JONATHAN TURLEY: Why the Clintons’ defiance of Congress is a legal blunder
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Woody Allen’s famous quote: “80% of success in life is just showing up.” This could 100% happen when it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton and possible congressional contempt. The two politicians decided to defy legal subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives. Now is also the time for a contempt hearing for the House Oversight Committee.
Chairman James Comer and the House Oversight Committee are investigating the Jeffrey Epstein controversy and have called on the Clintons to testify. Neither was charged with criminal conduct.
The Clintons failed to take the stage and instead issued a chest-shaking letter of defiance, declaring:
“Everyone must decide when he has seen or had enough and be ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, regardless of the consequences. For us, now is that time.”
NEW EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS CONTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS OF BILL CLINTON BEING SOCIAL WITH JACKSON, HIS SUPERIOR AT JACKSON
The committee is likely to agree that “now is the time” and the consequences are the beginning of contempt proceedings.
On August 5, 2025, the Committee approved the subpoenas. Former President Clinton’s deposition was originally scheduled for October 14, 2025. It was later moved to December 17, 2025.
In December, Comer postponed testimony a second time to allow the Clintons to attend the funeral. But their lawyer said David Kendall refused to offer alternative dates.
EXPASSED EPSTEIN DEADLINE HIGHLIGHTS THE DIFFICULTY OF REVIEWING FILE VALUES WITHIN 30 DAYS
The vote to issue the subpoena was taken on an unusual bipartisan basis for the often divided Committee. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., on the Oversight Committee. Even Democratic members such as have said the Clintons should comply.
There was a time when subpoenas were considered more than discretionary matters. The lawyer insisted that the testimony was unnecessary and distracting. But this is not a justification that any court would consider to justify knowingly and repeatedly ignoring a lawfully issued subpoena.
The Clintons’ stance appears to be a repeat of Hunter Biden’s defiance, who opted to hold a press conference outside Congress rather than appear inside to testify. He was accompanied by Democratic members such as Eric Swalwell.
COMER RIPS ‘PAIRED DISTORTOR’ TURNS INTO CHAOS DURING INFORMATION ABOUT CLINTON SUICIDE
Once upon a time, Democrats were appalled by those who might defy convention’s calls.
President Joe Biden has argued that defying subpoenas cannot be tolerated. When Republicans were subpoenaed during the House investigation on Jan. 6, Biden said: “I hope the committee will go after them and hold them criminally responsible.”
Two of Trump’s associates — Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro — refused to appear on the House floor and were quickly snubbed by the House majority, including Swalwell.
I wrote at the time that these people were also undeniably disrespectful of Congress.
But such defiance is now seen as justified and somewhat forgivable by figures like New York Rep. Dan Goldman, who routinely chooses political interests over corporate ones.
The challenge could result in the couple being charged with criminal charges and prosecutions similar to those under the Biden administration.
In 2021, Hillary Clinton mocked Bannon’s claim of contempt of Congress, saying he planned to spend a “relaxing” weekend as he prepares for possible sentencing.
It’s an ironic moment. The Clintons adopt the Bannon strategy that led to his conviction.
I noted that all Bannon had to do when he was indicted was to come forward and exercise his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In that case the Committee would have to make an immunity decision to compel any testimony. The worst thing you can do is not be seen.
That’s exactly what the Clintons just did.
In fact, I expect Clinton to not lose any sleep over the possibility of criminal charges, either. They spent their careers avoiding such prosecutions. Of course, this is a Republican-controlled House and a Republican administration.
CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS
The most striking thing is the lack of an effort to develop an understandable defense. The Clintons clearly chose to defy. There is nothing more justified and privileged than this letter for those who condemn the two-stage justice system. Such rules don’t apply to the Clintons, who think they have the power to decide when to show up.
They are wrong and, like Bannon, have left themselves with no valid legal defense. They simply assert a kind of de facto Clinton immunity that would leave even a sympathetic federal district court judge without any real alternative to trial. David Kendall is an experienced lawyer and will perhaps present a legal defense that I have overlooked. For now, I’m confused by the legal strategy. In fact, I don’t see a clear legal strategy for effectively saying “we don’t want to do this.”
CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION
They appear to be repeating the same move Bill Clinton made on the Lewinsky affair: “I ask you to step away from the spectacle of the last seven months, repair the fabric of our national discourse, and turn our attention to all the challenges and all the promises of the next American century.
This method worked, even though a federal judge found Clinton had lied under oath. The problem is that a defendant like Clinton can always argue in a perjury trial that “it depends on what the word ‘is’ means.” It doesn’t depend on what the word “witness” means in this case. Whatever the meaning, showing up is a critical element. It’s hard to claim you weren’t insulting when you make your disrespect for the committee your defense.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY
