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.
Republicans spent the entire hearing accusing Jack Smith of prosecuting Trump for political reasons and falsely claiming he was being directed by Biden and Garland.
Ironically, while they were doing that, Trump was quite literally doing exactly that by directing Bondi on Truth Social that she should prosecute Smith.
Smith use Arctic Frost to illegally spy on hundreds of Americans with no probable cause. Dont be so naive.
No one is above the law.
Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 31, 2024
No one is above the law.
Nancy Pelosi
No one is above the law.
Adam Schiff
No one is above the law.
Shiela Jackson Lee
No one is above the law.
Elizabeth Warren
No one is above the law.
Jerry Nadler
No matter how big, rich or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.
New York state Attorney General Letitia James
In the column there is a slight error. Yassamin Ansari is credentialed as (D., Wash.). Here in the great state of Washington, we already have exceeded our quota of liberal women in congress. I believe that Rep. Ansari is representing the 3rd district of Arizona.
Interesting comments about indicting trump…
“Rep Lofgren points out: * Most of Jack Smith’s case is built on the testimony of *REPUBLICANS* * As well as many of the Presidents closest allies in sworn testimony * Including @LindseyGrahamSC who said he told the President he lost, and that Trump would have blamed ‘martians’ for stealing the election.”
And you expect JT to talk about damning testimony about trump? No way.
Look Hunter Biden might have gotten $20 million from Ukraine. trump and his family may have gotten more than $2 billion in “donations” from business and countries all over the world. Big deal.
What donations? How much? From who? Do you have any proof of that? Or are you just making stuff up?
I come to the comments mostly for the amusement value of seeing how the leftists here deflect when they don’t want to talk about the actual column. Nice job, anon, You never fail to amuse me.
You are correctly pointed out that Jack Smith can produce Lindsey Graham’s opinions, voiced as an elected Republican to Trump, have the same force of law as a judge’s decisions are.
The Clintons act like the most entitled nobility to walk the planet. Their resentment of accountability is gross.
Wealthy Democrat White Nationalist Privilege… although Bill, the political shark, rushed to say he would no longer golf at the “No Blacks Or Jews Allowed” golf course he favored.
Your inclusion of the phrase “White Nationalist” is deceptive. The Clintons are globalists, not nationalists. And yes, they are white, but that is wholly irrelevant.
The American Founders were extremely conservative white nationalists.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are extremely conservative.
Do you have any idea in which country you are?
The real question is, why does the country of the eminently conservative American Founders let you in, let you stay?
What is a nationalist? One who prioritizes his county’s sovereignty, believes in the right of a nation to govern itself, and values national culture, history, and civic identity. You are trying to frame nationalism negatively, failing badly by trying to bring race and other things into the meaning that should not exist. You talk a lot about these things, but obviously have no significant beliefs and fail to understand the difference between right and wrong.
Turley: “This vote was the true test of courage for House members.”
Or a true test of decency and worthiness to sit in any public office.
“Hillary Clinton cattle futures controversy”
In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 (equivalent to $433,241.63 in 2024),[1] when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery.[2] It was suspected by commentators that the profits were in fact allocations to her of profits from unrelated large block trades managed by her investment advisor James Blair, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas’ largest employer, in an attempt to gain influence with her husband Bill Clinton, then Attorney General of Arkansas.
– Wiki
Ilhan Omar
______________
AI Overview
Based on financial disclosures filed in May 2025, reports indicated a significant increase in the potential net worth of Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, with figures cited up to $30 million. This rapid rise, which was a sharp increase from previous filings, has prompted scrutiny and an investigation by the House Oversight Committee.
Where else than in Omar’s American The Dumpster Fire, can a poverty stricken young Somali waif arrive a penniless refugee, and by simply getting elected by a 90% Somali electorate be worth $30+ million in a few years on a Congresswoman’s salary?
Matching the investment genius suddenly developed by the poorest Senator in America, Biden, after becoming Vice President.
Who’da thunk it???
Who’da thunk it?
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln, Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, Joe Biden et al.
Most certainly not the Founders!
Democrat Commissar Nancy Pelosi, the retiring Cougar Of Wall Street, learned her investment skills watching young Hills show women in political power how it gets done.
Anonymous @ 1:15 pm – Thanks for reminding us that Democrats view political office as a way to get rich.
Perhaps when the flood gates open all of the Clinton rats will drown. For those of us old enough to remember, the Clintons ushered in a form of corruption to our government at levels never seen before.
Im sure it was always there, just never seen at the levels and brazen contempt for the public. Book deals and speaking kickbacks, cronyism, fraud, pay for play. I hope the lid blows off and they are finally held accountable.
Rho is a HUGE “show the us Epstein” files or else guy. He’s an ignorant fool, as he believes millions and millions of pages of files will contain millions and millions of DJT’s name and only his name.
Folks are NOT asking the right questions here and never will, maybe something is in the water. Why on earth are there MILLIONS of pages of Epstein docs at all??? Who are the people who were investigating, over decades, and why were they all so bad at their job they never really charged him until DJT came along??? Who took all the pics and how did the FBI get them?
We see the FBI, but did any other agency, here or around the world, also investigate??? Did the Five Eyes share?
Even more bizarre, those in the know know that Maxwell is the bigger issue, hell her father was a Spy, her sister wrote code for the voting machines that rig elections all over the world, and yet poor Rho and Massie simply glossed over demanding any separate files on her be released. Why, there is no visual connection between her and DJT, but there is between her and Clinton.
Repeat, two pictures of DJT at two …large… parties with Epstein means DJT is a sex trafficker, zero pics with Maxwell and DJT means they are not connected, which means no reason to look. Imagine being that stupid, seriously, the level of stupid is beyond all comprehension. Imagine believing there is a “list” of some sort just sitting in a file, the same level of stupid applies.
That said, in a previous comment I predicted this would happen, the Clintons are the newest in a long line of very very unsaintly Martyrs the Left trots out. The left rarely trots out a decent human in their Martyr Moves, Floyddd Goodde Clintons etc. are reprehensible people at best, Kirkee was different, he’s an example against, the anti Martyr, Kennedy King etc. This pattern has played out countless times over the last 100 years, it is not new. Martyr the awful in favor, Martyr the righteous against.
There will be a fight in the House on the vote, it will be “unprecendeted” it will set a bad example for the future, there is nothing to be gained by harassing these old people – watch for their failing health ala Joe soon. The left will rage about DJT’s involvement being actively covered up, and the Clintons will have nothing to add, even though Epstein claimed to have started the Clinton Foundation, a mafia crime front, that landed IRS agents doing their job investigating it in hell.
And we’ll have, “but but but bannon…” and “but but but DJT…” on the other side. Round and round it will go, again, in exactly the same pattern, the same words, the same outrage, the same demands. The. Exact. Same. Again.
What will happen? Why another event of course, as the Clinton “arrest” approaches, another DJT outrage, another “this time he has gone to far” another, “the 25th amendment” another “this is unprecedented” another “who is going to stop this guy moment” will occur and the monkeys will pick up the shining penny once again scream about the end of democracy.
Empires all collapse this way, in fact, it is by design, yes actual design. DJT’s problem, or rather Team Trump’s, is this: He refuses to let the empire collapse and has taken exceedingly brilliant people into the mix to help save the US aspect of the Western Empire. And how do I know? Easy, by any and all accounts Team Joe worked tirelessly to help facilitate the collapse of the empire as designed, and he was championed by the media by the talking points “asking the tough questions, sharp as a tack, running circles around the staff” while Rome Actually Burned.
Final Question. To defend Joe, and anything else, a set of talking points were issued: He’s engaged, asking the tough questions, Sharp as a Tack and to a media outlet and person, thousands, they all repeated the lines …exactly. “Sharp As A Tack” is a very old saying, modern kids have no idea what it means, so the creator of those talking points is old.
Find out who issues, them, find out how they are delivered, and discover an entirely new world beyond the Shiny Penny. While folks diligently argue the issued talking points every. single. week., another world exists beyond, which begs the question: Why those points, why those exact words, why the need to push it in a news cycle in the way it is done.
“The left rarely trots out a decent human”
How would they know where to find one?
Somehow Turley fails to provide the context of this vote. In 2022, Peter Navarro was held in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with subpoenas. That vote was a near party line vote 220-203.
Turley did not write an article like this one chastising Republicans for their failure of this “true test of courage.”
Why the double standard?
