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?”

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 144 points 2 years ago

2018

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

  • source
  • [–] 103 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Only while Republicans hold the majority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    and only when the target is a democrat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Hey that reminds me, did they ever figure out how many babies Hillary Clinton ate in Benghazi?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 years 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'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 65 points 2 years ago

    Republican's couldn't grasp the concept of anyone paying off a debt.

  • source
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Only off by 1000x. A tiny mistake, really.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    These allegations apply way more to Trump than Biden. The hypocrisy is real

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 35 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The crime appears to be that President Biden didn’t charge his brother interest.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    One day they're gonna get one of these right and not know how to deal with it.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 29 points 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    Objection your honor, conjecture.

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

    We must start holding our politicians accountable.

  • source
  • [+] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 10 points 2 years ago
    [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • How many is this now? Got to be close to triple digits

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Knowing them not a huge shock.

  • source