Below is my column in The Hill on Hunter Biden’s sudden offer to appear for testimony in Congress. Biden’s demand for a second “valid subpoena” presents institutional considerations that weigh against yielding to the condition for testimony. This was a valid subpoena issued by multiple committees with independent subpoena authority. Few members relish Hunter and his team turning them into dancing bears for their public amusement. The contempt of Congress is already a completed act for Hunter. Even if he were to testify, he knowingly and publicly committed this violation. I imagine that his team has already seriously laid out an option for Hunter to agree to appear and take the Fifth. If he choses to testify at a deposition, he is looking at one of the most perilous stages of this scandal. Otherwise, he may hope that his last minute change will give the Justice Department, yet again, cover for declining to act. [Update: there are reports that the House will not call Hunter’s bluff and may issue a new subpoena as demanded.]
Here is the column:
This week, after weeks of Hunter mocking the House over its subpoena for a deposition, the House Oversight Committee voted to hold him in contempt. Now facing a referral for prosecution, Hunter declared that he might belatedly comply to avoid a prosecution.
Hunter is nothing if not consistent. As with his taxes and other federal violations, Hunter is asking for a mulligan just before a possible indictment. For decades, Hunter has conveyed an attitude that laws do not apply to him or to other Biden family members. After all, as his father once said, “no one f**ks with a Biden.”
Since he was a young man, Hunter seems to have been told that he lives a life of privilege that entitles him to considerations denied to others. Indeed, in Washington, it was an open joke when Hunter was put on the Amtrak board and later made its vice chair. When pressed on his lack of credentials for the position, Democratic Senator Tom Carper of Delaware quipped that “Hunter Biden has spent a lot of time on Amtrak trains.”
It appears that nothing is quite so funny as open nepotism in Washington.
Not surprisingly, Hunter’s life of entitlement would lead to a life of excess and debauchery. He was one of Washington’s noble class, a scion of a political dynasty. In time, he would be brought into the family business of influence-peddling with his uncles. For decades, the Bidens have been accused of selling access and influence to Joe Biden.
When things got legally difficult, Hunter could count on government guardians. When he lost his gun in 2018, Secret Service agents appeared at a gun shop to demand all records of his purchase. (Those records would later become the basis for the current gun charges against him.)
When Hunter lost his laptop, containing hundreds of incriminating files showing everything from influence peddling to alleged human trafficking, FBI agents showed up at the computer shop and reportedly conveyed an intimidating message to the owner not to speak to anyone.
When years of news reports forced the Justice Department to investigate some of these crimes, the Justice Department sat on the case until the most serious tax violations from 2014 to 2015 expired under the statute of limitations. It did so despite internal objections that the period for prosecution could easily be extended.
The Justice Department then sought a plea bargain so absurdly generous that it fell apart in open court, with a prosecutor admitting to the judge that he had never seen any deal like it. Notably, the cause for the collapse was an immunity agreement so obscene that no one other than a Biden would demand it, let alone get it.
Throughout this history, one thing has been consistent. Hunter has received and seems to feel entitled to legal mulligans that no other citizen could reasonably expect. It is the very meaning of “privilege” that many Democrats in Washington denounce on a weekly basis.
We are not the only country with such a privileged class of scions. In China, the children of powerful leaders who live lavish lives are called the “red nobility” or “communist princelings.”
Yet, even in Washington, many were floored by the display of absolute entitlement when Hunter appeared with his counsel Abbe Lowell outside of Congress at the time of his scheduled deposition. Hunter mocked the House and refused to go inside, insisting that he would only agree to give testimony on his own terms.
For those of us who have been writing about the Hunter and the Bidens for decades, it was not in the least surprising. His conduct on taxes showed the utter lack of concern over any obligations owed to the government. In a sense, his family is the government.
As the Justice Department noted in its tax charges, Hunter spent his money on “drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes.”
When the IRS finally moved toward prosecution, a democratic donor named Kevin Morris reportedly gave him millions to cover his taxes and lavish lifestyle, even though he had only been introduced to Hunter at a Democratic fundraiser not long before.
Then, without a hint of irony, Hunter and Lowell guffawed at the notion of any prosecution because “Hunter paid his taxes.”
He is now applying the same logic to the crime of contempt. After his defiant presser on the steps of the Capitol, Hunter crashed the hearing for the vote on his contempt. By his side was Morris, who is now shooting scenes for a movie about Hunter — presumably a real-life version of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” where the corrupt establishment actually wins.
The stunt caused pandemonium and infuriated members of Congress. Hunter demanded that they yield to his demands. Once again, Democrats unanimously voted to protect him, even though they had demanded the same depositions in the past.
Indeed, President Biden himself said that such defiance could never be tolerated in others. When asked about Trump supporters defying subpoenas he declared, “I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally.”
Those people, however, are not Bidens.
When the committee approved the contempt resolution and sent it to the floor, some of us speculated that Hunter would again demand a mulligan, just before any prosecution.
That is precisely what he did. Lowell told the House that the president’s son would deign to appear in a deposition if they re-issued a “valid” subpoena. It is the legal version of when Hunter instructed ABC News reporter Amy Robach to “say it nicer” when she dared to ask him uncomfortable questions.
Hunter is now effectively telling Congress to “say it nicer,” and he just might appear. The problem is that the original subpoena was valid, and Congress does not have to ask a second time. There are no mulligans when it comes to criminal contempt.
It is likely that Hunter and his counsel expect that the fix is in, again, at the Justice Department. Given his last-minute offer (as when he paid his taxes at the last minute), Hunter no doubt hopes the Justice Department will decline to prosecute.
For Hunter, it is not about the fact that he committed a crime. That is for ordinary people. It is about being a Biden, and being entitled to a lifetime of mulligans.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
“You can be the most worthless Republican in America, but if you kiss the ring,Trump will say you’re wonderful. You can be the strongest, most dynamic, successful Republican & conservative in America, but if you don’t kiss that ring, then he’ll try to trash you.”
–DeSantis, who will likely do poorly in Iowa today because he didn’t kiss the ring
Cry me a river.
“SOMETHING’S MISSING”
Is it the end point when a corrupt government in its entirety engages in abject corruption without a care whether the governed (i.e. oppressed) citizenry views it on public display and knows it or not?
Where the —- are America’s leaders – leaders of the courage, capacity, acumen, and nationalism – similar to the leaders of America circa 1776?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“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
Very day the quagmire of muck that surrounds the swamp of Washington DC is on display, where words mean nothing or are only understood by those with binders on. Laws mean nothing to the privileged critters living or having ties to the swamp. Where actions by those critters go unenforced or totaling ignored with impunity. Where average citizens are punished severely for demonstrating disbelieve, and the levers of the law are unbalanced. Where tyranny resides in the utopian dogma of the political left: [justice for me but not for thee]. The United States of America has fallen off the cliff and is descending into a quagmire of totalitarian governance. The shackles of the Constitution are being weakened by the constant assault of the political left to redefine meaning(s) of words and actions. The Devils of the Left must be cast back into the fires of HELL whereas they came from. The upcoming election is time to throw off the horned demons and reinstall civility, honor and pride in this great Nation; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
God help us All!
Jonathan: Also not to be overlooked is that the second E. Jean Carroll defamation case starts tomorrow in Judge Kaplan’s federal courtroom. The case should take about a week to complete despite all of DJT’s attempts at delays.
DJT says he wants to testify but has asked the trial to be delay a week so he can attend his mother-in-law’s funeral in FL. Such a request should be in the form of a Motion with supporting declarations and other evidence to justify the request for a delay. Instead, DJT’s attorneys sent a email request. Yesterday, Judge Kaplan denied the request but said: “In the event that defendant rests his defense sometime on Thursday, January 18, subject only to Mr. Trump’s testimony, the Court would grant a continuance until Monday, January 22, 2024, for the purpose of hearing that testimony”. In a footnote Judge Kaplan noted: “The court subsequently learned that Mr. Trump has scheduled a campaign appearance on Wednesday, January 17, 2024 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire”.
What’s that’s about? Kaplan’s way of saying he sees through DJT’s attempts at delays. If DJT has time to campaign in Maine and then travel the entire length of the country to attend his mother-in-law’s funeral he can certainly make time to testify in his own case.
The other part of the case is that DJT wants his testimony to try to re-litigate the issue of liability. That’s off the table because in the first E. Jean Carroll trial DJT was found liable for sexual assault and defamation. The only issue for the second jury is the amount of punitive damages. If DJT tries to argue “I never met the woman” or “she is defaming me!” Judge Kaplan will strike down that argument. DJT best defense is “I don’t have the money to pay the plaintiff”. But that won’t fly either because DJT continues to claim he is a “billionaire”.
Either way DJT is going to lose big time in this case!
If Trump truly wants to attend his m-i-l’s funeral, it’s entirely legal for him to skip that day at the Carroll damages trial. But odds are that he’ll skip the funeral and then complain about the mean judge.
It is not defaming E Jean Carrol to say that he never met her, even if he did. An appellate court will so hold, whatever the nut case trial judge rules.
A jury unanimously found that Trump had defamed her. He said more than what you note, and he also refused to testify, which allows the jury to make an adverse inference in the civil trial. Judge Kaplan then found in the motion for summary judgement in the additional suit that Trump had defamed Carroll, so this trial is for damages only.
You can conjecture whatever you want about the Appeals Court, but only time will tell.
Edwarmahl: Come on Edward! In the first E. Jean Carroll trial a JURY found DJT liable for sexual assault (i.e., rape) and defamation. It wasn’t a bench trial. And on appeal courts rarely overturn findings of fact by a jury. You and Jimmy are in the same league–showing a clear lack of understanding of the jury process and how appeals work. I have a book for you–“Law for Dummies”.
Thank you, Dennis, for your help in spreading the news. The judge’s decision, neglecting that the actual death occurred, along with prosecutors colluding with the White House, is making people more sympathetic to Trump’s position.
The only question I have is how much Trump’s polling will rise due to this ruling.
Your attitude coincides with the left’s attempt at election interference, which becomes more apparent by the day.
Trump is free to attend his MIL’s funeral if he wants. He can skip the trial entirely unless he wants to testify. He skipped the first trial.
ATS, we are enamored at the way you discount other people’s suffering, even where death and funerals are concerned. We also understand your reasons for wanting to promote election interference every chance you get. You are predictable, along with your affinity for lying and cheating.
Dennis, Governor Burgum wants to thank you as well for your echoing of the Democrat talking points that pushed him into saying the following:
“Four years ago, I was speaking on behalf of President Trump at the Iowa caucuses in Sioux City, and today, I’m here to do something that none of the other presidential primary candidates have done, and that’s to endorse Donald J. Trump for the president of the United States of America.”
Gov Burgum will call to thank you after Trump provides his victory speech and assumes office in 2024.
S. Meyer: You seem to have adopted DJT’s frequent claim that all the civil lawsuits and the 94 criminal indictments are just “election interference”. This argument is getting pretty thin. DJT was indicted criminally last year–before he was an official candidate. The E. Jean Carrol cases have been going on for over 3 years–when DJT was a private citizen. Can’t argue that is “election interference”.
The DC Court of Appeals will soon rule on whether DJT is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. If, as I suspect, the Court will rule against DJT how does that fit into the “election interference” claim?
Now I understand that many of DJT loyal MAGA supporters will support his candidacy even if he is criminally convicted before the election. But the polls show many GOP voters won’t vote for a “convicted felon”. I doubt these voters will cling to the “election interference” defense. So, I have a Q for you: Will you still vote for DJT if, in the DC case before Judge Chutkan, a jury finds DJT guilty?
“The E. Jean Carrol cases have been going on for over 3 years–when DJT was a private citizen. Can’t argue that is “election interference”.
It is. But it is also Carrol’s attempt to obtain money and fame. This is her modis operandi.
In any event, Senator Marco Rubio wants to thank you as well. He says, “I support Trump because that kind of leadership is the ONLY way we will get the extraordinary actions needed to fix the disaster Biden has created. It’s time to get on with the work of beating Biden & saving America!”
