The last sentence is what matters. With it, the Biden campaign seemed to be flatly denying that Hunter Biden introduced Pozharskyi to Joe Biden. Of course, one could parse the meaning. For example, the statement referred only to Biden’s “official schedules.” There could not have been some sort of unofficial introduction, could there? And the statement said that no meeting “as alleged by the New York Post” ever took place. There could not have been some sort of introduction that did not fit the allegation in the New York Post, could there? Certainly the Biden campaign would not make a lawyerly, evasive statement like that, would it?

The answer is not clear. Especially after Politico reported: “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory. Pozharskyi did not respond to a request for comment.”

Oh. That reporting, if accurate, made the situation a bit murkier. Perhaps there had been an “informal” interaction between the elder Biden and Pozharskyi, but it would just have been “cursory.” In other words, the New York Post article, banned by social media, denounced by many journalists, might be accurate.