Biden Investigations

[Ann]

 

[Ann]

This really is spitting in the face of Congress. Why wasn't he arrested?
 

 

 

 

 

[Ann]

 

[Cinga]

22 minutes ago, Ann said:

 

 

That was their chance to have the House Sgt of Arms arrest him and slap him in the jail in the Congressional Dungeon until he decided to sit for the deposition. I know there is no longer a jail there but perhaps they could find a cloak closet or something to hold him in and dare Joe to interfere with Congressional Oversight and try to get him out

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

 

That was their chance to have the House Sgt of Arms arrest him and slap him in the jail in the Congressional Dungeon until he decided to sit for the deposition. I know there is no longer a jail there but perhaps they could find a cloak closet or something to hold him in and dare Joe to interfere with Congressional Oversight and try to get him out

 

What?  And spoil the theater?  

 

You know Congressional hearings aren't serious work.  They're just opportunities for sound bytes.  Mace got hers.

[Ann]

19 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

That was their chance to have the House Sgt of Arms arrest him and slap him in the jail in the Congressional Dungeon until he decided to sit for the deposition. I know there is no longer a jail there but perhaps they could find a cloak closet or something to hold him in and dare Joe to interfere with Congressional Oversight and try to get him out

For those wondering (stolen from another site)

Under McGrain v. Daugherty, the House Sergeant at Arms has that statutory and constitutional power to arrest and seize a witness and hold them.

[Foxx]

45 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

That was their chance to have the House Sgt of Arms arrest him and slap him in the jail in the Congressional Dungeon until he decided to sit for the deposition. I know there is no longer a jail there but perhaps they could find a cloak closet or something to hold him in and dare Joe to interfere with Congressional Oversight and try to get him out

Me thinks they would have to find him in contempt and then give him a time frame to either comply or surrender before they could outright arrest him.

[Cinga]

40 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Me thinks they would have to find him in contempt and then give him a time frame to either comply or surrender before they could outright arrest him.

 

That might be the case if it were the executive branch but if it's the legislature they don't have the ability to go out and fill a warrant for Hunter arrest let alone the ability to file for an warrant. So they're only option would be to arrest him when he is on site. Thus the difference between Execute the law, and Legislate the law. 

Simply put as I've said before, this entire Biden fiasco has expose a flaw in our Constitution as they never imagined the depth of corruption we see today in Biden. There is no way in hell he is going to arrest himself, or anyone within his sphere, especially his own son. And that doesn't even take into account his prosecution of his biggest political opponent AND any of his allies he can get his hands on

[Ann]

The Judiciary Committee voted 23-14 along party lines to hold Hunter Biden in contempt for defying their subpoena. The Oversight committee was expected to vote later on Wednesday. The full House will now consider the resolution, which recommends the Justice Department pursue criminal charges against Hunter Biden.

[Hedge]

6 hours ago, Ann said:

 

 

 

[devnull]

5 hours ago, Ann said:

For those wondering (stolen from another site)

Under McGrain v. Daugherty, the House Sergeant at Arms has that statutory and constitutional power to arrest and seize a witness and hold them.

 

The power, yes

 

The balls, no

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

34 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

That's a wikipedia reference to the movie and a single Trump indictment for computer fraud away from being a hard, cold, incontrovertible fact.

[Foxx]

They should rethink it but they won't

 

[Ann]

Pfffft so what if it is an ethics violation? 

 

Biden warned to stop bringing big donors to Oval Office

 

President Biden was advised last year by the White House Counsel office that giving big-dollar donors tours of the Oval Office might raise legal issues and he has since stopped the practice, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

</snip>

 

* The donor outreach has caused some concern in the White House Counsel's office, which has allowed the lunches and dinners to proceed with clear restrictions, including on where the meals can take place and who can attend.
* Biden has been known to show the Oval Office to many of his guests, but he decided to stop including an Oval tour for donors early in the campaign after issues were raised by the counsel's office. The exclusive briefings and meals are expected to continue.
* In order to comply with ethics laws, the donors are not directly solicited for donations and events are required to take place in either the White House map room, the old family dining room or the tennis pavilion on the ground's south lawn.
* The Washington Post reported earlier Wednesday on the meals.

 

</snip>

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Ann said:

Pfffft so what if it is an ethics violation? 