Instead, at the time, he compared it to the lack of previous enforcement attempts. Again, no such comparison is made here.
Somehow Turley fails to provide the context of this vote. In 2022, Peter Navarro was held in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with subpoenas.
More Democrat context:Attorney General Eric Holder Held In Contempt Of Congress – Obama Refuses To Prosecute
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988
Your flame is burning bright, Tovarich: your move.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is the intended psychological manipulation by a low-IQ perpetrator targeting those they hope to victimize through intentionally misleading that person or group. This involves the perpetrator trivializing, lying, denying events, and other methods used in the hope their intended victims doubt their perceptions of reality, memories, and feel overly emotional or irrational.
The main five methods of gaslighting that may be used alone or in conjunction with others are: trivializing, countering, lying, blame shifting, and withholding.
Not sure your point. Executive Privilege was asserted by past administrations on the right too.
Ronald Reagan Administration
Anne Gorsuch Burford (1982): As Administrator of the EPA, Gorsuch was the first Cabinet-level official cited for contempt. She refused to turn over “Superfund” enforcement documents after President Reagan invoked executive privilege. The DOJ declined to prosecute, leading to a 1984 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo that formally articulated the department’s policy: the contempt statute cannot constitutionally be applied to an official carrying out a president’s instruction to invoke privilege.
James G. Watt (1982): The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to hold the Interior Secretary in contempt for refusing to provide documents on Canadian energy policy. A full House vote was averted when the administration reached a compromise to allow members to review the papers.
Rita Lavelle (1983): A former EPA official was held in contempt for refusing to appear before a House committee. While she was later acquitted of the contempt charge in court, she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.
George W. Bush Administration
Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten (2008): Former White House Counsel Miers and Chief of Staff Bolten were held in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas regarding the firing of several U.S. attorneys. President Bush asserted executive privilege, and the DOJ refused to bring the case to a grand jury, citing the long-standing 1984 precedent. This led to a civil lawsuit that eventually resulted in a compromise where Miers provided a closed-door deposition in 2009.
Karl Rove (2008): Rove was also cited for contempt by the House Judiciary Committee for refusing to testify about the same U.S. attorney dismissals. Like Miers and Bolten, he was not prosecuted and eventually reached a settlement for testimony in 2009.
Not sure your point. Executive Privilege was asserted by past administrations on the right too.
Not sure if you won your point by hoping nobody would notice you ignoring Attorney General Eric Holder. Or that that unlike Eric Holder referred for prosecution which Obama the sitting Democrat president refused to do,
Peter Navarro – a lesser political figure than an Attorney General – was swiftly prosecuted by the next sitting Democrat president who as serving Obama’s Third Term.
Your move, Tovarisch…
Not an argument.
These repugnant congenital scoundrels came in on Whitewater and will go out on Blackwater.
This issue is nothing more than a sordid affair! Describing ‘Sordid” repulsive, immoral, scandalous, unethical, distressing and of course disreputable which describe all of those that participated both known and unknown.
Having that said this issue was drug-up from the past trying to paint a scarlet letter on President Trump but has turned against the loudest seeking the paint.
Renaming the Island to [Hamelin], it’s past time to bear the consequences and pay the piper his florins.
Trump’s radical right wing courts allow him to continue acting like King Louis XVI. King Trump starves America’s poor while Queen Melania parades in finery.
US appeals court backs Trump administration in climate grant dispute
https://esgpost.com/us-appeals-court-backs-trump-administration-in-climate-grant-dispute/
Rabble:
Hey George. What courts? Are these the same courts that kept reversing, re-reversing, re-writing, and re-adjudicating every single thing the admin is trying to do? How can you honestly say out one side of your mouth that the courts are just when they’re often against 47, but are corrupt hives of scum and villainy when they rarely rule for 47?
That’s not george or X
Is X george or is george old X or is X George or Old George or are they all Jorge or Dos Equis?
And is Rabble really X himself, george, George, Old George, or Aninnynonymous as his post says?
Is it Svelez complaining about Turley and Trump. Or Anonymous complaining about Trump as the other version of X?
ARE YOU X???
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN…. IT WILL BE DRUG OUT TO THE MID TERMS… AND POOF… JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IT WILL ALL GO AWAY… ‘AGAIN’
The young drone bot R from California tongue holes Tailgunner Turls right off the bat in the Smith testimony. Bet Turley has been behind the PR effort to try to drown out Smith’s case. Jordan will disgusting in this effort. Bottom line, Turls knows Smith has to be silenced.
