From the Right

/

Politics

What's Good For Peter Navarro Is Good For Bill Clinton

By Rich Lowry on

The walls are closing in -- on Bill Clinton.

The former president and practiced political escape artist is on the verge of being held in contempt of Congress.

This time, the Democrat party, which stuck with him during his scandal-plagued 1992 campaign and during his 1998 impeachment, isn't rallying to him in unison.

The Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee just voted 34-8 to hold Bill Clinton in contempt for ignoring a congressional subpoena regarding the Epstein scandal, with 9 Democrats voting in favor, 8 voting against and 2 abstaining.

In other words, fascinatingly, only a minority of the committee's Democrats stood by Clinton.

The committee also voted to hold Hillary, who defied a subpoena, as well, in contempt, but by a narrower margin. Only three Democrats went along with the Republicans, a rare instance of Hillary being a better vote-getter than her husband.

The measure will now go to the full House, and is expected to pass with some Democrats defecting again to vote with Republicans. After that, the matter will be referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution. And it beggars belief that Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has tried to make much more attenuated cases against other Trump enemies, will look the other way when there's an open-and-shut case that Bill and Hillary are guilty of contempt, an offense punishable by up to a year in jail.

Ten years after Republicans routinely chanted, "Lock her up," and were thrilled by Trump telling Hillary during a debate that he'd put her in jail, they could well see a serious indictment of Hillary Clinton.

All good things, they may be tempted to think, come to those who wait.

Now, Bill Clinton claims, as is his wont, that he's the victim. He complains that the committee wouldn't take "yes" for an answer when he offered his testimony with conditions. But according to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, Clinton agreed only to speak to him and the ranking Democratic members and with no recorded transcript.

Comer, understandably, found that inadequate.

Clinton insists that the subpoena has no legislative purpose, which is supposed to be a requirement of congressional investigations -- in other words, if, say, Congress is considering regulating sports betting, it can probe betting markets, but its not supposed to try to nail people in random investigations.

 

The courts, though, have interpreted legislative purpose broadly.

So, Clinton's attempt to get out of his obligation to comply by saying, in effect, "It depends on what the meaning of 'subpoena' is," probably won't work.

There's no doubt that politics is at play here. Republicans love the idea of keeping the Epstein focus on Clinton, who was chummy with the disgraced financier, rather than Trump, also chummy with the disgraced financier. Some Democrats, meanwhile, don't want to muddle their message of transparency and accountability over Epstein by carrying water for Clinton, who is no longer important to the party.

You can argue that contempt of Congress shouldn't be used in politicized investigations to go after partisan enemies, but any such norm was breached in the Biden years when Trump allies Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon went to prison in similar subpoena fights.

You can also argue that it's a bad practice to try to prosecute and jail former presidents, but that norm, too, was cast aside in the Biden years when federal and state prosecutors made Donald Trump their White Whale.

Bill Clinton can be forgiven for having an allergy to awkward depositions. His lies about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 deposition in an unrelated sexual-harassment case led to his impeachment.

On the other hand, he's a master at evasive wording and wiggling out of difficult lines of questioning. He should simply comply with the subpoena and not flirt with a prosecution that would be expensive and time-consuming for him, at best, and put him in the impossible position of arguing for forbearance when none was shown to Navarro or Bannon.

========

(Rich Lowry is on Twitter @RichLowry)

(c) 2026 by King Features Syndicate


 

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Related Channels

Armstrong Williams

Armstrong Williams

By Armstrong Williams
Austin Bay

Austin Bay

By Austin Bay
Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro

By Ben Shapiro
Betsy McCaughey

Betsy McCaughey

By Betsy McCaughey
Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas

By Cal Thomas
David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

By David Harsanyi
Debra Saunders

Debra Saunders

By Debra Saunders
Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager

By Dennis Prager
Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

By Erick Erickson
John Stossel

John Stossel

By John Stossel
Josh Hammer

Josh Hammer

By Josh Hammer
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Laura Hollis

Laura Hollis

By Laura Hollis
Michael Barone

Michael Barone

By Michael Barone
Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

By Rachel Marsden
S.E. Cupp

S.E. Cupp

By S.E. Cupp
Salena Zito

Salena Zito

By Salena Zito
Star Parker

Star Parker

By Star Parker
Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore

By Stephen Moore
Terence P. Jeffrey

Terence P. Jeffrey

By Terence P. Jeffrey
Tim Graham

Tim Graham

By Tim Graham
Veronique de Rugy

Veronique de Rugy

By Veronique de Rugy
Victor Joecks

Victor Joecks

By Victor Joecks
Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root

By Wayne Allyn Root

Comics

Chris Britt Dave Whamond Mike Beckom Christopher Weyant Steve Kelley Monte Wolverton