How are we supposed to know that the $200,000 personal check sent from James Biden’s bank account to Joe Biden’s in 2018 was a loan repayment?
According to White House spokesman Ian Sams, who responded to this question in a tweet Friday, it’s easy! “It’s right there on the check!” he said.
And, by golly, it DOES say that. That little blank in the lower left-hand corner of the check has actually been filled in with the words “loan repayment.” In pen. Well, hey, that’s good enough for me, and I’m sure if my source of hundreds of thousands of dollars in income were questioned by, say, the IRS, it would be good enough for them, too.
So we should just stop asking the Bidens about this and move forward on issues that matter to the American people, things that President Biden is doing such a remarkable job with such as inflation, crime, border security, and leading us merrily into World War III, mostly from his official post on a Delaware beach.
Pardon the sarcasm, but with all the dodging we’ve seen from this Administration --- check out any press briefing from Karine Jean-Pierre --- surely, they don’t expect us now to be buying THIS.
Sams, who’s becoming famous for his lame talking-point responses, also accused Kentucky Rep. James Comer, who had written Thursday to White House Counsel Edward Siskel advising him that nothing in James and Sara Biden’s bank records show that brother Joe had loaned them $200,000, of trying “to distract from Republicans’ Speaker mess.”
Um, WHAT “Speaker mess”? By Friday, that was over and we had in place a new Speaker who’d received 100 percent Republican support. Now it’s Comer who is trying to move on, to do the job that has fallen to his committee --- also to Judiciary and Ways and Means --- since the weaponized DOJ has shown itself to be, shall-we-say, unwilling to follow the Biden money.
Here’s the background: After the House Oversight and Accountability Committee held its first impeachment inquiry hearing, they subpoenaed Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank accounts. That was about a month ago, and the check for $200,000 made out to Joe was part of what was turned up. In his letter to White House counsel, Rep. Comer pointed out that James Biden sent Joe Biden a direct payment of $200,000 in March 2018, on the same day now-defunct healthcare company Americore Health LLC, a bankruptcy-bound rural hospital operator, wired $200,000 to James.
As Comer explained it on video, in 2018, James Biden had received $600,000 in loans from financially-strapped Americore. Quoting from documents from bankruptcy court, James received these loans “based upon representations that his last name, Biden, could open doors, and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections.”
On the same day that Americore wired $200,000 of this into James and Sara Biden’s personal bank account, James wrote out a personal check for the same amount to his brother.
“Even if this is a personal loan repayment,” Comer said in the video, “it’s still troubling that Joe Biden’s ability to be paid back by his brother depended on the success of his family’s shady financial dealings.” And yet there’s still no evidence that this WAS a personal loan repayment.
Does Joe Biden “have documents proving he loaned such a large sum of money to his brother, and what were the terms of such a financial agreement? Did he have similar financial agreements with other family members that led them to make similar large payments?” Also, was he aware that James Biden had received the $200,000 check from a failing company on the same day?
What it looks like is easy money for Joe.
In his letter to White House counsel, Comer noted that James and Sara Biden did receive payments from “various entities,” and some of these might have involved obscuring the true payer’s identity, but that “no records in the Committee’s possession state that Joe Biden made a large loan payment to his brother.”
So he made this request: “If Joe Biden did personally loan James Biden an amount that was later repaid by the $200,000 check, please provide the loan documents, including loan payment, the loan agreement, and any other supporting loan documentation.” There apparently were no interest payments made on this so-called loan, and for loans made as gifts, the documentation Comer is requesting is nothing more than what the IRS would call for.
Comer wrote, “The current lack of documentation leaves reason to doubt claims that this transaction was repayment for a legal loan. We request documentation clarifying the nature of this payment and whether all applicable documentation and IRS filings were properly made.”
As AMERICAN GREATNESS reports, the White House told the committee last week that Joe Biden, as a private citizen, had loaned brother James his own money “when he needed it,” and claimed there is a record that he was repaid. Well, let’s see it. If they meant the canceled check with “loan repayment” written in the corner, that’s not enough to show that this was a real loan.
AG also has information on the nature of Americore’s financial woes. They cite POLITICO’s report from March 2020 that the company was even raided by the FBI and that “there were concerns at the time that James Biden had fraudulently transferred Americore funds “outside of the normal course of business.”
RELATED: In an update to the story about Western Pennsylvania U.S. attorney Scott Brady’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee --- he’s the one whose testimony Rep. Jamie Raskin has been lying about --- Brady also testified that regarding the Hunter Biden case, there was a “communication breakdown” between his office and that of Delaware U.S. Attorney/Special Counsel David Weiss. He found it so challenging to communicate with Weiss that he took an unusual step, enlisting the help “on a regular basis” of the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General’s Office (PADAG), Jeffrey Rosen, to facilitate this when all else failed.
Investigative reporter James Lynch at the DAILY CALLER says that Weiss was “restricting information-sharing” with Brady, whose testimony, as it is released, is getting more interesting by the day.
“Speaking generally,” Brady testified, “from a process perspective, I think there was both a skepticism of the information that we were developing, that we had received, and skepticism and then weariness of that information. I think they were very concerned about any information sharing with our office.”
Brady described the communication they had as “constricted” and said he’d resorted to providing a list of 20 written questions to Weiss’s investigative team in Delaware.
Weiss is scheduled to testify in early November about his role in the Hunter Biden investigation and will surely be asked about this. In the meantime, the DAILY CALLER has more information on the significance of Brady’s testimony. Read this, and see if Brady doesn’t strike you as the kind of methodical, professional, by-the-book prosecutor that we need a lot more of in the “Justice” Department.