NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
It all started back in the summer. A furor erupted over releasing the Epstein files.
The House began its summer vacation a day early. That halted spending bills. Congressional Republican leaders were concerned that bipartisan lawmakers wanted to attach provisions to the measures to compel release of the Epstein files.
But there was a weird détente — if you can call it that — on the House Oversight Committee.
COMER RIPS ‘PAID DISRUPTER’ AS BRIEFING ON CLINTON CONTEMPT PUSH DEVOLVES INTO CHAOS
On what turned out to be the final day for the House before the lengthy “August recess,” which consumed lots of July, all of August and some of September, the Oversight Committee conducted a hearing on international trafficking.
Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., popped a surprise on the committee. She engineered a plan to subpoena the Epstein files.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., countered Lee’s effort. He concocted an amendment to subpoena former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with other luminaries who may have some information about the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and the sexual abuse of underage girls in 2005. Epstein later secured what critics termed a “sweetheart deal,” by then U.S. Attorney and future Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. Among those Perry wanted to hear from in depositions were former Attorneys General Merrick Garland, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales. Perry also asked to hear from former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller.
That’s quite a list.
Most never came in for interviews. Some simply had communication with the committee that they had no knowledge of Epstein or the original prosecution.
HILLARY CLINTON EXPECTED TO DEFY EPSTEIN PROBE SUBPOENA, RISKING CRIMINAL CHARGES
But the Clintons were another matter.
Particularly former President Bill Clinton.
Firstly, he’s a former president. Secondly, he traveled periodically with Epstein and was documented in photographs together. Third, the former president has a lot of baggage after his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
The Clintons were supposed to meet with House Oversight Committee investigators in October. But that was moved until mid-December. The couple then begged off because of a funeral. The Oversight Committee assigned the duo separate dates in mid-January. Both failed to materialize. So House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., threatened them with contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena.
“It always seems that the Democrat Party has rules for thee, not for me,” said Rep. John McGuire, R-Va. “But we have oversight and we have subpoena power. And we can put a case and give it to the DOJ and let them prosecute. They need to hold them accountable.”
Of course, Democrats screeched that former Trump advisors Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro didn’t comply with subpoenas from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The House then voted to hold Bannon and Navarro in contempt of Congress.
“What do you suppose ol’ Steve Bannon has to say about contempt of Congress? They either need to show up or go to jail,” said Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis. They’re like extra super special people? Hell no they’re not. They’re American citizens. We are a country of laws. They break the law. They go to jail. I don’t care who it is.”
CLINTON SPOKESMAN LASHES OUT AT COMER OVER EPSTEIN PROBE AS CONTEMPT VOTE NEARS
In 2022, the same Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., along with Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Perry and former Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., for depositions about the riot. All refused to comply with the subpoena because they were members of Congress. The Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause inoculates lawmakers from having to fulfill such demands. Moreover, it was argued that the House could always refer them to the Ethics Committee for not adhering to a congressional mandate. The Constitution stipulates that the House can discipline its members and establish codes of conduct.
Those lawmakers argued that the Jan. 6 committee wasn’t valid because former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vetoed McCarthy’s picks for the panel: Jordan and Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., who served in the House at the time.
So the Oversight Committee voted to hold both the former president and former Secretary of State in contempt of Congress. There were two extraordinary votes.
“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” said Comer. “He is not above the law.”
Nine Democrats voted alongside all Republicans to hold the former Democratic president in contempt.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., was among them.
“I’m just focused on survivors,” said Pressley. “We want to hear from anyone who has information. And that should not be limited to party lines.”
Lee joined her.
“I do believe that our subpoena is legally binding,” said Lee. “I did not feel like I could let one off.”
A contempt citation must go before the entire House. If the House approves it, the body makes a criminal referral to the Department of Justice for prosecution. That’s what happened with Bannon and Navarro. But some Democrats predict that potentially prosecuting a former President will backfire.
“If we launch criminal contempt proceedings, we will not hear from the Clintons. That is a fact. It’ll be tied up in court,” said Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif.
‘THE VIEW’ HOSTS CALL ON CLINTONS TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA, TESTIFY ON EPSTEIN
The Clintons may have ducked multiple depositions as part of the Epstein probe. But Comer doesn’t think they can skip out forever. Especially since the House likely has the votes — on a bipartisan basis — to refer them to DOJ for prosecution.
“I think the Clintons probably are thinking more about how they can get out of this today than they were for the last five months, because the court of public opinion is not on the Clintons’ side,” said Comer.
Of course, there are legal issues about prosecuting a president. And even a former president.
But some Democrats believe all the focus on the Clintons is an effort to divert attention from releasing all Epstein documents.
“It’s about protecting one man: Donald J. Trump,” said Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va.
And since the documents aren’t out, some Democrats believe the committee should target someone else. And no. It’s not Trump.
“The only person who should be held in contempt right now is [Attorney General] Pam Bondi. We need to be releasing these files,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.
But at least one Democrat casts a broader net.
“We should hold everybody in contempt that had anything to do to cover this up,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. “All I needed to do is hear the survivors tell us, ‘Please, do something.’ These are people that have impacted their lives forever.”
Comer broke news that the committee will hold a virtual deposition with Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell on Feb. 9. Any member of the committee can ask questions. And Comer also announced that the House Judiciary Committee will hear from Bondi in mid-February, too. Expect the Epstein issue to be prominent there as well.
The calendar is now pressing up against February. And even though it’s the dead of winter, Congress is still wrestling with the same issue that sidetracked things last July.
Read the full article here
