House Oversight Chair James Comer: We Have Evidence of a $200,000 'Direct Payment' to Joe Biden

[j-mac]

He received an $11M book deal. It's public information. He also makes a few million off speeches. He is in zero business deals.

Wait, so former Presidents can't make money off speeches? someone better tell Obama, and Clinton....

 

[the other mike]

Watergate was not about making bank.

The cover up on all the Biden crimes makes Watergate obselete.

 

[j-mac]

A normally-functioning human being would see a personal, inter-family check. If they have suspicions about it, they might say, "theoretically could be sign of (whatever), but it's not nearly enough information on its own, and we have more we need to know before we can make any assumptions or determinations."

But no, not MAGA World.

I don't think Comer, or anyone in here has said "this is it!" "The investigation is over"..... Have they?

I don't claim to know one way or the other. But these goofballs will spike the ball over pretty much anything. And this is about the 10,000th time, with nothing to show for it.

You gotta admit, it doesn't look good, that James gave Joe a check, with no explanation that any loan was given....But, if it's innocent, then let James and Joe come forth and prove it...

 

[citygator]

Wait, so former Presidents can't make money off speeches? someone better tell Obama, and Clinton....

He can and did. Its public information where his money came from. All Bidens tax records are public.

 

[citygator]

The cover up on all the Biden crimes makes Watergate obselete.

Yea. Sounds legit.

 

[j-mac]

He can and did. Its public information where his money came from. All Bidens tax records are public.

Ok, show me where he reported that check....I'll wait...

 

[citygator]

Ok, show me where he reported that check....I'll wait...

Getting money back from your brother isnt income.

 

[j-mac]

Getting money back from your brother isnt income.

Ok, show me where and when the “loan” was given? Surely there’s a record of that?

 

[citygator]

Ok, show me where and when the “loan” was given? Surely there’s a record of that?

I am not claiming it was an illegal grift. You are. Show me that there was no loan so I can evaluate your claim. I mean, you must have proof to make the claim? Or are you just winging it?

 

[skews13]

As I've said before, a steady drip, drip, drip as in Watergate.

Hey dipshit. You left out all of the facts part.

Among the duties that the House is neglecting during their Speaker debacle are the phony hearings ostensibly to investigate - and ultimately impeach - President Biden. While those hearings are halted like all other House business, the mouths of its MAGA members continue to wag. For instance, James Comer, chairman of the Oversight Committee, has surfaced on Fox News with "shocking" new information that he thinks will sink the Biden presidency. It concerns a check for $200,000 from James Biden to his brother Joe.

Oh my! This would be catastrophic for President Biden were it not for the fact that Comer left out all of the facts that entirely undermine this alleged scandalette. In reality, Joe Biden had previously loaned James this money, and James was just paying it back. It actually says "loan repayment" on the memo line of the check. There is no evidence whatsoever of any link between the President and the company that had made a loan James. Nor is there any proof that the company benefited in any way resulting from the transaction.

What's more, Joe Biden was a private citizen at the time. He held no office of influence, nor was he a candidate. But that didn't stop the scandal mongers of the GOP from peddling flagrant lies about Biden and this nonexistent impropriety. They began with Comer himself, which led to a parade of perfidy...

• Oversight Committee: "We have found a $200,000 DIRECT payment to Joe Biden. @RepJamesComer lays out the money trail."
• Steve Scalise: "BREAKING ? @GOPoversight has uncovered a $200,000 DIRECT payment to Joe Biden. The money trail of the Biden Family corruption scheme leads directly to Joe himself. There’s no denying it now."
• Lauren Boebert: "The media has spent the past two years claiming there was no actual evidence of Joe Biden's financial wrongdoings. Yesterday, the Oversight Committee unveiled a $200,000 check James Biden wrote to his brother on the same day he received a loan from a failing company."
• Rudy Giuliani: "The House Oversight Committee JUST released new details on how Joe Biden received direct payments from family members."
• Sean Hannity (Fox News): "Joe Biden is a criminal and now we have the proof."
• Greg Kelly (Newsmax): "Smoking. Gun."

Needless to say, there was no "direct" payment, no "money trail," no "corruption scheme," no "proof," and no "smoking gun." These were all deliberate distortions of reality intended to disseminate blatant disinformation and to defame President Biden.

What proof there was - the actual loan and repayment info - only served to exonerate Biden. But with the House closed for business, these dishonest propagandists felt compelled to do what they do best: lie their asses off to the eager right-wing media. And so it goes.

Do you ever get tired of looking like a BDS fool?

 

[WEATHER53]

Them thar memo lines are proof positive
Lib 101

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Mueller never uncovered such collusion

Mueller uncovered some collusion. Collusion about what?

The narrative was shaped by Attorney General William Barr, who issued his description of Mueller’s conclusions three weeks before the public saw the full 448-page report. In a letter to Barr, Mueller complained that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his team’s work and conclusions, and created “public confusion.” Here is our effort to dispel some of those myths.

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”


Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.


While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

 

[Moonglow]

The cover up on all the Biden crimes makes Watergate obselete.

Hardly since an old check between brothers is not inusual

 

[WEATHER53]

Mueller uncovered some collusion. Collusion about what?



Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”


Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.


While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

If Mueller thought there was collusion he would have so stated. The fact that he provided details that You Want To Be Collusion is immaterial

 

[j-mac]

I am not claiming it was an illegal grift. You are. Show me that there was no loan so I can evaluate your claim. I mean, you must have proof to make the claim? Or are you just winging it?

So, you want me to prove the negative….Typical upside down thinking.

 

[Magnus]

As I've said before, a steady drip, drip, drip as in Watergate.

From your link:

The money from Mr. Biden‘s younger brother was provided in the form of a personal check in 2018, between the time Mr. Biden left the vice presidency and when he announced he was running for president.

Which administration was in power in 2018? Why would Joe Biden get a payoff in 2018 when he was a citizen? Did you guys think this through? Since you guys are certified retards, I am assuming not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If Mueller thought there was collusion he would have so stated. The fact that he provided details that You Want To Be Collusion is immaterial

Read what Mueller said. then stfu

 

[WEATHER53]

Read what Mueller said. then stfu

I did
He concluded and stated such
Your feeling that the words he used state collusion when his words stated he found none shows just how ridiculously wedded to feelings you are.

 

[Zincwarrior]

As I've said before, a steady drip, drip, drip as in Watergate.

Excellent. I look forward to the legally admissible evidence and testimony under oath.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I did
He concluded and stated such
Your feeling that the words he used state collusion when his words stated he found none shows just how ridiculously wedded to feelings you are.

Ignoring realities and inconvenient facts will not work. "all could be described as “collusion.”

Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.


Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

already linked to above -- where you ignored it:

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com