Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it's Tuesday, January thirteenth, the day that
Speaker 1: former President Bill Clinton was supposed to show up in
Speaker 1: Congress and give some testimony. Well he didn't show up.
Speaker 1: He sent a letter instead, and with that, welcome to
Speaker 1: this episode of Amy and Tjes. It's a kind of
Speaker 1: a long letter, but he could have just put four
Speaker 1: words on there, kiss my entire ass.
Speaker 2: I wondered where the fourth one was coming. All right,
Speaker 2: you went with entire all right now. Instead, he alongside
Speaker 2: his wife, Hillary Clinton, she was set to testify tomorrow.
Speaker 2: He was supposed to testify today, and I say supposed to.
Speaker 2: They were subpoenaed to testify today and tomorrow. They sent
Speaker 2: a joint letter. It was eight pages long, and it
Speaker 2: was kind of like, well, they ended the game of chicken,
Speaker 2: because this has been a standoff that's been going on
Speaker 2: for months now, and they basically put it very clearly,
Speaker 2: do what you need to do. So we're doing what
Speaker 2: we need to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you a game of chicken. These are some pretty
Speaker 1: big chickens they sent into this fight for them, because
Speaker 1: these letters came from some really high profile and high
Speaker 1: powered attorneys, written on their behalf and laying out all
Speaker 1: the arguments for why they're not legally required to show up.
Speaker 1: If they don't show up, you're subpoenaed by Congress and
Speaker 1: you don't show up. That is a crime, and they
Speaker 1: can be held in criminal contempt and throw the Clintons
Speaker 1: in jail.
Speaker 2: Correct, Even the Clintons even addressed the possibility of imprisonment,
Speaker 2: and they are just saying this is their time to
Speaker 2: take a stand. By the way, the last time do
Speaker 2: you know the last time a contempt of Congress charge
Speaker 2: was successfully prosecuted where someone actually was charged, convicted, and
Speaker 2: actually punished Watergate. We're talking nineteen seventy four g. Gordon Liddy.
Speaker 2: That is how rare this is, That is how rarely
Speaker 2: it's used. It might be threatened more than it should be.
Speaker 2: But if they go forward with this, and James Comer,
Speaker 2: Republican from Kentucky, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, says
Speaker 2: that he is going to file contempt of Congress charges
Speaker 2: against the Clintons next week.
Speaker 1: If if this committee has to vote on these contempt charges,
Speaker 1: and then it has to go to the full House,
Speaker 1: and all kinds of stuff and steps have to take
Speaker 1: place before we get to that. Can you imagine we're
Speaker 1: going to get to it. They were supposed to. Yes,
Speaker 1: he was supposed to testify today. She was supposed to
Speaker 1: testify tomorrow. This was still supposed to be behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: so it wasn't supposed to be necessarily a public spectacle.
Speaker 1: Their argument is everyone else that you subpoened as a
Speaker 1: part of this, you waved their requirement to show up
Speaker 1: and testify, So why are we being treated differently?
Speaker 2: Correct? They said, seven of are the eight people subpoenaed,
Speaker 2: were allowed to just submit written testimony, basically just saying
Speaker 2: in written form what they knew and when they knew
Speaker 2: it and how they knew it. And the Clintons say
Speaker 2: they have already given the limited information they have to Congress,
Speaker 2: and there is nothing more for them to give. There's
Speaker 2: no more information for them to share. So this is
Speaker 2: a political game.
Speaker 1: Obviously, anybody, no matter what side of the aisel you're on,
Speaker 1: you can understand that, yes, this is clearly what we're
Speaker 1: looking at, and that one of the funniest was saying,
Speaker 1: it's not funny, it's whoever's representing Hillary Clinton, Like why
Speaker 1: is she even here?
Speaker 3: She ain't got nothing to do with nothing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she was like well, I'm sorry, can someone explain
Speaker 2: to me why I'm involved in this in any way? Shape?
Speaker 1: She was not, And there are no accusations about, first
Speaker 1: of all, any wrongdoing, any crime on his part and ever.
Speaker 1: And also she's never just been attached.
Speaker 2: To the guys, not even a little bit. And Comer
Speaker 2: even said today, no one is accusing Bill Clinton of anything,
Speaker 2: any wrongdoing. We just have questions. I thought you mentioned
Speaker 2: funny something else that was funny. We'll get into the
Speaker 2: letter and the contents, because, as you might imagine, it
Speaker 2: was very well crafted. But i letter. They even suggested,
Speaker 2: I bet you're going to hold a press conference. I
Speaker 2: bet you're going to have an empty chair to show
Speaker 2: where I should have been sitting today. Sure enough, Representative Comer,
Speaker 2: when speaking to reporters just a short time ago, had
Speaker 2: a chair left empty to call attention to the fact
Speaker 2: that former President Clinton was not there. So it was funny.
