Congressional Subpoenas: The Case of the Clintons

The rule of law is absolutely essential to a representative democracy being able to endure even as strong personalities in public office may seek to bend or even dismiss law for their own purposes. The notion that anyone subject to law gets a pass according to one’s own discretion and power is toxic to a republic being regarded as fair. Just as everyone has a right to due process in legal proceedings in the U.S., no one is above the law there. This applies to former presidents and secretaries of state, and thus to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their written statement in refusing to recognize a Congressional subpoena as valid—a presumptuous stunt to be sure—reveals that they held the presumption of being able to decide whether a law to which they were subject was valid. This presumption could also be seen when Bill Clinton occupied the White House, for he deliberately lied under oath, “I did not have sexual relations with” Monika Lewinski even though she had performed oral sex with him in the Oval Office when she was a White House intern. My point is that the underlying pattern is clear with respect to a lack of regard for law itself (even though both Clintons went to Yale’s law school) and the presumption of setting oneself in the position of invalidating law to which one is subject. That Bill Clinton was no punished with incarceration in the 1990s was unfortunate even for him and his wife as they were not afforded the opportunity to learn a lesson.

On January 21, 2026, members of the Republican group in the U.S. House of Representatives began the process “to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary in contempt of Congress” because the couple had repeatedly refused to honor a Congressional subpoena to testify on the Epstein sex-girls racket.[1] Photographic evidence that Bill had been in contact with Epstein had been made public, and members of the House had questions for the Clintons regarding what they may have known of Epstein’s crimes. Even though the demand for testimony sounds reasonable enough, Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the relevant committee, had said at the start of a hearing in which the Clinton’s attendance was required that the Clintons had responded not with “cooperation but defiance.”[2] Such a blatant response to a Congressional subpoena is astonishing because, as Comer said, “Subpoenas are not mere suggestions, they carry the force of law and require compliance.”[3] The Clintons contended that the subpoenas were “invalid because they do not serve any legislative purpose.”[4] But it is not for subpoenaed people called to testify to assess whether any such purpose is being served, for otherwise anyone could disregard a Congressional subpoena simply by declaring there to be no legislative purpose.

In his ethical theory, Kant argues that if universalizing a maxim results in a contradiction, such a maxim is unethical.  For example, if no one were to tell the truth, no one would believe anyone else’s truth-claims and so making such claims would not make any sense. Universalizing the maxim that it is ok to lie would result in no claims being made. Similarly, were everyone to act on the maxim, a person subject to a Congressional subpoena can determine the validity of said subpoena and act on that determination, it would not make sense for Congress to issue subpoenas because none would be honored. Universalizing that maxim results in the absurd, so that maxim is unethical.

Another formulation of Kant’s ethical theory holds that rational beings should be treated not merely as one’s means, but also as ends in themselves. In presuming that the committee members were merely playing political games in issuing the subpoenas and dismissing them, the Clintons were treating the members as means only (to the Clinton’s own ends) rather than as ends in themselves worthy of respect by virtue of being rational beings. Why worthy of respect?  Because to Kant, it is by the use of reason that we assign value in the world, so reason itself must have absolute value and thus be worthy of respect. To Kant, the formulations of his Categorical Imperative have the necessity that law does.

It is such necessity, both in law itself and in ethical principles, according to Kant, that the Clintons repeatedly and conveniently overlooked or dismissed outright, and with impunity. It is significant, therefore, that being in contempt of a Congressional subpoena can carry time in prison. There is a good reason for that, so I submit that the criminal charges should be automatic rather than depend on a majority-vote in the House chamber. Obviating accountability by means of political deals does no favor to the guilty in terms of lessons learned, and no favor to an institution that looks weak if its subpoenas can be ignored with impunity. Impunity for some and jail for the rest is no way to run a republic that is based on the rule of law.

---

1. Stephen Groves and Matt Brown, “House Republicans Begin Push to Hold the Clintons in Contempt of Congress Over the Epstein Probe,” APnews.com, January 21, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

On the Role of the European Parliament: The Mercosur Treaty

With the European Council, which represents the E.U. states, having passed the Mercosur free-trade treaty by qualified-majority voting, the legislation went on to the European Parliament, which represents E.U. citizens, to vote on final passage before being sent to E.U. President Von der Leyen for her signature. From the standpoint of this standard legislative procedure, it is significant that immediately following the vote in the Council, which is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Senate, efforts were being made to essentially side-step the Parliament, which is equivalent to the U.S. House of Representatives. Von der Leyen’s plan to sign the treaty once it passed in the Council reflects both the disproportionate power of the state governments at the federal level in the E.U. and the fact that the U.S. House is excluded from voting on treaties, whereas the U.S. Senate votes to give its consent to them before the U.S. president ratifies them (or not).  

On 9 January, 2026, the European Council voted by a super majority representing 65% of the E.U.’s population and 55% of its states to approve the Mercosur free-trade treaty with four countries in South America. President Von der Leyen had completed the negotiations on the treaty two years earlier so E.U. companies could “gain access to a market of 280 million consumers . . . where some 30,000 E.U. firms” were already operating.[1] A massive free-trade area with a combined population of 700 million inhabitants would dwarf NAFTA (the North America Free Trade Agreement). It is no wonder that on the heels of the Council’s vote, President Von der Leyen wrote in an official statement, “I greatly look forward to signing this landmark deal . . .”[2] Not so fast. The approval procedure “also requires the consent of the European Parliament.”[3] In the Parliament, a contingent of the Renew party saw an opportunity to scuttle the proposed treaty because of the fears of European farmers, mostly in the state of France, that free trade in agriculture could harm the E.U.’s farmers financially if enough European consumers buy agricultural products from the Mercosur countries rather than domestically.

Admittedly, getting the consent of the Council by even just by qualified-majority voting had been viewed as the challenge. A contingent of the Renew party could presumably be easily outvoted in the Parliament. Nevertheless, the focus on the Council is in line with the inordinate power wielded by the states at the federal level in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. Put another way, being slighted doubtlessly came as no surprise to the representatives in the Parliament. The chamber of the people had typically played second fiddle to the chamber of the states.

Even in the U.S., where the two federal legislative chambers have been viewed as equals since their founding, the U.S. House of Representatives is excluded from the procedure in which treaties proposed by the federal president are sent to the U.S. Senate for advice and to be confirmed (or rejected). If confirmed, the president can either ratify or refuse to do so. Such ratification is required for a treaty to go into effect. The U.S. House of Representatives is excluded.

Resonating with the exclusion of the U.S. House, the E.U. state chairing the Council at the time “used a legal procedure” just after the vote “to enable the provisional implementation of the agreement without a parliamentary vote.”[4] Although the Parliament’s upcoming vote could derail the treaty, the provisional implementation would make it more difficult for representatives to vote against the treaty because it would already be underway. Even if President Von der Leyen would sign the treaty before the Parliament’s vote, the treaty would be rendered invalid, but in setting up a fait accompli, the Commission and the Council were making use of momentum such that voting against the treaty would be more difficult. Furthermore, that the U.S. House is excluded from the legislative consent and ratification of U.S. treaties implicitly implies that maybe the European Parliament, which also represents citizens rather than states, should not be involved in the passage of E.U. treaties with other countries. In federal unions in which governmental sovereignty is divided, regardless of the proportions, the legislative chamber in which the semi-sovereign states are represented can be argued to be more important in international treaties precisely because of the sovereignty still reserved by the states in their political union should have a say, even if by qualified majority voting (in the E.U. Council) or a two-thirds majority (in the U.S. Senate).  Put another way, both of these bars, being higher than a simple majority, reflect the fact that the states in the E.U. and U.S. are semi-sovereign.

In tension with the argument that the E.U. Parliament and the U.S. House should also be included so the respective federal citizens could also have a say, the states might object that a defeat in either of those chambers would nullify what the semi-sovereign state governments have agreed to, and that such sovereignty, together with the limited sovereignty of the respective unions, should not be denied domestically with respect to relations with other countries. The tension here reveals a judgment call, which is of such a magnitude and indeterminacy to be properly determined by popular sovereignty—that which is reserved to the people themselves as an electorate. Moreover, this comparison of the E.U. and U.S. works so well that the equivalency of the two unions, even with the very different proportions of governmental sovereignty delegated by basic law to the federal level, can be easily grasped even by Euroskeptics and anti-federalists.

---

1, Peggy Corlin, “E.U. Member States Back Mercosur Deal, French MEPs Vow Fight in Parliament,” Euronews.com, 9 January, 2026.
2, "Statement by President Von der Leyen on the Council's Decision to Endorse the EU-Mercossur Trade Agreement," The European Comission, 8 January, 2026.
3. Peggy Corlin, “E.U. Member States Back Mercosur Deal, French MEPs Vow Fight in Parliament,” Euronews.com, 9 January, 2026.
4. Ibid.

Iran’s Theocracy: An Uneasy Fusion of Religion and Political Economy

As mass protests erupted in Iran during the second week of January, 2026, Iran’s theocracy was on edge. That the protests stemmed from the dire economic conditions facing the people amid staggering inflation, including on basic food staples, rather than from foreign affairs, raises the question of whether religious clergy, including the “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are competent in making economic policy. Without the ongoing political pressure that can come from constituents in a representative democracy, or republic, it is no surprise that the protests in Iran quickly became mass riots. In other words, bad economic policy by religious clerics in power in an autocracy can easily result in popular protests abruptly erupting into rioting. The overreaching of functionaries based in the domain of religion into politics (including economic policy), such that the distinctiveness of the two domains is ignored or obfuscated, can be distinguished from the problems that go with autocracy.

On January 9, 2026, the theocracy signaled that the rioting would be dealt with severely. Iran’s judiciary chief, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, in assuming a non-judicial political role, “vowed that punishment for protesters ‘will be decisive, maximum and without any legal leniency.”[1] Separation of powers obviously did not exist in the Islamic regime. That both the internet and international calls were being blocked by the government signals that the protests could realistically result in the fall of the Islamic revolution in Iran. In other words, the severity of the government’s measures in shutting down communication can be read as indicative of a government whose days are numbered. In an interview, U.S. President Trump said that Iran’s dictator was already “looking to go someplace” because the situation on the streets was “getting very bad.”[2]

Demonstrating that expertise in theology does not extend to politics (as well as economics), Khamenei accused the rioters of “ruining their own streets . . . in order to please the president of the United States.”[3] Nothing was said about the hyperinflation that was putting even basic foodstuffs out of reach for an increasing number of people as the reason for the protests. Nothing was said about Crown Prince Reza Pahavi having called for the protests on January 8, 2025, and that the protests “included cries in support of the shah,” which can be distinguished from chants in favor of President Trump, which did not occur.[4] Pahavi was not calling for the United States to invade Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s rhetoric was therefore very poor from a political standpoint (i.e., his statement was incorrect), and he did not address the reeling economy in any constructive way in terms of advocating economic reform that actually had a chance of working. Knowledge in theology does not carry over onto the domains of politics and economics, so the overreach is problematic.

This critique can be distinguished from one premised on the American separation of “church and state,” which actually could use some work in American jurisprudence because “In God We Trust” is printed on the currency. To be against a government establishing a religion (e.g., proclaiming a religion to be the official religion) is different than being against a religion superimposing its distinctive criteria onto a civic government because an over-reaching of the political domain into the religious domain is distinct from the religious domain overreaching into the political realm, even though both instantiate the conflation of two distinct domains of human experience. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should have stuck to theology as a cleric rather than try to run a government, and his response to the economic protests—even that such protests morphed so quickly into riots—demonstrates the intractably problematic nature of overreaching from one domain onto another, qualitatively different, one as if the criteria and credentials of the former could and should supplant those of the latter in the latter.

---

1. Jon Gambrell, “Iran Supreme Leader Signals Upcoming Crackdown on Protesters ‘Ruining Their Own Streets’ for Trump,” APnews.com, January 9, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Bulgaria: From the Lion to the Euro

Just weeks after the government of the E.U. state of Bulgaria resigned amid protests against the rampant corruption, the state traded in its currency, the levs, which means lion, for the federal currency, the euro. In the new year, 2026, Bulgaria stood to relieve holders of the state’s debt and to tame the endemic inflation that has plagued the state’s economy. In November, 2025, for example, food prices had risen by 5% year-on-year, “more than double the eurozone average.”[1] The term “eurozone” is actually problematic, as it, like the application of the jargon, “bloc,” to the E.U. itself is meant to obfuscate readers regarding the genre of the political, federal union. To claim that Bulgaria joined a currency zone is inferior stating that the state adopted the federal currency. Stated properly, the currencies in the E.U. can be compared with those that were in the early U.S., and all of those combinations of state and federal currencies can be held to be compatible with federalism.

When the U.S. “bloc” began in 1776, the members were sovereign countries and therefore they had their own currencies. The federal dollar commenced in 1785. The member-states had their own currencies until 1788, so those currencies were concurrent with the federal dollar for three years. The E.U.’s model has been that state governments can choose whether to retain their own currency or adopt the euro, so no state can have both its own currency and the euro as legal tender at the same time. The E.U. and U.S. provide us with various combinations regarding currencies in a federal system, none of those combinations being at variance with federalism itself. In fact, the salient feature of dual-sovereignty that characterizes early-modern federalism—which is distinct from confederalism, wherein the states hold all rather than just some of governmental sovereignty—is arguably most consistent with two currencies being legal tender. This is not to say that the U.S. got this right for three years when both state and federal currencies were legal tender in their respective jurisdictions. The American “bloc” was a confederation until 1989, after which the federal governmental institutions and the states both had at least some portion of the governmental sovereignty in the system. When dual-sovereignty came into effect, only the federal currency was legal tender throughout the union.

Of course, like the U.S. in its first several decades, the E.U. in 2025 still suffered from being dominated by its states at the expense of collective action at the federal level. Because one of the chief benefits of a federal system of dual sovereignty is that the states can operate as a check against excessive federal encroachment and the federal institutions can operate as a check against excesses, such as corruption and anti-democratic tyranny, in state governments. The latter check has been severely hampered in the E.U. because the state governments dominate even at the federal level. The adoption of the federal currency by Bulgaria can be viewed as a step in the direction of achieving federal-state balance of power because, as Christine Legarde, president of the E.U.’s central bank, said at the time, the euro is a “powerful symbol” of “shared values and collective strength.”[2] Such strength has been the big loser as the heads of the state governments have resisted, as per their political self-interest, proposing and voting for additional transfers of governmental sovereignty to the federal governmental institutions (i.e., government) in the executive and legislative branches.

So perhaps it can be said that dual currencies fits best with dual sovereignty, at least theoretically, but that this presupposes a balance of power between the state and federal governmental institutions. In the case of a “bottom-heavy” federal system, such as the U.S. was through the nineteenth century, and as the E.U. has been through at least its first three decades, as many states as possible should replace their respective currencies with the euro. Admittedly, even if the 27 rather than just 21 E.U. states would adopt the euro, this would not in itself mean that the E.U.’s hand would be strengthened in defense and foreign policy to push Russia back from Ukraine and Israel out of Gaza and the West Bank. Given the tremendous imbalance of power, however, such that the E.U. has had trouble in asserting collective action for the benefit of the whole union rather than just a few states, a powerful symbol of collective strength could help to dispel the allure of the anti-federalist, or Euroskeptic, ideology.

That intangible benefit is irreducibly political, and as such, it can be easily dismissed by E.U. citizens who are in denial regarding the distinctively political genre of their union. For such people, the adoption of the federal currency by more states is viewed primarily as potentially strengthening weak state economies and bad monetary policies. This applies especially to the adoption by small, corrupt states—Bulgaria being roughly equivalent to Maryland in population in 2025. After being turned out of office by mass protests against the systemic governmental corruption, the state government of Bulgaria certainly could not be relied upon to resist the temptation to inflate its currency given the public debt there. Generally speaking, corrupt people lack the self-discipline necessary to govern anything. The E.U.’s central bank was much more reliable, especially with Lagarde having been at the helm for many years, than the government of the E.U. state of Bulgaria. As salient as this benefit is in the state’s adoption of the euro, the impact, although subtle and largely symbolic, on European political integration, already under way, is worthy enough not to be relegated or ignored outright. The power of symbol can be louder in the long run that a lion’s roar.

---

1. Aleksandar Brezar, “Bulgaria Switches to the Euro Amid Mixed Reactions from Its Citizens,” Euronews.com, 1 January, 2026.
2. Ibid.