The House Oversight Committee has voted to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas related to the Epstein investigation. At the same time, they voted not to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt for failing to release Epstein-related files as required by law. In other words, Congress wants Epstein information from one party but not from another. Which is why you can’t take this seriously. This vote does not compel the Clintons to testify. It simply allows the committee to refer the matter to the full House of Representatives. From there, the House has several theoretical options. It could do nothing. It could hold its own contempt vote. It could attempt to impose fines or detention. It could authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas, which is a process that could drag on for years. There is also the option of referring the matter for criminal contempt. But that path requires cooperation from the Justice Department, which has already shown itself to be unwilling when it comes to Epstein disclosure. So let’s be honest about what this is. If Congress won’t enforce Epstein disclosure laws against the Justice Department, it is not going to meaningfully pursue enforcement against politically protected figures, no matter how dramatic the vote sounds. This action creates headlines. It does not create consequences and it sure as heck doesn’t get us closer to learning the truth about the government’s role in protecting Jeffrey Epstein. That reality was underscored Wednesday, when a federal judge ruled he does not have the authority to appoint an outside expert to force the Justice Department to comply with the law requiring public release of Epstein-related prosecution files. Even the courts are signaling that no one is prepared to compel disclosure. Not Congress, not the DOJ, and not the judiciary. The post Another Epstein “Breakthrough” That Changes Nothing appeared first on Redacted.

We got it! President Trump says he’s got a deal on Greenland. Or at least… a framework of a future deal. After a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump announced that the outlines of an agreement now exist “with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic region.” That’s odd because NATO has no authority over Greenland and neither does the U.S. How do two disinterested parties make a deal on land that is not theirs? Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. What do the people of Greenland say? We could hold a referendum to see but world leaders are not proposing that. Still, President Trump seems pleased. He called off threatened tariffs on European allies, suggesting that merely talking about Greenland was good enough to declare victory. Mission accomplished? Maybe not. The Danish foreign minister said that he will not consider this. Ever. “We will not enter negotiations based on giving up fundamental principles,” he said. “That will never happen.” The post Trump, NATO, and the Curious Case of the Greenland “Deal” appeared first on Redacted.

It was practically a WWE match at the WEF, as the American president butted heads with world leaders over a number of issues.

Disney movies have plenty of memorable moments, but can you match each opening line to the movie it comes from?

A master of the bass. The post The musician Josh Homme said was so good it’s “bizarre” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

At Davos, Switzerland, the US president rebuked ‘green energy’ ideology and declared America avoided Europe’s ‘catastrophic energy collapse’ by rejecting the Green New Deal.

A bill sold as child protection could quietly usher in a verified internet where anonymity no longer exists.

The US has had a military presence on Greenland since the second world war, when the island was left undefended during the Nazi occupation of its then colonial ruler, Denmark.