The other Senator from Florida, Rick Scott, also gave his endorsement, but that was earlier before you were credited with being a part of Trump’s victory in 2024.
Your elegant portrayal of Trump has pushed people right and left to vote for Trump.
I, too, thank you for your contribution. Double-talk and lies work magic.
“This argument is getting pretty thin. DJT was indicted criminally last year–before he was an official candidate.”
Do you really think people are that stupid?
“Will you still vote for DJT if . . .”
Yes. Twice.
I see the low life Dennis is still big on stealing bandwidth from the host. Why Dennis. Why to you steal what is not yours?
If JT considered it theft, he’d have Dennis’s comments deleted. But they aren’t deleted, as JT seems to welcome off-topic comments, including yours. Maybe you shouldn’t presume things on JT’s behalf.
Breaking News: Yemen Hootie Cuties just scored a direct hit on a US owned ship.
Question. Where is Lloyd Austin & Uncle Joe?
Jonathan: Not to be overlooked, today is MLK Day when we honor the memory of the Civil Rights icon. MLK received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, the youngest person in history to be awarded the Prize. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2004. Tragically, he was taken from us by the bullet of a racist.
The actor Julia Roberts will honor this day. Fifty-five years ago a couple paid the hospital bill for Julia’s birth in Smyrna, GA. The couple was Martin and Coretta Scott King.
Didn’t Al Gore Jr win a Nobel prize? He was probably the second youngest.
When the Senate confirmed Hunter to the Amtrak board of directors in 2006, Republicans had a 55 – 45 Senate majority. Turley insists it was an open joke to the Republican led Senate that Hunter’s only qualification was that he was a frequent Amtrak commuter. Yep, those hapless Republicans were clearly railroaded into confirming Hunter by a unanimous vote, right JT?
So, tell us, Professor, what qualifications did Trump’s daughter & son-in-law possess when Trump appointed them to serve in the White House? Any concerns about Saudi Arabia giving Jared an absurdly generous $2 billion investment one month after he left the White House? Or Communist China providing 16 lucrative trademarks to Ivanka’s LLC while she worked in the West Wing?
Seems like an apt parallel to “children of powerful Chinese leaders who live lavish lives being called the ‘red nobility’ or ‘communist princelings.’”
Anonymous – What specialized knowledge is necessary “to serve in the White House”?
what qualifications did Trump’s daughter & son-in-law possess when Trump appointed them to serve in the White House?
Not sure why it matters, But both of them met all the Constitutional Qualifications.
“Jared Kushner’s application for a top-secret clearance at the White House was rejected by two career White House security specialists after an FBI background check raised concerns about potential foreign influence on him.”
No potential foreign influence when Trump’s son-in-law received a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia right after he left the White House, right?
One that’s pretty certain, Hunter’s team is working with the DOJ and the WH.
Were all the “loans” by Kevin Morris supported by loan documents with fair interest rates and repayment terms, or were these loans actually taxable income?
A question that needs to be asked and answered with documentation.
There are too many loans in this sordid mess.
What does KevinMorris expect for his magnanimity towards the bidens?
Professor Turley is actually Exhibit A for why televised House Oversight Committee hearings allow the American public to judge for themselves whether the proceedings are being cynically misrepresented. Last month, Turley repeatedly mocked AOC & Jamie Raskin for calling photos of Hunter which Marjorie Greene Taylor displayed at a house hearing as “pornographic exhibits that might not be suitable for children watching.” Turley characterized the photos as being completely harmless with Hunter “purportedly wearing a swimsuit.”
Thankfully video of the televised house hearing is readily available to the American public. Fox News reported the incident with this headline: “Marjorie Taylor Greene holds up censored photo of Hunter Biden & a prostitute.” The largest photo showed a prostitute performing oral sex on Hunter. Yet Turley felt quite comfortable mocking AOC & Raskin for calling the photos “pornographic exhibits that might not be suitable for children watching.”
