Invented the internet

**Yes, this incident is real and accurately reported across multiple credible sources.**

During a private, invite-only VIP dinner at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (on or around January 20-21, 2026), hosted by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick gave a speech that was highly critical of Europe's economic performance, energy policies (pushing back on renewables in favor of coal), and global dynamics under the new Trump administration.

The speech provoked a strong negative reaction from parts of the audience:

- There was widespread jeering and heckling.

- European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde reportedly walked out.

- Former Vice President Al Gore booed Lutnick (described by some accounts as approaching him afterward and saying "Boo" in a mocking way, or booing from the crowd at the end of the speech).

- The event reportedly descended into enough chaos that host Larry Fink called for calm, and in some reports, it was cut short before dessert.

Al Gore directly confirmed his involvement in a statement to Mediaite, saying:  

"I sat and listened to his remarks. I didn't interrupt him in any way. It's no secret that I think this administration's energy policy is insane. And at the end of his speech I reacted with how I felt, and so did several others."

The U.S. Commerce Department (via a spokesperson for Lutnick) downplayed it, stating:  

"During Secretary Lutnick's three-minute speech, no one left hastily. Only one person booed, and it was Al Gore."

This matches the details in the image you shared from the Daily Caller, including Gore's quote to Mediaite. Reports appeared in outlets like:

- Financial Times (original detailed reporting)

- New York Post

- Mediaite

- People.com

- The New Republic

- The Daily Beast

- And others

The core claim—that Al Gore heckled/booed Lutnick at this high-profile private Davos dinner hosted by Larry Fink—is **true**, though accounts differ slightly on the intensity (e.g., solo boo vs. part of broader jeering/walkouts). It's a real clash highlighting tensions over energy policy, trade, and U.S.-Europe relations in the early days of the administration.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Refugees

The statement you referenced is **accurate** and directly from Rep. James Comer's official X post on January 20, 2026. He explicitly rejected a proposal from the Clintons' lawyers for an informal, off-the-record "conversation" in New York involving only Bill Clinton (not Hillary), limited to Comer (and possibly the ranking Democrat), with no other committee members and crucially **no official transcript**.

This came as the House Oversight Committee prepared to advance contempt resolutions against both Bill and Hillary Clinton for defying bipartisan subpoenas to appear for sworn, transcribed depositions related to the committee's probe into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking network, federal handling of the cases, and potential reforms.

### Timeline and Key Facts

- **Subpoenas Origin**: Issued in August 2025 after unanimous approval by the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee (bipartisan voice vote in July 2025). They sought testimony on topics including the Clintons' documented social ties to Epstein (e.g., Bill Clinton's flights on Epstein's plane), Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State in countering sex trafficking, and her acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell.

- **Non-Appearance**: Bill Clinton's deposition was scheduled for January 13, 2026; Hillary's for January 14, 2026 (after prior rescheduling due to cited reasons like funerals). Neither appeared, despite negotiations.

- **Clintons' Position**: Their legal team (including David Kendall) argued the subpoenas were invalid, politically motivated, lacked legislative purpose, and offered alternatives like public hearings or written declarations. They disputed some characterizations but proposed the limited, no-transcript setup as a compromise.

- **Comer's Rejection**: As detailed in his post, he called it "ridiculous" and "untenable," citing entitlement to special treatment, Bill Clinton's history (impeachment for perjury-related issues in 1998, law license suspension), the need for transparency (comparing to released transcripts from Bill Barr and Alex Acosta), and the insult to the public demanding answers on Epstein's crimes.

- **Contempt Proceedings**: A markup session occurred on January 21, 2026 (today in this timeline), to consider and advance resolutions recommending the full House hold both in contempt of Congress. Comer emphasized during the session that "subpoenas are not mere suggestions" and displayed materials highlighting Epstein connections. If passed by the committee (likely along party lines), it could proceed to a full House vote, potentially referring to the DOJ for criminal prosecution (fines/jail time possible, though rare and enforcement complex historically).

### Broader Context and Partisan Divide

The probe is ongoing since 2025, targeting various former officials. Republicans portray the Clintons' defiance as evading accountability and special treatment for elites. Critics (including Democrats on the committee) argue it's selective/political targeting, noting inconsistencies in pursuing other witnesses (e.g., DOJ records) and broader Epstein ties (including figures like Donald Trump). No accusations of wrongdoing against the Clintons have been made in this context—they maintain cooperation via other means and challenge the subpoenas' validity.

This aligns with coverage from the Oversight Committee's site, major outlets (NYT, CNN, ABC, NBC, Guardian, Politico, Fox-affiliated), and real-time X discussions (including Comer's post and committee hearing clips). Developments could continue, such as the committee vote outcome or any appeals/legal challenges. If you're referring to a specific aspect or need more on updates, let me know!

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Clinton royalty

The post you shared is a **direct quote** from Rep. James Comer (@RepJamesComer), the Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. He posted this statement on X (formerly Twitter) on January 20, 2026, amid ongoing developments in the committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and associated networks.

### Key Details from Comer's Statement and Related Reporting

- The House Oversight Committee issued **bipartisan subpoenas** (approved unanimously by Republicans and Democrats on a subcommittee in July 2025) requiring **Bill Clinton** and **Hillary Clinton** to appear for **transcribed, under-oath depositions**.

- Both Clintons did not appear for their scheduled depositions (Bill Clinton's was set for January 13, 2026, and Hillary Clinton's around January 14, 2026, after prior rescheduling attempts).

