Woody Allen famously said, “80% of success in life is just showing up.” When it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton and possible congressional contempt, it may be 100%. The two politicians have decided to defy lawful subpoenas issued by the House. For the House Oversight Committee, now is also the time for contempt proceedings.
Chairman James Comer and the House Oversight Committee are investigating the Jeffrey Epstein controversy and have subpoenaed the Clintons to testify. Neither has been accused of criminal conduct.
Bill Clinton failed to appear previously and Hillary Clinton refused to appear on Wednesday. Instead, they issued a chest-thumping letter of defiance, declaring:
“Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time.”
The Committee is likely to agree that “now is that time” and the consequences are the start of contempt proceedings.
On August 5, 2025, the Committee approved the subpoenas. Former President Clinton’s deposition was initially set for October 14, 2025. It was then moved to December 17, 2025.
In December, Comer postponed the depositions for a second time to allow the Clintons to attend a funeral. However, he said that their counsel, David Kendall, then declined to offer any alternative dates.
The vote to issue the subpoena was taken on an unusual bipartisan basis for the often divided Committee. Even Democratic members on the Oversight Committee, such as Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said that the Clintons must comply.
There was a time when subpoenas were viewed as more than discretionary matters. Counsel has insisted that the testimony is unnecessary and a distraction. However, that is not a ground that any court would view as justification for knowingly and repeatedly ignoring a lawfully issued subpoena.
The position of the Clintons seems a repeat of the defiance of Hunter Biden, who chose to hold a press conference outside of Congress rather than appear inside for his deposition. He was accompanied by Democratic members like Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.).
At one time, Democrats were aghast at those who might defy congressional subpoenas.
President Biden maintained that defying subpoenas cannot be tolerated. When subpoenas were issued to Republicans during the House’s Jan. 6 investigation, Biden declared: “I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally.”
Two Trump associates – Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro – refused to appear in the House and were quickly held in contempt by a majority of the House, including Swalwell.
I wrote at the time that these individuals were also undeniably in contempt of Congress.
Now, however, such defiance is viewed as righteous and somehow excusable by figures such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.), who has routinely chosen political over institutional interests.
The defiance could result in a criminal referral for the couple, prosecutions that would mirror those under the Biden Administration.
In 2021, Hillary Clinton mocked Bannon’s indictment for contempt of Congress by saying that she planned for a “restful” weekend as he prepared for possible conviction.
It is an ironic moment. The Clintons are adopting the Bannon strategy that led to his conviction.
At the time of Bannon’s charge, I noted that all he had to do was appear and invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Committee would then have had to issue an immunity grant to compel any testimony. The worst thing that you could do is not appear.
That is precisely what the Clintons just did.
In reality, I expect that neither Clinton is losing any sleep over the prospect of a criminal charge. They have spent their career dodging such prosecutions. Of course, this is a Republican-controlled House and Republican Administration.
What is most striking is the lack of any effort to come up with a cognizable defense. The Clintons simply chose open defiance. For those who have denounced a two-tier justice system, there is nothing more entitled and privileged than this letter. Such rules do not apply to the Clintons, who feel that they have the license to decide when they will appear.
They are wrong and, like Bannon, left themselves no viable legal defense. They are simply asserting a type of de facto Clinton immunity that could leave even a sympathetic federal district court judge with no real alternative to trial. David Kendall is an experienced lawyer and perhaps he will reveal a legal defense that escapes me. For the moment, I am baffled by the legal strategy. Indeed, I see no intelligible legal strategy at all in effectively saying that “we simply do not feel like it.”
They seem to be repeating the same pitch that Bill Clinton gave in the Lewinsky matter: “I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.”
Despite a federal judge finding that Clinton lied under oath, it worked. The problem is that a defendant like Clinton can always argue in a perjury case that “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In this case, it does not depend on what the meaning of the word “testify” is. Whatever the meaning, showing up is a critical element. It is hard to argue that you are not in contempt when you make your contempt for the Committee your defense.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column also appeared on Fox.com.
I can think of no greater example of fomenting or stoking this country into anarchy- than to have a former President and First Lady thumb their noses at lawful authority, aided and abetted by a complaisant media.
-This follows media’s WIDELY-reported emphasis on the resignation of DOJ prosecutors in protest over the investigative handling of the Good shooting—-with national televised MSM (morning and nightly news reporting) failing to mention that the prosecutors had already applied for an early retirement program way before the Good shooting incident had even happened.
