NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
Woody Allen said, “80% of success in life is self-motivated.” When it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton and the possible impeachment of congress, it could be 100%. Both politicians decided to refuse the formal summons issued by the House. For the House Oversight Committee, now is also hearing time.
Chairman James Comer and the House Oversight Committee are investigating the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and subpoenaing the Clintons to testify. No one is accused of criminal conduct.
The Clintons failed to appear and, instead, issued a scathing letter, saying:
“Everyone must decide when they have seen enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter what the results will be. For us, now is the time.”
NEW EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS INCLUDE PHOTOS OF BILL CLINTON TOPLESS IN HOT TUB, MEDITATION WITH MICHAEL JACKSON
The Committee may agree that “now is the time” and the results are the beginning of contempt proceedings.
On August 5, 2025, the Committee approved the summons. Former President Clinton’s inauguration was originally scheduled for October 14, 2025. It was then moved to December 17, 2025.
In December, Comer postponed the unveiling a second time to allow the Clintons to attend the funeral. However, he said their counsel, David Kendall, refused to give any more dates.
EPSTEIN’S DEADLINE ILLUMINATED CHALLENGE TO REVIEW MAJOR FILES IN 30 DAYS
The vote to issue the subpoena was taken in an unusually bipartisan fashion by the often divided Committee. Even the Democratic members of the Oversight Committee, such as Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the Clintons must comply.
There was a time when subpoenas were considered little more than discretionary matters. Counsel emphasized that the evidence was unnecessary and a distraction. However, that is not a reason any court would consider as a reason to willfully and repeatedly ignore a validly issued subpoena.
Clinton’s position seems to be a repeat of Hunter Biden’s defiance, who chose to hold a press conference outside Congress rather than appear inside where he will state his position. He was associated with members of the Democratic Alliance such as Eric Swalwell.
COMER SLAMS ‘PAID BULLSHITTER’ AS TESTIFIED CLINTON CONTEMPT PUSH DEVIATES FROM CONTINUITY
At one time, Democrats were surprised by those who would defy the summons of Congress.
President Joe Biden has emphasized that defying subpoenas will not be tolerated. When subpoenas were issued to Republicans during a House investigation on January 6, Biden said: “I hope the committee will go after them and hold them accountable for their crimes.”
Two of Trump’s allies – Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro – refused to appear in the House and were quickly scorned by the majority of the House, including Swalwell.
I wrote then that these people undeniably despised the Congress.
Now, however, such defiance is considered fair and in some ways justified by figures like New York Representative Dan Goldman, who has always chosen politics over institutional interests.
Defiance could lead to criminal charges against the couple, prosecutions similar to those under the Biden administration.
In 2021, Hillary Clinton mocked Bannon’s contempt of Congress charge by saying he planned a “serious” weekend as he prepared to be sentenced.
It’s a strange time. The Clintons embraced the Bannon strategy that led to his conviction.
During Bannon’s impeachment, I noted that all he had to do was show up and invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Then the Committee would have to issue a subpoena to compel any evidence. The worst thing you can do is not be seen.
That’s exactly what the Clintons just did.
In fact, I expect that Clinton is not losing sleep over the criminal case. They used their work to escape such persecution. Of course, this is a Republican-controlled House and a Republican administration.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS
Most striking is the lack of any attempt to come up with a visible defense. The Clintons simply chose open defiance. For those who criticize the two-tier justice system, there is nothing more privileged and privileged than this book. Such rules do not apply to the Clintons, who feel they have a license to decide when to appear.
They are wrong and, like Bannon, have left themselves with no effective legal defense. They simply asserted the kind of Clinton immunity that would leave even a sympathetic district court judge with no alternative to a trial. David Kendall is an experienced attorney, and perhaps he will uncover legal defenses that elude me. At the moment, I’m still confused about the legal strategy. Indeed, I see no intelligible legal strategy when I say “we don’t feel that way.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
They seem to be echoing the same tone that Bill Clinton gave in the Lewinsky affair: “I am asking you to turn your back on the spectacle of the past seven months, mend the fabric of our national discourse, and return our attention to all the challenges and all the promises of America’s next century.”
Even though a federal judge found 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 word “witness” means. Regardless of the definition, presentation is a critical factor. It is hard to argue that you are not in contempt when you make your contempt for the Committee your defense.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE FROM JONATHAN TUREY
