By Ponderer January 13, 2024 6:20 am Category: Final Fantasy (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee is slamming Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) for withholding a key transcript from the public, issuing a "secret subpoena" and following a "troubling pattern" of hiding information.

Why it matters: An 11-page letter from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) comes after a blockbuster, triple-committee hearing with IRS agents who claimed DOJ mishandled the Hunter Biden case — and ahead of closed-door testimony by Hunter associate Devon Archer.

• "This failure to release a transcript is the latest in your troubling pattern of concealing key evidence in order to advance a false and distorted narrative about your 'investigation of Joe Biden,'" Raskin wrote.

• A GOP Oversight aide told Axios that Comer intends to release the transcript, which is going through the normal review process where the witness reviews it and provides any corrections.

Zoom in: The transcript in question comes from a recent interview — prompted by what Raskin called a "secret subpoena" from Comer — with a former FBI supervisory special agent who was involved in the Hunter Biden investigation led by U.S. Attorney David Weiss.

• In the interview on July 17, Raskin claims the agent "directly undermined Committee Republicans’ narrative of political interference with the Hunter Biden investigation."

• He outlines five ways the agent's statements provided important context for claims of misconduct raised by two IRS whistleblowers, including that it is policy for prosecutors to consider many factors before seeking a warrant in an election year or if a political candidate or attorney are involved.

• The agent also allegedly acknowledged that it is routine for agents to disagree with prosecutors, and it is not necessarily a sign of political bias.

• Raskin is demanding that Comer release the full transcript to the public.

The other side: Comer pushed a different idea of the interview with the special agent, saying in a statement following the interview that it "confirmed key portions of the IRS whistleblower’s testimony." [ 🤣 ]

• An earlier version of Raskin's letter claimed that Republicans had withheld the transcript even from the minority — a claim Oversight Republicans publicly challenged with a screen shot of the first page of the letter.

• The final version of Raskin's letter only demanded Comer release the transcript to the public.

Cited and related links:

1. axios.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on January 13, 2024 6:30 am Raskin is to the Dems what Gaetz and MTG are to the GOPs. And, axios? Baha. C'mon man. Gimme a break! by oldedude on January 13, 2024 10:11 am And all of a sudden you're worried about fairness in not a court? and not bound by discovery rules?🙄 I find that odd. So, here's a "he said, he said issue. And, Raskin could be covering the IRS's butt by trying to ruin the whistleblowers true story. The IRS and Treasury already have a history of making whistleblowers' lives miserable. by Ponderer on January 13, 2024 10:48 am Well I certainly didn't expect you two to refute the assertion with anything of substance or relevancy. And you didn't. Stupidity from Hate and non sequitur subject changing from olde dude. Classic. So I'm satisfied. 👍 by HatetheSwamp on January 13, 2024 10:59 am For me, po, it's a "pearls before swine" thing. by oldedude on January 13, 2024 7:39 pm po- how's this. No one is required to disclose evidence during the investigative process. So pretty much; bite me. You don't have a right to it now. They have no obligation to give it to the defense (yet). If you would actually not be one of "those Americans" that don't know or understand their own laws, it would be different. I would have answered differently. And you're fun to mock. It's entertainment for me. by HatetheSwamp on January 14, 2024 4:09 am po, This is as clear an illustration of subjectivity being po's truth as there can be...and of how the Swampscam works. po, pb knows that you're not this stoopid and, that, because you are incapable of cracking a smile, you ain't joking. Again, the Swampscam? The political parties create a good cop and a bad cop. They let their marks choose which is which. AND, they conveniently provide rival SwampMedias to support the bubbling hate in their easily-duped marks. Of course, po. There's, no doubt, a grain of truth in what Raskin is alleging. It's the, as you might say... if you didn't suffer from effinSwamp brainfreeze... SWAMP bein the Swamp. Comer and Raskin are playing Swampgames. No one. Not GOPs nor Dems. Give a d@ng about EFFINtruth. You have to know what this is about! Right? Rile the base and raise money. And, again, c'mon man, gimme a break! The US House of Representative Oversight Committee ain't that Stalin Show Trial J6 Committee. How does Comer really conceal conceal evidence? Raskin is the Ranking Member of the Committee!!!!! C'mon bubba! No. This is the Swamp doin it's thing. EFFINaxios!!!!!? Why not Pravda? Keehee. And, you jump in head first... always! Raskin, and his Axios minions, got you riled. Like me, you're broke so you ain't writing a $1,000 check. But, your GOPhate spiked. Enjoy the rush! by Ponderer on January 14, 2024 6:02 am "No one is required to disclose evidence during the investigative process. So pretty much; bite me. You don't have a right to it now. They have no obligation to give it to the defense (yet)." -olde dide Sure. They don't have to release any of it. But it is still a very relevant question to ask why the Republicans are still to this day withholding it all. Why haven't they at least shown the world that they in fact do have some evidence? Any evidence at all? And never mind evidence. They can't even say what the crimes are that they supposedly have all this evidence of committing! You really can't see how that totally wallows in lameness, od? The Democrats were never shy about broadcasting pretty much everything they had against Trump throughout everything. We all knew most of what all the evidence was against him before any of his impeachments or indictments even came about. Most of the evidence Jack Smith is using right now is stuff we all knew about well before he even came into the picture. What is so different about the Republicans' evidence that they can't utter a word about it? I mean, here's the GOMP, still playing their cards flat against their chest while just declaring to the world that they have a winning hand. There are impeachment proceedings afoot. It's cards on the table time and you clowns are still telling everyone to just trust you, you have the winning hand. Maybe you'll show it to us some day..... For good or ill, the behavior of the GOMP party on its face indicates that they are merely faking having any real damning evidence against Joe Biden and are doing all this just for its mendacious propagandist impact in the election. Nothing about their behavior would suggest that they in fact have a pot to piss in. That's just the situation that you now find yourself in, od. Sorry. I simply take the suggestion and demonstrable likelihood that you vaudeville performers in fact have nothing of any felonious consequence on Biden, and conclude that it is in fact a fact in my considered opinion. Sue me. by oldedude on January 14, 2024 6:35 am First of all, nice rant. 🤣 Sure. They don't have to release any of it. But it is still a very relevant question to ask why the Republicans are still to this day withholding it all. Why aren't they releasing it? Because they don't have to. In this case, you have a pretty valid question. It's a PITA to not know what the prosecution is looking at. I'll give you that for sure. This is a reason I don't get "excited" about the process. You can drive yourself bonkers if you're looking for answers first, questions later. Why haven't they at least shown the world that they in fact do have some evidence? Any evidence at all? See above. And never mind evidence. They can't even say what the crimes are that they supposedly have all this evidence of committing! The GOP isn't using crimes, then fishing for evidence. They are using evidence to; 1. see if crimes are committed. 2. Does the evidence fit the crime? 3. Does the evidence fulfill the predicate acts to prove the crime. It's not the other way around. by Ponderer on January 14, 2024 6:55 am Again, od... I concede that they don't have to show us any evidence. What I want to know and what is at the heart of my main question is this: In what imaginably conceivable way is it in the GOMP's best interest to keep withholding it all when releasing some or any of the evidence would greatly enhance their credibility and strengthen their case in the voting public's eyes? It sure didn't do the Dems any harm by releasing pretty much every incriminating thing they had on Trump to the public (Think 2022 midterms). What are the GOMPs afraid of? I mean come on, od! "We aren't releasing it because we don't have to!", is a monumentally lame position to take if you expect to be taken seriously in any way at all. It is of course an entirely understandable position to take if you ain't gotshit. Alls I'm sayin'. by islander on January 14, 2024 7:03 am "The GOP isn't using crimes, then fishing for evidence." ~ oldedude That's EXACTLY what the GOP is doing. And they are failing miserably. And what a joy it is to watch them twisting in the wind and to watch oldedude and Hate floundering as they desperately try to support them !! 😎 by HatetheSwamp on January 14, 2024 7:21 am And what a joy it is to watch them twisting in the wind and to watch oldedude and Hate floundering as they desperately try to support them !! 😎 isle, I don't take you for a liar but that's not the truth. I'll let OD defend himself but your characterization of pb is what a lie is. All pb has ever done is note that there are documents that give evidence that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" has been lying for many years about the extent of his knowledge of Hunter's and Jim's foreign business dealings. If you consume any journalism at all, you know that. All pb's ever done is note that, under the Constitution, inquiry into what the Doddering Old Fool's lies portend is necessary. pb's only ever suggested that the Former Truck Driver is nuthin more, nor less, than a typical DC politician. What we're dealing with at this moment is that, without doubt, he's lied about what he knows about Hunter and Jim. If the Swamp were not dysfunctional and corrupt, the Dems would participate in the inquiry. That's the truth...in spite of your lies about me. by islander on January 14, 2024 8:55 am ”pb's only ever suggested that the Former Truck Driver is nuthin more, nor less, than a typical DC politician.” ~ Hate LoL !!! You really should read some of your own posts, Hate. You certainly have called Biden far worse things than that! You can’t even type the president’s name without trying to turn it into an insult!! 🤣 But then you do have a problem with names. Do you really think you can deceive people by using different names for yourself ? You’re the only one here who feels it’s necessary to speak in the third person and use different aliases!! Or how about this one…I didn’t say {fill in the blank} about our president, I’m only quoting what someone else said !!! What are you afraid of? 😟 Why not speak for yourself? by oldedude on January 14, 2024 9:19 am isle- of all the people that can't have any opinion and forces yourself to hide under someone else's quotes, it's you. I will say however, you do cite where you're getting it from. Which is a vast improvement over indy or po. I do appreciate that. by HatetheSwamp on January 14, 2024 9:34 am LoL !!! You really should read some of your own posts, Hate. You certainly have called Biden far worse things than that! You can’t even type the president’s name without trying to turn it into an insult!! 🤣 Ahhhhhhhhhhh. If you only had a sense of humor. There are those rare moments in which pb calls the current occupant of the Oval Office Joe Biden. But, mostly, pb's channeling po during the Trump years mentioning Trump. po was vicious in describing Trump. If we could search the old forum, I suspect we might find that po never once called him "President Trump." I never post "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap," nor Doddering Old Fool, nor Flatulent Fool nor Former Truck Driver, nor President Clouseau without a smirk, recalling po's deranged TrumpHate. It's all po parody. And, be honest. You don't recall po ever disrespecting Trump at all, do you?... subjectivity being truth al all, baha. by oldedude on January 15, 2024 3:37 pm Thusly, "pedojoe" and "pedojr." I think it's more accurate than "anusface." jussayin... by islander on January 15, 2024 5:05 pm oldedude wrote: ”of all the people that can't have any opinion and forces yourself to hide under someone else's quotes, it's you” Not me !!! LoL !! I don’t need to speak in the third person and/or use different names and if I quote someone with whom I agree, I use quotation marks and make sure everyone knows exactly whom I’m quoting. 👍 Does it bother you when I quote Heather or Teri or anyone else for that matter ? by oldedude on January 15, 2024 5:13 pm And muffy speaks for you. ad nauseum. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page