House oversight chair Comer says ‘6 or 7 Biden family members’ potentially involved in business sche

Post the ruling.

 

Why? I revel in watching MAGA flailing.

 

Ask, and ye shall receive:
(In case anybody missed the memo):
So The Easy Question: Can House Democrats Make Trump’s Tax Returns Public?
The law is clear that the House Ways and Means Committee can now make Trump’s tax returns public if a majority of the committee members vote to do so.

 

The law you posted says nothing that you're claiming: nothing about a public session, nothing about a vote to release. If what you say is true, the law would state exactly that. Since it doesn't say that, you're wrong.

 

You made a claim. You back it up.

But, you've already made one proven wrong claim. I can understand why you wouldn't want to do it twice in a row.

I would love to see the court ruling that allowed the committee to ignore the law and release Trump's returns.

 

Post the law that says the committee can go public with a taxpayer's returns.

 

Pretty sure most of that is not trur

 

And what if he does turn out to be “the big guy”? Seriously, so what?

That perfectly legal transaction didn’t even happen, so “the big guy” got 10% of nothing. Nothing. And if he had got something, it would have been a legitimate transaction.
BFD.

 

Post the law that says they can’t

 

I already have...lol

 

It'll mean he's accepted a bribe from a foreign country while he was VP. Next, we'll need to know if he paid taxes on that money.

 

Are you guessing again?...lol

 

A person normally doesn't go through great lengths of lying about an innocent association, unless they have something to hide. Joe has lied about this matter since he was a candidate. Now that Hunter has acknowledged that the laptop is his those emails prove that Joe lied.

 

As I recall, the “big guy” emails related to a perfectly legal transaction with a private company - but the transaction never materialised so there was no 10%. And Biden was not VP at that time.
So …. Nope.

 

There’s also no indication Joe Biden knew anything about this. No evidence he was the big guy, and even if he was, no evidence that he knew his son referred to him that way and no evidence Joe knew anything his son was doing.

 

You don't know exactly when the deal took place. The Big Guy emails were from May 2017. If the deal happened in 2016, then guess who was VP.

 

Then you're in denial of the laptop's contents. It contains circumstantial evidence (like photographs) that Joe did have knowledge of his son's business arrangements. Add to that evidence that Hunter flew on Air Force 2 when Joe went to China and conducted business while there.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...hina-son-hunter-2013-comes-under-new-n1061051

Anyone who doesn't raise an eyebrow over this has a relationship with an ostrich. No father would not have an interest in their son's business and yet you'll have us believe that Joe didn't care enough about his son that he wouldn't ask him what he planned to do during the trip. I would consider that a piss poor father.

 

Which has what to do with what?

 

It means Biden violated the Emoluments Clause, for starters.

 

Really? Because someone used the term "big guy" in an email?

 

The single big guy email was from 2017 and it was in the form of a question about a deal that was yet to happen. The next email re-allocated that 10% and made no mention of the big guy.
And even if it had … it would have been perfectly legal for Joe Biden to take a 10% equity interest in a private company engaging in real commercial transactions.
Utter fail on your part but it won’t prevent the RW echo chamber from repeating “big guy” like it’s a mantra. The email just doesn’t show any wrongdoing whatsoever.

 

The big Guy email said the split was still tentative. Not the deal...

 

Exactly! There was a question mark next to that.

And the next email cut “the big guy” out and allocated that 10% to “Jim”. So the spilt was 20% each. Nothing for the “big guy”.

But even if that transaction did proceed, it would have been perfectly legal for Joe Biden to participate. He was a private citizen at the time. But he didn’t participate. So … what’s your point exactly?

 

I call my uncle “big guy”. Maybe it was for him.

 

Care to point out where "launching an investigation for political reasons is unconstitutional."? I'm fairly familiar with the Constitution and I don't remember reading that anywhere.

Not that I support the idea, I'm just curious as to how it is "unconstitutional"