This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Bobulinski was one of the people who received the email, so presumably he knows. And “moves the needle” with respect to what? All you said in the linked post was that no one had successfully “run things up the chain,” which seems like you’re saying no one had shown Joe to be directly involved. If that was all you were asserting, then this seems like pretty good evidence that he was.
Yes, the accusation is that a Biden was influence peddling. And the fact that Biden made a lot of money elsewhere says nothing at all about whether he’d want more. Rich people do bad things all the time to get more money, especially politicians. (E.g. the Clintons were making even more money pre-2016 and AFAIK it’s pretty widely agreed that they were influence-peddling too.)
Trying to influence-peddle and not succeeding is still intending to influence-peddle, and it’s still being directly involved with Hunter’s stuff. It’s perfectly strong evidence of that. I’m not trying to convict Joe Biden of a crime here, but his intentions and complicity are entirely relevant to his character and motives.
@Folamh3 helpfully pointed me to this recent Washington Post article about the CEFC deal:
So one guy involved in the deal claims that there was 10% of the CEFC venture set aside for Joe Biden, but another guy involved in the deal denies that, a draft agreement doesn't mention Joe Biden, the final agreement doesn't mention Joe Biden, and both WSJ and WaPo examined CEFC and saw no involvement or benefit to Joe Biden. The weight of the evidence here seems very one-sided to me, and it seems reasonable to conclude that Bobulinski is either lying or exaggerating. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do. “10 held by H for the big guy” literally means Hunter would be receiving 10% on behalf of whoever the “big guy” is. That entails that the “big guy” wouldn’t be getting it directly, so even if Joe were the “big guy,” that means he wouldn’t appear in the contract. So his not appearing in it is exactly what you would expect if he were being cut in after the fashion described in the email. That reduces Giliar’s statement to mere he-said-she-said, in which case Bobulinski is no less intrinsically credible than him. And in fact, Hunter getting 20% (10% more than Jim Biden) in the contract directly supports Bobulinski’s hypothesis (10% for him, just like Jim, then another 10% for Joe).
Would you still find Bobulinski's claim to be credible if he had a falling out with Hunter or was chasing a moment in the media spotlight?
Would you find his claim credible if neither of those were true? Are they even?
I'm asking about your belief falsification.
And I'm asking about yours. I would find his story less credible if those things were true, mostly the latter. Whether I ceased to find it credible at all would depend on the precise details. But it doesn't really take an eyewitness to guess who the "big guy" is supposed to be, and no one of whom I'm aware has suggested an alternate candidate (or even publicly denied that "the big guy" refers to Joe).
Your turn.
Well I don't know Bobulinski and presumably neither do you, so I'm wondering why exactly you find him to be credible. One possible explanation is that Bobulinski is apparently still very upset with Jim and Hunter Biden over a deal he missed out on. He said himself the two brothers "defrauded" him of at least $5 million. This seems like good evidence he's at least partly motivated by payback. The Hunter Laptop saga hasn't really delivered and people lost interest over the years, which means right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are especially excited to herald Bobulinski with a moment in the spotlight. It doesn't matter if all that Bobulinski has is uncorroborated gossip, they know they can shore up ratings by resurrecting a dead story on a political figure their audience loathes.
Do you agree with or find any part of this argument persuasive?
You didn't answer the first question in the reply before last.
I don't think that I've ever personally known someone quoted in a major news story, so I don't see why my (non)acquaintance with him is relevant. Do you adopt a default of distrust toward public statements in the news? I can't say that I would have guessed that from reading your posts. (Do you personally know James Gilliar, who for all I know retained a profitable business association, or at least good and close social relations, with Hunter and Jim at the time of the statement you quoted?)
Maybe so. That's something to take into account. However, I'd note that the very article you link shows a picture of Bobulinski's personal text messages from James Gilliar, the same guy you quoted to say Joe wasn't involved in any of Hunter's dealings, explicitly instructing Bobulinski not to tell anyone that Joe is involved except in face-to-face meetings! Does this in turn hurt your trust in Gilliar at all?
Isn't that the exact claim under dispute here?
But he said that Joe Biden was "the big guy" within a week or two of the laptop story dropping. It's not like he's just now come out with new revelations to extend his 15 minutes.
Well, it's not exactly uncorroborated: he's supposed to be the one corroborating what the emails and texts appear to say, as one of the people copied on (many of) them. Also, the article you yourself linked features photographs of his personal text messages, as I mentioned above, so it's not even true that all he's giving is hearsay.
I agree that his motive for revenge means what he says should be taken with a grain of salt. However, he did sit for an FBI interview on all of this (AFAIK Gilliar did not), so he could very easily go to prison on a felony if he lied (Michael Flynn could tell him how much the FBI enjoys fucking people who slip up even a little in interviews). And presumably he told the FBI the same thing he told the press (his interview was after the October 22nd Washington Examiner story), so that seems like a pretty good assurance of earnestness, even if he turns out to be mistaken. Also, I believe that what he's saying should have been obvious to anyone with eyes to see from the original emails and texts themselves (and the conspicuous non-denials of key specific claims), thus his function for me is more as a bridge for those who lack such eyes than as a lynchpin of the whole story.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link