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.
Maybe Trump will protect and pardon the Clintons .to keep his reputation as the pedophile protector.
The “pedophile protectors” are firmly entrenched on the left. Clear examples are made available daily, through the democrat-MSM, democrat politicians, and the hoards of paid leftist rioters that get between ICE and the apprehensions of illegal alien felons. Of course, that’s the facts, so I wouldn’t expect you to pay any attention to that.
10ffgrid,
It’s “hordes”. Also, if examples are made available daily, you should have named at least one.
Anonanut
In your case it’s whore’d, as in whore’d out to the leftist propaganda machine.
“U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not only arresting possible immigrants, but they’re also taking Americans into custody, either for claims they’re obstructing law enforcement, or those they’ve mistaken for immigrants.”
I don’t give a shit if they arrest citizens that have dark skin by mistake. I don’t have dark skin, so go ahead arrest anybody that looks dark skinned.
Congratulations!
You sound like the American Founders and early legislators when they established the Nation, its Laws, and its Population.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations for clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
If you interfere with an LEO – you risk getting arrested.
ICE, State Police – does not matter. Intentional physical contact is sufficient to result in an arrest – so protest stupidly all you want.
Document all you went.
Do not get in the way of LEOs , and do not even touch them.
The circumstances under which you can be required to produce ID are complex – though if you are in a vehicle you MUST provide ID.
If there is reasonable suspicion you are an illegal alien ICE can detain you. If you have valid ID to prove you are not they will release you immediately. They will also release you when they have established you are not an illegal alien.
Thanks to Biden’s APP – ICE has a database with millions of illegal aliens – it is my understanding that ICE is able to do a facial ID check from a terminal in their vehicles. Watch the Video’s – they ask people for ID – when they refuse they tell them they are taking them to the Car to verify ID.
Regardless ICE has arresting almost 1M illegal aliens in 2025
I would be completely shocked if they made ZERO mistakes.
There is no requirement that government is perfect.
There is no requirement that anyone is perfect.
Illegal Aliens come in EVERY skin color.
They need reasonable articulable suspicion. They cannot demand ID just because someone is in a car. Of course, that’s the law. Since the current crop of ICE agents are armed thugs who mainly failed to pass open book exams on the law and many have yet to complete background checks, it’s a gamble as to how much they are willing to do regarding killing or maiming and then hiding from accountability.
I know you are safe from ICE, but you may be vulnerable at the next drone attack on Moscow, Comrade Say.
Every survival kit should have a Kevlar vest for each family member.
Why? I can use a 12ga slug. It may not penetrate the Kevlar, but the kinetic energy is enough to break ribs, collapse a lung, or even stop your heart or cause other internal injuries.
The U.S. military is replacing its 5.56 ammunition with a new armor-penetrating 6.8 round.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
The U.S. Army’s new military caliber is 6.8x51mm, also known as .277 Fury, adopted as part of the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program to replace the 5.56mm round in the M4 and M249. This hybrid-cased round offers superior range, accuracy, and armor penetration for modern battlefields, using a steel-bodied case for higher pressures, enabling more effective engagement of threats at longer distances. The new weapons are the M7 rifle (replacing the M4) and the M250 machine gun (replacing the M249 SAW).
Creedmor
I know. But it’s the protection against folks who don’t have what you have.
That sounds like giving advice to terrorists.
It’s the End-of-the-Road for the Clintons. They will never see the Contempt of Congress perjuries sentenced out.
The Israelis will not allow the curtain to be pulled back on their Epstein connected involvement with the Clintons, to expose whom is really running the Country.
Having not complied with the subpoenas and taking that advantage to make their narrative widespread, the Clinton’s are now expendable. Israel leaves no loose ends, Jeffery Epstein is the prominent case in point.
The Clinton’s will be Clintoned.
Mossad; Haggana; Irgun; and other elite forces may in fact do what you’ve said. Any chance they can throw Hunter Biden in as a freebie?
Neither the Hagana nor the Irgun have existed for more than 75 years. Neither of them was ever an “elite force”.
Who’s really running the country?
The Juristocracy.
It is vested with absolutely NO legislative or executive power, yet it “decides” which legislative and executive acts are to be supported and which are to be struck down.
The fact is that the judicial branch is vested with ONLY the judicial power, that is, the power to judge or “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises,” per Merriam-Webster.
So the Juristocracy should not be running the country but simply providing the country with its “opinion,” per Merriam-Webster and the U.S. Constitution.
Chatham and the Central Banks
WTH is a Chatham?
Http//: prom.ac
Seek and ye shall find
It’s Larouchian garbage. Larouche is dead and good riddance to him, but his moronic acolytes are still around.
The judicial power is NOT “the power to judge”. It’s the power to decide what the law is. Including when a legislative or executive act violates the law. Striking down illegal acts by the other two branches is precisely what the constitution says is their function.
Get lost, you antisemite.
Today’s retail leaders face growing pressure to move faster, personalize deeper, and operate smarter — across every channel. Customers expect seamless, data-driven, and eco-conscious experiences. Internally, the demand for efficiency, agility, and real-time insights has never been higher. At ZoolaTech, we understand these demands — and help you not just keep up, but lead.
https://zoolatech.com/industries/retail.html
BAN FOR LIFE!!!
