That is not a motion. So no motion was made?
I’m begging the board: Please do not indulge the nonsense that has already polluted this thread.
Watch the video and let us know.
Much of the argument in the letter is that the subpoena to testify was not valid because the house had not yet voted on an impeachment inquiry (a standard that I believe the republicans set).
But now that this has been done, Hunter is willing to testify.
Well said!
Of note therein:
The November 8 and 9, 2023 Subpoenas Are Legally Invalid As Issued Before An Impeachment Resolution
Rather than accepting Mr. Biden’s offer to voluntarily sit for a public hearing,[5] you are now seeking to have the full House find him in contempt based on subpoenas for a deposition that you issued on November 8 and 9, 2023. I write to make you aware (if you are not already) that your subpoenas were and are legally invalid and cannot form a legal basis to proceed with your misdirected and impermissible contempt resolution. And you two, of all people, should know that is the case.
Your 2023 Subpoenas Suffer the Same Infirmity as Those You Objected To in 2019
On November 8 and 9, 2023, history repeated itself. You noticed an impeachment deposition a month before an impeachment inquiry vote was held to authorize such a deposition. Astonishingly, the sequence of events was the same as 2019. Almost four years to the day that Speaker Pelosi made her statement authorizing impeachment-based subpoenas before a House resolution authorized them, it was now Speaker Kevin McCarthy who, despite criticizing his predecessor for trying to do the same thing, did the same thing.
Why? Can’t someone who has seen it just say yes or no?
There is a bit of a difference though. The J6th committee might have a legitimate interest in having a secret hearing prior to a public hearing, because it’s possible that some aspect of the testimony of a member of Congress might touch on a real national security issue.
But Hunter Biden is being questioned about his private business dealings. If any of his business dealings touched on a real national security issue (like President Biden taking bribes from a foreign source), well, those things are already known to the enemies of the United States, and there’s no downside to them being revealed to the people of the Unite States.
The only reason to keep it secret is so that the Republicans can lie about what was said, as they already have in other cases of testifying in front of these committees.
Hunter’s concern is real, and legitimate. The GOP members of the committee? Not so much.
It’s obvious that you’re looking for some parliamentary procedure gotcha. I’m not going to build your straw man for you.
How ridiculous. So you can blow off a hearing where you were supposed to testify under oath in private, then just randomly show up at a different one, in public, with no warning and demand that any questions they have be asked right there and then, with no prep. What a joke. And how privileged he must feel to believe that he can set the rules like that and get treatment no one else gets.
Hunter’s behaviour is the very definition of contempt. The only reason he showed up at all was to collect footage for his fucking movie. He had a camera crew with him, and the guy making it. He’s using the Committee as a prop for B-Roll.
In the meantime, his art dealer admits under oath that Hunter knew most of the people who were buying his paintings (70%), and they were all loyal Democratic donors. One refused to buy his paintings until Joe was elected president, then coughed up big money.
The art dealer also says that he knew nothing of the vaunted secrecy agreement that would protect the American people from the sales being used for political influence, he signed no such agreement, and that he got a 40% commission. He said he’s never done art deals like that before.
Oh, and Hunter’s ‘sugar daddy’ lawyer Kevin Morris, who has given Hunter millions and is making his hagiography, bought one of Hunter’s paintings for $875,000. He was sitting beside Hunter at the hearing.
Hunter Biden didn’t demand shit. Everything that follows from this faulty assumption is fatally flawed.
Indeed, good joke, because it bears no relationship to reality. Good absurdist humor.
Hunter was asked to testify privately or publicly, and did show up previously, as well as stating he was available any time. He made no “demand”, just made himself available for questions once again.
Really this thread is driving me nuts. The contortions, and pretending / refusing to be aware of basic details, required to claim Hunter is the one acting in bad faith, is astonishing and infuriating.
There’s a lot of President Biden hate masquerading as “Rule of law! Who does he think he is!” concern, IMO. If this were Hunter Smith, accused of the same things, nobody would give a shit. His last name just provides an opportunity to manufacture corrupt political bullshit, based on nothing.
Per DOJ* – if the summons is legally invalid, yes.
*Granted, that page specifically refers to DOJ employees but an invalid summons is an invalid summons.
He did not. DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel did, in 2020, when Barr was in charge.
the “subpoena first, impeachment inquiry resolution second” approach taken then and being attempted now was and is improper, and that a legal contempt proceeding could not and cannot be based on that sequence. It is telling that in their 19 pages and 117 footnotes, your committees’ January 10, 2024, contempt reports seeking to provide a legal basis for your actions never once mention the OLC opinion. That opinion states:
“The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct
an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation
before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in
support of the House’s power of impeachment.”[13]
This is a factually incorrect statement.
The claim is that Hunter knew
70% of the value of his art is not 70% of his purchasers.
Additionally…
But why such confusion? Perhaps it’s because this was done behind closed doors, so we are only getting secondhand reports. Maybe if this questioning had been done out in the open, earnest men like @Sam_Stone wouldn’t be making such mistakes.
Forget it Jake. It’s Republican-town.
Just a gentle reminder of what a person can do under these circumstances:
Do you really expect anyone to believe your uncited claims, about Hunter or anyone else? I certainly don’t. If you expect someone to take your claims seriously, then cite each one.
My god! People who want to buy art done by Hunter Biden are rich people who like Democrats! Next thing you are going to tell me that most of the people who bought Air Jordan’s were basketball fans.
While ensuring that each cite actually supports your claims.