Hunter Biden appears at own contempt hearing...then leaves in a hurry

The House Oversight Committee has the most power in the House. More than the Pelosi Commission had.

On December 13, Hunter Biden failed to comply with the deposition subpoenas relevant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry and the Committees’ oversight investigations.

this is dirrectly from the House Oversight Committee. Not MSNBC. Not WaPo.

Link

a reply to: matafuchs

How does not saying anything have something to do with freedom of speech?

and how does turning up to a court case in which you are involved, contravene US laws?

I also seem to recall Trump being subpoenaed by Congress a few times, and not attending. Shouldn't the same rules apply?

and also, it's Breitbart.

a reply to: KrustyKrab

Correct. Thank you for stating that. The left wants a public # show where they can just say

Trump did this
Trump did that
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump

Evey single public meeting is like that.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

The DOJ has the authority to decide whether or not they are going to prosecute anyone. In this case, their standing protocol is that any subpoena issued before a full House vote is held to authorize an impeachment inquiry is invalid.

and yet, it seems they are heading that way. Does the oversight committee have any sway, or are they just another bunch of nobodies?

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hunter consistently claims he would appear in a public hearing, but not behind closed doors. The Republican have been completely unwilling to negotiate with Hunter on this.

And there’s a damn good reason for that, do you know???

No. Is there? What is their reason for not letting Hunter Biden answer their question publicly?

Because in a public forum it would allow democrats to run interference and draw out the questioning, so fewer questions could be asked. Republicans have a lot of questions that they want answered, well over a hundred from what I heard. The only way for that to happen is in a private setting. That’s why they don’t want it public.

That doesn't track.

First of all, you've got guys in this thread saying that the Jan 6th Committee wasn't valid because it didn't seat enough, good, Republicans on the Committee. Now you're telling me that the hearing needs to be behind closed doors so that Democrats can't ask a bunch of questions that Republicans don't want asked?

Second, everyone gets so much time. Sometimes reps give their time to someone else so that a complete argument can be made and heard. Both sides can and do do it

I want it public. Inquiring minds want to know. I would think Republicans would be happy to have the opportunity to publicly humiliate Hunter Biden.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not sure you can just dictate your terms when you have a congressional subpoena.

I know when Steve Bannon said he didn't want to come, they got salty, and then when he said he would come talk in a public forum, they didn't take him up on it.
link to totally biased alt right conspiracy site

Steve Bannon – who defied a congressional subpoena and is set to go to trial on criminal contempt charges – told the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection on Saturday that he is now willing to testify, ideally at a public hearing, according to a letter obtained by CNN.

Bannon’s reversal comes after he received a letter from former President Donald Trump waiving executive privilege, although both the House select committee and federal prosecutors contend that privilege claim never gave Bannon carte blanche to ignore a congressional subpoena in the first place.

BTW, do you have any concerns at all about the prosecutors in NY and GA meeting with White House council before the charges, or do you have some way to spin that around?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I would think Republicans would be happy to have the opportunity to publicly humiliate Hunter Biden.

Oh I think Hunter has done pretty good with that by himself.
But like everyone that leans Democrat, he doesn’t have any morals or a conscience to feel humiliation or embarrassment.

a reply to: RickyD

Voluntary sure, but coercive.

So yeah, you have free speech unless you sign a contract for money and agree to be mum. Regardless of what you might speak about. Yes it's legal and yes it's voluntary and yes designed as a trap to entice people to censor themselves. Why make a law against free speech if you can pay someone enough to do it themsleves.

It's the history of business all along. Don't bit the hand that feeds you. My father taught me that long ago and it is an unwritten rule that stymies reform.

a reply to: matafuchs

The Committee was passed with a near super-majority.

The Senate didn't vote on it.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You are conveinetly leaving the part out which stipulated how many of each partys members the bill said must be on the committee as well as who picks who. Nothing in that bill gave pelosi the power to choose for the republicans or to change the number of representitives from the republican side.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: RickyD

Voluntary sure, but coercive.

So yeah, you have free speech unless you sign a contract for money and agree to be mum. Regardless of what you might speak about. Yes it's legal and yes it's voluntary and yes designed as a trap to entice people to censor themselves. Why make a law against free speech if you can pay someone enough to do it themsleves.

It's the history of business all along. Don't bit the hand that feeds you. My father taught me that long ago and it is an unwritten rule that stymies reform.

I think I can solve this one for you pretty fast. If you think you are going to want to talk about something, don't make a deal and sign an NDA. Then you are free to speak all you like.

Of course (something you obviously don't grasp) even then, you can talk about it all you like, but there may be legal ramifications due to accepting money for something, then going back on your deal. It's almost as if, you have the right to say anything you like, but you don't have the right to be immune from the fallout for doing so.

