Yesterday, a curious thing happened in a House Committee. Bill and Hillary Clinton were actually held accountable for flouting the law — at least as a preliminary matter. In the House Oversight Committee, Democrats joined Republicans in approving contempt resolutions against the two political figures after they refused to appear to answer questions about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
The House panel voted 34-8 to advance the resolution on Bill Clinton to a floor vote. It voted 28-15 to advance a resolution on Hillary Clinton.
As previously discussed, the Clintons adopted a position that was devoid of any cognizable legal defense. It was simple hubris, telling Congress that they did not want to appear to be saying that congressional subpoenas are discretionary for them.
From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions. Courts can find perjury and prosecutors can find classified material without a criminal charge. Evidence can suddenly surface after investigations, or thousands of emails can be destroyed without any repercussions.
After that history, it is little surprise that the Clintons would believe that they, unlike other Americans, can choose whether to comply with a subpoena. After standing in flagrant contempt, the Clintons only reaffirmed the sense of entitlement by offering to allow an interview in New York without a transcript. There would be no “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments.
It is a demonstration of our partisan times that the mere fact that Democrats joined in the motion came as a surprise to many. Nine Democrats voted with their GOP colleagues against the Clintons
What is disgraceful are those Democrats who dispensed with any institutional or ethical obligations in opposing the resolution. Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee:
Wesley Bell (D., Mo.)
Shontel Brown (D., Oh)
Robert Garcia (D., Cal.)
Ro Khanna (D., Cal.)
Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)
Suhas Subramanyam (D., Va.)
James Walkinsaw (D., Va.)
Then there are the two Democrats who voted “present” rather than take responsibility by making an actual decision: Reps. David Min (D., Cal.) and Yassamin Ansari (D., Wash.). That is the “profile of courage” for some members: voting that “I’m here” without taking a position on open contempt for the Committee.
Figures like Ro Khanna have long portrayed themselves as more moderate voices, but appear to be yielding to the far left, including his recent support for the disastrous wealth tax in California. Now he is effectively saying that congressional subpoenas simply do not apply to the Clintons like they would every other American.
The three Democrats who voted to advance the resolution against Hillary Clinton are Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, according to Politico.
Two Democrats voted “present” for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution: California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari, while just Min voted “present” on the Hillary Clinton resolution.
This vote was the true test of courage for House members. There has to be something that is not entirely dispensable in the face of political advantage. Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons, respect such subpoenas.
For a party that runs on fighting the privileged and entitled wealthy class, this vote is comically ironic. They are supporting the claim of the Clintons that they get to decide when they will be subject to legal demands without offering an even remotely plausible legal defenses.
Since Trump officials are essentially declaring “Constitution Free Zones” in Minnesota and Maine. The state Governors can also use Trump’s unconstitutional practices also.
A state Governor in Minnesota or Maine could empower the local and state police to follow federal agents acting as “witnesses” – using license plate trackers, cell trackers, drones, etc. to track and monitor unconstitutional (illegal) actions by federal officials.
Local and state police officers could check for “judicial warrants” and wear body cameras recording unconstitutional practices. If Governors did this, it might have saved the life of Renee Good. There would be real police officers (with months of police training) on site to advise federal agents not properly trained in policing.
Is this where we break out the cigars?
Prof. Turley,
With respect I have to disagree.
All over the place – more on the left than the right, but still both parties are running from the rule of law for partisan advantage.
Congress is not a supplement to the Justice Department.
Its purpose is to investigate GOVERNMENT not the american people.
While a legislative purpose can be manufactured for anything – we are way too far out on a limb here.
Comey, Brennan, Clapper and other lied to congress as part of hearings that were undoubtedly government oversight.
They should be fitted for orange jumpsuits.
If DOJ has a criminal case against the Clinton’s – and personally little would make me happier that seeing Bill and particularly hillary in an orange jumpsuit. I have zero doubt both are up to their nicks in crimes.
But it is the job of the FBI to investigate federal crimes – NOT Congress.
Congress could legitimately subpoena Bannon and Navaro, But Neither could be prosecuted for failure to testify until AFTER they claim of executive privilege was adjudicated – order matters, Due process matters. And frankly the testimony Congress sought CLEARLY violated executive privilege. The direct communications between a president and advisors are privileged and MUST be. Regardless, atleast Congress had a legitimate oversight basis to subpoena them.
