IRS Whistleblowers and Devon Archer - House Oversight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the committee is being selective in what they are releasing — they conveniently forgot the bank records that showed Joe Biden actually loaned James Biden money in January 2018. I guess James paid Joe back when Americore LLC paid James for whatever. In other words, Joe did not benefit in any way.

I thought they were looking for the documentation on the loan from Joe to Jim Biden. Has this already been found?

We loaned my sister a significant amount without any documentation.

I thought you needed loan documentation for IRS purposes.

Not if you don’t charge interest.

The AFR is used by the IRS as a point of comparison versus the interest on loans between related parties, such as family members.3 If you were giving a loan to a family member, you would need to be sure that the interest rate charged is equal to or higher than the minimum applicable federal rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/applicablefederalrate.asp

Not if there is no interest. I can give someone $5,000 and they can give me $5,000 back in the future. There is no need to keep a record of that transaction.

If you loan money between family members and don’t charge interest, then the amount of the forgone interest at the AFR rate is considered to be imputed income and taxed accordingly. Those rules don’t apply for $5k loan, but do for $200k loan.

So the big crime here is that Biden did not report about $1000 in interest income that he could've had had he charged interest?

No one said it was a crime. I don't even know if he didn't properly account for it. Just correcting the misinformation about interest free loans to family members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the committee is being selective in what they are releasing — they conveniently forgot the bank records that showed Joe Biden actually loaned James Biden money in January 2018. I guess James paid Joe back when Americore LLC paid James for whatever. In other words, Joe did not benefit in any way.

I thought they were looking for the documentation on the loan from Joe to Jim Biden. Has this already been found?

yers, it was found. He provided a check to James for $200,000 in January 2018.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the committee is being selective in what they are releasing — they conveniently forgot the bank records that showed Joe Biden actually loaned James Biden money in January 2018. I guess James paid Joe back when Americore LLC paid James for whatever. In other words, Joe did not benefit in any way.

I thought they were looking for the documentation on the loan from Joe to Jim Biden. Has this already been found?

We loaned my sister a significant amount without any documentation.

I thought you needed loan documentation for IRS purposes.

Not if you don’t charge interest.

The AFR is used by the IRS as a point of comparison versus the interest on loans between related parties, such as family members.3 If you were giving a loan to a family member, you would need to be sure that the interest rate charged is equal to or higher than the minimum applicable federal rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/applicablefederalrate.asp

Not if there is no interest. I can give someone $5,000 and they can give me $5,000 back in the future. There is no need to keep a record of that transaction.

If you loan money between family members and don’t charge interest, then the amount of the forgone interest at the AFR rate is considered to be imputed income and taxed accordingly. Those rules don’t apply for $5k loan, but do for $200k loan.

So the big crime here is that Biden did not report about $1000 in interest income that he could've had had he charged interest?

Yep. The BIG CRIME is not reporting income that you didn't receive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the committee is being selective in what they are releasing — they conveniently forgot the bank records that showed Joe Biden actually loaned James Biden money in January 2018. I guess James paid Joe back when Americore LLC paid James for whatever. In other words, Joe did not benefit in any way.

I thought they were looking for the documentation on the loan from Joe to Jim Biden. Has this already been found?

We loaned my sister a significant amount without any documentation.

I thought you needed loan documentation for IRS purposes.

Not if you don’t charge interest.

The AFR is used by the IRS as a point of comparison versus the interest on loans between related parties, such as family members.3 If you were giving a loan to a family member, you would need to be sure that the interest rate charged is equal to or higher than the minimum applicable federal rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/applicablefederalrate.asp

Not if there is no interest. I can give someone $5,000 and they can give me $5,000 back in the future. There is no need to keep a record of that transaction.

If you loan money between family members and don’t charge interest, then the amount of the forgone interest at the AFR rate is considered to be imputed income and taxed accordingly. Those rules don’t apply for $5k loan, but do for $200k loan.

So the big crime here is that Biden did not report about $1000 in interest income that he could've had had he charged interest?

No one said it was a crime. I don't even know if he didn't properly account for it. Just correcting the misinformation about interest free loans to family members.

The entire right wing is running around breathlessly suggesting it's a huge huge crime.

Lend your brother some money, later he repays you, and you don't charge any interest, because you're a mensch helping out your bro. CRIME OF THE CENTURY!

🤦‍♂️

[Anonymous]

The swamp is real and they protect their own, even when 45 was in charge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The swamp is real and they protect their own, even when 45 was in charge

This is old news. The FBI took possession of the fake laptop because it was linked to Russian disinformation. Sorry your buddies at Fox never reported this. Kind of makes you look stupid…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The swamp is real and they protect their own, even when 45 was in charge

This is old news. The FBI took possession of the fake laptop because it was linked to Russian disinformation. Sorry your buddies at Fox never reported this. Kind of makes you look stupid…

Is it 'old news' that the FBI had 40 different sources on Biden Inc?

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is.

the story has long since been discredtied, but like a stale fart, the GOP just lets it linger because it is in their interest to spread lies and disinformation to keep people like you angry.

Remember Vince Foster? or Pizzagate? or "But her emails" - these were all lies, just like this one.

At some point, maybe you will wake up to it, or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the committee is being selective in what they are releasing — they conveniently forgot the bank records that showed Joe Biden actually loaned James Biden money in January 2018. I guess James paid Joe back when Americore LLC paid James for whatever. In other words, Joe did not benefit in any way.

I thought they were looking for the documentation on the loan from Joe to Jim Biden. Has this already been found?

We loaned my sister a significant amount without any documentation.

I thought you needed loan documentation for IRS purposes.

Not if you don’t charge interest.

