Below is my column in The Messenger on the decision of Hunter Biden to defy Congress in a press conference outside of the Capitol Building. Remarkably, this spectacle was coordinated by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.) who presumably knew that Biden was going to violate the congressional subpoena. So Swalwell (a former impeachment House manager) helped facilitate a possible criminal act in refusing to share appear in an impeachment inquiry.
Here is the column:
Congress is often a theater of the absurd, from Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) pulling a fire alarm before a major vote to former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) being, well, a member of Congress at all. However, none of that compares to what unfolded on Wednesday as Hunter Biden stood outside Congress and defied a subpoena as being “beyond the absurd.” What happens next could be even more bizarre.
Hunter was under a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to appear for testimony. As I previously wrote, he had two choices: He could appear and either testify or invoke his right to remain silent. The only thing that he could not do is what he did — just refuse to go into the hearing room. Yet, there he was, with counsel Abbe Lowell by his side, holding forth with a public press conference while refusing to appear in the closed-door deposition being held in the building behind him.
By staying on the Senate side of the Capitol, Hunter guaranteed that the House sergeant at arms did not pull him into the hearing room. Ironically, that would have been a better option than his blowing a raspberry at the committee and then speeding away.
Many pundits immediately claimed this was a clever move because the subpoena was not really enforceable until the House voted on the formal impeachment inquiry a few hours later.
I disagree. As I noted in my testimony in the first impeachment inquiry, there is no requirement for a formal vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry. Indeed, that is precisely what then-majority Democrats did with the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. While I encouraged the House to hold a formal vote on the inquiry, it is not constitutionally required.
Moreover, this is an oversight committee which has independent authority to issue subpoenas. The subpoena was issued not only by the Oversight Committee but by the Judiciary Committee. It was issued under three different authorities, including Rule 12(g) of the Oversight Committee which allows for subpoenas “in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee.”
In holding this spectacle, Biden and his legal team committed another unforced error. This one could prove as costly as pushing for an obscenely generous plea agreement and then telling prosecutors to “rip it up” in July.
Few people expected Hunter to testify in the deposition. The evidence against him is overwhelming, as shown in his second federal indictment on tax charges. He and his uncles were allegedly engaged in one of the largest influence-peddling operations in history involving millions of dollars from various foreign sources. Hunter simply could have done what prior witnesses have done: Go in and take the Fifth. That is what attorney and former IRS official Lois Lerner did — twice — when House Republicans wanted to ask her about the Obama administration targeting conservative groups.
It was a no-brainer that someone appears to have radically over-thought on the Hunter Biden legal team.
Hunter can now be held in contempt of Congress. That will force the hand of Attorney General Merrick Garland, who aggressively pursued Trump figures for contempt, including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. Despite some of us writing to the contrary, Bannon claimed his lawyers told him he did not have to appear before a House committee. He was swiftly charged and convicted by Garland’s prosecutors.
In this instance, the contempt case would go to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., Matthew Graves, who previously declined to assist in bringing tax charges against the president’s son. Yet by pulling a Bannon, Hunter now faces the expectation in many circles that he will get the full Bannon treatment from Garland.
There is another possible cost to this move. Fox News quoted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying that President Biden “was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” which suggests that the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt and discussed his statement. If that is true, it was a breathtaking mistake. One of the four most obvious potential articles of impeachment that I laid out in my prior testimony was obstruction. There already are questions over special treatment potentially being given to Hunter in the form of alleged felonies being allowed to expire, warnings about planned federal raids, and sweetheart deals.
In addition, President Biden has enlisted White House staff to actively push challenged accounts of his conduct and attack the House Republicans’ investigative process. Such acts could legally bootstrap prior misconduct into his presidency under abuse-of-power allegations.
If this latest allegation is true, the president was speaking with his son about committing a potentially criminal act of contempt. Hunter was refusing to give testimony focused not on his own role but on his father’s potential role in the alleged influence peddling. The House can pursue evidence on that conversation and how the president may have supported his son’s effort.
