All posts tagged "james comer"

This GOP farce just proved the net is closing on Trump

For the better part of 40 years, the Republican Party has chased Bill and Hillary Clinton with fervor bordering on obsession. From Whitewater to Benghazi, from emails to impeachment, the pursuit has been relentless, and always ridiculous.

After Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College in 2016 (while winning the popular vote), it seemed possible the GOP might finally loosen its grip.

Nope. This week, the GOP tried to light the Clintons on fire again. And as usual, the Clintons proved flame retardant.

In the Epstein affair, James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, tried to use closed-door depositions to make the former first couple look guilty — or at least more guilty than Donald Trump.

But if Comer and his allies believed they would finally corner the Clintons, they miscalculated badly. The depositions produced no bombshells, no dramatic unravelings — nothing, unless you count the bizarre spectacle of a bunch of clowns asking Hillary about UFOs, and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) managing to torpedo the whole thing by leaking photos to the press.

If this two-day Chappaqua farce did anything, it made it more obvious that the current president and first lady should testify.

Anyone with documented ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and that includes Bill Clinton, should answer questions under oath. He did. Survivors deserve nothing less than full transparency. All this innuendo and all these flimsy excuses — “bad judgment,” “mistake,” “just business” — need to end. Now.

But if Republicans insist on dragging Hillary Clinton into the room, despite zero evidence she ever met or interacted with Epstein, then fairness demands the standard apply to Melania Trump.

Melania moved in overlapping social circles with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She was photographed at events where Epstein was present. Maxwell reportedly referred to her affectionately — as “sweet pea.”

If Hillary Clinton can be questioned to eliminate doubt, Melania should be too. But don’t bet on it. She’ll hide under her shady hats, and refuse to step forward in her five-inch stilettos.

It shouldn’t stop there. It’s time to pick up the pace. Honestly, if Republicans want to stop Epstein haunting the entire midterms campaign, they need to get down to business.

Why has there been so little urgency to pursue testimony from figures far more substantively tied to Epstein than the Clintons? It’s starting to bother voters, and it’s only going to get worse.

Les Wexner, the billionaire who financed Epstein, did testify — and not a single GOP member of Comer’s committee dared participate in full.

Wexner said he was “deceived,” that Epstein “misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family.”

Speaking of money, what the hell did Bill Gates need Epstein for?

The Microsoft founder has called meetings with Epstein after his 2008 conviction for child prostitution a “huge mistake” and a “serious error in judgment.”

But a “mistake” is not enough. Epstein was a registered sex offender. His crimes were public knowledge. Why continue meeting with him?

What was so valuable that it justified the reputational and moral risk? Gates has more money than God. It doesn’t make sense. That’s why Gates should testify under oath, and answer questions from the FBI.

So should Alex Acosta, the U.S. Attorney who approved Epstein’s 2008 Florida plea deal, then later became Trump’s secretary of labor.

Acosta later claimed he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence.”

The full context of how Epstein secured such an extraordinary deal remains disturbingly unresolved.

The lawyer Alan Dershowitz needs to be grilled. He strenuously denies wrongdoing, stating, “I never had sex with any of Epstein’s accusers,” calling allegations “fabricated.”

So why did he hang out with Epstein? Seriously.

Then there’s Woody Allen. In light of all the allegations that have dogged the comic and director, his association with Epstein remains extremely dubious. As recently as September, Allen defended his attendance at Epstein’s dinners, saying Epstein "couldn't have been nicer" and was "charming and personable". And that he “told us he’d been in jail.”

Woody. You of all people should have run for the hills.

Steve Bannon, who spent hours interviewing Epstein after his conviction, says Epstein was “trying to rehabilitate his image.”

Can’t someone subpoena Bannon’s tapes? We’re talking about serious crimes.

And what of figures in proximity to Epstein who overlap directly with Trumpworld — including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick?

Above all, if Bill Clinton can be compelled to testify a quarter-century after leaving office, then Donald Trump must be called to testify under oath and to be interviewed by the FBI. He was in way deeper.

It is not enough for Trump to toss half-answers at press gaggles or dismiss legitimate questions as “old news” or a “hoax.” Trump once called Epstein a “terrific guy” who liked women “on the younger side.”

That remark has no expiration date. There are photos, footage, flight logs, and overlapping Palm Beach connections. If Congress and the Justice Department truly believe no one is above scrutiny, that principle must begin with the man at the center of their universe.

Here is a starting point: anyone who chose to associate with Epstein after his 2008 conviction should testify. Period. No exceptions. Everyone. If you were really innocent, you should be jumping forward.

Ask yourself a simple question. If you were running a business and a man who had served time for sex crimes against minors offered to help, would you welcome him in? Would you schedule meetings? Would you board his plane? Would you strategize about philanthropy or public image?

Most Americans would recoil.

Yet an astonishing number of powerful people did not. They proceeded as if the conviction were a small inconvenience. And some are lying now.

Why?

The path forward is not complicated. Call everyone who associated with Epstein after his conviction. Put them under oath. Follow the money. Release the files, clean. Apply the same standard to Democrats and Republicans, billionaires and celebrities, former presidents and private citizens alike.

The survivors have waited long enough. And they deserve far better than they’re getting.

John Casey was most recently Senior Editor, The Advocate, and is a freelance opinion and feature story writer. Previously, he was a Capitol Hill press secretary, and spent 25 years in media and public relations in NYC. He is the co-author of LOVE: The Heroic Stories of Marriage Equality (Rizzoli, 2025), named by Oprah in her "Best 25 of 2025.”

Bill Clinton claims Trump shared vastly different Epstein 'falling out' story: House Dem

Former President Bill Clinton revealed to lawmakers Friday that he had a previous conversation with President Donald Trump about what really caused the rift between him and Jeffrey Epstein years ago.

Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL) described what Clinton said during a closed-door House Oversight Committee deposition in Chappaqua, New York, over his relationship with Epstein.

"I’m happy to clarify. President Clinton brought up a conversation he had with Trump in NYC re: Epstein," Frost wrote on X. "President Clinton said that Trump told him that he had a falling out with Epstein due to a land dispute. This directly refutes Trump’s claims about why he fell out with Epstein."

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) told CNN additional details about what Clinton said in the testimony.

"Since Chairman [James] Comer (R-KY) did bring that up I can specifically address that, which is basically President Clinton was asked about well, he brought up the fact that he spoke with President Trump at a golf event, and President Trump had told him that they, he and Epstein had had a falling out, and it was because of a land dispute," Subramanyam said.

"It wasn't because of what Epstein was doing to girls who were working at Mar-a-Lago, so it absolutely does dispute something that President Trump has said," Subramanyam added. "I think Congressman Comer, Chairman Comer had mentioned that President Clinton cleared or absolved President Trump of of anything. But that's not true. The reality is all President Clinton said was that any of all the things he heard from President Trump himself, nothing he heard would indicate that President Trump was involved in wrongdoing. Again, the transcripts will come out but I can't confirm that that's what was said."

The president has previously said that his falling out with Epstein was related to the late financier and convicted child sex offender hiring away Trump's workers at his Mar-a-Lago spa.

Trump has maintained that he did not have any ties to Epstein, despite his name appearing throughout the Department of Justice's 3 million documents, with him mentioned about 38,000 times.

"I don't know anything about the Epstein files. I've been fully exonerated," Trump said.

Former President Clinton delivered his opening statements Friday under oath and shared a statement on his social media.

"I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong," Clinton said.

Neither the Clintons nor Trump has been accused of any wrongdoing.

Lawmakers have indicated that a transcript would be released and include testimony from the Clintons. No date or deadline has been announced.

GOP's 'ultimate revenge fantasy' backfires as Boebert screws up Comer's 'big shot': Salon

Republicans, who had planned to grill former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her relationship with late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, made a serious fumble that has now backfired, an analyst revealed Friday.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) had anticipated Clinton's closed-door deposition with the House Oversight Committee would bring his "dream witness in front of them," but the photo taken by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and then sent and posted by MAGA influencer Benny Johnson violated the committee's rules. The move ultimately sabotaged what GOP lawmakers hoped to achieve, Salon's Sophia Tesfaye explained.

"It was supposed to be the Republican Party‘s ultimate revenge fantasy," Tesfaye wrote. "They wanted the base to salivate over the idea that, at long last, the former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee would be forced to answer tough questions. Instead, thanks to their own hubristic overreach and compulsive need for social media clout, the whole thing quickly imploded."

The disruption instead had a crippling impact.

"The committee’s own rules, read aloud at the start of the proceedings, explicitly prohibited photography inside the room," Tesfaye wrote. "The hearing abruptly went off the record as staff scrambled to figure out who had violated House rules. Clinton’s adviser Nick Merrill stepped outside to inform the waiting press, directing reporters to check Johnson’s social media feed to see exactly what had happened. The secretary’s team, which had been pushing for a fully public proceeding from the very beginning — the committee had rejected that request — suddenly had an unambiguous example that Republicans can’t even handle a closed-door session without leaking to their propagandists."

