I have a bit of a question. About a week ago I asked why Bill and Hillary couldn't just

[Maraya1969]

say they would not testify until the full Epstein files were released as, (my words) suppression of evidence is illegal and unfair to any witness.

Now I just listened to part of testimony that enlightened me that they were both held in contempt of congress already and the r's are trying to get them in before the time is up for that.

I am obviously not a lawyer so please bear with me. If Bill testifies what is stopping him from implicating Trump during his testimony? This has had to be done at other Rico type trials in the past right? sofahide:

[usonian]

1. IANAL, but my guess is that the Clintons' case is based on suppressing evidence which would clear them.

IMO, that would require every bit of evidence. Otherwise, the defense is hindered by withheld evidence.

I do suspect that Bill had no knowledge of the sex, blackmail and money laundering operation, nor its “silent” partner.

Anyone who did had a moral obligation to report it. Long ago.

Some people have no morals.

[AZJonnie]

2. Basically some common "legal stuff" doesn't applies when you're compelled to testify before Congress

In an informational sort of purview. You can be compelled via subpoena, you can plead the 5th and things of that nature, but this is not a RICO case, the Clinton's don't have a 'right' legally to say they won't show up until the Epstein files are released, that would be not be considered an acceptable reason to defy the subpoena.

Also, IIRC B&C did raise the matter of the (lack of the full) release of the Epstein docs, but that is effectively just words. And witnesses don't have a right to "know all the evidence". If congress were trying to accuse them criminally, that would be different (they'd have rights to the prosecutions case/evidence) but they're just witnesses.

What they actually tried to avoid testifying was argue the subpoena is defective/not justified because they already answered the Committees questions for them in writing.

From the BBC:

In response, the committee voted to hold them in contempt of Congress; the full House will now decide whether to adopt that and refer it to DOJ, which then chooses whether to prosecute contempt (a misdemeanor with potential fines and up to a year in jail, though historically prosecutions are rare)

And just so you know, they're part of a group that's being called to testify. Its funny the commonality amongst the people who are being compelled here.

AI list, full disclosure:

Bill Clinton *Central foil in GOP/Epstein narrative; Trump has attacked him over Epstein ties and impeachment era.
Hillary Clinton *Long‑standing Trump nemesis; “lock her up” rallies, 2016 opponent, constant target.
Eric Holder *Frequent Trump critic; Trump and allies paint him as Obama’s “weaponized” AG.
Loretta Lynch *Tied to “tarmac meeting”/Clinton email saga; conservative media staple as symbol of politicized DOJ.
James Comey *Fired by Trump; Trump calls him a “dirty cop,” “leaker,” “liar” over Russia probe.
Robert Mueller *Led special counsel investigation; Trump relentlessly attacked him and the probe as a “witch hunt.”
Merrick Garland *Overseer of Trump‑related prosecutions; Trump and allies cast him as the face of “Biden DOJ” persecution.
William Barr *Former ally turned critic; Barr has publicly said Trump is unfit and likely broke the law, which enrages Trump.
Jeff Sessions *First AG; Trump publicly humiliated him over recusal, still derides him as weak and disloyal.
Alberto Gonzales *Republican who has said justice should “prevail” in Trump cases and endorsed Harris over Trump

[Johonny]

9. The whole thing looks bad

The others were excused from in person testimony, and the Clinton's appear to have been negotiating in good faith to get them answers to any question. The whole thing smells of political witch hunt. And none of it gets to the heart of the Epstein case.

[Vinca]

3. I've always thought they should testify and take the 5th and add that it's in order to protect the current president.

[Maraya1969]

6. I like that!

[Tommy Carcetti]

4. How would Bill implicate Trump?

Yes, they both knew Epstein to some degree (as did many people), but that’s about it.

There’s been no evidence that Bill’s relationship with Epstein went beyond a professional level. Unlike Trump’s.

[Maraya1969]

7. idk He could mention that people talked about how frequent a guest Trump was

at any functions Epstein held or he could talk about how other people told him so.

[EdmondDantes_]

11. That's a stretch that wouldn't implicate Trump

Being a guest at a public party isn't a connection to sex crimes. That's literally what Republicans are trying to imply about Bill Clinton and nobody here is buying that connection about Bill Clinton.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. I can't imagine that swing district representatives want anything to do with this vote

The commercials write themselves: While health insurance rates spiraled out of control, Rep ‐---- took immediate action and...voted to hold Bill and Hilary Clinton in contempt of congress...

[Greybnk48]

8. Isn't little Gym Jorden STILL in contempt of court?

How is he able to be in Congress and sit on committees as a scoff-law?

[Jbraybarten]

10. I thought it was a tactic to get it to court which would force discovery (all files necessary) instead of the GOP's...

planned attack which would have them off camera so that the GOP would then selectively leak what they wanted.

[Emile]

12. Release all the files, and we'll testify. It's not

that hard for them to say that.

[MagickMuffin]

13. My understanding the Clinton's will not testify behind closed doors, will do so publicly

Now for the contempt charge. If the Congressional committee submits it to the DOJ, the DOJ ... WILL have to release the Epstein files redacted for the discovery phase, with no redactions.