So last week, when Hunter showed up at a televised House Oversight committee hearing with the American public watching, Democratic committee member Moskowitz proposed that the committee let Hunter testify under oath right here & now. Every Republican remained stone cold silent. Then Nancy Mace countered with: “I think Hunter Biden should be arrested right here & right now & be taken straight to jail.”
Think about that. House Republicans want Hunter arrested & locked up for agreeing to testify under oath at a televised hearing with the American public watching. And what forum did Professor Turley agree to testify at before this same committee a few months ago? A televised hearing with the American public watching. Yep, Turley undoubtedly believes closed door hearings are just for ordinary people.
Today is Martin Luther King, Jr day, the 3rd Monday of January, which falls on Jan 15, 2024. It was declared a Federal holiday by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. MLK Jr was a flawed man just like the rest of us. In spite of his flaws, or perhaps because of his flaws, he rose to such a height so as to inspire others to be better: better than what Americans were at the time regarding racism, better than him in seeking forgiveness, and delivering a speech that calls on all to be better human beings towards others. We can not lay burdens on others that we refuse to bear ourselves, paraphrased from Jesus Christ rebuking the legalism of the Pharisees. We are all Pharisees in some ways.
Happy MLK Day!
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
A good analysis of MLK’s speech and his legacy, is provided by MLK’s speechwriter, Clarence Jones, who is still alive at age 93. He was interviewed by Bari Weiss’ “Free Press” journalism team, and it is worth a read.
MLK’s Former Speechwriter: ‘We Are Trying to Save the Soul of America’
‘I Have a Dream’ coauthor Clarence Jones on color blindness, Ibram X. Kendi, black-Jewish relations, and why MLK ‘wouldn’t permit what’s going on.’
https://www.thefp.com/p/mlk-speechwriter-trying-to-save-soul-of-america
Estovir,
That was a good read.
It’s noteworthy that your Youtube video omits what preceded the line you quoted and then cuts MLK Jr. off right after the line you quoted and skips to another part of the speech. I think what he said in that section of the speech — in its entirety — is too uncomfortable for the people who choose to quote the line about his children, as both before and after, he calls out the continued racism and injustice in the US and the mentions the history of slavery.
Here’s that section of the speech in its entirety:
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
Why issue a second subpoena, when the first one was perfectly valid?
To deprive Garland of one excuse for not indicting and arresting HB.
Though no doubt, Garland has concocted countless others: “We don’t indict the son of a presidential candidate during an election year.” “Prosecutorial discretion.” “No grand jury would indict him.” “The R’s mucked this up by issuing two subpoenas.” “There’s a missing comma.”
As long as HB now shows up, the House is not going to vote to hold him in contempt. Without a referral from the House, the DOJ is not going to do anything.
He’s already in contempt.
The committee found him in contempt and can itself go to the DoJ.
If you want to take the vote to the full House… The GOP has enough votes to get it passed.
Hunter can walk up now and say I’m ready for my Depo… and he’s still in contempt.
If he does sit for the hearing… then no the DoJ won’t pursue it.
But that’s not happening because he’s demanding a new subpoena after using the old one as toilet paper to wipe his Arse.
“We don’t indict the son of a presidential candidate during an election year.”
Kinda like Mitch McConnell saying you don’t nominate a Supreme Court justice in an election year? Unless its your guy then you cram them through in as short a time as possible.
Cry me a river. You would have done the same thing to us. McConnell saved us from an ethically-challenged Supreme Court Justice.
Kinda like Mitch McConnell saying you don’t nominate a Supreme Court justice in an election year?
You are ignorant of history. That is the rule as explained by the Chairman of Judiciary Committee Senator Joseph Robinet Biden.
Sam, I agree, and the pressure seems to be working, especially since Trump’s polling is up. Maybe the DOJ let Hunter know that nobody will be falling on their sword for him. Joseph Stealin’ will have to pardon him and take the heat.
@Sam,
Good point.
However…
The DoJ is currently engaged in going after Trump along w some local prosecution in NYC and GA. All of which can be tied back to Biden since both prosecutors visited the WH which is on record and James ran on getting elected w the promise of going after Trump. (Even though her case is pure political BS.)