Today’s retail leaders face growing pressure to move faster, personalize deeper, and operate smarter — across every channel. Customers expect seamless, data-driven, and eco-conscious experiences. Internally, the demand for efficiency, agility, and real-time insights has never been higher. At ZoolaTech, we understand these demands — and help you not just keep up, but lead.
https://zoolatech.com/industries/retail.html
BAN FOR LIFE!!!
Bah haha! NOTHING AND I MEAN NOTHING is going to happen to the Dem Establishment! Have you forgotten about the Sandwich Boy Grand Jury and the Misdemeanor Trial in DC? Come on man -justice is something handed out GOPers and conservatives because they are filthy peasant heathens that need to be punished by the Illuminati! The Blue Enlightened Geniuses are ABOVE THE LAW for little people! We shall all see how BLUE JUSTICE is different than RED JUSTICE – again!
From a non-partisan viewpoint I have to say that if you don’t hold Congress in contempt you haven’t been paying attention.
The Clintons seem to be untouchable. Hillary – especially! However, if they get away with this, then all the other subpoenas are useless. The Dems should get this because yet the Clintons seem to have a magical support system. Why? He is charming but Hillary — never has been and never will be. This goes back to her college graduation speech when she tore up the approved speech and then delivered her own pre-planned one. She has always been arrogant about her intelligence and her worth. Sadly, some really think she walks on water … hope it is a shallow pond if she tries.
Well, she’s a killer, so…
Trump didn’t do well enough in school to give a graduation speech. He did so poorly that his handlers went and shook down the schools for any evidence he had ever attended.
Vy do you care about zee President? Do you know him? Does he call you at home?
The “Defense” is not meant to be a defense in the traditional sense. The reason for the “defiance” is clear as day, and I simply cannot understand why people cannot put things in context.
Red Herrings all over, but but Bannon, but but but Biden, but but when the shoe is on the other foot, but but no one is above the law, but but but with Trump it is different… and on and on.
The Strategy is simple and clear as day. The so called left, which is really just the centuries old establishment, wants Martyrs. They need them, they need OJ, they need, J6, they need some 24hr media spectacle to formant hate, rage and anger at the obviously “innocent” being framed by the fascist state dictator literally hitler regime impeach defy and fight.
Goode is George Floyd, even from the same area, even with the same exact very un-saintly background. A Martyr the news cycle can frame as the victim who is all of us is what is desired.
The Clintons are the most reprehensible figures in politics, they reflect the very un-saintly background Martyr template. Maxwell, now in jail on just tiny fraction of the lengthy horrors she helped facilitate was an honored guest at Chelsea’s Wedding. There are Pics to prove it. She may have even paid for it in whole or in part from absconded funds.
Recently there are pic of Bill, Bill of Flowers, Broaderick, Jones, Lewinsky factual historical record fame, in the first Epstein dump with faces blacked out. The DOJ has stated “Blacked out faces are VICTIMS!” So Bill is seen cavorting with VICTIMS. Hill cheered the death of a sovereign foreign leader who did nothing to her, or the US for that matter [check African Gold Back Currency and Libya], as if it was a football game – now same said regime change country has open air slave markets.
These are awful people, the very definition of Un-Saintly. We’ll leave alone the Foundation started by Epstein and the looting of Haiti, look up Clintonista Laura Silsby for fun and horror games. Un-Saintly, like Goode and Floyd, the Clintons are the next Martyrs to be put on on the TDS afflicted news media cycle to define what Fascism is, they will be the truest victims of the Fascist Regime, they represent us all, the fall of democracy, the end is here. Yes, The Clintons as described above will be the saviors of us all because they defied the Regime, and refused to explain the pics, the money, the luxury, the island, the kids and all the documented.
All the insanity on tv will be countered by “but but but…” and none of it will stick. Very likely, soon, pics of Bill in very very bad positions will emerge, and people will only see the Martyrs who defied the police state in order to save us all. Soon, horrors related to the Clinton Finances will emerge – again, but the docs will be 1m pages of soul crushingly boring information, and the Martyrs will carry on, posting about the unfairness of it all, and demanding people take to the streets.
How folks cannot see this given the near 100 or so example of this exact thing happening over the last 50 years is just beyond me. OJ was the tv template, a “famous” guy railroaded by the system, a Martyr, a man of the people, George Floyd is an extension of that, and the Clintons will rise to the highest level, with one minor exception here: Goode is a victim because of her sexual preference, Floyd and OJ skin color victims, the Clintons have no builtin Victim Status to rely it – but it will matter not.
This will be amusing. Social Media will crush their attempts, Thanks to Elon and X, but the Cable News legacy media will act as if it is the Nineties and ignore the new reality and rage endlessly about how truly insane it is to ask the Clintons, the King and Queen, to answer questions of any sort at all in any venue they didn’t choose.
Excellent run-down. With so many Clinton-criminal-escapades to choose from, the mention of Haiti is especially “salient,” as their crimes, so protected by their poorly-educated-but well-inculcated leftist defenders, have long been out in the open.
Aside from Clinton associate, Silsby, here is, briefly, one more example of the Clinton’s Foundation connection to the trafficking of children/minors:
Paul Walker (of the Fast & Furious franchise): On Nov. 30, 2013, Walker was killed. His car hit a tree and caught fire. However, video footage showed an explosion. Why did he die when he did? He was set to come forward with information he’d discovered through his charity work in Haiti, to expose the Clinton Foundation’s crimes against children in Haiti.
Paul Walker’s friend, Roger Rodas, drove the car at an excessive speed on tires that were hardened from decades of aging on a tight street. The fireball occurred during the crash.
There is no evidence of any investigation by Walker.
The Clintons wrote, “Every person has to decide when . . . to fight for this country . . .. For us, now is that time.”
No one plays the martyr card better or more often than the Clintons. It’s enough to make you throw up in your mouth a little bit.
-g
Nothing will come of this. Politicians are not responsible to anyone but themselves. For us older folks: remember Cattlegate? The HildaBeast turned $1000 into $100,000 magically. And those two have been on greased skids ever since. Accountability? Are you kidding me?
Hillary’s “fake” profits, related to trading she had no acumen for, were not “magic”; they involved illegal profit and loss switching among accounts by her disciplined broker, Robert L. “Red” Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive, while Tyson Foods was Arkansas’s largest employer.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
The claim that Hillary Clinton’s commodities broker, Robert L. “Red” Bone, changed her losses into profits by switching gains and losses among various accounts is an
allegation of improper trading practices that surfaced during the investigation into her successful cattle futures trading in the 1970s.
The key points regarding this controversy are:
“Red” Bone was disciplined by regulators (the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) on multiple occasions for serious and repeated violations of exchange rules, including record-keeping failures and failing to meet margin requirements.
A key allegation was “allocating” trades. This is a practice where a broker waits until the results of the trading day are known and then assigns winning or losing trades to different client accounts after the fact.
The concern was that allocation could be used to transfer money improperly between individuals, where a favored client (like Clinton) would receive winning trades while others absorbed the losses.
ARREST THEM! President Trump has ZERO reason to not assist the house with the arrest of the Clinton’s. Do it! Do it now!!!
He can’t do it now. The House has not yet held them in contempt.
I don’t think he needs to wait for them, two separate branches
THE COLOSSAL FRAUD AS THE BIG LIE
___________________________________________
“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.”
– Hillary and Bill Rodham Clinton
_____________________________________
AI Overview
The “big lie” is a propaganda technique where a falsehood, so colossal that people cannot believe anyone would have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously, is repeated frequently in hopes of gaining acceptance.
The concept was first defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 manifesto, Mein Kampf, where he claimed that the masses would “more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”.
This article is superficial. Kendall argues in his letter on behalf of the Clintons that the subpoenas are “untethered to a valid legislative purpose” and thus are unlawful. Turley should have addressed himself to that.
In any event, given the treatment afforded Navarro and Bannon, there should be an immediate criminal referral to the DoJ which should then consider whether indictments should follow. In considering that question they would need to assess the validity of the subpoenas. They should all get on with it.
It will be interesting to see which if any House Democrats support the criminal referral. Their hypocrisy on Epstein matters is nearly unbounded.
Hey Daniel, I believe the legislative purpose is mentioned in the cover letters to the corresponding subpoenas, including to Clintons, second paragraph from last, “it is imperative that Congress conduct oversight of the federal government’s enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.” https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025.08.05-Subpoena-Cover-Letters.pdf
Also see, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/668
But neither Clinton had any responsibility for the investigation or prosecution, so how would their testimony serve that legislative purpose?
Go back and read the cited paragraph in each of the subpoenas. The language changes in each of them after, “Because you….” I offer no opinion as to the adequacy or sufficiency thereof (not knowing whether others objected or refused compliance). I do not believe that “responsibility for the investigation or prosecution” is a prerequisite, and as noted, the Clintons certainly retain their right to object.
Why was Epstein at the White House 17 times and why did Bill the Dill fly on the Lolita Express 27 times? Complicit, Fraud money laundering? Let’s ask them…
They don’t want to give testimony because they don’t know what information the DOJ is holding. Simple as that…
The claim isn’t that they were involved in the investigation, it’s that they should have been investigated.
I agree with Daniel that Professor Turley should have addressed the legislative purpose argument raised in the letter and I encourage him to do so in an updated post, as a commenter, or in a future post.
if you had read kendall’s letter, you would see that he raised at least three objections, one of which was the “valid legislative purpose.” JT’s thrust was not addressed to this or the other arguments; he is making a reference to the history of the Clintons when faced with legal troubles. To simply isolate the legislative purpose argument, without addressing the others, would not serve the thrust of what JT was expressing.
Daniel also only brought up one of several objections from Kendall and commenters led him to an answer.
So why don’t you just write an analysis for Daniel and all of us. Be sure to discuss all the arguments Kendall made.
This article is superficial
Yes it is. JT has become click bait with little intellectual depth. He is as sensational as, well, Fox News. Often he links to Fox News categories, not even specific articles. And his repetition of the same issues day after day makes him very shallow. Then again JT has no moral code, no metric or baseline to which he assess all things. Devoid of religious foundational theology and philosophy, as well as casting off natural law, he has become yet another voice in the commentariat while never providing solutions. The Ancient Greek Sophists, known for persuasion and not truth, skepticism and relativism, had nothing on him. OTOH, his net worth is likely in the double digits of millions so why should he care about truth? For him its all about football games, meals that remind him of his religious mother, and vanity of vanities (Ecclesiastes 1:1; 12:8). The Hebrew word, hebel (“vanity”), has the sense of “emptiness, futility, absurdity”. JT is our modern Qoheleth.
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/ecclesiastes/0
shame on you.
Jonathan T. is an American lawyer, not David (the Hebel reference). He generally sticks to his lane, though I agree with Daniel that he could have dug deeper on the “untethered to a valid legislative purpose” issue. Still, most of the blog and news audience are unfamiliar with the law, which is disappointing but understandabl
“JT has become . . .”
You are as much of a vicious ingrate and smear-monger as is GeorgeX.
“. . . meals that remind him of his religious mother . . .”
You are mocking JT’s memories of his recently deceased mother. You are beneath contempt.
Navarro and Bannon were subpoenaed in relation to an attack on the Legislature. The action against the Clintons is a fishing expedition unrelated to the operation of the Legislative branch.
OT, it appears the leftist narrative of the ICE LEO was not hit is falling apart.
The ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition.
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 14, 2026
ICE agent struck by Renee Good’s vehicle suffered internal bleeding to torso, DHS says
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-agent-struck-renee-goods-vehicle-suffered-internal-bleeding-torso-dhs-says
Let see how they try to spin this one.
Upstate
The left will claim it happened when he tripped and fell down.
DustOff,
Will all those anonnys/X/Gigi/etc. actually admit that they were wrong?
And how many times is this now they have been wrong? I think someone, Tom(??), had a running list of all the things the got wrong. Just add another.
Looks like you 2 girls have found true love. when’s the wedding. Any kids?
I am already married and had have kids. Nice try, but strike out.
Fox News? NO ONE believes anything they put out. People with internal bleeding don’t walk around like Ross did, and the information came from the Trump Administration—chronic, habitual liars. AND, they decided NOT to even give him a tox screen and that he did nothing wrong within hours of the incident.
Stupid F
Upstate, he was slightly bruised. Any bruise is internal bleeding. For all we know it’s a highly exaggerated reporting to justify the unlawful actions. He’s fine. He was wearing full body armor.
Are you atleast admitting that he was actually hit ?
Next can you admit that legally it does not matter if he was hit – what matters is if a reasonable person in the same situation could beleive there was a threat to life or serious bodily injury of themselves or others.
It is not necescary for good to Hit the officer – it si not necescary for her to hit anyone – all that is required – which is easily met here is for Goods conduct to be dangerously reckless.
She did hit the officer in front of the car – badly enough to cause internal bleeding in his torso – not his foot or ankle.
She also “hit” the officer with his hands in her window – pushing him aside and riskinmg breaking his arms, wrists and hands or dragging him accross the road.
She was ordered to exit the car, she was at a stop with lights flashing. This was a custodial detention likely leading to an arrest.
She was not “free to go”.
She was fleeing, and resisting arrest.
He was never in danger. The fact that he was able to walk away and fire two more shots while completely out of danger is not reasonable. He was bumped by the car.
Exaggerating his injuries like the FBI agent tried to do when arresting another person and charge that person with a felony in another case shows how much DHS is willing to lie about such incidents. DHS has been lying to judges and the public about these incidents. We can assume they are lying now.
“She was ordered to exit the car, she was at a stop with lights flashing. This was a custodial detention likely leading to an arrest.
She was not “free to go”.
She was fleeing, and resisting arrest.”
ICE had no authority to arrest her. That’s the point. ICE are not the police. Blocking traffic is not obstructing their job. It’s a traffic violation. She had no obligation to get out of her car. ICE’s attempt to arrest her was unlawful.
Even a “ custodial detention” was unlawful. They are NOT the police.
George Svelaz, your post is riddled with contradictions and baseless assumptions. Your perception is confused and doesn’t reflect reality, leading you to present your flawed opinions as fact. Your claims of dishonesty are assumed, with no evidence to support them. As a long-standing ignoramus, you ignore the legal framework and authority that govern federal enforcement.
In short, you are logically inconsistent, factually unreliable, and read more like hot air than reasoned analysis. Get a job or an education; either one might help put you out of your misery.
ICE had no authority to arrest her. That’s the point. ICE are not the police.
Yes, they did, and yes, they are. Like all police, they have the right to arrest someone for any crime they observe happening. In this case, obstructing law enforcement.
What is required to believe is that killing Good was sufficient to stop the threat to him. Clearly the car passed by and went on to crash; therefore his action was not sufficient to stop the threat. In fact 2 of the shots were while the car was passing him and could no longer be a danger to him, but by killing the driver, the car was now out-of-control and became an increased threat to agents and on-lookers.
You clearly don’t understand the word “sufficient”, so you shouldn’t use it.
Anonymous 2:20 pm-Your suppositions are limited and incorrect. He suffered blunt trauma to the chest. Depending on where the trauma occurred is important. Rapid deceleration or acceleration of the chest can result in injury to the heart. The heart is in the pericardial sac and moves within the chest. Blunt trauma to the chest such as a steering wheel in an accident deforms the chest and can cause a contusion to the lungs and heart. People can develope respiratory failure as a result of lung contusions and the heart can also literally be flung against the anterior part of the chest and result in a heart contusion and this can cause an injury to the myocardium (heart muscle) that can reduce heart function and leave a permanent injury or scar to the myocardium similar to a heart attack (myocardial infarction).
The main effect of armor is to prevent Penetrating injuries to the chest and internal organs. A vehicle impact to the chest can deform and injure the chest and internal organs with or without armor.
A bruise is, for the most part superficial and right below the skin, but can also be a sign of significantly more serious injury to the chest wall, chest muscles and Internal organs. A bruise is more like a tag on an injury but may not be the only injury incurred, Especially blunt trauma from a vehicle. I have seen ruptured diaphragms from a slow moving vehicles which also caused herniation of abdominal contents into the chest and death and no bruises seen prior to death,
GEB,
Thank you for your expert, medical input and insight.
When military personnel falling wearing body armor, the most common bone to break is the collar bone as they put their hand out to stop their fall. The second is the wrist. The third, cracked ribs, usually the floating ribs, but there have been a number of connected ribs that also have cracked.
Source, briefing I got when issued body armor prior to deploying to Afghanistan.
I did defense work – specifically designing armored vehicles. The DoD lies to grunts like you all the time. If they told the truth you wouldn’t feel comfortable.
GEB who suffered a chest injury? It wasn’t any ICE agent.
UpstateFarmer,
Completely bogus !!!
The report says that Ross was treated and released the same day.
The problem with this report is that ANY sign of internal bleeding requires mandatory hospitalization.
Even if the bleeding is deemed to be minimal, then at an absolute minimum, the patient must be held at least overnight for observation in case the bleeding worsens. Significant bleeding would require a visit to the OR for laparoscopy or open laparotomy, followed by several days of hospitalization.
If a physician suspected internal bleeding and simply “treated” the patient and released him the same day, then that would be gross malpractice.
The only valid conclusion here is that the “unidentified” officials are lying, or do not exist.
Can you prove any of that? I will take GEB’s input over your spin anyday. GEB has credibility. You dont. You have been wrong, lied, gaslighted so many times, no one believes you. Nor should they.
And thank you for responding, with the spin that I mentioned above. Just like the news of the supposed mass resignations of Justice Department employees, that was debunked but you tried to spin as news.
UpstateFarmer
I am a retired ER doc.
You seem to think that all the Anonymous comments come from the same person. Truly delusional thinking.
ANY internal bleeding from blunt trauma is treated as a medical emergency, requiring hospitalization at least overnight for observation.
GEB’s “input” is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. He eloquently describes many of the possible diagnoses that must be considered and investigated in the case of severe blunt trauma to the thorax, but he made no mention of bleeding. As a pulmonary specialist he has undoubted expertise in this area, but all he did was describe the catastrophic injuries to the thorax that could result from severe blunt trauma. Any of the injuries he described would have immediately incapacitated Ross and he would not have been able to walk away as he did.
The issue is supposedly that Ross suffered “internal bleeding”. Given the low force of the impact, thoracic injury is unlikely. It is theoretically possible that a low force abdominal impact could have injured the spleen or liver which are very soft, delicate blood filled organs that could hemorrhage. If there was hemorrhage of these organs, no matter how minimal, it would be necessary to admit the patient at least for overnight observation.
I repeat, any physician who identified “internal bleeding” and simply “treated” the patient before discharge the same day would be guilty of gross malpractice.
Since Ross was discharged the same day, we can reasonably conclude that the claim of “internal bleeding” is false.
The report says that Ross suffered “internal bleeding to his torso”. Torso is a non-clinical anatomical term that includes everything from the neck to the pelvis. It is not a clinical term that would be used by a clinician. A clinician would refer to either the thorax, meaning the chest including lungs and heart, or abdomen meaning all the organs of digestion. The use of the word “torso” suggests that this report was not from a clinician, and simply adds further evidence that the report is completely BOGUS !!!!!
why are you assuming that the examining medical physician ON THE DAY OF INJURY diagnosed–or even saw– evidence of internal bleeding. Interstitial bleeding may or may not present; deep tissue bruising–and correlative internal bleeding–often do not show up for several hours.
I’m not “ASSUMING” anything.
I am simply going by the report of alleged “internal bleeding to the torso”. That is what the report says. It says there was “internal bleeding”.
On the other hand you are simply spouting a few terms you found on the internet without any understanding of what they mean.
Interstitial bleeding is bleeding into the interstitium, the substance of tissues, essentially a bruise in layman’s terms. Interstitial bleeding can refer to bleeding into the skin, creating a typical “bruise” that everyone is familiar with. This is of little consequence.
However, if there is interstitial bleeding into the tissues of an internal organ, that is still internal bleeding that buys you AT LEAST an overnight stay in hospital for observation.
Any claim of “internal bleeding” is absolutely false if the patient was not admitted for overnight observation.
you have no knowledge that the examining physician found “internal bleeding” on the day of the injury. It is you who are assuming not only when the finding was issued, but what words were actually used by the Doc in the finding.
No I did not use the INternet–I am of equal standing as you, without the bragging; only I don’t write nonsense to try to display my knowledge to issue a medical opinion prior to knowledge of unknown facts. And BTW, won’t you agree that delayed internal bleeding is often the consequence of soft blunt trauma.
and the language that you are using sounds like Merck’s Manual a/o medical glossary.
Unfortunately, you are the one making assumptions in an effort to justify your preconceived ideas about this incident.
The statement we have from DHS is that Ross was seen at a hospital, where internal bleeding was diagnosed. He was allegedly “treated” and discharged the same day. Based on that information, we can conclude that either the doctor committed malpractice, or someone at DHS is lying.
YOU are ASSUMING that there may have been delayed bleeding, but the statement does NOT say that he was seen at a hospital where he was treated and discharged, only to have “internal bleeding” diagnosed at some later time. Delayed internal bleeding is indeed possible, but that is not what is being alleged here. Even if that was the case, he would unquestionably have been admitted at some LATER time for observation, diagnostic testing and imaging to determine the source of bleeding. If you actually knew anything about delayed or occult bleeding, you would know that it is in many ways more concerning than acute bleeding, because it presents a more complex differential diagnosis that would require more extensive imaging, as well as testing for compromise of organ function. At a minimum he would undergo CT or MRI scanning, and perhaps angiography and laparoscopy.
One way or other, delayed or acute bleeding, the standard of care would require a hospital admission.
BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN !!!!!!
The most likely explanation is the DHS is LYING !!!!
As I noted above, the use of the non-clinical term “torso” is strong evidence that this statement did not come from a clinician.
This simply adds further evidence to the likelihood that DHS is simply LYING !!!!!
clown doctor: THIS is what you said, “UpstateFarmer,
Completely bogus !!!
The report says that Ross was treated and released the same day.
The problem with this report is that ANY sign of internal bleeding requires mandatory hospitalization.”
YOU are the one who ‘assumed’ and jumped to conclusions. YOU are the one who implied that the examining physician released Ross on the same day. YOU are the one who accused that physician of not following mandatory hospitalization for ‘ANY sign of internal bleeding.’
ENUF of your medical nonsense.
There is something very seriously wrong with you.
You seem to think that I made assumptions, and IMPLIED that the “examining physician released Ross on the same day.”
The statement from Kristi Noem said that Ross was treated at a hospital following the incident and was released to his home later that same day.
I simply reported that statement from Kristi Noem, and made the comment that, based on my professional experience, that proves there was no internal bleeding.
The standard of care for ANY internal bleeding is AT LEAST automatic admission for overnight observation. I did NOT accuse the physician of not following mandatory hospitalization requirements. I simply said that IF the physician had identified internal bleeding and discharged the patient the same day, then that would be malpractice.
The point I am making is that any competent doctor would have admitted Ross if there was ANY internal bleeding. The ONLY assumption I am making is that the treating physician was competent and would have followed standard of care guidelines by admitting him if there was any internal bleeding.
Since the doctor did not admit Ross, and assuming that he is competent, then the only reasonable conclusion is that there was no internal bleeding and that DHS and Kristi Noem are lying.
Upstate, it’s DHS that has to provide proof. They haven’t and they won’t.
Hey, Anonymous medical genius at 2:09 PM: A chest, abdominal, and pelvic CT would have assessed possible intrathoracic, intraabdominal, or retroperitoneal hemorrhage and, along with serial vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation) over time would have indicated whether or not admission for observation was warranted. No trauma surgeon in his or her right mind would have proceeded with laparoscopy or laparotomy without CT and clinical evidence to support that decision.
Vincente
Stupid, stupid comment.
You seem to think that you are making some sort of case that Ross was found to have “internal bleeding”, but you are actually making a case for the exact opposite.
You are absolutely correct that the imaging studies and physical exam would have been used to rule out “internal bleeding”, and “no trauma surgeon in his or her right mind would have proceeded with laparoscopy or laparotomy without CT and clinical evidence to support that decision.”
The point here is that the patient was discharged the same day. Clearly “internal bleeding” had been ruled out, otherwise he would have been admitted, at least for observation.
If any of the studies you describe had actually identified “internal bleeding”, then he would have been admitted, but he wasn’t admitted. You, yourself state that the required testing would decide whether admission for observation was warranted. The fact that he was NOT admitted indicates that internal bleeding had been ruled out. Internal bleeding of any kind is an automatic admission, AT LEAST for observation.
In other words the allegation of “internal bleeding” is FALSE.
So your stupid comment simply provides support for my contention that DHS is lying !!!!!
Not so, genius. A CTA of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis would have confirmed active or recent hemorrhage into the chest, abdomen, or retroperitoneum. A negative CTA could support same day discharge when assessed together with clinical exam, hemoglobin levels and vital signs over time, including orthostatic vital signs. Look it up, genius.
What is wrong with you ??
Why are you attacking me, when you clearly agree with me ???
Again, you are making the case that there was NO internal bleeding, and that DHS is lying.
As you correctly observe, if CT scanning and physical exam showed no evidence of hemorrhage, then that would support same day discharge.
I absolutely agree !!!!
Since he was discharged the same day, then we can confidently conclude that there was NO “internal bleeding” and that DHS is lying.
Apparently you agree with this conclusion, so why are you attacking me ????
I saw the video from the front today. She hit the gas, she hit him and he shot her for trying to run him down. Clear as day from the video I saw.
Wait – are they calling a bruise of unknown origin “internal bleeding”? And it was like he’d done the damage by bumping a refrigerator door closed with his hip? His fool belt would have left a mark on the car and the DHS would have released a photo that day.
“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.”
Let’s talk about “NO KINGS!”
Here is the clearest example of dictators and Kings, elites who [deem themselves] “above the law,” doing far worse than DJT and associates, who have indeed appeared in courts and inquires after summons OR paid the price when they didn’t—examined and/or indicted, supposedly, on behalf of representatives of “the people.”
The democrats’ “No Kings” hypocrisies have no rational or just roots, their internal blindness, no moral authority. The Clinton hubris, in which they rely upon a mentally-ill, under-educated, inculcated, increasingly-violent constituency is beyond stunning.
Dianna Bec,
Great comment and thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of her royal highness HRC, and the “No Kings” reference.
They are resisting an overreach beyond the Legislative branch into the Judicial arena. If there is probable cause then turn it over to the DoJ and let them take it to court.
They haven’t because they don’t have probable cause and would lose in court.
So they want to make up a false story to distract that Trump’s name is all over the Epstein files. Given the desperation, I’d say it shows Trump worked with Epstein in the sexual trafficking business.
Hear Hear!! Thank you, Prof. Turley for exquisitely laying it out re: To-day’s ‘The Clintons….’ It still breaks my heart to see Bill’s genius slide down into this kind of behaviour…. (..for a prelude to what is going on here.. there is the solidly researched ‘Clinton Cash’ by Peter Schweizer…)
Ex-Justice Department special counsel Smith will testify publicly about his Trump investigations
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is set to testify publicly next week about his investigations into President Donald Trump that resulted in two indictments.
By: Eric Tucker – AP ~ January 13, 2026
https://apnews.com/article/congress-jack-smith-testifies-jordan-jan-6-49e4b35fc45f4e3b3affe5afdee46044
See Video:
The big question for Jack Smith is ‘why’: Rep. Jim Jordan
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, discusses the details of ‘Operation Arctic Frost’ and Jack Smith’s upcoming public hearing on ‘Hannity.’
By: Sean Hannity – ‘Hannity’ FOX News Channel ~ January 12, 2026
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6387639091112
Controversy Erupts Over Justice Department Firing
“… McBride’s dismissal was further complicated by private meetings he held with federal judges in the district, which were discovered by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. The Attorney General supported the decision to fire McBride, although the Justice Department has yet to comment officially on the situation.” (id est: the Crux of the matter)
By: Devdiscourse News Desk ~ 13-01-2026
[Link] devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3767283-controversy-erupts-over-justice-department-firing
While I detest the Clintons, the big question is why Congress is holding hearings on Epstein in the first place? The man has been dead for years and NOT A SINGLE PERSON other than Ghislaine Maxwell was ever indicted. The main witness is also dead, dying at her own hand after numerous attempts and having been proven to be a liar. There are far more important issues Congress should be devoted to,
The question the Committee is investigating is WHY only 2 individuals were ever indicted? Sworn victim accounts name approximately 20 men who participated actively in sex trafficking of youth as rapists, e.g., Ehud Barak, David Copperfield). If there is a problem with VIPs getting a “free pass” from indictment for sex crimes, we need to fix it.
Prosecutorial discretion cannot be used to indemnify elites.
“… the big question is why Congress is holding hearings on Epstein in the first place? ”
BECAUSE THE CLINTON’S WERE INTEGRALLY COMPLICIT WITH EPSTEIN’S OPERATIONS
And Trump was what to good old Jeff?
an enemy.
Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago back in the early 2000s. They have not be on good relations as evident by some emails from Epstein to others since. Epstein was a Never Trump-ster.
“The man [Epstein] has been dead for years.”
Apparently, you don’t understand the reasons behind the constant cry to hold hearings on Epstein: this interminable screech, coming almost exclusively from the democrats in Congress, persists because they are trying hard to soil POTUS with it.
Further, no one else has, or ever will be, indicted for felonious connections to Epstein and his crimes because Epstein’s friends and connections were (and ARE!) exclusively DEMOCRATS. These democrat miscreants: wealthy guests, friends, and donors are ideologically connected and politically protect each other, e.g., the Clintons ; thus, they must push the Epstein hearings to continuously imply a Trump connection and cover up.
Political character-assassination of DJT (and diversion from democrat guilt) is the goal. So you see, they can’t and they WON’T stop, regardless of the more important issues, currently.
DB
Sorry – there are alot of MAGA republicans that want the Esptain material released.
The “Right” way to do this is to prosecute those that can be prosecuted.
I am not sure who that is anymore.
I do not personally beleive the law passed by congress releasing the documents is constitutional.
DOJ conducted an investigation. The 4th ammendment precludes the release of investigative records absent a criminal prosecution.
House Democrats have been subpoenaing the epstain estate – That is perfectly legitimate.
Lots of people want the epstain material to be made public.
That does not mean we should shred the constitution to do so.
Democrats have the false hope that there is some smoking gun that will once and for all “Get Trump”
There is not – just like there was not Russian Collusion, no pee tape, there is a point at which the absence of evidence is proof of a negative.
MAGA want this because one of the Qanon claims is that Trump I was being hunted by the Deep State because he was preparing to expose a deep state pedophile ring.
While overall this is a certainly false conspiracy theory, there are elements of truth in it.
There were groups of Pedo’s that were fired at CIA and another group later fired by Gabbard at NSA.
There are also with certainty many prominent people – mostly democrats who will be exposed as connected to Epstain.
At the same time it si highly unlikely there will be smoking gun proof against anyone.
Merely hangling arround Epstain does not PROVE you are a child rapist.
If there were blackmail material – we would know that by now.
What will be released is much like what has already been released – embarrasing evidence of guily by association.
NOT Proof.
My guess though is that the epstain files will live on as a conspiracy for decades.
Even if everything is released – some left and right will be disappointed and be certain there is more,
that something is being held back.
MAGA will be cetain that smoking gun evidence against the Clintons and others is being witheld.
Left wing nuts – as you see here daily will be certain Trump is being protected.
While a rational person will know that aside from possibly more pictures of Bill Clinton in a dress
there is no truly damning evidence against anyone.
I would note however many of the Qanon and extrme right claims are proving atleast partly true.