With his bizarre public display, Hunter has opened a new potential front for prosecution. If the same law is applied the same way as it was to Bannon, Hunter could find himself indicted within a few weeks.
In Bannon’s case, the subpoena was issued at the end of September. He was held in contempt by the House in October and indicted in November. It took just four days of trial to convict him.
Indeed, President Biden himself has maintained that defying subpoenas cannot be tolerated. When subpoenas were issued to Republicans during the House’s January 6 investigation, Biden declared: “I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally.”
That is precisely what Republicans will now expect from Garland in Hunter’s case. In the meantime, the House did not lose anything that it expected to get from Hunter. It will now move to secure the testimony of a circle of associates surrounding both Hunter and his father. At the same time, the National Archives has finally agreed to give House investigators tens of thousands of emails reportedly involving the president.
As expected, in a floor vote late in the day, not a single House Democrat supported getting answers to these questions through an impeachment inquiry. They unanimously opposed any inquiry even though 40% of Democrats have said in polling that they believe the president has acted illegally or unethically regarding his family’s business deals. (Overall, 70% of those polled held that view.)
Hunter, however, just tripped another wire that could seriously complicate matters not just for himself but for his father. Perhaps that is why, when dramatist-scholar Martin Julius Esslin devised the term “theater of the absurd,” he described it as “part reality and part nightmare.”
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Inherent contempt.
Arrest him and jail him in the House cell.
Dennis McInlyre aka Mr Alpha Bank
Please state for the record, if you are among the 30% who believe Joe is not a crook and the pee tape is real
Jonathan: Refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena is not something unusual. During the House Select Committee Jan 6 investigation MAGA House Reps. Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, Andy Biggs and Scott Perry all refused to testify or provide docs. They were not held in contempt but referred to the House Ethics Committee. Nothing has happened to them because the GOP is now in charge. Other DJT allies also refused to testify. Only Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were charged by the DOJ. They were both convicted but have appealed their convictions. Who knows how long that will take.
So what are the chances Chair Comer could enforce his subpoena for Hunter to testify before closed doors? A referral to the DOJ for prosecution could take many months, as in the cases of Bannon and Navarro, well in to the 2024 presidential campaign. If the DOJ decided to charge Hunter a trial might occur well after the election. If convicted, Hunter would appeal.
If Comer is really interested in getting Hunter on the record why not accept Hunter’s offer to testify in open session? Trying to force Hunter to testify behind closed doors does not appear to further the interests of “full transparency”. Unlike the above, Hunter is not refusing to testify. He simply wants the opportunity to present his case to the American people in public before the 2024 election. That would seem to further the interests of everyone.
The whole purpose of Comer’s little charade is to get articles of impeachment passed before the election. That’s what DJT wants and it doesn’t serve his purpose if Comer spends months fighting Hunter over whether he testifies in private or in public. Comer thinks that if he can force Hunter to give a private deposition he can cherry pick it and use it in press conferences and appearances on Fox or Newsmax to attack the President Biden. This impeachment inquiry is not about “full transparency”–it’s the real “theater of the absurd”!
Well Dennis, if anyone knows absurd, it would be you. Why I would venture to speculate that even your automobile can only make a left and your insurance is Progressive!
Unlike the above, Hunter is not refusing to testify. He simply wants the opportunity to present his case to the American people in public before the 2024 election.
More weak attempts to gaslight by low IQ Dennis. Or do you really think this is “his” case? Idiot.
And yes, he is refusing to testify. He wasn’t given a choice. No one gets their choice.
Btw, if J6 thought the subpoenas of congressmen were enforceable, why didn’t they enforce? There is decent whataboutism, and there is your brand of steaming whataboutism (you know the word)
The J6 committee did refer the refusal to comply with those subpoenas to the ethics committee. See this linked article.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/19/jan-6-ethics-violations-00074599
Which they are free to do. The constitution empowers each chamber of congress to construct their own rules and to discipline their own members.
