The Clintons are again suggesting that they might not agree to a deposition after previously yielding to the threat of a contempt vote. Hillary Clinton taunted House Oversight Chair James Comer “if you want this fight…let’s have it—in public.” For his part, Bill Clinton seemed more conclusive on X in opposing a deposition: “I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court.” The question is whether the Clintons are again gaming the system after avoiding a bipartisan vote to hold them in contempt.
As with the Hunter Biden deposition (which was also delayed by such tactics), there are various reasons for holding a closed deposition before public hearings.
First, these depositions allow professional staff to conduct questioning in a methodical and professional manner. In a public hearing, questioning is conducted by members who are often ill-equipped for substantive inquiries.
Second, the Clintons must be asked about a range of documents and communications that contain names and privacy-protected information. At a public hearing, the use of such documents would trigger redactions and interruptions.
Third, these depositions allow for in-depth questioning on transactions and communications. In a public hearing, members are confined to a five-minute rule that guarantees questioning cannot achieve much, if any, depth.
Those are all reasons the Clintons want a public hearing in which members, not staff, ask questions under tight time limits. It produces superficial examinations with little ability to pursue substantive conflicts or issues.
None of this really matters legally. All citizens are compelled to appear at such hearings. They may invoke the Fifth Amendment, but they must appear. Even the Clintons.
However, the Clintons have spent a lifetime gaming the system, avoiding accountability for alleged crimes, including (in the case of Bill Clinton) federal perjury.
This is vintage Clinton. After a bipartisan vote in committee to hold them in contempt, they took a 180-degree turn and agreed to the depositions. The final vote was then cancelled.
Once cancelled, Bill Clinton is again suggesting that he will “not sit idly by” for such a deposition. It is not clear what that means. He will sit for this deposition or be held in contempt like any other citizen.
The declaration could mean anything from laying the groundwork for invoking the Fifth Amendment to another act of defiance of the subpoena. He could be planning to refuse to answer certain questions in a combative approach to the deposition. However, that could still result in a contempt sanction.
Notably, the Clintons have long been able to control the conditions of their questioning. Even with the Independent Counsel, Clinton was able to secure concessions on time and questions. He still tripped the wire and committed perjury, according to a federal court.
This is a rare occasion where they will not dictate such conditions. That raises the intriguing possibility that Bill Clinton could set a precedent by invoking the Fifth Amendment. Otherwise, he may not be idle, but he will be present.
I think the Clintons are playing a very fine line and it might hurt them more than it helps them. I totally understand the game they are playing and why. Behind the doors, they cannot mug for the cameras and have someone run interference. They can also avoid the deeper deposition and any potential liabilities as compared to a public hearing.
I am betting the Clintons think they can wear out the committee and get the votes back they need to avoid the serious questioning. I personally do not think the Clintons have committed crimes with Epstein, but they do not want to give anyone a chance to go deeper into their lives or finances. There is a bit of get back for the past years game playing. Their smirking may catch up to them. Besides does anyone think the Clintons want the public to be reminded about Bill’s indiscretions?
I am betting the Clintons find out the hard way what happens when you play too much. If there was anything there already there would have been charges. If they are not careful, criminal charges can happen and this time I do not think there is an appetite to protect them.
And what if you’re wrong?
Since Trump is listed over 1000 times, let Trump go first!
JT says “First, these depositions allow professional staff to conduct questioning in a methodical and professional manner. In a public hearing, questioning is conducted by members who are often ill-equipped for substantive inquiries.”
Is he admitting that members of Congress are idiots? Sure seems like it.
If Bill is a Pedophile, prosecute him.
If DJT is a pedophile, prosecute him.
If Bill, an ex president, is forced to testify, why not put the guy that is mentioned over 1000 times with hundreds of images in the Epstein files forced to testify?
Oh never mind, Forcing trump to testify would make him either admit to criminal activity (He is a convicted Felon after all), or commit perjury.
Hypocrites – A pseudonym for Republican.
You have a thing for pedophiles I see. That makes you a democrat.
I have never supported the Clintons. With that said, forcing ex-Presidents and ex-cabinet members to testify before Congress sets a bad precedent for future.
Um… no one is above the law. Sound familiar?
Then, what future? A republicans or democrat?
Hil and Bill deserve one another. Arkansas and the USA never deserved either of them.
Past Participle
past par·ti·ci·ple
/past ˈpärdəˌsipəl/
nounGrammar
noun: past participle; plural noun: past participles
The form of a verb, typically ending in -ed in English, which is used in forming perfect and passive tenses (sic: in this case pretenses) and sometimes as an adjective, e.g. looked in have you looked?, and lost in I’ve lost it and lost property.
AI: ( How to explain Past Participle to kids? )
How to explain past participle to kids?
Explain past participles to kids as “helper words” that finish an action, often using “-ed” (like played) but sometimes having funny, irregular endings (eaten, broken), used with words like have/has/had (e.g., “I have eaten”) or to describe things (e.g., “the broken toy”). Use games with flashcards (eat, ate, eaten) or focus on adjectives like “the scared cat” to make it fun.
Example:
Bill Clinton per se: Hillary and I have already been in Contempt of Congress for Years, oh and Obama too.
“Is Bill Clinton Moving Back Into Contempt?”
Does a bear defecate in dense foliage? “Contempt” is the essential term to use in conjunction with any and all mention of either Clinton in any context.
What the Clintons appear to be resisting is not testimony, but oversight on terms they do not control. A lawful subpoena does not permit a witness to dictate format. You appear as required, answer or invoke the Fifth, and the process proceeds. Anything else is an attempt to negotiate compliance after the fact.
That resistance is precisely the abuse the Founders experienced under Parliament. The core grievance was not private wrongdoing, but power exercised without accountability and officials shielded from scrutiny. Oversight was denied, grievances accumulated, and legitimacy collapsed.
Congressional oversight exists to prevent that outcome. If powerful figures or their defenders reject routine oversight because of status or party, they are not defending the Constitution. They are reenacting the very failure that made independence necessary.
As you said “appears”. So everything that follows is BS.
“everything that follows is BS.”
Your comment in particular.
Oh oh… hurt feelings huh? Have mommy kiss your booboo.
Its not my comment.
You didn’t have to respond at all. You chose to engage, and instead of refuting the argument, you dismissed it. That choice speaks for itself.
You didn’t offer an argument. Your offered mere speculation.
Exactly. A supposition. All made up.
Another rendition of the classic ‘when the evidence is heard, I will be found ‘not guilty’. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating thereof.
“Another rendition of the classic ‘when the evidence is heard, I will be found ‘not guilty’. ”
In the case of the Clintons, it’s more like “when we finish spinning the evidence to a gullible public, only the deplorables among them will believe we have done anything wrong.”
More like … ?
Bill Clinton could, and probably will, take the Fifth Amendment but that has serious implications, too. The Congress has the right to seek to immunize him and the DOJ would just love to process that request and bring it before a US District Court judge. Once that happens, he has a choice of either testifying and answering all the questions or being in contempt and again, if the latter, a referral will be made to the DOJ to prosecute him. Either way, slick Willy may not be as slick as he used to be.
before a US District Court judge…. but which one?
Anon: It really doesn’t matter as the law is specific for the crime involved and I cannot think of a viable defense to not testifying before Congress. Assuming he then would continue to refuse, the judge might have more flexibility on sentencing. Recent precedent with Bannon and Navarro saw these charges land the accused in the slammer. A judge might spare Clinton the prison time but this would be a conviction, nonetheless.
Of course it does. Its Washington DC.
And what if you’re wrong?
“slick Willy may not be as slick as he used to be.”
Did Epstein’s under-aged “ladies” lick all the slick off?
How did it taste?
Clintons are running scared. They are affraid of the Light shinning on all their deeds and corruption. They are trying to control the testimony, attempting to dictate. They must face the committee and tuff questions. Be exposed for what they really are. The Gov’t must audit the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, including their daughter.
