The Clintons are so over

What do you call a former two-term president of the United States and his wife, a former first lady, secretary of state and nominee for president? In the Democratic Party, you call them baggage. After years of scandal, former President Bill Clinton is caught up in the Jeffrey Epstein revelations. Last August, the House Committee on Government Reform sent Clinton a subpoena based on his travel on Epstein's airplane, on alleged contact with Epstein's victims and on his alleged closeness with Ghislaine Maxwell. At the same time, the committee sent a subpoena to failed 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, basically asking for what she knew about Epstein via her husband. A recipient of a congressional subpoena might think it is unnecessary. A recipient might think it is politically motivated. But whatever he or she thinks, a recipient is not entitled to treat the committee with contempt, which is what the Clintons did. Republican committee chairman James Comer of Kentucky laid out the timeline of the Clintons' refusal to cooperate. The committee originally asked Bill Clinton to appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, 2025. They then moved the date to Dec. 17, 2025. The former president declined, saying he would be attending a funeral on that day. "The committee said it would accommodate him if he would propose dates certain in January," Comer noted. "(Clinton) declined." At that point, the committee sent him a follow-up subpoena with an instruction to appear for a deposition on Jan. 13, 2026. He did not show up. Hillary Clinton received the same treatment, and it was the same story. Here is the thing about a congressional subpoena. You can show up and testify. You can show up, cite your constitutional rights and not testify. You can do a little of both. But you can't just not show up. Ask former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior Trump counselor Peter Navarro, both of whom went to jail after trying to stiff-arm a congressional subpoena. The first step Congress takes in response to such behavior is to have the committee vote to hold the subpoena recipient in contempt of Congress. On Jan. 21, the Oversight Committee, which is made up of 25 Republicans and 21 Democrats, voted. All the Republicans voted to hold Bill Clinton in contempt. So did nine of the Democrats. Two others voted "present." A smaller number of Democrats joined Republicans in voting to hold Hillary Clinton in contempt. But taken together, the votes were a very big problem for the former president and first lady. When they saw that they could not keep the committee's Democrats in line behind them, the Clintons knew they were in trouble. Last week, they gave up and agreed to testify. They tried to turn the tables and demand a public hearing, but there's no doubt they lost. Now the lesson of the episode is sinking in. Why would so many Democrats — half of the Democrats on the committee — vote against these Democratic legends? Because they are more than ready to move on from Bill and Hillary Clinton. "At this point, they bring nothing but baggage," an anonymous Democratic lobbyist told Politico. Given the party's many problems today, the lobbyist said, the Clintons' "continued presence is a barrier to the party's renewal." Another anonymous Democrat, this one an adviser to a possible 2028 candidate, told Politico, "What is the political usefulness of the Clintons these days? We all just got behind Epstein transparency because it made Trump uncomfortable. What are we going to say now? Everyone must answer for this but the Clintons?" The Democratic lawmakers who voted against Clinton were a little more diplomatic, but they sent a similar message. "We want to be more aggressive and find the truth," Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., told Politico, "and it's less about allegiances to, you know, individuals, and more about what's best for our party and what's best for this country." In the House as a whole, all these Democrats, and all but one Republican, voted to order the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. At its core, the vote was fundamentally about President Donald Trump, with Democrats hoping there would be revelations that would damage the president. But the vote also served to show that two Democratic legends, the Clintons, are fading fast and are no longer major figures in their party. Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner. Email him at byork@washingtonexaminer.com.