Biden won't let the records be unsealed but we are supposed to believe Obama when he says Joe is a good man
Pelosie says Joe is just being Joe meaning up close and feely touchy is okay
Perez says the DNC has vetted Joe and he is the man, to run for president
Do we believe all these people or the allegations made against Joe, by one single person
Some say if you have been sexually assaulted, you had better not report it or you will be the target if your allegations are against a powerful person
There are different ways to protect the powerful. Some, who might implicate the powerful, end up dead
Is it just me or do I notice how the powerful always protect their own
do I believe this woman? Maybe, maybe not.
But I do believe that the Ukrainean issue should be reopened and the truth be revealed.
I went from ignoring this accusation, to believing it, to being very skeptical and now, based on the latest facts, to leaning towards believing it again.
Let me explain:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault.html
"The office said it “was advised by Senate Legal Counsel that disclosing the existence of such specific records would amount to a prohibited disclosure under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991.”
It added, “we are not aware of any exceptions in law authorizing our office to disclose any such records that do exist, if any, even to original participants in a matter.”
The office said it had also sent Mr. Biden’s counsel a public document with the rules governing the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices."
On Friday, Biden based his denial and complete transparency on insisting that we just get these records. If there was a complaint, it would be in there. He said that numerous times and its what many defending him, prove that he must not have done it.
But the facts suggest otherwise now. It's proves deception. He knew that those records can't be accessed. There is a near 0 chance that his handlers, before waiting weeks for him to finally make this public response did not check. I'm not saying that the records show the complaint, just that he knew, when he was insisting that we just look at the records that it would be impossible to get those records.
When you get caught lying about something, it makes me less likely to believe you on that topic. Maybe he knew we can't get them and there isn't anything there. That's possible. Then, there's the University of Delaware records that are sealed and he won't authorize the release of. Personally, I doubt a complaint would be in there.........but it might, so why won't he authorize the release of them. He donated them, so of course he can get them, regardless of the bs explanations of why it's impossible(I've heard 3 excuses for why its impossible, which are completely different than the other ones......which tells me that at least 2 of them are made up).
And we are being told that Obama would have done a complete vetting of him before picking him for his running mate, so he must be clean.
Really? If these records are not available because of a law passed in 1991(we are told) than how would Obama have known what was in the records?
His accuser appears to be on the crazy side and even before I found that out, I was skeptical because so much time had elapsed.............but then, the 1993 Larry King show video showed up.
Wow. That was a bombshell, similar to but not as conclusive as the dress with Bill Clintons DNA showing up.
We remember Clinton's message to the American people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aGbdni7QNs
There are differences of course, one is that we don't know exactly why this lady's Mom called Larry King, other than it was her daughter and the problem was related to Senator Biden. So something huge DID happen and Biden offers no explanation. On the other hand, DNA on Lewinski's dress tell us something conclusively.
Another difference is that the sex betwen Clinton and Lewinski was consensual...........though clearly Bill was using Monica. In the Biden case, she is accusing Biden of an attack, which is well beyond the numerous times that we know he was inappropriately touching women in the past.
Imo, this could still go either way. I continue to be very wary of Reade’s credibility due to her inconsistencies and bias due to current support for Bernie. Innocent until proven guilty.
We’ll see.
But I do believe that the Ukrainean issue should be reopened and the truth be revealed. Absolutely !
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_050620/
“Biden’s lead continues to build even as overall opinion of him remains soft. It’s possible that recent headlines about a sexual assault claim may have had an impact on his favorability rating, but most voters still see this election mainly as a referendum on Trump,”
The electorate is divided on the validity of this allegation – 37% say it is probably true, 32% say it is probably not true, and 31% have no opinion.
Opinion on this question breaks sharply along partisan lines.
1. More Republicans say the allegation is probably true (50%) than not true (17%)
2. Democrats say is it is probably not true (55%) than true (20%).
3. Independents are more likely to feel that the allegation is true (43%) rather than not true (22%), while 35% have no opinion either way.
So democrats by a slim majority, 55% think that this is not true. Independants have only 22% that think that its not true and Republicans, as you would expect, have 17% think that its not true.
I would claim to be an Independent and say that its' probably true if polled.
Larry says that its probably not true if I read him correctly.
It's interesting because this appears to have had no impact on people decision to vote. People will either vote for Trump or who ever the other person is.............which is why I've been saying, jokingly for 3 years, that Bozo the Clown could win because he isn't President Trump.
Imagine how big of a lead the dem would have if they actually had a good candidate?
If I was a democrat or hated Trump, would I let this accusation affect my vote? Nope. I would still probably vote Biden if I was going to vote for him before.
