information about the Biden-China CEFC scam has been placed online piecemeal. I've written a lengthy narrative in which I've organized all information that I'm presently aware of. scribd.com/document/48241…
2/ it's a sordid story in which the Bidens not only end up with $5 million in cash from the Chinese, but stiffed Bobulinski and their original Sinohawk partners. Quite aside from potential illegality, the objective of Hunter and the other Bidens was to support a profligate
3/ life style, by assisting a Chinese company (CEFC) in its acquisition of western assets through acquiring "prestige". CEFC lured the Bidens with a lure of equity participation to families of important politicians - more or less the same promise (but on a much larger scale)
4/ which CEFC's Patrick Ho had made to politicians in Uganda and Chad, for which he was charged and convicted by SDNY. Which closed its eyes to seemingly identical offenses involving Joe and other Bidens.
5/ here's another useful narrative on CEFC. Not as detailed as mine, but they picked up a couple of details that I missed (and will incorporate.) coreysdigs.com/u-s/exclusive-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Interview with Olga Galkina (Source 3) published today in Russia. She says that Danchenko fabricated information attributed to her. mk.ru/politics/2020/…
2/ in my jugement, there are multiple layers of fabrication involving both Steele and Danchenko, with Steele's fabrications being much the worse. However, Steele and Danchenko both employ the classic The Other Dude Did It defense. Both should have been charged as co-conspirators.
3/ Read the interview. It's very interesting. Galkina says that it is impossible that she had the communications attribution to her by Danchenko. She calls for a full investigation of Steele dossier fraud.
@KSantal the $5 million capital contribution by CEFC to Hudson West IV has different legal status than proposed $5 million loan to Oneida Holdings for their capital contribution to Sinohawk. The chronology is complicated. But yes, the $ 5 million isright place to start.
@KSantal while there are so many potential offenses that it's hard to keep track, Hunter clearly did NOT provide $4.8 million of "consulting services" for Hudson West IV from Aug 2017 to Sep 2018, as HW-4 and CEFC were not pursuing business opportunities as CEFC collapsed.
@KSantal in other words, Hunter (using Owasco) appropriated/embezzled $4.8 million from Hudson West IV for personal use without providing "honest services" to Hudson West IV (or even CEFC).
I urge readers to look at case brought against Patrick Ho of CEFC in Nov 2017. CEFC is the Chinese company which paid Bidens $5 million in 2017-2018 and which proposed to "partner" with Biden family. courtlistener.com/docket/6250468…
SDNY charged that CEFC offered benefits to Ugandan politician by proposing to "partner" with families of the politician.
earlier in 2017, CEFC has proposed to "partner" with family of US politician Joe Biden, as documented in Hunter Biden email and diagram.
all 26 pages were redacted except for the date of the meeting. FBI did negligible redaction on Manafort, Gates interviews. FBI is defying declassification order to the end.
@DNI_Ratcliffe why do you permit this defiance by permanent bureaucracy? Shame on you.
according to NYT in Dec 2018, Ye met Hunter in Miami in May 2017. This was exactly the same month that Bobulinski and Gilliar were negotiating Sinohawk on behalf of Bidens. Is May 2017 date for Miami right? What a gong show.
2/ for chronology, looks to me like Miami meeting (the diamond meeting) must be prior to May 17 Hunter text in which he mentions Zhang. Date would be useful to pin down.
3/ on Fri (May 19), Hunter proposes that they all meet in Romania on Tuesday [May 23] as Zhang will be there. Bobulinski's letter of Aug 1 to CEFC refers to Romania and Moscow meetings. Looks like Romania meet was May 23.
I agree with frustration over Twitter bias but there may be better way of dealing with issue than trying to bargain with Twitter using s230 as potential cudgel, as Twitter will just wait this out. Note that s230 is in subchapter on Common Carriers. Let's look at other sections
2/ the next subchapter of 47 USC contains an interesting looking section: 254. Universal service. I wonder if it contains anything relevant 😀
3/ section 254(b) says that regulators shall have policies for "preservation and advancement of universal service" including a requiement that providers of telecommunications services shall make "equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution"