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.
4) So those spreading the "debunk" line are engaging in-- how best to put it?---disinformation. (Also vagueness, since "debunking" is the left's go-to putdown when it can't point to anything in a piece that is factually incorrect--as is the case here...)
5) Thanks to both WSJ pieces, the Biden family business story is in a whole new place. We delivered actual news to our readers and beyond, which is far more than can be said about those outlets now working to bury that reality with false claims of conflict.
6) As a consummate free-speecher, I'm opposed to @Twitter censoring, even of the factually challenged. But the episode does say something profound about social media's unequal approach to stopping the spread of "misleading" information that relates to an election.

• • •

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!


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

23 Oct
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."
Read 5 tweets
8 Oct
1) @realDonaldTrump should do a virtual debate, but only under this condition: No moderator. The only rule: Trump's camera will be on for two minutes, then Biden's camera will be on for two minutes. Back and forth. 90 minutes.
2) That might prove one of the fairer and more illuminating debates in the history of the silly CPD. No moderator cutting people off or leading with loaded questions. No interruptions. And the format is one that works perfectly in a virtual setting.
3) If CPD is going to throw out the rules at this late stage, let's throw out the moderated format too. Let the American people hear both candidates speak to them and to each other for 90 minutes, equal time, equal footing.
Read 4 tweets
30 Sep
1) There are two ways to think of debates.
a) Did you excite/enthuse base? On this, Trump wins. He was consistent, and made the points that he is running on in this election--law/order; economy; D corruption in terms of FBI investigation/Hunter; handling of virus. #Debates2020
2) Biden didn't help himself with base. Performance was OK, but he was forced several times to distance himself from policies that are baseline progressive demands--Medicare for All, defund police, Green New Deal. Never forget the D party is seriously divided. #Debates2020
3)Then b) Did u persuade anyone not already decided? WSJ recent polls suggests there weren't many persuadable watching this debate. Most have made up minds. Still, on that front, legitimate question if Trump steamroller style won him points with, say, suburban women. #Debate2020
Read 4 tweets
24 Sep
1) BREAKING, per @CBS_Herridge and extraordinary.
So Christopher Steele's main source for the dossier? He was the subject of a nearly two-year long FBI counter-intel investigation (2009-2011), under suspicion of being a Russian spy and a "threat to national security."
2) Early in Obama admin, subsource "reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor" to Obama. Said if they got jobs in the administration and access to classified information, he could help them "make a little extra money."
3) FBI says he had previously contact with the Russian Embassy and Russian intelligence officers. Thanks to @paulsperry_ we know the name of this subsource, and that he for a period at this time at Brookings, Democratic think tank.
Read 9 tweets
23 Sep
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)
Read 6 tweets
10 Sep
1) Hey @jessewegman !
You have two arguments. One, that the vote in NY should equal the vote in Texas. My point—that is not federalism. The question —since each state votes for prez—is do votes in texas equal votes in texas? Or votes in NY equal votes in NY? They do.
2) You argue states should wield power to name electors proportionally. But if winner-takes-all resonates with you nationally, what is wrong with states doing the same? Again, we are a federalist system. States are the voting units. I think people forget this
3) thanks for engaging. It is good to have debate.
Read 5 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!