Anonymous: Oh that Turls thing is sooooo cute. Did you think of that yourself? How bout this one: tRump. Try that one on for size. It’s super cute as well.
Rabble:
She’s a psycho who’s been here for a while. She got her main account bonked, so she does it anonymously now. Weird, her screeds usually take up half a comment page.
In a much-praised resolution to a roiling diplomatic crisis, on Wednesday Denmark offered Donald J. Trump “full ownership” of a room in an assisted living facility in Greenland.
The deal was orchestrated by French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who were seen high-fiving moments after Trump signed the admission form.
Speaking to reporters, Carney said that Trump’s new home was actually located in Iceland, not Greenland, but added, “We’re pretty sure he doesn’t know the difference.”
For his part, President Macron acknowledged that the agreement represented a compromise, noting, “Our first choice was an ice floe.”
Tickler Update: February 9th 2026 (Monday) Time TBD/assume 9-10:00 a.m. ET
https://www.congress.gov/committee-schedule/weekly/2026/02/09
Re.: Ghislaine Maxwell to testify before House Oversight on Feb. 9th 2026
House panel to depose Ghislaine Maxwell on Feb. 9, Comer says
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will depose longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell on Feb. 9, committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday.
By: Sarah Davis – 01/21/2026
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5699254-house-oversight-ghislaine-maxwell-deposition/
Professor Turley, please oh please oh please stop interrupting the enemy when he’s shooting himself in the foot. The Congress was correct in holding Steve Bannon in contempt and he served time in prison.
It was not long ago when Democrats were screaming no one is above the law. They may have voted present because their bodies were in their chair but their brains were nowhere to be found. C’mon Dems give us some more of the no one is above the law song and dance.
Congress was not correct regarding Bannon.
He claimed executive priviledge.
The house had to defeat the executive priviledge claim – or agree to limit the testimony to unpriviledged material BEFORE finding Bannon and Navaro in contempt.
By finding Bannon and Navaro in contempt and refering for criminal prosecution.
Neitehr had the ability to raise a value executitve priviledge claim before being subject to criminal penalties.
The house can not unilaterally decide there is no executive priviledge – that violates separation of powers.
And the courts can not find Bannan and Navaro in criminal contenmpt until after the executive priviledge claim is fully littigated and if Bannaon and Navaro lose they STILL refuse to testify.
Not an argument.
Breaking:
LIVE NOW: Jack Smith testifies under oath on Trump investigations
LiveNOW from FOX
FOX Live Feed:
Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith
Hearing Date: Thu, 01/22/2026 – 10:00 AM
Location: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Jim Jordan presiding
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Thursday, January 22, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. ET. The hearing, “Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith,” will examine the operations of Jack Smith’s office-specifically, his team’s investigations and prosecutions of President Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants.
https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-office-special-counsel-jack-smith
Feed:
https://youtu.be/EdHfPqCTOgs
Good morning….Roll it.
Rabble:
One of the few times back then where reality was stranger than the parody
Oh, Professor Turley, it’s not the Clintons’ fault. To borrow one of the many great lines from the film, A Few Good Men, they were sick the day they taught law at Yale Law School.
Regarding Hillary, see also Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.
“it’s not the Clintons’ fault… they were sick the day they taught law at Yale Law School.”
Also sick, apparently, the day the Ten Commandments were covered in Sunday school…
Finally after what seems like years and years a Congressional Committee emerges sitting on the “Catbird Seat” *
Now if we can get the Chair of the Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley and Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform James Comer, and Congressman James Jordan, Congressman Tim Burchett, … Republicans et.al. to ‘pull-the-plug’ and DRAIN THE SWAMP, on the rest of the of the Rats (Comey, Brennan, Wray, The LIST … et.al..
* Catbird Seat
“The catbird seat” is an idiomatic phrase used to describe an enviable position, such as having the upper hand or greater advantage in any type of dealing among parties. It derives from the secluded perch on which the gray catbird makes mocking calls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catbird_seat
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE IT ALL NOW !!!
Comey, Brennan, Wray, HRC … et.al.
DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Not an argument.