That does not alter the fact that they can not be subpeonad by congress. and they can not be prosecuted for refusing a congressional subpeona.
I would further note they can not be prosecuted for most anything that falls within their “official duties”.
Jan 6 Committee was an illegally formed and empowered body – it had no subpoena power.
The committee was in violation of House rules.
Stop spreading lies.
Were the false flag FBI instigators and provocateurs an illegally formed and empowered body?
Ask Christopher “We Will Stop Him” Wray.
______________________________________________
“Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant”
“A member of the far-right Proud Boys texted his F.B.I. handler during the assault, but maintained the group had no plan in advance to enter the Capitol and disrupt the election certification.”
– NYT, By Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman, Published Sept. 25, 2021, Updated Oct. 18, 2021
“The whole purpose of Comer’s little charade is to get articles of impeachment passed before the election.”
Spoken like someone who either hasn’t paid any attention (too busy licking Leticia’s a$$ ostensibly), or can’t rub two thoughts together. Solid 90 IQ
No way Comer wants this wrapped up before the election. drip drip drip….Did you learn nothing from Assange? Ask Hillary.
Smash and grab is common in dim run cities. That doesn’t make it right. Independent Bob.
Can you name a single person subpeona’d by congress that defied a subpeona because they wanted to testify in open session who later was allowed to cure the contempt by testifying in open session ?
There was not a single witness in eitehr of the Two Trump impeachments that did not testify privately. A FEW later also testified publicly.
This cherry pick argument is ludicrously stupid.
Hunter Biden is NOT testifying – EVER. If he should actually choose to appear before the house, he will invoke the 5th.
Separately, private testimony is transcribed, and thus far republicans – unlike democrats have made public all transcriptions.
Regardless, even where the transcripts are not released – as democrats did with Trump,
they still exist and are inevitably leaked if they are favorable to the left.
So Bannon and Navaro were improperly tried and convicted ?
It is my view that NO subpeona is self executing. That failure to comply with a subpeona does NOT become a crime until a court has ordered the party to perform.
That DOJ and the courts “cheated” by prosecution Bannon and Navaro before the house went to court to enforce the subpeona.
We have had myriads of instances in the3 past where Congress has had to go to court to get a subpeona request enforced.
That should have been true for Bannon and Navaro, it should now be true regarding Hunter.
While your argument that Hunter is entitled to a public hearing – is wrong as a matter of law. I have no problem with Hunter arguing that in court – just as Bannon and Navaro should have been able to argue their executive priviledge claim in court.
Bannon and Navaro and Hunter might have lost those arguments, but that is still the correct process.
And if Hunter can get a court to buy this I am only obligated to testify in public argument – so be it. That becomes the standard for future subpeonas.
That is how the rule of law works – the same for everyone.
I will suggest to you that Hunter wants a public hearing for a different reason – not because he intends to testify, but because he is following the same tactic as Louis Lehner in the Obama administration.
Agree to testify in public, Make an opening statement and then invoke the 5th refusing further questions.
Knowing that DOJ will not prosecute.
I would personally be perfectly happy if Comer agreed to Biden only appearing in a public hearing. If Hunter agrees before hand that he will not make an opening statement and he will not invoke the 5th before answering a single question.
Frankly I think Comer should offer limited immunity in return for Hunter’s testimony I am think Comer should offer Hunter immunity for anything that he is specifically asked to testify about.
This all sounds so nice and legal. BUT, our problem is not that we lack a codification of laws, but that we lack honest men of honor who enforce these laws with impartiality. Until we clean the fanatic partisans from our culture we are doomed to fail as both a nation and a culture – and that has always been the prog/left goal – to “fundamentally transform” this nation. Little did many a brainwashed tool realize just what this transformation would entail – a total destruction of the America that we knew and loved – and its replacement; first by chaos and anarch, then a tyranny of elite progressives who hold a distaste, if not hatred, for our constitution and heritage.
