Yesterday, a curious thing happened in a House Committee. Bill and Hillary Clinton were actually held accountable for flouting the law — at least as a preliminary matter. In the House Oversight Committee, Democrats joined Republicans in approving contempt resolutions against the two political figures after they refused to appear to answer questions about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
The House panel voted 34-8 to advance the resolution on Bill Clinton to a floor vote. It voted 28-15 to advance a resolution on Hillary Clinton.
As previously discussed, the Clintons adopted a position that was devoid of any cognizable legal defense. It was simple hubris, telling Congress that they did not want to appear to be saying that congressional subpoenas are discretionary for them.
From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions. Courts can find perjury and prosecutors can find classified material without a criminal charge. Evidence can suddenly surface after investigations, or thousands of emails can be destroyed without any repercussions.
After that history, it is little surprise that the Clintons would believe that they, unlike other Americans, can choose whether to comply with a subpoena. After standing in flagrant contempt, the Clintons only reaffirmed the sense of entitlement by offering to allow an interview in New York without a transcript. There would be no “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments.
It is a demonstration of our partisan times that the mere fact that Democrats joined in the motion came as a surprise to many. Nine Democrats voted with their GOP colleagues against the Clintons
What is disgraceful are those Democrats who dispensed with any institutional or ethical obligations in opposing the resolution. Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee:
Wesley Bell (D., Mo.)
Shontel Brown (D., Oh)
Robert Garcia (D., Cal.)
Ro Khanna (D., Cal.)
Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)
Suhas Subramanyam (D., Va.)
James Walkinsaw (D., Va.)
Then there are the two Democrats who voted “present” rather than take responsibility by making an actual decision: Reps. David Min (D., Cal.) and Yassamin Ansari (D., Wash.). That is the “profile of courage” for some members: voting that “I’m here” without taking a position on open contempt for the Committee.
Figures like Ro Khanna have long portrayed themselves as more moderate voices, but appear to be yielding to the far left, including his recent support for the disastrous wealth tax in California. Now he is effectively saying that congressional subpoenas simply do not apply to the Clintons like they would every other American.
The three Democrats who voted to advance the resolution against Hillary Clinton are Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, according to Politico.
Two Democrats voted “present” for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution: California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari, while just Min voted “present” on the Hillary Clinton resolution.
This vote was the true test of courage for House members. There has to be something that is not entirely dispensable in the face of political advantage. Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons, respect such subpoenas.
For a party that runs on fighting the privileged and entitled wealthy class, this vote is comically ironic. They are supporting the claim of the Clintons that they get to decide when they will be subject to legal demands without offering an even remotely plausible legal defenses.
I don’t know that I’d call a smattering of dems a turnabout, and at least with Tlaib, she thinks her radicals should be in charge, and doesn’t give a toss about the Epstein materials beyond how they can be weaponized.
As for the Clintons, I suspect they are correct; nothing will happen to them. Some people create misery for others up to their last moments on earth. That shoe fits them. Their hubris is the least surprising part to me.
Since Trump officials are essentially declaring “Constitution Free Zones” in Minnesota and Maine. The state Governors can also use Trump’s unconstitutional practices also.
A state Governor in Minnesota or Maine could empower the local and state police to follow federal agents acting as “witnesses” – using license plate trackers, cell trackers, drones, etc. to track and monitor unconstitutional (illegal) actions by federal officials.
Local and state police officers could check for “judicial warrants” and wear body cameras recording unconstitutional practices. If Governors did this, it might have saved the life of Renee Good. There would be real police officers (with months of police training) on site to advise federal agents not properly trained in policing.
@Anonymous
🥱🥱🥱
Tell me you know nothing about the Constitution and what is being done by ICE all in one post without telling me you know nothing about them.
Two strawman sentences of declaration projections. Two strawman projections of lies before fleeing without further comment:
Since Trump officials are essentially declaring “Constitution Free Zones” in Minnesota and Maine.
The state Governors can also use Trump’s unconstitutional practices also.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where a deeply emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else.
This is an internal defense mechanism which allows mentally ill people to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
Not an argument.
“Since Trump officials are essentially declaring “Constitution Free Zones” in Minnesota and Maine.”
And yet no court has found ICE actions unconstitutional.
“A state Governor in Minnesota or Maine could empower the local and state police to follow federal agents acting as “witnesses” – using license plate trackers, cell trackers, drones, etc. to track and monitor unconstitutional (illegal) actions by federal officials.”
They can do all of the above constitutionally so long as they do not obstruct ICE’s enforcement of the law.
Tracking ICE would be stupid but legal – posting that publicly would be Obstruction.
“Local and state police officers could check for “judicial warrants””
Nope, If Local and state police do ANYTHING to obstruct ICE – they will be arrested.
There is no requirement for a “judicial warrant” to detain illegal aliens.
A Sworn Warrant is required to search private property – it is not required for public property.
The words “judge, judicial, magistrate” do not appear in the 4th amendment.
A local or state police officer can NOT ask for a Warrant from a Federal Officer – supremecy clause.
State an local law enforcement have ZERO jurisdiction over federal law or federal officers.
The residents of a home being searched for an illegal alien CAN demand a warrant – but they are not free to demand a particular type of warrant.
“wear body cameras recording unconstitutional practices.”
Absolutely – but there is already plenty of video of everything ICE.
And State and local LEOs have ZERO authority with respect to ICE beyond that of an ordinary citizen.
I.E they can not get any closer to an arrest than a protestor without being charged.
Next – to the extent that what you want is obstruction of ICE – that would be an “illegal and unconstittuional order”
Unlikely the nonsense of Sen Kelley – this would be a clearly illegal and unconstitutional order.
State and local police are NOT going to obey it.
With incredibly rare exception – state and local police want to ASSIST ICE not obstruct them.
The Reason that the MN NG has not been deployed.
The Reason that the MPD has been ordered to stay away from ICE, is that should they be sent were ICE is they would be OBLIGATED to protect ICE from “peaceful protestors”.
Your not going to get what you want – because ICE is behaving lawfully and constitutionally.
ICE WANTS the involvement of State and local LEOs – people who KNOW the law and are not only going to not interfere, but will stop others from interfering.
“If Governors did this, it might have saved the life of Renee Good.”
Probably – she would have been arrested by local police for obstructing Traffic.
Unless she tried to run an MPD officer over she would nbot have been able to interfere with ICE and would be alove today.
“There would be real police officers (with months of police training) on site to advise federal agents not properly trained in policing.”
ROFL
The average ICE officer conducts more arrests in a year than they average local police do in their carreer.
That is almost all ICE does. Further until Jan 2026 ICE has been unable to hire anything but replacements.
But NOW 10000 additional officers are being hired.
These are mostly LEOs and former military police.
Officer Ross was hired by Biden and had 10 years experience.
John Say,
Thank you for pointing out all the flaws and lies the annony moron spouts continuously. It is the same garbage they spew all over the internet as if they were lawyers or experts of Constitutional law. They are nothing of the sort, and just keep repeating their lies trying to convince they are right.
USF
If you tell a lie often enough Nd frequently enough, most people will believe it.
John Say,
“ Since Trump officials are essentially declaring “Constitution Free Zones” in Minnesota and Maine.”
And yet no court has found ICE actions unconstitutional.”
Because a case has not yet been filed it does not mean their conduct is not uncontitutiuonal.
“ Tracking ICE would be stupid but legal – posting that publicly would be Obstruction.“
Huh, no it would not. Tracking and posting it publicly is not obstruction. It’s no different than standing on a street corner warning mototist of a speed trap ahead. SCOTUS has ruled it is Constitutionally protected free speech activity. Letting the public know the whereabouts of ICE on public roads is perfectly legal. Obstruction means physical obstruction and hingering their work. Announcing their positions to the public is just pointing out where they are. Nothing about that is considered obstruction. If they want to avoid being tracked they can always act under cover.
“ There is no requirement for a “judicial warrant” to detain illegal aliens.
A Sworn Warrant is required to search private property – it is not required for public property.
The words “judge, judicial, magistrate” do not appear in the 4th amendment.”
You’re partly correct. There is no requirement to have a judicial warrant to arrest an illegal alien. However there IS a requirement to have a judicial warrant to enter a home or any other private property. An administrative warrant cannot be used in lieu of a judicial warrant.
“ The residents of a home being searched for an illegal alien CAN demand a warrant – but they are not free to demand a particular type of warrant.”
Yes, they are free to demand ICE produce a particular warrant. Because an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant are not the same. One does NOT allow ICE to enter a home. A judge, not an immigration judge which is NOT part of the judicial branch, has to approve a judicial warrant before any attempt to enter a home can occur.
“ The Reason that the MPD has been ordered to stay away from ICE, is that should they be sent were ICE is they would be OBLIGATED to protect ICE from “peaceful protestors”.
Wrong, no police officer is obligated to protect anyone, period. SCOTUS has already made this point absolutely clear and as recently as yesterday when a Uvalde cop was acquitted of charges of not engaging a shooter. No cop is obligated to protect anyone. They can stand right next to any ICE agent and do absolutely nothing if protesters get engaged with ICE.
“ The average ICE officer conducts more arrests in a year than they average local police do in their carreer.
That is almost all ICE does. Further until Jan 2026 ICE has been unable to hire anything but replacements.
But NOW 10000 additional officers are being hired.
These are mostly LEOs and former military police.”
The level of arrest is irrelevant to training and experience. ICE has been lowering their recruitment standards, physical standards, and shortened their training to just a handful of weeks. Those hired may be former military police or former police officers, BUT they are often those who have been rejected due to long records of abuses, policy violations, and criminal histories. Former Proud Boys, and white supremacist groups are already within the ranks of ICE. ICE is not properly vetting their recruits because they can’t meet their hiring quotas and meet expected arrests per day or month.
“ Officer Ross was hired by Biden and had 10 years experience.”
So? That does not mean he is competent or stable. “Had” ten years of experiens means nothing if he is overstressed and suffering from PTSD and has had a history of abuses and overreaches. Just because he had 10 years in the force does not mean he was good.
The comparison between warning drivers of speed traps (which is undoubtedly lawful) and warning fugitives of police looking for them is invalid.
A person warning drivers of speed traps is warning NOT TO BREAK THE LAW, at least for the next few minutes. How can that not be protected speech? The result of the warning is that the drivers OBEY THE LAW and therefore don’t get ticketed, which is surely a goal of which the law can only approve. But directly warning an offender that the police are looking for him is almost certainly a crime, since it is directed at enabling him to commit a crime by evading capture. Warning everyone in general, including any offenders who might potentially be there, is less obviously a crime, but it’s certainly not obviously lawful. Whether it is lawful remains to be adjudicated.
Not an argument.
Local Minneapolis law enforcement has been prohibited by Mayor Frey from being deployed in significant numbers. If they were, maybe they could have helped demonstrators like Renee Good, and others, avoid the consequences of their bad decisions. By his choice and decisions, the Mayor shares significant responsibility for her death.
Is this where we break out the cigars?
Should a gentleman offer a lady a White Owl? Would that be considered racist?
“Should a gentleman offer a lady a White Owl? Would that be considered racist?”
Should the lady give a hoot?
“Should a gentleman offer a lady a White Owl? Would that be considered racist?” Should the lady give a hoot?
Depends on whether it’s a Clinton commemorative White House Night Owl cigar.
That’s no lady. That’s a devil with a blue dress on 🙂
“Depends on whether it’s a Clinton commemorative White House Night Owl cigar.”
Ah, the marinated variety…
:-O
White Owl Cigars:
“We’re gonna get Cha!” -Bill Cosby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkTHoyRjr7U
Tiparillo cigars:
“Should A Gentleman Offer A Tiparillo To A Lady?” -Robt Burns 1964
https://www.madcoversite.com/mad104backprintid.jpg
Prof. Turley,
With respect I have to disagree.
All over the place – more on the left than the right, but still both parties are running from the rule of law for partisan advantage.
Congress is not a supplement to the Justice Department.
Its purpose is to investigate GOVERNMENT not the american people.
While a legislative purpose can be manufactured for anything – we are way too far out on a limb here.
Comey, Brennan, Clapper and other lied to congress as part of hearings that were undoubtedly government oversight.
They should be fitted for orange jumpsuits.
If DOJ has a criminal case against the Clinton’s – and personally little would make me happier that seeing Bill and particularly hillary in an orange jumpsuit. I have zero doubt both are up to their nicks in crimes.
But it is the job of the FBI to investigate federal crimes – NOT Congress.
Congress could legitimately subpoena Bannon and Navaro, But Neither could be prosecuted for failure to testify until AFTER they claim of executive privilege was adjudicated – order matters, Due process matters. And frankly the testimony Congress sought CLEARLY violated executive privilege. The direct communications between a president and advisors are privileged and MUST be. Regardless, atleast Congress had a legitimate oversight basis to subpoena them.
As Badly as I want the Clintons to be grilled under oath about decades of their bad conduct,
The rule of law and the constitution is more important.
I would further note that while I am not sure there is a formal privilege there – it is an incredibly bad idea to have ex-presidents testify before congress.
There might be a legitimate Government Oversight purpose to subpeona’s Hillary regarding her role in CrossFire Huricane.
As much as I want to see everyone participating in Epstains Billionaire prostitution right prosecuted.
There is no role for congress in that process.
Epstains victims are free to sue their abusers – and they should take them all to the cleaners, and publicly expose them.
DOJ should prosecute if there is a case to be prosecuted.
But Absent a prosecution, DOJ MUST remain silent and can not share the Epstain investigative material.
The law passed by Congress is unconstitutional. It violates the 4th amendment.
I think it is a trillion to 1 hail marry that releasing Epstain information will “Get Trump”
But I have zero problem prosecuting Trump in the incredibly unlikely event there is credible evidence of criminal conduct.
Bill Clinton and many other democrats relationship with Epstain stinks to high heaven, but short of evidence strong enough to prosecute criminally,
this should be left to the victims. I have not seen anything that comes close to my being able to convict Bill Clinton though I am certain he is a criminal pervert and sex offender. Beyond a reasonable doubt is supposed to mean that the EVIDENCE proves the commission of a specific crime – “Beyond a reasonable doubt” – it does NOT mean a long history of being a scum bag leaves me certain – which I absolutely am, that Bill Clinton is a criminal sex offender.
That is not what I want. It is however what the constitution and the rule of law demand.
The constitution and the rule of law do NOT exist to give us what we want.
They exist to preclude using FORCE to get what we want without very strong justification.
“ Comey, Brennan, Clapper and other lied to congress as part of hearings that were undoubtedly government oversight.
They should be fitted for orange jumpsuits.”
That is false. Comey never lied to congress, neither did Clapper or Brennan. There is no evidence they did and the only “evidence” they provide are allegations. That is why Trump’s incompetent DOJ cannot bring up charges or evidence.
The DOJ is flaunting the law with regard to the Epstein files. Congress passed a law releasing all the files. It’s easy to see that Trump is indeed nervous or worried about it. More so than Bill Clinton who seems to be much more collected and calm about it than Trump. That speaks volumes about the rumors and allegations surrounding Trump’s close friendship with Epstein. He knew what was going on and likely enabled it or turned a blind eye from Epsteins crimes.
Otherwise, I do agree with your point about forcing a former president to testify before Congress after Trump sucessfully argued that Presidents, even former ones have immunity from such demands. HIllary? What does she have to do with Epstein? It does not make sense for her to testfiy.
George/x, YOU, little twit, have NO knowledge of whether “Comey []ever lied to congress, neither did Clapper or Brennan.” Because YOU, little twit phony knpw-it-all, do NOT know what Comer and his committees have. Really getting tired of your pretending to be superior in knowledge over others FAR more in-the-know than YOU, little twit. Go ahead and state your tunnel-visioned OPINIONS, but STOP declaring them as facts and making us laugh.
You have an argument in there somewhere? Comey never lied. Trump’s DOJ is too incompetent to even muster a proper indictment.
(—looks to me like the argument being made is that you have no internal knowledge or privity to render your comment as anything but opinion, n’est ce pas?)
Lin, c’est bien!
Il souffre de raisonnement suivi circulaire
Lin,
Very nice!!! Great take down of the slow and dumb one!!! The only time it is worth the bother to read any of his moronic comments if for context when you, John Say, OLLY reply! It was fun the other day watching OLLY take him down and as he lost more and more he really started talking in circles in desperation to stay relevant. The deeper the hole he dug for himself, OLLY only helped him dig deeper!
Lin, and you do? Comey never lied. He’s alleged to have lied, but the administration never had any evidence to show he actually did. That was going to be presented to the court if the case went ahead to trial. Many other lawyers, like you, better versed in the details of the case pointed out the Trump DOJ was constantly conflating two different questions that were asked by Grassly and Rubio.
You know Halligan had no business being the AG to prosecute the Comey case. Every sensible lawyer knew it the moment she was appointed and it turned out they were all correct. Halligan was not properly appointed and the constant screw-ups and horrible misteps pointed out her incompetence and lack of experience. Turley stopped discussing the case when even he realized how bad this would turn out. Clearly he did not want to dive into this case beacuse he would have been forced to criticize Halligan and Bondi’s unlawful and frankly incompetent handling of the case. It would have forced him to acknowlege that Comey was not going to be successfully prosecuted. Not by Halligan or anyone else.
You have an argument in there somewhere? You have something persuasive other than contrarian transparent lies, X/Anonymous/George/Svelez?
343 remaining days of abject and cringeworthy personal failure remaining for you in 2026, you Cheap Fake Democrat American.
More X performative ignorance.
John Say, it’s more than you have provided. Comey was never going to be prosecuted the moment Halligan was appointed.
The Trump administration never had a case to begin with. That is the problem and Turley likely knew it early on after the first Halligan flubs and missteps with the indicment.
I hope personal attacks go out of style, and our country gets back to meritocratic debate. It will require some adult-like behavior. We are entirely capable of it.
“I hope personal attacks go out of style, and our country gets back to meritocratic debate.”
I hope we can get back to when insulting people by throwing contrarian lies in their faces can be met with a slap in the yapper and an invitation to recreational dueling.
Then we’d get back meritocratic debate.
That is false. Comey never lied to congress, neither did Clapper or Brennan.
X says: “It depends on what my meaning for the word ‘lie’ means”. Contrarian blizzards of lies are my life”
X – more “crazy lying”
more “performative ignorance”
Brennan and Clapper both testified that the US was not spying on US citizens – The Edward Snowden leaks PROVED beyond any doubt that was a lie. There is alot more evidence.
Only loons like you are trying to defend Brennan and Clapper.
Comey testified that he did not leak and he did not direct anyone to leak, and that he did not take confidential or classified documents.
While there is some debate as to whether Comey or McCabe is the one lying about SOME leaks where McCabe admist leaking but claims that Comey authorized it. Much more Damning is Comey’s removing classified and confidential material and providing it to Richamn and then directing Richman to provide it to the press and then congredulating him when that was done.
This was all done via email and is extremely well documented
“The DOJ is flaunting the law with regard to the Epstein files. Congress passed a law releasing all the files. ”
a law that Trump signed and that is unconstitutional.
And that a federal judge has already tossed the lawsuits claiming DOJ is not complying.
It is extremely difficult to release inestigative and GJ marterial without violating other laws and franlky impossible without violating the 4th amendment.
“It’s easy to see that Trump is indeed nervous or worried about it.”
X you “easily” see monsters under the bed. You see russian collusion everywhere.
Your like the people in the emporers new cloths – you see what is not there because you want to.
” More so than Bill Clinton who seems to be much more collected and calm about it than Trump. ”
Which is why Clinton is dodging a supeona.
BTW the Subpeona is FAR more dangerous than the epstain files.
There is 20 times more damning information regarding Clinton already released.
But there are no videos of Clinton getting felated by a 13yr old.
There is not going to be PROOF of crimes in the epstain files. But there is going to be evidence that people who testify must find a way to safely lie arround.
What do you think Clinton will say if asked whether he was ever felated by a 13yr old ?
“That speaks volumes about the rumors and allegations surrounding Trump’s close friendship with Epstein. “:
More crazy lying. They appeared together at public events – as did the clintons and half of NYC.
The “relationship” was inconsequential until Trump got reports of Epstain hanky panky with MAL staff – including Gufrei 0 who testified that Trump never did anything inappropriate.
Regardless what little relationshop there was ended when Trump banned epstain from MAL in 2004.
There are lots of Epstain remarks about Trump to others. These are the childish insults of someone with an axe to grind.
They are not evidence. There is no communications between Epstain and Trump – as there is with Summers or Plaskett or myriads of other democrats.
“He knew what was going on and likely enabled it or turned a blind eye from Epsteins crimes.”
Which si why he banned Epstain publicly in 2004 ?”
“Otherwise, I do agree with your point about forcing a former president to testify before Congress after Trump sucessfully argued that Presidents, even former ones have immunity from such demands.”
No they have immunity for acts in the pnumbra of official duties while president.
Boffing a 13yr old at Epstain Island in 2008 would not be covered by presidential immunity.
The courts have NEVER found anything congress did not justified by a legislative purpose.
That is error on the part of the courts.
ALOT of what congress does has no consequential legitimat e legislative purpose.
Both the Rogue and legitimate J6 committees do.
Investigating anything epstain is outside congresses jurisdiction.
“HIllary? What does she have to do with Epstein?”
She can testify to what she saw regarding Bill.
and who knows, maybe she was diddling 13yr olds too.
However scumy I think Bill Clinton is or you delusionally think Trump is Hillary is far far worse.
Hillary has hr fingers in every single major US scandal since Watergate – and most of the time she is the perp or perp adjacent.
There iss almost no claim of poor conduct that most of this country would not beleive regarding Hillary.
But we do not prosecute people because we KNOW they are scumbags.
We prosecute them because we can PROVE they are criminals.
Finally to reiterate – Congress is NOT the DOJ.
Their job is to investigate GOVERNMENT, not private actors.
“ Much more Damning is Comey’s removing classified and confidential material and providing it to Richamn and then directing Richman to provide it to the press and then congredulating him when that was done.
This was all done via email and is extremely well documented”
That “classified and confidential material” were his own memos and notes. Giving them to Richman was entirely his prerogative. It was never established that he was not allowed to do that. It was only alleged that he could not do that.
“ He knew what was going on and likely enabled it or turned a blind eye from Epsteins crimes.”
Which si why he banned Epstain publicly in 2004 ?”
He “banned” him only because it became public that Epstein was engaged in sex trafficking. Trump knew about Epstein’s crimes becasue he shared the same views and conduct. When something is bound to be linked to Trump his go-to excuse is alwasy, “I barely knew the guy”. Everyone knows Trump knew about Epstein’s sex trafficking. Epstein, like Trump liked to brag about it. That is why he’s so deathly afraid of releasing the files.
Typical Leftie responses we see.
Never argue the issues or law…just offer bovine fecal matter instead.
The Clintons were legally served subpoenas to appear before Congress.
They refused.
The Congressional Committee voted to pass a Resolution holding the in contempt of Congress….and act that we know leads to a minimum of four months in Federal Prison owing to recent prior convictions for the same acts
Now we get to see how the full House views the matter….any guess that no a single Democrat votes to find their most favored Love Birds in Contempt are made from the Left?
The Democrats might vote to hold them in Contempt but only if the power brokers running the Democrat Party decide to see the Clintons go the way of the Buffalo.
I have to admit that Slick Willie deserves some leeway as he is justly able to warrant some forgiveness as he has to live with his Sugar Pie. Hillary garners no warm loving feelings from anyone except perhaps the gal that is married to a Weiner.
The vision of Hills in an orange jumpsuit wearing cheap Flip Flops living in a communal setting with ordinary criminals eating bologna sandwiches and pinto beans somehow seems both desirable and somewhat remotely possible under an Administration that does believe in the Rule of Law.
We know Bill lies under Oath so anything he says is considered unreliable….and Hills does so but in a manner that has kept her from the same conviction.
My bet is the Democrats shall vote to send a Criminal Referral to the DOJ, the DOJ shall prosecute the Clintons, and the Jury shall find them guilty. What the Judge does sentence wise is the Wild Card. In a just Court….upon conviction the Judge shall sentence the two to prison for four months just as happened to Steve Bannon.
The alternative under the law that allows compelling of testimony whereby the Defendant is jailed and/or fined until fully and honestly testifying under Oath also would be a lovely outcome. Then, upon testifying they have to do so with complete honesty and if caught lying then they are confronted with a Perjury charge.
I prefer the last method of gaining compliance and if the defendant fully and honestly testifies there are no criminal charges leading to prison time and Congress gets the information it is seeking. There can be criminal charges filed against others perhaps but not the person testifying.
This right now is a political matter until Congress votes to hold the Clintons in Contempt then it becomes a criminal matter until the Judge has to issue a Sentence upon conviction….then the real politics begins.
One thing is dead certain….the Clintons are not standing upon Principle or the Law as usual….we shall see if Democrats in Congress some how find it possible to do so despite their track record for not following Principle or the Law.
“ The Clintons were legally served subpoenas to appear before Congress.
They refused.”
No, they didn’t. The only refused when Republicans refused to hold the depositons in public. They wanted the hearings to be open to everyone. Republicans demanded they only be held behind closed doors. Turley deliberately left out that particular fact.
The Clintons have made it clear time after time that they will gladly have the hearing as long as it’s held open to the public. Strangely the party of transparency is refusing to hold the depositons open to the public. All they have to do is accept that one condition.
X – you are both incorrect about the facts and the law.
The Clintons wanted an “off the record” Private hearing.
But it does not matter – the house gets to decide how to conduct its own hearings.
The NORM is to conduct sensitive testimony in private.
Then follow up with a shorter public hearing.
Regardless, if the Clinton’s have a claim regarding the process of complying with the subpeona – THEY are free to go to court.
AS I have commented in a different post – I do not think the Clinton’s should have been subpeonad.
I do not think the house Epstain hearings are legitimate.
I do not think the Law requiring DOJ to disclose investigative and GJ material where there is no prosecution is constitutional.
Nor do I think it is a good idea to subpeona ex-presidents.
But the courts have Ruled on much of my objections above.
I beleive they have done so wrongly and in violation of the constitution.
The Clintons are therefore obligated to comply with the Subpeona, and failure to do so is a crime.
There is a means to challenge a subpeona – In court. If the Clintons want constraints on the subpeona or the condictions of their testimony – they can negotiate with Congress and failing that they can persuade a court.
Courts can quash or modify subpeonas. The target off the subpeona can not unilaterally decide they are not complying.
John Say,
“ The Clintons wanted an “off the record” Private hearing.”
You have evidence of that?
You’re wrong on that. The Clintons agreed to have the hearing as long as it was held publicly. They also offered to give written answers to their questions which Republicans also rebuffed.
“ The Clintons told the committee they would not participate in the closed-door depositions rescheduled for Jan. 13-14, arguing that the panel’s subpoenas were “legally invalid,” a claim repeated in the Tuesday letter from their attorneys. The couple also said that they should be excused from providing in-person testimony because they had provided sworn statements containing all the information they have about Epstein. Other former officials, including former attorneys general Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales, have submitted sworn statements in lieu of depositions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/21/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-epstein-contempt-congress-oversight-vote/
“ The Clintons are therefore obligated to comply with the Subpeona, and failure to do so is a crime.
There is a means to challenge a subpeona – In court. If the Clintons want constraints on the subpeona or the condictions of their testimony – they can negotiate with Congress and failing that they can persuade a court.“
They are already doing that. They do not have to comply with the subpoena just as Jim Jordan didn’t. They can ignore it while they take their case to court and it seems that is exactly what they are doing.
Obviously you understand the Republicans are doing this purely to score political points and create a narrative beneficial to Trump. He’s clearly desperate to avoid more scrutiny of him and Epstein’s close relationship.
“ Courts can quash or modify subpeonas. The target off the subpeona can not unilaterally decide they are not complying.”
JIm Jordan did. He set a pretty good example for the Clintons to follow. Jordan didn’t go to court to quash the suboena on him did he?
George: If I may, please let me step in. It is quite clear that Clintons’ attorneys are trying different tactics to avoid contempt. One of them is the offer to have Comey and Garcia meet Bill Clinton at Clinton’s office in New York, without an official transcript. That makes John Say’s comment correct.
https://x.com/repjamescomer/status/2013724445521645634
I do not believe Comer would lie to the public about this, especially on X.
Please note the Absence of a reference to a formal transcript under oath, -coming from the Clinton side.
https://x.com/angelurena/status/2013982202443292796
Lin,
Thank you for providing the facts.
You’re wrong on that. I am right and you are wrong. I am right and Turley is wrong.
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
“You’re wrong on that.”
False they wanted a private deposition in NYC with only the ranking members and two staff and no record.
This is well documented.
more performative ignorance.
“ The Clintons told the committee they would not participate in the closed-door depositions rescheduled for Jan. 13-14, arguing that the panel’s subpoenas were “legally invalid,” a claim repeated in the Tuesday letter from their attorneys. The couple also said that they should be excused from providing in-person testimony because they had provided sworn statements containing all the information they have about Epstein. Other former officials, including former attorneys general Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales, have submitted sworn statements in lieu of depositions.”
All of that is correct – but it does not support your claim.
“They are already doing that.”
They have tried to negotiate and FAILED.
They have not gone to court.
Nor is it likely they will. They will lose if they do.
I do not like the scope the courts have given congress – as I have stated it is unconstitutional.
But no ourt nor SCOTUS has agreed.
“They do not have to comply with the subpoena just as Jim Jordan didn’t.”
The speech and debate clause not only prevents Congress from subpeonaing jordan, it prevents DOJ from doing so.
The clintons have no such constitutional protection.
They will lose in court.
This is not a close call.
“They can ignore it while they take their case to court and it seems that is exactly what they are doing.”
If they do so they will be in a worse position than Bannon and Navaro who atleast had a valid executive priviledge claim.
The only hope the Clintons have is Jury nullification.
And frankly the Clintons are NOT that popular in the democratic party.
“Obviously you understand the Republicans are doing this purely to score political points”
Of course That is called politics Democrats do that even more than republicans.
I have zero problems with politicians engaging in politics.
I have problems with their going outside the constitution.
“create a narrative beneficial to Trump.”
I think they are more interested in their own public perception that Trump.
“He’s clearly desperate to avoid more scrutiny of him and Epstein’s close relationship.”
ROFL
“JIm Jordan did. ”
AGAIN Absolutely CLEAR justification in the constitution speech and debate clause.
The ONLY Arguments the Clinton’s have are “legislative purpose”.
I would be happy if the courts set a precident with this case and found for the Clintons.
But that would overturn every prior case on this.
Just not happening.
and “bill of attainder” – which is even weaker.
“Jordan didn’t go to court to quash the suboena on him did he?”
He did not need to – The House did not even try to hold him in contempt.
Jordan was ABSOLUTELY protected byt eh speech and debate clause of the constitution.
This is not even a close call.
No, they didn’t. And I have more personal personal integrity than anyone else here – including Turley who lies to you every day.
So saith X… our most credible commentator here since George suddenly disappeared.
My bet is the Democrats shall vote to send a Criminal Referral to the DOJ, the DOJ shall prosecute the Clintons, and the Jury shall find them guilty.
The crime would have to be prosecuted in DC, and it’s very unlikely that a DC jury would convict them, no matter how strong the case against them. To paraphrase Donald Trump, the Clintons could shoot someone on Pennsylvania Ave in broad daylight and a DC jury would not convict them.
I Tracked Down The Companies Bribing Trump:
So you have a long video with alot of claims – many of which are false – US Soy Bean production is UP as an example – the data is readily available on Trading Economics.
All you and the video’s author have demonstrated is economic ignorance.
Trump did not get the $1T in tarrif Revenue he expected ? Why ? because for goods with relatively inelastic supply and inelastice demand all Tarrifs do is rearrange who buys from who.
I would note that Tarriffs has NOT driven inflation up – something you left wing nut economic idiots have claimed over and over.
What the Video demonstrates is that Just like Under Democrats, Govenrment under Trump engages in “rent seeking”.
Guess what ? That is unfortunately not unconstitutional and not illegal.
Where you can establish that the Government PERSON with the power to control things PERSONALLY benefits (or his family does) and you have a clear quid pro quo – all of which are present in the Biden Burisma deal, Then you have bribery and a crime.
Businesses making political donations OPENLY in the hopes of having a seat at the table and even getting favorable outcomes is not only legal, it is commonplace. Further Republicans are not nearly as good at it as democrats.
How do you stop Rent Seeking ?
You take economic power away from government.
That is the ONLY way you can accomplish that.
Do you really think that all the billions that are donated to the Democratic party – or to things like the Clinton Foundation, are about ideology ?
Frequently the big donors listed in this video ALSO made big donations to democrats.
They want a seat at the table no matter WHO is in power.
John Say,
“ US Soy Bean production is UP as an example – the data is readily available on Trading Economics.”
That is true, BUT what is relevant is the fact that there are not enough buyers and China being the biggest buyer of soy is stopped buying soy when Trump’s retaliatory tariffs were imposed. They switched to Brazilian soy. Right now Soy sales are NOT where they should be and all that excess soy is sitting on the ground not being sold.
“ I would note that Tarriffs has NOT driven inflation up – something you left wing nut economic idiots have claimed over and over.“
That is because most suppliers and companies have been eating the increased costs. They are now getting to the point where they are being forced to start increasing prices and therefore inflation will start to increase. Plus, let’s not forget that Trump’s see-saw tariff policies are not consistent. He’s backed off a lot of tariffs once it’s been “discovered” that it is hurting U.S. companies more than expected.
““ US Soy Bean production is UP as an example – the data is readily available on Trading Economics.”
That is true,”
Then the argument is over.
” BUT what is relevant is the fact that there are not enough buyers and China being the biggest buyer of soy is stopped buying soy when Trump’s retaliatory tariffs were imposed. They switched to Brazilian soy.”
Again demonstrable ignorance of the laws of supply and demand.
Production is up because demand is up.
Who buys from who is not relevant.
Aside from minor differences in the cost of transport production is unaffected, profits are unaffected, and cost is mostly unaffected.
To have an actual effect with a large scale internationally traded commodity you need either demand or or supply elasticity.
You have little of either in Soy.
And the market dat bears that out.
” Right now Soy sales are NOT where they should be”
When you use the word “should” you lose the argument.
You run afoul of “Hume’s guillotine, states that one cannot logically derive prescriptive statements (what ought to be) from purely descriptive statements (what is). This highlights a significant gap between factual claims and moral judgments, suggesting that ethical conclusions cannot be inferred solely from facts.”
“”all that excess soy is sitting on the ground not being sold.”
Not according to the data.
You are litterally claiming that absent the Tarrifs, US soy farmers would not only get the sales to China, but the sales they have gotten as a result of most Brazillian soy going to china and the demand Brazil therefore could not meet moving to the US.
The US is producing more soy and selling it at higher prices.
US soy farmers have not been hurt.
There are narrower instances involving tarrifs on things that have elastic supply or demand where an argument can be made.
And in fact these products are the INTENTIONAL target of Trump’s tariffs.
Trumps objective is the get Steel production, aluminam production, …. to move back to the US.
That is going to happen anyway, But Tarrifs are speeding that up.
“That is because most suppliers and companies have been eating the increased costs.”
Actually it is because Tarriffs are fiscal not monetary – and
ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE inflation is a monetary phenoema
Milton Friedman.
Your observation is ONE of myriads of factors that ultimately result in no inflationary effect.
To get inflation you need either:
an increase in money supply WITHOUT an increase in total production.
a decrease in total production – without a decrease in money supply.
This is simple MATH….
” They are now getting to the point where they are being forced to start increasing prices and therefore inflation will start to increase.”
You can not possible grasp how low a credibility I attach to your economic claims.
Like nearly all left wing nuts you are economically completely illiterate.
You say “they” are being FORCED – why ? what has changed ?
In point of fact inflation is DECLINING – albeit far too slowly.
Regardless. You are PARTLY correct, someone is EATING the costs of tarriffs – in fact they are being eaten alittle bit at a number of places for a net effect of ZERO.
Regardless I would STRONGLY advide reading Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil” or the myriads oof youtube videos of it, or the spinoffs such as “I, Whiskey” or “I. Toaster”.
Free Markets are complex beyond beleif – this is at the root of the “socialist economic calculation problem”
It is not possible for ANY human or ANY computer or ANY super computer EVER now or in the future to duplicate the trillions off calculations that go into the free market EVERY DAY.
The free market is essentially a gigantic HPC incorporating the computational power of every human brain on the planet and in some form most of the computers. All engaged in a giant web of decision making – a trillion times more complex than the internet.
The very best investors – people like buffet can process a TINY part of that data and make often good guesses as to what might happen in the future. But no one and no machine can EVER manage to replicate or even do better than a very small portion of the market.
What does this mean ? It means the laws of economics – which are basically all restatements of the fact that humans act in their self interest. The big over arching rules can be absolutely trusted. While they are NOT correct for some TINY portion of decisions – because all humans on rare occasions act outside their self interest, and because all humans on some occasions misjudge their self interests.
Still in the entirety of the free market (or even the somewhat less than free market) this is NOISE – it does NOT come close to impacting the economy overall.
What does this mean ? It means I can not know the impacts of tarriffs on individual farmers.
But if the soy supply is relatively inelastic – which it is , and the soy demand is relatively inelastic, which it is,
Tarriffs can not change the production and sale of Soy – only who buys from who.
It MIGHT have a small impact on prices because of increased transportation costs.
But even there – you are always GUESSING – because prices are not rigidly linked to costs.
Prices reflect VALUE not cost, and they are NOT the same thing.
Value is subjective – it also changes dynamically. Cost is not subjective.
Regardless YOU are constantly making global economic pronouncements based a shallow understanding of a small part of the market.
Often you are completely wrong about that part of the market.
More often you FALSELY conflate One impact with the NET impact of some change or policy.
Again read I, Pencil – every single economy decision or change triggers a chain of potentially hundreds of usually balancing actions
through the market.
Regardless you can not economically reason from a small impact in ONE area of the market to the entire market.
You CAN reason from the laws of economics to the OVERALL effect on the market. But NOT usually to the economic effect on individual actors, Though USUALLY you can reason tot he impact on GROUPS of actors. But ONLY from the laws of economics DOWN,
I cite DATA constantly to prove you are wrong.
I pretty much ALWAYS know that data will be there even if I have never looked for it before.
Why ? Because I know the fundimental laws of economics. I can reason from those laws down to the effects on the real world.
You keep trying to reason from a single action or a single bit of data to a broad economic conclusion.
That is only going to work rarely and only by accident.
” Plus, let’s not forget that Trump’s see-saw tariff policies are not consistent.”
Yup that creates volatiltiy. That has a negative but temporary impact on the stock market.
It leaves people feeling nervous – especially left wing nuts who are actually terrified of meaningful change and who want government to run their lives. That is litterally what communism and socialism are – a plea of people to be relived of the responsibility for their own lives and to have government take care of them. How many brain cells does it take to grasp that will NEVER work ?
“He’s backed off a lot of tariffs once it’s been “discovered” that it is hurting U.S. companies more than expected.”
No he backs off when he gets what he wants – which is nearly always less than he asks for.
When it looks like a Trade deal is going his way – he backs off. When the negotiations start to go against him he reasserts the tariffs.
Perhaps you are aware of the paretto principle or the 80:20 rule.
Trump is in the top 20%,
actually the top fraction of 1%.
He makes huge bets – but he prettyu much ALWAYS does so when the odds are heavily in his favor.
Trump s currently “bullying” the crap out of the world.
He is successful because US growth in 2025 was double that of the EU and in 2026 it will likely be Tripple.
Because When Trump threatens the harm to the US if he delivers on the Threat is small and the harm to those he is negotiating with is large.
Post WWII the US “negotiated” somewhat “bad deals” for the US – because we were prosperous and could afford it, in return for singifican political control globally and support in blocking the USSR – we made “bad deals” to secure allise in the Cold War.
That worked, the USSR collapsed and the US economy was strong enough that the bad deals did NOT tank our economy – mostly.
Much of Europe grew nearly as fast as the US post War – German even faster. But by the 80’s it was absolutely clear to all but the stupidest – that Socialism does not work in the long run and those nations that embraced it had fallen behind the US.
Since the 80;s the US has had CONSISTENT growth double much of the developed world.
Further with the global collapse of socialism in the 20th century increasingly the US has had no reason to subsidize the rest of the world in return for their support.
Today Europe has 19T economy with 540M people – the US has a 32T economy with 350M people.
If your beleive China they have a 19T economy with 1.4B people.
I think it is far more likely it is a 10T economy with less than 1B people. But it is really really hard to tell with China.
There are some sources claiming that the actual number of Covid deaths in China was as great as all the rest of the world combined.
Regardless even if you beleive China – the world combined all working together without any disagreements is probably barely able to check the US. And the world is NOT even close to unified against the US.
As Trump said to Zelynshy last year – You do not have any cards.
The US holds nearly all the cards. we have by far the strongest economy in the world and we are in the late begining of a boom.
While much of the rest fo the world is teetering on recession.
We both noted that Trump’s chaos negatively impacts US stock markets.
It also even more negatively impacts GLOBAL markets – because the strongest impact is always on the weakest.
I Tracked Down The Companies Bribing Trump: And today we welcome Biden’s most persuasive Lesbian, Rachael Maddow, Investigative Reporter.
Please ensure you click her monetizing links, whether you actually watch for more than a few seconds or not.
No one volunteers for military service only to claim conscientious objection once they’re issued a weapon. Conscience is declared before service, not selectively invoked after taking the oath. The same principle applies to Congress. If you voluntarily serve on an Oversight Committee, you accept its constitutional tools. Voting against subpoenas while retaining your seat is not principled dissent. It is refusing to perform the job you agreed to do.
“ No one volunteers for military service only to claim conscientious objection once they’re issued a weapon.”
Are you sure about that? I believe there is a movie based on that. Hacksaw Rige. It’s based on a soldier who refused to take a weapon.
“ The same principle applies to Congress. If you voluntarily serve on an Oversight Committee, you accept its constitutional tools. Voting against subpoenas while retaining your seat is not principled dissent. It is refusing to perform the job you agreed to do.”
Congress makes their own rules. Jim Jordan refused a subpoena without accountability. He outright rejected one.
You actually just proved my point while claiming I was wrong. 😆
Desmond Doss never took up a weapon. He declared before service that he would not carry one, was therefore never issued one, and served in a clearly defined alternative role as a combat medic, fully aligned with the mission.
That’s exactly why Hacksaw Ridge works as an analogy.
No one volunteers, accepts a rifle, swears the oath, deploys with the unit, and then selectively refuses to use the weapon when it becomes inconvenient. Doss didn’t do that. He was transparent upfront and served honorably within those constraints.
That’s the distinction you missed.
Serving on an Oversight Committee while refusing to authorize subpoenas only for certain people is not the Doss model. It’s the opposite. It’s accepting the office and then disarming it selectively. If someone objects to subpoenas as a matter of conscience, the honest move is not to serve on Oversight at all.
So no, the analogy doesn’t fail. Your rebuttal does, because it ignores the timing, role clarity, and institutional honesty that make Doss’s service admirable in the first place.
Whether you accept a rifle or not to exercise conscientious objection is irrelevant.
Serving in an oversight committee is not the same as serving in the military. Which is what you tried to imply with regard to their respecfive jobs. Congressmen are not like soldiers. They are not required to vote to enforce a subpoeana if they don’t want to. Why bother having a vote if it’s not really a choice. Right? You make it to be that any subpoena request is automatically what every member fo the committee agrees. Republicans voted against subpoenas when it camee to Jim Jordan, or Republicans. If they can do it so can Democrats.
You understand the point, you’re just avoiding it by reframing the argument into something easier to dismiss. And even that fails.
I’m not claiming congressmen are soldiers or that votes don’t matter. That’s a strawman. The argument is about role integrity: if you voluntarily accept a role whose essential function depends on a specific tool, you don’t get to nullify that tool selectively while keeping the role.
That’s why the Doss analogy is relevant. Not because Congress is the military, but because he declared his objection before accepting the role, was assigned a different function, and then fully executed it. That’s honest institutional participation.
Saying “they’re allowed to vote no” doesn’t engage the issue. Of course they can vote no. The question is whether voting no based on who is being subpoenaed rather than how the authority is exercised is compatible with oversight at all.
And “Republicans did it too” isn’t a rebuttal. It just proves the problem is bipartisan. Selective enforcement empties oversight of meaning no matter who does it.
This isn’t about unanimity or forced outcomes. It’s about whether oversight authority is institutional or discretionary. You keep avoiding that distinction.
BRAVO OLLY!!
WhoTH ARE YOU?
Integrity!
“Why bother having a vote if it’s not really a choice.”
And you have just completely tanked the lefts entire narrative regarding the 2020 election and J6.
Congress votes to Certify election results. They are FREE to vote to NOT certify election results.
Trump, republicans, MAGA, the Proud Boys – anyone is FREE to demand that congressmen do NOT vote to certify the election.
If J6ers showed up at the Capital with 10,000 AR15’s and told congress – “do not certify or die”
That would be an insuraction.
Showing up with a rickety Gallows a mile away that could not hang a teddy bear with a signe saying this is Art while some people say “Hang Mike Pence” is NOT an insurection.
For a DEMAND to constitute and ACTUAL illegal use of FORCE, those would WERE free to Chose must be reduced to the choice between what one group wants and death.
The French Revolution – not J6
X the Subpeonas were lawfully issued something like 3/4 of the committees including more than half of democrats has voted that refusing them was contempt.
OLLY,
Well said and accurate concerning Doss.
Thank you for your well thought out and concise comment.
Thanks, Upstate. With X, all that’s really required is to let him talk long enough and the contradictions surface on their own. Desmond Doss was exactly who I had in mind when I wrote that first comment, and X walked straight into the distinction without realizing it.
The institutional rot we’re seeing in Congress is plainly bipartisan. When debates are anchored in first principles, the evasions become obvious, regardless of party. That’s the real tell.
The deeper issue, though, is self-government itself. Congressional decay is downstream from the generational collapse of civic formation. Our three-legged stool of citizenship, civic knowledge, civic engagement, and self-reliance, has degraded into ignorance, apathy, and dependence. That stool rests on the Declaration of Independence, and it supports the Constitution above it.
None of the problems we’re facing will be solved without restoring that foundation.
None of the problems will be solved. I don’t know how to tell you this but Darwin was correct.
. Olly, that’s a perfect point! The oversight committee members must say they’re on the committee to disrupt its function and will not use the law (gun) against any Democrat. Otherwise if they declared that stand before committee membership they would not be seated. Could democrats declare before election, before taking the oath of office that they will not use the law against any Democrat right or wrongfully and they are politically motivated in all actions? Our votes in congress will only be cast in the service of democrats rightfully as a medic in combat? We will cast no vote to help our enemy and will cast our votes only to harm our enemy be they white or Christian or Jewish or the United States itself. Oh Bravo!
What an excellent point if I understand it correctly.
. You have my admiration, Olly and innocently I ask you what work you do or did in your life? Amazing analogy!
As Always you get the facts wrong and draw the wrong conclusions.
Desmond Doss, volunteered as a combat Medic. His objection to using a weapon was noted at the start.
IN many instances right up through today – consciencious objectors drafted for military service take non-combat roles such as medic.
Doss is merely the first conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor.
It has been comonplace in the military – the NORM for much of history that Medics do NOT carry weapons AND by the rules of war can NOT be targeted.
It has become more common for medics to carry weapons because we have fought more and more enemies who did NOT respect that Law of War. Regardless the norm WAS Medics do not carry weapons, even Today it is a CHOICE – if you carry a weapon you become a legitimate target, you cede your protection from international law.
JS you speak of lawlessness and that is the point–>Charles Darwin.
. JS is this problem also seen in juries and grand juries with nullification?
Congress can not involuntarily subpeona its own members – that is MORE than a mere rule.
It is part of the constitution.
“The Senators and Representatives” of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Conscientious objectors are Routinely drafted into the military, required to serve in non combat positions such as medics.
If a conscientious objector refuses a non-combat position they THEN go to jail.
Doss was not drafted – he volunteered SPECIFICALLY for the position of medic. Medics are not required to and can not be ordered to carry weapons. They are protected from being targeted by international war.
Many medics do carry weapons, because lots of our enemies – such as the japanese in WWII refused to comply with international law.
X – you are the perfect example of “performative Ignorance”
John Say,
You got that right!!
X says: “Are you sure about that?”
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Actually I know a guy who was in the ROTC and made it to captain in the Strategic Air Command before deciding it was unconscionable to employ nuclear weapons. They gave him a hard time, but let him out of the USAF.
That example actually supports the principle here. I’m sure the investment they made in his training factored into the hard time he was given. Even so, once he concluded the mission was unconscionable, he left the service. He did not remain in the role while selectively refusing to perform its core function.
That distinction matters. Conscience is honored when it is acted on consistently, even at personal cost, not when someone keeps the office but disables its purpose from within.
Bravo!
Olly, state the principle clearly, please.
Please tell me your line of work because you are so intelligent, I wonder. 😌
There is a video of Trump having sex with minors and there are still apologists for him who think they are the righteous ones.
Did you ever ask yourself why the Biden team didn’t release these so-called videos of Trump? Or are you just like the foolish little boy who said the same on CNN and then immediately went to his lawyer to write an apology note?
Biden couldn’t release the Epstein files because there were still active cases, including Ghislane Maxwell’s.
Trump is doing is darndest to keep the files hidden from the public and his AG is actively violating the law as we speak. Surely there is something serious that Trump does not want the public to see. MAGA’s sweetheart MTG got sidelined because even she believes Trump should be releasing the whole thing.
“Biden couldn’t release the Epstein files because there were still active cases, including Ghislane Maxwell’s.”
Maxwell was convicted in 2021.
If you are going to claim that appeals preculded releasing files – Maxwell STILL has appeals pending.
Regardless even in Trump’s first Term the DOJ and FBI had SERO problem leaking anything damaging to trump – even when it was illegal to do so.
“Trump is doing is darndest to keep the files hidden from the public”
By signing an unconstitutional law releasing them ?
“his AG is actively violating the law as we speak.”
And yet the court just said she was NOT.
That the deadlines int he law must be subordinate to assuring that material that can not legally be made public is not.
“Surely there is something serious that Trump does not want the public to see.”
Just as securely as Trump colluded with Russia, and the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
From various sources truckloads of Epstain matterial has been released so far.
While lots of it is incredibly embarrassing, and even demonstrates that lots of people LIED – like the Clintons.
There is no smoking gun evidence of criminal conduct BY ANYONE.
That does not mean there was no criminal conduct. It just means as pretty much anyone with a brain would know,
There is no EVIDENCE of criminal conduct.
The best evidence you will have of criminal conduct is the testimony of the victims.
None have implicated Trump.
That would be the only time in recent history in which Democrats didn’t leak–and with the most damning evidence ever. Strains credulity.
Diogenes,
That right there. And, why, oh why, would the Clintons refuse to even talk to the Oversight committee?
Good question, Upstate.
Attempt to avoid lying under oath ultimately.
X says: Biden couldn’t release the Epstein files because there were still active cases, including Ghislane Maxwell’s.
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Then you can produce that video.
Imagine having a video of Trump doing that, and hiding it rather than selling it for millions of dollars! All while fantasizing about Biden humping pubescent Ashley in the White House showers.
Will Eric Holder be next? Don’t hold your breath. B. Hill
Hill
How about never.. Dog-gone-it
What could Holder possibly be called to testify about?
Holder was held in contempt back during the 0bama administration, and the US Attorney at the time (i.e. Holder’s subordinate) refused to prosecute him. By the time Trump took over the statute of limitations had probably passed, and by now it has definitely long passed.
Congress is contemptible.
Bill and King Moron can share a cell together.
Stupid comment.
That would require evidence of wrong doing in the first place.
You look absolutely stunning in your Queen Sheba furry tranny suit, Everyone. Rule the bedsheets wisely…
Absolutely nothing will happen to either of the Clintons. It’s just the way our rigged system works.
Might be that some Democrats think of Bill and Hillary as an ongoing embarrassment. His Epstein actions and Lewinsky adventures and Hilary lost an election that was entirely winnable, thus starting the Democrats national nightmare of DJT.
Plus they continue to try to grab headlines and ink when they are no longer relevant to present politics or discussion.
Time for them to retire into oblivion, after getting tried for their contempt of congress.
“Time for them to retire into oblivion, after getting tried for their contempt of congress.”
I’d be willing to have their oblivion postponed for several years, to see the vile serpents who have contributed so much to the negation the the American experience and dream to spend that time behind bars.
Retire. No. Reckoning.
They might move to France.
Nothing makes Democrats stop caring about Epstein’s crimes quicker than subpoenaing the Clintons to answer for their many crimes. It’s like MAGIC!
But Epstein is still in the top news cycle. Everyday.
It’s all the dems & MSN has left.
7/24 spin
It is amazing that not one of the 10 DNC members that voted against accountability and criminality, feels an ounce of hypocrisy or shame for their actions. The level of righteousness and indignation is telling, but that is Washington elitism on full display.
Professor Turley, as usual, is being somewhat dishonest with the facts. He completely omits the fact that the Clintons were fine with the depositions and willing to cooperate. What Turley and the rest of the Republicans are not telling you and the country is that the Clintons only agreed to the depositions if they were open to the public. That was the only condition, and the Republicans refused. Why? Because they wanted to conduct the hearing privately so they could cherry-pick snippets and take statements out of context to build a false narrative, as they always do. Senator Grassley is known for leaking such statements out of context.
Jim Jordan ignored a congressional subpoena without facing any consequences. The Clintons are powerful and, like always, will probably fight to keep the depositions open to the public.
For a party that claims to be “fully transparent,” they sure seem to dislike the idea of holding a genuinely transparent public deposition. If transparency were truly their goal, Republicans would gladly meet the Clintons’ request.
“Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons.”
Ironically, Turley didn’t offer this kind of advice to Republicans when Jim Jordan was subpoenaed. The hypocrisy is apparent
Per usual, Turley is only interested in stoking that “Age of Rage” fire that he so gladly warms his hands on….AND he doesn’t respect his readers enough to tell the whole truth. He’s afraid they will be turned off and stop tuning in.
The professor should be discussing the secret memo that allows ICE to enter homes without a judicial warrant. This is a significant Fourth and Fifth Amendment issue. Since May, ICE has circulated a memo exclusively to certain staff and new recruits, instructing them that they can force their way into homes with only an administrative warrant—no judge’s approval required. This directly violates the Fourth Amendment and highlights the growing tyranny of DHS and its zealous approach to apprehensions.
Now, ICE agents are barging into homes with impunity and Kavanaught stops allowing the detainment of individuals based on skin color or accent. Given the poor training of ICE recruits and the rushed recruitment process, these new officers are only likely to complicate matters further for themselves and DHS, especially if Democrats retake the House. It won’t be long before they face consequences.
“The professor should be discussing the secret memo that allows ICE to enter homes without a judicial warrant. This is a significant Fourth and Fifth Amendment issue.”
Amendment IV
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Is the word judicial in there anywhere ? Is the word Judge ? Magistrate ?
What part of the 4th amendment is violated by a warrant SWORN by an ICE officer that seeks to detain an illegal alien ?
ICE may enter anyplace they beleive an illegal alien is present is an ICE officers swears there is probable cause they will find the illegal alien there.
The 5th amendment (except the takings clause) is specific to CRIMINAL prosecutions. Instances in which FORCE is being used to deprive a person of their life, liberty or property rights.
Deportation does not involve any infringment on rights. The 5th amendment does not apply
That is the constitution.
Congress can add additional requiremnts by law – they haven’t.
The overwhelming majority of the current 30,000 ICE employees, and the 6,000 ICE officers have been in ICE for YEARS
Are you saying that Biden or Obama trained them poorly ?
ICE has been unable to increase its Staff until the BBB takes effect in late January.
Regardless “new recuits” are mostly Law Enforcement Officers or former Military police.
Are you saying they are not well trained ?
6000 ICE officers have arrested 980K illegal aliens since Jan 21, 2025.
That is 1/7th of ALL arrests in the US last year.
There are 1M LEOs in the US that conduct about 7M arrests per year.
The average ICE officer conducts MORE arrests in 9months than the average police officer does in their lifetime.
There are differences between ICE and other LEOs – ICE officers do NOT primarly conduct investigations.
They are provided with Warrants for the illegal Aliens they are to detain, And they go serve those warrants.
They are not engaged in criminal investigations, they do not patrol for crime or engage in traffic stops.
They only engage in the enforcement of federal law beyond specifically immigration law, when “peaceful protestors” obstruct them as they detain illegal aleins.
a warrant SWORN by an ICE officer
John, a warrant is not sworn by an officer! It is GRANTED by a judge, based on the officer’s sworn statement of the evidence that exists. It is the JUDGE, not the officer, who has the constitutional duty of assessing that evidence and determining whether it constitutes probable cause. The whole point of a warrant is that the evidence must be assessed by someone independent of the executive that seeks permission to conduct a search or seizure. The executive can’t assemble its own evidence, then assess it for itself and agree with itself that there’s probable cause, and then give itself permission to act on it! That would defeat the entire purpose of the fourth amendment.
So I don’t believe that an administrative “warrant”, which is not a warrant for constitutional purposes, can be sufficient for agents to enter private property against the owner’s wishes. But it is enough for them to seize a named alien on the street, because the statute says so. LIkewise on private property where the owner has given them permission to enter.
And of course, like any policeman, they don’t need a warrant to arrest anyone they observe committing a crime, or anyone for whom they have probable cause that he committed a felony.
“. . . willing to cooperate.”
Except, of course, for the whole subpoena thing.
Sam, they were indeed perfectly willing to cooperate. Their only stipulation was that the whole thing be held publicly, not behind closed doors. Republicans refused. Turley clearly “forgot” to mention that critical piece of information. Instead, he deliberately chose to ignore it so he could portray the Clintons as defiant and “above the law,” as he clearly insinuates in his article.
Why would the Republicans refuse to hold their depostions in public? What are they afraid of? They want to be able to control the narrative and release cherry-picked statements to “show” Bill Clinton is more involved with the Epstein files than Trump. It’s already apparent that Trump is terrified of more Epstein files stuff linked to him. He must have known how bad Epstein really was, and he enabled it.
george
Prez Trump worked with the FBI to get Epstein.
If you say so.
I say so too.
Aren’t we so cute and darling together here! Sweets… lets head for the sheets!
“WASHINGTON—In the wake of facing contempt of Congress proceedings, the Clintons’ attorneys made an untenable offer where only the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform would travel to New York to have a conversation with only former President Bill Clinton. Other Committee Members would be barred from participating, and the Chairman and Ranking Member would only be allowed two staff each, with no official transcript. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) rejected the Clintons’ ridiculous offer”
This is the actual Clinton demands which is the OPPOSITE of what you have claimed.
“Sam, they were indeed perfectly willing to cooperate once Congress agreed all proceedings would be under THEIR rules. Don’t deny it.”
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
“Their only stipulation . . .”
Guess what. When you’re served with a subpoena, you don’t get to choose the time, place, or manner.
george as usual, is being somewhat dishonest with the facts.
“Somewhat” is doing a lot of work in your comment. X is a lying contrarian fool who lives parasitically off of the host of this site.
Now do Eric Holder
X –
Your ChatGPT skills strike again. As a legal point, the deponent does not get to select the nature of the deposition. Period.
Beyond that mistake, everything else you wrote it tragically wrong. So at least you’re keeping your 1.000 batting average! And making every day better by adding your madlibs.
Cheers!
Lying repeatedly does not alter reality.
The Clinton’s did NOT want public testimony.
They wanted private testimony with no record – no transcript.
Regardless, if the Clintons did not like the terms oof the subpeona – they were free to negotiate and if they did not get what they wanted to go to court.
” Senator Grassley is known for leaking such statements out of context.”
False – Grassley does not Leak – he is head of the Senate Judiciary committee he publicly releases subpeonad documents IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
Regardless, the Clintons were subpeonad by the house not the Senate.
And AGAIN you negotiate the terms off subpeonas or go to court.
“Jim Jordan ignored a congressional subpoena without facing any consequences.”
Because the Subpeona was unconstitutional,
“The Clintons are powerful and, like always, will probably fight to keep the depositions open to the public.”
That is neither relevant nor what they wanted.
It is incredibly likely they will be found in contempt by the House,
This will be refered to DOJ for prosecution.
“For a party that claims to be “fully transparent,” they sure seem to dislike the idea of holding a genuinely transparent public deposition. If transparency were truly their goal, Republicans would gladly meet the Clintons’ request.”
The norm on sensitive deposions that BOTH republicans and democrats have followed is a closed door session – mostly with questioning by majority and minority lawyers – not members. Followed by much shorted public questioning by House members.
Ultimately that is what happened with Hunter Biden.
“Turley didn’t offer this kind of advice to Republicans when Jim Jordan was subpoenaed. ”
The Jordan subpeona was obviously unconstitutional.
“The Senators and Representatives” of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
X: Professor Turley, as usual, is being somewhat dishonest with the facts. Eric Holder [Jim Jordan] ignored a congressional subpoena without facing any consequences.
Curse you, Turley! Curse you!!!!
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Ro Khanna? The man who is constantly standing up and saying “we need the Epstein information!” He didn’t have the spine to require it from his own side? What a——POLITICIAN!
Porno on your mind this morning eh?
Oh! Your mewlings on prono in your hot furry Tranny suit with that exotic tail are so hot!
JT writes… “From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions….” Case in point, the “incident” at Waco, TX that ended up incinerating over 80+ innocent American men, women & children is an incident like it never happened. Frightening that this massacre can’t penetrate our collective psyche. For those who don’t remember ~ the massacre occurred over “suspected weapons violations”.
Old news there buddy. Its 2026 and its about the Clintons.
The murder of 25 innocent children by government forced can never become “old news”, you flaming anus.
Repeat…. old nonsense. dead and gone. move on. DEAD.
“move on”
IF and WHEN those responsible for those murders (including Vicki Weaver and unborn child at Ruby Ridge) are held to account; tried, and punished for their crimes (you do realize that there is no statute of limitations on murder, do you not) I will be happy to do that. Not before. But thank you, condoning the murder of children provides a very accurate and concise summation of your ethics and morality, saving me the trouble. Is Lon Horiuchi your father?
Wacco is about Clinton’s
Now do Donnie Von Schitzenpantz.
Biden…
And don’t give me any Donny Crap about President Biden’s Secret Service being armed with Depends and diaper bags.
“the “incident” at Waco, TX”
Yes, Bill Clinton bears much culpability for the massacre by government of 76 Americans, including 25 children. His initial failure to get an AG situated in a timely manner to take charge of the situation, and his ultimate choice of the execrable Janet Reno, contributed greatly to the horrible outcome. But we would be remiss to forget that the crisis was instigated on the watch of Bush I, and that his BATF largely created it from whole cloth (BATF under Bush I was also responsible for the Ruby Ridge, ID murders). The situation and outcome was, and remains, a damning indictment of the nonpartisan failure of the U. S. to honor the limitations imposed upon the Federal government by the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in general.
Democrats pick two types for AG: weak sisters and coconspirators. Reno was the former; Holder was the latter.
Clinton wanted an AG who would shield him–someone who knew why she was chosen and would have never been chosen otherwise. She did exactly as was expected. The price was Waco. A better AG would have never close-assaulted a compound full of children–with tanks no less. A better AG would have waited them out.
Reno had an absurdly light trigger whenever anyone shouted, “child abuse!!” It had the unfortunate result of doing more harm than good on more occasions than just Waco.
I’ll be shocked if the horn dog actually had anything to do with underage women.
Monica Lewinsky was all of 22 wen Clinton had her give him head under his desk. What evidence would make you believe that he would have refrained from similar conduct with someone 2 years younger?
Two years younger is not underage.
Clinton For President Campaign
‘Dignity’ (1992)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-7IdSskYm8
Bill Clinton – I didn’t inhale (CBS March 29th 1992)
youtube.com/watch?v=CeXGnSpjgNM
Bill Clinton – (coming soon in 2026)
I didn’t insert my genitalia into those under aged girls or solicit intelligence favors (dirt on Trump) from Jeffery Epstein for Hillary’s campaign.
You’ve come a long way Baby.
https://tobacco-img.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/cigarettes/womens-cigarettes/youve-come-along-way-baby/baby_12.jpg