[Hunter] Biden, in a rare in-person statement outside the Senate on Wednesday, reiterated his demand that he testify at a public hearing of the House Oversight Committee rather than a private deposition....
"Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry or hear what I have to say," said Biden. "What are they afraid of? I'm here. I'm ready."...
Oversight Committee member Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), told Axios she "sure as hell hopes" Republicans begin contempt proceedings against Biden. Pointing to her vote to hold Steve Bannon in contempt for his refusal to comply with a Jan. 6 committee subpoena, Mace said: "As you know, I am not shy about holding people in contempt when they ignore subpoena[s]."...
Yes, let's remember what happened to Steve Bannon.
Posts
55 comments:
I hold Nancy Mace in contempt.
I don't understand. What is the reasoning behind not wanting this to be a public hearing?
Let him testify in public (under oath) with the proviso that there are no time limits on how long he has to sit there.
Otherwise he will just run out the clock...
If Republicans are sincerely interested in investigating the suspicious dealings of the Biden family, here's what they should do. Have Hunter testify in public, but have experienced litigators pose the questions. Allow each side 60-90 minutes to ask questions and followups; back and forth for as long as needed. This method would avoid the inevitable grandstanding by the elected politicians, all of whom will play to the cameras in order to appeal to their voters and to provide footage for future campaign commercials. Having committee lawyers pose the questions was used during some of the Watergate hearings.
It will never happen, of course. 100% of members of Congress - both parties - use these hearings to try to advance their careers, with the public interest in ascertaining the truth being a low priority by comparison.
Good luck getting the DoJ to enforce this rule against a Democrat.
I would call his bluff, though, and make it public. He still won't show and would just take the fifth even if he did.
Is there precedence for a public deposition? Doesn't seem likely.
Was he lawfully subpoenaed? If so, hold him in contempt. He shouldn't get to pick and choose how or when he is compelled to testify. If he wants to invoke the 5th, fine. A public hearing will likely be him giving a 10 minute speech not unlike the one he just made and then he'll take the 5th after (See Lois Lerner). Don't give him that chance.
Old and slow said...
I don't understand. What is the reasoning behind not wanting this to be a public hearing?
12/13/23, 10:37 AM
The Dems want to be able to leak their narrative to the media. A public hearing hurts their ability to do that, and gives the GOP video of Hunter responding to every question about Joe with "On the advice of my attorney, I invoke my Fifth-Amendment right against self-incrimination."
Who shot J.R.?
Republicans "pounced".
Democrats never "pounce".
Yup. No clock. Its simple. It’s fair. It won’t happen.
I had no idea that testifying under subpoena in front of Congress was subject to a negotiation of terms, and that the witness has the right to demand what they want. Does that also mean they get to re-interpret what The Oath means? Can the House send US Marshals to help keep Hunter from getting lost?
His father is not involved in his business. His father is the business, Hunter is a salesman.
Reference Hunter's WhatsApp message to Chinese businessman.
I suspect the ploy is to defuse the subject matter that Hunter is being quizzed on, because the most potent lines of inquiry involve matters that are subject to classification. Considering how absolutely careless Biden has been with his documents and his tendency to brag, and the corruption that has been put on display of the Biden family in general, I would bet that Hunter knows quite a few things that he shouldn't. I am guessing that this is at the essence of the corruption charges: that they have used classified information to inform the pursuit personal profit. A potentially treasonous behavior.
We have no facts but we will follow the evidence. ~ Republicans
What is the reasoning behind not wanting this to be a public hearing?
Trained lawyers ask the questions rather than public officials with no experience and a propensity to grandstand.
Democrats can’t use their half of the allotted time to make speeches instead of asking questions.
Follow-on sessions can be held after further investigating the answers he gives.
Public hearings can follow private ones, but Hunter’s hoping for a one-and-done by saying he “already testified” and shouldn’t be forced to return.
" I don't understand. What is the reasoning behind not wanting this to be a public hearing? "
The reason is because the plan is most likely Hunter gives a sob story opening statement talking about dead brothers and drug addiction and mental health problems claiming he's being improperly persecuted because his father is president. When the questions start Hunter will invoke the 5th without actually invoking the 5th with some mealy mouthed "reserving all my rights" statement. When the republicans push for answers Hunter will get up and walk out creating a circus.
Weak republicans being weak will not use their powers to have him arrested by the Sgt at arms. The press will eat it up and use it amplify the "evil republicans" message.
Is Hunter being respectful of Congress? What is a synonym for having disregard and lack of respect to a person or organization?
Old and slow said...I don't understand. What is the reasoning behind not wanting this to be a public hearing?