It is OURS to lose
“THERE’S NO FIXING THIS.”
“GET THE HELL AWAY FROM BLACK PEOPLE.”
“JUST GET THE F— AWAY.”
– DILBERT
___________
SCOTT ADAMS: As you know, I’ve been identifying as Black for a while – years now – because I like – you know, I like to be on the winning team.
TSIOULCAS: He went on to call Black people, quote, “a hate group” and added…
ADAMS: The best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people. Just get the f*** away. Wherever you have to go, just get away because there’s no fixing this. You just have to escape, so that’s what I did. I went to a neighborhood where, you know, I have a very low Black population.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WELL, DUUUUUUH!!!
WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?
Wrong Dilbert LOL
Dilbert nonetheless!
Why thank you, Dilbert say go with the flow
Q=CIA, it’s only Rational!
“That dudn’t make any sense.”
– George W. Bush
Hydraulics
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
Hunter will not show up in response to any subpoena; the House will refer him to DOJ for Contempt of Congress; DOJ will do NOTHING; the House will NOT impeach Garland; and that will be the end of that !
Justice is coming
Thank you. The truth is so refreshing!
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the Supreme Court, the Justices of which have sworn an oath to “support” the literal manifest tenor of the Constitution.
Merrick Garland must have been impeached and convicted long ago with the eminently and egregiously anti-American, anti- and unconstitutional Christopher “We Will Stop Him” Wray.
Anyone notice the reemergence of “FISA II, The Sequel,” helping secure Garland and Wray as omnipotent sovereigns in their “security” fiefdoms?
The Supreme Court must have been impeached and convicted en masse for communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) acts of subversion of the duly elected government of Real President Donald J. Trump, and for not striking down the political Soviet-style show trials of Real President Donald J. Trump through the exercise of Judicial Review, which allows spontaneous, specific and particular acts by the Supreme Court against all levels of government.
To wit,
“The Power of Judicial Review”
“The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions. The Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review. It arises instead from an 1803 decision known as Marbury v. Madison.”
– Justia
_________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Tickler File: 𝐆𝐎𝐏 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬
The Republican National Committee (RNC) released candidates from a requirement that they participate in only party-sanctioned debates, clearing the path for major networks to host unsanctioned events. All dates are subject to change as are the appearances of the Candidates.
𝐉𝐚𝐧. 𝟏𝟎𝐭𝐡, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 (𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲) debate in Des Moines, Iowa [CNN] 9pm ET at Drake University
𝐉𝐚𝐧. 𝟏𝟖𝐭𝐡, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 (𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲) debate in Manchester, New Hampshire [ABC] at Saint Anselm College
𝐉𝐚𝐧. 𝟐𝟏𝐬𝐭, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 (𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐲) debate in Goffstown, New Hampshire [CNN] at Saint Anselm College
(We are waiting for the final verification of this 2nd. CNN Debate)
—
𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲.
The first will be held in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 10 and the second will be broadcast from Goffstown, N.H., on Jan. 21.
By: Dominick Mastrangelo ~ 12/07/23
[Link] thehill.com/homenews/media/4347791-cnn-2024-gop-primary-debates-january/
𝐀𝐁𝐂 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟏𝟖
ABC News, with WMUR-TV, is set to hold a Republican presidential primary debate on Thursday, Jan. 18, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. The debate will be held in coordination with the New Hampshire Republican State Committee and will come just days after the Iowa caucuses, as attention turns to the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary the following week.
By: Jim Donnelly ~ Dec 7th, 2023
[Link] abc.com/news/insider/abc-news-hosts-the-2024-republican-presidential-primary-debate-in-new-hampshire
𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 “𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝” 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 (2nd Debate)
Driving the news: “We were surprised to be included on a press release by a network about a debate which we had not planned or booked,” Neil Levesque, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm, said in a statement Friday.
By: Sareen Habeshian ~ Dec 8, 2023
[Link] axios.com/2023/12/08/cnn-new-hampshire-college-surpise-gop-debate
Note: Get your lazy ass down to Walmart and by a 2024 Calendar y’all.
-30-
@cnn holding a debate, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. They will have to do more, to get me back as a viewer. #boomers rule
#boomers can’t get fooled again.
WAIT!
DID YOU MISS RINO-APPROVED FISA II, THE SEQUEL???
evidently a few hundred dem reps, cannot see the forest full of evidence, because the trees full of evidence, are blocking their view.
Jonathan
I humbly give you The B*tch (Elvis Bug) is Back
Partial credit to Bernie Taupin
If you sing along, and I recommend that you do, credit also to Sir Elton John
I was justified to act like five
Minus brains, I spit in your eye
Times are changing now the turds get fat
Fever dreams are gonna catch you when the b*tch gets back
(Oh-oh-oh)
Eat meat on Friday, that’s alright
Even tube steak on a Saturday night
I can jerk the best to your Senate dudes
I get high in the evening sniffing pots of glue
(Ooh-ooh-ooh)
I’m a b*tch, I’m a b*tch, oh, the b*tch is back
Stone-cold sober, is a dubious “fact”
I can b*tch, I can b*tch ’cause I’m dumber than you
It’s the way that I “move”, the steam from my poo oh-oh-oh
Tom entertains by picking brains
Skull f*cks me hard, by dropping names
I don’t like facts, my God, what’s that?
Oh, Tom’s full of nasty habits, but the b*tch is back
(Oh-oh-oh)
I’m a b*tch, I’m a b*tch, oh, the b*tch is back
Stone-cold sober, not a chance of that!
I can b*tch, I can b*tch ’cause i’ve got a tattoo
And a lawn business too, oh-oh-oh
I’m a b*tch, I’m a b*tch, oh, the b*tch is back
Stone-cold sober, Hunter stole all my crack!
I’m a b*tch, I’m a b*tch, oh, the b*tch trades grain
Post all the time, though i haven’t a brain
I can b*tch, I can b*tch ’cause I’m dumber than you
It’s the way that I “move” and the steam from my poo oh-oh-oh
LOL
I especially love the “skull f*ck”. Was the name that was dropped Admiral Rickover?
I think this linked Congressional Research Service report provides good background information on this current contempt of Congress issue regarding Hunter now and going forward.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10974
Fascinated as a young man by the concept of TEGWAR (The Exciting Game Without Any Rules), the fool-fleecing card game introduced in the baseball novel (and film), Bang The Drum Slowly, I am dismayed to see how the game’s root anarchy has infected our legal system. With rules and values sufficiently complex to cripple comprehension and render fairness an option, our legal system is now free to function with all the integrity of a mean girls’ clique. Unlike TEGWAR, where a sucker had to be found, our justice system is now equipped to make a sucker out of whomever it pleases.
Timing is everything in politics. It’s to the Republicans benefit to drag this affair well into 2024 so that it will have as much impact on the 2024 election as possible. The strategy will be to continually put pressure on the Biden Department of Justice to bring even more criminal charges against Hunter. If Garland drags his feet into July the matter will stay in the public view and the Republicans will say that Garland is just a Biden stooge. Similar pressure by the Republicans caused Garland to appoint a special prosecutor in the Hunter case. It’s gone from a slap on the wrist for Hunter to the filling of much more serious charges. Stay patient. There is a plan.
TiT,
Well said.
Here is the DOJ announcement. Maybe Hades has frozen over.
“Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law and pursues equal justice under the law,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Today’s charges reflect the department’s steadfast commitment to these principles.”
Oh, wait. That was for Steve Bannon.
@Sam
Yup, and I will reverse your reverse deflection attempt that implies what happened with anyone opposing the dems has been/is just.
