A bipartisan decision emerged from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as Democrats joined forces with Republicans to push forward resolutions that would hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress.

The committee’s Oversight Chair, James Comer from Kentucky, spearheaded this effort, aiming to reprimand the Clintons for not complying with a congressional subpoena. This subpoena was part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into the dealings of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the Clintons were scheduled to testify before the committee last week.

The Democrats who sided with advancing the resolution against former President Clinton included Representatives Maxwell Frost from Florida, Raja Krishnamoorthi from Illinois, Summer Lee from Pennsylvania, Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts, Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts, Emily Randall from Washington, Lateefah Simon from California, Melanie Stansbury from New Mexico, and Rashida Tlaib from Michigan.

Representative Dave Min of California chose to vote “present” on both resolutions, while Representative Yassamin Ansari of Arizona opted to vote “present” only on the resolution concerning the former president.

Among the Democrats, only Representatives Lee, Stansbury, and Tlaib supported advancing the resolution against former Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Following the vote, Lynch explained the difference in his votes on the Clintons to the amount of evidence in the released Epstein files, saying, “I do my homework.”

“There was nothing in there — not a shred of evidence against Hillary,” the congressman said. “It was more dragging her in because of the animosity between her and the president, I believe.”

Lynch said his vote on the former president was supported by the “substantial nexus between Epstein and him.”

“This is serious business,” Lynch said. “I know he’s indignant about it, but the possibility is there [that] he might be able to help the investigation. He’s not being accused himself. … I think we’ll be able to find out if he has helpful information or not.”

Lee, the congresswoman from Pennsylvania, similarly pointed to the limited files provided by the DOJ. The department has yet to release the full trove of documents, which are reported to amount to around 5.2 million pages, despite a congressional order to release all files related to the Epstein probe last year. 

“We cannot investigate this fully if we do not have the full files,” Lee said during Wednesday’s meeting. “We cannot see all there is to see if the DOJ is not complying. We cannot move forward.”

However, the congresswoman joined the eight other Democrats in advancing the measure against the former president. 

Stansbury, who voted for both measures, said during the meeting that she was “deeply troubled” that the Clintons “did not appear on their scheduled date.” 

However, she also expressed her concerns that the action was one-sided, echoing comments from Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.). Garcia, who voted against both measures, repeatedly shifted blame from the Clintons to the Department of Justice’s failure to meet the demands of a congressional subpoena during Wednesday’s meeting. 

“No one is above the law, but I do know based on the correspondence that [the Clintons] have been corresponding with you regularly to try to resolve this issue,” Stansbury said. “But I don’t believe that’s what this hearing is actually about because if it was actually about getting justice and about getting the truth, we would have DOJ here. We would be holding Pam Bondi in contempt and we would be hearing from the survivors themselves.”

Prior to casting his vote, Frost said he wanted to “hear from everyone” related to the Epstein probe, demanding a similar investigation into the DOJ. 

“I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, I don’t care if you’re a Republican, I’m tired of rich people trying to evade justice and accountability, period,” Frost said. “But you can’t do it just for the party you disagree with. You can’t do it in a politically-motivated way, so here’s the opportunity to show it’s not a politically-motivated thing.”

Comer said after the vote that he “could see a scenario” where he asks Attorney General Pam Bondi to appear before the Oversight Committee “if we’re not satisfied with testimony from the Judiciary.” Bondi is scheduled to appear in front of the House Judiciary Committee next month. 

“We’re serious about getting the documents,” Comer said. “This isn’t political.”

Mike Lillis contributed reporting.