NEW: House Oversight Finds $40,000 in Laundered Money Paid to Joe Biden

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/1...in-laundered-money-paid-to-joe-biden-n2165775

HYPERLINK has full article

snip

The transfer to Hunter Biden's shell company was quickly made in April of 2017. Shortly after that, $150,000 was sent to James Biden and his wife. Finally, a personal check was then written to Joe Biden for the sum of $40,000............

To summarize, we now have a $200,000 and $40,000 payment sent to Joe Biden, with the latter coming from CEFC Energy, a Chinese company.

end snip

Its time that James Comer be removed from the committee. The country does not need to be told that Biden is corrupt. Biden has been a loyal Democrat and DC insider for over half a century. We don't need congress to tell us what we already know

By investigating Biden, it wastes a lot of resources within the media and DNC putting spin on this vs focusing on important issues like how to get Democrats reelected

 

Unemployed man given money by brother! And they haven’t had him hung yet?
Sad!

 

hung who???

this thread is about congress wasting time and money investigating what we already know.

Nobody in DC cares
No Democrat voter cares
Most of the media does not care as Biden is a Democrat

move on as this is acceptable as long as its a Democrat

 

Yah we don’t care if a guy with no job gets some money from family.

 

Bribed Joe Snagged Another $40K In 'Laundered' Chinese Money From Brother's CEFC Payment: Comer

"We'll just call it a loan repayment.'

'Remember when Democrats insisted that Trump was compromised by Russia because of some alleged loan he had in the early 90's according to 'several sources with knowledge' (who never materialized)?'

'The same Democrats - and the same media, are of course dead silent over what's now grown to $240,000 in laundered Chinese that ended up in Joe Biden's pocket via his brother. We know, we know - huge shock.'

'The money ended up in Joe Biden’s bank account on Sept. 3, 2017, via a check labeled “loan repayment” from his younger brother, who partnered with Hunter in the venture. -NY Post'

'"Remember when Joe Biden told the American people that his son didn’t make money in China?" asked Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) in a video posted to X. "“Well, not only did he lie about his son Hunter making money in China, but it also turns out that $40,000 in laundered China money landed in Joe Biden’s bank account in the form of a personal check."'

We all know that Bribed Joe is bribed.

 

No, you all believe that because that's what you want to believe.

 

Show us the DOJ investigation into it... show us we are wrong... DOJ investigation = evidence and proof.

 

It’s nothing more than fund raising nonsense:a recycling of debunked claims. Yeah. Comer’s a warrior for truth yadda yadda, but hey, it works!

 

No-- you would be better served, reading The Mellow Guy's concise explanations; because whatever you are reading is obviously getting you very confused. If Joe Biden lent his son & brother money for a business, and they repaid that money: that is not a "bribe." Nor is it "money laundering." It doesn't even prove that Hunter profited from his business, only that he made enough, or that his uncle chipped in enough, to pay back the debt of Joe's initial investment. But even had he made money, and even had Joe Biden known that-- lying in public, or to the press, is not a crime (for which ex-President Trump should be very thankful). So, where is the fire?

This is clearly nothing but a witch hunt by Representative Comer, which you so ardently support. Comer does not care about any supposed crimes-- which are all conjecture, and completely unproven-- he only cares about trying to wound the Democratic contender in the next election. And I will prove it to you. Today, the House voted on whether or not to expel George Santos, who has been indicted, on 23 charges of actual crimes, with ample evidence-- far more tangible than anything Comer has come up with on Biden-- including the testimony of Santos' campaign's treasurer. How did Rep. Comer vote?

Anyone who'd been unwilling to even expel a House member who is actually charged with money laundering, as well as with theft of public funds, identity theft, wire fraud, and credit card fraud, facing 20 years in prison, who has been unveiled in public, to have portrayed himself with the most outlandish plethora of lies, would only patently be showing themselves to be utterly disingenuous, if they are simultaneously calling for the impeachment of the President.

Only 20 Republicans voted to expel-- how much do you wanna bet me that all, or at least 90% of them, aren't running for re-election in districts won by Biden? Probably not much, because even you must realize that any of those who wouldn't expel a liar, con man, & criminally indicted official, yet view as deserving of impeachment, another official who has not even been charged with any crime, must be hypocrites, all.


If you care to read up more on Santos' criminal antics, this site, well describes both of his schemes:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/p...rged-conspiracy-wire-fraud-false-statements-0


<Snip>
CENTRAL ISLIP, NY – A 23-count superseding indictment was filed today in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging George Anthony Devolder Santos, better known as “George Santos,” the United States Representative for the Third District of New York, with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of access device fraud, in addition to the seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the United States House of Representatives that were charged in the original indictment.
<End Snip>

 

Congratulations on coming clean, on what Biden's real "crime" has always been, in the eyes of MAGA Republicans, looking for payback, and to please Master Trump: "Biden has been a loyal Democrat."

Can I ask for confirmation/clarification, here, please? At first it sounds, especially after your first paragraph, that you are going to be saying that this investigation, is a waste of Republican resources. But then you specify the DNC, and clearly present selling points for this propaganda operation. IOW, your thesis is not that it's time to stop this sort of nonsense, but rather that Republicans need a more effective muck-raker?

 

Gee, then why is there no deposit in his account of the original loan?

You are still confused. Where is the matching deposit from Bribed Joe that was being 'paid back'?

Now you are really lost. You aren't even on the right topic.

So you figure the Democrat Senate will be expelling the Menendez at any moment or something?

 

Just like the one that pulled the fire alarm knowing full well that he did it to obstruct the proceedings of Congress and of course he doesn't get charged with that.