As a never Trumper, I'm sure this is where Larry is.
If I was NOT going to vote for him as a democrat, my top reason would be that he has lost the cerebral skills needed to be an effective president(he will just be a figurehead as we all know). My 2nd reason to NOT vote for him, if I was looking for a reason would be his corruption and lying about it in the Ukraine. This happened for sure. This alleged sexual attack would be in 3rd place. It just happened too long ago and is just popping up now and I believe that as president, Biden would bend over backwards to respect women and give them equal rights/treatment.
So this allegation, even if true is not going to affect how Joe Biden acts as president. It might even cause him to be the opposite way to make up for it or to prove that he isn;t this way.
However, he can't go back 10 years and get his mental sharpness and leadership ability back..........it's gone for good. Trump and Sanders are that old but still sharp, so was Reagan. Everybody is different. He's over the hill.
Our country deserves a leader that can actually be a leader. Those that hate Trump are convinced that he's leading us in the wrong direction but nobody could ever accuse him of not being a very strong leader(in fact, the accusation is TOO strong/controlling).
Maybe that sets the stage for Biden, to come in and let others completely control him, which many people might really like.
I'm so tired of inconsistencies in politics based on whether someone is a D or is an R. Would someone, preferably a non-con since I know cons will agree with me here, please tell me how Schumer is justified in saying Biden's denial is sufficient whereas he insisted Kavanaugh withdraw due to Ford's accusations??
link:
Schumer, who called Kavanaugh allegations ‘extremely credible,’ calls Biden denial ‘sufficient’
Now that being said, Reade has had some major inconsistencies in things she's said as I've shown here. So, I have a lot of doubt about her crediblity. But that's beside the point! Schumer looks ridiculous here.
Unlike the Kavanaugh case that happened when he was in high school and there was no coo berating evidence to support her story, we have some cooberating evidence here with the Larry King video/call in(that with almost 100% certainty tells us "something" happened to her) as well as statements from several people she told this story too in the past.
But this can all go away if Biden would just authorize the release of his records from 2 different sources.
The fact that he refuses to do so from one source(University of Delaware) because he says that there wouldn't be anything in there(so then release them and let others decide) and on the other one, he directed us to search his senate records several times, after he very well knew that it would be impossible under the rules that he knew about.
As if we are too believe that his people wouldn't know what the rules were and didn't check or try to check those records? Pretending to be transparent while being deceptive/dishonest and disengenous is the complete opposite of being transparent
His actions/words are those of those of somebody trying to hide the truth.
That being said. If I was a democrat and if Biden was a solid leader and had good agenda for our country that I agreed with him on and especially if without the corruption in the Ukraine, but possibly even with it.............I would still vote for him knowing that he did this.
No disrespect to women intended with that. What he did in 1993 was very wrong but I might have to consider how it might affect Biden's ability to be a good president for the American people and possibly be good for women's rights.
If Trump had crummy agenda or bad policies and Biden did too but Biden was sharp, I would probably vote for Biden too because I dislike Trump more than I do Biden.
But the bottom line is that polls suggest that this is not going to affect people's voting because they are all voting for either Trump or whoever runs against Trump.
I think that whoever is the VP candidate running with Biden will matter more than ever in history.
There is a fairly high chance that this person will need to take over as VP since Biden is fading fast and it seems hard to imagine he has the ability now to serve as president.
I still think that there is a good chance that the Dems will realize this and Biden will resign for health reasons and throw his support, enthusiastically behind Sanders.
Thats the only way that people will support somebody other than Biden. The people have spoken in the voting, they nominated Biden. So only Biden withdrawing himself can be seen as acceptable/fair.
Anybody else but Bernie and the Sanders people would go ballistic.
This should be a time for Biden to be all over the news and doing interviews with the MSM, that would love to be his cheerleaders. He could be demonstrating his leadership skills and promoting himself.
He granted 1 interview yesterday with ABC. Ouch. The more he is out there, the weaker he looks. He puts his foot in his mouth several times during many interviews, studders and stammers and appears very confused at times...............at almost every appearance.
This is not going away. It's hard to imagine how he can have a debate with Trump.
Maybe he can still be elected, even being unelectable by previous standards because he is not Trump. Anybody but Biden is much more electable. Even Hillary Clinton. At least she could be the president and a leader.
I want to reiterate innocent until proven guilty! I haven't changed on that and don't intend to. Reade's credibility is very much in question based on her own inconsistencies. Example: In one article, she says she flew to DC with her cat underneath her seat to start her job with Biden. In another, she says she drove across the country. Come on now!
But I still say that Schumer looks ridiculous with his double-standard for Biden vs Kavanaugh, which is typical of politics and is a pet peeve of mine.