- In response to looming **contempt of Congress** proceedings, the Clintons' lawyers (including longtime attorney David Kendall) proposed an alternative: an informal "conversation" in New York with only Comer (and possibly the ranking Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia), limited staff, **only involving former President Bill Clinton**, **no other committee members**, and **no official transcript**.

- Comer rejected this as "ridiculous" and "untenable," arguing it shows entitlement to special treatment, lacks accountability (no formal record), and contradicts the subpoenas' requirements.

- He highlighted Bill Clinton's past (impeachment for perjury-related issues in 1998 and suspension from law practice) as a reason for insisting on sworn, transcribed testimony.

- For Hillary Clinton, he cited her relevant knowledge: her role as Secretary of State on countering international sex trafficking, personal acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Clintons' family ties to Epstein.

- The committee has released other transcripts (e.g., from former AG Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta) for public transparency, contrasting with the proposed no-transcript setup.

- **Contempt proceedings** were scheduled to begin on January 21, 2026 (today in the query's timeline), with a markup session to vote on resolutions holding both Clintons in contempt. If passed by the committee, it could advance to a full House vote, potentially referring the matter for criminal prosecution (though enforcement is rare and politically complex).

### Broader Context

This is part of a longer-running Oversight Committee probe (starting in 2025) into Epstein/Maxwell's sex-trafficking network, federal handling of related cases, and potential legislative reforms. The subpoenas targeted multiple figures (e.g., former officials like James Comey, Merrick Garland), but the Clintons' defiance drew particular attention due to their documented social ties to Epstein (e.g., Bill Clinton's flights on Epstein's plane, photos, etc.). The Clintons and their team have argued the subpoenas lack a valid legislative purpose, are politically motivated, and that they've cooperated in other ways (e.g., written declarations). One Clinton spokesperson disputed aspects of Comer's characterization, saying they "never said no to a transcript."

The situation remains highly partisan: Republicans frame it as accountability and no one being above the law; critics see it as selective targeting amid other ongoing political probes.

This matches breaking news coverage from sources like the committee's official site, The New York Times, ABC News, Fox News, The Hill, and others as of January 21, 2026. The contempt markup was set for today, so further developments (e.g., vote outcome) may emerge soon.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Clarified butter

Clarified butter https://share.google/7rHSKSw11a5uxB8Ik

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Dirt

The post from Mitch Summers (likely from an account like @SUMMERSNEWS or similar, based on the content style) claims that President Trump has **recently ordered** the full and immediate declassification of **all FBI files** related to **Crossfire Hurricane** (the 2016 FBI counterintelligence probe into potential Trump campaign-Russia links, often called the "Russia collusion" investigation). It ties this to John Durham's report, alleging high-level knowledge and approval by Obama, Biden, and others of a Clinton campaign plan to falsely link Trump to Russia, framing it as a major "hoax" exposure and potential game-changer.

This claim appears to be recirculating or exaggerating older events rather than reporting something brand new in January 2026.

### Key Facts on Declassification

President Trump did issue a memorandum in **March 2025** (during his current term) directing the **immediate declassification** of materials related to Crossfire Hurricane. This built on his earlier 2021 declassification attempt (from his first term, on January 19, 2021), which was more limited and involved partial releases/redactions.

- Official White House sources confirm the 2025 action: Trump determined that referenced materials from the 2021 memo "are no longer classified" and directed the Attorney General (Pam Bondi at the time) to make them public immediately.

- Some documents have been released or made available via the FBI Vault (e.g., parts in 2025 pursuant to the memo).

- Coverage from outlets like Politico, Fox News, The Hill, and others reported this in March 2025, with Trump commenting on it during a signing event, calling the probe a "disgrace" and criticizing the FBI/DOJ.

No major new declassification order or announcement appears tied specifically to **January 2026** from credible sources. The post's phrasing ("has ordered") and dramatic tone match viral X posts from January 19-20, 2026, which repeat similar wording about Hillary Clinton potentially facing prison, Brennan briefing Obama/Biden in August 2016, etc. These seem to stem from recirculated clips or interpretations of the 2025 memo, not a fresh action.

### On the Allegations (Durham Report Context)

The John Durham special counsel report (finalized in 2023) did criticize aspects of the FBI's handling of Crossfire Hurricane, including procedural issues and reliance on sources like the Steele dossier (funded by Clinton's campaign). It noted intelligence shared about a potential Clinton plan to tie Trump to Russia (the "Clinton Plan" intelligence from 2016). However:

- It did **not** conclude a broad conspiracy involving Obama/Biden approval to "allow it to unfold" as a weaponized plot.

- No charges resulted from Durham's probe against high-level figures like Obama, Biden, or Brennan for orchestrating a hoax.

- Official reviews (e.g., DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz in 2019) found errors in FISA applications but **no political bias** in opening the investigation.

The post presents a highly partisan interpretation as fact, common in pro-Trump circles emphasizing "deep state" corruption. While some documents support criticisms of the probe's origins (e.g., FISA errors, dossier issues), claims of proven high-level criminal conspiracy remain unproven in court or official findings.

### Bottom Line

This isn't a new "moment that changes everything" in January 2026—it's likely amplifying the March 2025 declassification (or earlier releases). Some files are public via FBI channels, but "full and immediate" release of **all** tied files hasn't fully materialized as described, and no major bombshells leading to arrests (e.g., Hillary Clinton) have emerged from it. The narrative fits ongoing political debates over Russiagate/Crossfire Hurricane, but treat viral posts like this with caution—they often hype older news for engagement.

If new documents or developments drop, official sources (White House, FBI Vault, DOJ) would be the place to check. What's your take on it, or is there a specific part you'd like more detail on?

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals