No sources cited, does not provide perspective from both sides, reads like an Op Ed. The author would do well to actually investigate the situation, rather than spend time peddling propaganda that pushes their own book.

It isn't the job if the reader to corroborate multiple different instances of speculation. This article doesn't seem to take a political bent but instead engages in correlation without causation and lack of reliable sources. Where there were links to other articles/sources, these were often not the areas where I cared to dive deeper. In fact most of the speculative statements within the article didn't have the back up with sources, hence my review.

For the number of strong claims and speculation in the piece, there is little to no supporting evidence. Every other sentence is either an extraordinary claim, speculating about someone's intent, or both. I can live with an opinion piece where the author cites his or her sources, but this much leaves me completely unable to trust the piece.

As I said when I recommended this article for Credder yesterday, this piece goes well behind the scenes and quotes sources for a lot of what gets tossed around these days as “facts.” A key figure (Peter Schweizer) has authored a best-selling NYT book, but as the article notes, his efforts here got relegated to conservative outlets. This article shows his role in the corruption memes that I believe are of deep concern across the political spectrum. The thesis of the article, however, is that Trump's enthusiasm for the “Corrupt Biden” meme, and a clumsy attempt to weaponize it by strong-arming Ukraine, has damaged the meme's credibility (among much else). Given the alarm (including initiating impeachment) that arose from the exposure of Trump's attempts to get dirt on a rival, that thesis has some support and can be considered in its own right. This article helpfully traces how the meme grew to become the focus in the question of Trump's abuse of his office. Even if this article doesn't discuss Democrats' talking points that may similarly arise from behind the scenes, this reporting does not seem one-sided; I did not see any statement that I could contradict. Ergo, 5 stars. All said, however, I'd be remiss in not noting my own potential confirmation bias in reading several of the story points. I urge readers to consider it for its news value and try to weigh it against their own preconceptions.