Comer has already shown his willingness to run from a closed committee hearing to Fox “News” to lie about the testimony. He did so with Devon Archer, Biden’s business partner, knowing that the transcript wouldn’t be released for days, if at all. It would be foolish for anyone to agree to private testimony before this committee.
If the House should vote to refer Hunter to the DoJ for contempt of Congress, the DoJ still reserves the right to assess the case based on the merits. With Hunter showing up to testify in public, but the committee refusing to hear him, I’d say that this case will never be brought before a jury; reasonable doubt is baked-in.
Just to be clear, if you were on this committee that’s been pursuing the president’s son for blatantly partisan purposes and on which one member has taken a break from getting felt up at a Beetlejuice show to post nudes during the hearing and during which members have been constantly showboating and trying to get their soundbite for Fox News–if this were the committee you were on, you’d be worried Hunter Biden would turn it into a spectacle?
Me, if I were on the Titanic, I’d be wary of ordering a glass of water because I wouldn’t want to get wet.
I know it can be difficult to tell one wingnut from another, but Boebert was the one at Beetlejuice and MTG is the one who is into showing HB porn on the floor of the House.
On the other hand, when I hear the name Nancy Mace I can’t help but picturing Nancy Grace…
Lauren Boebert was the public sex offender (who used to be married to, and just got into a public fight with, another public sex offender). MTG is the one circulating Hunter’s dick pics.
D’oh! My apologies. I made an incorrect claim, and even if I think it’s incidental to the overall point, it is on me to immediately take responsibility. I’ll try to do better going forward. Thanks for the correction!
I’m also curious if the find Hunter in contempt and the DOJ take this to court what the possibility would be the judge could look at this and toss it out saying since he showed up repeatedly willing to testify publicly it’s BS. Any chance that could be an actual thing?
Oh, and for @Sam_Stone I’m still curious about your claims upthread about the House being able to convict Hunter of contempt. You made the claim at least twice. I would love to see a cite that supports the idea the House can convict him or anyone else of anything.
It’s called Inherent Contempt and was last used 90 years ago. The other types of Contempt of Congress proceedings are Criminal Contempt, where a complaint is referred to the DOJ, and Civil Contempt, where a civil suit is filed against the target to compel compliance.
Okay, ignorance fought. Thank you for providing the cite.
But is this what the House is intending to do with Hunter? As they haven’t followed this process in 100 years it seems much more likely the contempt citation would be referred to DOJ, isn’t it?
Yeah, it’s weird that all their attempts to humiliate him keep backfiring. Discovering that he went watersliding nude with hookers really made me reconsider what I’ve been doing with my life.
Cite? As said, the reporting I saw (which I linked to and quoted - the Hill and Reuters, neither of which is non-mainstream) didn’t go into that detail and made it seem that he disappeared while the subject was being debated. I assume that you’re correct but, for the sake of clarity, it’s good to have the cite.
Though, was the question about whether to call him to defend his no-show or to call him to question him about his business history? If the latter then, perhaps, I’d take that as a genuine willingness to answer questions publicly (rather than merely saying that he would answer questions publicly as a better-sounding excuse to get out of it - knowing that the Republicans will refuse - rather than saying that he doesn’t want to do it and that he won’t because he can rely on daddy to get him out of jail). But I’d say that he still doesn’t have any right to make that demand and, not being a member of the President’s cabinet, he has no legal leg to stand on to refuse. He is continuing to commit a crime by rejecting the subpoena and, I assume, relying on nepotism to get out of it.
I’d move my mental mark on him a little bit in the positive direction, but not by a ton.
Now, if the question was whether to call him to offer a legal defense for his no-show, after they’d call him to come and do just that thing, and then they voted not to call him up, then I’ll give him a full pass on leaving. That’s all proper. If there was no vote, yet, on whether to call him to defend his no-show and he disappeared, then he was a no-show on the no-show.
How do you figure? Anyone who would be upset with Hunter making them look like fools, had already made up their mind to vote to convict and ask for the maximum penalty. The only way it could change anyone’s mind is if the sheer level of buffoonery and hypocrisy exhibited by the GOP Congress members goes viral and they find that, for the sake of their reputations, it is in their best interest to bury the whole subpoena thing as quickly and quietly as possible and pretend it never happened.