The AFR is used by the IRS as a point of comparison versus the interest on loans between related parties, such as family members.3 If you were giving a loan to a family member, you would need to be sure that the interest rate charged is equal to or higher than the minimum applicable federal rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/applicablefederalrate.asp

Not if there is no interest. I can give someone $5,000 and they can give me $5,000 back in the future. There is no need to keep a record of that transaction.

If you loan money between family members and don’t charge interest, then the amount of the forgone interest at the AFR rate is considered to be imputed income and taxed accordingly. Those rules don’t apply for $5k loan, but do for $200k loan.

So the big crime here is that Biden did not report about $1000 in interest income that he could've had had he charged interest?

Yep. The BIG CRIME is not reporting income that you didn't receive.

The Biden crime family doesn’t report fantasy income. Hey I know someone who does!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The swamp is real and they protect their own, even when 45 was in charge

This is old news. The FBI took possession of the fake laptop because it was linked to Russian disinformation. Sorry your buddies at Fox never reported this. Kind of makes you look stupid…

Is it 'old news' that the FBI had 40 different sources on Biden Inc?

Grassley's letter to Garland and Wray:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_justice_deptfbi1023followup.pdf

The FBI maintained more than 40 confidential human sources on various criminal matters related to the Biden family, including Joe Biden, dating back to his time as vice president, according to information obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

The confidential human sources "provided criminal information to the FBI relating to Joe Biden, James Biden, and Hunter Biden." Those confidential human sources were managed by multiple FBI field offices across the nation, including the FBI’s Seattle Field Office.

But Grassley learned that an FBI task force within the Washington Field Office sought to, and in some cases, successfully, shut down reporting and information from those sources by falsely discrediting the information as foreign disinformation. That effort "caused investigative activity to cease."

However, despite those efforts by the FBI task force, Grassley said in at least one instance, a confidential human source and its information had been vetted by multiple U.S. attorneys' offices, which found "no hits to known sources of Russian disinformation."

The revelations were laid out in a letter Grassley wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray late Tuesday night. The letter was exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-received-criminal-information-40-confidential-sources-joe-biden-hunter-jim-grassley?intcmp=tw_fnc

[Anonymous]

Under Barr/Trump, the FBI tasked 40 agents to the Hunter Biden story. Talk about using the instruments of government against your enemies...


https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_justice_deptfbi1023followup.pdf

[Anonymous]

BREAKING: House Oversight reveals that former Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady concluded that the Biden bribery allegations on the FBI 1023 form were CREDIBLE. His team corroborated much of the informants claim of an alleged bribery scheme involving $5 million to both Hunter and Joe Biden from Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and referred criminal matters to three separate U.S. Attorney's offices in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Delaware for further investigation.

Brady claims at that point he encountered "unprecedented foot-dragging" and obstruction from the FBI, which refused to pursue the investigation.

He also called Ranking Member Jamie Raskin a LIAR for claiming that Brady didn't find the allegations credible—when the exact opposite was true.

If there was no "there" there, why were so many players within federal law enforcement working so hard to obstruct an investigation that could have cleared Joe Biden from any allegations of corruption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BREAKING: House Oversight reveals that former Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady concluded that the Biden bribery allegations on the FBI 1023 form were CREDIBLE. His team corroborated much of the informants claim of an alleged bribery scheme involving $5 million to both Hunter and Joe Biden from Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and referred criminal matters to three separate U.S. Attorney's offices in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Delaware for further investigation.

Brady claims at that point he encountered "unprecedented foot-dragging" and obstruction from the FBI, which refused to pursue the investigation.

He also called Ranking Member Jamie Raskin a LIAR for claiming that Brady didn't find the allegations credible—when the exact opposite was true.

If there was no "there" there, why were so many players within federal law enforcement working so hard to obstruct an investigation that could have cleared Joe Biden from any allegations of corruption?

Was this bribery also in 2018 when Biden...wasn't in office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BREAKING: House Oversight reveals that former Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady concluded that the Biden bribery allegations on the FBI 1023 form were CREDIBLE. His team corroborated much of the informants claim of an alleged bribery scheme involving $5 million to both Hunter and Joe Biden from Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and referred criminal matters to three separate U.S. Attorney's offices in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Delaware for further investigation.

Brady claims at that point he encountered "unprecedented foot-dragging" and obstruction from the FBI, which refused to pursue the investigation.

He also called Ranking Member Jamie Raskin a LIAR for claiming that Brady didn't find the allegations credible—when the exact opposite was true.

If there was no "there" there, why were so many players within federal law enforcement working so hard to obstruct an investigation that could have cleared Joe Biden from any allegations of corruption?

Scott Brady is a partisan shill according to a DOJ IG report.
https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-department-inspector-general-scott-brady-trump-barr-voter-fraud-2022-2?amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BREAKING: House Oversight reveals that former Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady concluded that the Biden bribery allegations on the FBI 1023 form were CREDIBLE. His team corroborated much of the informants claim of an alleged bribery scheme involving $5 million to both Hunter and Joe Biden from Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and referred criminal matters to three separate U.S. Attorney's offices in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Delaware for further investigation.

Brady claims at that point he encountered "unprecedented foot-dragging" and obstruction from the FBI, which refused to pursue the investigation.

He also called Ranking Member Jamie Raskin a LIAR for claiming that Brady didn't find the allegations credible—when the exact opposite was true.

If there was no "there" there, why were so many players within federal law enforcement working so hard to obstruct an investigation that could have cleared Joe Biden from any allegations of corruption?

Scott Brady is a partisan shill according to a DOJ IG report.
https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-department-inspector-general-scott-brady-trump-barr-voter-fraud-2022-2?amp

The probe found Brady exercised “poor judgment” & behaved in a way that “was unbecoming of a US Attorney"

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-doj-government-watchdog-voter-fraud