Yesterday, a curious thing happened in a House Committee.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were actually held accountable for flouting the law — at least as a preliminary matter. In the House Oversight Committee, Democrats joined Republicans in approving contempt resolutions against the two political figures after they refused to appear to answer questions about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
The House panel voted 34-8 to advance the resolution on Bill Clinton to a floor vote. It voted 28-15 to advance a resolution on Hillary Clinton.
As previously discussed, the Clintons adopted a position that was devoid of any cognizable legal defense. It was simple hubris, telling Congress that they did not want to appear to be saying that congressional subpoenas are discretionary for them.
From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions. Courts can find perjury and prosecutors can find classified material without a criminal charge. Evidence can suddenly surface after investigations, or thousands of emails can be destroyed without any repercussions.
After that history, it is little surprise that the Clintons would believe that they, unlike other Americans, can choose whether to comply with a subpoena. After standing in flagrant contempt, the Clintons only reaffirmed the sense of entitlement by offering to allow an interview in New York without a transcript. There would be no “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments.
It is a demonstration of our partisan times that the mere fact that Democrats joined in the motion came as a surprise to many. Nine Democrats voted with their GOP colleagues against the Clintons
What is disgraceful are those Democrats who dispensed with any institutional or ethical obligations in opposing the resolution.
Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee:
Wesley Bell (D., Mo.)
Shontel Brown (D., Oh)
Robert Garcia (D., Cal.)
Ro Khanna (D., Cal.)
Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)
Suhas Subramanyam (D., Va.)
James Walkinsaw (D., Va.)
Then there are the two Democrats who voted “present” rather than take responsibility by making an actual decision: Reps. David Min (D., Cal.) and Yassamin Ansari (D., Wash.).
That is the “profile of courage” for some members: voting that “I’m here” without taking a position on open contempt for the Committee.
Figures like Ro Khanna have long portrayed themselves as more moderate voices, but appear to be yielding to the far left, including his recent support for the disastrous wealth tax in California.
Now he is effectively saying that congressional subpoenas simply do not apply to the Clintons like they would every other American.
The three Democrats who voted to advance the resolution against Hillary Clinton are Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, according to Politico.
Two Democrats voted “present” for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution: California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari, while just Min voted “present” on the Hillary Clinton resolution.
This vote was the true test of courage for House members. There has to be something that is not entirely dispensable in the face of political advantage.
Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons, respect such subpoenas.
For a party that runs on fighting the privileged and entitled wealthy class, this vote is comically ironic. They are supporting the claim of the Clintons that they get to decide when they will be subject to legal demands without offering any even remotely plausible legal defenses.
Loading recommendations...