I can think of reasons why they would and reasons why they wouldn't. Overall, I come down on the public side. Transparency is more important than protecting sources or worries about showboating for the camera.
Can't Hunter Biden take the 5th at a deposition? Seems better to get his answers in public than non-answers in private.
To enforce the contempt vote will they borrorw one of the Pope's divisions?
"Mr. Hunter. How many prostitutes did you employ for $800K? Is that like eight $100K hookers, or eight-hundred $1000K hookers?"
"Mr Hunter. We're you schtupping your bothers widow while employing all these hookers?"
When is the Hunter Biden porno coming out with a clever title?
The GOP should have offered to provide some free crack and a prostitutes and Hunter would have showed up.
Absolutely no mention from a few commenters regarding Hunter Biden and congressional subpoenas have failed to mention that the Republicans seeking them failed to appear when they were subpoenaed.
If there was anything there there, Comer would be over-the-moon for a public hearing. Alas, they have nothing, so of course they don't want it public.
Blogger Rich said..."We have no facts …"
Why do you even bother? Everyone here is familiar with this case. Do you think you're going to convince anyone that the Biden's are not influence peddling? Are you getting paid? I don't get it.
Just to be clear, Steve Bannon was indicted, convicted and sentenced to four months in prison for refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena. He is currently free with an appeal pending.
Asking the courts and DOJ pretty please enforce the subpoena is a waste of effort and time.
The House has inherent enforcement powers. Just send the Sergeant at Arms to go detain Hunter and drag his butt to the deposition.
Just to be clear again, Trump advisor Peter Navarro was indicted and convicted on two counts of Contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena. He is scheduled to be sentenced in January 2024.
'To enforce the contempt vote will they borrorw one of the Pope's divisions?'
I love how you revel in the fact that the Biden DOJ is corrupt.
Nice...
The House Republicans who, like Nancy Mace, voted against their party to find Bannon in contempt:
{Mace (SC)}
Cheney (WY)
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Gonzalez (OH)
Herera Buetler (WA)
Katko (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Meijer (MI)
Upton (MI)
Nine, in all. That's it. Nine principled Republicans. Brian Fitzpatrick and Nancy Mace are the only ones who remain in Congress. The others were primaried, and/or censured, and/or otherwise condemned by the Republican Party, because they have voiced principled opposition to Trump. (And Bannon as a barely-living extension of Trump.)
All other Republicans who served in both the 117th and 118th Congresses have no moral or intellectually consistent standing to have opposed Bannon's contempt resolution but who support a Hunter Biden contempt resolution.
Picking out Nanacy Mace -- quite possibly the most shamelessly opportunistic and morally bankrupt member of the House -- is the apex of cherry-picking.
I don't understand. What is the reasoning behind not wanting this to be a public hearing?
Others have pointed out (responses up to 11:44 are up as I write) some tactical reasons but let me add a couple of important ones:
1. Like homicide detectives, the House Committee members do not want Hunter and Uncle Jim (also late to report for his subpoena) to coordinate their statements. While it is still possible they will, a private deposition makes that less likely.
2. Controlling the message and coordination of next steps is easier for the Republicans running the investigation with a private deposition.
Keep in min that by Trump's third year as president Don Jr. had testified at least three times, once for six hours in a private deposition. Adam Schiff leaked and lied about what was said, but never called him back for a public hearing, because there was no "gotcha moment" that Democrats could use against Trump.
Why should Hunter be able to shirk his civic duty when the Trump children spent a lot of time responding to Congressional subpoenas. There is always time for public hearings later, but then the committee will be armed with the answers given in the closed door hearings.
‘Democrats never "pounce".’
Democrats mince. It’s their nature.
Let's also remember the way that Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Scott Perry, Roger Stone and Peter Navarro all refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and/or pleaded the Fifth, and/or groveled for Trump pardons.
Hunter, I watched Olly North testify. You ain't Olly North.
Reporter: “Mr. President, what’s your message to people who defy Congressional subpoenas…Should they be prosecuted by the Justice Department?”
BIDEN: “Yes
https://twitter.com/i/status/1732458577359478844
Axios reports... frames. Is this a common journolistic style guideline? All the handmade tales fit to steer and influence public opinion. Democracy is curated with a pen, a click, a rhetorical flourish. We are all deplorables now (no pun intended).
Leland @10:28:
The adjective re an attitude of disrespect is "contemptuous". The adjective re disobedience to a court or Congressional order is "contumacious".
Don’t call his bluff and allow him to do this publicly, screw him. It’s not his call. Censure him, then subpoena all of his associates, his wife and children. His brothers and sisters. Quit screwing around, are the Republicans serious, then get serious.