Speaker 2: He even called him on it, and they did it.
Speaker 1: But it's it's a game. Who knows it better than
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton, everything that's come at him over the past
Speaker 1: forty fifty years. So, oh my goodness, this guy, he's
Speaker 1: seen it all. But this is a show. This is
Speaker 1: a spectacle. Now, how far are they going to take
Speaker 1: this thing and try to pursue Now, there is a
Speaker 1: DOJ right now that would probably.
Speaker 2: Happily because foul charge. That is the last step. So
Speaker 2: if that passes the panel, the full House votes to
Speaker 2: go forward with these contempt of Congress charges, then the
Speaker 2: DOJ has to make the decision to prosecute. I think
Speaker 2: we all know that latter part of the is almost
Speaker 2: a sure thing. They got this thing ready to go,
Speaker 2: like they are ready to get.
Speaker 3: Like those letters for the Kennedy say, BONDI.
Speaker 2: Is salivating what like what a legacy for her waiting
Speaker 2: to prosecute Bill Clinton for contempt of Congress?
Speaker 1: Maybe the Clintons, the Clintons, both of them, that would
Speaker 1: be something. But yes, you remember, folks, Yes, yes, the
Speaker 1: Epstein files are out, I guess now.
Speaker 2: Ish not really, there's still millions of files left to
Speaker 2: you know, somehow they'll have to redact before they can release.
Speaker 2: And then then if anything looks bad for the administration
Speaker 2: or anyone they don't want it to look bad for,
Speaker 2: they'll just say it's a false But they're trickling bit
Speaker 2: of information that isn't true.
Speaker 1: They're trickling. Yes, dump at a time, I should probably
Speaker 1: say is a better way to put it. But yes,
Speaker 1: they have been coming out. But when the subpoenas were
Speaker 1: issued for the Clintons and others, it was before the
Speaker 1: files had come out, it was before Congress had made
Speaker 1: all this agree, so everybody was still after the files
Speaker 1: and information at the time, so they subpoened all these folks.
Speaker 1: The Clintons were supposed to go in what October, but
Speaker 1: then they had a funeral, so they kept pushing it down.
Speaker 1: N They claimed there have been five, almost six months
Speaker 1: worth of back and forth, so what is the point
Speaker 1: of continuing this. So letter that was directed to Chairman
Speaker 1: Comer about this subpoena starts pretty we can go back
Speaker 1: and forth the first five or so paragraphs. We'll just
Speaker 1: give it to you how they wrote it, to dear Chairman.
Speaker 2: Coma, we want to take a moment, given everything, to
Speaker 2: address you directly. This past year has seen our government
Speaker 2: engage in unprecedented acts, including against our own citizens. People
Speaker 2: have been seized by masked federal agents from their homes,
Speaker 2: their workplaces, and the streets of their communities. Students and
Speaker 2: scientists with visas permitting them to study and work here,
Speaker 2: have been deported without due process. The people who laid
Speaker 2: sea to the US capital have been pardoned and called heroes.
Speaker 2: Agencies vital to the country's national security have been dismantled. Universities,
Speaker 2: media companies, law firms have been subjected to threats to
Speaker 2: their funding, access, and licensing. He goes on and on
Speaker 2: and on, talking about even most recently and searingly, an
Speaker 2: ICE agent killed an unarmed mother only days ago. So
Speaker 2: they lay all this out to say this, every person
Speaker 2: has to decide when they have seen or had enough
Speaker 2: and are ready to fight for this country, its principles,
Speaker 2: and its people, no matter. The consequence for us now
Speaker 2: is that time.
Speaker 1: I don't know where it is in the letter if
Speaker 1: you have it in front of you, but they it's
Speaker 1: You can isolate the line where they're making a point
Speaker 1: that they are contributing to disrupting the Republican and the
Speaker 1: Trump agenda because you all are redirecting your time and
Speaker 1: you're focusing your energy towards this stupid chase of the Clintons.
Speaker 1: And you know what, if we can distract you from
Speaker 1: we're screwing up the country.
Speaker 3: Cool. I thought that was an interesting line.
Speaker 2: Yes, I was trying to find it. Oh, here it is.
Speaker 2: I love this. Indeed, bringing the Republican's cruel agenda to
Speaker 2: a standstill while you work harder to pass a contempt
Speaker 2: charge against us than you have done on your investigation
Speaker 2: this past year would be our contribution to fighting the madness.