LIN
But we both know, the only think out of Billary’s mouth will be. I don’t recall.
“But we both know, the only think out of Billary’s mouth will be. I don’t recall.”
You guarantee that there will be no questioning of the definition of the word “is”?
Lin,
Well, we all know the Democrat party is the party of lawlessness. And now, here are just two of the masters of lawlessness.
“just two of the masters of lawlessness”
Not just “masters”, “headmasters”…
Lin,
Thank you for pointing out those facts. Seems our leftist friends get their news from biased, slanted and gaslighting MSM and then just parrots what they have been told.
Fake news media, foiled again! The news of “mass resignation” was bogus, and now debunked. We have lots of work to do! https://t.co/ieG2JqqWdZ
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) January 13, 2026
“This is fake news,” Dhillon told The Daily Wire of the story. “No division employee quit.”
Three people applied for early retirement the day before the shooting, which occurred on January 7 in Minneapolis, Dhillon said. Those three people gave notice weeks before the shooting took place, and the fourth person mentioned in the story put in for retirement in early December, over a month before the shooting took place.
Two of the other people that the MS Now story references have not resigned and are currently at their desks working, The Daily Wire has learned. While they have “apparently told the press they intend to resign,” Dhillon said, “our office has not received notice of any resignations.”
Why is there any surprise that the Clintons behave as if, and believe that, they are above the law? From Whitewater to Juanita Broderick to Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky to the Clinton Foundation to earthquake aid to Haiti to Benghazi to Hillary’s illegal e-mail servers and phones to the Hillary approved Russian hoax, they have never been called to task, other than for Paula Jones for which Bill Clinton agreed to have his law license suspended for five years and paid a $25,000 fine in lieu of disbarment. Has there ever been a married couple that has done as much damage to the integrity of the United States and gotten away with it for as long as these two? They have avoided accountability so often in the past, they likely figure that with defenders and enablers on the House Oversight Committee like Jamie Raskin, Don Goldman, Jasmine Crockett, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and other Democrat colleagues, it will be no problem for them to pull it off one last time.
You forgot Jennifer Flowers…
and E. Jean Carroll. Go get those jerks
Don’t forget her dog vagina…Rape is sexy isn’t it?! The one that formulated her rape claims in George Conways living room?
That E Jean Carroll?
Travel gate, destruction of government cellular phones, destruction of 33,000 emails, and various other issues like “I don’t recall” which would result in me and many others cooling our heels or hooves behind locked bars. Alleged friendships with crooked Arkansas sheriff and drug dealers. People dying in mysterious ways.
“From Whitewater to Juanita Broderick to Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky to the Clinton Foundation to earthquake aid to Haiti to Benghazi to Hillary’s illegal e-mail servers and phones to the Hillary approved Russian hoax, ”
Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton contributed greatly to the tragedy of the Waco murders by government through his failure to get an attorney general confirmed in a reasonable time. The crisis was inherited from Bush Sr., but by the time Clinton got Janet Reno on board events had escalated out of control, and her handling of the situation after she did arrive was execrable.
Congress cannot subpoena anyone outside the government, and only the States assembled as the Senate may direct those civil officers inside the government under their discretion. These matters must be resolved outside the government in the common course of law, that’s why we have impeachment to remove civil officers from inside our government system.
—
Conclusion: Restoring the Architecture of the Union
The American system did not begin as a nation, nor as a republic, nor as a Union. It began with thirteen Free and Independent States, each possessing the full powers of statehood. When these States first assembled during the Revolution, they did so as confederates in a general assembly. In such an assembly, where no decision‑making process has been agreed to, unanimity is not a chosen rule — it is the default condition. Only those who agree are included. No one is bound unless they consent. Collective action is simply the intersection of individual agreements. This was cooperation, not governance.
The first engineered step toward a durable system came when the States unanimously agreed to create a legislative assembly under the Articles of Confederation. This was the moment they transformed themselves from confederates into members of an unqualified Union. By unanimous agreement, they established the method by which collective decisions would be made. Once that method was agreed to, unanimity ceased to be the operational rule. It became the formation rule. The operational rule became majority consensus, because the States had unanimously agreed to be bound by it. This is the structural shift that created the first Union: a perpetual Confederation of States, each equal in standing, each participating in the determination of the general affairs of the United States.
