Clintons decline to testify in congressional Epstein probe, Comer to pursue contempt charges

[excalibur]

Once again, above the law.

Where is the left demanding the Clinton's anwer questions under oath about Epstein? Yeah, right.

After the Clintons on Tuesday refused to testify in the House Oversight Committee's probe into late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, committee Chairman James Comer said he would pursue contempt charges.

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a letter posted on X that they do not plan to appear for their scheduled depositions this week.

“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,” the Clintons wrote in an 8-page letter. “For us, now is that time.”

The Clintons’ lawyers also sent Comer a letter confirming they are challenging the legality of the subpoenas, Fox News reported.

"[T]he Subpoenas issued to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable. Mindful of these defects, we trust you will engage in good faith to de-escalate this dispute," reads the letter.

Comer said Tuesday morning, "We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress."​

Clintons decline to testify in congressional Epstein probe, Comer to pursue contempt charges

“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,” the Clintons wrote

justthenews.com

 

[Blaster]

Haha

 

[Rawley]

Once again, above the law.

Where is the left demanding the Clinton's anwer questions under oath about Epstein? Yeah, right.

​

​

After the Clintons on Tuesday refused to testify in the House Oversight Committee's probe into late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, committee Chairman James Comer said he would pursue contempt charges.​

​

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a letter posted on X that they do not plan to appear for their scheduled depositions this week.​

​

“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,” the Clintons wrote in an 8-page letter. “For us, now is that time.”​

​

The Clintons’ lawyers also sent Comer a letter confirming they are challenging the legality of the subpoenas, Fox News reported.​

​

"[T]he Subpoenas issued to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable. Mindful of these defects, we trust you will engage in good faith to de-escalate this dispute," reads the letter.​

​

Comer said Tuesday morning, "We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress."​

Clintons decline to testify in congressional Epstein probe, Comer to pursue contempt charges

“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,” the Clintons wrote

justthenews.com

Eight page letter in reply? Damn, that's a lot of squirming.

 

[sparky]

to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress."

is that a legal term?

~S~

 

[EMH]

Just wait until Pam Bondi gets on Fox News... and .... ... ... nothing happens to the Clintons....

 

[LeftofLeft]

If I were the Clintons, I’d do the same thing. The same media that repeatedly calls Trump a rapist over one woman’s disproven claim will admonish and smear the credibility of multiple women’s claims that Bill Clinton raped or assaulted them.

With that kind of sway and power over a complicit media, wouldn’t you do the same?

 

[excalibur]

And just like that, Epstein no longer matters.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Once again, above the law.

Where is the left demanding the Clinton's anwer questions under oath about Epstein? Yeah, right.

​

​

After the Clintons on Tuesday refused to testify in the House Oversight Committee's probe into late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, committee Chairman James Comer said he would pursue contempt charges.​

​

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a letter posted on X that they do not plan to appear for their scheduled depositions this week.​

​

“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,” the Clintons wrote in an 8-page letter. “For us, now is that time.”​

​

The Clintons’ lawyers also sent Comer a letter confirming they are challenging the legality of the subpoenas, Fox News reported.​

​

"[T]he Subpoenas issued to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable. Mindful of these defects, we trust you will engage in good faith to de-escalate this dispute," reads the letter.​

​

Comer said Tuesday morning, "We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress."​

Clintons decline to testify in congressional Epstein probe, Comer to pursue contempt charges

“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,” the Clintons wrote

justthenews.com

They "declined"?

I didnt realize it was optional

 

[White 6]

is that a legal term?

~S~

Must Someone Comply With a Congressional Subpoena ?​

Yes. If a congressional subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose, a party must generally comply with it.
The Court also affirmed that parties are legally obligated to comply with them unless they have a valid legal reason not to.

This might include:

• Privilege: Executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege
• Fifth Amendment: Constitutional right against self-incrimination
• Invalid subpoena: Lack of legislative purpose, too broad, unduly burdensome

Is there a valid legislative purpose? Questionable
Could they claim 5th Amendment? Possibly
Has either one had Executive Privilege? Yes and the Supremes have so muddied the waters on Executive privilege, damn near anything might qualify and it extend not just to current President but future and past presidents.

What Happens If Someone Fails To Comply With a Congressional Subpoena?​

Congress has three main contempt resolution methods: criminal, civil, and inherent. It can use them to respond if someone refuses to comply with a subpoena. It may also use them for contempt acts that otherwise obstruct Congress’ legislative function.

Criminal Contempt of Congress​

The first option is for Congress to recommend criminal charges under a federal contempt statute.


This requires the full House or Senate to hold contempt proceedings. If either house decides by a majority vote to hold the person in contempt, it issues a contempt citation. The case then goes to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who’s a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


The citation itself has no legal consequences unless the DOJ decides to prosecute. The DOJ is part of the executive branch, and it rarely prosecutes these referrals.


In 2014, the Republican-led House held Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress. Lerner had refused to testify before a House committee about the agency’s targeting of conservative political groups. After she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, the DOJ declined to prosecute her.

I would be surprised, if they end up testifying any sooner than Donald Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

If I were the Clintons, I’d do the same thing. The same media that repeatedly calls Trump a rapist over one woman’s disproven claim will admonish and smear the credibility of multiple women’s claims that Bill Clinton raped or assaulted them.

With that kind of sway and power over a complicit media, wouldn’t you do the same?

Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars trying to prove Bill Clinton raped someone, and came up with he just lied about a consensual blow job.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars trying to prove Bill Clinton raped someone, and came up with he just lied about a consensual blow job.

Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars trying to prove Bill Clinton raped someone, and came up with he just lied about a consensual blow job.

Starr spent $70M to prove Clinton lied under oath where the topic was a consensual blow job. Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley.

 

[sparky]

View attachment 1205518

Must Someone Comply With a Congressional Subpoena ?​

Yes. If a congressional subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose, a party must generally comply with it.
The Court also affirmed that parties are legally obligated to comply with them unless they have a valid legal reason not to.

This might include:

• Privilege: Executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege
• Fifth Amendment: Constitutional right against self-incrimination
• Invalid subpoena: Lack of legislative purpose, too broad, unduly burdensome

Is there a valid legislative purpose? Questionable
Could they claim 5th Amendment? Possibly
Has either one had Executive Privilege? Yes and the Supremes have so muddied the waters on Executive privilege, damn near anything might qualify and it extend not just to current President but future and past presidents.

What Happens If Someone Fails To Comply With a Congressional Subpoena?​

Congress has three main contempt resolution methods: criminal, civil, and inherent. It can use them to respond if someone refuses to comply with a subpoena. It may also use them for contempt acts that otherwise obstruct Congress’ legislative function.

Criminal Contempt of Congress​

The first option is for Congress to recommend criminal charges under a federal contempt statute.


This requires the full House or Senate to hold contempt proceedings. If either house decides by a majority vote to hold the person in contempt, it issues a contempt citation. The case then goes to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who’s a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


The citation itself has no legal consequences unless the DOJ decides to prosecute. The DOJ is part of the executive branch, and it rarely prosecutes these referrals.


In 2014, the Republican-led House held Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress. Lerner had refused to testify before a House committee about the agency’s targeting of conservative political groups. After she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, the DOJ declined to prosecute her.

I would be surprised, if they end up testifying any sooner than Donald Trump.

holy bureaucracy W6! ~S~

 

[White 6]

holy bureaucracy W6! ~S~

Sorry Robin. I did not mean to disturb you, simply showing what my superior Bat vision revealed upon examining the question.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

is that a legal term?

~S~

Yes.

 

[JGalt]

And just like that, Epstein no longer matters.

Drive baby drive.

 

[Darkwind]

is that a legal term?