Speaker 2: So yes, they're saying, if we can actually be the
Speaker 2: reason why you hold your cruel agenda that they disagree with, deportations, etc.
Speaker 2: YadA YadA, and instead focus on trying to charge us,
Speaker 2: will take it, will be will fall on that sword
Speaker 2: to disrupt your agenda. They did say that. They said,
Speaker 2: we have tried to give you the little information we have.
Speaker 2: We have done so because mister Epstein's crimes were horrific.
Speaker 2: If the government didn't do all it could to investigate
Speaker 2: and prosecute these crimes for whatever reason, that should be
Speaker 2: the focus of your work to learn why and to
Speaker 2: prevent that from happening. Ever again, they said, instead, you
Speaker 2: have forced the victims to relive their pain experiences while
Speaker 2: doing little to give them and everybody else what's deserved,
Speaker 2: truth and justice. There was no plausible explanation for what
Speaker 2: you are doing other than partisan politics.
Speaker 1: I mean, is anyone arguing that point. Do we really
Speaker 1: think Hillary Clinton is about to move, is going to
Speaker 1: shake heaven and earth over the Epstein investigators.
Speaker 2: I do believe that there are people who believe Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton knows more than he's saying, and Comer even exploited
Speaker 2: that by saying that Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House
Speaker 2: during Bill Clinton's presidency seventeen times. I believe he said
Speaker 2: that today in today's presser, and so yes, they continue
Speaker 2: to fan the flames that Bill Clinton. And look, there
Speaker 2: are plenty of pictures. Bill Clinton talked about those pictures.
Speaker 2: He said they were done nothing more than to embarrass him,
Speaker 2: and he was pictured with Epstein specifically before he was
Speaker 2: accused of any of the wrongdoing. It was an era
Speaker 2: before all of the allegations. That is a point to
Speaker 2: be made, and that is a point Bill Clinton has made.
Speaker 1: That is actually true. I don't know if you remember
Speaker 1: a year off the top of your head, but it
Speaker 1: was somewhere around two thousand when the last I think interaction,
Speaker 1: or at least those two were known to have been together.
Speaker 1: Early two thousands, Say was it twenty What year was
Speaker 1: his charge in Florida?
Speaker 2: Two thousand and seven. Seven that was Epstein's charge was
Speaker 2: two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1: So yes, we know what is anyone arguing that this
Speaker 1: isn't what this is? Well, folks, that is part of
Speaker 1: the letter. Yes, we just shared there from the Clintons personally,
Speaker 1: but we'll also share some pretty strong language from the
Speaker 1: letter that the attorneys sent. Also, we will tell you
Speaker 1: just how much of a penalty the Clintons could be
Speaker 1: looking at, including jail time, if they are found in
Speaker 1: contempt of Congress.
Speaker 2: Stay here, welcome back everyone, as we discuss this new
Speaker 2: potential contempt of Congress charge that could be levied against
Speaker 2: both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Today, Bill Clinton was subpoena
Speaker 2: to address the House Oversight Committee about what he knows
Speaker 2: about Jeffrey Epstein to answer questions from congressmen and women.
Speaker 2: He chose not to show up, as did Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2: She was subpoenaed to show up tomorrow, and both of
Speaker 2: them they sent a letter. They sent a personal letter
Speaker 2: from their letter ahead from William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary
Speaker 2: Rodham Clinton directed specifically to Chairman James Comer, and they
Speaker 2: expressed and told Comer why they would not be attending
Speaker 2: this hearing today and tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's bs first of all, is what they argue.
Speaker 1: We're bring treated differently, like we were just talking about
Speaker 1: a moment ago from the other witnesses that you allow
Speaker 1: to just wave showing up.
Speaker 3: The lawyers.
Speaker 1: You won't know these law firms, but you know they're
Speaker 1: the type that have two names in it Williams and Connolly,
Speaker 1: Jenner and Block LP. You know, you know, big time folks. Well,
Speaker 1: they wrote a letter on bout and this is the
Speaker 1: one that lays out a lot of the constitutional arguments,
Speaker 1: but Robes this is the paragraph that stands out, saying
Speaker 1: to comer as you know, absent a valid purpose. And
Speaker 1: in light of the fact that President and Secretary Clinton
Speaker 1: have already shared more information with the committee voluntarily than
Speaker 1: the committee could obtain via the compulsory process, it is
Speaker 1: clear the subpoenas themselves and any subsequent attempt to enforce
Speaker 1: them are nothing more than a ployed to attempt to
Speaker 1: embarrass political rivals. As President Trump has directed, Wow, plaina's day,
Speaker 1: thank you all the following instruction, Yes, and they have.
Speaker 1: They cite down below the exact time where the President
Speaker 1: has a quote in which he says Epstein was more
Speaker 1: tied to Democrats. Name them, call them out, embarrass them,
Speaker 1: is what it's says.
Speaker 2: Yes, and I thought this was a well strong and
Speaker 2: power language by Bill and Hillary Clinton. In their decision
Speaker 2: to not testify despite subpoena. They said, you will say
Speaker 2: it is not our decision to make, but we have
Speaker 2: made it. Now you have to make yours. That game
Speaker 2: of chicken right there, they are looking Comer and the
Speaker 2: Committee in the face and saying, we are prepared to
Speaker 2: make our case to your forty five committee members, and
Speaker 2: if need be more more importantly, we will also defend
Speaker 2: ourselves in the public arena and ensure this country knows
Speaker 2: exactly what you are doing and why you are doing so.
Speaker 1: Your move patna exactly You're a move. But some will
Speaker 1: suggest I mean, he could have immediately gone forward. I
Speaker 1: guess he can wait till tomorrow to see if Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton is going to show up. At least that gives
Speaker 1: him he can save some face. At least, ah, give
Speaker 1: it a shot and wait, and then he can say
Speaker 1: he's going to do it next week to still try
Speaker 1: to give time to work, something he.
Speaker 2: Has already said next week. He's already given himself some leeway.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: He's looking for a political way out in where he
Speaker 1: doesn't look like he just lost to the Clinton.
Speaker 2: Well, what do you think though? At this point he
Speaker 2: said that he is going to pursue contempt of Congress
Speaker 2: charge charges? How does he backpuddle off of that? I mean,
Speaker 2: he was used very strong language today, and yes, this
Speaker 2: letter from Bill and Hillary used very strong language right back,
Speaker 2: like bring it on, what's good?
Speaker 3: What's the numbers game?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: How many folks in Congress are going to do what
Speaker 1: Trump tells them to do, is that you better vote
Speaker 1: for this contempt? How many on that panel are going
Speaker 1: through step and say this is silly, we don't need
Speaker 1: to be doing this. Possibly a Republican to do that,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't think a single Democrat is
Speaker 1: going to vote to hold these two in contempt.
Speaker 3: I just don't.
Speaker 1: But now it becomes what do our constituents want us
Speaker 1: to do? What is MAGA going to be upset about?
Speaker 1: And so it becomes this kind of game. Now, what's
Speaker 1: going to happen? This is okay, we shall see more
Speaker 1: high drama way too.
Speaker 2: Yes, but it should be noted if all of those
Speaker 2: things do happen, if the vote happens, if if the
Speaker 2: full House votes yep, and then and if that happens, yes,
Speaker 2: we know what Pam BONDI would do. The Clintons are
Speaker 2: facing a fine up to one hundred thousand dollars each
Speaker 2: they can cover, and one year imprisonment.
Speaker 3: That's gonna be tough. That's gonna be tough.
Speaker 2: That's hard to imagine happening. It's not going to be
Speaker 2: a former president and a former first Lady and a
Speaker 2: former senator.
Speaker 1: No, this is not It's not happening now, I would argue,
Speaker 1: I mean, he's gonna have to cam or he's gonna
Speaker 1: have to a lot of folks. He's trying to throw
Speaker 1: it in jail. Call me, excuse me. I'm not It's no
Speaker 1: new reason to make this prediction.
Speaker 3: This is madness.
Speaker 2: Mad Yes, and this is one of those moments where
Speaker 2: you actually you're you're watching it happen, and you know
Speaker 2: this is history happening, but it seems surreal. And yes,
Speaker 2: where it all ends no one knows.
Speaker 3: But let's get on the record. What's gonna happen next year.
Speaker 2: My guess is he will bring it.
Speaker 3: To a vote and there won't be the votes and
Speaker 3: won't be the votes.
Speaker 2: That's what. If I had to make a prediction, that
Speaker 2: would be my prediction. Okay, what is your prediction?
Speaker 3: Stay tuned.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say until I see what Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's gonna do tomorrow. Right, folks, We always appreciate you
Speaker 1: spending some time with us. This is another developing story today,
Speaker 1: so we want to hop on and give you the update.
Speaker 1: We are keeping an eye on a couple of other
Speaker 1: things that today, including a trial. So please top right
Speaker 1: corner of the Apple Podcast app where it says follow
Speaker 1: when you see our show page, click that button and
Speaker 1: you can make sure you get the updates coming.
Speaker 3: Right to you.
Speaker 1: But for now, we appreciate you spending some time with
Speaker 1: us on TJ Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robot.
Speaker 3: Talk to y'all soon,