4 ms·
If this [1] is the WSJ report you are talking about, then your statement that it "thoroughly broke down and discredited all aspects of this story" is blatantly
by lliamander 6y ago
If this [1] is the WSJ report you are talking about, then your statement that it "thoroughly broke down and discredited all aspects of this story" is blatantly false.
All they claimed was that there was no clear evidence in Bobulinski's text messages that Joe Biden was involved (though the "big guy" phrasing refering to Joe was not proved one way or the other).
It does not discredit the emails, nor Bobulinski's own testimony. It's actually just a pretty reasonable and reporting of the information they had available.
[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partner-alleges-father-knew-about-venture-11603421247 https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partn...
- seppin 6y ago> no clear evidence Just say "no evidence". > (though the "big guy" phrasing refering to Joe was not proved one way or the other). Pizzagate all over again. "As long as some words mean other words than we have a full blown, fully-proven scandal!" Again, you aren't fooling anyone that isn't volunteering to be fooled so their worldview can be protected. The definition of a waste of time.