On a day when Washingtons ideological battle lines usually seem immovable, two prominent members of the progressive Squad broke ranks and sided with Republicans in a move that could have serious consequences for one of the Democratic Partys most powerful dynasties.
According to Western Journal, Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan joined nine Democrats who voted with all Republicans on the House Oversight Committee to recommend holding former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena related to his ties to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee also advanced a contempt recommendation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, albeit by a narrower margin, and Tlaib again crossed over to support the GOP-led effort. The contempt referrals stem from the Clintons refusal to comply with subpoenas compelling them to sit for depositions as part of the committees investigation into Epsteins activities and his connections to powerful political figures.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton had been summoned to testify as part of the Oversight Committees broader probe into Epsteins sordid life and suspicious death, with particular focus on the former Presidents relationship with the disgraced financier. The Clintons were scheduled to appear earlier in the month but failed to do so, effectively snubbing a lawful congressional order despite their decades of experience at the highest levels of government.
Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, underscored the gravity of their refusal, stressing that Congress cannot function if subpoenas are treated as optional. The committee does not take this action lightly. Subpoenas are not mere suggestions, Comer said, according to Fox News, making clear that the panel views the Clintons conduct as a direct challenge to congressional authority.
Comer further emphasized that the legal obligation on the former first couple was unambiguous and binding, regardless of their political stature or past offices. [Subpoenas] carry the force of law and require compliance. Former President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for depositions before this committee.
Instead of appearing as ordered, the Clintons attempted to negotiate terms that would have shielded them from public scrutiny and formal record-keeping. They offered to meet privately in New York, without a transcript, a proposal that Comer dismissed as an affront to the committees constitutional role.
The chairman did not mince words in characterizing the Clintons counteroffer as emblematic of a broader pattern of entitlement and special pleading by Americas political elite. The Clintons offer to the committee to meet in private in New York with no transcript was, according to Comer, insulting.
In a formal statement, Comer argued that the couples demands revealed a belief that their family name still places them above the rules that apply to ordinary citizens and even other public officials. The Clintons latest demands make clear they believe their last name entitles them to special treatment, Comer said in a statement. The House Oversight Committee rejects the Clintons unreasonable demands and will move forward with contempt resolutions.
The committee ultimately voted 34-9 to advance a contempt recommendation against Bill Clinton and 28-15 to advance one against Hillary Clinton, with two Democrats voting present on the Presidents referral and one doing so on the former secretary of states. Those tallies reflect a notable, if limited, bipartisan willingness to enforce congressional prerogatives even against a powerful Democratic family long treated as untouchable within the party.
Among the nine Democrats who joined all 25 Republicans on the panel to move forward with contempt against Bill Clinton were some surprising names from the partys progressive wing. It is especially striking that members who routinely rail against Republican oversight efforts as partisan witch hunts were willing to support a measure that could expose a former Democratic President to criminal penalties.
Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, while not one of the original four members of the Squad, has often been associated with the groups hard-left politics and activist style. Its worth noting that, while not one of the founding four of The Squad, Rep. Lee is considered an annex to the group, having been elected in 2022. Think of her as, say, the Cousin Oliver of The Squad: She wasnt there for most of the stuff you remember about the pack of radical harridans, but she is technically there.
In addition to Lee and Tlaib, Reps. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico and several other Democrats also supported the contempt motion against Bill Clinton, signaling that at least some on the left recognize the danger of allowing high-profile figures to ignore lawful subpoenas. In a further break with party leadership, Reps. Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib also voted to advance the contempt motion against Hillary Clinton, deepening the rift between the progressive bloc and the old Clinton guard.
Not all Democrats were willing to take a clear stand, however, even on the basic question of whether Congress has the right to compel testimony from former officials. California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari voted present on Bill Clintons contempt motion, with Min also voting present on Hillarys, effectively ducking responsibility while avoiding an outright defense of the Clintons defiance.
The episode raises two central questions: what these Democrats, particularly the Squad members, hope to gain from backing contempt, and what, if anything, the Clintons testimony might actually reveal. On the latter point, it is far from clear that depositions would produce dramatic new evidence, but they would at least clarify what level of due diligence was exercised before Bill Clinton a former President with access to Secret Service and intelligence briefings agreed to travel on Epsteins infamous Lolita Express to Asia and Africa for purported philanthropic work.
Even if the hearings were held publicly on Capitol Hill or privately in New York, the odds of uncovering a smoking gun are slim, given the careful legal coaching and media savvy the Clintons have honed over decades. The more likely scenario is that their testimony would confirm what many already suspect: that Epstein, a wealthy and manipulative figure, ingratiated himself with the global elite by projecting an image of immense wealth and influence that masked a parallel life of depravity.
As the article notes, Epsteins strategy was to convince the ultra-wealthy and ultra-powerful that he was one of them, using ostentatious displays of luxury to gain access and trust. He lived a parallel life of sordid, illicit, depraved excess, which in only a few cases (hi, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor!) intersected with his wooing of the ultra-rich, ultra-powerful people that gave him an aura of invincibility.
From a political standpoint, however, the motivations of Democrats who backed contempt are easier to discern and far more cynical. By supporting the enforcement of subpoenas against the Clintons, they help legitimize similar efforts to drag President Donald Trump into Epstein-related proceedings, even though such a subpoena would almost certainly yield less substantive information than anything the Clintons might provide.
At the same time, progressives gain an opportunity to symbolically distance themselves from the Clinton machine, a relic of the partys past that many on the left view as emblematic of corruption, triangulation and globalist excess. As the piece suggests, this strategy allows them to strike at Trump, reinforce congressional authority and bury the Clinton legacy all at once three birds with one stone.
Whatever the political calculus, the legal stakes are not trivial: contempt of Congress can carry penalties of up to a $100,000 fine and a year in prison if the Justice Department chooses to prosecute and secures a conviction. For conservatives who have long argued that powerful Democrats are shielded from accountability, the committees action represents a rare moment in which the law is at least threatening to apply equally to those who once occupied the highest offices in the land.
Nine Democrats took a stand that, for once, aligned with the principle that no one not even the Clintons should be allowed to thumb their nose at a lawful subpoena. The fact that members of the Squad joined that effort is an unexpected twist, but it is nonetheless encouraging to see a measure of common sense and institutional respect emerge, however briefly, within the often hyper-partisan confines of the House Oversight Committee.
Login