Hunter Biden’s Contempt of Congress Has Wider Consequences

[Doc7505]

The truth is that the Darkwind has no idea of what he is talking about.

~~~~~~
Garland sold his soul to the DNCCP Democrats. It's apparent every tome he is required to present himself to Congress.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Doc7505 has sold himself to MAGA, the anti-thesis of all that is good in American virtues

 

[Donald H]

The Dims former attorney general was held in contempt of Congress. Of course, our DOJ didn’t lift a finger.

Corruption and rot to the core my friend!

 

[BackAgain]

Corruption and rot to the core my friend!

Yep. The Potato DOJ IS corrupted and rotten to the core.

You ain’t a friend, you idiot Canuck commie fuck.

 

[gmeyers1944]

There is no evidence despite all of the yammering and hearings, now, is there?

There is no evidence until there are investigations and leftists won't allow investigation.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hunter Biden’s Contempt of Congress Has Wider Consequences​

Hunter Biden's Contempt of Congress Has Wider Consequences

Hunter has opened a new potential front for prosecution

themessenger.com

14 Dec 2023 ~~ By Jonathan Turley

Congress is often a theater of the absurd, from Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) pulling a fire alarm before a major vote to former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) being, well, a member of Congress at all. However, none of that compares to what unfolded on Wednesday as Hunter Biden stood outside Congress and defied a subpoena as being "beyond the absurd." What happens next could be even more bizarre.
Hunter was under a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to appear for testimony. As I previously wrote, he had two choices: He could appear and either testify or invoke his right to remain silent. The only thing that he could not do is what he did — just refuse to go into the hearing room. Yet, there he was, with counsel Abbe Lowell by his side, holding forth with a public press conference while refusing to appear in the closed-door deposition being held in the building behind him.
By staying on the Senate side of the Capitol, Hunter guaranteed that the House sergeant at arms did not pull him into the hearing room. Ironically, that would have been a better option than his blowing a raspberry at the committee and then speeding away.
Many pundits immediately claimed this was a clever move because the subpoena was not really enforceable until the House voted on the formal impeachment inquiry a few hours later.
I disagree. As I noted in my testimony in the first impeachment inquiry, there is no requirement for a formal vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry. Indeed, that is precisely what then-majority Democrats did with the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. While I encouraged the House to hold a formal vote on the inquiry, it is not constitutionally required.
~Snip~
In this instance, the contempt case would go to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., Matthew Graves, who previously declined to assist in bringing tax charges against the president's son. Yet by pulling a Bannon, Hunter now faces the expectation in many circles that he will get the full Bannon treatment from Garland.
There is another possible cost to this move. Fox News quoted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying that President Biden “was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” which suggests that the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt and discussed his statement. If that is true, it was a breathtaking mistake. One of the four most obvious potential articles of impeachment that I laid out in my prior testimony was obstruction. There already are questions over special treatment potentially being given to Hunter in the form of alleged felonies being allowed to expire, warnings about planned federal raids, and sweetheart deals.
In addition, President Biden has enlisted White House staff to actively push challenged accounts of his conduct and attack the House Republicans’ investigative process. Such acts could legally bootstrap prior misconduct into his presidency under abuse-of-power allegations.
~Snip~
Hunter, however, just tripped another wire that could seriously complicate matters not just himself but for his father. Perhaps that is why, when dramatist-scholar Martin Julius Esslin devised the term "theater of the absurd," he described it as "part reality and part nightmare.”


Commentary:
Good analysis by Turley.
Is there a chance Garland is going to prosecute Hunter? Any expert opinions?
Obviously from his actions, Merrick Garland is a bought and paid for DNCCP operative.
Whatever happened to the “bipartisan” and “crossing the aisle” that the Dems are always carrying on about?
I don’t think Hunter is in any legal trouble at all. If we were dealing with an apolitical justice system, yes, he would be. But we clearly are not.
