Below is my column in The Messenger on the vote to hold Hunter Biden in contempt and the need for Democrats to seriously reconsider the costs of voting against the resolution. On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Hunter in contempt with every Democrat opposing the motion. Once again, the party is short selling an institutional asset that they are likely to need in the near future if they retake the House.
Here is the column:
This week, the Republican-controlled House will begin contempt proceedings against Hunter Biden with a vote expected as early as this week. That alone will be an historic moment for Congress to declare that the son of a sitting president may have committed a federal felony. However, the costs may not be borne by Hunter alone. If the Democratic members, as expected, unanimously oppose the contempt sanction, the party could fundamentally undermine its position in future investigations.
The Democratic leadership has made a series of similar decisions in the last decade that have cost the party dearly by opting for immediate political benefits over long-term interests. They are acting as the political version of short sellers who have given away institutional positions, only to find later that the costs were prohibitive.
That was the case when Democrats repeatedly undermined the Senate filibuster. Many of us warned Democratic senators that they would rue the day that they killed the rule. Nevertheless, in 2013, Democrats pushed through a rule change allowing most presidential nominees (but not Supreme Court nominees) to be confirmed by a simple majority vote. Then in 2017, when Republicans controlled the Senate, they extended the simple-majority rule change to justices, too — and when Democrats wanted the filibuster to block the High Court nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett during the Trump administration, it was gone.
Likewise, when Democrats first sought to impeach President Donald Trump, they held only one hearing in the House Judiciary Committee and discarded the development of the type of evidentiary record used in past impeachments. I warned that the record guaranteed an easy acquittal in the Senate and undermined the process of impeachment. They ignored such warnings and quickly impeached, then lost the case in the Senate. In a second impeachment, they went even further, using what I called a “snap impeachment” with no hearing of any kind.
Now, after using the first snap impeachment in history, Democrats are implausibly arguing that House Republicans have failed to support impeachment efforts against President Joe Biden and objected to the lack of hearings with particular witnesses.
They also have encouraged President Biden to act unilaterally in a host of areas, including his attempt to give away a half-trillion dollars in student loan debts.
When House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was targeted for removal by a handful of GOP members, many people urged Democrats not to support such a dysfunctional move when the nation had serious problems to address. Yet Democrats voted with the rebellious Republicans to oust McCarthy, and the whole effort caused weeks of disruption. It shattered a certain detente in such motions to vacate— and Republicans are very likely to return the favor during any future revolt against a Democratic speaker.
The political culture of short selling is nowhere more evident than in the “ballot-cleansing” efforts of Democratic officials and activists to remove Trump’s name from 2024 ballots as well as to remove primary opponents against Biden. The immediate satisfaction of blocking potential voters ignores the long-term costs of this distinctly anti-democratic measure. When presented with those implications, anti-Trump pundits often express anger. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, for example, called such concerns “laughable” and told critics to “spare me the anti-democratic lectures.”
Now, Democrats are about to do another short sell. They are expected to unanimously oppose holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress despite his flagrant violation of a subpoena to appear for a standard closed deposition. It is the very same demand made by Democrats in prior congresses, before witnesses subsequently appeared for public hearings on controversies like the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) declared this week that there “is no precedent for the U.S. House of Representatives holding a private citizen in contempt of Congress who has offered to testify in public, under oath, and on a day of the committee’s choosing.” Raskin said that Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) “repeatedly urged Hunter Biden to appear at a committee hearing, and Hunter Biden agreed” — without mentioning, of course, that Hunter set his own conditions on any appearance.
So House Democrats — all of them — are expected to oppose holding a witness in contempt for openly defying a subpoena and instead holding a defiant press conference outside the Capitol. In doing so, Raskin and his colleagues will establish that in the future, when Democrats are in control, witnesses will be able to unilaterally refuse to appear for depositions with committee staff and to dictate the conditions under which they will appear for testimony.