I acknowledge that I have developed a cynicism bordering on despair 😂, and even still, as another poster shared, wouldn’t be surprised if things got too hot Hunter might be suddenly called away on business to China or similar and it became, ‘We were going to charge him, but we can’t find him. Oops and oh, well. Can’t blame his dad for that, Hunter’s a grown man. Moving on. . . .’
Garland will drag it out, the pre trial motions and appeals of rulings will drag it out more, Then either a pardon is issued Jan 19 2025, or not, depending on who is being sworn in.
Accountability is for the little people.
Garland cannot prosecute HB for contempt of *Congress* unless he first gets a referral from *Congress*.
False.
There were no referals by congress of J6 defendants.
The legal issue – which those on the left DUCKED is that no one should be prosecuted for violating a subpeona – ANY Subpeona until a court has ordered them to comply and they have refused.
Many people can issue subpeona’s
But only a court can convert them into an order that MUST be complied with.
No one with a brain would want it any other way.
We require courts to sign off on warrants – which are far more abridgments of rights than subpeonas.
Those of you argument that failure to compley with a subpeona – whether Trump or Bannon or Hunter is a crime are concocting an unconstitutional vehicle to get arround the requirements of courts signing off on warrants.
Warrants are horrible they are granted in ex-parte proceedings.
But at the very least there is a proceding where an independent party must be persuaded.
While I have no doubt the Hunter Biden subpeona would be enforced by a court, failure to comply is NOT a crime until a court has ordered it.
That is true of Hunter, of Bannon and Navaro, and of Trump.
That said – Garland is in the bind that those on the left has consistently placed themselves into.
The law is the same regardless of party
Garland prosecuted Bannon and Navaro without requiring congress to go to court to get an order enforcing the subpeona.
WE have the same in the J6 case, as well as the MAL case.
Now the left is ranting because Garland MUST apply the same standards to Hunter or make clear that he is a partisan Hack.
I do not know what Garland will do. I would not bet he will not go after Hunter for this.
I think that Garland thinks of himself as a person of the highest integrity.
The problem is that he allows ideological biases to color his thinking and then as now finds himself in troublem when the same facts come before him with the opposite ideological factors.
The RIGHT thing to do would be to move to drop the case against Bannon and Navaro, which I beleive is still being appealed.
Garland is not going to do that.
But the next most ethical choice is to prosecute Hunter. I think that is a coin flip.
I absolutely think Garland is a ethically challenged political hack.
But I do not think Garland thinks of himself that way. I think Garland thinks of himself as a supremely moral and ethical person.
And right now he is in a moral dilema that he can not paper over of Joe Biden’s making.
There are already indications of stress between the WH and Garland.
I think it si possible right now for Garland to turn on Biden – maybe in little ways, maybe in big ways.
The worse things look for Biden, the more likely Garland will stop protecting him.
Nixon’s downfall occurred when Republicans stopped protecting him.
Garland has a clear choice between the law and his party. And he is far past being able to paper over than those are in conflict.
@Sam
Sorry Sam. Thought I was responding to another poster. My bad.
“Sorry Sam.”
That’s okay. At first, I couldn’t understand your comment. But now I get it.
The DOJ cannot indict HB for contempt of Congress unless the DOJ gets a referral from Congress, after the entire House votes to refer HB for contempt. And before the entire House votes, the Committee must first vote to refer it to the whole House. Details, details.
“The DOJ cannot indict . . .”
Thank you Captain Obvious.
And you’re wrong about the “entire House.”
No, I’m not wrong. Here’s an example of the entire House voting on Steve Bannon’s referral for contempt of Congress: https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics/steve-bannon-house-contempt-vote/index.html
“Here’s an example . . .”
An example does not mean that it’s a requirement (which it’s not).
But nice try.
Accusing dad of obstruction would be a stretch, I think. Dad’s defense would be, “I only told my son to tell the complete truth and come clean.”
