Will they face criminal proceedings?

Hillary Clinton defied a congressional subpoena on January 14 when she refused to appear before the House Oversight Committee to testify in its Jeffrey Epstein probe. The loud chorus of Americans demanding an investigation of Epstein’s activities has been notably bipartisan, yet the Clintons claim the effort to solicit their testimony is a partisan ploy. However, the subpoenas for both the former president and his first lady were issued by a bipartisan vote, and Epstein was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. The question now is whether Hillary or Bill will face consequences for their refusals to participate.

Attorneys often issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify in court. They are “officers of the court” and are subject to ethics rules and other careful restrictions to ensure they do not abuse this process. If a witness doesn’t show up to a deposition or court hearing, the lawyer issuing the subpoena can’t arrest them, but must file a motion asking the court to compel appearance. If the recipient still fails to comply, the court can find them in contempt and pursue criminal charges. The Congressional procedure is similar but differs somewhat from court subpoenas.

Bill and Hillary vs Congress

A congressional committee issued the subpoena against Hillary. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer indicated he will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings in response, which requires a vote by the relevant congressional committee, followed by a full House vote. If Comer’s effort succeeds, the case will then be submitted to the Department of Justice for possible referral to a federal court for prosecution. This process was displayed to the American public in the prosecution and conviction of Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress following their refusal to testify about the Capitol protests on January 6, 2021.

The logic of the Clintons’ refusal to testify (Bill skipped his scheduled appearance before the committee on January 13) about something as high-profile as Jeffrey Epstein’s activities is hard to plumb. If, as they both claim, they have nothing to offer the committee, it would make sense to show up and say so. Their refusal to attend suggests they have something to hide, and their pretense of partisan motives does not comport with the bipartisanship of both public opinion and the issuance of the subpoenas. Perhaps Hillary just views answering questions to “We the People” as deplorable.

Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!

The January 6 investigation was blatantly partisan. The current Epstein inquiry was strongly driven by Democratic claims that Donald Trump has been hiding his Epstein connections. Pictures of Bill Clinton cavorting with young women at Epstein gatherings subsequently made the rounds. This is hardly a good look for a president disgraced by his sexual liaisons in the Oval Office.

Hillary likely erased any emails she possessed related to Democrat political donor Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, and there will be no accountability for that destruction of evidence, if it occurred. Now that she has been asked to testify, the former first lady and Secretary of State plays a Sergeant Schultz, claiming “I know nothing! I see nothing!”

In a letter objecting to her having to answer questions, she and Bill reportedly 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.” In the current political climate, telling Congress what one knows about Jeffrey Epstein hardly seems like a big ask; dramatically refusing to do so as some sort of liberty-defending hill to die on is hardly the stuff of Nathan Hale or Martin Luther King, Jr.

The legal posture of the two Clintons differs. Bill may avail himself of strong presidential immunity protections, recently bolstered by the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States. Hillary does not enjoy the same degree of legal insulation.

The face-off is a lose-lose proposition for the Clintons that may not resonate with voters who are unimpressed that refusing to answer questions in such a high-profile matter is a battle for liberty and freedom. It smacks more of an elitist refusal to adhere to the laws that apply to everyone else. Hillary is ironically on record proclaiming, “Showing up is not all of life – but it counts for a lot.” Refusing to answer simple questions while pretending to be a political victim doesn’t count for much.

Thank you! Your subscription has been successful. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. The outcome of the dispute may hinge on whether Bill or Hillary has a credible justification for refusing to answer questions. Congressman Comer has stated that neither is under investigation for criminal conduct related to Epstein’s behavior, and neither has invoked the Fifth Amendment, which would further incriminate them.

But through legal counsel, their objections are somewhat obtuse. Bill Clinton’s lawyers wrote in a letter to Comer that the congressional subpoenas were “invalid and legally unenforceable, untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers.” The letter also compared Comer’s Epstein probe to Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt.

Such claims strike a note of extreme hyperbole. Following a specific act of Congress directing an investigation into the Epstein affair, Comer’s questioning seems closely tethered to a valid legislative process. The Clintons claim they don’t know anything, but the law does not allow citizens to refuse to answer questions under oath by testifying indirectly through the shield of legal counsel. If Hillary has nothing to keep secret, a brief visit to Congress would permit her to say so defiantly. Hiding behind legal counsel to avoid legitimate investigatory processes is not available to anyone. “No one is above the law,” to quote Mrs. Clinton’s comments regarding President Trump’s classified documents case in 2022.

It may be that the Oversight Committee requests that President Trump also testify. Perhaps attorneys Bill and Hillary will then come to the president’s defense and object to such an “unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers.” Let’s not hold our breath.

Dig Deeper Into the Themes Discussed in This Article!

Liberty Vault: The Constitution of the United States

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.