The Constitution did not dissolve this Union. It re‑engineered it. The States remained the same members of the same perpetual Union, but they unanimously agreed to refine its internal architecture. Membership became qualified: only States assembled as Republican Forms of Government could participate in the Union’s legislative assembly. Representation and direct taxes were placed on a per‑capita basis, aligning political power with financial responsibility. Bicameral concurrence balanced the People in their collective capacity — formed by the Republican Principle of exact representation in the most numerous legislative branch — with the democracy of the States, where each State participates with equal suffrage. Executive execution and judicial effect‑determination introduced continuity and stability. The result was a more perfect Union — not a new Union, but the same Union operating under a more elegant and efficient design.
This progression reveals the true engineering sequence of the American system:
Independence → Unqualified Union → Qualified More Perfect Union
At each stage:
• Unanimity forms the system
• Majority consensus operates the system
This is the structural logic that makes the Constitution intelligible as an engineered system rather than a political compromise.
To understand this system, one must understand the distinction between the name of the country and the condition of the Union.
The United States of America is the name of the country — the people, the territory, the sovereign society.
The united States is the condition of the States assembled as the Union in a Congress.
The Constitution is the Constitution of the United States — the constitution of the Union assembled — and it is ordained and established for the United States of America.
The Union does not exist as an operating body unless the States are assembled.
The States cannot act as the Union until they assemble as the Union.
Assembly is the activation step.
Without assembly, there is no Union, no concurrence, no legitimacy, and no constitutional action.
Like all engineered systems, the Constitution’s unit operations do not function in isolation. Determination, concurrence, execution, and effect‑determination are interdependent operators. Each depends on the others. Each has a defined role. Each must remain within its lane. When one operator is overloaded, bypassed, or substituted, the system drifts out of specification. The structural failures we see today are not political accidents; they are the predictable consequences of operating the system outside its engineered method of determination.
The People do not act democratically. They act republicanly, through the Republican Principle of exact representation in the most numerous legislative branch. The only democracy in the system is the democracy of the States, acting in their collective capacity with equal suffrage. And no matter how a matter is initiated or determined — whether by the People’s representatives, by electors, by officers, or by any other mechanism — nothing becomes the act of the United States without the concurrence of the States assembled as the Union.
This includes the determination of civil officers.
No civil officer — including the President of the United States — is legitimate unless the States concur with both the process of determination and the person determined. Constitutional processes are simply the States indicating how they unanimously agreed those determinations must be made. If those directives are not followed, and if the States do not concur, then the process is illegitimate, the determination is illegitimate, and the person determined is not a legitimate officer of the United States.
And this leads to the most important structural truth of the entire system:
It is impossible — structurally impossible — for one person or a faction to determine what is in the interest of the United States or to decide how the Union must act.
The United States is not a person, not a party, not a national majority, and not a federal institution.
The United States is the States assembled as the Union.
Only the States, acting in their collective capacity, can determine the interests of the United States.
Only the States, acting in their collective capacity, can operate the constitutional system.
Only the States, acting in their collective capacity, can confer legitimacy.
To restore the Union, we must restore the system. The States must reassemble in their collective capacity as the Union — the same collective capacity Hamilton described in Federalist No. 9, and the same collective capacity Madison described for the People in Federalist No. 10. When the States act together in this capacity, they regain the authority that has always belonged to them: the authority to determine the system’s operation, to correct its drift, and to restore its equilibrium. The Constitution was designed for exactly this moment. Its operators, assemblies, and equality conditions were built to be reactivated by the States themselves.
The system can be fixed because it was engineered to be fixable — not by parties, not by factions, not by national actors, but by the States acting in their collective capacity as the Union. This is the enduring promise of the American architecture: a system created by States acting collectively, maintained by States acting collectively, and, when necessary, restored by States acting collectively. The path forward is the same path that brought us here.
The States assembled as the Union can restore the Union.
—
NfpNone claims: Congress cannot subpoena anyone outside the government
It looks like X/Anonymous/George/Svelez either has a new Internet constitutional expert as apartner in his online law firm. Or a new username added to his stable.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas to compel testimony from individuals outside of government, as long as the inquiries are related to its legislative functions. This power allows Congress to investigate a wide range of issues, including those involving private citizens or organizations.
And they’ve been doing it for several centuries without SCOTUS saying “You do not have the power to do that”.
It’s not like this hasn’t been litigated in court before by private individuals attempting to avoid the subpoenas.
Exactly! Maybe they, it, she, he should go back to their, its, her, his “law school.”
