OK, that’s fair.
There is a very long record of witnesses demanding and often getting a public hearing though when subpoenaed. Which is a whatabout, but a pertinent one. These things are often carefully negotiated.
Jordan thoughts: Goddam representatives remembering stuff for nearly two years.
Don’t blame us for your ignorance. Your cite, that you supplied upthread, states, “Hunter Biden, 53, appeared without notice on Wednesday at the House Oversight Committee’s meeting on the matter, sparking arguments between lawmakers, some of whom scolded him for the surprise.”
Your cite also includes this:
“We have offered to work with the House committees to see what and how relevant information to any legitimate inquiry could be provided,” Lowell said. “Our first five offers were ignored. And then in November, they issued a subpoena for a behind-closed-doors deposition, a tactic that the Republicans have repeatedly misused in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize.”
It’s not as straightforward as subpoena followed by defiance. They have been trying to cooperate with the committee for months. Five times before the subpoena they tried to engage and were ignored. They have been trying to take Comer up on his very public offers. There is no way that defying this bad faith subpoena is a crime.
Maybe no one supplied a cite that met your high standards, but we are not responsible for reading your own cite to you.
It’s not an apriori assumption, it’s my opinion based on the content of your posts.
You have written about how Hunter “thought that he could rely on daddy to save him” and “didn’t demonstrate a willingness to be questioned by Congress”. Strong opinions. And yet your actual understanding of the events of the day and what led up to it has been demonstrated to be very poor.
So yeah, you’re repeating right wing talking points and making up ad hoc defenses when people challenge them e.g. this claim that Hunter walked out before being “dismissed” – completely invented as he was neither summoned to this hearing nor needed to be dismissed. So, no, I don’t think you’re coming at this from a neutral position.
I wonder if we could post an example of this tactic by Jordan or whoever? Maybe that would further the discussion. I’m googling and not exactly having much luck with search terms. “Congressional hearing” yields miles of nonsense.
And then it went on to say that he was invited.
I read it to mean that the author of the news article didn’t expect him to actually show up and/or thought that it was a catchy headline. It didn’t seem to be supported by the actual body of the article.
I generally put more faith in the body than the headline, and more faith in what people on the committee say than what the journalist believes to be the truth of the situation.
Moderating:
I’m going to assume that you forgot what forum you’re in, but in case you need reminding: personal attacks /insults are not allowed in this forum.
Knock it off.
No warning issued.
You mean this?
“The witness accepted the chairman’s invitation. It just so happens the witness is here,” Moskowitz said. “Let’s vote. Let’s take a vote. Who wants to hear from Hunter right now, today?”
Now, what invitation could that be?
It did not say that. It quoted Moskowitz referring to the many times Comer said Hunter Biden was welcome to testify publicly if he so chose.
The headline of the article is, “House Republicans move toward holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress.” The body includes, “Hunter Biden, 53, appeared without notice on Wednesday at the House Oversight Committee’s meeting on the matter, sparking arguments between lawmakers, some of whom scolded him for the surprise.”
I missed this one earlier. The guy who could call a vote did not call a vote. No mind reading required.
To Sage_Rat and Sam_Stone, when Gym Jordan ignored his subpena to testify in front of the J6 committee, If the J6 committee had a hearing to discuss the reprecusions of Gym ignoring that subpena and Gym Jordan was in the audience and said he was ready to be questioned right there and now in a public setting.
What are the chances of the J6 committe declining that offer? I would say there would be ZERO chance of the J6 committee not questioning him right there on the spot.
MtM
You could, clearly, have gone to sleep by now. You have not gone to sleep.
I can thusly say that you will clearly not go to sleep at any point in the next 24 hours? Am I the person who gets to decide when you’ve made up your mind about bedtime? It’s not you who gets to decide that?
Now, let’s imagine a scenario. Alex Jones is wanted for failure to pay his sentencing penalties. No one can find him and he’s been using criminal means to hide his money and there’s a warrant out on him.
The police are running an event to decide how to best catch Jones when, there, in the audience is Jones himself. One of his adherents cries, “Look, it’s Alex Jones, ready to defend himself!” And Alex says, “You rank bastards! You see, I’m here ready to defend myself. No, I still won’t supply the documents that were subpoenaed in my new trial, but I’ll happily give the closing arguments when I win the trial!”
As the onlookers watch on, it’s clear that the police have no intention of stopping their manhunt and setting up a new trial that matches Alex’s demands. The Alex Jones adherent in the audience cries, “Jones, they’re clearly not going to give you your trial! You’re in the right, my leader!”
And Jones runs away while the police are coordinating their moments to encircle him.
So, yes, it’s unlikely that the police were going to accede to Jones’ demands. Nevertheless, Jones’ adherent is not the speaker for the police and the adherents’ statement on the polices’ intentions is not evidence of their intentions. The adherent is just some crazy dude. The logic of the situation - that it would be loopy for the police to go back and retry Jones under Jones’ imposed rules - is the evidence of the police’s likely intentions.
Still not true, no matter how many times you try to state it differently.
Needs more analogy!
Yes and no.
If you’re a regular person, you don’t really have any room to negotiate. You might be able to say that you’ve got a prior commitment of deep personal importance (e.g. holding a big presentation that might get you promoted at work) at a particular time and ask a judge to intervene to give reasonable accommodations. But there’s no real leverage past that.
As a member of the President’s cabinet or as a Congressman, you have various forms of immunity that may be proof against subpoenas. It’s to the committee’s benefit to negotiate terms that are mutually agreeable.
Hunter Biden is not a member of the government, let alone part of the President’s cabinet nor a Congressman. He shouldn’t have any grounds for negotiation and it’s improper for him to act like he does.
I have read no right wing news on the subject. I’ve read Reuters and the Hill and prior discussion about the laws of Congressional subpoenas. If you believe that Hunter has some form of immunity or other legal right to resist a subpoena, that isn’t whataboutism, then you’re free to propose it.
I got a minor detail wrong. I thought that he’d been called to defend himself at a hearing. That has no large impact on the general read of the situation, which you quote and I’m not seeing it as a grave oversight. It was wrong. It’s an honest mistake and one of little overall importance.
You’re free to defend the idea that Hunter has some form of immunity against the subpoena that has no nepotistic link. Likewise, you’re free to demonstrate the point where he did, factually, answer questions before Congress. At the moment, I’m strong on those opinions because they seem to be strong. If you show that he did answer questions or you show some legal basis for him to resist the subpoena, which he used the law to seek (e.g. asking a judge to intercede), then I’ll change those opinions.
Why are you weak on those opinions?
Nobody said that. He has multiple times been denied the chance to do so. Instead they want to talk to him behind closed doors away from anyone’s scrutiny.
And everyone has immunity from an invalid subpoena. It’s like this:
-
Congress issues a subpoena,
-
Person says no, that’s crap.
-
Congress sends it over to the DOJ to prosecute.
-
DOJ says no, that’s crap.
The end.
Will it turn out that way this time? I don’t know. Maybe we’ll find out.
That is up to Merrick Garland, based on his perusal of the law. And minus any immunity or other argument, I’m not seeing how he chooses to do anything but charge Hunter.
Saying that there is a law that the DOJ can use doesn’t make one pop into existence.
Like I said, we might find out.
Who gives a shit about the next 24 hours? He was being asked call a vote right then and there. “Let’s vote. Let’s take a vote. Who wants to hear from Hunter right now, today?” One can conclude that he didn’t want to call a vote right then and there by the fact that he didn’t call a vote right then and there.
We don’t need analogies to understand what happened when we can just look at what happened.
That quote is from your cite by the way.
“But Hunter’s refusal to be in the room while the woman who has repeatedly showed his dong speaks means he ran away!”
He definitely won’t charge Hunter. He may, and it may even be more likely than not, hand it off to David Weiss, the special prosecutor on the Hunter Biden case.
This is not something Weiss will like because Comer has already done so much damage to his prosecution of Biden.