And this is where the divide comes... that article is so one-sided. It alludes to Russian disinformation, even though the director of Intelligence says this is not true. It references the Burisma scandal without mentioning the sword affidavit by the prosecuting attorney that says he was investigating Burisma. It says there are only anonymous sources, even though some of Hunter's former business partners have corroborated the story and the emails. One of them, a former LT in the Navy, also says that Hunter referred to his father as the big guy or my chairman, as to not implicate him directly in deals. Now, that's hearsay, but there is more evidence that supports this position than there was to impeach Trump for the quid pro quo. How is it that when the evidence can go one of two ways, the MSM ALWAYS falls to the opposite direction. They aren't even presenting any of that information at all.

Also, as an interesting aside, I'd be curious when that Chinese business that dealt business with Hunter went bankrupt. I know they think that makes the business sound unimportant, but, at least to me, it makes it look like its existence was tied to Administrative support, assuming it failed during the Trump administration. Anyone care to do the research on that so I don't have to? Because, if it failed during the Trump administration it could suggest it that it either existed solely to gain political influence, or it relied on political connections to succeed. The third option, is that it was mismanaged, but I think that is an American way of thinking. Either way, if Politico was doing real research, the correct follow up questions that would be addressed in the article are things like: How much influence did the Chinese communist party have on that business, when was it formed, when was it terminated, what was their primary way of making money. All of that would be useful to know, right?

---