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.
Austin
Texas GOP Wants Closed Primaries. New Secretary of State Robert Howden Is Preparing to Fight Them.
Austin, TX – Texas Republicans spent years demanding control of their own primary. Now they have a new Secretary of State, Robert S. Howden, appointed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, and the man taking over the state’s election machinery is inheriting a lawsuit in which his office is expected to defend the very open primary system the GOP wants to dismantle.
The Republican Party of Texas filed the federal lawsuit in September 2025, arguing that Texas’ open primary system violates the party’s First Amendment right of association. Under the current system, Texas voters do not register by party and may choose which party’s primary to vote in during an election cycle. The GOP wants only registered Republicans participating in Republican primaries.
The case is pending in federal court in Amarillo before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
And Robert S. Howden has now inherited it.
Howden Steps Into the Fight
Gov. Abbott appointed Howden as Texas’ 116th secretary of state on July 17, effective July 18. Howden previously served as Abbott’s senior adviser and director of legislative affairs and has worked in the administrations of four Republican governors. As secretary of state, he is Texas’ chief elections officer.
Abbott has been quite clear about where he stands.
At the 2026 Republican Party convention, he said Texas would eventually make clear that “only Republicans vote in Republican primaries.” Abbott has also said lawmakers “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be,” indicating that he expects the Legislature to address the issue during the 2027 session.
But that doesn’t mean the Secretary of State’s office is supposed to simply surrender in court.
That was the position taken by Howden’s predecessor, Jane Nelson.
Nelson argued that changing Texas’ primary system was a job for the Legislature, not a federal judge. In an October 2025 statement, she said it was her responsibility to defend existing election laws and that she would implement whatever changes the Legislature lawfully enacted.
The Attorney General’s office took the opposite position.
Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Texas GOP, asking the federal court to strike down portions of the Texas Election Code governing open primaries. According to reporting by The Texas Tribune, Nelson’s lawyers said Paxton’s office gave them less than an hour’s notice before taking the opposing position.
So the Republican Party sued the Republican-controlled state government. The Republican Attorney General joined the plaintiffs. And the Republican Secretary of State fought the lawsuit.
That’s not exactly the tidy party unity politicians like to advertise.
The Real Fight Is Over Who Controls the Nomination
The GOP argues that crossover voting allows Democrats and independents to influence Republican nominations, potentially helping candidates who are less conservative than the party base.
The lawsuit specifically pointed to the 2024 Republican primaries involving former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Rep. Gary VanDeaver. Both won their races by fewer than 800 votes, and the party argued that crossover voters helped determine the outcomes.
The party has already made closing primaries an official priority. Republicans adopted rules supporting closed primaries in 2024 and renewed that push at their 2026 convention.
But changing the system is not as simple as flipping a switch.
Texas has more than 18 million registered voters, and the state’s registration system was never designed around party registration. Moving to closed primaries could require new registration procedures, computer-system changes and a method for existing voters to establish party affiliation.
The GOP wants the courts to clear the way, preferably in time for 2028.
San Angelo, TX – San Angelo’s battle over massive data centers has moved from City Hall chambers to the ballot box, and two council members could soon have to defend their seats before voters angry about how the city has handled the projects. What began as a fight over water, power, development and transparency is now a full-blown political revolt, with recall efforts targeting Council Members Harry Thomas and Joe Self.
And the controversy comes at an interesting moment for Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state regulators to conduct a comprehensive audit of data centers moving through the state’s electric grid interconnection process, saying the review must be completed before any data center project moves forward. ERCOT subsequently told Fox News Digital that Abbott’s directive “effectively pauses all data center projects” while the state reviews their demands on the grid.
That means the questions being shouted at San Angelo City Hall are no longer merely local complaints from residents opposed to a particular development. Texas officials are now asking some of the same questions.
Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to examine pending data center projects and gather information, including projected annual and peak electricity demand, water consumption, water sources, and whether facilities intend to generate some of their own electricity. ERCOT reported that roughly 90 percent of the 474 gigawatts of large-load interconnection requests currently under review are associated with data centers, more than five times Texas’ record peak electricity demand.
Back in San Angelo, the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition has been pushing its own accountability campaign.
A petition seeking the recall of Council Member Harry Thomas, who represents Single Member District 3, was submitted July 15 with more than the required signatures. The city clerk later certified the petition after determining 53 signatures were sufficient, clearing the way for a recall election.
Following public comment, the City Council voted 6-1 to call the recall election.
Thomas has maintained that he has no intention of resigning.
“I weigh every decision I’ve ever made on behalf of the 100,000 citizens in San Angelo,” Thomas said after the petition was submitted. “Every time I vote, I vote for all the citizens. I have no plans to resign from my position.”
Self is now facing his own recall effort.
The coalition submitted an affidavit seeking Self’s recall and subsequently collected the signatures necessary to move forward. On Aug. 6, Self issued a statement saying he supports residents’ right to seek a recall but rejected what he described as misinformation about his involvement with data centers.
“I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements,” Self said. “I have not benefited financially. I have not voted in favor of a data center.”
Self said the council has instead voted on regulations that would apply if a data center is established in San Angelo.
That distinction between approving a specific project and approving regulations governing potential projects has become one of the central arguments in the political fight. San Angelo officials have considered rules addressing land use, water and wastewater issues as the city confronts proposals for large-scale data center development.
The proposed Skybox project has become particularly contentious. City officials have described it as a potential $7.2 billion investment, while opponents have raised concerns about water consumption, electricity demand, infrastructure, noise and transparency surrounding the development process.
The political consequences are spreading beyond San Angelo.
Residents in Temple and Granbury have also launched recall or charter efforts amid disputes over data center development. In Temple, opponents have cited concerns about land, water consumption and heat generated by facilities. In Granbury, activists gathered signatures seeking recalls involving the mayor and most members of the City Council.
Election
Texas Senate Hopeful James Talarico Shared Pride Event Stage With 11-Year-Old Child Drag Performer
Federal Court Upholds State Limits on Minors at Adult Drag Shows
Taylor, TX – A federal appeals court has just upheld a Florida law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances, including some drag shows. Within hours of that ruling, renewed attention was focused on Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico after reports resurfaced showing he headlined a 2021 Pride fundraiser featuring an 11-year-old child drag performer promoted as one of the event’s main attractions.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, allowing Florida to enforce its law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the decision, calling it a victory for protecting children. The ruling does not prohibit drag performances for adults, but it recognizes that states may impose limits when minors are involved.
The timing has drawn renewed scrutiny to Talarico’s record as he campaigns for the U.S. Senate against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
According to promotional materials first highlighted by the Washington Free Beacon, Talarico was a featured speaker during Taylor PRIDE’s June 26, 2021 fundraiser in Taylor, Texas. The event was organized to raise money for “rural LGBTQ communities” and included live music, Drag Story Hour, adult drag performers, and an 11-year-old performer using the stage name “Kween Kee Kee.”
Taylor PRIDE advertised the child as “the absolute cutest & youngest of our drag performers.” Promotional posts stated the child would perform a drag routine and host “Kee Kee Storytime,” where children would participate in Pride-themed craft activities. The event was held at Texas Beer Company.
Photographs published from the event show Talarico addressing attendees from the stage and posing with participants. Additional photographs and video posted publicly show Kween Kee Kee, a local preteen named Keegan, performing in a shimmering blue dress, platinum blonde wig, and theatrical makeup during what organizers described as a Youth Drag Show. One attendee shared video of the child performing the splits before the audience.
The fundraiser also featured several adult drag performers, including Brianna Brinxx, Belladonna Dior, Felecia Enspire, and a performer using the stage name Sedonya Face.
Following criticism from conservative activists who protested the event, Taylor PRIDE defended the festival on social media. The organization rejected claims that the event was sexually explicit or exploitative and encouraged the public to review photographs from the event and decide for themselves.
Talarico’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment from the Washington Free Beacon regarding his participation.
The resurfaced event adds to a broader record that Republicans have highlighted throughout Talarico’s political career. While serving in the Texas House, Talarico opposed legislation restricting drag performances in the presence of children and argued lawmakers should avoid harming what he described as Texas’ drag performers. He has also opposed Republican-backed legislation restricting certain transgender medical treatments for minors and has frequently spoken in support of LGBTQ causes.
More recently, however, Talarico has attempted to present himself as a more moderate statewide candidate. He has described previous remarks, including referring to God as “nonbinary,” as “cringey” and has removed some progressive messaging from campaign materials as he seeks to broaden his appeal beyond Democratic primary voters.
The renewed attention comes as cultural debates surrounding children and drag performances continue playing out both politically and legally. Florida’s appellate court victory represents one of the most significant recent rulings supporting a state’s authority to restrict minors from attending certain adult-oriented live performances, even as litigation over similar laws continues elsewhere.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login