A House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on sanctuary laws took a sharp detour Tuesday when Rep. Dan Goldman, the Democrat representing New York’s 10th congressional district, questioned a witness about a decade-old sexual misconduct allegation, according to an account in American Thinker. The exchange, which the outlet describes as a clumsy attempt to discredit the witness, ended with the sheriff calling Goldman a “degenerate politician” and the congressman apologizing to his Republican colleagues for calling the sheriff to testify.
A Hearing on Sanctuary Laws, Then a Pivot
The Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, on which Goldman sits, convened to examine sanctuary laws and their consequences, with a particular focus on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions. The witness, Sheriff Frederick Ashkar II of Broome County, New York, was called to testify about his experience with the issue. According to the American Thinker account, Goldman barely finished his opening statement before pivoting to an unrelated matter from roughly a decade earlier, invoking the “Me Too” era.
As the outlet describes it, Goldman began with a question about the sheriff’s work standing up for families whose children had been murdered, then reversed course and asked Ashkar about a 2016 sexual encounter with a woman at a Turning Point resort casino. American Thinker characterizes the episode as one of the commonplace assignations from that period that turned sour when the woman later made what the outlet calls unfounded accusations, and it notes that Ashkar went on to become sheriff, suggesting the matter went nowhere. The outlet argues the questioning had no discernible connection to sanctuary laws, illegal immigration, or crime.
‘Only a Degenerate Politician Like You’
The sheriff did not cower. According to the account, Ashkar replied: “Only a degenerate politician like you would bring up this matter.” When Goldman tried to cut him off with a demand for a yes-or-no answer, the sheriff repeated his statement. The outlet reports that Goldman pressed on with more questions, and Ashkar told him: “You really should be ashamed of yourself to bring something like this up at a hearing like this…” Goldman, per the account, made an effort to establish the relevance of the accusation, which the sheriff effectively ignored.
The sheriff eventually apologized to the angel families present for having to listen to Goldman’s line of questioning. The congressman, according to the outlet, closed the exchange by saying he was “sorry” that his Republican colleagues had brought Ashkar in to “represent law enforcement” — a remark the outlet interprets as revealing that the GOP was the real target and the sheriff merely the means.
No Gavel From the Chair
What the outlet finds especially telling is that subcommittee chairman Tom McClintock did not intervene at any point during the exchange. No admonition was spoken, and no gavel was heard. In the American Thinker telling, Goldman had dug his own hole and leapt in, and McClintock was content to watch him fall.
The broader argument of the piece is that Goldman exemplifies a current strain of Democratic politician defined by sleaziness, malice, and spite — and, the writer adds, by not having enough of any of those qualities to satisfy his own constituents, who the outlet says just nominated a DSA candidate to replace him. The 10th District, covering Lower Manhattan and Queens, has it coming, the piece concludes.
Context and Caveats
The source here is an opinion piece in American Thinker, a conservative outlet, and the characterization of the exchange, the motives behind Goldman’s questioning, and the description of the underlying allegation all reflect the writer’s perspective rather than neutral reporting. The account of what was said in the hearing — Goldman’s questions, Ashkar’s responses, and McClintock’s silence — is drawn from the outlet’s retelling. Readers looking for a fuller or more balanced picture of the hearing would need to consult the official transcript or additional coverage.
What the episode does illustrate is the way a routine oversight hearing on a policy subject can quickly become a stage for political combat. Sanctuary laws and their effects on crime are a legitimate area of congressional inquiry, and witnesses who travel to Washington to testify generally expect to be questioned about the subject at hand. When a line of questioning shifts to a personal matter with no clear bearing on the topic, the witness’s reaction — and the chairman’s decision whether to intervene — become the story. In this case, according to the outlet’s account, the chairman chose to let the exchange run its course.
Whether that was a strategic decision or simple indifference is unclear from the piece. The outlet’s interpretation is that McClintock saw political value in letting Goldman overreach. A different reading is that chairmen often give members latitude during questioning to avoid drawn-out procedural fights, even when the questioning strays. Either way, the result was a viral moment that put the congressman on the defensive rather than the sheriff, which is presumably the opposite of what Goldman intended.
The piece also gestures at a larger pattern the writer sees among Democratic candidates, citing other examples from recent primaries where candidates made inflammatory statements. That framing is the author’s own, and it is worth noting that the examples are presented without the kind of sourcing or context that a news report would typically include. The core factual claim — that Goldman questioned Ashkar about a decade-old allegation during a sanctuary laws hearing and was rebuffed — is the substance on which the rest of the commentary rests.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/dan-goldman-degenerate-politician/