What in the WSJ piece can be factually proven to be false?
One Evans is not a Trump supporter, hes the RNC whip for Trump. Two there is no, zero zip, zilch change in position showing any movement of bound delegates to the Anti's side, its exactly the same as it was after the primary with the bound delegates to the different candidates on first vote. Three, the fact many delegates would not talk to Evans and tell him what they were doing is more a reflection on him not being liked/trusted - not that they are open or undecided. Four Delegates are still bound. Five Trump has 1542 Bound delegates. Six the fact bound is still in play is the number of "opposing" delegates is the same as the number of delegates for the other candidates who are bound to vote for them on first vote. Seven, Per political they only found 6 of 112 delegates on the rules committee who were for a rule change to help get rid of Trump.
Eight, The only truths in the article were:
1. The Bound Delegates for the other candidates would not be voting for Trump.
2. Only 888 Delegates that were for Trump would talk to him.
3. The Number of "opposing" delegates has not grown since Trump cinched the nomination.