Bingo! I love the follow up, a real masterful touch if you’re a gullible moron 🤡🤡
Citation please, you’re brilliant! 🤣🤣
Author cite?
NfpNone, please give author. You’re comment is innovative if not genius.
Citation
It’s the “we don’t feel like it” Clinton legal standard and it works beautifully for them and for Hunter Biden. I predict that any House contempt proceedings will get bogged down in hearings and go nowhere.
Republicans in congress have shown time and again they have no stomach to get in the gutter with Democrat evil.
If I remember straight, Trump didn’t even show up in person for his trials for impeachment, and just so we are clear, an impeached person is removed, on impeachment for offenses against the United States, which creates a vacancy in the office of the president which requires the vice president to act as the President until the reason for the president is removed.
The President is removed from office into the custody of the States as the Union assembled as the Senate where the Chief Justice must preside over a custody hearing to determine the manner of custody while awaiting, and during, the trial in the Senate where the States assembled the Union win consider the impeachment and determine conviction, acquittal removes the reason for the absence allowing the President to return to office, conviction creates a vacancy in the office which requires that the States assembled the Union assembled must immediately determine the time of choosing electors and the day on which the electors must give their votes by ballot to form their State’s list of persons to be considered by all the States in Congress to determine a person to become the President by vote, one vote per State, and a majority of All the States is necessary to the Choice, which could be the very next day following the creation of the vacancy by convention.
The States as the Union could demand that the States choose their electors at 8 AM EST and gather their electors at 12 PM EST that same day, and require the States electors to certify their lists and transmit them sealed to the seat of government directed to the President of the Senate by 5 PM that same day.
A new President and Vice President could be determined the following day and the persons chosen to become the President and Vice President would be informed when detained and take office immediately on their presenting themselves in the Senate thereafter.
Do much for party nominations, campaigns, and popular voting, which are not part of the constitutionally established electoral process to elect the president.
nfpNone says: If I remember straight, Trump didn’t even show up in person for his trials for impeachment
If I remember straight, you just posed as an Online Constitutional Expert, claiming that Congress CAN’T subpoena private citizens and organizations – which they most assuredly can.
Now you swiftly reverse yourself to claim that as a private citizen out of office, Trump had some sort of obligation to show up at Commissar Pelosi’s Soviet-style show trials.
The show trials where the only witnesses and questions allowed had to be approved by the person she chose to run those show trials.
Nothing says “this is Constitutional!” than those Pelosi impeachment trials in the House! Great strategy for you to use in hoping to build credibility!
Well… you just keep running with this contradictory messaging you’re pumping out.
Nixon resigns, Ford pardons
Hey, m0r0n1c d1p$h1t! You skipped a tiny detail. If you bother to read the Constitution, impeachment by the House is followed by a trial in the Senate. Only after a Senate conviction is an impeached officer be removed form office.
Slick Willie and his sidekick — the BleachBit Harpy — typify all that is disgusting and wrong with Democrat politicians. Willie is vile; the harpy is evil: offered here as the anagram of the day. Chairman Comer should land on both of them hard. Really hard, because they deserve nothing less.
Time for Billfoon and Shrillary to spend some time in concrete cells.
Were they already convicted? That was fast.
Long past time, actually.
One concrete cell for the both of them, as cellmates. They deserve each other.
Bill would not come out alive, Vincent. Arkancide has no witnesses.
“Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and realize that if they testify their ass might end up in jail. No comment.”
The Clintons did agree to a “public” hearing so voters could watch the entire hearing. Why are Republicans scared of a public hearing?
Also wouldn’t you have to also call Jeffrey Epstein’s best friends both Donald and Melanie Trump to appear?
Why will Republicans only support a secret hearing shutting out voters?
“Why will Republicans only support a secret hearing …”. They didn’t.
Trump was in some of the same circles as Epstein. Then, Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-lago in the early 2000s. They have not been friends as a result. But, Bill Clinton on the other hand . . .
Why will Republicans only support a secret hearing shutting out voters?
This isn’t Republicans attempting their version of your Trump impeachment hearing in the House. Four sentences and four separate lies… well, that should work here!
Yes, for multiple reasons. Grandstanding for one…
They should both be in prison along with the Biden’s, Mayorkas, Smith, Garland and Obama.
Why? They been convicted of a crime?
Performance art by Chairman Goober. We’ll know he’s serious when he subpoenas Malaria & the Orange Sex Criminal. Let’s do it publicly. Cult members should recall how Hillary destroyed then over 11 hours of testimony. Gowdy still shows off his scars at Nelson Motors law firm meetings.
