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.

Fate, TX – The political temperature in Fate, Texas, spiked sharply yesterday after a recall petition targeting City Councilwoman Codi Chinn was formally filed, setting off a chain reaction that quickly moved from City Hall into the volatile arena of social media.

On January 5, 2026, Fate Mayor Andrew Greenberg submitted a recall petition seeking an election to remove Chinn from office. The filing designates ten individuals as a recall committee, a required procedural step under Texas law. Mayor Greenberg is listed as the committee’s contact person. Among the 10 members of the committee is Fate Councilman Rick Maneval, and two district leaders of the Rockwall County Republican Party, not including Mayor Greenberg, who is also a district leader. An unusual, but lawful development that underscores the severity of the internal rift now gripping the council.

The petition itself is notable for what it does not include. It does not state a formal reason for recall, a choice permitted under Texas municipal practice and one that places the focus squarely on the procedural rights of voters rather than litigating motives at the filing stage.

That restraint did not last long.

Public knowledge of the involvement by the Mayor, Maneval, and the others in the Committee comes by way of a post made by Chinn. According to multiple sources, Chinn was provided a copy of the petition through her official city email account within hours of the application being filed. Shortly thereafter, Chinn published images of the petition on social media. Using her personal Facebook profile, she exposed the names, signatures, and home addresses of all ten recall committee members.

The City of Fate has not disclosed the recall application as of the publication of this article. Chinn’s post, as of publication, remains visible.

What the Petition Does and Does Not Do

Under Texas law, home rule cities like Fate may allow for the recall of elected officials if their city charter provides a mechanism. The recall process begins not with accusations, but with voter participation. The petition merely initiates that process.

While the petition does not articulate grounds for recall, the filing comes amid ongoing controversy surrounding Chinn, including allegations that she played a central role in pressuring for the removal of Fate DPS Chief Lyle Lombard. No formal adjudication of that allegation has occurred, but it has remained a persistent flashpoint.

Chinn is also widely known in Fate for her combative and caustic online presence, frequently engaging residents in prolonged and hostile exchanges on social media. Supporters describe her posture as that of an “activist” challenging entrenched interests. Critics argue it reflects a disregard for the decorum and restraint expected of an elected official.

How the Recall Process Works in Fate

Because recall procedures are governed primarily by a city’s charter, the precise requirements vary from one municipality to another. In general terms, however, a recall petition must be supported by verified signatures from qualified voters, typically calculated as a percentage of voters from the most recent election for the office in question.

Based on charter standards common to Texas home rule cities and election data from the relevant council race, the number of verified signatures required in Fate is estimated to be approximately 351. Those signatures must be collected within a defined circulation period and submitted to the city secretary for validation.

Once submitted, city staff are responsible for verifying that each signer is a registered voter and that the petition complies with charter and state requirements. If the petition is deemed sufficient, the City Council is obligated to order a recall election, allowing voters to decide whether the officeholder should be removed before the end of the term.

What Comes Next

The immediate next step is groundwork. Organizers of the recall are urging Fate residents who are registered to vote to contact RecallCodi@yahoo.com. Committee members will have to collect the required signatures and submit them to the city for verification. City officials will review the petition for compliance and determine whether it qualifies to move forward. If it does, Fate voters—not Facebook commenters or council colleagues—will have the final say.

Regardless of the outcome, the episode has already delivered a stark lesson. Local government is not insulated from the corrosive effects of digital outrage culture. When elected officials treat political opposition as a target rather than a constituency, when they wield their power to oust beloved city employees, there will be consequences.

Fate, Texas — What began as a personnel shake-up has turned into a full-blown legal and political crisis for the city of Fate. Secret audio recordings, obtained by Pipkins Reports, reveal that Councilman Mark Harper, allegedly threatened Fate City Manager Michael Kovacs with termination if Kovacs did not agree to fire DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.

The implication, as understood by Kovacs in the recording, is that he (Harper) had a coalition, to include other Councilmen, to join forces against the City Manager, and threaten to remove him if he does not comply with their demands. A secret recording, obtained by Pipkins Reports from a witness, is of Michael Kovacs, where he alleges that Harper was among those who had threatened him.

