“There’s an accommodation process when you’re talking about a President or a former President.Contempt is punitive; it’s not about enforcement. If you want to get the information, agreeing to accommodations is one way of getting it.”

—Kimberly Hamm, a partner at Morrison Foerster, after being cherry-picked by the New York Times to excuse Bill and Hillary Clinton for trying to defy a Congressional subpoena.

For some strange reason (I’m being facetious) Bill and Hillary Clinton seem to think that they are excused, unlike any other Americans (or, say, Michael Corleone) from obeying a subpoena to appear before a Congressional committee. Hamm, as we know how these things work, was tracked down as a putative objective “expert” by the Times to excuse the Clintons and impugn Republicans who are not inclined to accept their offensive and arrogant defiance, as Ethics Alarms highlighted last week.

There should be a “heightened standard” when it comes to a subpoena of a former President, Hamm said. Oh really? Show me your authority for that assertion, Counselor. But first show me where you made a similar statement about armed raids on former Presidents’ homes over disputes regarding classified documents.

What utter balderdash: “contempt is punitive and not about enforcement.” How dumb does this lawyer (and the Times) think we are? Punishment is always about enforcement. A law that has no penalty for its violations isn’t a law at all. You know, like immigration laws during the Biden Administration.

The Times reports that negotiations between Representative James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and the slippery Clintons over their refusal to testify before his Committee in its Jeffrey Epstein investigation broke down today, “hours before a scheduled vote to hold the couple in contempt of Congress.” Read the whole thing if you like (gift link), but the basic facts are clear: the Clintons feel they have a special right to avoid being grilled in public, and they don’t.

Their last offer was to submit to an interview under oath in Bill Clinton’s New York office (Come on…)with Comer and Representative Robert Garcia of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee, with both accompanied by a staff member taking notes. I don’t view that as a serious offer. Garcia is a hyper-partisan creep who can be counted on to obstruct the process. No notes will be worth anything unless a professional stenographer is present. And how is testifying “under oath” a deterrent for Bill or Hillary Clinton? Bill lied under oath in a hearing while President, and later before a grand jury. Hillary has lied almost as often, but not as well.

Rep. Comer insists that the Clintons appear in front of the entire House Oversight Committee for questioning with the public watching so there will be no deceptive spin later, and that there be no limits on what its members can ask. “The Clintons’ latest demands make clear they believe their last name entitles them to special treatment,” Comer said. Oh, I think we can all agree that they have made that very clear for decades already. “The absence of an official transcript is an indefensible demand that is insulting to the American people who demand answers about Epstein’s crimes.”

Naturally the Times, having been shameless defenders of both Clintons over the years, usually in defiance of reality, again demonstrates its nauseating bias. “Mr. Comer’s relentless efforts to force the Clintons to testify are in keeping with his approach to his panel’s Epstein inquiry. He has sought to deflect focus from President Trump’s ties to the convicted sex offender, and instead spotlight prominent Democrats who once associated with Mr. Epstein and his longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell,” it bleats. Trump’s “ties” to Epstein are that he knew the fellow billionaire, was friendly with him, and cut all “ties” long before Bill began cavorting on the sex criminal’s private jet.

Indeed, the Times article, as desperately as it tries to paint Comer as the villain, reeks of “Methinks the lady thou doth protest too much.” One of the couple’s lawyers is quoted as saying that Comer had refused to allow questions to be limited to topics within the scope of the investigation. Awww. Questions in Congressional hearings routinely go far afield.

“The Clintons have now sent five legal letters to Mr. Comer,” the Times tells us, “seeking to outline how they have bent over backward to offer transparency on the Epstein issue and how Mr. Comer’s efforts to bring them in before the committee amount to harassment.” Gee, why don’t they just sit down and take the grilling like everyone else has to, since they are as pure as the driven snow? After all, when have Bill and Hill had anything to hide during their sterling public service over the years? I guess all of those witnesses called before Congress have been “harassed”…or is it just the Democrats?

“Jim Comer claiming to be looking for the truth about Epstein is as honest as O.J. looking for the real killer,” says Philippe Reines, a Clinton aide who has helping the Clintons “navigate the issue,” in the Times’ terms. That is, “try to avoid having to testify.” “Everyone knew O.J. was protecting himself. Everyone knows who Jim Comer is protecting,” Reines sneers. Yes, the Axis is going to keep waving the metaphorical Epstein flag and belting out the Guilt by Association Anthem for as long as it takes.

In the most recent letter sent today, the Clintons’ lawyers whined that the committee had made unreasonable demands—you know, “Testify like everyone else has to”—and that the committee’s entire approach bore “no resemblance to its well-established historical procedures for seeking and obtaining information procedures that dictate substance over form.” The letter also argued that the subpoenas from Mr. Comer’s committee were “invalid and legally unenforceable.”

Ramalama ding-dong! Imagine! A Congressional hearing with more form than substance. There are no well-established historical procedures to handle serial miscreants and con artists who have lived in the White House. The Clinton’s are sui generis.