I laugh when Democrats say that no one is above the law

 

LOL-- it's REPUBLICANS who don't want him to leave, because they feel his being the Dem candidate, is the best chance they've had in a long time, to get a Republican Senator elected in New Jersey.

Secondly, a Senator is not going to be expelled for an indictment; what indictments are sometimes followed by, however, are resignations, and some Democrats have called for Menendez to resign. No Republicans have, though.

Nor did I say that Santos should be expelled for his indictments. I had pointed to the hypocrisy of allowing the legal process to play out for him, while simultaneously wanting to punish Biden, who has not even been charged. That is inconsistency, insincerity, & partisan gamesmanship.




EDIT: The amusing irony of your reply is that, though you only quote a phrase, or a word, out of my post, it is yet clearer than your reply, to that word or phrase. I explain my points very fully, to you, filling in every logical step, and all necessary information, pertaining to each step. Because you do not copy that model, your replies like this, are essentially meaningless to me. I am not a banker; and you do not explain what you are talking about.

Just FYI.

 

The deposit, from Bribed Joe when he gave James the loan that he claim he was paying back. You forgot to produce that in your reply.

 

Geez. So now writing loan repayment on a check means money laundering? If the evidence is so conclusive, when are republicans going to impeach Biden?

Does writing "rent payment" also refer to illegal activity?

 

I "forgot" nothing-- your post, I told you, was gibberish.
And it is still nonsense, the way you don't explain it. First of all-- since I stopped, some time ago, investing good time after bad, reading through Comer's statements of undocumented offenses (note, that is not what I had initially commented on, in this thread)-- where is the evidence of this $40,000 repayment-- and how may I see it?

Obviously, when Biden loaned money, there would be no deposit, but rather, a withdrawal, in his bank records. So I guess you mean, no deposit in the bank records of either his brother James, or Hunter-- though more properly, it should appear in a business account, for the venture, but I don't know how professional were their accounting methods. Therefore, you are maintaining that Comer has all the bank records, of all of these people? Why am I a little dubious, already?

If he did, then I guess it would be easy to show this unexpected detail: he would have a statement showing a $40,000 w/drawal from Joe's account and no deposit in either of the other two men's accounts, nor in the business joint account, had they yet opened one. So, since you clearly are not shy, reproducing accessory images, let me see the w/drawal from Joe's account, and the other accounts, for the same time period. Simple-- if Comer has that info.; and if it includes all accounts, of the two men.

However, if you could even show that, which I don't assume you could, where is the crime, in not depositing a check? Of course, were it a personal check, that was not cashed, there would be no withdrawal from Joe's account: only if it had been a cashier's check. This is what I mean, about the sad ass job you do, making a point. If you actually have a point-- which is unclear if you do-- it is piss poorly explained.

You understand, if a check is not cashed, then no money changes hands, yes? So is that your supposed point: that there is no record of Joe ever loaning the money? Do you not understand the importance, equal to having evidence, of being able to comprehensibly present it, to be able to effectively communicate, what constitutes your evidence? Because your realization of this, is something which is not at all in evidence, either.

 

Fake News. James would show a deposit for the initial loan from Bribed Joe.

Then the funds never moved from Bribed Joe to James and James has nothing to pay back.

 

Now it is you, who's forgotten something:

That had been the very first thing, I'd asked you.

OK, I just saw a picture of a check, at another thread. So to your claim that "James would show a deposit..." How do you know when the money was loaned? Do you know the form, in which the funds were loaned? If it was a bank check, for instance, that could just be cashed. So no reason to necessarily deposit it. Do you know, for what, the funds were used? So maybe the check was cashed, and rental payments were due, as well as some other expenses. As usual, this is a whole bunch of nothing. Just speculation.

 

You just don't get it. You quoted my post that was saying that you were unclear as to what you were alleging. So I was offering a host of possibilities, depending on what narrative you were trying to put forth-- which still isn't clear.

I still haven't seen any evidence for the claim that this was for a business venture. For all any of us, including Comer, know, the loan may have been for putting an addition on James's home, or maybe for a child's college tuition. In either of those cases, the money could have gone straight to where it was owed-- do not deposit into James's account, do not pass "Go," do not collect any indictments.

This was a tweet, from Comer, for God's sake! You MAGA conspiracy theorists are getting, if anything, ever more easily excited, without any cause. More gullible, or more desperate. Or, to put a good spin on it: more imaginative.

 

4 indictments, 91 counts? And counting......?

 

Gee, how then did they get the bank records of three private citizens? All three Bidens involved were private citizens at the time. Two were never in office. I must have missed those subpoenas.

Of course make believe could be involved...

 

Another nothingburger

 

@DEFinning
What did Joe know and when did he know it?
The DOJ has had the laptop for several years. There has been more than enough allegations and "reasonable suspicion" uncovered by the House to start a DOJ investigation.. There are 170 "suspicious activity reports" on the Biden family shady deals by multiple banks. That alone is unheard of in America.

Where are the DOJ investigations?... DOJ investigations = evidence and proof.

 

Hunter did not claim the laptop until he had it transferred into court custody for a court case against the repair guy and others spreading what was on it. Unless the FBI found something illegal on it as has been accused but never actually shown, there literally was nothing for them to do but say nothing. Had they found something illegal then they could have gone after the owner. Since the owner has acknowledged his proprietary rights he could and did have it turned over to the courts without touching it.

170 "suspicious activity reports"
Compared to 91 actual criminal accounts that's nothing, come back when there is something actually criminal rather than suspicious.

 

Please answer the question... more than enough "reasonable suspicion" has been uncovered by the House...
Where are the DOJ investigations?... DOJ investigations = evidence and proof that is brought before the courts.