When the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Republican James Comer, subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton, he no doubt did so for nefarious purposes. It served to focus attention on the Clintons’ relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and thereby deflect attention from Epstein’s best friend. It was in direct conflict with the position taken by Trump administration officials, who refused to comply with the January 6 select committee’s subpoenas under a baseless claim of Executive Privilege.

There was no good faith basis for the testimony of Bill Clinton, for whom there is no evidence that he had knowledge or connection with Epstein’s sex abuse and trafficking with young girls. There was even less basis for the testimony of Hillary Clinton. Nonetheless, Comer issued the subpoenas for closed-door testimony.

The Clintons initially sought to negotiate to avoid giving testimony, having already provided information requested by the committee. When that failed to suffice. the Clintons decided to refuse to appear. An official letter was sent to justify their refusal. It was followed up with a personal letter from Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Nonetheless, the Committee voted to hold the Clintons in contempt.

Nine Democrats joined Republicans in support of holding Mr. Clinton in contempt, while three Democrats backed holding Mrs. Clinton in contempt, teeing up votes on the House floor within weeks. Should the full House approve the citations, criminal referrals would go to the Justice Department to prosecute the contempt charges, which can carry penalties including a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for as long as a year.

The Clintons’ grievances about the subpoenas were not without merit, even if the extraordinary act of subpoenaing a former president went beyond the pale and the underlying purpose was largely to embarrass the Clintons and deflect attention from Trump. But they still should have testified.

Yes, their contempt votes are politically ticklish. And of course Mr. Comer is bending the oversight process to deflect the Epstein focus from Mr. Trump. These are dark times, dominated by a morally bankrupt president. But as the Democrats work to regain the public’s trust and to shed their image as the party of elites, they cannot be seen as treating elites in their party as above the law. Especially with a scandal about sexual abuse. Even more especially when the situation involves Mr. Clinton, whose own licentiousness has haunted the party for over three decades. (Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Clinton have denied any knowledge of Mr. Epstein’s purported sex trafficking of young women and underage girls.)

For those of us who remember the Clinton years, Bill represented a deeply flawed person regardless of whether you consider his terms of office successful or not. Hillary was his enabling wife before she morphed into a political power on her own, first as carpet-bagging senator and later as Secretary of State tainted by Benghazi. As for her presidential candidacy, the outcome speaks for itself.

The younger Dems on the committee felt no particular devotion toward their party’s former elites, and viewed their refusal to testify as less something to defend as something that got in the way of the broader goal of going after Trump. The sun had set on the Clintons, as least as far as the younger Dems were concerned. It was far more important that they be forced to testify so that their refusal didn’t provide cover for the refusal of others.

But the 2020s are not the 1990s, and Democrats long ago learned the price of protecting a self-indulgent leader from the repercussions of his bad behavior. “But what about Bill Clinton!” has for too long been the G.O.P.’s stock answer when a sex scandal rocks its ranks. Mr. Trump himself has repeatedly brandished Mr. Clinton’s sexual misconduct as a way to distract from his own. In 2016 Mr. Trump even invited multiple women who had accused Mr. Clinton of sexual abuse to attend one of his debates against Mrs. Clinton. It was a gross — and brilliant — stunt aimed at undermining whatever moral high ground Mrs. Clinton hoped to occupy.

But most importantly, the Clintons asserted that they had neither knowledge nor complicity in Epstein’s crimes. Fair enough. So testify. Get asked questions and answer them with a resounding, “No, I did not have sex with that girl.”

Mr. Clinton insists he has nothing to hide regarding Mr. Epstein. Yay for him. But not even a former president can defy a subpoena — issued with bipartisan approval, mind you — because he and his wife consider it unfair. Mr. Clinton had a relationship with Mr. Epstein. He owes the American people answers, even if he does not get to dictate the terms of disclosure.

Were the Clintons stuck on the principle of a former president being called to account before a House committee? Did the Clintons have something to hide? Why not move to quash the subpoena and let a judge rule whether their refusal was legally proper? But that would leave open the question of what the Clintons had to say about Jeffrey Epstein. It’s hard, if not impossible, to point at Trump’s relationship to Epstein when Bill Clinton is willing to risk contempt to conceal his relationship.

The Clintons should have testified, not because the committee was right to subpoena him, but because he had evidence to offer and not even former presidents should be able to deny their testimony to the Congress and the people. Not the Clintons. Not any former president. The Clintons made their choice, and that choice was to be held in contempt of Congress. So be it.