The only inventions of non-existent loans are being created by the right-wing Trump traitors and the right-wing media propaganda machine they feed.
Evidence? I am waiting for Joke Bribem to provide evidence of a money transfer from him to James.
Jared had a legit business. Hunter didn't . And Trump didn't receive 10% from Jared.
Your claims are so stupid I have no doubt you take your shoes of to count to 11.![]()
But banking records reviewed by CNN, which Comer’s committee possesses, provide substantial evidence in support of the Democrats’ assertions that there was indeed a $200,000 loan from Joe Biden to James Biden less than two months before the James Biden “loan repayment” check to Joe Biden for the same amount.
...
Comer’s team does not dispute that these banking records show that James Biden was sent a $200,000 wire transfer on January 12, 2018, less than two months before James Biden and Sara Biden wrote Joe Biden the March 1, 2018, “loan repayment” check for $200,000.
Oh, so you have seen proof Joe Biden actually loaned his brother money do you?
The funny thing is, there is more proof that Joe loaned his brother money then there is proof that Joe got money for a quid pro quo.
documented evidence is admissible in court.......
There is ZERO proof Joke loaned anyone in his family money. There's plenty of proof members of his family were trading on the Biden name--Joe's name due to his position in government--to enrich themselves, far more proof of that than Joke loaning anyone in his family money.
Oh, so you have seen proof Joe Biden actually loaned his brother money do you?
There is ZERO proof Joke loaned anyone in his family money. There's plenty of proof members of his family were trading on the Biden name--Joe's name due to his position in government--to enrich themselves, far more proof of that than Joke loaning anyone in his family money.
Your math seems a little off. DO you know what zero is?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/poli...ade-a-personal-loan-to-his-brother/index.html
If there is zero proof of James being loaned money then there must also be zero proof of Joe being paid back.
Bank records show James getting $200,000 from an account linked to Joe and then paying out $200,000 to Joe 2 months later when other money comes in.
Where is your proof that Joe got money for a quid pro quo which is required for a crime to have been committed.
2018? Biden wasn’t in any position for a quid pro quo. Have they linked it to anything done during his time in office.Your math seems a little off. DO you know what zero is?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/poli...ade-a-personal-loan-to-his-brother/index.html
If there is zero proof of James being loaned money then there must also be zero proof of Joe being paid back.
Bank records show James getting $200,000 from an account linked to Joe and then paying out $200,000 to Joe 2 months later when other money comes in.
Where is your proof that Joe got money for a quid pro quo which is required for a crime to have been committed.
Very well said.That's a Fallacy of exclusive premises in a variant called Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
There is proof of James paying Joe $240,000 in two checks with a notation "Loan repayment." That's observable, factual, evidence. Whether a loan was made or not is open to question. James could have written that on those checks knowing it was a lie to cover his ass as easily as he could have been being honest in stating it. We don't know.
In both cases, we know the paper trail the money took from the original source going through multiple accounts before ending up in Joe's bank account.
We know for a fact that James and Hunter were trading on the family name, having nothing else to offer the companies / persons the money originated from. The only person in the Biden family that had value on name power was Joe being in a position to trade political favors for payola. James and Hunter weren't getting paid for some expertise in whatever the company paying was doing in business. That means they were being paid for their connections Joe and the family name.
That is pure quid pro quo.
quid pro quo
[ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō]
NOUN
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something
The company(s) and individuals involved expected to gain political advantages in exchange for giving various Biden family members piles of cash. That's absolutely clear here.
Anyway, back to the loan issue. Just because, at this point, Joe or other Biden family members haven't produced any proof of a loan being given doesn't mean it wasn't a loan. On the other hand, with no proof offered it can also mean there was never a loan and the statement on those checks was simply a lie to CYA the real intent of the payment.
The problem for Joe here is that the money originated in a quid pro quo deal between his family members and some individual or corporation and out of that, Joe was clearly and unequivocally paid money that was part of that deal. That is, he profited--for whatever reason--from his family members making quid pro quo deals with individuals and corporations. And, yes, he profited. Whether he was simply paid that money, or it was repayment of a loan changes nothing. He was enriched by the deals his family members made.
Who say the Quid Pro quo didn't happen in 2016?2018? Biden wasn’t in any position for a quid pro quo. Have they linked it to anything done during his time in office.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/bidens-5m-china-loan-part-of-pay-to-play-scheme-sen-grassley/In an Oct. 13 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, Grassley (R-Iowa) questioned whether the bureau is fully investigating corruption allegations against first son Hunter Biden and demanded a “full and unredacted FBI summary” of Hunter business partner Tony Bobulinski’s October 2020 FBI interview.