No impartial judge would support such an absurd claim — but it will become the position of the Democratic Party going forward.
For real short sellers, the idea is to leverage money to buy stock or shares while betting that the stock or shares will decline in value. By selling them and then buying the cheaper securities, the short seller can return the cheaper shares to the lender while pocketing the difference. Of course, the problem is when the value of the things you are selling goes up.
That is precisely what has happened to past Democratic short sells, from Senate filibusters to House impeachments. The institutional rules they sold out proved to be very valuable within a couple years, when Republicans took control — leaving them with little beyond hypocrisy in crying foul.
What is most impressive, however, is the lack of criticism by party members or the media. These were costly mistakes, but the “lenders” seem entirely comfortable with the losses; they are enabling these bad trades for a party of short sellers.
With the Biden contempt vote, Democrats once again will be asked to think beyond the political moment or the next election. At some point, the costs of shielding the Bidens from an alleged corruption scandal will become prohibitively high. And, eventually, the Democratic Party will find itself one short-sell short of political and ethical bankruptcy.
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.
“And, eventually, the Democratic Party will find itself one short-sell short of political and ethical bankruptcy.”
“Eventually” is here & they have no more “short-sell” options. The Democratic Party is now politically and ethically bankrupt. The Republican Party is not far behind.
And, eventually, the Democratic Party will find itself one short-sell short of political and ethical bankruptcy.
Oh, that ship sailed a very long time ago, with the Republican party in hot pursuit. We are more than likely going to experience civil unrest this year that will make 2020 pale in comparison. Start prepping if you haven’t already.
Mr. Turley what you overlook is that, to your (and our) betters, politics is binary. One is either a Democrat or not. If the former, there are no rules, only guidelines. If the latter, the rules “are finite and simple” as well as immutable.
Blind faith in any endeavor of life is a path to assured disappointment. The analogy the professor uses of shorting (selling phantom stock in hopes that it will decrease in value) is one of the riskiest investment strategies there are. There have been occasions where great sums could have been made; one in particular of recent memory was Bear Stearns in 2008, decreasing from a high in 2007 of $150 to final collapse of $2.00. This example was caused by poor management, which could portend the same results for the Democratic Party. Back to blind faith, the Democratic Party and their instilled pretense of holding the higher order of moral character and interpretation of law will indubitably show the public their hypocrisy.
A few quick quips: “Every time you point a finger in scorn—there are three remaining fingers pointing right back at you.”
Matthew 7:15-20 {A Tree and Its Fruit}
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, you will recognize them by their fruits.”
George W,
Great comment!
You are wrong. The Democrats don’t pay a price for this sort of thing.
Professor Turley, you still don’t seem to understand, the New Progressive Democratic Party, or the Socialist Democrats are burning the system down, they plan on building a wholly new socialist government where checks and balances are jettisoned, political dissent is not allowed, and members of Congress are beholden to the bureaucracy rather than the people.
Samuel Delaney,
By their words and actions, that sure does seem what they are pushing for.
@Samuel
He doesn’t. Neither do other JFK dems. They have raised their children to be similar. The blindness is a kind of mind blindness for which only indoctrination is a reasonable explanation. The levels of denial, thinking a single member of the party is somehow different or enlightened – do things really have to get worse than this for them to wake up or to realize every candidate on that side is just a mouthpiece for the party? Biden or no Biden the agenda and narrative will persevere. How does someone as salient as JT not see he’s on his own when he, himself, has been referred to as a ‘so-called expert’ by his own cohort during a formal hearing? JFK was killed for betraying ‘the party’ up to that point in time. Wake the heck up, already. There is no there, there, with modern liberalism. You have the crazy, the sycophants, and the people that haven’t paid attention to a god**** thing for nigh on 50 years. By all means keep elucidating law and constitutionality, but accept that the party has been fully and completely hijacked by the wealthy, the privileged, and insane. Fat cat republicans are dead. Neoliberals make them look like saints.
