Could the Clintons face real consequences for dodging congressional subpoenas?

Former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova appeared on Newsmax’s The Count on Saturday to discuss the escalating situation involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, who refused to comply with congressional subpoenas this week. House Oversight chair James Comer (R-KY) announced Wednesday that the panel would initiate contempt proceedings after Bill Clinton failed to appear for a scheduled deposition, emphasizing the subpoena was lawful and unanimously supported by the committee. DiGenova noted that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is likely to advance contempt proceedings, potentially leading to a House floor vote and referral to the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

The issue has ignited debate over accountability and the power of Congress to enforce compliance. While the refusal to comply has triggered Congress’s contempt authority, as lawmakers argue it obstructs investigations, the path to actual consequences remains uncertain. DiGenova highlighted the significant hurdles in securing a criminal indictment, even if the case reaches federal prosecutors.

Contempt Proceedings Gain Momentum in House

Let’s be clear: the Clintons’ decision to ignore subpoenas isn’t just a procedural hiccup—it’s a direct challenge to congressional oversight. The House Oversight Committee, under Comer’s leadership, plans to move forward with a markup next week to hold Bill Clinton in contempt, as Newsmax notes.

Comer insists the bipartisan backing of the subpoena shows this isn’t partisan gamesmanship but a matter of principle. DiGenova, weighing in on Newsmax, didn’t mince words about the situation.

He predicted the committee would vote for contempt “with or without the help of Democrats,” suggesting party lines may harden. It’s no secret that Democrats might balk at supporting this move, leaving the vote’s outcome in the hands of Republican resolve.

D.C. Grand Jury Poses Major Obstacle

Once the committee acts, the next step is a full House floor vote, followed by a referral to prosecutors. DiGenova emphasized that this process is far from a guaranteed win for accountability.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road: even if the House votes for contempt, a Washington, D.C., grand jury stands as a formidable barrier. DiGenova pointed out that securing an indictment from what he described as a “Democratically controlled” jury in the nation’s capital would be a steep uphill battle.

Speaking on The Count, DiGenova didn’t shy away from the stark reality, stating, “And this is a Democratically controlled grand jury, along with the petit juries; getting an indictment from a D.C. grand jury is going to be extremely difficult.” That’s a sobering assessment for anyone hoping to see swift consequences.

Historical Context of Contempt in Congress

Still, DiGenova offered a glimmer of hope by pointing to Jeanine Pirro, the Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He suggested, “But if anyone can do it, it's Jeanine Pirro.”

Congress has leaned more heavily on contempt powers in recent years, and the precedent isn’t encouraging for quick resolutions. Take the case of Steve Bannon, convicted in July 2022 on two counts of criminal contempt for defying a subpoena related to the Jan. 6 investigation.

Sentenced to four months in prison, his case shows that consequences are possible—but far from immediate. Back to the Clintons, their refusal to comply echoes these high-profile standoffs, yet the outcome remains uncertain.

Political Divide Shapes Contempt Battle

DiGenova’s analysis cuts to the core of why this matters: if Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas, what’s the point of oversight? The Clintons’ case could set a dangerous precedent, emboldening others to simply ignore lawful requests.

The partisan divide isn’t just a side note—it’s the elephant in the room. DiGenova noted that Democrats are in a “very difficult space” on this issue, unlikely to support contempt proceedings.

For those who believe in equal application of the law, this situation is a litmus test. Will Congress hold powerful figures accountable, or will political allegiance shield the Clintons from consequences?