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

If its voluntary then no amount of mental gymnastics will change that. So by your own words it is not censorship it is agreement between 2 parties...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hunter consistently claims he would appear in a public hearing, but not behind closed doors. The Republican have been completely unwilling to negotiate with Hunter on this.

And there’s a damn good reason for that, do you know???

No. Is there? What is their reason for not letting Hunter Biden answer their question publicly?

Because in a public forum it would allow democrats to run interference and draw out the questioning, so fewer questions could be asked. Republicans have a lot of questions that they want answered, well over a hundred from what I heard. The only way for that to happen is in a private setting. That’s why they don’t want it public.

That doesn't track.

First of all, you've got guys in this thread are saying that the Jan 6th Committee wasn't valid because it didn't enough, good, Republicans on the Committee. Now you're telling me that the hearing needs to be behind closed doors so that Democrats can't ask a bunch of questions that Republicans don't want asked?

Second, everyone gets so much time. Sometimes reps give their time to someone else so that a complete argument can be made and heard. Both sides can and do do it

I want it public. Inquiring minds want to know. I would think Republicans would be happy to have the opportunity to publicly humiliate Hunter Biden.

Where did I ever say anything about democrats asking questions republicans don’t want asked? I said running interference, there’s a difference. There’s a lot more questions that can be asked in private vs a handful in public. Has nothing to do with publicly humiliating Hunter, has everything to do with gathering more information against Hunter. Why do you think Hunter doesn’t even want it to be private??? The less they know the better off he is.

This is not just some theory I came up with sook, it’s fact. It might not “track” with you but it’s a well known strategy in government law.

a reply to: RickyD

The select committee consists of 13 Members of the House appointed by the Speaker; 5 must be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

The Speaker had the authority to appoint all members. Five had to be picked after consulting with the minority leader. Nothing stipulates Pelosi had to choose a certain amount from each Party or use McCarthy's recommendations.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not sure you can just dictate your terms when you have a congressional subpoena.

Trump's team and his loyalists sure did. They negotiated the hell out of their input. It wasn't that long ago, your memory shouldn't be that short.

Steve Bannon – who defied a congressional subpoena and is set to go to trial on criminal contempt charges

I think Hunter would win if his contempt charge went to trial. So I say, bring it on.

And, Hunter Biden is a bloviated, loudmouth, radio/podcast public figure. Hunter Biden never did anything to ask for the spotlight he was thrown into. He isn't a public figure, at least not by choice.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RickyD

The select committee consists of 13 Members of the House appointed by the Speaker; 5 must be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

The Speaker had the authority to appoint all members. Five had to be picked after consulting with the minority leader. Nothing stipulates Pelosi had to choose a certain amount from each Party or use McCarthy's recommendations.

it's cute that you want to argue this one, but the perception is that it was s total con job, with only lefties and Trump haters in the seats. Whatever you think it was, it wasn't. Those on the right found it to be a joke with a really bad punchline. Kind of why they didn't move the needle for anyone but the idiot left who sucked their toes anyway. Basically, it was a waste of time, and I hope a new one is commissioned, and this time, they have TRUE bi-partisan members, and the lefties who are there, will be forced to hear the uncomfortable truths that exist. But it's not up to me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

I'm not sure you can just dictate your terms when you have a congressional subpoena.

Trump's team and his loyalists sure did. They negotiated the hell out of their input. It wasn't that long ago, your memory shouldn't be that short.

Steve Bannon – who defied a congressional subpoena and is set to go to trial on criminal contempt charges

I think Hunter would win if his contempt charge went to trial. So I say, bring it on.

And, Hunter Biden is a bloviated, loudmouth, radio/podcast public figure. Hunter Biden never did anything to ask for the spotlight he was thrown into. He isn't a public figure, at least not by choice.

Hunter (while I agree, he's a loudmouth as you said here) used his daddy's name and favors to fuel his coke addiction. He brought all of this on himself. I expect you have always been supportive of Trump's children as well?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RickyD

This resolution establishes in the House of Representatives the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

The select committee must (1) conduct an investigation of the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the attack on the Capitol; (2) identify, review, and evaluate the causes of and the lessons learned from this attack; and (3) submit a report containing findings, conclusions, and recommendations to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, and to improve the security of the U.S. Capitol Complex and other American democratic institutions.

The select committee consists of 13 Members of the House appointed by the Speaker; 5 must be appointed after consultation with the minority leader. The resolution gives the select committee specified powers, including the authority to hold hearings, receive evidence, and issue subpoenas. It also requires other House committees to share relevant records with the select committee within 14 days of the resolution's adoption or receipt of such records.

Pelosi consulted with McCarthy. He wanted to put people on the committee that he knew would be included as part of the investigation (ie Jordan) so she rejected his suggestions.

Only partly correct.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hunter already has jail time coming. He obviosly doesnt want additional years added.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Meh. If Biden loses the election, he can pardon Hunter on the way out. If he wins the election, he can pardon Hunter on inauguration day!