As Badly as I want the Clintons to be grilled under oath about decades of their bad conduct,
The rule of law and the constitution is more important.
I would further note that while I am not sure there is a formal privilege there – it is an incredibly bad idea to have ex-presidents testify before congress.
There might be a legitimate Government Oversight purpose to subpeona’s Hillary regarding her role in CrossFire Huricane.
As much as I want to see everyone participating in Epstains Billionaire prostitution right prosecuted.
There is no role for congress in that process.
Epstains victims are free to sue their abusers – and they should take them all to the cleaners, and publicly expose them.
DOJ should prosecute if there is a case to be prosecuted.
But Absent a prosecution, DOJ MUST remain silent and can not share the Epstain investigative material.
The law passed by Congress is unconstitutional. It violates the 4th amendment.
I think it is a trillion to 1 hail marry that releasing Epstain information will “Get Trump”
But I have zero problem prosecuting Trump in the incredibly unlikely event there is credible evidence of criminal conduct.
Bill Clinton and many other democrats relationship with Epstain stinks to high heaven, but short of evidence strong enough to prosecute criminally,
this should be left to the victims. I have not seen anything that comes close to my being able to convict Bill Clinton though I am certain he is a criminal pervert and sex offender. Beyond a reasonable doubt is supposed to mean that the EVIDENCE proves the commission of a specific crime – “Beyond a reasonable doubt” – it does NOT mean a long history of being a scum bag leaves me certain – which I absolutely am, that Bill Clinton is a criminal sex offender.
That is not what I want. It is however what the constitution and the rule of law demand.
The constitution and the rule of law do NOT exist to give us what we want.
They exist to preclude using FORCE to get what we want without very strong justification.
Typical Leftie responses we see.
Never argue the issues or law…just offer bovine fecal matter instead.
The Clintons were legally served subpoenas to appear before Congress.
They refused.
The Congressional Committee voted to pass a Resolution holding the in contempt of Congress….and act that we know leads to a minimum of four months in Federal Prison owing to recent prior convictions for the same acts
Now we get to see how the full House views the matter….any guess that no a single Democrat votes to find their most favored Love Birds in Contempt are made from the Left?
The Democrats might vote to hold them in Contempt but only if the power brokers running the Democrat Party decide to see the Clintons go the way of the Buffalo.
I have to admit that Slick Willie deserves some leeway as he is justly able to warrant some forgiveness as he has to live with his Sugar Pie. Hillary garners no warm loving feelings from anyone except perhaps the gal that is married to a Weiner.
The vision of Hills in an orange jumpsuit wearing cheap Flip Flops living in a communal setting with ordinary criminals eating bologna sandwiches and pinto beans somehow seems both desirable and somewhat remotely possible under an Administration that does believe in the Rule of Law.
We know Bill lies under Oath so anything he says is considered unreliable….and Hills does so but in a manner that has kept her from the same conviction.
My bet is the Democrats shall vote to send a Criminal Referral to the DOJ, the DOJ shall prosecute the Clintons, and the Jury shall find them guilty. What the Judge does sentence wise is the Wild Card. In a just Court….upon conviction the Judge shall sentence the two to prison for four months just as happened to Steve Bannon.
The alternative under the law that allows compelling of testimony whereby the Defendant is jailed and/or fined until fully and honestly testifying under Oath also would be a lovely outcome. Then, upon testifying they have to do so with complete honesty and if caught lying then they are confronted with a Perjury charge.
I prefer the last method of gaining compliance and if the defendant fully and honestly testifies there are no criminal charges leading to prison time and Congress gets the information it is seeking. There can be criminal charges filed against others perhaps but not the person testifying.
This right now is a political matter until Congress votes to hold the Clintons in Contempt then it becomes a criminal matter until the Judge has to issue a Sentence upon conviction….then the real politics begins.
One thing is dead certain….the Clintons are not standing upon Principle or the Law as usual….we shall see if Democrats in Congress some how find it possible to do so despite their track record for not following Principle or the Law.
“ The Clintons were legally served subpoenas to appear before Congress.
They refused.”
No, they didn’t. The only refused when Republicans refused to hold the depositons in public. They wanted the hearings to be open to everyone. Republicans demanded they only be held behind closed doors. Turley deliberately left out that particular fact.
The Clintons have made it clear time after time that they will gladly have the hearing as long as it’s held open to the public. Strangely the party of transparency is refusing to hold the depositons open to the public. All they have to do is accept that one condition.
I Tracked Down The Companies Bribing Trump:
No one volunteers for military service only to claim conscientious objection once they’re issued a weapon. Conscience is declared before service, not selectively invoked after taking the oath. The same principle applies to Congress. If you voluntarily serve on an Oversight Committee, you accept its constitutional tools. Voting against subpoenas while retaining your seat is not principled dissent. It is refusing to perform the job you agreed to do.
“ No one volunteers for military service only to claim conscientious objection once they’re issued a weapon.”
Are you sure about that? I believe there is a movie based on that. Hacksaw Rige. It’s based on a soldier who refused to take a weapon.
“ The same principle applies to Congress. If you voluntarily serve on an Oversight Committee, you accept its constitutional tools. Voting against subpoenas while retaining your seat is not principled dissent. It is refusing to perform the job you agreed to do.”
Congress makes their own rules. Jim Jordan refused a subpoena without accountability. He outright rejected one.
You actually just proved my point while claiming I was wrong. 😆
Desmond Doss never took up a weapon. He declared before service that he would not carry one, was therefore never issued one, and served in a clearly defined alternative role as a combat medic, fully aligned with the mission.
That’s exactly why Hacksaw Ridge works as an analogy.
No one volunteers, accepts a rifle, swears the oath, deploys with the unit, and then selectively refuses to use the weapon when it becomes inconvenient. Doss didn’t do that. He was transparent upfront and served honorably within those constraints.
That’s the distinction you missed.
Serving on an Oversight Committee while refusing to authorize subpoenas only for certain people is not the Doss model. It’s the opposite. It’s accepting the office and then disarming it selectively. If someone objects to subpoenas as a matter of conscience, the honest move is not to serve on Oversight at all.
So no, the analogy doesn’t fail. Your rebuttal does, because it ignores the timing, role clarity, and institutional honesty that make Doss’s service admirable in the first place.
There is a video of Trump having sex with minors and there are still apologists for him who think they are the righteous ones.
Did you ever ask yourself why the Biden team didn’t release these so-called videos of Trump? Or are you just like the foolish little boy who said the same on CNN and then immediately went to his lawyer to write an apology note?
Biden couldn’t release the Epstein files because there were still active cases, including Ghislane Maxwell’s.
Trump is doing is darndest to keep the files hidden from the public and his AG is actively violating the law as we speak. Surely there is something serious that Trump does not want the public to see. MAGA’s sweetheart MTG got sidelined because even she believes Trump should be releasing the whole thing.
Will Eric Holder be next? Don’t hold your breath. B. Hill
Hill
How about never.. Dog-gone-it
Congress is contemptible.
Bill and King Moron can share a cell together.
Stupid comment.
Absolutely nothing will happen to either of the Clintons. It’s just the way our rigged system works.
Might be that some Democrats think of Bill and Hillary as an ongoing embarrassment. His Epstein actions and Lewinsky adventures and Hilary lost an election that was entirely winnable, thus starting the Democrats national nightmare of DJT.
Plus they continue to try to grab headlines and ink when they are no longer relevant to present politics or discussion.
Time for them to retire into oblivion, after getting tried for their contempt of congress.
“Time for them to retire into oblivion, after getting tried for their contempt of congress.”
I’d be willing to have their oblivion postponed for several years, to see the vile serpents who have contributed so much to the negation the the American experience and dream to spend that time behind bars.
Retire. No. Reckoning.
Nothing makes Democrats stop caring about Epstein’s crimes quicker than subpoenaing the Clintons to answer for their many crimes. It’s like MAGIC!
But Epstein is still in the top news cycle. Everyday.
It’s all the dems & MSN has left.
7/24 spin
It is amazing that not one of the 10 DNC members that voted against accountability and criminality, feels an ounce of hypocrisy or shame for their actions. The level of righteousness and indignation is telling, but that is Washington elitism on full display.
Professor Turley, as usual, is being somewhat dishonest with the facts. He completely omits the fact that the Clintons were fine with the depositions and willing to cooperate. What Turley and the rest of the Republicans are not telling you and the country is that the Clintons only agreed to the depositions if they were open to the public. That was the only condition, and the Republicans refused. Why? Because they wanted to conduct the hearing privately so they could cherry-pick snippets and take statements out of context to build a false narrative, as they always do. Senator Grassley is known for leaking such statements out of context.
Jim Jordan ignored a congressional subpoena without facing any consequences. The Clintons are powerful and, like always, will probably fight to keep the depositions open to the public.
For a party that claims to be “fully transparent,” they sure seem to dislike the idea of holding a genuinely transparent public deposition. If transparency were truly their goal, Republicans would gladly meet the Clintons’ request.
“Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons.”
Ironically, Turley didn’t offer this kind of advice to Republicans when Jim Jordan was subpoenaed. The hypocrisy is apparent
Per usual, Turley is only interested in stoking that “Age of Rage” fire that he so gladly warms his hands on….AND he doesn’t respect his readers enough to tell the whole truth. He’s afraid they will be turned off and stop tuning in.
The professor should be discussing the secret memo that allows ICE to enter homes without a judicial warrant. This is a significant Fourth and Fifth Amendment issue. Since May, ICE has circulated a memo exclusively to certain staff and new recruits, instructing them that they can force their way into homes with only an administrative warrant—no judge’s approval required. This directly violates the Fourth Amendment and highlights the growing tyranny of DHS and its zealous approach to apprehensions.
Now, ICE agents are barging into homes with impunity and Kavanaught stops allowing the detainment of individuals based on skin color or accent. Given the poor training of ICE recruits and the rushed recruitment process, these new officers are only likely to complicate matters further for themselves and DHS, especially if Democrats retake the House. It won’t be long before they face consequences.
“. . . willing to cooperate.”
Except, of course, for the whole subpoena thing.
Sam, they were indeed perfectly willing to cooperate. Their only stipulation was that the whole thing be held publicly, not behind closed doors. Republicans refused. Turley clearly “forgot” to mention that critical piece of information. Instead, he deliberately chose to ignore it so he could portray the Clintons as defiant and “above the law,” as he clearly insinuates in his article.
Why would the Republicans refuse to hold their depostions in public? What are they afraid of? They want to be able to control the narrative and release cherry-picked statements to “show” Bill Clinton is more involved with the Epstein files than Trump. It’s already apparent that Trump is terrified of more Epstein files stuff linked to him. He must have known how bad Epstein really was, and he enabled it.
george
Prez Trump worked with the FBI to get Epstein.
If you say so.
george as usual, is being somewhat dishonest with the facts.
“Somewhat” is doing a lot of work in your comment. X is a lying contrarian fool who lives parasitically off of the host of this site.
Now do Eric Holder
Ro Khanna? The man who is constantly standing up and saying “we need the Epstein information!” He didn’t have the spine to require it from his own side? What a——POLITICIAN!
Porno on your mind this morning eh?
JT writes… “From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions….” Case in point, the “incident” at Waco, TX that ended up incinerating over 80+ innocent American men, women & children is an incident like it never happened. Frightening that this massacre can’t penetrate our collective psyche. For those who don’t remember ~ the massacre occurred over “suspected weapons violations”.
Old news there buddy. Its 2026 and its about the Clintons.
The murder of 25 innocent children by government forced can never become “old news”, you flaming anus.
Repeat…. old nonsense. dead and gone. move on. DEAD.
Now do Donnie Von Schitzenpantz.
Biden…
“the “incident” at Waco, TX”
Yes, Bill Clinton bears much culpability for the massacre by government of 76 Americans, including 25 children. His initial failure to get an AG situated in a timely manner to take charge of the situation, and his ultimate choice of the execrable Janet Reno, contributed greatly to the horrible outcome. But we would be remiss to forget that the crisis was instigated on the watch of Bush I, and that his BATF largely created it from whole cloth (BATF under Bush I was also responsible for the Ruby Ridge, ID murders). The situation and outcome was, and remains, a damning indictment of the nonpartisan failure of the U. S. to honor the limitations imposed upon the Federal government by the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in general.
I’ll be shocked if the horn dog actually had anything to do with underage women.
Monica Lewinsky was all of 22 wen Clinton had her give him head under his desk. What evidence would make you believe that he would have refrained from similar conduct with someone 2 years younger?