Top Republican floats contempt of Congress vote against Hunter Biden

Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) is pressing for a closed-door deposition with the president's son, whose lawyers are countering with a public testimony offer.

The House could hold Hunter Biden in contempt if he refuses to appear behind closed doors as part of a sweeping investigation into President Joe Biden, Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) warned on Wednesday.

“He’s been subpoenaed. We expect him to show up. They don’t get to make the rules,” Comer said in a brief interview with POLITICO.

Asked what the next step would be if Hunter Biden does not meet with his panel, Comer added: “I would expect Congress to hold the president’s son in contempt.”

And Comer and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) formalized that contempt threat in a letter to Hunter Biden's legal team on Wednesday afternoon, writing that if Hunter Biden does not appear on Dec. 13 for a deposition, "the Committees will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings."

Comer and Hunter Biden’s legal team are locked in a standoff over the latter’s requested appearance before the Oversight Committee. While the Oversight chief subpoenaed Hunter Biden to appear for a closed-door deposition, Abbe Lowell, an attorney for the president’s son, instead offered public testimony.

House Republicans rejected that offer; Comer hasn’t ruled out eventual public testimony by Hunter Biden, however, as long as he meets with the committee privately first.

Typically, House panels insist on a private deposition before allowing a public appearance. The Jan. 6 select committee denied several requests by high-profile potential witnesses to testify publicly, including one from Donald Trump ally Rudy Giuliani.

Lowell, in a letter to Comer sent on Wednesday, doubled down on his offer that Hunter Biden would appear before the committee for a public hearing – arguing that a meeting behind closed doors would run the risk of details getting selectively leaked.

“He is making this choice because the Committee has demonstrated time and again it uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public — a hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings,” Lowell wrote on Wednesday.

The committee can publicly release deposition transcripts. Comer and Jordan previously pledged that they would do so for a closed-door Hunter Biden interview "soon after its completion."

Hunter Biden is one of several targets of House GOP impeachment inquiry subpoenas or interview requests made as Republicans enter the final stage of their months-long investigation. They are looking to make a decision early next year on whether or not to pursue impeachment articles against the president.

Republicans have found examples of Hunter Biden involving his father to try to boost his own profile, in addition to poking holes in some of Joe Biden’s and the White House’s previous statements, but they’ve yet to find a direct link that shows Joe Biden took official actions as president or vice president to benefit his family’s businesses.

I don’t see a Problem, Hunter comes in, you Hold his lawyers in Contempt, just for showing up, lock them down in the basement, then bring the crackhead behind closed doors for testimony, then jail the crackhead for contempt. The Speaker then signs an Order for both to be detained for 90 days and transferred to Club Gitmo that very night with orders that are to be kept in Solitary with NO Visitors as a matter of National Security.

“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”

Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.

Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)

If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.

Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.

Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.

Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.

Some references

[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html

[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html

[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit

[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html

[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf

[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/

In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.

In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.