In other words, pretty much what we have now.
Saw a few minutes of the hearing. I hadn’t heard the epithet “Nimrod” in fifty years, so had to look it up. The first definition is a biblical figure who seems not to exist in the historical record. The second definition is “Hunter” and the third is “Jerk”.
“…eventually, the Democratic Party will find itself one short-sell short of political and ethical bankruptcy.” Eventually, Doc? After everything in this blog you’ve warned them about, what will it take for you to see ‘political and ethical bankruptcy’ is now Team Blue’s *only* redeeming value and leave The Party, yourself?
All I want to know is the answer posed to Hunter Biden by this brave reporter. Pity he never answered because Hunter might have some inside information on the best crack for me to acquire. You think I troll this blog with my sucky puppets on cheap crack?
Reporter to Hunter Biden: “What kind of crack do you normally smoke Mr. Biden?”
The knee-jerk defense that so many here have evidenced in the face of irrefutable logic by Mr. Turley is symptomatic of what this country is up against. Nobody prominent on the Left (other than Mr. Turley or Matt Taibi) asks, “Why are we defending to such incredible lengths, the obvious criminal behavior of the son of the president?” People are so utterly given over to partisanship that they no longer hold principle. It’s my party–at ALL COSTS–no matter WHAT. Defend, deflect, and deny. Accuse the other side but whatever you do, don’t do something like say:
“You know, ‘MAGA’ aside, Hunter has some serious explaining to do. And, it’s not HIS call to decide the when and where of his appearance when a subpoena has been issued. And yes, the ‘right wing’ is right on this; many prominent Dems have waxed eloquent, even in the last 3 years (!!) about how ‘No one is above the law’ and about the need for people to obey the law and respond properly to a subpoena. I admit this looks fishy and I can see their point and the resulting frustration. Yes, yes, yes–I hate Trump, ‘MAGA’, etc, etc., but I’m not blind to what I see happening with my own party.” (And that same perspective holds true with the malfeasance of the DA in Fulton, btw, who seems to have run rampant for several years now.)
Where are the people with fairness and honesty? Admitting the problems here doesn’t mean you have to give up your position on Democrat policy; it just means you’re a fair-minded, honest person of principle–no matter WHO is in the hot seat.
Nobody prominent on the Right (other than Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger) asks, “Why are we defending to such incredible lengths, the obvious criminal behavior of former president Trump?”
Jonathan: You say that Comer’s Committee of MAGA Republicans who want to hold Hunter Hunter in contempt and the Dems opposition could, somehow, “fundamentally undermine it’s position in future investigations”. Really? I don’t think so.
Hunter attended Comer’s hearing yesterday along with his attorney Abbe Lowell. Hunter is making it clear he wants to testify in an open hearing. Why didn’t Comer swear him in right there so he could testify? Early in the investigation Comer said he wanted Hunter to testify in an public hearing. Now Comer has done a one-eighty and demands Hunter only give an interview behind closed doors. Why the secrecy? That’s because Comer wants to cherry pick Hunter deposition as he has done with previous witnesses. This speaks volumes about what Comer is up to–and it’s not about getting at the truth.
You also misstate the facts. You falsely claim “Hunter set his own conditions for his appearance.”. No. Abbe Lowell make it clear Hunter would answer any and all relevant questions. No other limitations were demanded.
The real “short sellers” here are the MAGA Republicans on Comer’s Committee. Rep. Scott Perry was the principal architect behind the attempted putsch at the DOJ–trying to get rid of the AG and Deputy AG and replace them with Jeff Clark who would help overturn the 2020 election. Clark is an indicted co-conspirator in the RICO case in Fulton County over his attempts to subvert the election in Georgia. Perry was subpoenaed to testify before the J 6 House Committee about his role in election subversion. And what did Perry do? He gave the middle finger to the J. 6 Committee and refused to testify. So did Jim Jordan who is also part of the effort in the House to impeach Joe Biden. When members of Congress refuse to testify–refuse lawful subpoenas–that’s the real “short-sell of political and ethical bankruptcy”!
