Woody Allen once remarked that success often comes from simply showing up. For Bill and Hillary Clinton, this adage seems to have been forgotten as they have resolved to defy subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee. This decision has sparked deliberations for potential contempt proceedings, led by Chairman James Comer, as the committee investigates the Jeffrey Epstein affair.
In their letter of defiance, the Clintons boldly stated, “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.” Such a declaration may lead to consequences that they did not fully consider. The committee may take their declaration seriously, viewing it as a trigger to initiate contempt proceedings.
The road to the subpoenas has been marked by a series of delays and rescheduling. Originally, former President Clinton’s deposition was set for October and later moved to December, before being postponed once more due to a funeral. Even with these accommodations, the Clintons’ legal counsel declined to propose alternative dates, which has only heightened the stakes in the ongoing saga.
What is particularly notable is the bipartisan agreement within the Oversight Committee regarding the need for compliance with the subpoenas. Even Democratic members, including Rep. Ro Khanna, acknowledge the importance of the Clintons appearing for questioning. In the past, subpoenas carried a different weight, and ignoring them was not an option for many. Today, however, the Clintons appear to treat these legal directives as suggestions rather than mandates.
The situation conjures memories of other high-profile figures who have resisted congressional inquiries. Hunter Biden’s choice to hold a press conference outside Congress instead of appearing for his deposition reflects a troubling pattern that now seems to be echoed by the Clintons. This raises questions about the changing norms surrounding compliance and accountability in Washington.
In earlier congressional proceedings, such as those related to January 6, there was widespread condemnation of individuals who refused to appear. President Biden previously commented on the necessity of holding those in contempt accountable, though the Clintons now assume a position of defiance. This inconsistency highlights a shifting standard, suggesting that current perceptions of contempt depend heavily on whom the defiance is directed against.
The repeated refusals to comply with subpoenas suggest a larger issue: a feeling of entitlement that the Clintons may have regarding accountability. David Kendall, their lawyer, argues that the testimony is extraneous, but a court may not accept that rationale as valid justification for ignoring legal obligations. Such stances were once held in disdain; now they seem to be defended by certain political figures, further complicating the landscape of accountability.
The irony is palpable. Hillary Clinton once mocked the contempt charge against Steve Bannon, positioning herself with a sense of superiority. Yet, at this juncture, they seem to mimic the very defiance they once criticized. The Clintons are adopting a strategy that previously resulted in legal trouble for others, illustrating a remarkable lack of foresight.
Time reveals the potentially severe consequences of their actions. Failure to appear in response to a subpoena traditionally leads to charges that can escalate quickly. Observers may wonder what legal strategy the Clintons hope to employ, as openly ignoring subpoenas does not appear to leave much room for defense. Historically, cooperating with the process could lead to a more favorable outcome. By opting for defiance, they seem to dismiss a critical tenet of legal proceedings: showing up matters.
This case may very well unravel differently than the Lewinsky scandal, despite the similarities in the Clintons’ defiance. At that time, Bill Clinton’s suggestion to shift focus away from personal indiscretions seemed to diffuse tension temporarily. In this fresh context, however, consistently avoiding lawful demands will likely amplify scrutiny rather than diminish it. This is a crossroads for the Clintons, involving not only their past but also their understanding of legal accountability.
Ultimately, this cavalier attitude towards subpoenas raises alarms about the nature of justice and power. The Clintons’ current strategy might signal an assertion of immunity that risks unequal treatment under the law. Should they be called to account for their refusal, a sympathetic court may find themselves with no choice but to act.
The Clintons have seemingly chosen a path that defies traditional legal wisdom. In asserting their right to ignore subpoenas, they opt for confrontation over compliance, a choice that may haunt them as the investigation unfolds. The stakes are high, and the legal landscape will undoubtedly watch as they navigate these troubled waters.
"*" indicates required fields
