Americans who believe in equal justice under the law watched in disbelief this week as Bill and Hillary Clinton declined to honor congressional subpoenas to testify about Jeffrey Epstein, offering what can only be described as a legal dodge rather than accountability. The couple released a forceful letter calling the subpoenas “invalid and legally unenforceable,” but that thin paper shield won’t sit well with victims who deserve answers, not spin.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer — after months of negotiations the Clintons say were frustrated — announced he will move to hold them in contempt of Congress after Bill Clinton missed a scheduled deposition and Hillary failed to appear the next day. Republicans and a number of Democrats on the committee made clear the subpoenas were issued to get hard questions answered, not to manufacture headlines.

The Clintons’ letter accused Comer of a politically motivated vendetta and even framed contempt threats as a route to “imprisonment,” language designed to intimidate and distract. This is classic Clinton theater: when cornered, attack the messenger and paint legitimate oversight as persecution. The public deserves better than theatrical legal posturing from two of the most powerful political figures of the last generation.

Let’s be plain: no one is saying the Clintons have been charged with a crime, but friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and documented meetings raise obvious questions that must be addressed by congressional investigators. To refuse participation while invoking separation-of-powers arguments is a convenient shield for the well-connected, not a principled stand for civics. Citizens who don’t enjoy multimillion-dollar legal retinues are forced to show up for jury duty and depositions; elites should not get exemption cards.

The Clintons also tried to recast the inquiry as a partisan sideshow, even dragging unrelated policy grievances into their response — a distractionary tactic meant to muddle the real issue: accountability for victims and scrutiny of how government handled Epstein’s case. That the Department of Justice has released only a fraction of related documents despite a law forcing disclosure only amplifies suspicions that the powerful get different rules. If transparency is the law’s intent, there’s no excuse for stonewalling.

This episode isn’t only about two former presidents; it’s a test of whether America remains a nation where the rule of law applies uniformly. If committees are to do their jobs, they cannot be browbeaten into surrender by threats of lofty legal theory or claims of victimhood from the influential. Republicans must demonstrate backbone: follow the law, finish the inquiry, and take contempt votes seriously when witnesses refuse valid subpoenas.

For rank-and-file Americans who have long watched elites avoid consequences, the sight of the Clintons shrugging off subpoenas will feel like one more example of two-tier justice. The GOP-led committee should not be swayed by celebrity status or political theatrics; if the Clintons truly have no substantive knowledge, a deposition would have been the quickest route to proving it.

Now is the time for principled oversight, not performative apologies or polite avoidance. Our country’s institutions are stronger when the powerful answer tough questions. If the Clintons believe they are innocent of any wrongdoing, they should welcome the chance to clear the air in a straightforward, on-the-record deposition rather than hide behind lawyers and legal theories.