Congress, Criminal law, Media, Politics

Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer has sent a seven-page letter (below) to invite President Joe Biden to testify in the Republican impeachment inquiry. The letter is the latest, and best, reduction of the glaring contradictions in the President’s past statements on his family’s well-documented influence peddling operation. President Biden is not expected to testify. However, the media should be interested in his answering the questions presented by the Committee. It is now clear that the President lied during his campaign and during his presidency on his lack of knowledge of his son’s business activities as well as his denial of any money gained from China. Yet, the White House responded, again, with mockery — a sense of impunity that only exists due to an enabling media.

Chairman Comer reduces the past testimony and evidence acquired by the Committee in the corruption scandal. In the last hearing, Democratic members simply refused to acknowledge that evidence. There was a bizarre disconnect as members mocked the witnesses for not supplying evidence of the President’s knowledge or involvement. They then did so and the members declared that there was no evidence.

Various members also misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in stating there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take.

Now, the Committee has laid out the considerable evidence showing that the President had lied, knowingly and repeatedly.

Interspersed with specific evidentiary findings, the Committee presents ten questions that the President should be able to answer directly and unequivocally:

  1. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Jonathan Li of Bohai Industrial Fund and/or Bohai Harvest Rosemont?

  2. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Ye Jianming of CEFC?

  3. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Henry Zhao of the Harvest Fund?

  4. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma Holdings?

  5. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Mykola Zlochevsky of Burisma Holdings?

  6. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Kenes Rakishev of Novatus Holding?

  7. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yelena Baturina?

  8. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yuriy Luzhkov?

  9. Did you ever ask your brother James Biden about the source of the funds he used to pay or repay you?

  10. Did Eric Schwerin have insight into all your bank accounts until December 2017?

In response, the White House Counsel’s office again responded with mockery and taunting. I have previously discussed (including in my testimony in the Biden hearing) how the role of the White House staff in these denials can raise serious questions under the impeachment inquiry.

That has not deterred White House Counsel spokesperson Ian Sams, who has been previously accused of misrepresenting facts and engaging in heavy-handed treatment of the media. Sams responded to the letter:

“LOL. Comer knows 20+ witnesses have testified that POTUS did nothing wrong. He knows that the hundreds of thousands of pages of records he’s received have refuted his false allegations. This is a sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment. Call it a day, pal.”

The involvement of a member of the White House Counsel’s staff issuing such a disrespectful and taunting message would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, the media has enabled such denial and deflection by showing no interest in the answers to any of these questions. It is part of the genius of the Biden management of this scandal. The White House quickly got reporters to buy into the illusion, making any later recognition impossible for these reporters. It is Houdini’s disappearing elephant trick applied to politics.

Even if most of the media refuses to demand answers, the public has a right to hear directly from the President on these specific questions. President Biden can still deny all of this countervailing evidence and “say it ain’t so,” but he should say something.

Here is the letter: 2024-03-28-CJC-letter-to-JRB

175 thoughts on “Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry”

  1. I know this is not related to the article, but can someone please explain to me why the New York case with the deranged judge and hussy AG was not a jury trial? I thought the Constitution guaranteed trial by a jury of one’s peer. Seems like Trump was railroaded in Stalinesque Soviet show trial.

    1. The right to a jury trial under the 7th Amendment does not apply to State courts.

      1. WRONG! After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the 7th Amendment applies to State Courts

    2. Apparently, prior NY courts have ruled that since the statute is primarily an “equitable” statute with administrative remedies primary, and monetary remedies secondary, there is no right to a jury trial. However, given that the primary remedy here was an enormous monetary remedy, this is an issue for the appellate court, either the monetary remedy is problematic in the context of prior reasoning that no jury of right because monetary remedy is secondary, or the lack of a jury is problematic given the enormity and primacy of the monetary award.

    3. It was an action brought under a consumer protection statute. The statute allows the AG to simply declare a company is committing fraud, with not even a bench trial. Then the AG petitions the court to determine the monetary punishment for the pre-judged fraud.
      It really is a crazy law.

  2. Bug, under the name of Jon, posted two more idiotic responses that demonstrated a brain destroyed by normal decay, alcoholism, drugs or all three and more. He has shown a lack of reading ability and understanding of crime, testimony, lying, and fraud. Bug, I feel sorry for you. You need help.

    1. “Meyers, who is Bug?” writes Jon who is likely Bug.

      The answer is that Bug is an idiot with no manners, morals, or ethics. This response is written above the post because Bug is deleted when not at Starbucks.

  3. Since the post was deleted and the Bug is so stupid, Jon is likely the Bug trying to hide himself.

    “Meyer, I assume you didn’t bother reading the settlement. It does not show Governor DeSantis having a victory.

    Bug, you are as stupid as they come. I read at least some of it, and you failed to do so. That is part of your stupidity. Tell us what DeSantis lost. Nothing. Tell us what Florida lost. Nothing. We all know how much money, power, and prestige Disney lost. You are too stupid to understand the issues of the settlement.

    “Disney ensured the district cannot make any changes without Disney’s ok.”

    Go back to school. You are an idiot!

    1. Bug, under the name Jon, writes, “Meyer, so you didn’t read all of it. Reading some of it. Likely because you didn’t or couldn’t understand it and gave up after a page or two. I know for a fact that you didn’t understand it at all. Have a good Easter holiday.”

      I can do nothing about your stupidity. My posts remain on the blog, while yours are trashed like they should be. That is all that needs to be said.

  4. Jonathan: Seems there was no way to provide a comment to you latest column “Sams, I am”. So permit me to respond in this comment section.

    Yes, DC is full of “flacks”. But Ian Sams’s response to Jim Comer’s latest desperate attempt to to keep his “impeachment inquiry” alive, by asking Pres. Biden to testify, was just stating the obvious. Comer needs to pack up his tent and move on. But you keep insisting Comer’s over a year of investigation and hearings is still an “impeachment inquiry”. Really? Comer has given up on that and so should you. He now admits he doesn’t have any credible evidence of impeachable offenses by Pres. Biden. He doesn’t have the votes–not even in the MAGA controlled House. So Comer now throws a “Hail Mary” pass by saying he is going to throw the mess he made over to the DOJ!

    But you keep trying to keep the patient alive. Why won’t Joe Biden just answer those 10 questions? Give it up Jonathan. Nothing you have claimed in a year of columns about the vast “Biden family corruption scandal” has been proved by Comer–no “basis for actual impeachment articles”. By keeping up this charade you risk being labeled yourself as a “prototypical” flack in DC!

    1. Joe Biden is losing so bad in this election campaign that he needs to call in not one, but two retired POTUS’s to prop him up … in addition to the federal prosecutors his White House has enlisted to do his dirty work … in addition to the Fake News Media lying to protect him day in and day out. It’s disgusting to the average American.
      Biden is a criminal and a liar.
      The entire world knows it.
      Why don’t you?

Comments are closed.