As I understand the law, you have to buy from the investigator’s cousin and then you can sue to have your money returned. You don’t get to make the assumption that it was corrupt, in the moment, you have to get the courts to agree with you that malfeasance actually occurred when that happened and then, later, you can get your payback.
But given that we’re talking about the Constitution, not some sketchy law that was passed to allow criminality, I’m doubtful that you’d ever win this case.
That doesn’t sound accurate in any way.
You’re free to tell the next cop who tells you to do something that you don’t have to do what they say because you know the law better than them.
You can’t even keep your analogies straight anymore. 
Is there any evidence in any of the articles that Republicans were willing to question Hunter today?
I can’t say I’d stay in the room while the woman who blew up revenge porn of me was bloviating without a point, either.
Hunter did, in fact, show up to Congress on the day and time specified for his subpoenaed testimony. He offered at that time and in that place to answer any questions they had in a public hearing. His offer was declined, he left, and is now being accused of refusing to show up and answer questions.
Sounds to me like any reasonable person would conclude that the point wasn’t the showing up and answering questions, the point was the secret closed door interrogation.
Someone also accused him of not having any balls. Seriously.
I suggest you read the rules on depositions.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11093
Following a deposition, the rules require the chair and ranking member to “consult” on the
release of deposition transcripts, and in the case of a disagreement, direct that any release be decided by
the committee as a whole. As such, the committee chair (and in a disagreement, the committee) controls
whether deposition transcripts are disclosed to the public.
If they don’t want the transcripts to get out then they won’t get out.
No, to the contrary, as I pointed out (my last post).
Then why is there argument to the opposite?
And besides, Gym Jordan, Andy Biggs, and Scott Perry were all subpoenaed by House committee, and they ignored it. Why do they feel confident to sit in judgement of Hunter Biden?
I didnt see that. Do you have a link?
I think the public/private thing is a bit of a red herring. If it’s a real investigation then a deposition with transcripts is perfectly reasonable - just like the Jan 6 committee did. Of course, this isn’t a real investigation, but if it were…
The actual relevant point is that multiple members of Congress defied their subpoenas to testify before the Jan 6 committee, and any call by them to enforce Hunter Biden’s subpoena is sure to fall on deaf ears. Once you have set the precedent that Congressional subpoenas are optional then all bets are off.
You didn’t answer the question. Is it unreasonable for Hunter to want to testify publicly?
And even if they do get out, the R’s will lie about what they say, and the R media will refuse to publish the actual transcripts
No no no.
Congressional subpoenas are optional for Republicans.
Democrats must agree to secret meetings, where the transcripts may (or may not) be released, depending on the feelings of the Republican in charge.
I’m fine to answer the question but it’s fairly disconnected from the argument that was made.
The answer to your question is: It’s reasonable for him to want anything. It’s unreasonable for him to think that he has the right to demand it. Or, at least, you’re free to point to the place in the Constitution where such a right is given. He has a right to plead the 5th and a right to ask a court to intercede if he thinks that the subpoena is unlawful. But if you think the latter would fail, then you’re agreeing with my statement.
As said, though, none of that has much to do with the topic at hand.
If the right is saying that he’s a coward, then bravery is the only way to fight that.
Maybe, in a public hearing, he’d bravely and truthfully answer the questions that are given to him. But maybe he’d decline to show up if they actually accepted his request for a public hearing. And maybe he’d show up and refuse to say anything. The supposition that he’d really do what he’s said that he will do is as based on hot air as much as the supposition that the Republicans would deal with his testimony fairly.
Only when someone does what they said they’d do and only when someone meets their obligations are they actually a forthright and dependable person. Supposing that they might have done it is just playing make-believe.
Maybe he would have. We don’t know, since he didn’t do it.
At the moment, the accusation is that he was afraid to answer questions. He hasn’t answered questions. Today’s appearance only reinforces that, it doesn’t counter it in any way.
If I were on the committee, I would be very wary of his demand to testify in public, and wouldn’t allow a hearing to be turned into a spectacle, which is what Hunter wants.
Also, my suspicion would be that he’ll use the fact that the hearing is public to claim that he can’t talk about stuff because of national security concerns, executive privilege, or whatever. He might get up, make a big speech designed to make him look better or Republicans worse, then either plead the 5th or secrecy concerns to deflect any question that might be damaging to answer. The committee would be foolish to make an exception and change the rules for Hunter Biden.
Just out of curiousity, what would you have said to Republicans if they claimed that having Don Jr. Testify in private shouldn’t be allowed because the Democrats or the ‘mainstream media’ might modify the transcript? Hunter is not being asked to do anything that Don Jr and others around Trump didn’t have to do. As a reminder, Don Jr. was called three or four times to testify in private over ‘Russiagate’, and complied every time. Ivanka sat through 8 hours of private testimony before committee. Jared Kushner also had to appear privately before committee.
If Don Jr had come out and demanded a hearing in public rather than the private hearing Democrats wanted, what would you have said about it? I’m pretty sure, “That seems okay - I can’t imagine why a public hearing would be a problem” would not be it. You’d smell a rat, and wonder what he’s up to. And you’d tell him that he can damned well testify privately like everyone else.
Can we not compare investigating an attempt to overthrow the government and espionage with investigating waves hand nebulously?
And nah, Jr. can testify publicly. I don’t give a damn. Or Ivanka. Or anyone else. If they’re not discussing classified material, open that shit up to the public.
Not sure why you keep saying that. Dem Rep. Moskowitz suggested they take a vote to question Biden right then and there. Zero Republicans agreed. Biden was present when the suggestion of a vote went nowhere. He did not dash for the door at the suggestion, which seems to be your impression.
One more thing. It’s ridiculous to suggest that Democrats (and those victimized because of their adjacency) are beyond the pale for not exactly following protocol when the Republicans simply ignore the same protocol. That’s not whataboutism. That’s a sensible realpolitik response. About time Democrats blew up that asymmetry. Fuck the GOP.