Comer’s hearing yesterday was yet again a travelling circus. One of the clowns in the circus was Marjorie Taylor who once again held up porno photos of Hunter Biden. MTG knows no shame. She is a prime example that Comer’s investigation is not a serious congressional investigation but a stunt to try to use Hunter to smear Joe Biden. Comer’s circus should have folded its tent and left town long ago!
Ah Denise.
Got your talking points…
But don’t get your panties in a twit.
Look, here’s the thing… plain and simple.
The committee wants to do a closed door deposition of Hunter.
He refuses, saying he’ll do a meeting of his own choosing.
That falls flat and the only people who support that view are the dims and the 30% hard core democrats.
The fact remains that he was subpoenaed to appear, and he refused. Instead went about as a clown pulling theatrics to thumb his nose at the committee.
Raskin’s credibility is waning. In light of the evidence now coming to light. For example… the timeline of Hunter’s art sales and the fact that Biden(s) knew who bought what and when. (Pay to play can be shown)
All of the lies have been outed.
But lets add to this… Pelosi and others cheered the attacks on Trump and the charges he faces.
“Nobody is above the law.” They said.
Now here’s Hunter. Refusing to comply with a subpoena and thumbing his nose at them.
That’s contempt of congress. (BTW They went after Manafort on this…)
So I guess their new mantra should be “Nobody is above the law unless their last name is Biden.”
-G
Ah, Gumby, figure out how to respond without resort to ad hom.
IMG: Oh, Gummie. Get your facts straight. Hunter Biden told Comer he would appear for a public hearing at any time and day of the Chairman’s choosing. No preconditions. See Abbe Lowell’s letters to Comer.
And what does the “timeline of Hunter’s art sales” have anything to do with a legitimate impeachment inquiry? As a private citizen and artist Hunter has a right to sell his work to the highest bidder. It’s pretty clear Joe Biden knew about the sales. So what? Comer is on a fishing expedition. He has to prove father and son were engaged in some illegal activity, e.g., that out of the proceeds of the art sales Joe Biden was given a bride or “kickback” as a quid pro quo for some official act. Otherwise, there is no “high crime or misdemeanor”. So far Comer has offered no proof of that–no “pay to play” as you say. Comer has issued a subpoena for the art dealer to testify. We’ll see what he has to say. But I wouldn’t count your chicken until that happens. Frankly, I think that part of the inquiry is going nowhere.
Looks like you are the one who has his “panties in a twist”–all twisted up in Comer’s and the MAGA Republican’s conspiracy theory about the Biden family. And you have bought into it hook, line and sinker!
You’re expending a lot of energy to defend the most corrupt president in history with the worst record of any previous administration. Your party rigged the 2020 election, and are currently rigging the 2024 elections. People like you are the enemy of a free people. You rely on corrupt sources for information, there’s no wonder you only know what the dirty, disgusting Democrats want you to know. You’re a misinformed citizen, a pathetic partisan liar who can’t tell the difference between truth and lies even if 80 million other Americans have the exact opposite opinion on this issue than the Democrats, who are actively destroying this country. Open Border, $1.5 trillion/annual deficits on top of $34 trillion of debt built up by both parties. You don’t have to vote for Trump, but you can’t vote for a Democrat, that’s just dumb. Trump is an outsider, you’ve been brainwashed to hate a stranger, it shows the power of military-grade propaganda techniques used against fools like yourself.
The “snap impeachment” resulted in 10 House Republicans voting to impeach &7 Republican Senators voting to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection. On the day Trump was acquitted, McConnell announced: “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.”
