Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If he has nothing to hide, why would he incriminate himself?

He could I guess get into trouble with the AMA, depending.  Let's imagine he signed the report on Biden's health, and said Joe is fine, and then later claimed he wasn't fine.

His best dodge would be HIPPA.

This is no small thing: look at the pace of industrialization between the fall of Rome and the enlightenment? It was marginal, at best. But once the Enlightenment hits, and democracy starts to take hold, holy cow, things took off. That's a function of a lot of things, but it includes the dramatic change in politics and its associated power.

This has always fascinated me so I want to address it:

When I was at Ohio State I took a class called Economic History of the World.  The professor was a world-renowned expert in studying wealth by measuring height.  He and a Harvard Professor had collaborated on this to study all the way back to the Roman Empire days.  They were able to find sufficient records to do this because militaries usually measure all their new recruits so they had decent male height figures dating back centuries and even millennia because the Romans had measured all their conscripts and they were able to locate some of this data.  

Anyway, your point that industrialization was slow from the fall of Rome to the enlightenment actually understates it.  Citizens of Roman Britain were actually WEALTHIER than British citizens until about the last 500 years.  

Basically all humans lived at or near subsistence from the dawn of time until the enlightenment.  There were some mini-peaks:  The Roman and Egyptian Empires were a good bit above subsistence but nowhere near where modern Western Societies are and it didn't last.  

With the Egyptians, his reference was the Pyramids.  Basically the theory he was working off was that any society wealthy enough to spend the resources necessary to build the Pyramids had to be a good bit above subsistence.  Someone in class then pointed out that the Egyptians and Romans both had slaves.  The Professor answered that while slavery is obviously a big deal on a micro level, on a macro level if your society is at or near subsistence then the issue of whether your laborers are paid enough that they can buy food or enslaved and fed makes no difference.  Either way one laborer is one mouth to feed.  

Two final points that I find fascinating:
First, both the Romans (~2,000 years ago) and the Egyptians (~5,000 years ago) were THISCLOSE to the Industrial Revolution.  The Egyptians had a "Palace Toy" that was a kettle with a vented release.  The kettle was filled with water and put over a fire.  The release was vented such that as the water in the kettle boiled the steam releasing through the vents caused the release to spin.  That is literally a rudimentary steam engine.  If you stick a pulley on that thing the Industrial Revolution is on but apparently nobody in Egypt thought of that.  Apparently they were too busy walking like this:

https://youtu.be/Cv6tuzHUuuk?si=GPL6usYfpWUJP5IF

The Romans were equally close.  Middle class Roman citizens had whole-house heat.  They had a boiler in the basement and the steam was directed through piping to the rest of the house to heat it.  If you understand steam well enough to do that, you know enough to build a steam engine.  I saw a comment in a history book once that while middle class citizens of Roman Britain had central heat, once Rome fell nobody in England, not even the King had central heat for more than a THOUSAND years.  So yeah, the dark ages weren't just lack of progress, they were a substantial regression from Roman times.  

Second, one of the primary catalysts for the Industrial Revolution was that the British ran low on wood.  Humans had known for centuries that you could find black rocks underground (coal) that burned but as long as they had plenty of trees it was simply easier to chop down a tree than dig a coal mine.  The English ran low on trees because they had used them all for ships, housing, and fuel so they started using coal.  That helped set off the industrial revolution in several ways:

• With a coal fire you can reliably make steel.  Previously blacksmiths TRIED with wood fires but it was hit-or-miss and more art than science so they'd try and if they got Iron they'd make plows but if they got lucky and got steel they'd make swords.  This is an oversimplification but generally how it worked.  
• The English Coal Miners needed to pump water out of their mines and the first steam engines were used for exactly that purpose.  

I like George Carlin. He was a good comedian. But there is a fundamental difference in a democracy--this was the revolution that was started in the late 1700s.

Yes, the powerful are just that, very powerful. BUT who has the power is different, and their interests are different. In autocracy, the government has all the real power. So if you are in Russia, Putin is the boss, plain and simple. Sure, he keeps the rich in his pocket by largely doing what they want, but he can turn on them in an instant, and they have no recourse.

In a democracy, that power is diffused--out to other powerful interests, rather than the government. Does the government have a lot of power? Absolutely. But it is also a check on even the most powerful (people like Epstein, for instance), and Bill Gates, and Elon Musk (neither of whom appears to be anything like Epstein).

The wealthy still have a great deal more power than you and I do (and many of us, because we are pretty well off, have more power than people with significantly fewer resources). But that power is limited by the competition for resources among us. Which, helpfully, also helps to grow the amount of resources. Capitalism is useful that way. But it requires rules, otherwise you end up with consolidation of power in the hands of very, very few.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  

In a June subpoena of O’Connor, Comer said that claims of physician-patient privilege under the American Medical Association’s code of ethics “lack merit” because that code is not part of federal law. He said the committee’s subpoena meets the AMA’s own requirement that physicians must share a patient’s medical information if “legally compelled to disclose the information” or “ordered to do so by legally constituted authority.”

But D.C. law includes an explicit doctor/patient privilege (as do most states, but the care here was likely in D.C.). So...there is an applicable privilege. (Federal evidence rules are more limited, but on this point rely on the common law, which makes it a little squishy). Were there a claim filed that directly implicates the care, then, yes, they finder of fact (potentially Congress) could pierce the privilege. But no such claim exists, nor is it likely it will because that's not the point, the theater is.

The word is not used in the Constitution.

But D.C. law includes an explicit doctor/patient privilege (as do most states, but the care here was likely in D.C.). So...there is an applicable privilege. (Federal evidence rules are more limited, but on this point rely on the common law, which makes it a little squishy). Were there a claim filed that directly implicates the care, then, yes, they finder of fact (potentially Congress) could pierce the privilege. But no such claim exists, nor is it likely it will because that's not the point, the theater is.

They can offer him immunity, after all he isn’t their target (though there are rumors that he had business interests with the Bidens).

The Republicans are stupid when it comes to this, they should’ve immediately issued subpoenas and offered immunity to non critical people.  Now they’d be hard pressed to get him back for a deposition before the midterms.  They are inept.