Thanks Larry. Great point!
I agree with you. Everyone has one standard for people from their party and an opposite standard for people of the opposite party.
It's not just this accusation aimed at Biden vs the one aimed at Kavanaugh. We see it everywhere else.
One side thinks that Flynn and Stone should get the maximum sentence because they are from the other party but Hillary Clinton should go scott free for worse because she is from their party.
The other side thinks the total opposite..........that Flynn should have the charge dropped and Stone get a lighter sentence.........and Clinton prosecuted for her crimes.
Things that are reported as patriotic acts on Fox news, might be high crimes on CNN.
Things that are reported as patriotic acts on CNN, might be high crimes on Fox news.
It defines many realms in political life.
Climate change(which has nothing to do with science)............people that have no clue or knowledge about climate, believe what they believe because of their political party.
Border wall. Ask a person what their political affiliation is and you are likely to know their view on that.
Even if they don't know anything about the actual facts. They will believe everything their party and their media sources tell them and think that everything from the other party/sources is a lie.
The media sources don't work to convert the opposition position to their side with objective facts, they feed those tuned in to hear the news told the way their veiwers want to hear it with reinforcing propaganda.
A recipe to increase divisiveness and growing extremes.
One party is presented with the image of being altruistic, compassionate and for every thing good, for science and supposedly even prays for those they persecute and they never lie. While the other party is described as evil, corrupt, selfish, racist, xenophic, lacking compassion, anti science, traitors.......you pick the negative synonym and its appropriate.
The other party is portrayed by their supporting sources as patriotic, honest, science and fact based, economically and agenda superior and the other party as corrupt, anti science, power obsessed, dishonest, neurotically hateful, intolerant, hypocritical....throw in the same negatives above but direct them at the other party.
In this atmosphere, how could people that feel this way about people that politically disagree with them, possibly come together on anything related to politics?
Guilt or innocence is no longer based on objective facts. It's based on what party you belong to and what party they belong to.
I am completely convinced that the MSM is mostly responsible for this. That includes FOX that spins out distorted propaganda(and one particular person relentlessly and often unfairly has attacked Obama for a decade and defends everything that Trump has ever done no matter what it is)
On the rest of the MSM, no secret on my feelings. Many, possibly over half are progressive, political activists who were attracted to that profession because it empowers them. Puts them in a position to tell the news in a way that helps them to change the world..........to the version of the world that THEY think is best for all of us.
Of course our political representatives are like this but they, in some ways are supposed to be that way. They run on agenda that they represent in their platform. If people vote them in, we assume that people want that agenda. They are fighting for those that voted for them for instance.
In the news media, nobody voted for them based on their agenda. Their job is to tell the objective news, giving both sides and letting the viewers/readers decide what opinion to have after having all the facts. When they use their jobs to impose their belief system by telling only one side or distorting/spinning the facts, viewers/readers are being misled intentionally. That is abusing their power and trust.
We expect Donald Trump to have strongly republican views and agenda.
We expect Nancy Pelosi to have strongly democratic views and agenda.
We shouldn't expect Chris Cuomo and many others on CNN, who describe themselves as objective news reporters (that you can trust) to be blatantly biased to one side.
With regards to Shawn Hannity, on FOX, he describes himself as this "talk show host and conservative political commentator" so we should not be shocked at his blatant bias to the right............he brags about being that way.
The other side thinks the total opposite..........that Flynn should have the charge dropped and Stone get a lighter sentence.........and Clinton prosecuted for her crimes.
The difference being, of course, that I can make a rock solid legal, ethical, moral and logical argument for the above. Not at all the case for the opposite.
Tim,
You mean to tell me that Flynn/Stone getting a raw deal and Hillary Clinton getting a pass is rooted in authentic facts?
C'mon Tim!
You probably don't believe that Bill Clinton was in Phoenix to play golf when he accidentally bumped into Loretta Lynch.............C'mon, 69 year old men have been around long enough to know that the best place for golfing is Phoenix in the Summer with it's lovely 100+ temperatures.
Or that the whistle blower reporter that witnessed the "surprise/chance" meeting between Lynch and Clinton was not gifted in ESP and had a dream the night before that it was going to happen vs somebody that knew about the planned meeting in advance, called him to tip him off(Lynch breaking the law with their arrangement).
And you must not believe that the reporter/camera persons from the anti Trump station, CNN, taping the Stone arrest, right there with the FBI(while all other people were ordered to be off the entire block) did not have magical mystery reporter instincts that came to them in a dream the night before............vs somebody from the Mueller team calling them to arrange for them to be there(Mueller breaking the law doing this)
You don't believe in ESP or magical mystery reporter instincts?
You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.