Last year, one of the deals McCarthy made with Matt Gaetz to become Speaker of the House on the unprecedented 15th vote was to change the rules to allow a single House member to put forward a motion to vacate the speakership. Every Democrat voted against that rule. When Turley warns that Republicans “are very likely to return the favor during any future revolt against a Democratic speaker” the Professor doesn’t explain why he believes Democrats would retain the single member vacate rule that every Democrat voted against.
So yesterday at a House Oversight Committee public hearing, Republicans voted to hold Hunter in contempt for agreeing to testify under oath at a public hearing. Democratic committee member, Jared Moskowitz. put forward a motion to let Hunter testify right then & there with the American people watching. Moskowitz asked for a show of hands to see who wanted to let Hunter be sworn in to testify right then & there. Not a single Republican raised a hand.
Then Republicans proceeded to vote on a motion to hold Hunter in contempt for not being willing to testify under oath & answer questions. Yep, when Republicans are in control, hypocrisy is fully on display, Professor.
Steaming turd. Every word^^^^
Spoken with the mesmerizing eloquence & articulateness which is so predictably prevelant here on the Professor’s website.
“Moskowitz asked for a show of hands to see who wanted to let Hunter be sworn in to testify right then & there. Not a single Republican raised a hand.”
Well, thats another fvckikg lie, but who is surprised.
Several republicans raised their hands. Now stfu
No, it’s true. If any Republicans had raised their hands, there would have been a majority voting to approve (because all of the Democrats voted in favor), and he would have testified.
Ahh yes, get Hunter at all costs but let Jim Jordan go. What is the difference? Why do we need (private) meetings with Hunter but Jim Jordan has yet to answer publicly for his support of the riot on January 6?
You tell us the difference. Why didnt the democrats who are screeching about that now, enforce their subpoena, and so their duty for the american people, and hold jordan in contempt? Answer that, or stfu
” without mentioning, of course, that Hunter set his own conditions on any appearance.”
Technically, Comer offered various conditions under which Hunter could appear and he accepted an open hearing.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-comer-seems-to-forget-he-said-hunter-biden-could-choose-public-hearing
Comer did no such thing. He had no power to “offer” anything.
Its called a subpoena.
Liar
Comer gets one vote
Nice try, gaslighter
No Anon,
Comer did say it. But the full context was that Hunter first had to appear behind closed doors for his deposition w the committee.
Ooops.
That little part was left out.
-G
Uhm no.
The actual quote was that he was to first appear behind closed doors and if Hunter still wanted to appear in an open session he was free to do so.
Something no one does because it opens them up to a potential perjury charge.
-G
Here’s an actual quote, not just what you say an actual quote was. Please note the “whichever they choose” portion of the quote. I’m providing documentation, you’re telling me what you hoped he said.
“We have mountains of evidence and now we’re ready to bring ‘em in. We’re in the downhill phase of this investigation now because we have so many documents and we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose, and we can ask these questions with evidence.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-comer-now-wants-to-wrap-up-biden-impeachment-probe-asap
Enigma, Democrats are desperate, so they are playing games. The subpoena is legal for a closed committee hearing. Nothing Comer said was under oath or is otherwise meaningful. But let us look at the words and play your game.
“we can bring these people ”
Who are these people? Where did he mention Hunter Biden?
“or committee hearings”
Aren’t the closed-door hearings “committee hearings”?
You guys play word games because you have nothing truthful to offer. However, maybe we should hold Biden to his lying words.
The short-selling is a symptom of a deeper problem – not understanding the full implications of you actions. Examples: affirmative action, rent control (see Thomas Sowell writings for a more complete list).
Because it’s about power at all costs. And, they know that they can break the rules/norms with impunity and the lapdog media will aid and abet them.