Why are the Democrats calling Hunter’s public testimony? What is their motivation? During a closed door hearing Hunter will be required to answer detailed questions about his father’s influence in his business activities without a time limit being in place. In an open hearing questioning is limited to five minutes and is often interrupted by the opposing party. Therefore, you always hear Congressional members always saying, I reclaim my time. By calling for a public hearing the Democrats are doing everything they can to limit the amount of information that would come out about Joe Biden meeting and talking with Hunter’s Chinese and Ukrainian business partners. It is obviously clear that they want to keep the questions asked of Hunter to a minimum. When they say, let him speak in public what they really are saying is we want to control the narrative. Should we be surprised?
I disagree. And, afaict, there is no ‘rule’ against Hunter’s request (demand?) for a ‘public hearing’ while holding him in contempt for flouting a subpoena for a deposition. More the merrier.
I do realize that if Raskin and Goldman, in particular, have their five minutes of fame the public hearing will most likely devolve into the usual circus show of denial, distortion and misdirection. It is what it is.
Otoh, the ‘majority’ party will have at least half the time to doggedly investigate reality and present the ‘overwhelming evidence’ of corruption to the public. See Ukraine, e.g.
*it’s a win-win in my book .. . although I’m not adverse to ‘Snap Impeachments’, where snap impeachments are required!
TiT,
“When they say, let him speak in public what they really are saying is we want to control the narrative.”
That right there.
“There is another possible cost to this move. Fox News quoted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying that President Biden “was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” which suggests that the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt and discussed his statement. If that is true, it was a breathtaking mistake. One of the four most obvious potential articles of impeachment that I laid out in my prior testimony was obstruction. There already are questions over special treatment potentially being given to Hunter in the form of alleged felonies being allowed to expire, warnings about planned federal raids, and sweetheart deals.”
*********************************************
As a young man, I read a wonderful short story entitled “A Descent into the Maelström” by American writer and former Richmond native, Edgar Allan Poe. A passage from that tale of a shipwreck survivor now terrifyingly caught in a huge whirpool came immediately to mind:
𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘦𝘥 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘭 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘰𝘳, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦, 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘣𝘣, 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦. 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘢𝘯, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘭𝘺. 𝘐 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 —
Never knew Poe was a prescient political observer.
“It was a breathtaking mistake.”
___________________________________
There.
He said it.
It has been said.
For those who think Professor Turley or one of his staff doesn’t read this blog, notice how quickly the correction from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Fl.) to Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.) was made.
Or someone emailed him to let him know. I’ve emailed him before about errors.
Dear Prof Turley,
Well, I think we are all, in one way or another, in ‘contempt of Congrease’. And quite frankly, the feeling is mutual. Joe Biden may have a robust 33% approval rating, but I don’t know anybody who approves of Congress.
Now, just because Hunter is in contempt of Congress, there is no reason not to oblige Hunter’s esteemed counsel’s request for a public hearing, afaict. Post Haste. 9 a.m. sharp, at his earliest connivence. .. there is no reason not to, and the truth is plain to see (that’s why they call it ‘truth’.).
Public service announcement #1
ev·i·dence
[ˈevəd(ə)ns]
NOUN
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
see also ‘rules of evidence’ .. . the long-established body of procedural rules governing the use of evidence in courts. The rules ‘establish the methods by which evidentiary information may be presented, covering such elements as relevance, admissibility, etc., etc.’
*Of course, if ‘proof’ were established in courts of law that the ‘Biden Brand’ engaged in ‘bribery’, as opposed to mere ‘influence peddling’, with some of the most ruthless, vile, vicious, unhinged and corrupt ‘leaders’ around the world, it would vexing in the extreme to uncritically continue to support Biden’s unvarnished foreign policies in Ukraine .. . and Israel.
“It’s all a bunch of lies”
The entire purpose of a deposition is to obtain the participants testimony under oath to the facts of the investigation. This is a closed door process that includes all of the people involved in the investigation. This is followed by open testimony that may then be weighed against the under oath testimony. That’s the way it works and there is quite a mountain of financial evidence pointing to criminal activity, circumstantial perhaps but sufficient to warrant a inquiry.
