1) The Johnson-Grassley report raises the many and disturbing conflicts of interests surrounding Hunter's biz dealings while Joe was veep. But it also makes clear that the Democratic nominee is not being straight with the public.
2) Joe Biden last year: "I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." That's pretty definitive, right? Yet according to testimony from former Obama official Amos Hochstein, he briefed Joe on his concerns about Hunter/Burisma in October 2015... AND
3) "Shortly after his conversation with Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden contacted Hochstein and
asked to meet. According to Hochstein, Hunter became aware of Hochstein’s West Wing conversation with the Vice President, who had mentioned it to Hunter." (Page 17 of report)
4) So, Joe Biden was specifically briefed on the U.S. govs concerns about Hunter/Burisma, and he specifically brought up those concerns to his son. How does that comport with "I have never spoken"?? If Joe isn't asked about this at the debate, it will be journalistic malpractice.
5) The report similarly shows that despite former Sec of State John Kerry saying he had no knowledge of any of this, that in fact he too was briefed on Hunter. Seems a lot of people in Obama administration knew this was a problem, but nobody acted.
6) This is all relevant given Biden's claim he is the more ethical choice in this election. Voters might legitimately ask if the wink-nod approach to Hunter's wheeling-dealing will be business as usual in a Biden administration.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kimberley Strassel

Kimberley Strassel Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KimStrassel

20 Jan
1) Speaking of morally bankrupt, this qualifies. And it is quite the stunning rewrite of (literally written) history. usatoday.com/story/opinion/… via @usatoday
2) WSJ editpage has consistently advocated "parliamentary procedure, the rule of law, and national unity." We in fact did it during the hardest time--when too many other institutions abandoned these principles cuz they despised the U.S. electorate's choice for president (Trump)
3) We consistently wrote the truth on the Russia collusion hoax and called out the dangerous abuses of FBI/DOJ; stood for due process during Kavanaugh; scored last year's politicized impeachment process; called for judicial norms.
Read 6 tweets
11 Jan
Imagine how helpful it would be if @JoeBiden were to show some grace, call on Democrats to stand down, practice the healing he keeps preaching. Why won't he?
2) I am struck by the responses to this from those on the left, insisting that Trump must be held "accountable"--no peace, no healing. Impeachment ho! That seems to forget the past three years, how we got here.
3) There are still tens of millions of conservatives still waiting for someone to be held "accountable" for three years of a Russia-collusion hoax--the Democrats' own effort to overturn the 2016 election. And yes, that is still on many, many Americans' minds.
Read 4 tweets
7 Nov 20
1) It is something to watch Democrats express shock that Republican voters won't just trust the ballot counting. Especially because it was Democrats who set the stage for this lack of trust in the system. Remember . . .
2) It was Hillary/DNC that coopted FBI to try to run out a duly elected president last time. Ds insisted Rs should trust the system (the FBI would NEVER do anything bad!!!) until all the appalling details came out. It was one of the dirtiest political tricks in history.
3) It was Ds who for months prior to Election Day worked overtime to get courts/officials to override legislatures and change/water down election law. They said this was in the name of COVID, even as it was transparently to their political benefit.
Read 4 tweets
5 Nov 20
1) Lot of folks saying (incorrectly) GOP wants to both "count" and "stop" ballots at same time. Let's be more precise. There are three categories. a) Rs calling to count votes that came in by election day or before, per state law. This is obvious.
2) b) R's calling to halt votes until GOP observers given access to vote counting. No one is suggesting these votes not be counted, only that Rs be allowed to witness the counting. Why not? Transparency is good. Will raise confidence in outcome.
3) c) Rs questioning states that want to count votes that contravene state-law on deadlines, etc. Left claiming this is disenfranchisement, but why? Laws are laws. We are all expected to follow them. And why shud some states get extra ( judicially granted) privileges, not others?
Read 4 tweets
4 Nov 20
1) I am legitimately interested/confused by this. I checked, and the top number is indeed Wisconsin's active registered voter number as of Nov. 1. The bottom is approx. what has been counted. That is a (not feasible) 89% turnout.
2) The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is claiming a 71% state turnout. I'm not sure where it gets this, but that would make more sense, given even populous Milwaukee didn't exceed 83% turnout, and Dane lower. (Do math on what rest of state wud need to bump up state avg to 89)
3) True, Wisconsin has same day voter registration. But to be at 71%, WI would have yesterday needed 900k same-day registrations. ( If I'm doing my math wrong--please tell me. 3,288,771 divided by 4,588,771 equals 71% . 4,588,771 minus 3,684,726 =900k)
Read 9 tweets
27 Oct 20
1) I'd note a curious double-standard, namely that @Twitter hasn't slapped a warning label on the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story.
2)The word the partisans were searching for was "confirmed." Our editpage column went up first, then the news side story. Both pieces explain that: the China negotiations were real; Hunter was involved; a document suggests a stake was envisioned for Joe; the deal fell through.
3) The only substantive difference: the news side correctly said Joe's name wasn't on official records. Our column correctly said emails/docs existed suggesting a deliberate effort to ensure his name wasn't on official records. We invited Joe to clear up the confusion.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!