Rep. Jamie Raskin is playing hardball with his own party's legacy figures.
The Maryland Democrat said Sunday he will vote to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress, but only if the House also votes to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt. Raskin made the remarks on CNN's "State of the Union" with host Dana Bash.
Last month, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee advanced resolutions to hold the Clintons in contempt over their refusal to appear for depositions as part of the panel's probe into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The congressman's conditional stance has sparked debate about whether Democrats are serious about transparency or simply looking to protect their own while attacking the opposition. His willingness to vote against the Clintons if Bondi is included reveals an interesting calculus at play.
"I will vote yes on contempt against them and anybody else, as long as Pam Bondi is part of it," Raskin told Bash during the Sunday interview. That is quite the caveat from a ranking member of the party that spent decades defending the Clinton political dynasty.
The congressman made clear he is not interested in what he considers one-sided accountability. If resolutions targeting only the former first couple are brought to the floor, Raskin says he will vote against them. His position appears designed to force Republicans into a broader reckoning.
According to The Daily Caller, Raskin stated, "I will definitely vote no on any partisan measure, one side or the other." The implication is clear: either everyone faces scrutiny, or nobody does. Whether that principle holds up under political pressure remains to be seen.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee already advanced the contempt resolutions with surprising bipartisan support. The Bill Clinton resolution passed 34-8, with nine Democrats crossing the aisle to vote in favor. That level of Democratic defection on a Clinton-related matter would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
The Democrats who voted for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution included Reps. Maxwell Frost of Florida, Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Emily Randall of Washington, Lateefah Simon of California, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Several of these members are among the most progressive voices in Congress.
That progressive Democrats would vote to hold a former Democratic president in contempt speaks volumes about the political landscape. The Epstein investigation has created strange bedfellows, with members from both parties demanding answers about who knew what and when.
House GOP leaders plan to hold full floor votes on the Clinton contempt resolutions on Wednesday, according to Politico. The timing puts pressure on Democrats to decide where they stand on accountability for their party's most prominent figures.
Raskin has positioned himself as someone who wants universal accountability rather than selective enforcement. "I want all of the information from everybody, and I want everybody to come forward and comply," he said. That sounds reasonable enough on paper.
The question is whether Republicans will take the bait and include Bondi in any contempt proceedings. Given that she serves in the current administration, the likelihood of GOP members voting to hold their own attorney general in contempt seems remote at best.
The contempt resolutions stem from the Clintons' refusal to appear for depositions after being subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee. The panel has been investigating the government's handling of the Epstein case, and the Clintons' connections to the convicted sex offender have drawn scrutiny.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton had personal relationships with Epstein that have been documented in photographs and flight logs released by the Department of Justice. Neither has been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein's crimes, but their refusal to testify has raised questions.
Raskin's conditional vote puts him in an awkward position. He is essentially saying he believes the Clintons should face consequences for defying Congress, but only if Republicans agree to apply the same standard to their allies. Politics, as always, makes for complicated theater.