Public hearings are conducted under oath as well.
So deviation of testimony could then be considered as perjury, correct? Eric Holder, John Brennan, Tony Fauci, and James Clapper want to know.
In theory, that’s correct.
*fwiw.
It doesn’t fall under perjury laws. It falls under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which requires that it be knowingly and materially false.
The correct statute used for lying to congress is
18 U.S.C. § 1505
18 U.S.C. § 1001 is for lying to federal agents.
“. . . while refusing to appear in the closed-door deposition . . .:
“. . . the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt . . .”
When JB declared: “You don’t f*** with a Biden,” it was a middle finger to America and to its cultural values:
We do as we damn well please. We are the New Aristocracy — above the law, beyond good and evil. You can’t touch us. And if you try, you’ll get singed (or worse).
This is a life-long pattern of despicable behavior. Anyone who is surprised by it does not take seriously an individual’s character.
“Hunter can now be held in contempt of Congress.”
He could. But that requires a vote of the entire House. Will they do that? We’ll have to wait and see.
Their vote will become an election issue for swing districts. Of course Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., China.) won’t vote.
Perhaps the political consideration is to avoid the perception of making the poor degenerate wretch a figure of persecution, although warranted!
Correction: Swalwell is a Democrat from California, not Florida–that better explains his decision to provide the platform for Hunter Biden, I think.
Well until the Republicans come up with leaders who are attack dogs and actually represent their constituents, there will be little done. From 2017-2019 Trump had a republican house and senate and the chance to really take apart much of the DC corruption but his 2 greatest roadblocks were Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. He deferred to their “Wisdom” and so nothing he did was permanent, except the judicial appointments. Ryan is gone but his influence is still felt but McConnell is still around and causing trouble.
I get that McConnell wants more moderates in the senate because they tend to get elected more so than “totally Trump” candidates but his leadership, when wielded appropriately could have achieved so much more. He needs to go. I have no trouble with a moderate leading either house for Republicans but they have to learn that they are not the President and should not just follow their own self gratifying and self enrichment program or the pressure for far more radical republicans will build. The country is ripe for a real political makeover so they better ride the wave or they might get drowned by it.
McCarthy had a chance but was too arrogant to even understand the constraints placed around him and so he lost his leadership role. He really seemed to have no clue as to why he lost and was incredibly petulant about it. I guess he never understood the idea of the comeback and rebuilding his group. Not much leadership quality there. Gaetz, well, maybe his constituents will try someone else, because bomb throwers, by definition, tend to have short political and actual lives.
No one is going to, uh, ‘reform’ the national security state by appointing people like Barr, Pompeo or Bolten to cabinet positions.
I could go on, and on .. . ffs Trump appointed Davie Weiss Special Counsel of the United States of America.
*Trump is more like the mangy hound howling at the moon who chases madly after cars on the DC loop and catches them. .. “six ways from Sunday”!
edit. Trump appointed Weiss U.S. attorney . .. Merrick Garland appointed him SC
*sry for any confusion.
Trump was adhering to norms and traditions by honoring the recommendations of the Good Senators from Delaware.
We have been lectured to by our betters that “if only Trump would follow the norms and traditions all would love Trump.
Trump did not appoint Weis SC – Garland Did. Trump appointed him as a US attorney.
US Attorney appointments must be approved by the senate, and by Senate rules either Senate of the state for which the attorney is appointed can blackball the appointment. Weis is the best Trump could hope for in a state with two democratic senators.
Many of Trump’s appoints were poor – though none close to as bad as Biden’s.
I’m amazed the porn staffer was fired, but they were just a staffer. It seems to me that the dems receive the inverse of the Trump treatment; the only thing remarkable or timely about Garland’s response will be the excuses, I fear.