House Republicans (.gov).."Releases Evidence of Direct Payment to Joe Biden": "BREAKING: House Republicans are calling for the immediate impeachment of Joe Biden after the Oversight Committee found a $200,000 bribe to the former vice president"

BREAKING: House Republicans are calling for the immediate impeachment of Joe Biden after the Oversight Committee found a $200,000 bribe to the former vice president.

6:20 PM · Oct 20, 2023

192.8K
Views

Press Releases

House Republicans (.gov)

https://www.gop.gov › news › documentsingle

6 hours ago — This summer, President Biden asked, “Where's the money?” when asked about bribery allegations. Well, the House Committee on Oversight and .

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Releases Evidence of Direct Payment to Joe Biden

Washington, October 20, 2023

Tags: Biden's Crime Crisis , A Government That's Accountable

This summer, President Biden asked, “Where’s the money?” when asked about bribery allegations. Well, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Republicans, under the leadership of Chairman James Comer, has found some of the money.

Bank records obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability show that on March 1, 2018, Americore — a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator, wired a whopping $200,000 into James and Sara Biden’s personal bank account on the very same day, James Biden wrote a $200,000 check from this same personal bank account directly to Joe Biden.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: House Republicans will continue to follow the facts and evidence wherever they may lead as we continue our impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

THE FACTS ABOUT EVIDENCE OF DIRECT PAYMENT TO JOE BIDEN (Courtesy of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Republicans):

Bank records obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability have revealed a $200,000 direct payment from James and Sara Biden to Joe Biden in the form of a personal check.

This summer, Joe Biden said: “Where’s the money?” Well, the Oversight Committee found some.
The Oversight Committee is still examining evidence subpoenaed from bank accounts belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, and James and Sara Biden – the brother and sister-in-law of the President. During our review, we have identified a $200,000 direct payment from James and Sara Biden to Joe Biden in the form of a
personal check.
In 2018, James Biden received $600,000 in loans from, Americore—a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator.
According to bankruptcy court documents, James Biden 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 March 1, 2018, Americore wired a $200,000 loan into James and Sara Biden’s personal bank account – not their business bank account. On the same day, James Biden wrote a $200,000 check from this same personal bank account to Joe Biden.
James Biden wrote this check to Joe Biden as a “loan repayment.” Americore money—a failing company—loaned money to James Biden who then sent it to Joe Biden. Even if this was a personal loan repayment, 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.

This check to Joe Biden raises new questions about how he personally benefited from his family’s shady influence peddling of his name and their access to him.

Given this direct payment, there are several questions President Biden must immediately answer for the Americanpeople:
- Does he have documents proving he lent such a large sum of money to his brother and what were the terms of such financial arrangement?
- Did he have similar financial arrangements with other family members that led them to make similar large payments to him? [https://www.gop.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=622]

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ? On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace. The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...

The Catholic Monitor

Search This Blog