Biden impeachment inquiry

[AndyinPA]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4549 ... best-path/

House Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) suggested the impeachment vote against President Biden may not be the “best path” and said he instead thinks criminal referrals will be the way to go.

“I believe that the best path to accountability is criminal referrals,” Comer told Newsmax hosts Thursday.

The Oversight Committee held a hearing Wednesday on the impeachment inquiry into Biden. Democrats pressured Republicans to identify the criminal conduct underlying their probe, as doubts rise about the future of the investigation into the president’s business dealings.

Comer argued in the interview that “real accountability” for Biden now looks like “providing real criminal referrals to the Department of Justice,” because the Democratic-controlled Senate would likely table any impeachment into Biden “like they’re gonna do with the Merrick Garland impeachment.”

“I would vote to impeach Joe Biden right now. The impeachment inquiry was meant to give us more tools to be able to gather more information to be able to win in court,” he said.

During the hearing, Democrats were quick to ask Comer and other GOP members to name the crime or misdemeanor that is the root of their investigation.

IF they send it to the Justice Department, they will then say the Biden Justice Department refused to do anything.

[RTH10260]

when they cannot find causes for an impeachment, how do they think they can suggest criminal conduct?

[much ado]

when they cannot find causes for an impeachment, how do they think they can suggest criminal conduct?

Yes, what would the criminal referral to DoJ say? "Well, we couldn't find anything in particular, but we know some criminal activity has been going on here, so we are referring the matter to you so that you can look into it."

I mean, what else would they be able to say?

[Suranis]

when they cannot find causes for an impeachment, how do they think they can suggest criminal conduct?

Easy. That way the corrupt DAs will refuse to prosecute, and it's all the corrupt DA's fault.

[Slim Cognito]

Do the criminal referrals die when this current Congress ends?

[bob]

Yes, what would the criminal referral to DoJ say? "Well, we couldn't find anything in particular, but we know some criminal activity has been going on here, so we are referring the matter to you so that you can look into it."

I mean, what else would they be able to say?

"DOJ policy is you can't indict a sitting president. (Mueller wrote extensively about this concerning the previous president.) See you in 2025 2029. FOAD. HAND."

[much ado]

Someone should ask Comer why they are making a criminal referral to DoJ if presidents have absolute immunity.

[p0rtia]

[Frater I*I]

IF they send it to the Justice Department, they will then say the Biden Justice Department refused to do anything.

And hopefully some D Congresscritter mentions to them that according to their Orange Furher, POTUS has total immunity....

[MN-Skeptic]

Since Bobulinski is part of this impeachment inquiry, I'll put this here -

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

JUST IN: Tony Bobulinski, repped by Trump-affiliated attorney Jesse Binnall, is suing Rep. Dan Goldman for defamation.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... skigoldman

[sugar magnolia]

Defamation is the new black.

[raison de arizona]

Glass houses man, glass houses. That dude has issues.

[RTH10260]

Didn't Daniel Goldman make those remarks during a hearing on Capitol Hill? That would be protected speech from the getgo.

[northland10]

Didn't Daniel Goldman make those remarks during a hearing on Capitol Hill? That would be protected speech from the getgo.

Grift and harass. Law and justice, are not part of their process.

[bob]

Didn't Daniel Goldman make those remarks during a hearing on Capitol Hill?

No; per the complaint:

On March 21, 2024, shortly after Mr. Bobulinski’s most recent appearance before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Defendant posted on X, “Tony Bobulinski has used a Trump campaign-paid lawyer to make false allegations since October 2020.”

Defendant also wrote on March 21, 2024, that Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony was “Russian disinformation.”

On February 14, 2024, Defendant directed a post to Oversight Chairman, James Comer, while discussing Mr. Bobulinski, writing, “You brought in a Trump campaign plant to peddle your same lies.”

Mean tweets; lawfare over mean tweets.

And just in case it wasn't clear:

Defendant deliberately and maliciously made these statements, outside the scope of his employment, in an attempt to discredit Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony and to besmirch Mr. Bobulinski’s character. It was a mistake for Defendant to believe he was cloaked with immunity for his defamatory statements.

Defendant made these statements impromptu on X, outside of Congress, and used none of Congress’ resources.

Compare:

Tony Bobulinski has used a Trump campaign-paid lawyer

with:

Further, Mr. Bobulinski is not affiliated with the Trump campaign in any way.

They. Are. Not. The. Same.

[raison de arizona]

Didn't Daniel Goldman make those remarks during a hearing on Capitol Hill? That would be protected speech from the getgo.

He did, but I think Bobulinski is suing over Goldman's Twitter posts, are those covered under speech and debate?

ETA: Thanks bob!

[northland10]

Didn't Daniel Goldman make those remarks during a hearing on Capitol Hill?

No; per the complaint:

On March 21, 2024, shortly after Mr. Bobulinski’s most recent appearance before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Defendant posted on X, “Tony Bobulinski has used a Trump campaign-paid lawyer to make false allegations since October 2020.”

Defendant also wrote on March 21, 2024, that Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony was “Russian disinformation.”

On February 14, 2024, Defendant directed a post to Oversight Chairman, James Comer, while discussing Mr. Bobulinski, writing, “You brought in a Trump campaign plant to peddle your same lies.”

Mean tweets; lawfare over mean tweets.

But if somebody can have full immunity for things he did in office (that were not part of his office work) and after he was out, and before he was in office, then Goldman should have protection from the speech and debate clause for all time, even before and after he was in office (and in every personal tweet, especially if he was still in office).

[RTH10260]

Question: does the exposure that Bobulinski has from his testimony in a political loaded hearing make him a person of public interest, and he loses much of the privacy he had as simple bisunessman and former Hunter Biden partner?

[bob]

Question: does the exposure that Bobulinski has from his testimony in a political loaded hearing make him a person of public interest, and he loses much of the privacy he had as simple bisunessman and former Hunter Biden partner?

Yes; Bobulinski at this point either is a public figure or at least a limited-purpose public figure, which means defamation would require the additional element of actual malice. Meaning they statements were made knowing they were false (or at least made with reckless disregard for the truth).

If Bindell did not learn this in his first year of law school, shirely he has been reminded of it during his previous fails in lawfare. This is just Klayman-esque harassment.

I know the complaint tries to allege these statements were not related to any congressional work, but I would not be surprised if the taxpayers (one way or another) pick up the tab for defending this suit.

[MN-Skeptic]

Well, this judge is having none of this. Interesting read.

‘Are you kidding me?’: Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP

A federal judge tore into the Justice Department on Friday for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas issued in the impeachment probe of his father, President Joe Biden, pointing out that a former aide to Donald Trump is sitting in prison for similar defiance of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee on the federal District Court in Washington, spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department attorneys of rank hypocrisy for instructing two other lawyers in the DOJ Tax Division not to comply with the House subpoenas.

“There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena,” Reyes said, referring to the recent imprisonment of Peter Navarro, a former Trump trade adviser, for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee. “And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. … And you don’t have to show up?”

“I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up,” but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, the judge added. “You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant.”

It was a remarkable, frenetic thrashing in what was expected to be a relatively routine, introductory status conference after the House Judiciary Committee sued last month to enforce its subpoena of DOJ attorneys Mark Daly and Jack Morgan over their involvement in the investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.

Yet, perhaps even more remarkably, Reyes seemed inclined to support DOJ’s central argument that the line attorneys cannot be compelled to answer substantive questions from Congress. They just need to show up and assert privileges on a question-by-question basis, she said — the type of thing, she said, that DOJ demands from others “seven days a week … and twice on Sunday.”