This brings to mind the CommonWealth of MA when Ted Kennedy’s seat became available. Prior to Ted Kennedy’s illness, John Kerry (D) ran for president. He was senator at the time and Mitt Romney (R) was governor. If Kerry had won, his seat would be open and replacement was appointment by the sitting governor, who may have chosen a republican. Oh No. If that happened, the CommonWealth might fall off into the ocean. State congress voted to change the law to a position by special election. Kerry lost, Kennedy died. Now the state congress wanted to change it back to an appointed position because Deval Patrick (D) was governor. It was not done. We had a special election and Scott Brown won, but his appointment was delayed until after the vote for the healthcare bill. Of course, now we are back to two senators of the democratic party.
They’re Communist who have gone Full Red Guard.
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” Mao Zedong
At this point the only thing the Communist care about is getting 700 million guns out of the hands of citizens. It’s the only thing preventing total Communist style Tyranny. Listen to what they say and do.
All I can say is God help us if they retake the House. Bad enough with the GOP dysfunction, but at least there is some check on the out of control Dem administration.
I am not convinced by Turley’s argument. I sadly believe that the leftist control of almost the entire media, the educational institutions, and the administrative state will continue to enable the Democratic Party to undermine the legal and political foundations of his Country. Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, he is a weakling relative to these forces. The notion he would destroy democracy is absurd. The true destroyers are in the ruling party and its abettors in the MSM and administrative state
If you are correct, then the final remedy is failure.
The Biden presidency has been a disaster – because the ideas of the left do not work.
The more power those on the left excercise the more they ignore the rule of law, the more they will fail.
“man bears the seeds of his own destruction”.
The bad news is that the worst case scenario requires us all to live through it.
John Say,
What I fear is there will become a point where things like the rule of law, the Constitution, get in their way they will do something profoundly dumb to get their way.
Alank,
That is why we need to form up our own society operating in parallel to theirs.
@Upstate
It’ll have to be subversive, as IMO an attempt at splitting up the country would result in the same madness. Who gets what? Pakistan/India, East/West Germany all over again. But we can do it. work within the system to beat the system. Real grassroots. These people might end up ruing the day they stepped over the line, and hopefully without the guillotine.
Alank, you have a solid point. I think Republicans will win in 2024, but I am not sure because I believe Democrats use technology to their advantage. AI (artificial intelligence) can have a significant effect on the election. AI knows no borders, and our enemies from abroad might come to help the Democrats. They have a lot to lose if Trump, combined with a strong Republican Congress, gains power.
As an example, one should look at the mapping system done in Boston extending all over the US (by Iran). They know the name, address, occupation, and business location of every Jew, and this is being extended everywhere. 23 and Me had its database stolen, which, depending on who has it, adds such data.
The use of technology for nefarious purposes is not new. Today, it is far advanced from previous years.
Look at how the Germans utilized IBM during WW2, before, during, and after. IBM was complicit in the extermination of Jews, and the head of IBM, Watson, got a 1% share of profits, at least for the punch cards. The death camps depended on this system, and IBM computers were in them. Some say that if the supply of punch cards had been interrupted, the number of Jews murdered would have fallen.
Hunter’s surprise appearance (and his quick exit) at the House contempt hearing yesterday tells me that Hunter is definitely on-board “Team Short Sell”. But you have to admit Jonathan, it does help sell his paintings.
He is an arrogant son of a lifelong politician. Laws don’t pertain to him or the rest of the family–tax laws, subpoena laws, drug laws, or laws of being involved with other countries.
The laws pertain, they’re just not applied. .. that’s why they call it ‘obstruction of justice’.
*’arrogant son’ .. . reminds me of an old, old song .. .
The proof is in Joe Biden’s own words….
https://twitter.com/i/status/1745204183127490907
Those old clips of Joe Biden, in his own words, are more frightening now than they were then. I believe Biden was crazier then than he is now .. . if such a thing is possible.
*Idk why the ‘Republicans’ don’t explore Article #25 to remove this imbecilic psychopath from the most ‘powerful office in the world’, hopefully sometimes before he blows up the world . .. a professional 10min. examination should suffice.
“President Kackles” is preventing the move for A25.