Read on Twitter
1/ So let& #39;s unpack the news story in the WSJ on the Biden deal, and it& #39;s supposed "debunking" of what the WSJ opinion side is saying. So the opinion side, namely @kimstrassel, reports on Tony Bobulinski& #39;s claims regarding working with the Bidens (Hunter and Joe& #39;s...
2/ ...brother Jim) on a China venture. Bobulinski claims he& #39;s recruited to work on the China deal by another businessman named James Gillar. Bobulinski alleges that Hunter and Jim were doing deals with Biden& #39;s knowledge and leveraging the Biden name as well as Joe& #39;s...
3/ ...influence, but in such a way as to publicly hide Joe Biden& #39;s involvement. Specifically, Bobulinski points to a text where it says 10% of the deal is to be "held by H [Hunter] for the big guy?" with the "big guy" being alleged to be Joe Biden. Strassel reports...
4/ ...all this and more. The news side writes a story about all this that is tonally guarded, but factually correct as far as I can tell. Despite the news side trying to be careful, it doesn& #39;t directly contradict or disprove Bobulinski& #39;s allegations.
5/ The news story reports that "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden." Well, yes, the point was to keep Joe Biden from being publicly associated with the deals. Of course, Joe Biden isn& #39;t going to be on the paperwork.
6/ Further, Gillar tells the WSJ news side he had no knowledge of Biden& #39;s involvement. Here& #39;s the quote: “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure.
7/ I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former Vice President. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.” The second sentence is conditional and doesn& #39;t clear up any speculation. It& #39;s possible Bobulinski was made aware of Joe Biden& #39;s...
8/ ...involvement like he claims, but Gillar was not. Here& #39;s where it gets odd. As for whether the critical text alleging Joe Biden was the "big guy" being cut in on the deal with his stake being held by his son, "Mr. Gilliar didn’t respond to a request for comment...
9/ ...on that message." Again, the facts could change but it appears that the news story was carefully written, and it doesn& #39;t debunk Bobulinski& #39;s allegations. Strassel further makes the observation that the Biden campaign concedes the deal was...
10/ ...real: https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1319484649727389698?s=20">https://twitter.com/KimStrass... There& #39;s a larger narrative here, in the context of the liberal reporters on the news side not liking the conservative opinion side, but clearly people want this story to be a bigger conflict than the facts on the page make it out...
11/ ...to be. Everyone wants this Biden corruption story to just go away, but so far new facts keep raising new questions. FIN.
Wait -- should mention this, which if true and in context, blows a bit of hole in Gillar& #39;s denial. https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1319287546229129217">https://twitter.com/seanmdav/...
