The Joe Biden thread

[JimL]

We don't know that, that's what Biden -- the accused -- claims. Then he gets defensive when Mika presses him about it.

Defensive, what, by saying that such info, an assault complaint, dealing with personel is not stored in the University? Why on earth would info dealing with Senate personel matters be stored at the University?

[seanD]

Defensive, what, by saying that such info, an assault complaint, dealing with personel is not stored in the University? Why on earth would info dealing with Senate personel matters be stored at the University?

I don't know, doofus, and neither do you, so stop trying to pretend like you do.

[Mountain Man]

Defensive, what, by saying that such info dealing with personel is not stored in the University? Why on earth would info dealing with Senate personel matters be stored at the University?

They he shouldn't mind anybody taking a look, right?

[JimL]

They he shouldn't mind anybody taking a look, right?

Yes, actually he should. Who's going to do the looking, you? And what could be taken out of context in all of his private papers to be used against him in an election? There is a good reason for them being under lock and key until 2 years after he leaves public office. Retrieving a complaint doesn't mean you get to go through all his private papers, it means you get to go where the complaint itself is filed and retrieve it.

[DivineOb]

And what does that have to do with Biden saying, "Sure, go ahead and look for the complaint in the National Archives!" when he likely knows that's not where such a complaint would be stored?

And now that you know it, too, what do you think the chances are of him appealing to the Senate to release all records from the Senate Fair Employment Practices offices relevant to Tara Reide? Or to allow an independent third party to take a peak at his Senate archive at the University of Delaware? Do you think Joe will do it?

If you read the future President's letter, it states

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether 27 years ago a staff member in my United States Senate office filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment. According to public reports, the staff member, Ms. Tara Reade, has stated that in 1993 she filed such a complaint with the office responsible for enforcing Senate employees' rights in the workplace.

We had understood that the Senate stores records from this office, and from this period, in the National Archives. The Archives now states that the records would have remained under the control of the Senate.
Accordingly, I request that you take or direct whatever steps are necessary to establish the location of the records of this Office, and once they have been located, to direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search. I would ask that the public release include not only a complaint if one exists, but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation.

Do you think Breitbart will update this article to reflect this new information?

[DivineOb]

I know I'm wasting my electronic breath but here's a nice thread explaining how impossible it is that Tara Reade's complaint went unnoticed all these years

https://twitter.com/STEMthebleeding/...26117734023169

The punch line is the following

So that would mean that not only did the ethics committee, the special committee, and the solicitor general miss the complaint, so did Rick Davis, McCain's political analyst when he looked. So did Karl Rove. and 6 other campaigns since 1994

I wouldn't bet against Karl Rove (unless it's November 2012 ;)).

[Starlight]

I totally agree that it is right that people go looking for Tara Reade's complaint and confirm if it does / don't exist, and I'll say that Biden (who I don't like, and think was the worst option in the Dem primary, and I probably wouldn't vote in the general if I were able because he is awful and Trump is worse) has absolutely done the right thing by addressing this and inviting a search of the archives to find this.

But... I'm beginning to be concerned that Republicans are going to seize on the alleged existence of this apparently non-existent complaint that seemingly isn't anywhere, in order to subpoena every single record in Biden's life from every source they can think of, under the guise of pretending to care about this complaint, and trawl through the documents til they find something completely different about a completely different topic they can then use against him in the election.

They did that with Benghazi 8 times in order to search Obama and then Hillary's documents from top to bottom, and eventually found a tiny amount of once-classified material (having nothing to do with Benghazi) might have been sent to Hillary over unsecured email. Then they proceeded to scream about her emails right up to the elections.

So Biden should probably learn from history and keep an eye on exactly who he's giving free rein to trawl all his personal records to.

[lilpixieofterror]

I totally agree that it is right that people go looking for Tara Reade's complaint and confirm if it does / don't exist, and I'll say that Biden (who I don't like, and think was the worst option in the Dem primary, and I probably wouldn't vote in the general if I were able because he is awful and Trump is worse) has absolutely done the right thing by addressing this and inviting a search of the archives to find this.

But... I'm beginning to be concerned that Republicans are going to seize on the alleged existence of this apparently non-existent complaint that seemingly isn't anywhere, in order to subpoena every single record in Biden's life from every source they can think of, under the guise of pretending to care about this complaint, and trawl through the documents til they find something completely different about a completely different topic they can then use against him in the election.

They did that with Benghazi 8 times in order to search Obama and then Hillary's documents from top to bottom, and eventually found a tiny amount of once-classified material (having nothing to do with Benghazi) might have been sent to Hillary over unsecured email. Then they proceeded to scream about her emails right up to the elections.

So Biden should probably learn from history and keep an eye on exactly who he's giving free rein to trawl all his personal records to.

Sort of like what the democrats have done, for the past three years?

[JimL]

I totally agree that it is right that people go looking for Tara Reade's complaint and confirm if it does / don't exist, and I'll say that Biden (who I don't like, and think was the worst option in the Dem primary, and I probably wouldn't vote in the general if I were able because he is awful and Trump is worse) has absolutely done the right thing by addressing this and inviting a search of the archives to find this.

But... I'm beginning to be concerned that Republicans are going to seize on the alleged existence of this apparently non-existent complaint that seemingly isn't anywhere, in order to subpoena every single record in Biden's life from every source they can think of, under the guise of pretending to care about this complaint, and trawl through the documents til they find something completely different about a completely different topic they can then use against him in the election.

They did that with Benghazi 8 times in order to search Obama and then Hillary's documents from top to bottom, and eventually found a tiny amount of once-classified material (having nothing to do with Benghazi) might have been sent to Hillary over unsecured email. Then they proceeded to scream about her emails right up to the elections.

So Biden should probably learn from history and keep an eye on exactly who he's giving free rein to trawl all his personal records to.

Exactly.

[Mountain Man]

But... I'm beginning to be concerned that Republicans are going to seize on the alleged existence of this apparently non-existent complaint that seemingly isn't anywhere, in order to subpoena every single record in Biden's life from every source they can think of, under the guise of pretending to care about this complaint, and trawl through the documents til they find something completely different about a completely different topic they can then use against him in the election.

So... your concern is that the Republicans are going to do to Biden what the Democrats have done to Trump over the last three and half years?

Wouldn't that be a shame.

[DivineOb]

If you read the future President's letter, it states

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether 27 years ago a staff member in my United States Senate office filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment. According to public reports, the staff member, Ms. Tara Reade, has stated that in 1993 she filed such a complaint with the office responsible for enforcing Senate employees' rights in the workplace.

We had understood that the Senate stores records from this office, and from this period, in the National Archives. The Archives now states that the records would have remained under the control of the Senate.
Accordingly, I request that you take or direct whatever steps are necessary to establish the location of the records of this Office, and once they have been located, to direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search. I would ask that the public release include not only a complaint if one exists, but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation.

Do you think Breitbart will update this article to reflect this new information?

Bumping to note that Breitbart still hasn't updated their dishonest article. I wonder why a reputable news source would leave such a dishonest article up. Maybe MM has an opinion :|.

[Mountain Man]

Bumping to note that Breitbart still hasn't updated their dishonest article. I wonder why a reputable news source would leave such a dishonest article up. Maybe MM has an opinion :|.

What are you talking about? The future losing candidate went on MSNBC and said, ""

That was a false statement, and Breitbart accurately reported that it was false.

[DivineOb]

What are you talking about? The future losing candidate went on MSNBC and said, ""

That was a false statement, and Breitbart accurately reported that it was false.

Agreed. And now that very important new information has come to light (that Biden has redirected his request to the proper place) the article should be updated so as not to mislead the reader into thinking Biden isn't actually proceeding with his request (i.e. so that the article is not only correct in technicality but also correct in spirit).

Trusted news sources do things like that. How do I know? Just look at the tantrum *you yourself* threw in response to this article which remains true (in technicality Trump did owe millions to the bank of China) but which was also heavily updated now that new information has come to light so as not to mislead the reader (i.e. to be true not only in technicality but also in spirit).

[Mountain Man]

Agreed. And now that very important new information has come to light (that Biden has redirected his request to the proper place) the article should be updated so as not to mislead the reader into thinking Biden isn't actually proceeding with his request (i.e. so that the article is not only correct in technicality but also correct in spirit).

Trusted news sources do things like that. How do I know? Just look at the tantrum *you yourself* threw in response to this article which remains true (in technicality Trump did owe millions to the bank of China) but which was also heavily updated now that new information has come to light so as not to mislead the reader (i.e. to be true not only in technicality but also in spirit).

Right, I threw a "tantrum".

Of course the reason the Politico article had to be retracted is because the original claim -- that Trump owed money to the Bank of China -- was false. In fact, there is no context in which that statement is true or was ever true since the deal was negotiated entirely by a third-party broker without any input from the Trump organization.

In the case of Joe Biden making a false statement on MSNBC, that is unequivocally true, and it remains unequivocally true, so there's nothing to retract.

[DivineOb]

Right, I threw a "tantrum".

Of course the reason the Politico article had to be retracted is because the original claim -- that Trump owed money to the Bank of China -- was false.

Then you don't understand their claim or what they retracted. The retraction had to do with him *currently* owing money. They never disavowed the truth that he, at one time, *did* own them money.

In fact, there is no context in which that statement is true or was ever true since the deal was negotiated entirely by a third-party broker without any input from the Trump organization.

Then you don't know how finances work :). I owe money to banks I've never spoken with and never had any official discussions with. Do I owe them the money or should I stop paying my mortgages? :)

In the case of Joe Biden making a false statement on MSNBC, that is unequivocally true, and it remains unequivocally true, so there's nothing to retract.

The point is that it matters to be true in both spirit and technicality. Politico updated their story to be true in technicality and provided a link to updated context at the very top of the story to ensure that their reporting is also true in spirit.