More than a month has passed since the legally mandated deadline for the Justice Department to release all its files related to Jeffrey Epstein, but only a tiny portion has been made public. When the executive branch is in such clear violation of the law, calling that out is a job for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the watchdog of Congress. So naturally, the committee is going after…Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Rep. James Comer of Kentucky has written a vivid new chapter in the annals of congressional buffoonery.
No one really expected the Oversight Committee in a Republican Congress to do any meaningful oversight of the Trump administration. But this incarnation, led by Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, has written a vivid new chapter in the annals of congressional buffoonery. While the Clintons have been fighting with the committee over whether they will give a deposition in the matter of the late convicted sex offender, they should reconsider their position. Rather than resisting the subpoena as they have been, they should appear for questioning — and demand that it be done in public. Then they’ll have the chance to expose the Republicans for who they are: a party that isn’t as interested in finding out more about Epstein’s crimes as they are doing Trump’s bidding and haranguing his political adversaries.
Comer’s committee voted Wednesday to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress for not complying with its subpoena. To some people’s surprise, three Democrats joined all the Republicans to hold the former secretary of state in contempt, and nine Democrats did the same for the former president. As the Clintons point out, no former president has ever been compelled to testify before Congress. (A few did so voluntarily; Gerald Ford was the last, in 1983.)
Nevertheless, the Democrats who joined the Republicans were making a statement of principle, and a worthwhile one: No matter how frivolous a congressional subpoena may be, you have to honor it. You can negotiate over the terms and plead the Fifth Amendment once you get there, but you can’t just refuse.
That’s not only an important rule to maintain, it’s one Democrats have relied on. Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro served jail sentences for defying subpoenas from the select committee investigating the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021. That committee also subpoenaed Donald Trump himself, who was then a former president. He sued to quash the subpoena, and the committee, made up mostly of Democrats, withdrew it when its work neared an end.
The Clintons’ position, outlined in lengthy communications from their lawyers, is that the subpoenas are “invalid and legally unenforceable” and meant solely to embarrass them. The latter is unquestionably true; the former would have to be tested in court. The Clintons also note that they have already sent the committee a great deal of information that should answer whatever questions the committee has.
The facts, insofar as we know them, suggest that Bill Clinton was friendly with Epstein for a time but not nearly as close to him as Trump was. Clinton flew multiple times on Epstein’s private plane in 2002 and 2003, but he insists he knew nothing about Epstein’s crimes until Epstein was arrested many years later. Hillary Clinton says she doesn’t recall ever speaking to Epstein.
The facts suggest that Bill Clinton was friendly with Epstein for a time but not nearly as close to him as Trump was.
Is there more to this aspect of the Epstein story? Perhaps. But unless the Republicans are sitting on some bombshell information they’re waiting to spring in a deposition, it seems unlikely that testifying would be all that embarrassing for either of the Clintons. In fact, it’s likely that the main result of such an event — especially if the Clintons were to insist that the video be immediately released to the public, or that it be conducted as a hearing rather than a private deposition — would be that the Republicans are left embarrassed.
Keep in mind who sits on the Oversight Committee. Many of the biggest nincompoops in the GOP caucus are there, including Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Clay Higgins of Louisiana, lawmakers who often make headlines for their shocking and nonsensical outbursts but rarely for crafting thoughtful legislation. In a caucus not known for high intellectual or moral standards, these are the dregs. That especially applies to Comer, the chair. When Republicans took back the House in the 2022 elections, Comer vowed that President Joe Biden’s son Hunter would be a top priority for the committee, so fervently committed was he to rooting out the slightest possibility that the president or his family might use an official position for private gain. Needless to say, when Trump took office a year ago, Comer performed a factory reset of his radar for official corruption; the mind-boggling scale of the president’s self-dealing has not aroused his interest. In the interim, he repeatedly beclowned himself with breathless allegations about the Bidens, which inevitably fell apart. Even Fox News got frustrated with his inability to back up his wild claims that the Biden scandals would make “Watergate look like jaywalking.” Something tells me that in a high-profile public forum, the Clintons can get the better of Comer and his team of misfits. It might be a perfect opportunity to show voters that Republicans are trying to cover for Trump and his own relationship with Epstein, that the real story lies in all those files’ release, which the administration is slow-walking. So they should give up the fight over the subpoenas and insist on testifying in public, for all to see.
Paul Waldman is a journalist and author focused on politics and culture. 
