Clintons in Contempt
WASHINGTON, DC — The Clinton political machine, long accustomed to dictating the terms of engagement, ran headlong this week into an institution that does not negotiate its constitutional authority. In a rare and politically explosive move, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted on a bipartisan basis to advance contempt of Congress resolutions against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for defying lawful subpoenas tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
The January 21 vote clears the way for the full House to consider whether to formally hold the Clintons in contempt, a step that could result in criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. While neither Clinton has been accused of a crime related to Epstein, lawmakers framed the issue more narrowly and more starkly: whether elite political figures are subject to the same compulsory process as everyone else when Congress demands sworn testimony.
The subpoenas arise from Congress’s ongoing investigation into how Epstein operated a vast international sex trafficking network for years while avoiding meaningful accountability. Epstein allegedly died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 as he awaited trial, but subsequent court filings and document releases revealed his deep and troubling access to political, financial, and cultural power centers. Bill Clinton, and numerous other influential figures appear in those records.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said the subpoenas issued to the Clintons were approved unanimously last summer by Republicans and Democrats alike. Bill Clinton’s deposition was initially scheduled for October 14, 2025, then moved to December 17, and later reset for January 13, 2026. Hillary Clinton followed a similar trajectory, declining multiple proposed dates before failing to appear for a January 14 deposition. In each instance, the committee said it offered flexibility if the Clintons would propose firm alternative dates. They did not.
Instead, the Clintons’ attorneys countered with what Comer described as an unacceptable proposal. Under that offer, Comer would travel to New York to speak with Bill Clinton alone, without placing him under oath, without producing an official transcript, and without allowing other members of Congress to participate. Comer rejected the proposal, arguing that it amounted to special treatment unavailable to any other witness.
“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” Comer said during the hearing. “They carry the force of law and require compliance.”
The committee emphasized that sworn, transcribed testimony is essential to transparency and accountability. Oversight investigators have already released transcripts of interviews with former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, both of whom had direct dealings with Epstein during earlier stages of his prosecution. Allowing the Clintons to substitute informal conversations or written statements, Comer argued, would erode the integrity of the investigation and leave the public dependent on competing recollections rather than a fixed record.
Democrats on the committee were divided. Some argued the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose, while others conceded that Congress cannot selectively enforce its authority based on party loyalty. Rep. Robert Garcia of California said no current or former president should be categorically immune from oversight. Several Democrats stressed that full transparency in the Epstein case demands uniform standards, even when politically inconvenient.
Recent history undercuts claims that contempt powers are merely symbolic. Steve Bannon, former Trump campaign and White House strategist, was convicted in 2022 of contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser, was likewise charged and later imprisoned after refusing to provide testimony to the same panel. Both cases demonstrated that contempt citations can and do result in criminal penalties, including incarceration.
The Clintons have argued through counsel that the subpoenas are invalid and that they possess little relevant information. In a letter to the committee, they described Epstein’s crimes as “horrific” and said they had cooperated in good faith by offering written declarations outlining their limited interactions with him. The committee rejected that approach, noting that Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state gives her direct knowledge of federal anti trafficking initiatives and that both Clintons maintained documented personal and social ties to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Historically, contempt of Congress has been used sparingly, particularly against high profile political figures. No former president has ever been successfully compelled to testify before Congress. However, legal analysts note that the Clintons are private citizens and cannot claim executive privilege protections that might apply to a sitting president.
The contempt resolutions now move to the full House, where passage will require a majority vote. Even if approved, the Justice Department retains discretion over whether to pursue prosecution. That uncertainty has not dampened the broader significance of the moment.
At its core, the dispute is not about partisan score settling or retroactive guilt. It is about whether Congress’s investigative power means what the Constitution says it means. For decades, the Clintons operated within a political ecosystem that treated them as exceptions. The Oversight Committee’s vote suggests that era may be ending.
If subpoenas bind only the unfavored and the powerless, they bind no one at all. The House must now decide whether the rule of law applies equally, even when the names on the subpoena are Clinton.
