While ignoring how often Trump appears in the Epstein Files (and probably deatures in many if the redscted sections) and that the White House srill hasnt released all the files, ignoring law it supposedly supported. You know, just pursuing the truth like thelGOP always does.
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
163 points (98.2% liked)
News
34363 readers
2977 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So Clintons get contempt but Bondi doesn't get any repercussions?
The GOP have such a hard on for the Clintons.
Bill is legitimately a criminal. In a just world the Democrats would be going after him just as hard, and the Republicans would be going after trump. Tribalism gonna tribal I guess.
He's not a 34 time felon currently in charge of the white house using his position to prevent the release of the Epstein Files.
This isn't tomato, tomaato. Bill has no power here. Trump does. And he's using it to go after someone that hasn't held office in decades.
It's a sad gesture of justice at best, or completely fucking deranged at worst.
We.dknt have to choose one or the other. We should be trying everyone who was on that island.
No offense, but seeing as Trump is literally the only one preventing the release of the Epstein Files, now illegally against the will of Congress, yes you do have to choose one over the other if you actually want justice.
Instead, our tax dollars are going towards arresting Bill Clinton. If you want to try everyone on the Island, that literally MUST start with the person illegally stopping that from happening. Or it will literally never happen. Just like Trumps Tax returns, Wall, and Health Plan.
yes you do have to choose one over the other if you actually want justice.
No, you don't. Trying Clinton won't prevent trump from being tried. If Bill Clinton never existed Trump would still be interfering in the release of the files to protect himself. If you're suggesting that trying no one at all serves justice better than trying Clinton I vehemently disagree.
Well someone did...
well someone had a hard-on for Clinton's hard-on...
Clinton has the chance to do a very funny thing. Confirm the blowjob, blow this thing wide open
What's the statute of limitations on contempt? I agree they are in contempt, but so are a bunch of Republicans that defied congressional subpoenas. I'd say lump them all together if you want to truly send a message.
The message they want to send is that the law can be arbitrarily applied as justification for violence
They want to send a message. Just not the same one you want.
I want bill to testify under oath on live tv and with his first words he immediately throws Trump under the Epstein bus.
As I understand it, that's the whole issue. They were subpoenaed to testify non-publicly, and told the committee they would only do so publicly. The committee declined and here we are.
Take the sign down. Nothing this government does supports equality under the law. They use it to hurt rivals while protecting themselves.
That has been what law is since its inception
First of all, LOL, what a clown move by a clown committee.
Second, I don't give a shit about the Clintons and neither should anybody else. I would have loved for them to be held accountable for contempt, if it weren't for the fact that the committee itself lacks credibility and deserves it.
Third, I'm just hoping for the silver lining that liberal Democrats learn the hard way what they should've done with that power, back when they had the chance to wield it against MAGA fuckwads legitimately.
If he raped little girls, you don’t think those now grown women should give a shit? Why shouldn’t they again?
What the fuck? Was it not clear from context that "I don't give a fuck about the Clintons" meant "I don't give a fuck about protecting them from the consequences of their actions?"
Clearly you're looking for something to be outraged about, but my comment ain't it.
Personally it wasn’t clear from the context. I read it as “I don’t care about the Clintons” meaning “I don’t want to hear or see news about the Clintons” which, when followed by “and neither should anyone else” kinda makes it read like “this article is not news and no one should care” but that’s just how I read it. I appreciate you clarifying though
I don't give a shit about the Clintons and neither should anybody else
I believe people who rape children should be in jail
Dude, 80% of democrats work for the same bosses. We have 2 right wing parties in the US.
Willie could just be like "Yep. I was there. Trump did it. All of it."
This nothing new. Republicans have had nothing but contempt for the Clintons for over 30 years.
...and the DOJ?
What are these fucks doing about the DOJ giving the law the finger?
Of course nothing, they can't run fox news headlines about that, it would upset Donnie Dipshit.
Contempt is a Crime?
lol
Buttery males.