Look- Hunter Biden was never going to answer questions from Congress in public or in private. The ask for a public hearing is simply a bluff. The little speech he gave today is all he would have actually said in a public Q&A- the rest would have been "No comment" etc.
You only have to appear before Congress to answer questions if you are a Republican subpoenaed by a Democrat Congress. If you are a Democrat- the DoJ might prosecute you if it is a Democrat Congress that issued the subpoena, but they will never prosecute a contempt referral from a Republican Congress- that is just how it works in D.C.
Readering said...
"To enforce the contempt vote will they borrorw one of the Pope's divisions?"
Thanks for clarifying your position on the rule of law.
"Yes, let's remember what happened to Steve Bannon.'
'To enforce the contempt vote will they borrorw one of the Pope's divisions?'
I just assume the courts will vacate Bannon's conviction.
"Yes, let's remember what happened to Steve Bannon."
Steve Bannon was charged with money laundering and conspiracy in the "We Build the Wall" fundraising fraud case but Trump pardoned him of federal charges so Alvin Bragg opened a state trial scheduled in May 2024 at Manhattan's courthouse. Bannon also appealed a four-month jail sentence for refusing to cooperate with the Jan 6 committee, but he lost his appeal last month.
“I am here,” Hunter Biden said today. “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not involved in my business.”
“There is no evidence to support the allegations my father was involved in my business because it did not happen,” he added.
The younger Mr. Biden has objected to providing private testimony, saying he fears Republicans will selectively leak his remarks and try to distort what he says. He has repeatedly proposed that he appear at a public hearing instead to answer their questions.
“They have lied over and over,” Mr. Biden said of Republicans.
RHB could have appeared in chambers and refused to answer questions - pleading the Fifth just as TFG has often done. No complications can then occur because the Comer committee and MAGA Mike would have been prevented from an impeachment vote that will have to be cast after Comer refused what he was offered a few weeks ago; an offer for Hunter to testify publicly.
Not even worth talking about. The answer is no.
Have a nice day.
How can Republicans fault him for upholding their own precedent of ignoring Congressional subpoenas? They started the tradition.
Readering: "Seems better to get his answers in public than non-answers in private."
Lol. Good one.
Wait, what? You were serious?
There is zero chance the republicans have the votes for a contempt of congress charge against Hunter Biden.
Same with any potential final impeachment vote against Biden.
You'd be surprised just how many elected republicans in the House and Senate are compromised and committed to making sure Trump remains the only modern impeached President and only Trump associates and supporters remain the only ones prosecuted for contempt of congress.
I believe Comer and Johnson would like to move faster but they know they will get stabbed in the back by usual suspects and the final result will not be what they want...soooo.... slow walk is the order of the day.
Leland @ 11:28: "...What is a synonym for having disregard and lack of respect to a person or organization?"
Ah! The words that come immediately to mind include:
Contumacious
Truculent
Insolent
Cheeky
A very rich topic IMHO!
It seems like a tease to prick your titillation. Comedy Gold.
I am way ahead of these guys - I had contempt for Hunter Biden long ago!
You can always tell when Howard desperately wants to get involved in the conversation but has no idea what is being discussed and/or no clue on the underlying facts.
Similar to how a 5 year old will jump in the middle of a group of adults that are chatting and yell "these shoes make me run really fast!".
Gadfly:
“There is no evidence to support the allegations my father was involved in my business because it did not happen,” he added."
LOL
Crackhead/moneylaunderer/FARA violator/underage hooker trafficker/coke & meth dealer/felony weapons law violator/deadbeat dad Hunter's actual goalpost-moving quote: "Let me state as clearly as I can: my father was not financially involved in my business,"
Well well well.
That's quite the change, isn't it?
Who could have guessed that gadfly, the LLR-democratical on training wheels (not yet accepted by the LLR-democratical "bigs" Chuck/Rich/lonejustice), would go with the fake quote instead of the actual quote?
I mean, besides everyone that is.
How can Republicans fault him for upholding their own precedent of ignoring Congressional subpoenas? They started the tradition.
Eric Holder has left the chat.
Chuck said... 'Let's also remember the way that Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Scott Perry, Roger Stone and Peter Navarro all refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and/or pleaded the Fifth, and/or groveled for Trump pardons." 12/13/23, 12:37 PM
Gee, Chuckster: you left out Eric Holder. I wonder why?
Perhaps the carefully crafted judgment Hunter showed today opposing the House of Representatives will prove to be just as beneficial to him as his prior actions involving drugs, guns, and hookers.
Quoting some old academic medicine survival advice given by senior professors to enraged junior professors: "Don't get into a pissing match with that ole' boy. He's got a much bigger bladder than you."
I suspect a disrespected Congress has a much bigger bladder than Hunter.
Post a Comment