It changed the direction of what Republicans had hoped for, and prompted questions over what GOP lawmakers hoped to achieve.

"This deposition was supposed to be Kentucky Rep. James Comer’s big shot: a marquee moment in the long-running effort to re-litigate the Clinton era and tie it to Epstein in the public imagination," Tesfaye explained. "Instead, it became a cautionary tale about the perils of governing-by-influencer. In the end, Boebert and Johnson did more than briefly derail a deposition. They exposed the hollowness at the core of this latest Clinton crusade. When your investigation can be derailed by a thirst for retweets, it was never about truth in the first place."

Comer says it's 'very possible' Trump cabinet member may be brought to testify on Epstein

A member of President Donald Trump's cabinet could be brought in to testify before Congress about his relationship with deceased convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) was speaking with reporters in Chappaqua, New York, just before the deposition of former Secretary of State and former First lady Hillary Clinton, when a reporter asked if Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick would be asked to testify before the House Oversight Committee.

"That's very possible and I think it's a good possibility that his name will arise in some questioning today," Comer said.

"It's on my list," Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) added.

Lutnick has faced significant controversy and calls for resignation after he was caught in apparent lies about his connections to Epstein, with reports indicating he misrepresented his ties to the late financier, including his financial and business relationship with Epstein and a visit to Epstein's island years after claiming to have severed ties.

The Epstein files released by the Department of Justice exposed Lutnick's previously undisclosed relationship with Epstein, leading to bipartisan criticism and demands that he step down from his position. Trump has reportedly been shielding Lutnick from resignation pressure, with legal experts suggesting the president fears that Lutnick's departure could implicate Trump himself in connection with Epstein-related matters.

Lutnick, a finance industry billionaire who has been the public face of Trump's controversial tariff policies, has previously claimed that he and his wife visited Epstein's residence in 2005, and were so disgusted by his obsession with massages that they left and never interacted with him in person again.

"I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going, because he’s gross," Lutnick has said.

This GOP Epstein gambit is plain hypocritical — and can't shield Trump for long

You’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. The hypocrisy they practice daily is truly world class, and never more so than as it applies to the Epstein Files.

You may have heard that on Wednesday, the ironically named House Oversight Committee — whose unwillingness to examine any culpability from the current administration in the matter of the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein matter is quite the “oversight” — voted to charge former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with criminal contempt of Congress, over their refusal to testify in the Epstein investigation.

This would be the same Department of Justice probe that is now more than a month behind schedule in releasing more than 99 percent of the unclassified materials demanded under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Evidently, the GOP thought the legislation was called the Epstein Files Disappearing Act.

What’s the hold up? Such an excellent question. I might have overheard a few excuses:

“The boxes that contain them are just too heavy. We’re trying to hire some really strong guys to lift them.”
“We’re way behind on rent at the storage facility where they’re being housed, and they won’t let us access them until we get square.”
“They’re still being vetted by our crack team at the assisted living home.”
“We’re struggling to translate them from Latin.”

The few batches of documents the DOJ has released are just enough to paint Bill Clinton as a guy who liked to hang with Epstein and his convicted sex trafficking accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Remarkably, nearly every other name in the docs is redacted. Or perhaps they simply have odd names, spelled with thick black lines drawn through them.

Let’s face it: the excuse that more time is needed to scale the redactions and protect the victims’ identities is a complete crock. Even if we’re talking about more than two million docs and exhibits, dedicating a team of 20 or 25 (or 50 or 150) people to the task of poring over them shouldn’t take nearly this long.

It's clear this is a matter of delaying justice, and we all know what they say about justice delayed. But where is the contempt charge for Attorney General Pam Bondi? Nowhere to be found, of course.

When you’re Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the Republican Oversight chair, accountability is a one-way street, and the rule of law applies only to Democrats.

Indeed, it’s downright remarkable that this sit-on-their-hands, see no evil, hear no evil House suddenly sprang to life when the Clintons told them to get bent. Even nine Democrats awakened to advance the contempt legislation. (They were seemingly just overjoyed to be voting on something that crept forward.)

This is not at all to diminish Bill Clinton’s involvement with Epstein and Maxwell. It’s creepy at best: shameful and inexcusable. The fact he was once President of the United States shouldn’t grant him immunity, even if the Supreme Court would probably see it differently — or would if his name was Trump.

But the Clintons are correct in seeing this as the transparent piece of political retribution that it is, and the double standard it exposes could not be more stark and appalling.

Should the full House approve the contempt citations in early February, criminal referrals to the DOJ could carry fines of up to $100,000 each and a year in prison.

Oozing self-satisfaction, Comer declared this week that the Clintons “possessed information directly relevant to the investigation.”

Apparently, the 99 percent of the Epstein docs whose release is mandated by law but remain locked away are by comparison irrelevant.

It shold also be noted that Bill Clinton has offered to submit to an interview by Comer under oath, and both Clintons were prepared to present sworn statements noting what they would say in testimony.

Not good enough for Comer.

This isn’t about seeking real accountability. It’s a dog-and-pony show designed to disparage the Clintons and distract, as ever, from the incriminating horror that’s really in those files.

At the heart of going after a former president and former presidential candidate (and cabinet member) is Donald Trump’s petty and destructive attack on the Democratic Party. If this works out, you can bet he’ll come for Barack Obama next. It’s a hateful power play, nothing more.

The elephant rampaging through this room is Trump himself. Does Trump not “possess information relevant to the investigation”? By all accounts, he had a longer and closer relationship with Epstein than anyone. He’s also the guy who made sure Maxwell was transferred to the cushiest lockup imaginable, where they do everything for her short of plying her with champagne and caviar and buffing up her nails.

The delay tactics and bait-and-switch fails to address the fact that the Epstein docs are all about Trump and his pedophile buddies. This was why it hit so close to home for Trump, leading him to give a decidedly unpresidential finger, when that guy at the Ford plant shouted, “Pedophile protector!”

We should be shocked if we see 5 percent of these Epstein documents before the midterm elections. My educated guess is that as long as the Republicans are in charge of Congress, that will be just fine with the virtuous disciplinarians who claim to have suddenly located their law-and-order spines, just in relation to the Clintons.

Make no mistake, the former first couple are being punished for their willingness to address the Epstein inquiry at all, while Trump skates free. It’s the Republican way of justice.

Ray Richmond is a longtime journalist/author and an adjunct professor at Chapman University in Orange, CA.

Comer loses it as disruptor crashes big Clinton announcement: 'Get him out of here!'

A press conference led by Rep. James Comer (R-KY)was interrupted on Wednesday as the House Oversight Committee chairman announced his plans to begin contempt of Congress proceedings against the Clintons.

A man claiming to be a citizen journalist apparently started heckling Comer and other Republican lawmakers, Fox News reported.

"No, I'm still talking. I'm still talking," Comer said, responding to the man, whose name was not immediately known. He started yelling a question about the Clintons and the requested testimony, "Congressman, did you enter their sworn statements into the record?"

"Hey, get him out of here. You're not even a reporter," Comer said.

"Sir, I'm not paid, you're paid by the people," the man said.

Capitol police were seen stepping in between the man and Comer after he called for security.

The man shouted that he was "having a conversation."

"It's unfortunate this disruptor was here. We'll be happy to answer questions throughout the day about this," Comer said at the end of the press conference.

The Clintons have rejected Republican attempts to force them to testify about links to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and sex offender, setting up a clash with Comer.

This is great. As Republican congressman, James Comer is attacking the Clintons for not showing up to testify, someone says: “The Cartoon Network called and they want you to take your job back.”

Comer then claims that it's a “paid disruptor,” before chastising the Clintons for… pic.twitter.com/iAMMzu4qm8
— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) January 14, 2026

Bill and Hillary Clinton should testify over Epstein, top Dem says

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton and former First Lady and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should testify before a congressional committee about their links with Jeffrey Epstein, a senior Democratic senator told Raw Story.

“People get subpoenaed, they should show up,” Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) told Raw Story at the Capitol Wednesday.

The Clintons have rejected Republican attempts to force them to testify about links to Epstein, the late financier and sex offender, setting up a clash with Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee.

Earlier this week, lawyers for the Clintons released a lengthy letter rejecting the legal premise of Comer’s subpoena.

In their own blistering letter to Comer, the Clintons pointed out that the Department of Justice had not fully complied with a law mandating that it release all files related to investigations of Epstein.

“Comer should subpoena [the] DOJ,” Luján said, laughing.

Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, a close ally of President Donald Trump, the DOJ is widely seen to be dragging its feet on the Epstein matter.

Trump’s once-close friendship with Epstein, a convicted sex trafficker who killed himself in prison in New York in 2019, is an enduring subject of fascination, reporting, gossip, and festering scandal.