We all know the ‘one’ (and the one that really/literally counted) wherein Hillary was “destroyed”. And she has never recovered since that ‘one’ except in the small minds of sycophants. Live with it.
Hey! You win a Bill Clinton “special edition “ cigar for that one.
I’m surprised the wardens let you out of your padded cell long enough to access a computer. I could think of so many better things to do with my time than rageposting the same tired milquetoast insults and party lines on a free spech/law blog.
What, you want me to analyze and comment on your missive? There’s no substance. It would be akin to commenting on the quality of water and ice soup.
“I could think of so many better things to do with my time than rageposting…” Name one.
Then why did you bother commenting?
Jackthelaw says We’ll know he’s serious when he subpoenas Malaria & the Orange Sex Criminal.
The identifying language of Biden’s Tranny Birthing Boyz! How many times did you vote for President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate White House Incest Showers, despite today attempting to pose about being concerned about “sex criminals”? Doing so before Trump ever ran for office to provide you with a deflection and diversion as an excuse for that choice of yours as Biden serving as your mentor for being a “sex criminal”?
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is the intended psychological manipulation by a low-IQ perpetrator of those they hope to victimize through intentionally misleading that person or group. This involves the perpetrator trivializing, lying, denying events, and other methods used in the hope their intended victims doubt their perceptions of reality, memories, and feel overly emotional or irrational.
The main five methods of gaslighting that may be used alone or in conjunction with others are: trivializing, countering, lying, blame shifting, and withholding.
The use of the word “Righteous” coupled with Bill and Cankles Clinton is the height of absurdity.
“The use of the word “Righteous” coupled with Bill and Cankles Clinton is the height of absurdity.”
Trying to figure out the origin of “Cankles” as used there. Is that some kind of hybridization of “Cackles” and “Chancre”?
Part of the contempt judgment should include loss of benefits he continues to receive including hundreds of thousands of annual pension, secret service protection, cost allowance for his office and staff as a former potus, etc.. etc.
If he doesn’t want too obey the law, he does not deserve the benefits.
Legally impossible.
Then make the fine equal those disbursements.
Already done.
Just try him for raping Juanita Brodderick, that could keep him under lock and key. At least unlike E Jean Carroll, there is actual evidence of forcible rape.
What do Bill Clinton and Woody Allen have in common? According to Jeff, they both showed up.
“What do Bill Clinton and Woody Allen have in common?”
They are both comedians, and (imho) not very good at it.
@Ex Dem
Oof. 😂😂
they both like younger girls.
“they both like younger girls.”
I’ve never seen any allegation that Bill diddled Chelsea, but I wouldn’t for a moment put it past him…
Yeah, no foul as she’s reported to not be his biological daughter. Reportedly, she’s Webb Hubble’s, sure looks just like him…
Now the mulatto son that Bill won’t take credit for, that’s jogging the memory…
Al Capone was rumored to have caused or committed about 40 murders during his highly successful criminal career. Yet, it was in come tax evasion that caused his downfall and eventual prison sentence, not the murders. Similarlky, the Clintons may be liable for all sorts of crimes while in and out of government service, but it could easily be ignoring a congressional subpoena that slips them up. Good riddance!
“may be liable for all sorts of crimes …” And you can’t name one.
Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records that mysteriously appeared, the soliciting and acceptance of funds from various potentates around the world who donated to the Clinton Foundation and were granted special privileges, Hillary’s possession and misuse of classified info in personal computer and server, Hillary’s transmission of same to a computer owned by Anthony Weiner. As for Bill, he was impeached for lying about the Monica Lewinski deal and a federal judge accused him of perjury, a crime. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Fraud
Mishandling classified documents
Obstruction
Those are just tip of the iceberg.
Jeez man, where have you been?
Funding the Steele dosier as a business expense?
The Clintons must comply with the subpoena. With that said I do not see the value of Congress investigating Epstein. Surely Congress has more important things to do like fix our flawed mmigration laws and reduce fraud of our tax dollars.
Suzy: Congress is investigating the Epstein investigation and the controversy concerning privileged treatment he received because of his connections in high places, including the US government. Bill Clinton has been closely associated with Epstein and a logical witness to provide useful testimony to the Committee. The Clintons are not accused of any crimes at this point but ignoring a subpoena could get them a criminal contempt charge.
