged than this letter. Such rules do not apply to the Clintons, who feel that they have the license to decide when they will appear.
They are wrong and, like Bannon, left themselves no viable legal defense. They are simply asserting a type of de facto Clinton immunity that could leave even a sympathetic federal district court judge with no real alternative to trial. David Kendall is an experienced lawyer and perhaps he will reveal a legal defense that escapes me. For the moment, I am baffled by the legal strategy. Indeed, I see no intelligible legal strategy at all in effectively saying that “we simply do not feel like it.”
They seem to be repeating the same pitch that Bill Clinton gave in the Lewinsky matter: “I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.”
Despite a federal judge finding 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 “testify” is. Whatever the meaning, showing up is a critical element. It is hard to argue that you are not in contempt when you make your contempt for the Committee your defense.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column also appeared on Fox.com.
This interview will explain a bit of the circumstances surrounding Jeffery Epstein.
This isn’t your typical news show. Tucker Carlson and historian Darryl Cooper will break down the full Epstein story—his rise, his protectors, and the ongoing cover-up. Who was he? Who backed him? Why does it still matter?
The corporate media would never air a live show like this. They want to silence honest Epstein coverage in order to protect the powerful. But we don’t care. This cover-up matters a lot, and we won’t let it fade out of the news cycle because the people in charge want it to. Unearthing the truth is too important.
Our members make this kind of journalism possible. They empower us to tell the truth at scale, remain uncensorable, reach more people, and deliver unique and unafraid programming completely free of corporate or government influence.
Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper on the True History of Jeffrey Epstein and Ongoing Cover-Up
The Epstein saga is one of the most convoluted stories in the news. Darryl Cooper is America’s most honest and best-informed historian. It’s time to unearth the truth about this heavily censored topic.
By: Tucker Carlson – TCN • September 2025 • 165 mins
https://tuckercarlson.com/epstein-livestream
Apparently the ones that have beared “false witness” against the Clintons (for at least 40 years) identify themselves as “Christians” followers of Jesus Christ. That’s the “turn the other cheek” guy for a Christian refresher.
What caused this decades-old hatred of the Clintons? Bill Clinton was white in Arkansas demanding everyone receive equal treatment under the law.
The Clintons simply wanted the same set of rules and rights for everyone including women and African-Americans. Fast forward to 2026, it explains the blatant lawlessness of the modern Republican Party and violating their own Oath of Office.
Americans that identify as Christians have sold out their own faith to a billionaire with 34 felony convictions. Since 2025, this president has tried to illegally amend the 14th Amendment through Executive Order. Tried to annex Canada as the 51st state. Is now trying to invade a NATO ally nation Greenland/Denmark although this sovereign nation would allow Trump to build 10 additional military bases today – without invasion or extortion.
Trump is now suggesting American boots on the ground to nation-build in Venezuela, after the Exxon-Mobil CEO told Trump that Venezuela was “uninvestable”. All this without obtaining permission from Congress as the law requires.
As a diversion from Trump’s lawlessness, he continues to blame Joe Biden and the Clintons. Call yourselves authoritarians but it’s insulting to pretend to be Republicans and Christians. Maybe take some advice from former Republican Hillary Clinton.
Anon definitely has some issues with reality. In fact TDS is just the wart on the whole infected pustule !.
Wow. Those must be some powerful drugs.
Probably came in through Mena Arkansas…courtesy Bill Clinton.
Remain Anonymous!
Sorry, perhaps you could explain how this word salad addresses the actual issue at hand. Oh, and post the laws Trump is failing to observe in fact, as opposed to in your opinion.
This is utter nonsense.
When these two show up in DC, arrest them &send them to the cooler for a week.
Then ask them again if they will comply.
Non-compliance is another week in jail. Real jail. Orange jumpsuits, no internet, lights out @ 2200, meals with the other inmates, no seclusion.
Make it happen!
The House doesn’t have that power. It can vote to hold them in contempt, and then it would be up to the US Attorney for DC to prosecute them, which would not be a problem, but unfortunately it would then require a DC jury to convict them, and I can’t see that happening. Finding 12 jurors honest enough to convict them when their guilt is glaringly obvious would be very difficult.
[?] Why must it be the US Attorney for DC?
There are other US Attorney in the 50 States. why can’t they have a shot at it?
Is it written/mandated that it “has to be” the US Attorney for DC?
Can The DOJ appoint another/other jurisdiction?
AI: ( is it required that US Attorney for DC prosecute contempt of congress )
No, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. is not strictly required to prosecute contempt of Congress, as federal prosecutorial discretion allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to decline cases, even after Congress refers them under 2 U.S.C. § 194. While the statute says it “shall be the duty” of the U.S. Attorney to present the matter to a grand jury, the DOJ interprets this as discretionary, often citing separation of powers, executive privilege, or enforcement priorities, leading to varying prosecution rates for similar referrals.
Key Points:
Congressional Referral: Congress votes to certify a contempt citation and refers it to the U.S. Attorney.
DOJ Discretion: The U.S. Attorney, representing the DOJ, decides whether to present the case to a grand jury, a power upheld by courts based on executive branch functions.
Separation of Powers: The DOJ often argues that forcing prosecution would infringe on executive branch authority and presidential privilege claims.
Historical Practice: While the statute exists (2 U.S.C. § 192 for criminal contempt), prosecutions don’t always follow referrals, with the DOJ declining many cases, though some (like Bannon and Navarro) have led to indictments.
In essence, Congress relies on the Executive Branch (DOJ) to enforce criminal contempt, but the DOJ retains the final say on whether to pursue charges.
ATTN: Pamela Bondi – Office of the Attorney General
Bill & Hillary can be prosecuted in Texas and Florida
AI: ( the most favorable jurisdiction for Republican DOJ cases )
In 2026, the Fifth Circuit and specific divisions in Texas and Florida are cited as the most favorable jurisdictions for litigation and prosecutions aligned with Republican-led Department of Justice (DOJ) priorities.
Highly Favorable Jurisdictions (2026):
Southern District of Florida : Prosecutors have strategically shifted venues to this district for high-profile criminal inquiries, such as those involving former Obama-era officials. This venue is considered more favorable than Washington, D.C., due to a more sympathetic jury pool and a bench increasingly composed of Republican appointees.
Northern District of Texas (Amarillo Division) : This remains a premier venue for “judge shopping” by conservative litigants. Single-judge divisions in this district offer a near-guarantee of a conservative judge predisposed to issuing national injunctions against liberal policies.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals : Historically and currently, the Fifth Circuit is identified as the most reliable appellate venue for scrutinizing federal agency actions and supporting conservative-leaning legal challenges.
Factors Driving Jurisdictional Favorability:
Appellate Record: As of early 2026, 92% of votes from Trump-appointed appellate judges have favored administration policies, compared to significantly lower rates at the district court level.
Jury Pools: Strategic shifts away from Democratic-heavy areas like Washington, D.C. (where Trump received only 6.6% of the 2024 vote) toward areas like South Florida (where he won 56.1% of the state) are used to secure more favorable grand juries.
Targeted Litigation Venues: The DOJ and conservative groups continue to utilize Texas districts to challenge “sanctuary” policies and redistricting maps, such as the 2025 legal actions against California’s Proposition 50.
Jurisdictions Viewed as Unfavorable (“Judicial Hellholes”)
Conservative legal groups and the DOJ frequently identify the following as hostile to their interests or business-friendly litigation:
Georgia and Pennsylvania: Ranked top for high liability and “nuclear verdicts”.
Cook County (Illinois) and New York City: Cited for expansive liability laws and “lawsuit abuse”.
California: Frequently targeted by the DOJ for “sanctuary” policies and redistricting disputes.
They have a working Chair in Huntsville Texas:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/16/old-sparky-texas-prison-electric-chair-capital-punishment-1976
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sparky
There’s a special place just waiting for them: the Clinton Correctional Facility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Correctional_Facility
And guess what? They have a special Chair just for Hillary! (Old Sparky)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair
I nominate Aliya Rahman for an academy award in the drama “Revolutionary Energy”, Directed by Communist Social Engineer turned Director, George Soros.