Clintons are running scared. You do not know that as a fact. They have competent lawyers, knowledgeable in the ways of congressional questioning. They have managed to skate persecution for decades. It is not a slam dunk.
I cant for the life of me understand why they would not testify. What are they hiding; who are they protecting; are there other big name democrats who they might expose?
Old HRC must have gotten Billy riled up something awful the night before. He came out swinging and Hillary is gonna use her old Tammy Wynette line of “I stand by my man” so she seems like a devoted spouse – devoted to what we have no idea!! I think most people already know Billy is a scumbag so what is the point of asking why he hung out with other scumbags? There have been no weepy-eyed Epstein Harem victims accusing him so far – so the point is what? They joked about Monica? Who cares about that Fame Skank now.
“so she seems like a devoted spouse – devoted to what we have no idea”
Oh, I think we have a pretty damned good idea. The point of this exercise, from the Clinton’s perspective is to avoid being forced to flesh that idea out with specific examples.
The Clinton’s are as slimy as a squished slug on a rainy sidewalk…, and equally as disgusting.
So sez the slimly anonymous commuter.
Hear hear! You have insulted Slugs everywhere. Why is Hillary not being indicted for a political fraud scheme that cost taxpayers $50 Million dollars? It has now been proven to be an entire cooked up scheme to divert attention from her own illegalities. That fraud action led to Millions in investigation costs to the taxpayers. Please Pam indict this horrible person.
Why? …. because there is no prosecutorial proof. Easy huh?
I believe that the Gabbard release of the declassified information was sufficient evidence to warrant a grand jury investigation. The evidence is quite damming for the Witch of the damned.
HRC once used the phrase “ a willing suspension of disbelief” in a congressional hearing to accuse Michal Flynn of lying. It occurred to me at the time and still arises today that the Clintons have relied on such a willingness to accept their deceptions by their supporters in the party, the press and the public. That willingness has served them well over many years. Maybe this time the veil will finally be pierced.
Bill and Hillary Weasel back to their old tricks again. Just proves you can’t teach old weasels new tricks.
Stupid lowbrow comment.
Yours certainly is.
Oh oh… its the pouting donny again. Got a hardon this morning for anons eh?
Nothing like the man who raped Juanita Broaddrick, and the woman who enabled him, making demands before they appear before a Congressional investigative committee. They should be afforded the exact same deference given to Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon by the sham J6 committee and the Biden regime’s “justice” department.
Nothing like the fact that Trump is a convicted rapist who raped dozens of women in the past. Trump should be called to answer for those rapes.
Is it defamation to falsely refer to someone as a convicted rapist?
Rape, aka: ‘ liable for sexual abuse and defamation’, to the masses just plain ole R A P E.
So sue anon 7:28. .
Now let’s see you do the legal definition of “convicted”, you mentally deficient horse-donkey crossbreed.
Don was convicted of youthful sodomy?
It has been 25 years since WJC was POTUS. Does he believe that his former Presidency allows him to remain forever above the laws that apply to the rest of us mere mortals? The word chutzpah comes to mind.
Oops! I did not intend for the above post to be anonymous.
That’s what they all say.
Wait, you think you’re not anonymous just by using suze?
What a tiring little troll you are. At least Suze created a name that we know and can therefore decide whether or not to read her comments. You, ANONYMOUS, are just a child.
The ‘adult in the room’ has just entered.. Let’s see what intellect it imparts today… troll, and child. That’s pretty deep considering you’re a drunk.
You keep posting that comment somehow thinking you’re a thought leader here. And yet everyone ignores them.
Then why do you always respond? You’re a very stupid troll yourself.
Ask George Stephanopoulos about this so-called “fact”. Another keyboard warrior going by Anonymous.
Hullbobby
I would ask Stephanopolus but I can’t stoop that low…
I am just not of his stature nor can I measure up to him… We should all overlook his shortcomings!🤣🤣
Waist high are you saying?
Anonymous has finally revealed herself to us all, her name is Hillary, She beast of the gutters!