It has become obvious that the DBCCP has created a two tier Justice system.
If Hunter were charged with contempt of Congress, the trial would be held in the District of Columbia. It would take less than 4 hours for a D.C. jury to acquit him.
Then there’s the Big Guy’s pardon. The left and the press (but I repeat myself) will heap praise upon a loving father sparing his politically victimized son (his only living son!) from having a criminal record. After all, Hunter is the smartest man Biden knows, an accomplished artist and a recovering addict.

Is this the same hearing where Biden was offered by the Repubs the choice of an open or closed hearing and he chose open, and he chose open, only for the Repubs to reneg? That hearing? The Repubs looked like idiots.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There is no evidence until there are investigations and leftists won't allow investigation.

You people have done 100s of investigations, but your allegations just don't hold up.

 

[gmeyers1944]

You people have done 100s of investigations, but your allegations just don't hold up.

Correction: We have tried to investigate many times but the investigations always got shut down.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Correction: We have tried to investigate many times but the investigations always got shut down.

No, the investigations came up with no credible evidence that Courts could accept.

You claims were false.

 

[busybee01]

Hunter Biden’s Contempt of Congress Has Wider Consequences​

Hunter Biden's Contempt of Congress Has Wider Consequences

Hunter has opened a new potential front for prosecution

themessenger.com

14 Dec 2023 ~~ By Jonathan Turley

Congress is often a theater of the absurd, from Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) pulling a fire alarm before a major vote to former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) being, well, a member of Congress at all. However, none of that compares to what unfolded on Wednesday as Hunter Biden stood outside Congress and defied a subpoena as being "beyond the absurd." What happens next could be even more bizarre.
Hunter was under a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to appear for testimony. As I previously wrote, he had two choices: He could appear and either testify or invoke his right to remain silent. The only thing that he could not do is what he did — just refuse to go into the hearing room. Yet, there he was, with counsel Abbe Lowell by his side, holding forth with a public press conference while refusing to appear in the closed-door deposition being held in the building behind him.
By staying on the Senate side of the Capitol, Hunter guaranteed that the House sergeant at arms did not pull him into the hearing room. Ironically, that would have been a better option than his blowing a raspberry at the committee and then speeding away.
Many pundits immediately claimed this was a clever move because the subpoena was not really enforceable until the House voted on the formal impeachment inquiry a few hours later.
I disagree. As I noted in my testimony in the first impeachment inquiry, there is no requirement for a formal vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry. Indeed, that is precisely what then-majority Democrats did with the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. While I encouraged the House to hold a formal vote on the inquiry, it is not constitutionally required.
~Snip~
In this instance, the contempt case would go to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., Matthew Graves, who previously declined to assist in bringing tax charges against the president's son. Yet by pulling a Bannon, Hunter now faces the expectation in many circles that he will get the full Bannon treatment from Garland.
There is another possible cost to this move. Fox News quoted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying that President Biden “was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” which suggests that the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt and discussed his statement. If that is true, it was a breathtaking mistake. One of the four most obvious potential articles of impeachment that I laid out in my prior testimony was obstruction. There already are questions over special treatment potentially being given to Hunter in the form of alleged felonies being allowed to expire, warnings about planned federal raids, and sweetheart deals.
In addition, President Biden has enlisted White House staff to actively push challenged accounts of his conduct and attack the House Republicans’ investigative process. Such acts could legally bootstrap prior misconduct into his presidency under abuse-of-power allegations.
~Snip~
Hunter, however, just tripped another wire that could seriously complicate matters not just himself but for his father. Perhaps that is why, when dramatist-scholar Martin Julius Esslin devised the term "theater of the absurd," he described it as "part reality and part nightmare.”


