Posted on 02/10/2023 5:37:34 AM PST by Red Badger
Hunter Biden’s very expensive and high-powered legal team denied House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer’s (R-KY) letter demanding the president’s son disclose troves of documents and communications relevant to the investigation into the Biden family for wire fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering, among six other potential violations.
Attorney Abbe Lowell, who represents high-profile individuals engulfed in political scandals, such as Bill Clinton and Jared Kushner, told Comer that his demands lacked “legitimate legislative and oversight basis” to request such relevant information.
On Wednesday evening, Comer asked Hunter and James Biden, along with the family’s business partner Eric Schwerin, disclose a host of both classified and unclassified documents, records, and communications between business associates and family members, including President Joe Biden.
But Lowell rejected Comer’s request, citing a lack of legitimacy.
“Rather than engage with you over a back-and-forth letter writing campaigns or any formal proceedings, I would offer to sit with you and your staff… to see whether Mr. Biden has information that may inform some legitimate legislative purpose and be helpful to the Committee,” Lowell replied.
Mike Davis, founder and president of the pro-Trump Article III Project and former Chief Counsel for Nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, told Breitbart News Comer’s demands have clear legitimacy.
“There is clear evidence President Biden, his son Hunter, and Joe’s brother James were corruptly on the payrolls of Chinese and Ukrainian oligarchs,” Davis preface. “Investigating whether the President of the United States is compromised — especially involving America’s most serious overseas challenges — is clearly within Congress’s constitutional oversight responsibilities.”
(Excerpt) Read more at 12ft.io ...
Any conservative who did this would be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night, with a full suite of MSM outlets on hand to videotape the arrest. We are such a spineless country.
Of course the same Demedia whose collectivist heads were exploding over Bannon and Giuliani not appearing are fine with Hunter ignoring the House.
Note to Jordan:
Don’t fall into a stall trap.
Stop “requesting”. Start subpoena-ing.
Don’t blow it, Jim.
RLTW
Bring this POS shyster before the3 committee and find him in Contempt of Congress, then JAIL him until the end of the session NEXT YEAR, then do this with every last POS that says crap like this.
STEP UP and Show these quisling assholes who really is the Boss.
This will trigger the first of scores of “hearings” over this question and Lowell knows he will likely lose. But, it buys time to keep Hunter out of jail, in dope and whores and on the street running wild until Daddy pardons him on the way out. Taxpayers be damned!
The Chinese can pay Lowell until hell freezes over. This is stalemate because our gutless SC, who could step in and control this case, won’t.
The Biden cartel has shown it absolutely has no intent to cooperate with the investigation. They don’t get to negotiate over evidence and it is time issue AND ENFORCE subpoenas.
This is more of the blatant, in your face two tier justice. With the MSM on their side, they think (and probably correctly) they can wait out the one year and eleven months before the next congress . . .
Just based on what has been released theres clear cause to look closer at what this scumbag and his dad were up to. He can fight all he wants but I think Hunter and then the Big Guy are going to be sunsetted by their own party.
Gore: “No controlling authority.”
Congress has no authority to “investigate Hunter Biden”.
The House DOES have authority to investigate Joe Biden to determine if he should be impeached. In the course of THAT investigation, testimony from Hunter Biden could very well be required.
Subpoena his tax and bank records like they did Trump’s.
Let’s see Democrats talk their way into logic pretzels...............
“Don’t blow it, Jim.”
You always start with the ask, and then escalate from there.
It’s just good manners.
Unless you’re Merrick Garland, then you go straight to the boot on the neck.
“ Subpoena his tax and bank records like they did Trump’s”
So you are willing to grant the House of Representatives Star Chamber powers to own the libs?
First of all, your grant is permanent. The House is much, much more likely to investigate YOU than they are Hunter Biden. Is that what you want?
They have already taken that power upon themselves, regardless of what we, the SCOTUS or the Constitution grants them.
It’s theirs now.....................
Guess again. The rules of evidence and everything else were changed by the DNC. The difference with these investigations will be, no suborned perjury.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Congress’s power to conduct investigations stands on equal footing with its authority to legislate and appropriate.1 Although the "power of inquiry" was not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it has nonetheless been acknowledged as "an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function" derived implicitly from Article I’s vesting of "legislative Powers" in the Congress.2 This implied constitutional prerogative to gather information related to legislative activity is both critical in purpose, as Congress "cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information," and extensive in scope, as Congress is empowered to obtain pertinent testimony and documents through investigations into nearly any matter.3 Included within the scope of the power is the authority to initiate investigations, hold hearings, gather testimony or documents from witnesses, and, in situations where either a government or private party is not forthcoming, compel compliance with congressional requests through the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas.
While Congress’s investigative tools can be used to achieve a number of different purposes, congressional practice suggests that legislative inquiries primarily serve to either gather information valuable for considering and producing legislation (what may be called the self-informing or legislative-informing function)4 or to ensure that existing laws are being properly administered (what may be referred to as the oversight function.)5 Although functionally distinguishable, the self-informing and oversight functions often merge during the conduct of significant investigations.
In the absence of explicit constitutional text, the scope of the investigatory power has been molded and defined primarily by congressional practice, negotiations between the political branches, and opinions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has only rarely engaged in any significant discussion of Congress’s investigatory power, and in fact has only once issued an opinion directly addressing an investigative oversight conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch.6 A variety of factors contribute to the reduced judicial role in this area, including legal principles of judicial restraint and the separation of powers. But at least historically, the chief constraint appears to be the infrequency in which cases involving the investigatory power have been adjudicated.7 As a general matter, the Judicial Branch generally has become involved in subpoena disputes in only three classes of cases: (1) when a party is subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with congressional demands;8 (2) when the House or Senate itself initiates a lawsuit in an attempt to enforce a subpoena—though the Supreme Court has never heard such a case;9 or (3) when a subpoena seeks an individual’s documents from a third party, and the individual brings suit to block the third party from complying with the subpoena.10 The majority of cases have historically come from the first category, arising either in the context of a criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress, or a habeas proceeding stemming from a detention carried out pursuant to an exercise of Congress’s inherent contempt power.11 The relative dearth of jurisprudence means that historical practice, especially Congress’s views of the reach of its own authority established through hundreds of years of investigations, plays a substantial role in establishing the outer bounds of the investigatory power.
Although Supreme Court decisions in this area are limited, they illuminate the basic constitutional foundation of Congress’s investigatory power and establish key legal limitations on its exercise. The Court’s early jurisprudence began with a focus on establishing the source of the investigatory power before considering the power’s scope.12 In that vein, the Court established that the authority to conduct investigations was implied from the "legislative power" vested in Congress by Article I of the Constitution, but only to the extent that an inquiry actually served a "legislative purpose."13 By the mid-twentieth century, judicial recognition of the investigatory power had been well established, and the Court’s focus shifted to legal limitations on congressional inquiries, generally in the context of the tension between congressional investigations and the individual rights of private citizens.14 These judicially identified limitations on Congress’s power of inquiry emanated principally from the Bill of Rights, including the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as from the internal rules of the House and Senate, which can act as self-imposed constraints on the investigatory power. Intervention by the Supreme Court into investigative disputes has generally been confined to scenarios in which Congress is seeking information from a private citizen, rather than a government official. Trump v. Mazars, decided in 2020, was the first time the Supreme Court directly addressed an interbranch investigatory conflict. Even then, the case was technically brought by President Donald Trump in his private rather than official capacity, though the Court chose to treat the conflict as one between the branches.15 Instead, the historical reality has generally been that inter-branch investigative conflicts are resolved through an informal tug-of-war between the political branches rather than through adjudication by the courts.16
Clearly within Congress’s **constitutional** oversight responsibilities.
If Hunter fails to comply lock him up until he does and any member of the family that refuses to do so.
Time to get down hardline business f**k with the Biden crime family.
Oversight of what?
It's one thing if HB were indicted by a Grand Jury, tried and found guilty in a Article III court, and THEN for Congress to exercise oversight over, for example, DOJ to find out how he got away with his crimes for so long.
It's quite another for Congress to investigate and then accuse a private citizen of a crime.
Oversight of what?
It’s quite another for Congress to investigate and then accuse a private citizen of a crime.
He’s not just a private citizen he was dealing with government issues and perhaps selling government documents that his father gave him it’s a treason issue and a lot more.
The DOJ is daddy owned no chance of a Grand Jury.
Yes I know that. However, that does not confer Grand Jury powers on Congress, and if you do that, you are going to wind up regretting it.
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.