Gillar, of course, being the author of the email in question.

Who didn't reveal who "the big guy" actually was. Who refused further comment. Who later wrote when asked about Joe "If they lose, honestly, I don’t think that the Big Guy really cares about that because he’ll be too busy focusing on all the other s–t he is doing.”.

The copy turned over to the FBI showed no tampering.

So the email you are disputing was recorded, in sequence, among a whole load of other verified evidence that has no sign of tampering. And there are other copies verified by other recipients, two of whom understood the big guy to be Joe.

No wonder the FBI found nothing damning.

This has not been stated. The 10% email may not even be for illegal activity, just politically sensitive/damaging. The FBI running "Russian Propaganda" interference is likely more damning.

there were multiple copies floating around that were tampered with.

Agreed. Giuliani certainly altered his copy. Doesn't affect the veracity of the big guy email.

More than likely this was intentionally done to spread misinformation and get right wing media to rile up the base.

Agreed. The main target of mud slinging was Hunter, who wasn't a candidate.

But sure, this Bobulinski guy seems totally credible.

No-one in this deal can be trusted. One party's involvement was designed to be hidden from the get go. More questions need to be asked and answered.

(For those keeping score, both the author of the email (Gillan) and at least one other partner (Walker) say Joe wasn’t involved. Bobulinsky and some other guy do).

So who is this big guy that is trusting his 10% into Hunter's care? If not Joe.

But the FBI already knew Trump was hostile towards them. They made the right choice.

Holy fuck! Law enforcement don’t (shouldn't) get choices. Supposedly impartial, especially at FBI level. They investigate and gather evidence for criminal prosecution.

Aside from that, you should really take an open letter and a press release from Jim Jordan with a grain of salt.

We can't believe the conclusions he is trying to insinuate. However, the requested evidence could be interesting.