This bombshell revelation threatens not just reputations but the city’s legal standing with regard to the termination of Chief Lombard. The combination of several audio recordings, where Kovacs himself admits he was pressured by “some” City Councilmen to take a harder position with the chief, or risk his own termination, indicates that his decision to terminate the chief may have been based on factors that are more political, than performance.

Previously on Pipkins Reports we had reported, “According to sources with direct knowledge of the situation, Councilman Chinn pressured City Manager Michael Kovacs to fire Lombard, allegedly threatening his own position if he refused. These sources say the push came suddenly and forcefully.”

In response to our inquiry, Chinn shared with Pipkins Reports a screenshot of her private conversation with Michael Kovacs, where she expressed her outrage over our previous story.

As additional evidence has become available, after reviewing the audio recordings, and evidence presented by Chinn, which is in contradiction with witness testimony previously provided to Pipkins Reports, we find there is no physical evidence that Chinn directly threatened to fire Kovacs. Our apologies to Mrs. Chinn for overstating her involvement in our previous article.

The new audio recordings, along with text messages and documents received via an Open Records Request (ORR), show only that Kovacs stated he was being threatened directly by Harper, and “some” other councilmen … however, who those councilmen are remains unclear, as all persons have denied the allegations and Kovacs refuses to qualify to whom he was referring.

Alleged Threats Captured in Recording

According to audio recordings, Kovacs states that “Council Members” threatened to have him terminated if he didn’t comply with their demands. For this publication, Pipkins Reports is publishing transcripts now and will release the full audio once legally cleared. At this time, we are also redacting the names of witnesses. Once the audio is released, the persons will be easily identified, and we will discuss sources freely.

Audio Transcript 11/12/2025:

Witness #1 – Directed towards Kovacs: “Can I, Can I ask a bold question? Are they threatening to fire you?“

Michael Kovacs: “Some of them, yeah.“

In this conversation, the “some / they” that Michael Kovacs was referring to is allegedly Councilmen Mark Harper, Codi Chinn, and Scott Kelley. However, Pipkins Reports cannot confirm any of them.

In a follow-up recording, Kovacs confirms and directly specifies Councilman Mark Harper.

Audio Transcript 11/12/2025:

Witness #1: “…when we were talking with Leigh, you mentioned that Councilmen had threatened to fire you and pull you into executive session. Was it just Mark Harper? Or, was it Codi? Was it Scott Kelley? [redacted] Was it …”

Michael Kovacs:    “No, no. It was just Mark”.

Witness #1:   “Just Mark?”

Michael Kovacs:   “Yeah.”

Witness #1:   “You mentioned Council Members … ”

Michael Kovacs:   “People sometimes say, you know, hey, I’ve got, you know, X many people, or whatever. But um … it’s common. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t.”

The answer from Kovacs reveals that he has received veiled threats from others, but a direct threat from Councilman Harper.

Obviously, Kovacs was unaware that he was being recorded. The recording comes from a person who was part of the conversation. Texas is a “one-party consent” state, which means that anyone who is part of a conversation may legally record that conversation. However, this witness was not the only one recording conversations; Pipkins Reports has multiple recordings by multiple witnesses with multiple people. Some of these recordings have been submitted to the City of Fate as part of an Open Records Request, as required by law. These audio recordings will be released after the city has conducted its review.

The Anonymous Complaint

Some witnesses allege that the scathing anonymous letter may have been written by a member, or ally, of the council, in order to justify Lombard’s termination. Pipkins Reports has not identified the author, and no public evidence has been produced establishing authorship. However, the content of the letter, which contains private information used in the chief’s employee review, lends some credibility to this claim.

Regardless of source, it appears that the anonymous letter may have been the undeclared, yet deciding factor to turn a normal employee review, with suggestions for improvement, into justification for termination. If so, when combined with the alleged coercion, it brings serious legal issues into play.

Under Texas Government Code §614.022 and § 614.023, any complaint against a law‑enforcement officer (ie: Chief Lombard) must be “in writing” and signed by the person making the complaint. (Texas City Attorneys Association.) The officer must be given a copy of the signed complaint, and no indefinite suspension or termination may occur unless the complaint is investigated and evidence confirms the allegations.

In this case, not only are there no signatories to the complaint, or to any complaint for that matter, but there is no evidence that any serious investigation into the complaint took place.

Officially, the chief was fired due to his handling of two main issues outlined in his performance review. We will discuss this in great detail in a future article. For now, let’s discuss how the timing suggests that the anonymous letter played a more direct role than we are led to believe.

The Timeline

September 30, 2025 – Chief Lyle Lombard completes his portion (self-assessment) of his semi-annual performance review.

October 30, 2025 – City Manager Michael Kovacs and Lombard meet to discuss the review. Kovacs rates the chief in several areas as, “Needs Improvement”. This is the first time in 7 years with the City of Fate that the chief has received a rating that is less than satisfactory.
Ratings include: Outstanding; Highly Successful; Successful; Needs Improvement; Unsuccessful.

At no point did Chief Lombard receive an “unsuccessful” rating.

November 10, 2025 – By this date, Councilman Harper, Chinn & Kovacs have had conversations and already know that Chief Lombard will be put in executive session. Based on subsequent recordings and texts.

November 11, 2025 – Codi Chinn & Scott Kelly discuss via text that Codi needs a 2nd councilman to put the chief into Executive Session. Kelly agrees to 2nd the motion. Kelley maintains his decision to second the motion was based on other performance issues. However, the timeline shows the motion occurred before Kovacs finalized the performance review and before any documented investigation.

City of Fate then posts the agenda for the upcoming City Council Meeting to occur on November 17^th. Listed on that agenda is the Executive Session to review Chief Lombard.

As of this date, Kovacs had not yet signed or issued his half of Lombard’s latest, semi-annual performance review from October 30^th.

November 12, Wednesday. Kovacs finally signs the performance review (now 2 months old). The review, gives every indication that the City will still continue to support the chief.

Also on November 12^th , our Witness #1, meets with Michael Kovacs & Fate H.R. Director Leigh Corson. The witness records the conversation … and Corson emphatically states that they are not considering terminating the chief.

Audio Transcript

Witness #1: “So y’all are seriously considering terminating the chief?”

Leigh Corson:   “No. were not considering termination, but we don’t know what’s happening Monday night.” Corson was referring to the upcoming executive session.

However, this statement conflicts with a separate recording made three days later by Witness #2, this time with Codi Chinn. In this recording, Chinn reveals that she had talked with Kovacs, [three days prior] and that a plan is already in place to terminate the chief, saying, “it’s happening”, in reference to the firing of Chief Lombard.

Later, in our interview with Chinn, she contradicts herself and stated that she had no knowledge of the chief being terminated until they got the official notice in writing.

Audio Transcript

Codi Chinn: “…it’s unfortunate because it didn’t have to be that way, but I think if he wasn’t so involved politically, right, like, if he was just a bad a bad chief, right, we probably could, I don’t know, we could rationalize it for maybe three years and deal with it. But it’s all the other bullshit that goes along with it. 
You can’t do the things that you’re doing on an operational level that suck. And then have a bad attitude and a bad wife on top of it. “

November 13, 2025 – Email between Kovacs and Chinn. Kovacs asks her if she will feel comfortable speaking during the Executive Session on Monday. She responds that she will, along with Harper and Kelley.

November 14, 2025 –  Consistent with statements later captured on audio, the chief is verbally placed on administrative leave … in spite of the assurance of Kovacs and H.R., Director Corson to Witness #1, and in spite the fact that his performance review did not rise to the level of termination, based on Kovacs’ own words.

November 15, 2025 – Saturday. – Codi Chinn sends Kovacs the “anonymous” letter via text. Kovacs expresses zero concern or shock … as if he were already expecting to receive it. He notifies the City Council of “new information” that they just received. The letter is dated November 11^th, the same date that the agenda for the meeting is posted to the public. The letter is addressed to “Honorable Mayor and Members of the Fate City Council”, but was allegedly hand-delivered ONLY to Councilman Codi Chinn … who claims she scanned it, and forwarded it to Kovacs.

Councilman Scott Kelley has stated he was unaware of the anonymous letter until it was provided to him by Kovacs and denies any prior involvement.

