James Comer clashed with NBC News' Ryan Nobles while appearing on Meet the Press. At issue were the recent revelations that Joe Biden received direct payments from Hunter Biden's businesses. That news broke after years of denials by the now-president, who claimed he had no knowledge at all of his son's dealings and that an "absolute wall" existed between the two. 

Nobles, ever ready to parrot left-wing talking points, claimed the money paid was for an "interest-free loan." Comer laid into that assertion. 

Comer was pressed by Nobles to provide an example of "influence peddling," which Nobles claimed was actually a "paper trail" showing that the money that passed between Hunter Biden and his father was from "interest-free loans." 

"You say there's evidence proving it's a loan," Comer said to Nobles. "I’ve never seen evidence that proves it’s a loan. I’m from a banking background. If I loan you $250,000 and then you pay me back $250,000, then I should have a check to you for $250,000. Am I wrong about that?"

In this instance, I think Comer took the bait when he shouldn't have, granting a premise that Nobles had not established. The idea that it being a loan would make it okay is a fallacy. The claim from Joe Biden has always been that he did not benefit from his son's corrupt business ventures, including the money made in China. If you give me a loan and I go rob someone to then pay it back, that means you benefited from the robbery. It destroys the idea that there was an "absolute wall" in place. Clearly, there was not. 

Further, the idea that there is no evidence that the money in question was made via influence peddling is laughable. We know that Hunter Biden was getting paid by various entities, and the only reason was because of what his last name was. The money made from China wasn't because he was providing some great service. Access was expected in return. No one who is intellectually honest denies that at this point. 

What Nobles is trying to do is play games, pushing the idea that influence peddling didn't happen because Joe Biden was supposedly unaware of it. One, we don't know if that's true (and there's ample evidence it's not, given his contacts with his son's business associates). Two, even if it were, it doesn't change the corruption of the Biden family in running such an operation. Would Nobles be this forgiving if we were talking about the Trump family? Of course, he wouldn't be. 

The clash continued as Nobles kept insisting there was no evidence of influence peddling. 

"But there is, sir." Nobles responded. "You have bank records. You have bank records that show that the money came from one account into the other account." 

Comer said that Nobles was simply repeating talking points that he received from the Biden administration and from the Biden legal team. 

"That’s not true. I’m sorry, but that is not true," Comer said. "You’re not providing factual information: you’re providing talking points from the White House and the Biden legal team."

(...)

"You don’t understand," Comer said. "It’s like you’re financially illiterate. You look like a smart guy on TV. Listen, I’m a banker. I’ve been involved in a bank board for a long time. The money that the Bidens paid Joe Biden back with came from influence peddling."

Comer might as well be talking to a wall. He's trying to make the point that Biden, wittingly or not, benefited from his son's ill-gotten gains, proving one of the president's chief claims a lie. Nobles just won't accept that and instead keeps pushing the idea that it didn't come from influence peddling when that's clearly where the money originated from. 

This is the challenge for Republicans. It doesn't matter how much evidence they dig up showing that Joe Biden lied repeatedly about this subject. The press is all too happy to just keep moving the goalposts. No matter, though. Impeachment isn't done in the court of public opinion. Comer should keep pressing.