Joe Biden got $40K in China funds, brother James admits in bombshell impeachment interview

Wait...so are stores that receive drug money from paying customers also criminals?

Not to mention Republicans have not established a crime has been committed by anyone.

 

We got the personal accountant testifying under oath there were no loans between family members. We don't have any record of any loans.

Wha you got?

 

Bribery, corruption, RICO, evasion just to list a few.

 

So impeach and file criminal charges. What's the hold up?

 

Easier to drag it out till November and pursue aggressively if Trump wins.

 

So collaborating with the executive branch to prosecute enemies of the president.

Sounds like banana republic stuff to me, but hey this is the kind of system cons want.

Just remebber though payback is twice as bad. If Dems win the house, hopefully investigation will be opened for Comer and Jordan. Hope they clear their schedules.

 

@omni

""So collaborating with the executive branch to prosecute enemies of the president. Sounds like banana republic stuff to me""
Like always... that is a precedent that has been set a long ago... and not by Trump


Biden threatened Trump.... and he has turn his weaponized government against American citizens already...
Biden has weaponized the DOJ (through legitimate efforts of the Constitution).. it is one promise he has kept...
Listen to the man words... communist dictators say those sort of things
"We have to demonstrate that [Trump] will not take power if he does run. Making sure he under the legitimate efforts of the Constitution, does not become the next president again."
https://rumble.com/v34w72i-joe-bide...overnment-to-keep-trump-from-running-aga.html

 

The impeachment INQUIRY is not over.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1775960294658805854
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKV6MsLXMAA9xu6?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

Have a source for this?

 

Sure

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Schwerin-Transcript.pdf

 

Would you like to go over what the word potentially means?

They have already shown where the loan was given — via check — and repaid — via check.

So you have him on not disclosing a person loan. If you think that’s enough to impeach him but that a president using campaign funds to pay off a prostitute and trying to cover it up is hunky-dory then I don’t really value your opinion.

Is a failure to disclose a personal loan is all y’all have to show after 30 months of investigations, thousands of hours and millions of dollars spent — that’s simply embarrassing.

Simple yes no question for you to dodge — have you reported all family or personal loans you have given or received to the IRS and your accountant? Because I haven’t

 

Remember the Ukraine phone call...how Trump urged Ukraine to investigate a political opponent?

 

What he said was he was certain there was no loan "through the 2016 tax period" but was unsure about 2017. Note, part of his job was to assist Biden with his taxes. The reason why he is unsure about 2017 is he would not have been handling Biden's taxes for the 2017 tax period, because he was no longer working for him at the time those taxes were due. The loan from 2017

 

Totally WRONG! Again...
"Legitimate efforts of the Constitution" = VOTING Against Trump in 2024!
^THAT is exactly what Biden meant.
And, any other interpretation of Biden's statement is egregiously misguided.
"weaponized the DOJ"?

 

He was in charge of ALL of Th Big Guys finances and that is the reason given for his innumerable vsits to the WH and meeting with The Big Guy and he testified no such loans.

What evidence did Biden present?

 

Still waiting what you got to show The Big Guy loaned the money and recieved the required interest?

 

The impeachment is in process have you missed it? That's your best defense?

 

I have already said you have him on failing to discloses a personal loan.

Impeach him. Do it

Feel free to answer the question you dodged — have you ever made or received a loan that you failed to report to the government?

 

He most definitely never described himself as being in charge of all his finances for the year 2017, nor did he say he knew if there was any loan in 2017. In fact, he said he was only certain about the time between 2009 and 2016, but explained since he didn't file the taxes for the year 2017, that he potentially would not see a loan if it were made in the year 2017.

Of course if I am wrong, there is a very easy way to prove it, show me in the transcript where he said he was in charge of "ALL" 2017 finances. I'll even provide a link for you, so you can easily copy and paste where he said he was in charge of "ALL" 2017 finances (https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Schwerin-Transcript.pdf)

I can very easily show you in the transcript where he said what I described above

Okay, your turn

 

Republicans are on the record saying they have enough information, so what are they waiting for?

Have they established the payment to James Biden was illegal? Why does it matter if James used money from a Chinese partnership to repay a debt?

By the way, Trump has gotten way more money from China than the Bidens.

 

No they aren't on record saying they have all they need and in fact quite the opposite because they have every reason to believe LOTS more is in the materials being withheld and the entire Biden influence peddling scheme needs to be exposed and FULLY prosecuted after he is removed.

Hey why isn't Trump already in jail what have all these DA's and Dem's been waiting for, you and they have been claiming FOR YEARS you had the goods on him and he ain't in jail, your demands either charge Biden NOW or else ring quite hollow.

 

Why would the loan have been on taxes? He handled the personal finances through 2017....

"The -- through 2017, I still was helping him with his household finances. "


.....when the $40,000 loan repayment was made. The $200,000 was paid back in March of 2018. When were these loans made and where are the documents to back them up? The accountant testified HE NEVER SAW ANY LOANS as you have cited.

 

Trump is on trial now for his crimes. More complicated to charge a sitting president. Dems did try to impeach him because they knew they had the goods. Not sure what Cons are waiting for when Comer said the evidence is irrefutable.

 

"Still helping" is far far different from "In charge of ALL finances". Futhermore, the entire quote is


"And I should differentiate what -- the period of time that I -- from 2009 through the end of 2016 is when I had -- you know, was the period of time that I helped him with the taxes and financial disclosure formsThe -- through 2017, I still was helping him with his household finances. That was a transition year as he was becoming a private citizen. So because taxes are due in the end of -- in 2018 for 2017, I was no longer doing that. So certainly through the 2016 tax period, I don't recall any loans that he made"

Clearly saying he was certain about the period through 2016. Then he was straight up asked about the potential of not knowing about a loan in 2017, to which the exchange went like this

Q All right. So if there were loans made in 2017, you wouldn't have seen them potentially?

A Potentially. That's correct, yes.

You can still stand by your claim that he was in charge of all 2017 finances, and said there were no loans in 2017, but I think anyone who reads through this thread and reads the transcript can clearly judge for themselves what was actually said

 

New challenge: can anyone take the claims being made from the right wing about this **** and somehow make them even dumber?