How long Chinn had the letter in her possession, and when she first discussed it with Kovacs, is still uncertain.

In an interview with Pipkins Reports, Lombard stated that after he was put on suspension, he was advised by Michael Kovacs that he didn’t need to attend the Council Meeting on Monday, November 17^th . Not satisfied with that advice, Lombard decided to attend the meeting anyway … and was subsequently invited into the Executive Session. A move that is unusual, but not unprecedented.

While nobody attending the meeting is speaking directly to Pipkins Reports about what took place, or the direct conversations that occurred while in Executive Session, it was clear (to the chief) which Council Members were against him. Three stood out: Chinn, Harper & Kelley.

All three of these Council Members have very public and personal objections to chief Lombard, or his wife. It’s the type of petty social media bickering that is not worthy of inclusion in an article that has such serious ramifications as this.

The important takeaway is that up until the receipt of the “anonymous” letter, and subsequent pressure from certain council members, the evidence shows that there was every intention by Kovacs & Corson to work out those minor performance issues with the chief. That means that the anonymous letter, and the pressure from three council members, was the impetus for dismissal… not the reasons outlined in his performance review.

November 17^th 2025 – Council Meets in Executive Session.

11:04 pm – After the Executive Session, Chinn sends a text to Kovacs stating, “I know that sucked but you did good tonight. If the officers/firemen who reached out can go through the Texas Municipal Police Association with their statements about morale would that be helpful? They are offering to do that so ppl can trust that they are actual currently employed by Fate DPS.”

November 19^th 2025 – Chief Lombard returns his reply to the complaint levied against him by Kovacs. At this time, he has no idea the level of machinations that have been leveled against him. The decision has already been made.

November 21^st 2025 – Chief Lombard is officially terminated. The reasons given are those outlined in his performance review and Kovacs’ “complaint”, and there is zero mention of the “important information” of the anonymous letter presented to the Council. Kovacs likely knows that to include it would guarantee a wrongful termination lawsuit in the chief’s favor.

The Performance Reviews

Pipkins Reports obtained Chief Lombard’s performance reports dating back to 2020. We will note that there were no reports in 2024 due to changes in procedures and software used by the city. However, there were 2 reports in 2025. One in March, one in October.

To spare our readers from a post that is already too long, we will save the full discussion of those performance reviews for another article. However, for the sake of this post, suffice it to say that until October of 2025, Chief Lombard’s record was exemplary. He never had a single bad mark in his record. In every case, comments made by Michael Kovacs himself, were regarded as, “Successful, Highly Successful, and Outstanding”. Including the report for March.

The last report, the one claimed as a basis for termination, was mixed with similar assessments except for a few categories, where Kovacs rated the chief as, “Needs Improvement”. In fact, at the end of the review Kovacs emphatically states, “Lyle is someone I enjoy working with and I want the very best for him and his unit in the coming year.” Indicating that in his current state of mind, Kovacs has no intention of firing the chief. This is further corroborated by statements made to Witness #1 days later.  

Only two things changed after that time … the anonymous letter, and pressure from certain council members.

Legal Exposure: Why Fate Could Be Sued

Because of the combination of (1) coercive threats admitted by Kovacs on audio, (2) reliance on an anonymous complaint lacking a signed allegation or investigation, and (3) statutory procedural protections for law-enforcement officers, Fate faces multiple legal problems:

• A wrongful‑termination lawsuit under state and possibly federal law. Wrongful discharge claims typically succeed when an adverse action is based on unverified or pretextual reasons, especially for public‑safety employees. (Littler Mendelson P.C.)
• Procedural‑due‑process claims, for failure to provide a signed complaint, opportunity to respond, and proper investigation before termination, in violation of Texas Government Code § 614.023. (Texas City Attorneys Association)
• Potential civil‑rights or whistleblower retaliation claims, if further evidence shows political motives rather than legitimate misconduct prompted the termination. (DOL)
• Fiscal exposure — such a case could result in substantial judgment or settlement paid from city funds, imposing a direct cost on taxpayers.

In short: a court or jury could well find the termination improper, perhaps even punitive or retaliatory in nature. In addition, Council Members who may have violated the City Charter by coercing the City Manager could risk exposure and be subject to personal civil action as well as sanction by the State. Who knows what the outcome could be? But the actions of Kovacs, and the Fate City Council, could end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal services and settlements.

Why This Matters to the People of Fate

At stake isn’t just the future of Chief Lombard, or even the loss of taxpayer money to defend a potential lawsuit, but also at stake is the rule of law in municipal governance. Terminations based on anonymous hearsay and political threats destabilize local government, erode trust in public safety, and politicize law enforcement. This is a particularly dangerous path in a small but growing community such as Fate.

Residents deserve a government that doesn’t conspire to dismantle law enforcement. They deserve transparency and accountability. If City Managers are allowed to fire department heads based on political pressure, without signed complaints, fair investigations, or due process, the city risks institutional breakdown, not just legal liability.

Moreover, if some elected officials participate in micro-managing city personnel due to political or personal objections, it threatens Fate’s long-term governance culture, potentially deterring qualified public‑safety professionals from serving or even chilling whistleblowers who see administrative retaliation as the default consequence. True whistleblowers have safe and legal pathways to present grievances.

Responses

We reached out to Kovacs, Harper, Chinn, and Kelley for comments regarding this situation and the allegations levied against them by Kovacs. We received the following responses:

Michael Kovacs: No response received

Mark Harper: In response to all our questions, his response was, “No comment.”

Codi Chinn: In a response to Pipkins Reports, Councilwoman Codi Chinn denied ever threatening City Manager Michael Kovacs or participating in any effort to coerce him into terminating Chief Lyle Lombard.

Chinn stated that prior to recent events, she had consistently defended Chief Lombard and told Kovacs that she would vote against his termination if such a proposal were brought forward. According to Chinn, her position only changed after she began receiving complaints from officers within the Fate Department of Public Safety.

She said those complaints centered on officers allegedly being promised pay raises that did not materialize, dissatisfaction with departmental morale, and concerns related to the division of the Department of Public Safety into separate fire and police operations. Chinn asserted that these issues caused her to reassess her position reluctantly.

Chinn further stated that she believes Chief Lombard is more competent as a fire chief than as a police chief and that her support for his removal from the police role was based on those professional concerns rather than any political pressure or coordinated action.

She denied having any advance knowledge that Chief Lombard would be terminated prior to the executive session and stated that she did not know the chief was going to be fired before the Council formally considered the matter. This is in direct contradiction of an audio recording held by Pipkins Reports where she states that on Wednesday, November 12th, she had talked with Kovacs and was certain that the plans were already underway to fire the chief.

Audio Transcript

Codi Chinn: “… So when I talk to Michael on Wednesday [11/12/2025], he was like, no, it’s happening … 
 And that was when he [Kovacs] told me that. 
And he was like, “So we are moving forward with it, you know, and after I’m gonna, you know, lay it all out for all the council, all the disciplinary things, and everything that’s been going on, and then, you know, so y’all want to say something you can, and he said, you know, after I hear y’all’s feedback, then I’ll have a decision to make“.

Scott Kelley: In a response to Pipkins Reports, Councilman Scott Kelley denied any involvement in threatening City Manager Michael Kovacs or participating in any effort to remove him.

Kelley stated that he has no knowledge of Michael Kovacs ever being threatened by any council member and asserted that he personally did not threaten Kovacs at any time. He further denied being part of any group or coalition whose intent was to pressure or remove the City Manager over the termination of Chief Lyle Lombard.

According to Kelley, he had no prior knowledge of Chief Lombard’s performance evaluation before the matter was taken up in executive session and was not briefed on the contents of that review beforehand.

Kelley also stated that he was unaware of the existence of the anonymous letter until it was provided to him by Michael Kovacs and denied having any role in its creation, circulation, or consideration prior to that point.

Regarding his decision to second Councilwoman Codi Chinn’s motion to place the matter in executive session, Kelley said his action was based on other performance concerns related to the chief, not on any threats, pressure, or coordination aimed at forcing termination.

What Comes Next?

In the next report, we will cover the details of Chief Lombard’s Performance Reports, the actual termination letter, and the rebuttal.

Stay tuned to Pipkins Reports.