They don't contradict anything he claimed, nor does Biden's camp. He was pretty outspoken about the fact that his firm in partnership with Biden never received the Chinese funds, and instead he points to the Ron Johnson senate report that Joe and/or Hunter Biden went behind his back and received funds from China directly instead of through the partnership with Bubblelinks- much to his chagrin. Their claim of "no role for Joe Biden" is predicated on how that deal didn't occur. But with Joe Biden personally meeting with Bobulinski to arrange the deal, and then the Biden family receiving funds from China anyway through their own personal shell corporations instead of through Bobulinskis organization- that just makes it worse. And it certainly makes the headline about "no Joe Biden involvement" flatly wrong.

Its a pretty specific claim, Bobulinski said he met with Joe Biden to discuss the deal on behalf of the Chinese, in a bar in Beverly Hills on May 2nd, 2017. And there are contemporary emails thanking Joe Biden for the meeting. That meeting taking place is mutually exclusive with the denial of any Joe Biden role

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 27 2020 10:52pm

This should have all the information you need:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/us/politics/bidens-china.html

You basically posted the same article twice....

>there is no evidence
>except all this evidence

How can they claim there is no evidence of Joe Biden's involvement, when there are numerous emails, witnesses and official documents describing Joe Biden's involvement, and we've been presented with specific dates and times detailing Joe Biden's direct involvement?
See, that's called lying.

The NYT could claim that the evidence isn't proof, and hang onto doubts. And even that would be a stretch, because the evidence is piling up to incontrovertible levels
Instead they went with the complete and total denial and claiming that there exists no evidence at all, despite, you know, the mountain of evidence.
They even acknowledge some of the evidence, while denying any evidence exists. Its some moon logic doublethink.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 27 2020 11:22pm

Your interpretation of the events is simply wrong then.

If this were a court case, and Tony Bobulinski was a witness for the prosecution, and the evidence in the docket were the numerous emails from Hunter Biden's laptop and the emails provided directly to the media by Bobulinksi, and the financial reports from the senate investigation- would the reporters be able to claim that zero evidence was being presented in the trial? Whether evidence exists isn't a matter of interpretation.

None of the available evidence would even come in because the chain of custody is garbage.

The FBI subpoena disagrees.

An FBI subpoena is irrelevant to that lol

They literally subpoenaed the hard drive, establishing a valid chain of evidence for it to be presented in court, so when you bring that up for this hypothetical scenario its kind of 'irrelevant to this'