~S~

Is "Contempt of Congress" a Legal Term?​

Yes, "contempt of Congress" is a well-established legal term with both statutory and constitutional foundations.legal-resources.uslegalforms+2

Contempt of Congress refers to the act of obstructing the work of Congress or one of its committees, most commonly through refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena. It is a misdemeanor offense that can result in criminal charges.wikipedia+1

Legal Foundation​

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress contempt powers, the Supreme Court has ruled that such powers are implied as essential to legislative function. In the 1917 case Marshall v. Gordon, the Court stated that Congress possesses "power implied to deal with contempt insofar as that authority was necessary to preserve and carry out the legislative authority given."law.cornell

Congress has statutorily codified this power. Under 2 U.S.C. § 192, any person summoned before Congress who willfully refuses to answer pertinent questions faces federal criminal penalties. Conviction can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and up to one year in imprisonment.abcnews.go+2

Modern Application​

The contempt power is employed to address three main situations: refusal to testify before Congress, failure to produce requested documents, or obstruction of a congressional investigation. Congress has held numerous Cabinet officials, advisers, and other individuals in contempt of Congress in recent years, including Attorney General William Barr (2019), Peter Navarro (2022), and Steve Bannon (2022).usnews+1

Bannon was notably convicted on criminal contempt of Congress charges in 2022 for defying a subpoena to the January 6 House select committee, resulting in a four-month prison sentence.levin-center

1. Contempt of Congress: Understanding Its Legal Definition | US Legal Forms
2. contempt of Congress
3. Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
4. After Bill Clinton fails to testify in Epstein probe, Chairman Comer announces intent to move ahead with contempt of Congress proceedings
5. 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers
6. https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...s-contempt-of-congress-and-why-does-it-matter
7. https://levin-center.org/bannon-contempt-of-congress-indictment/
8. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-houses-contempt-powers-explained
9. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htm
10. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-752-general-definition-contempt
11. https://camden.rutgers.edu/news/criminal-contempt-congress-explained
12. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/what-is-contempt-of-congress-trnd
13. https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/contempt-power-federal-courts
14. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10974

 

[odanny]

 

[Zincwarrior]

Once again, above the law.

Where is the left demanding the Clinton's anwer questions under oath about Epstein? Yeah, right.

​

​

After the Clintons on Tuesday refused to testify in the House Oversight Committee's probe into late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, committee Chairman James Comer said he would pursue contempt charges.​

​

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a letter posted on X that they do not plan to appear for their scheduled depositions this week.​

​

“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,” the Clintons wrote in an 8-page letter. “For us, now is that time.”​

​

The Clintons’ lawyers also sent Comer a letter confirming they are challenging the legality of the subpoenas, Fox News reported.​

​

"[T]he Subpoenas issued to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable. Mindful of these defects, we trust you will engage in good faith to de-escalate this dispute," reads the letter.​

​

Comer said Tuesday morning, "We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress."​

Clintons decline to testify in congressional Epstein probe, Comer to pursue contempt charges

“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,” the Clintons wrote

justthenews.com

They will testify right after Gym Jordan.

 

[Independent thinker]

Once again, above the law.

Where is the left demanding the Clinton's anwer questions under oath about Epstein? Yeah, right.

​

​

After the Clintons on Tuesday refused to testify in the House Oversight Committee's probe into late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, committee Chairman James Comer said he would pursue contempt charges.​

​

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a letter posted on X that they do not plan to appear for their scheduled depositions this week.​

​

“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,” the Clintons wrote in an 8-page letter. “For us, now is that time.”​

​

The Clintons’ lawyers also sent Comer a letter confirming they are challenging the legality of the subpoenas, Fox News reported.​

​

"[T]he Subpoenas issued to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable. Mindful of these defects, we trust you will engage in good faith to de-escalate this dispute," reads the letter.​

​

Comer said Tuesday morning, "We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress."​

Clintons decline to testify in congressional Epstein probe, Comer to pursue contempt charges

“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,” the Clintons wrote

justthenews.com

I had planned on making a thread on this topic, something like Bill Clinton saying all Epstein files should be made public (in order to attack Trump) but Hillary and I refuse to testify. Didn't they put Steve Bannon in jail for refusing to honor a subpoena? Will there be a one tiered justice system regarding refusing a Congressional subpoena, or will it be a two tiered justice system?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I think Clinton(s) would have been better off, pleading the 5th than to refuse to show up in the first place. And of all the chaos from every direction, they pick THIS to 'fight for the country'. . Bullshit