It’s Election Day. Voters are flocking to the polls. Joe Biden appears to be in trouble in Florida, and even his campaign is now saying they can win this election without Pennsylvania or Florida—somehow. Yet, before this cycle ends, let’s discuss the October Surprise, which was the revelation of Hunter Biden’s emails showing what appears to be a web of corruption spun by the Biden family. Joe Biden’s ‘I know nothing’ position regarding Hunter’s shady deals was exposed as a lie. He was involved. He was called the “chairman,” and Hunter called his father to get the go-ahead on certain aspects of these deals. In this situation, we’re talking about the Biden excursion into China, where the family tried to hash out a deal with CEFC China Energy, which has, to no one’s shock, ties to a rival government. This was an arrangement, like many others, that was allegedly grounded in the selling of access to top US officials. This China deal was confirmed by Biden associate Tony Bobulinski.
Bobulinski was interviewed by the FBI. He also turned over all records and devices relating to this deal. He spoke with Joe Biden twice and said this deal began when Joe was vice president. Still, even with the Senate Homeland Security Committee verifying all the materials turned over by Bobulinski, the media either a) refuse to cover it, b) says its Russian misinformation when the cover it or c) they say Biden is squeaky clean.
Well, Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel had a great column tying all the dates, texts, and emails regarding the China-Biden deal. She also scorched the narrative that Biden was out of the woods. Yet, Twitter and Facebook went heavy to try and censor the Hunter story when The New York Post first reported on the emails. Strassel called out Twitter for their double standard regarding how they flag fake news stories.
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.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
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.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
Recommended
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.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
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...)
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
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.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
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.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
“The word the partisans were searching for was ‘confirmed.’ Our edit page 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,” she wrote.
“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.”
Now, Strassel is not pro-censorship, of course, “even of the factually challenged,” she added. “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.”
And after all, this, let’s not forget that Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation for money laundering since 2019. But remember, this is not a story.
I just got my first “headlines don’t tell the whole story” warning—on my own piece. Hey @jack i don’t need to be told to reread—i wrote the damn thing, and it is all factual. Just let me tweet. It is called free speech. https://t.co/R2Gn6NueSc
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) November 1, 2020
Join the conversation as a VIP Member