There are serious connections between Epstain and Mossad. Epstain increasingly appears to have made alot of money on
covert deals serving powerful interests – like various intelligence services.
These do NOT appear to be “black ops” just organizational activities that were being done off the books.
I don’t disagree with you except on this obvious point—there is no “right way to do this” precisely because there are highly political actors on both sides of the political spectrum with political careers and reputations to protect.
Like most people with a moral understanding of equal justice, I would like all of the Epstein material to be made public, and to see ALL those with connection to child sex-abuse to be prosecuted, but we all know they won’t be, precisely because they are the elites with full control of all tentacles of government, thus “control files” [Mossad or any other black-ops entities] will never be in the public record.
Though I concur with your statement that House democrats subpoenaing the Epstein estate is legitimate, and “republicans” agree, the more salient point inside this “legitimate” undertaking is that the democrats are most eagerly engaged for the specific reason of character-assassination of DJT, not because they seek to do what is right, or to find truth.
Agreed, merely knowing Epstein or having attended certain [elite] social situations with Epstein is not enough to convict anyone of child sex-crimes, but that is exactly what the left wants to do to DJT, make him guilty by association, which they are always trying to prove, despite ignoring flight logs that show Bill Clinton’s greater familiarity with Epstein and his Island activities.
Pointing out the democrat kabuki theater does not negate your points or mine.
@Dianna Bec
“The man [Epstein] has been dead for years.”
They would know best, since they likely killed him, before he could sing like a bird.
Back by popular LIBERAL demand after four years of their democrat president’s disregard.
So far those idiots have only hurt themselves in the persons of George Clooney, whom Virginia Giuffre claimed was attended to by Ghislaine Maxwell, Bill Gates, Bill and Hillary Clinton and other liberal luminaries. Of course, the prince was outed years ago.
______________________________________________________________________________
“Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell once bragged that she performed a sex act on actor George Clooney during a party, Jeffery Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre claimed in her posthumous memoir.”
– NY Post
Proven to be a liar? How was that done? Was there a court case?
What does Hillary Clinton have to do with the Epstein files? Her name is nowhere in the files. So why does she have to be deposed?
The Clintons’ lawyers, Ashley Callen and David E. Kendall, wrote in a separate letter to Comer on Monday that the subpoenas were “invalid and legally unenforceable” because they are “untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers.”
Since the files have been sort of released and Bondi is doing her damndest to slow walk the congressionally mandated release, what’s the point of their deposition? They were subpoenaed last year. The Epstein case is closed, so what is the point of the depositions?
The bigger question the Professor should be asking is, where are all the other subpoenas of people named in the files? Are those more closely related to the scandal more critical, especially current billionaires and former “friends” of Epstein?
This is about political theatre and a means to distract MAGA with salient snippets and out-of-context statements made during depositions. The Clintons are well aware of the dirty tricks and BS politics of these depositions. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sen. Grassley, a well-known leaker, would start leaking statements and snippets out of context to create a scandal meant as a distraction from Trump’s more salient involvement with Epstein, his best buddy at the time.
george
salient involvement with C, his best buddy at the time.
________________________________
Long time ago geroge. Plus Prez Trump worked with the FBI on this case.
Plus the pics of Billary & Bill with V
X Aside from their shared sexual perversions, Financial Fraud looms large. It’s about the Benjamins.
Wait trump or Billy boy?
Who really cares about this anymore?! Epstein is dead and those who really used his services will never be found. Move on… the world needs more than a discussion of Epstein at this point!
Are you kidding me? After the colonoscopy the Democrats provided Trump since 2016, if rhere was one centilla they could nail him on they would have. Why do you suppose they had Leticia James try to indict and convict him in a NY kangaroo court? Let’s give the Clintons the same inspection and see what washes out of their corrupt filthy lives.
X
I am extremely reluctant to see congress subpeonaing ex presidents. Clinton or any other.
Bill Clinton should not be subpeonad for EXACTLY the same reason that Bannon and Navaro should not have been
Executive priviledge.
The communications of a president and their advisors are priviledged. Only their actions are subject to oversight.
Technically Bill Clnton can be subpeonad for activities that are unrelated to his presidency.
But I do not beleive we should go down that road – as problematic as Bill Clinton maybe.
Whatever Republicans let out of the bottle here will come back to bite them later.
As to Hillary – absolutely she can be subpeonad.
Should she be ? Probably not.
But can she be – absolutely.
It is trivial to create a legislative purpose
That argument never flies
What is the point of the depositions – there are likely a long list of valid pretextual points.
But the real purpose is to embarras democrats and possibly catch one of the clintons in perjury.
“This is about political theatre”
Of course it is – increasing everying in congress is political theatre.
Once upon a time democrats were masters of political theatre – now they are a farce.
Republicans are however getting better at it.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if Sen. Grassley, a well-known leaker, would start leaking statements and snippets out of context to create a scandal meant as a distraction from Trump’s more salient involvement with Epstein, his best buddy at the time.”
You are aware that Grassley is a Senator and this is a house investigation ?
Presumably you are also aware that nearly all of what congress does is ON THE RECORD.
Aside from Classified documents – Congressmen CAN NOT LEAK.
X
There’s this Congressman named Adam Schiff and there’s this prior FBI Director named James Comey. What were you saying about leaking?
There was no legislative purpose to releasing Trump‘s tax returns, but the Democrats subpoenaed them anyway