There is also the contention that Epstein was acting as an agent for Israel, and that the underage girls were primarily a means of exerting influence over those with political power via blackmail. I am not aware of any convincing evidence regarding that, one way or the other, but if this investigation could shed significant light on the allegation, and allow it to become previous business, that would be useful, as we have more than enough other issues to grapple with.
Aside from the sexual misconduct allegations, Epstein was a career criminal at money laundering and financial fraud. Only to be rivaled by Meyer Lansky.
Epstein, at least, did not orchestrate the assassination of any US Presidents…
I wouldn’t put it past the Clinton’s
“Epstein was a career criminal at money laundering and financial fraud.’ And never proved.
Yep, ol’ Jeffrey had files for decades at the FBI and they did nothing. And nothing was ever “proved” so it must have never happened!!!!
ol’ Jeffrey was good!! Or the ‘cigar man”s FBI was bad…
Because he had the goods on so many with political power. You fail epically at dot connection puzzles, don’t you?
Crimes such as fraud and campaign fraud are part of the Epstein case in the Clinton arena as the Clinton Foundation funding and pay outs. It’s tax money laundered many times over. They don’t show up because they have underworld guards who’ll kill anyone seeking to harm them. Clintons are bad actors.
Imo
A contempt conviction carries a shorter jail term than a perjury conviction. The other alternative would be to show up and plead the Fifth in response to every question. Or, of course, to answer truthfully. That last option never occurred to them, I am sure. They should have taken the Fifth. Thir reputation is so filthy by now it couldn’t get worse.
You’re not a constitutional lawyer. And wise you ain’t. Go drink your cocoa.
Why, the Wiseoldlawyer seems to have the democrat operation manual down to a T. Obfuscate, deny, claim offense and then call in the paid protestors – it was always a winning formula for them as long as the general population was controlled by the legacy media and then along came social media and the alternative news….. oops.
Actually, yes he is.
Tactic du jour, rage and defiance at the system. Its working too.
In any case, suddenly Bill & Hillary will never see the inside of a committee chamber, because of …. health issues.
Bedside depositions are available. But only after Hillary kicks the kids out.
So much ado about nothing.
Everyone Knows
Democrats jail Republicans
Republicans try to be nice!
Nothing will happen
Reminder Democrats started jailing republicans within months of Trump 1st election, they jailed 1000’s
Red meat morning! Let the MAGAotts devour the Clintons.
Hey Red Meat….why do you love Illegals, but Hate Americans?
Did you beat your wife again this morning?
Nothing like the voice of experience to to give pause for thought!
So did you molest you step daughter again today.
No, mom. And quit suggesting that. Just because you and your brothers do that does not make it OK. And just because Jeffrey E. was your personal hero back in the day is no longer a justification. How many times do we have to go over this?
Don’t have any brothers. But if you like, you can watch. Just, no touching.
We already covered that, mom. Dad said to never call him uncle and you agreed. And grandpa said that, technically, your brothers were also your cousins and we should just leave it at that. Do we have to keep going over this mom? And in a public forum where you otherwise embarrass yourself routinely?
Come on Ilhan….don’t air the dirty laundry in public.
They are still your brothers, even after they started to wear dresses and try out for the girl’s basketball team…
No but we heard you sure did
But why wouldn’t the Clintons show up for a lawful subpoenas issued by the House to answer questions about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? Are you not the same persons who is always demanding for the Epstein files to be released? I mean, in the files that have been released, there are a lot of pictures of Bill Clinton in Epstein’s pool, getting a massage by a Epstein’s employee, getting all friendly with young girls. And there is the 26 flights on Epstein’s Lolita Express, 5 without SS detail.
Dont you want to know more about that?
No, what’s the point? Seems you have a prurient interest in mean with girls, especially pictures.
Just pointing out the facts, looks like Bill was all kinds of friendly with those young girls. And he seemed really good friends with Epstein.
If I recall isn’t there the Epstein text that Clinton likes them young?
Mom, why is it always “No, what’s the point?” when it is about you not having to make sense or getting your way? Grandpa thinks it is a coping mechanism for dealing with the ‘cousins’.
We have so many stories ov left wing nuts behaving badly
Because there are so many left wing nuts behaving badly
But I was already holding him in contempt…
Gordy – Best response yet. As for the heart of the post, reasons for not appearing could be anything from contempt for a Congressional Committee chaired by a Republican, arrogance, fear of exposure, or laziness. Since both are attorneys, ignorance of the law won’t cut it.