Commentary:
Good analysis by Turley.
Is there a chance Garland is going to prosecute Hunter? Any expert opinions?
Obviously from his actions, Merrick Garland is a bought and paid for DNCCP operative.
Whatever happened to the “bipartisan” and “crossing the aisle” that the Dems are always carrying on about?
I don’t think Hunter is in any legal trouble at all. If we were dealing with an apolitical justice system, yes, he would be. But we clearly are not.
It has become obvious that the DBCCP has created a two tier Justice system.
If Hunter were charged with contempt of Congress, the trial would be held in the District of Columbia. It would take less than 4 hours for a D.C. jury to acquit him.
Then there’s the Big Guy’s pardon. The left and the press (but I repeat myself) will heap praise upon a loving father sparing his politically victimized son (his only living son!) from having a criminal record. After all, Hunter is the smartest man Biden knows, an accomplished artist and a recovering addict.

Typical nonsense by Trump toady Jonathan Turley. There is a huge difference between Bannon and Hunter Biden. Bannon refused to testify. Hunter Biden said he will testify publicly. Hunter Biden is not refusing to testify. Republicans wanted Hunter Biden to be charged and that will come back to bite Republicans. It gives him a legal excuse. The only bout and paid Republican operative is Jonathan Turdley.

 

[Lesh]

John Turdley ignores all the Trumpers who have ignored subpoenas

Or the fact that Biden said he would testify in PUBLIC and actually showed up and was ignored

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

At the risk of sounding like a Hunter defender, which I’d hate to be, I will still say this about contempt of Congress:

He could have and should have simply replied to the subpoena: “upon advice of counsel, I hereby decline to comply with the subpoena on the basis of my fifth amendment rights.” Then the Congress couldn’t legally try to cite him for “contempt.”

If that isn’t the legal advice he got from his lawyers, then im wondering why not? The font is the advice he got from his lawyers, then why the he’ll wouldn’t he have listened?

He cannot invoke his 5th amendment rights "by mail". he has to appear because he may answer questions that do not violate his rights. Failing to appear indicates guilt.

 

[gmeyers1944]

No, the investigations came up with no credible evidence that Courts could accept.

You claims were false.

You are wrong! It was biased judges who would not allow evidence of fraud to be presented which is the problem.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, the investigations came up with no credible evidence that Courts could accept.

You claims were false.

gmeyers1944 You are wrong! It was biased judges who would not allow evidence of fraud to be presented which is the problem.​

Jesus bears witness to the truth of my claims. Trump is the Orange Anti-Christ of our times.

 

[BackAgain]

He cannot invoke his 5th amendment rights "by mail". he has to appear because he may answer questions that do not violate his rights. Failing to appear indicates guilt.

He can show up. Then he invokes the 5th. Probably time and time again.

He won’t answer any questions at all.

Well, that is what he will do if his lawyers are smart and if he listens.

 

[Doc7505]

No, the investigations came up with no credible evidence that Courts could accept.

You claims were false.

~~~~~~
If that is the case, why did Hunter plead guilty and was ready to accept the sweetheart plea deal that would have exempted from all crimes past, present and future?

Hunter Biden: what happened with his plea deal and why?

Joe Biden’s son unexpectedly pleaded not guilty to tax and gun charges after judge raised questions over plea agreement

www.theguardian.com

**********​

Did Hunter Biden get a sweetheart deal? How these cases play out with other defendants

Some legal experts say being the president's son, with the nation's eyes watching, may have precluded Hunter Biden from a sweetheart deal.

www.usatoday.com

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Hunter has nothing to do with the false claims of the steal or with Trump's criminal actions

 

[busybee01]

Correction: We have tried to investigate many times but the investigations always got shut down.

They have been shut down because of a lack of evidence.

 

[busybee01]

You are wrong! It was biased judges who would not allow evidence of fraud to be presented which is the problem.

Judges are not grand juries. Plaintiffs have to find evidence of which there was none.

 

[busybee01]

He cannot invoke his 5th amendment rights "by mail". he has to appear because he may answer questions that do not violate his rights. Failing to appear indicates guilt.

No it does not. He has said that he would testify publicly.