 

Biden warned to stop bringing big donors to Oval Office

 

President Biden was advised last year by the White House Counsel office that giving big-dollar donors tours of the Oval Office might raise legal issues and he has since stopped the practice, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

</snip>

 

* The donor outreach has caused some concern in the White House Counsel's office, which has allowed the lunches and dinners to proceed with clear restrictions, including on where the meals can take place and who can attend.
* Biden has been known to show the Oval Office to many of his guests, but he decided to stop including an Oval tour for donors early in the campaign after issues were raised by the counsel's office. The exclusive briefings and meals are expected to continue.
* In order to comply with ethics laws, the donors are not directly solicited for donations and events are required to take place in either the White House map room, the old family dining room or the tennis pavilion on the ground's south lawn.
* The Washington Post reported earlier Wednesday on the meals.

 

</snip>

 

Probably inviting them there to buy suspiciously overpriced family artwork...

[Ann]

Hunter Biden says he’ll speak to House committee on dad’s impeachment inquiry — under this condition

 

Hunter Biden caved Friday and agreed to sit for a deposition in the House impeachment inquiry into his father — moving to avoid a vote as soon as next week to hold him in contempt of Congress.

 

Hunter, 53, waved a white flag in a letter to Congress from his attorney Abbe Lowell.

 

“If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a hearing or deposition. We will accept such a subpoena on Mr. Biden’s behalf,” Lowell wrote.

 

</snip>

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

17 minutes ago, Ann said:

Hunter Biden says he’ll speak to House committee on dad’s impeachment inquiry — under this condition

 

Hunter Biden caved Friday and agreed to sit for a deposition in the House impeachment inquiry into his father — moving to avoid a vote as soon as next week to hold him in contempt of Congress.

 

Hunter, 53, waved a white flag in a letter to Congress from his attorney Abbe Lowell.

 

“If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a hearing or deposition. We will accept such a subpoena on Mr. Biden’s behalf,” Lowell wrote.

 

</snip>

 

"Your original subpoena was invalid since there wasn't an active inquiry."

 

&#%$ing bullshit.  Congress has virtually unlimited subpoena power.  Technically, they don't even need a reason beyond "we want to talk to you."  A private citizen can't decide whether a Congressional subpoena is valid or not.  Hell, even the President can't decide that - you never hear them argue "the subpoena isn't valid," you hear them claim executive privilege.

 

(is Hunter a private citizen or part of the executive branch today? I lost track.)

[devnull]

22 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

is Hunter a private citizen or part of the executive branch today? I lost track.

 

[Ann]

In a new court filing today, the DOJ confirms Hunter Biden’s laptop is real, that he left it at a computer store, and that the contents matched what they obtained from a search warrant of his iCloud. 

Don’t hold your breath for a retraction from Joe Biden (“It’s a Russian plant”), the #Dirty51 or myriad dishonest media operatives. They blamed Russia when the Bidens knew it was Hunter - and so did the FBI.
Hunter also blamed Russia when he was caught using adultery site Ashley Madison.

 

 

 

Oh, and none of this would have come to light or been prosecuted if it were not for the integrity of two IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler - who remain employed by the IRS where they currently are being retaliated against.

At least, unlike what the FBI does to whistleblowers, the IRS has not suspended them without pay. 




 

[Ann]

I thought attorney-client privilege was no more? Oh wait, that only applies to Trump. Silly me. 


 

Kevin Morris invoked attorney privilege at least 17 times to avoid questions about Hunter Biden
Morris loaned Hunter Biden at least $5 million and purchased over $800K worth of artwork to keep the first son afloat during his father’s presidential campaign.
 

</snip>

 

Morris’ early representation of Hunter Biden allowed him to invoke the privilege frequently, to avoid answering questions about his first meeting with the first son, how he paid Hunter Biden’s other attorneys and about the planning for Hunter Biden’s defiant speech in front of the Capitol while avoiding complying with his first congressional subpoena.

 

Specifically, Morris attempted to invoke the privilege regarding his acquisition of one of Hunter Biden's companies after Joe Biden's inauguration. Additionally, he denied claims that he was motivated by political concerns to help the first son solve his tax issues and stay afloat during his father's campaign, which was indicated by evidence from the IRS whistleblowers last year. 

 

</snip>

 

According to the transcript, Morris claimed that his legal representation of Hunter Biden was “global and complete” and therefore argued that almost any detail of their relationship is off limits to congressional investigators. Yet despite this, Morris told the committee that he had not represented Hunter directly in the past three years.

 

In one example, Morris refused to answer how much in loans he provided to Hunter Biden to pay his legal fees.

“So have you paid millions of dollars for Hunter Biden’s legal fees via loans?” an investigator asked.

 

“Mr. Morris only knows that from his attorney-client relationship with Mr. Biden and consequently cannot answer that question,” Morris’ lawyer answered.

 

</snip>