Republicans announced Friday that they had uncovered a “direct payment” to President Joe Biden — exactly the kind of evidence they’ve sought linking Biden to his family’s foreign business deals.

But the March 2018 payment came from Joe Biden’s brother James, not a Ukrainian oligarch or Chinese tycoon, and the check was marked as a “loan repayment.”

Still, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who obtained the records via subpoena, said the $200,000 check looks suspicious for the president.

“Does he have documents proving he lent such a large sum of money to his brother,” Comer said in a video, “and what were the terms of such financial arrangement?”

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    2018

    Ah yes, when he held the extremely influential and prestigious governmental office of checks notes former vice president

  • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay. If this was an example of influence peddling, let’s pursue it. Let’s also investigate the billions of dollars the Saudis invested into Kushner while he was operating from the White House.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget the copyrights that Ivanka had approved while her father was in the Oval Office. She had unsuccessfully tried to get those for years and they were worth millions, but they mysteriously got approved once daddy was President.

      But the GOP thinks all this is totally fine while screaming “HUNTER BIDEN.”

    • fresh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not in favor of investigating things frivolously when there is no reason to think there’s any wrongdoing.

      • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I get that. This is another nothingburger from Republicans to create the illusion that they’ve found criminal activity on the part of the President. They’re very conspicuously not mentioning how this took place in 2018 while Biden was a private citizen and hadn’t announced his candidacy for President.

        But if they really want to follow evidence of clear influence peddling with breathtaking bribes, they could look closer at Jared and Ivanka during their tenure in the White House.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is another nothingburger from Republicans to create the illusion that all political investigations are nothing burgers. The hope is the next time a Republican in being charged for actual crimes people will dismiss it as nothing more than the Joe Biden investigation. ‘It’s just what political parties do’.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah 200 thou is so much money he needs to prove it was actually loan repayment.

    Now if it was 2 million dollars from the Saudis…. Well that’s totally different!

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s why they’re making such weak accusations: to make people tired of the whole exercise so that when credible accusations are made against Trump “moderates” can say ‘both sides! this is just what political parties do against their opponents’ and ignore the strength of the evidence.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Does he have documents proving he lent such a large sum of money to his brother,”

    My guess would be a cancelled check for $200,000. This should not be considered all that unusual for a guy worth roughly $10 million.

    Comer said in a video, “and what were the terms of such financial arrangement?”

    None of his freaking business.

      • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but nothing about the Lewinsky scandal was actually illegal. It’s not illegal to cheat on your wife. They only found out about Lewinsky because they were looking for evidence related to the Whitewater scandal. The only thing criminal Bill Clinton provably did was lie under oath about getting a hummer in the oval office. That’s a pretty minor lie, tbh, and they never connected him to any illegal activity related to Whitewater. They tried to make a huge scandal out of a clandestine blowjob, and the only people who cared were religious purists who never would have voted Democrat anyway. Instead, Republicans made fools of themselves on a national stage, and it cost them elections.

        I’m not really disagreeing with you here, except to say the Republicans didn’t really “get it right” with Lewinsky. They did seethe and writhe and dig their heels hard into religious fascism. But I thought it worth highlighting that the Lewinsky scandal was not as scandalous as they wanted us to believe, nor was it even the thing they were trying to pass off as scandalous in the first place. It was an excuse to open an investigation in the hopes it might reveal something that would stick. That’s the same thing they’re doing now. They know there’s no connection here. They know there’s no evidence. But it appeals to their waning voting base and gives them an excuse to find something that makes Biden look as bad as Trump.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here’s how hard the Republicans were digging for dirt on Clinton:

          When they started the Whitewater investigation, Monica Lewinsky did not yet work at the White House. It was literally an ongoing investigation looking for a crime.

        • RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re overlooking some things here. Just a few years prior, Clarence Thomas had just undergone an intensive and public trial for sexual harassment of Anita HIll. Meanwhile, a sea change of public opinion against sexual harassment in the workplace was underway in practically every corner of the country. At that time, if you were a federal employee, you could get in serious trouble for abusing your position of power like that. But of course, the President isn’t a federal employee.

          This was not just a minor lie and a clandestine blowjob. It was someone in a position of power taking advantage of a subordinate, in the workplace, and doing irrevocable harm to that subordinate’s reputation in the process.

          Finally, just because something isn’t a criminal offense doesn’t make it acceptable. Nor does the fact that the Republicans seized on this for political gain make it less wrong.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do think the Lewinsky thing paid it’s dividend in 2016 because it made it harder to respect Hillary who was still with Bill after the most famous case of being cheated on. There were a lot of factors that went into that election going the way it did, but with it so close in the end, each factor ended up being important.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, it set up a lose/lose situation that I’m not sure Hillary could have found an angle out of that wouldn’t turn some people against her. It didn’t get Bill removed but it did help block Hillary when the Democrats bet on her.

  • shadowspirit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Objection your honor, conjecture.

    Oh shit, my bad this is the court of public opinion.

    We must start holding our politicians accountable.

  • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Who writes a personal check for $200,000? It’s been a really long time since I’ve written a check, but I think that 3rd ‘0’ would trigger my anxiety, I would start sweating on the 4th, and the 5th one would make me break down and cry.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s nothing to the rich, they lend each other what we consider crazy sums all the time but to them it’s not a big deal since they have more than they’ll ever need. Joe isn’t fuck you rich, but he’s certainly comfortable enough that floating a sibling a house worth of cash isn’t out of question

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t know for sure but $200k sounded cheap for house money. I looked it up - the median home price in the us is about 350k. Jesus.

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          200k gets you a pretty decent place in some parts of the country even today, but in 2017 it was a nice house in many parts of the country

    • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, even middle class people lend or give each other big sums of money when it’s family. It’s hard to afford a down payment, pay for college, or start a business without help from family.

    • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean at Biden’s level you don’t. You call your financial advisor and have them shuffle money around and print the check.