Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Kimberley Strassel Profile picture
@KimStrassel
Oct 23, 2020 • 5 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible.
2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe--and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.
3)Note that Hunter's two other partners (Gilliar and Walker)did not respond to WSJ news question about who was "the big guy." A 2017 text from Gilliar warns Bobulinski: "don't mention Joe being involved."
4) Bobulinski also presumably telling FBI he met with Joe, and that Joe was at some level aware of the deal. Note also that Biden camp did not provide answer to the WSJ news question about that meeting.
5) So here are the right questions for Joe:
a) are you "big guy"? b) While Chinese $$ never materialized, were u at one point--via a Hunter--in line to have an equity share? c) Did u meet with Hunter's partner? d)how does any this comport w/ your claims to not talk biz w/Hunter?

• • •

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

Kimberley Strassel Profile picture
Feb 18
1) I wasn't surprised to see this piece; being honest about the real-world difficulties of the talking filibuster was certain to nettle supporters. And by all means, let's have a debate over whether to go there.
What I was surprised by were claims I was "wrong" or that what I said was "not true" and the slippery means employed to make those claims. I'm not going to go through them all, as a few will suffice:

thefederalist.com/2026/02/17/wha…
2) Example, right off the top. The author says "not true" to my line that each D get two unlimited speeches apiece to get on the bill. Actually "yes true" in normal circumstances. The author instead presents a scenario where bill comes via "message" from the House and skips the motion to proceed. That can happen. But here's the kicker: author admits that either way--before or after getting on the bill-- Ds get . . . two unlimited speeches apiece. Which was my whole point. Whatever the procedural tricks, gear up for 94 unlimited D speeches (with the mainstream media glorifying each one). I'll meanwhile pass on debating author over hypotheticals, like how much "stamina" Bernie Sanders has for said exercise.
3) Another: Author writes it's "not true" that 51 Republicans will need to be in near-constant attendance, even as she acknowledges they would as a general whole need to "respond to live quorum calls." Can they do this from Texas or Indiana? No. From their beds? No. And she acknowledges only "a" Democrat need be on the floor speechifying. Again, my broader point is that this will be a bigger lift for the GOP than for Ds.
Read 6 tweets
Kimberley Strassel Profile picture
Dec 20, 2022
1. This "omnibus" is one of the ugliest, least transparent bits of lawmaking I've ever seen--and that's saying something. It isn't just the spending, though the new domestic numbers are gross, given the trillions spent in the past few years.
2. It's also that Congress, in a new trick, is attaching dozens of pieces of stand-alone legislation to this--retirement changes; public lands management; healthcare policy; cosmetics regulation; electoral count act changes; horseracing rules.
3. Every one deserves a full debate and a roll call vote, so that Americans can see where their representatives stand. Instead, this monstrosity is cooked in a back room, and members can claim they had no choice but to vote against a shutdown--ducking accountability.
Read 4 tweets
Kimberley Strassel Profile picture
Nov 10, 2022
The GOP choice: Make way for a new generation of winning leaders, or stick with a guy who keeps losing Republicans key elections. wsj.com/articles/donal… via @WSJ
2) For those saying Trump wasn't on the ballot, c'mon. He was definitive in candidates chosen for major races who got trounced/beat. Bolduc/Oz/Dixon/Michels/Mastriano. The rallies clearly didn't help--tho might have hurt.
3) For those saying this is because McConnell/SLF didn't do enough, c'mon. SLF poured millions in to Trump candidates in Senate races-PA/NH/AZ/GA. $30 million in Ohio alone. One reason Vance won is because DeWine won by huge margin and pulled along voters.
Read 5 tweets
Kimberley Strassel Profile picture
Oct 28, 2022
1) The comment section for this piece is clocking a lot of liberal pushback, and their arguments provide great insight as to why the left likes this system..... wsj.com/articles/the-r… via @WSJ
2) It basically goes like this (I will decode): Our current two-party primary/election system is turning out "radicals" (ie, conservatives) that are bad for society (ie, liberal causes)....
3) Therefore we the people (ie, liberals funding these ranked choice initiatives) will impose upon all of you a voting system that guarantees more "moderate" "consensus" candidates (ie, politicians more likely to do what we on the left would like.)
Read 4 tweets
Kimberley Strassel Profile picture
Sep 2, 2021
1) I see @Liz_Cheney retweeted this. Someone ought to ask her how a conservative can justify a committee plan to rifle through the emails/voicemails/texts/calls of private citizens, including her colleagues--without giving them opportunity to litigate.
2) Last I knew, principled conservatives had issues with government that thinks it has a limitless right to secretly spy on its citizens--depriving them of the right to contest in court. Remember the whole FISA/Carter Page thing?
3) At least when Schiff pulled his secret subpoena stunt, he mainly obtained metadata--what phone number called what phone number, and when. The Jan. 6 snoops have asked companies to preserve a stunning amount of text/email/voicemail info, over a 10-month period.
Read 7 tweets
Kimberley Strassel Profile picture
Sep 1, 2021
1) This article is so off base as to be laughable. cnn.com/2021/08/31/pol…
2) The Jan. 6 Committee hardly has an obvious right to this information. We have laws protecting American privacy. I know it is asking a lot that reporters should do their homework, but they can start with this statute, 47 USC 222.
3) That law does allow telcos to release information when required by "law," but it is far from clear the Committee meets this test. Just last year the DC circuit threw into doubt whether House even has the power to enforce subpoenas.
Read 7 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(