House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said that his committee, which has been investigating the foreign business dealings of President Biden’s family members, will eventually move to subpoena the Biden family — a move Comer hinted could include the president himself.
“This is always going to end with the Bidens coming in front of the committee. We are going to subpoena the family,” Comer said Thursday on Fox Business.
“We know that this is going to end up in court when we subpoena the Bidens. So we’re putting together a case, and I think we’ve done that very well. We’ve shown the bank records,” Comer said. “If I had subpoenaed Joe and Hunter Biden the first day I became chairman of the committee, it would have been tied up in court and the judge would have eventually thrown it out. … We have put together a case that I think would stand up in any court of law in America.”
Comer’s subpoena tease comes a day after his committee released a third staff memo outlining millions of dollars in foreign funds paid to Hunter Biden and his former associates while Joe Biden was vice president.
That memo noted that the committee has so far only subpoenaed banks tailored to specific individuals and companies, but has not yet issued subpoenas for bank records for members of the Biden family.
Comer, though, indicated that subpoenas for members of the Biden family would not be imminent.
I’m not positive, no. But you’d think if they said “we’re releasing the evidence” so many times now… that one of the releases would have that evidence, right?
Removed by mod
Sure, but look at the Jack Smith case against trump, are we getting evidence put out by his team? Not really (there have been leaks), and I’m glad. Build your case, make it solid, then present it.
I also hope anyone using this as a political weapon faces legal repercussions as well if it can be proven.
Are you referring to the unsealed indictments?
Maybe the “leak” you’re thinking of is the audio where Trump confesses that he’s showing off classified docs? Y’know, a felony?
An indictment is not evidence. Oxford: “a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime.” Yes enough evidence was presented to a grand jury to get the indictment, but the indictment itself is not evidence, it’s the accusations.
So similarly, if there is evidence that there is illegal things happening for Biden or anyone in his family, I hope the evidence is presented to a grand jury and if they believe there’s just cause, an indictment should be issued for the individual.
Would you at least agree that if there is something nefarious going on, with any politician, regardless of party affiliation, it should at least be investigated?
I think they should take the lead from Gym Jordan and not show up. Be honest, did you come online and argue with republicans on ‘doing the right thing’? Hoe committed where you then?
And please, do us all a favor and try avoiding ‘be better’ or some nonsense like that.
I’m very happy trump is seeing his day in court soon, and by all accounts, it appears they have a lot on him to put him away. Good, GREAT!. I want any politician doing something illegal to see their day in court. They should be held to a higher standard than any individual after swearing an oath to the public. In fact for trump, it seems from what’s out there he’s not alone, go after them too, PLEASE!
It’s funny seeing the polarized response here to if a politician may have done something wrong, they should be investigated.
The difference here is that this ‘investigation’ was called for by republicans before they even knew what to investigate. And on top of that, even admitting they have no evidence to present (suspicions is not evidence) yet claim to have evidence. Witnesses they claim to have seem to be lost somehow and cannot be produced for investigation.
And based on this obviously flimsy, if not outright lies, you want to be ‘reasonable’?
I distrust your honesty
Great, and as I said, whatever they have should go in front of a grand jury for indictment if it’s worthwhile. If it’s nothing, should be no indictment. Simple. If they have something plausible, indict him. Again simple.
For now, they have a suspicion. Investigate it. If there is a hint at an issue, let’s get statements for the record.
Let’s take Clarance Thompson for example. There’s some pretty good suspicions there that some sort of payments/“gifts” have taken place. Let’s investigate him for wrong doing. We should also subpoena him (if possible) to get his official statements on things. Not sure why this is hard to agree on.
And I fail to understand you not being able to make a distinction on having a reasonable concern and investigating vs creating a platform of accusations based on a ‘desire’. This so called investigation is used as a tool to hammer someone, just because.
Indeed, take Clarence Thomas as an example. People disagree and abhor his political stance. It was not that what drove the current calls for investigation. It is based on records which became available and an admission he took those ‘gifts’.
Your failure to understand this make me doubt you know what you are talking about. Your suggesting a methodology we know all to well. It’s what was used to accuse ‘witches’, just because someone yelled ‘witch!’
Why lie though?
deleted by creator
You can read the evidence in the indictment though? No idea what you’re going on about.
The indictment only contains the basics of the case and the charges against him. There is said to be over 11 million pages of evidence, the indictment is 45.
Indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
11 million source:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lawyers-challenge-limits-evidence-sharing-prosecutors-warn-threats-2023-08-11/
Charging and indictments: https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging#:~:text=The indictment contains the basic,citizens called a grand jury.