“Look,” Luján said. “What Comer does, if he's gonna subpoena people, he should subpoena everyone that needs to be subpoenaed, and pull them in.

“And if he wants to make this look political, Comer is doing a pretty good job of that.

“But anyone involved in all of this Epstein bulls—, they should come in and they should fess up and the truth should be shared with the American people, right? No matter who they are, because everybody, because this was so bipartisan, everybody should do it. I mean, that's how I would describe it.”

The Epstein affair has indeed ensnared a number of prominent public figures. Bill Clinton has prominently featured in DOJ releases since Congress passed a law mandating such transparency. Trump’s name has also been shown to be in such Epstein files.

Trump has named the Clintons among liberal figures he says should be investigated in relation to Epstein.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, after theatrically displaying an empty chair during a supposed deposition of Bill Clinton, Comer said: “Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House 17 times while Bill Clinton was president.

“No one’s accusing Bill Clinton of anything, any wrongdoing. We just have questions.”

Comer also said he would charge the Clintons with contempt of Congress.

Speaking to the right-wing Real America’s Voice TV network, Comer said: "We expect the Clintons to come in, or I expect the Clintons to be met with the same fate that [Steve] Bannon and [Peter] Navarro were met with when the Democrats were in control.”

Bannon and Navarro, close Trump aides and advisers, both served prison time after refusing to answer subpoenas for testimony as part of investigations of the deadly January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters.

Democrats rejected Comer’s threats as political posturing.

On Wednesday, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a target of Trump’s demands that his political enemies be prosecuted, told Raw Story Comer was not the only Republican in Congress working to Trump’s benefit in matters relating to Epstein.

“I think this is a political exercise by Jim Jordan,” Schiff said, referring to the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

“I think they will lose in court if it's litigated. But I think this is designed to deflect attention from the president's withholding of all the Epstein files.”

'Most significant challenge': Epstein files release may grind to a halt: Comer

A series of challenges threaten the timely release of Jeffrey Epstein's files according to investigation lead James Comer.

The House investigation is already facing off against a flurry of issues in securing the release of the files, but other problems could make it so nobody believes what they are reading, Politico reported. Investigation head Comer believes there is too much speculation around the Epstein files for the release to be believed.

He said, "There's so many conspiracy theories." Another issue is that some may "never believe" what they read in the report. Comer added, "I fear the report will be like the Warren Report. Nobody will ever believe it."

Further troubles could come from how the list is formatted. He added, "If there is no Epstein list, and the American people expect us to compose an Epstein list, if we don’t get any names from the victims, it’s going to be hard to do."

Politico writer Hailey Fuchs suggested the biggest challenge of all is not in formatting or believability, but in getting the files issued in a timely manner while facing off against the GOP.

Fuchs wrote, "But the most significant challenge Comer faces is managing the political fallout for Trump and the GOP writ large." Comer, a Republican politician from Kentucky, may be overthinking the burden of trying to push the files into a releasable state, according to a White House insider.

They said, "The president likes James Comer a lot. In fact, I spoke with [Trump] recently about [Comer] and he said he’s always been good and with him all the way. There’s no problems there."

The vote to release the Epstein files in the House earlier this month was passed onto the Senate, who voted unanimously to have the bill signed. Trump would sign off on the Epstein files bill, and it's a sign the Republican Party members had "declared war on the president", according to a report published on Monday.

A Republican representative believes the vote was a loyalty test within the Republican Party masterminded by Thomas Massie. Kentucky congressman Massie had pushed for a vote on the Epstein files, heading up a bipartisan group, according to Politico.

Representative Don Bacon sympathized with House Speaker Mike Johnson, saying he "tries his best" to keep the party together. But the Epstein vote has tested the GOP, and Bacon said the discharge petition for the files was an act that essentially "declared war on the president."

Leavitt insists DOJ prosecutor 'extremely qualified' and vows to appeal tossed foe cases

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that the Department of Justice will appeal a federal judge's decision to dismiss cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Leavitt blamed U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, who ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully appointed his personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan, as interim U.S. attorney, without Senate confirmation.

"I know there was a judge who was clearly trying to shield Letitia James and James Comey from receiving accountability and that's why they took this unprecedented action to throw away the indictments against these two individuals but the Department of Justice will be appealing very soon and it is our position that Lindsey Halligan is extremely qualified for this position, but more importantly, was legally appointed to it," Leavitt said.