Council
Refugio’s Government Meltdown: Mayor, Secretary and Three Council Officials Arrested in Two Days
Refugio, TX — It is one thing when a Texas mayor gets arrested. It is quite another when the mayor, city secretary and three current or former council members are all swept into the same criminal investigation within roughly 48 hours. That is what happened this week in Refugio, a small South Texas town where local government has suddenly become the subject of a Texas Rangers investigation and multiple felony charges.
Mayor Wanda Dukes and City Secretary Callie Shreckengost were arrested Wednesday on first-degree felony charges involving the alleged misapplication of fiduciary property valued at $300,000 or more, according to reporting by Crossroads Today and Texas Municipal Watch. The allegations involve the town’s Economic Development Corporation funds.
Then came Thursday.
Mayor Pro Tem Ixtlazihuatl “Lala” Vasquez, along with former council members Michael Rocha and Frank Hosey, surrendered at the Refugio County Jail and were arrested on third-degree felony charges alleging abuse of official capacity involving government property valued at more than $30,000 but less than $150,000.
The Texas Rangers reportedly told Crossroads Today that Thursday’s arrests stem from the same grand jury indictment that produced the charges against Dukes and Shreckengost. Texas Municipal Watch reported that it had not independently reviewed the indictment and was relying on Crossroads Today’s account of the Rangers’ statement.
Under Texas Penal Code Section 39.02, abuse of official capacity involves a public servant intentionally or knowingly misusing government property, services, personnel or other resources under that official’s control for an improper benefit or to harm or defraud another person. At the dollar range alleged in the Thursday arrests, the offense is classified as a third-degree felony.
The identities of the officials involved are not in question. Refugio County records list Dukes as mayor, Vasquez as Alderman Place 1, Rocha as Alderman Place 3, and Hosey as Alderman Place 4. Town financial records also identify Shreckengost as city secretary.
But there is still a great deal the public does not know.
Texas Municipal Watch reported that the specific conduct allegedly underlying the charges against Vasquez, Rocha and Hosey had not yet been independently confirmed, nor had the outlet confirmed their release conditions or upcoming court appearances. The underlying indictment had also not been obtained at the time of its Thursday report.
The town council has apparently recognized that it has a problem. Council members Robert Jaso and Dana Alsop issued an identical statement Wednesday saying the town was aware of criminal accusations against officials, could not comment on an ongoing investigation, and intended to take steps to protect municipal resources. They also said a special meeting would be held as soon as possible to consider whatever action might be necessary.
Granbury, TX – A Granbury political fight that escalated into a criminal prosecution has ended with a jury refusing to convict Eva Royer, a Hood County Republican Party official who was arrested after questions arose over the address she used when filing to run for Granbury City Council.
Royer was found not guilty after facing charges of perjury of certain election procedures and election fraud stemming from her 2024 City Council candidacy, according to reporting by Erin Anderson of Texas Scorecard. The verdict closes a case that had already raised uncomfortable questions about how aggressively local government pursued what began as a dispute over residency.
The case began after Royer filed to run for Granbury City Council Place 5 in August 2024. She listed a Granbury address and stated that she had lived within the city for approximately two years and nine months. City officials later questioned whether that address was actually her primary residence.
Royer withdrew her candidacy before a scheduled City Council meeting could determine whether she met the city’s residency requirements. That could have been the end of the matter.
It wasn’t.
In April 2025, Granbury police arrested Royer on one count of perjury of certain election procedures, a state jail felony, and one count of election fraud, a Class A misdemeanor. She posted bond and was released the following day. The charges were based largely on allegations that she used a Granbury property as her residence even though officials believed she primarily lived elsewhere.
The prosecution focused heavily on three locations: Royer’s Granbury property, a home in Pecan Plantation belonging to her former boyfriend, and a Dallas condominium.
The state presented evidence that Royer’s vehicle entered and exited Pecan Plantation regularly. A security director testified that Royer had a guest pass connected to the vehicle, but also acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Rob Christian that regularly visiting a boyfriend does not necessarily make someone a resident. He further testified that a guest tag indicated the person was not a resident.
Prosecutors also pointed to the fact that Royer’s Granbury property had been approved for short-term rental use. But testimony established that a short-term rental permit did not require the property to be rented for any particular number of days. In other words, having a permit to rent a house does not automatically establish that its owner doesn’t live there.
Then came the homestead exemption argument.
Hood County Chief Appraiser Jeff Law testified that Royer had not claimed a homestead exemption on the Granbury property. Her attorney countered that the property was owned through Royer’s LLC, making her ineligible for the exemption under the circumstances. Royer’s driver license also listed the Granbury address.
The trial also produced testimony about the investigation itself, including the use of license plate reader technology (FLOCK) to locate Royer. Texas Scorecard reported that her former boyfriend’s license plate had been placed on a “hot list” because of his association with Royer. Police eventually arrested Royer after locating her with Bolton.
And there was considerably more.
Defense questioning raised issues involving city officials, police leadership and communications concerning the prosecution. According to Texas Scorecard’s trial coverage, Granbury Police Chief Mitch Galvan acknowledged providing incorrect testimony during earlier proceedings and acknowledged that text messages concerning the case had not initially been produced despite court orders.
Royer’s acquittal ends the criminal case, but it leaves questions about how the dispute escalated to that point. Why was so much pressure brought against her over the address she used on her election paperwork? Why did multiple officials at the City of Granbury become so deeply involved in pursuing the matter after she had withdrawn from the race? And given the issues raised during the trial about the investigation and the handling of evidence, are there additional questions about how and why the case was pursued? Those questions remain unanswered, and whether there is a deeper problem within Granbury’s political or administrative structure is something that warrants further examination.
Montgomery, AL – The woman who spent years telling America which organizations were dangerous has now been arrested by the federal government in a fraud case involving secret payments, extremist informants, alleged shell companies and donor money.
Heidi Beirich, former director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project and former chief financial officer, was arrested Wednesday in California as the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the SPLC widened. Beirich faces charges of wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to make false statements to a federally insured bank and conspiracy to conceal money laundering.
That’s quite a turn for someone whose professional career was built around exposing other people’s alleged extremism.
According to federal prosecutors, the case involves an SPLC informant identified in court documents as “F-9,” who operated inside the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization. The Justice Department alleges the SPLC secretly funneled approximately $1.2 million to F-9 over more than two decades as part of its intelligence-gathering operation.
The indictment does not name Beirich. Instead, it identifies a former senior SPLC employee as “Employee-2,” describing that person as someone who would later become director of the organization’s Intelligence Project. Multiple news organizations, including The Associated Press, have identified Employee-2 as Beirich. Her attorney, Michael Proctor, confirmed Wednesday that she had been charged in the federal case.
And the allegations get considerably stranger from there.
Prosecutors allege Beirich and F-9 were romantically involved and shared a residence and two bank accounts. Between 2015 and 2021, roughly $140,000 in SPLC donor money allegedly flowed into those joint accounts. The indictment says that money accounted for about 66 percent of the deposits into the accounts and was used to pay the couple’s personal living expenses.
Federal prosecutors also allege that SPLC officials helped establish bank accounts using fictitious company names to disguise the source and purpose of payments to informants.
This wasn’t simply a matter of paying someone for information. According to the indictment, the government believes the financial arrangements were deliberately structured to conceal what was happening from banks and donors. The original federal indictment against the SPLC alleges that, between 2014 and 2023, the organization secretly funneled more than $3 million to people associated with violent extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations and the National Socialist Party of America.
The SPLC itself was indicted in April on 11 counts involving wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The FBI investigated with assistance from IRS Criminal Investigation.
Beirich’s attorney has rejected the prosecution as politically motivated, saying that the justice system should not be used against political opponents. The SPLC has also maintained that its informant program was legitimate intelligence work designed to gather information about extremist organizations.
Beirich left the SPLC after leading its Intelligence Project from 2012 through 2019. She later co-founded the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism and continued to appear publicly as an expert on political extremism.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login