Thread by @soncharm

Here’s a tight analogy:

-Hunter Biden’s ‘private equity’ shop getting $1+bn ‘investment’ from China & (because of?) greasing the wheels of tech-transfer rules etc.

-The absolute *worst* allegation in the Steele Dossier, assuming all of it to be 100% true.

(Hint: Carter Page)

The Steele Dossier has the pee tape but objectively, that’s kind of meh

It says Cohen paid off some hackers ‘in Prague’ to hack some boring emails. Crime yes, but of the century? No

But the REAL accusation: big time bribery. Page gets a cut of Rosneft sale for sanctions relief.

Many people, of course, first read the dossier as saying (& still think?) Page, or Trump or someone, would GET the 19% of Rosneft being sold. I’m kinda convinced the author didn’t actually know the diff b/t GETTING 19% and getting a broker’s fee on 19%. Anyway, still a bribe.

Well, what was that exactly? A foreign state, giving a financial incentive to someone perceived as close to the policymaker, in hopes of altering that policy.

Which is EXACTLY what the Chinese ‘investment’ with Hunter HAD TO have been.

The difference is that when it was Page, our DOJ (and CIA) freaked out about it, sprung into action, treated it as a major crime

When it was a Biden, they didn’t/couldn’t even see it as bad. That’s just BAU. Business as usual

The ‘best’ mental spin I can put on any of that is that whatever Hunter was doing with all his freelancing, was seen as consistent with and furthering the ‘Great Power Game’ goals of the CIA etc. Whereas Trump’s people were not playing ball with the great game, just freelancing.

IOW, I’m sticking with my conjecture that Hunter’s freelancing (& Biden’s hand in protecting it) was IC-connected or -approved in some way. That would explain a lot of the apparent double standards.

If so, we’ll probably never know it. On the plus side, I won’t be proven wrong!