Halligan, whom the judge referred to in the opinion as "a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience," could potentially be disbarred.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement Monday afternoon, "The facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed and this will not be the final word on this matter."

This lickspittle's ludicrous report reveals Trump's true aim in power

On Tuesday, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) came forth, evidently speaking on behalf of the GOP majority on the House Oversight Committee, to label President Joe Biden's late pardons of many key Trump critics null and void.

Comer claimed that Biden did not personally authorize the use of autopens to sign pardons issued to good Americans who simply opposed President Donald Trump and his followers.

Comer's claim, done surely on the order of Trump himself, is not only clearly wrong as a matter of fact and law. It is yet another dictatorial move that threatens gut-wrenching harm to constitutional and civil self-government. It also sends many innocent lives careening towards extreme legal predicaments.

Of all Trump and MAGA's "retribution" to date, attacking Biden's pardons is the single most reckless and vicious act.

To put my lawyer hat on, momentarily, the benefit of autopen use is that signatures on documents, once accepted, are utterly binding. No exceptions. Period. This is especially true given President Biden specifically said he authorized every single one.

It is insane to allege that those pardons did not count.

I could cite all the cases that affirm the position, but they are nearly meaningless to most. Even lawyers only want the simple conclusion. But still, the validity is inarguably laid out in cases such as Ex parte Garland (1866) and Biddle v. Perovich (1927).

One does not need any legal training to note that even though the law is ironclad that the pardons stand, the whole point of Comer's declaration and investigation is to put the recipients through the hell of the prosecutorial process.

Even if we were to grant Trump and Republicans' strongest assertion, that someone fraudulently used an autopen to issue pardons behind the president's back, the pardons themselves would still be valid as accepted, and the only legitimate crimes to prosecute would be against staff who may have abused the process. That's it. Period.

Thus it is that even though Dr. Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and others will almost surely have their pardons stand, whether Biden authorized them or not — and he says he did — the real goal is already fulfilled. The point is that Trump and his lackeys want their targets to be forced to resort to extremely expensive defense lawyers, perhaps to be charged, booked, etc, all while asserting their rights and ultimately having their cases thrown out.

The process is the punishment for taking action the MAGA crowd doesn't like. That alone is guilt, in most Trump supporters' eyes.

Given that the law is as clear and simple as it gets, the fact that Comer, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Trump are recklessly doing it anyway shows breathtakingly precise dictatorial power, flowing from unmitigated rage.

When a country gets to the point that it is prosecuting critics for simply taking positions that the powerful don't like, it is, by definition, a dictatorship.

Sadder still, Trump campaigned on the issue, stating over and over again, "I am your retribution," cutely trying to show a duty to supporters, bearing the cross. It was "about them," when really he was the one burning inside. It is about revenge. He has said he loves blood-chilling payback more than nearly anything.

His MAGAs see this as merely the mirror image of Biden AG Merrick Garland's treatment of Trump. They are simply responding. "We" started it. Trump is a victim. So unfair.

That ridiculously self-serving view is as offensive to the core of democracy as can be. Trump invited prosecution when he tried to circumvent a perfectly normal election to stay in power, ultimately sending his supporters to sack the Capitol in what was, plainly, an attempted coup.

Usually, dictators attempt to violently overthrow government while knowing that it is all on the line — that they might give up their lives. Loser loses.

Trump got off easy, with Garland taking forever to appoint a special counsel, without jumping right off with the most obvious crimes, even though nearly the whole world supported quick action.

Now, as Trump retaliates, we can't even wholly count on all judges to simply toss cases out with lightning dispatch and possible sanctions.

Most will. Absolutely. It is that clear.

But some may fish for any reason to stay beholden to Trump, violating clear law in order to stay on the team. It is a dangerous time, these are dark days — as noted, ironically, by former President Biden himself.

Again: under no reading of the law can Biden's pardons be attacked. The only possible crimes could have been committed if someone actually did abuse the autopen to issue documents behind Biden's back.

But that's not the point, is it? It never is to an authoritarian. To the extent there were remaining doubts, we're well past them now. We live in a dictatorship, clear and proud.

Trump sees himself as king — but he is closer to a two-bit, cigar-chomping, uniform-wearing, balcony-strutting war lord. Less royalty, more Saddam. Trump probably wouldn't see that as particularly insulting. The U.S., that "Shining City on the Hill," is now governed by a plain old junta.

Jason Miciak is an American Attorney, former Associate Editor of Occupy Democrats, former Executive Editor of Political Flare, author, and single dad. He can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com, or followed on Twitter or Bluesky.