According to Grassley, Bobulinski told investigators that Hunter and first brother James Biden were contracted to assist CEFC China Energy “with potential business deals and investments while Joe Biden was Vice President; however, that work remained intentionally uncompensated while Joe Biden was Vice President.
“After Joe Biden left the Vice Presidency, the summary makes clear that Hunter Biden and James Biden worked with CEFC and affiliated individuals to compensate them for that past work and the benefits they procured for CEFC,” Grassley went on. “According to the summary, Hunter Biden, James Biden and their business associates created a joint venture that would serve as a vehicle to accomplish that financial compensation, and that arrangement was made sometime after a meeting in Miami between Hunter Biden and CEFC officials in February 2017.”
That's a Fallacy of exclusive premises in a variant called Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
There is proof of James paying Joe $240,000 in two checks with a notation "Loan repayment." That's observable, factual, evidence. Whether a loan was made or not is open to question. James could have written that on those checks knowing it was a lie to cover his ass as easily as he could have been being honest in stating it. We don't know.
In both cases, we know the paper trail the money took from the original source going through multiple accounts before ending up in Joe's bank account.
We know for a fact that James and Hunter were trading on the family name, having nothing else to offer the companies / persons the money originated from. The only person in the Biden family that had value on name power was Joe being in a position to trade political favors for payola. James and Hunter weren't getting paid for some expertise in whatever the company paying was doing in business. That means they were being paid for their connections Joe and the family name.
That is pure quid pro quo.
quid pro quo
[ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō]
NOUN
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something
The company(s) and individuals involved expected to gain political advantages in exchange for giving various Biden family members piles of cash. That's absolutely clear here.
Anyway, back to the loan issue. Just because, at this point, Joe or other Biden family members haven't produced any proof of a loan being given doesn't mean it wasn't a loan. On the other hand, with no proof offered it can also mean there was never a loan and the statement on those checks was simply a lie to CYA the real intent of the payment.
The problem for Joe here is that the money originated in a quid pro quo deal between his family members and some individual or corporation and out of that, Joe was clearly and unequivocally paid money that was part of that deal. That is, he profited--for whatever reason--from his family members making quid pro quo deals with individuals and corporations. And, yes, he profited. Whether he was simply paid that money, or it was repayment of a loan changes nothing. He was enriched by the deals his family members made.
“According to the summary, Hunter Biden, James Biden and their business associates created a joint venture that would serve as a vehicle to accomplish that financial compensation, and that arrangement was made sometime after a meeting in Miami between Hunter Biden and CEFC officials in February 2017.”
Comer lies, has been caught lying, nothing he says or supposedly “uncovers” can be accepted at face value, even Republicans are embarrassed by his need for attention
You accuse me of fallacies when your argument is riddled with them.
2018. You are concluding that there was a favor granted at a time when no favor could be granted. How is it possible for someone not in office to grant a political favor?
What is the quid pro quo? You make shit up and then pretend it is true. Even if Joe got money from a corporation in 2018, which you have no evidence supporting that idiotic contention, there is no crime.
We have evidence of James Biden getting a $200,000 payment in Jan of 2018, then we have evidence of James Biden getting money 2 months later and using that money to pay back Joe Biden for a loan of $200,000.
Joe Biden is not in political office in 2018. The money James Biden received to pay back Joe is from 2018 when Joe Biden is not in political office. What political quid pro quo can Joe Biden provide in 2018 when Joe Biden is not in political office?
What possible political favors can Joe Biden provide when Joe Biden is not in political office in 2018?
Then feel free to list them as I did.
The above is just more fallacy. This time it's an Argument from fallacy in the form of denying the antecedent. In 2018 Joke was openly saying he'd run for President in 2020. These payments could easily be construed as 'paying it forward.' That is some company with piles of cash or in need of a favor down the road makes an investment in 2018 thinking the payoff will come in 2020 if Biden is elected.
This is misconstrued. What we have is James receiving $200,000 from a failing health company we know he was trading on the Biden name with. Even he's admitted that. The day after he gets the cash, he turns around and gives it to his brother. The $40,000 check has a paper trail from a Chinese company Hunter was shaking down. Why did Hunter remit something like $100,000 to Jim Biden from that deal when Jim had nothing to do with it? From that money, he pocketed some of it, and sent Joe $40,000.
There's plenty of evidence of money laundering going on. There's plenty of evidence of quid pro quo too. Just because Joe wasn't in office doesn't preclude buying future political favors when it's known he's going to run for President and has a good chance of winning.