So for the DOJ to say “No one is above the law” in going after Trump. (Jack Smith is prosecuting him, and again ties to the WH) it would be a hypocritical move beyond anything to now say that Hunter who is not running for office would be exempt from facing charges in a Presidential Campaign Year.
( This would not go unnoticed and would hand Trump the presidency… )
I don’t see the DoJ denying prosecuting him. I do see however, the committee issuing another subpoena after they extract a pound of flesh and several pints of blood from the Dems and Biden on something else. Something that would involve Schumer and the Senate… That wouldn’t surprise me, nor would it surprise me if the Dims pulled a fast one and reneged on the agreement. (Which will bite them in the arse.)
My gut is that the Committee will refuse because he’s already been found, they know he’ll plead the fifth and then they’ll be able to post their questions and that he refused to answer implying guilt. And of course, by pleading the 5th, Hunter won’t get his day in front of Congress because he refused answering in closed door sessions and he will face a high risk of perjuring himself if he changes his testimony.
Its a no win for Hunter.
Of course he won’t go to jail… daddy will pardon him. If something happened to Joe… like a stroke… Kamel Toe may forget to do it.
-G
To my conspiratorial mind, Garland is worried about getting John Mitchell’s bunk at the federal AirBnB–assuming Trump gets elected.
Hunter is finally getting some law. Should get interesting.
So little Hunter has come to the realization that if he has to defend himself from prosecution it’s going to cost him a pretty penny. You know that when he discussed the cost of his defense with his attorneys his reaction was WOW. He has a some money but he don’t got Trump money so if he has to spend it all on lawyers he won’t be able to pay half his daddy’s bills. He put his tongue against the frozen light post and now all of his friends are calling him stupid. He has come to realize that no rich guy is going to bail him out this time and he will have to pay his lawyers out of his own pocket. It seems that he has decided to think it out again. Duh.
Let’s recall that Kevin Morris was also the biggest buyer of Hunter’s “works of art”. From Politico, 1/9/24:
“Bergès also confirmed entertainment lawyer Kevin Morris, who has reportedly lent the president’s son a significant amount of money, purchased Hunter Biden’s art for $875,000, according to committee Republicans.”
Since no one in his right mind would spend almost a million dollars for this childish rubbish, we must ask: why was the money spent; and where was the real source of the funds?
Why is Hunter such a sleeze bag for not honoring the subpoena but Jim Jordan gets away with not complying with his subpoena to testify as to his involvement in the Jan 6 insurrection?
Double Standard much?
Hey Bobby boy, would you please provide any evidence you have that Congress ever voted to hold Jim Jordan in contempt. You won’t because the only evidence you have is coming from the Daily Beast. The Democrats in Congress didn’t vote to hold Jordan in contempt because they knew it would not hold up under the scrutiny of the Judiciary. In other words, just like you they were just blowin smoke. Yours is a common dishonest comparison of two completely different occurrences. No one is surprised.
Why is Hunter such a sleeze bag for not honoring the subpoena but Jim Jordan gets away with not complying
Because there is a real question if Congress can ask the Executive Branch to compel testimony. Congress has enumerated power of oversight which allows the Executive Branch to compel testimony in front of Congress. But, the Executive Branch has no power to play cop for internal legislative disagreements. I am sure Garland told the Dems, there was no way he was going to violate separation of powers doctrine.
But as we can see from the comments here, Constittuional separation of powers doctrine, escapes their tiny little brains. Spitting out the assigned talking points oblivious to comments shinning a light on their stupidity
.
Jonathan: I am amazed that as an experienced attorney you could take the position that the subpoenas issued by Comer’s Committee are valid–and “Congress does not have to ask a second time”. That’s not the law.
Perhaps you should read Abbe Lowell’s letter of 1/12 to Comer. It sets out in detail how the Hunter subpoenas are invalid. That’s because the subpoenas were issued BEFORE a vote was taken on the impeachment inquiry by Congress (Resolution 917). That conclusion is based on both case precedents and OLC opinions. And that Resolution can’t cure the infirmity in the original subpoenas.
In his letter Lowell states: “If you issue a new proper subpoenas, now that there is a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a hearing or deposition”. It’s not a case of “say it nicer”, it’s a case of complying with the law. If you think Comer should go to court to try to enforce the original subpoenas you are whistling past the graveyard! It’s a dead loser and a waste of time! And spending months in court trying to enforce the subpoenas will simply prolong the Comer impeachment investigation. Be careful what you wish for!
Dennis (acting as legal expert)
“House Rule XI, clauses 2(m)(1) and (3), authorizes House committees and subcommittees to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. . . . In turn, most House and Senate committees have adopted their own rules on subpoena provisions containing procedures for exercising this grant of power from their parent chamber.
Committee rules may cover authorization, issuance, and service of subpoenas; may cover just one or two of these actions; or may be silent on exercise of the subpoena power. A subpoena must be authorized pursuant to committee rules. Once authorized, if the committee seeks to take the next step, a subpoena must be issued pursuant to committee rules—signed and given to an individual to serve a subpoena to the person named in it.
Most House and Senate committees have included in their rules one or more provisions on committees’ and subcommittees’ power to authorize subpoenas by majority vote. Most House committees have also delegated to their chair the power to authorize subpoenas. Many of these rules delegating authority also require the chair to consult or notify the committee’s ranking minority member.
. . .
In addition to rules on authorizing subpoenas, the rules of most committees in both chambers also address issuing subpoenas. Most House committees’ rules delegate authority to issue subpoenas to the chair, while several committees allow another committee member who has been designated by the committee to sign a subpoena. . . . .”
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44247
Thus, it seems that each committee can write its own rules and issue valid subpoenas that accord with those rules.
Are you saying that the Comer committee did not issue the original subpeona in accordance with its own rules? If you are making that statement, please refer us to the rule that was ignored or flouted. Please do not use the tired dodge of telling us to read the Lowell letter. If you know, you can tell us.
edwardmahl: You are correct.
For those who want a shorter version, each Congress begins with its own session rules. Here are the rules for the 118th Congressional House: https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov/files/documents/Rules%20and%20Resources/118-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf
Readers will note therein:
“a subpoena may be authorized and issued . . . only when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a majority being present” and such subpoena authority “may be delegated to the chair of the committee under such rules and under such limitations as the committee may prescribe.”
Edwardmahl and Lin,
Thank you for correcting Dennis and setting the record straight.
Turley can’t even be bothered to link to the relevant letters, much less to address the heart of the arguments. Instead, he goes off on a tangent summarizing all of his complaints about HB.
The letter from Abbe Lowell to Comer a couple of days ago argued that “the November 8 and 9, 2023, deposition subpoenas to Mr. Biden and the contempt resolutions approved by your committees on January 10, 2024, based on those subpoenas were and are legally invalid,” as Comer had no authority to issue an impeachment subpoena prior to the vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry, and stated “If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a hearing or deposition. We will accept such a subpoena on Mr. Biden’s behalf.” Read the full letter:
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/letter-from-a-lowell-to-chairmen-comer-and-jordan-hunter-biden-contempt-subpoenas-january-12-2024.pdf
Reply
Comer and Jordan respond yesterday that they’ll issue new subpoenas:
They said “Although the Committee’s subpoenas are lawful and remain legally enforceable,” disputing Lowell’s claim, “as an accommodation to Mr. Biden and at your request, we are prepared to issue [new] subpoenas compelling Mr. Biden’s appearance at a deposition on a new date in the coming weeks.”
Read their full letter: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-01-14-jdj-jc-to-lowell-re-new-subpoena-for-hb.pdf
JT’s claim that “The contempt of Congress is already a completed act for Hunter” is false. The House as a whole has not yet voted on this, and it likely cannot pass it.
Dear Anonymous at 10:40
You began with, “Turley can’t even be bothered to link to the relevant letters, much less to address the heart of the arguments.”
Perhaps this relevant and responsive letter from Comer/Committee to Abbe Lowell, dated yesterday, will be pleasing to you.
(Pay particular attention to Page 2)
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-01-14-jdj-jc-to-lowell-re-new-subpoena-for-hb.pdf
(from lin)
Lin you should expect a reply from anonymous that says something like what follows:
‘Lin can’t even be bothered to provide a summary of the letter, chewed and digested, much less to make my arguments for me’
Anonymous and stupid seem to be synonymous.
S. Meyer: Yeah, but even better, I just sent him/her/it a copy of Pelosi’s September 2019 press conference, wherein she announced an official impeachment inquiry of then-Pres. Trump, following private committee investigations.
No House vote on impeachment inquiry came until a month later (October 31, 2019), in which the House was forced to merely approve the continuance of the investigations (H.R. Res. 660, 116th Cong. (2019).
That was the second link in my original comment, duh.
–but the way I reference it does in fact provide more clarity and actual purpose (Pg 2), n’est ce pas?
BTW, your comment,” The House as a whole has not yet voted on this, and it likely cannot pass it,” is likewise selectively curious. I know of no jurisprudential nor legislative precedent that demands/compels that the House must first vote on an impeachment inquiry, DO YOU? Pardon me if so.
I note that FOLLOWING a summer full of private committee hearings and investigations into then-President Trump, Nancy Pelosi, ex post facto, then announced (at a September 2019 press conference), that these investigations constituted an impeachment inquiry, https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/92419-0. The HOUSE DID NOT VOTE on an impeachment until more than a month later (October 31? 2019) Do you agree?
(my last sentence should have read, “The HOUSE DID NOT VOTE on an impeachment INQUIRY until more than a month later..) H.R. Res. 660, 116th Cong. (2019).
Whether “the way [you] reference it does in fact provide more clarity and actual purpose,” that’s a matter of opinion, not fact. Either way, there was no need for you to link to it again, as if I was unaware of it.
As for “BTW, your comment, ‘The House as a whole has not yet voted on this, and it likely cannot pass it,’ is likewise selectively curious. I know of no jurisprudential nor legislative precedent that demands/compels that the House must first vote on an impeachment inquiry, DO YOU?”
a) You seem to have misunderstood what you quoted from me. The “this” in the sentence you quoted refers to JT’s claim that I quoted in the previous sentence: “The contempt of Congress is already a completed act for Hunter.” My comment was not a statement about the entire House voting to initiate an impeachment inquiry, which has occurred, but about a House vote on holding HB in contempt of Congress, which has not occurred and which I doubt would pass at this point.
b) Yes: https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download (e.g., “The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s power of impeachment”), which I think was prompted by Pelosi’s initial failure to hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry. Then again, the CRS (quoted by edwardmahl earlier) seems to disagree.
Anonymous at 3:17:
re: Your subparagraph (b), supra (starting with “Yes: https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download.”
Your quoting of an Executive Branch advisory opinion from OLC, is non-dispositive of this issue.
What IS dispositive, I believe, is H.R. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023). This House Rule was introduced on December 7 or 8, and the committee (anticipating its passage) subpoenaed Hunter to appear for a closed deposition on December 13 –THE DAY THAT H.R. Res. 917 WAS PASSED. Hunter failed to appear, instead making his stage appearance elsewhere.
Please read that Rule at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/917
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely (and not adversarially), lin.
“H.Res.917 – Authorizing the enforcement of subpoenas issued by the Chairs of the Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, or the Judiciary as part of the inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Joseph Biden, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.”
Prof Turley…For those of us who have been writing about the Hunter and the Bidens for decades, it was not in the least surprising.
It’s surprising to read you insinuating that you’ve been writing about the Biden’s since at least 2004. How many columns did you write reminding people of, for example, embassy officials in Ukraine desperately warning Obama of what the VP’s son was up to in Ukraine back when that come out?
Nice to have you finally join the independent journalists that have been writing about Biden Crime Inc. actually for several decades; better late than never.
But when push comes to shove and the day of the election arrives, you’re STILL going to vote Democrat… because Soviet Democrat corruption isn’t all that bad, is it now?
Excellent explanation. Thank you, Prof. Turley.