Biden for President?

[TragicMonkey]

Well, the Popular Vote Interstate Compact is gathering steam. The point is that being a "federation of states" isn't the problem.

Well, let's discuss it after you enact a sea-change and get rid of the electoral college. Perhaps by then the Singularity will have occurred and we can talk it out through mindmeld.

 

[Bob001]

Well, let's discuss it after you enact a sea-change and get rid of the electoral college. Perhaps by then the Singularity will have occurred and we can talk it out through mindmeld.

You win. You've convinced me. Nothing can ever change.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I don't find the comparisons difficult.

Similarities

• Ancient history
• Political opponent

Unique to Kavanaugh

• There were witnesses to the purported event. It was theoretically provable.
• Other accusers of Kavanaugh (although the facts were weak)
• Damning character witnesses
• Damning comments from Kavanaugh -- women as sexual conquests
• Ford did not praise Kavanaugh repeatedly
• Ford did not drastically change her facts
• Ford came across as honest

It's shallow to play hypocrisy gotcha (otherwise known as your go to move) with these two scenarios.

Except the original poster said the hypocrisy was between the way Democrats have spoken about Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You win. You've convinced me. Nothing can ever change.

I didn't say never. It'll happen after the US adopts the metric system, though. That's a much easier sell and we haven't managed that yet.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't find the comparisons difficult.

Similarities

• Ancient history
• Political opponent

Unique to Kavanaugh
[*]There were witnesses to the purported event. It was theoretically provable.

There were alleged witnesses. And they all said they had no memory of any such events.

[*]Other accusers of Kavanaugh (although the facts were weak)

Not unique. Biden has had other accusers too, much as the press might like to pretend otherwise.

[*]Damning character witnesses

I doubt that's unique either. The press just isn't going to dig for them.

[*]Damning comments from Kavanaugh -- women as sexual conquests

No, Biden just compliments 14 year olds on their breast size.

[*]Ford did not praise Kavanaugh repeatedly

Sure, that's different. But it's not exactly a point in Biden's favor.

[*]Ford did not drastically change her facts

Oh yes she did.

[*]Ford came across as honest
[/LIST]

Bwahahahahahahaha!

 

[wareyin]

Not unique. Biden has had other accusers too, much as the press might like to pretend otherwise.

Name one other person who has accused Biden of sexual assault.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What's not accurate? What makes you think a Senator's records about his staff wouldn't be among his papers, particularly informal memos and notes about their performance and behavior?

From the tenor of the quote you posted, I interpreted the author to mean something more formal than "informal memos and notes". So maybe I took it incorrectly.

Capitol Hill staffers are not Civil Service employees. Congress makes its own rules. The columnist suggests a way to find anything about Reade that may actually be in Biden's files, instead of relying on what you "can't imagine." If there's nothing there, that helps support Biden.

I don't feel like spending half the day googling about this, but I think the odds that congressional staff members' personnel records would not be put in any forum where they are openly available are highly in my favor. Congress gives itself exemptions when it makes Congress' life easier, but that wouldn't be an issue for this.

One thing that I'm highly confident about is that since a senator can do anything they want with their records, a complaint charging them with harassment or assault would be unlikely to wind up in any sort of file that isn't circular.

 

[Bob001]

From the tenor of the quote you posted, I interpreted the author to mean something more formal than "informal memos and notes". So maybe I took it incorrectly.

I don't feel like spending half the day googling about this, but I think the odds that congressional staff members' personnel records would not be put in any forum where they are openly available are highly in my favor. Congress gives itself exemptions when it makes Congress' life easier, but that wouldn't be an issue for this.

One thing that I'm highly confident about is that since a senator can do anything they want with their records, a complaint charging them with harassment or assault would be unlikely to wind up in any sort of file that isn't circular.

What do you actually mean by "personnel records?" If an employee filed a complaint with Senate authorities, the senator's office would certainly get a copy. Do you think they'd trash it? Or you think maybe they'd keep it so they could respond to the accusation, and so it couldn't be changed later? You think they wouldn't keep a copy of their response? You think supervisors don't keep copies of performance reviews and other documents about the staff? Every Congressional office pretty much functions as its own small business, subject to federal law and congressional rules.

Like this:

Each Member is the employing authority; the Member determines the terms and conditions of employment and service for their staff. These terms and conditions must be consistent with applicable federal laws and House Rules.

https://cha.house.gov/member-servic...ional-handbook#Members-Handbook-Staff-General

And a lot of it is a matter of public record, like staff salaries:
https://www.legistorm.com/salaries.html

I'm sure you're right that nothing would prevent a senator from "sanitizing" his records. But the point is that allowing a search would prevent allegations of cover up, and it might possibly turn up something useful.

 

[varwoche]

Bwahahahahahahaha!

This pretty much sums up my reaction to your conspiratorial concepts and other speculative arm waving.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's amazing how the evidence always comes out in favor of the person who is a member of the same political party one is . . .

You got no argument, attack the arguer.

 

[Mumbles]

What's not accurate? What makes you think a Senator's records about his staff wouldn't be among his papers, particularly informal memos and notes about their performance and behavior? Capitol Hill staffers are not Civil Service employees. Congress makes its own rules. The columnist suggests a way to find anything about Reade that may actually be in Biden's files, instead of relying on what you "can't imagine." If there's nothing there, that helps support Biden.

And in the Senate, the rules state that all formal complaints would go through the Office of Personnel Management, where copies would be distributed to relevant parties, and one filed with the OPM, where they're all investigated and retained permanently for auditing purposes. Someone could easily clean their personal records. National Archives? Not so much.

The more I hear, the more I realize that any formal complaint would be quickly discovered by either Obama or McCain. And retaliation against a staffer is often difficult in DC, even assuming one wishes. News can get out pretty easily, even when quiet, and I'm sure Mr. Violence Against Women Act being a secret rapist would be a *very* nice story for many reporters.

This is...quite a bit more difficult to get away with than some snobby teenaged drunk trying to force himself on a girl of lower station (unfortunately). And frankly, given Kavenaugh's lying and scowling rant vowing "payback" against people who hadn't even set up his sole hearing (both disqualifying in their own right), compared to Biden's obviously far calmer and offer to have a third party that would have the exact formal complaint if it were true..compared to Ford's remarkable calm and unchanging story...

I'm not saying I've made a final conclusion, yet, but for now there's good reason to view these two allegations differently as of today.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I get that comparisons between the way Democrats have spoken about Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade are difficult.

They're not at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Scroll up, re-read. I said we should use critical thinking when evaluating a witness. That's the opposite of what you're accusing me of.

Again, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I said her other statements cast her credibility into doubt. You're so spoiling for a fight you see disagreement where it isn't.

Not spoiling for a fight. Once again you imagine you know what I'm thinking or what I'm like when you don't.

I read your post as yet one more of the many in this thread claiming anyone who didn't believe Reade was basing the decision on their politics. As you say I misread your POV. Sorry.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is a little difference between the scrutiny voters should employ for a 4-year job and that Senators should employ for a lifetime appointment,

 

[Ziggurat]

This pretty much sums up my reaction to your conspiratorial concepts and other speculative arm waving.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? As for arm waving, well, that's all your response is.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What do you actually mean by "personnel records?" If an employee filed a complaint with Senate authorities, the senator's office would certainly get a copy.

Are you sure? The rules for federal elected officials might be somewhat different, but for most other organizations the accused generally does not get a copy of the complaint unless there is a formal hearing on it, and even then in many organizations the name of the accuser is removed.

Do you think they'd trash it? Or you think maybe they'd keep it so they could respond to the accusation, and so it couldn't be changed later?

Biden stayed in the senate for 15 years after Reade left. Do you think that he had any expectation at that point that she would resurface? And if he kept it, don't you think he would have taken it home rather than giving it to a PUBLIC library where it would have become public knowledge that he had been charged with harassment?

You think they wouldn't keep a copy of their response?

How do you know they were even asked for a response? All we know is that Ms. Reade claims to have filed a report. We don't know what, if any, action whomever she supposedly filed the report with took.

You think supervisors don't keep copies of performance reviews and other documents about the staff?

You are seriously claiming that it would be legal to donate copies of someone else's performance reviews to a public library? Do you know how much personal information is contained in a performance review? Have you ever had a boss that quit? Did that boss take your performance reviews with them when the left?

And a lot of it is a matter of public record, like staff salaries:
https://www.legistorm.com/salaries.html

A person's salary hardly constitutes a major part of their personnel record. I worked for a non-governmental organization where every employee could ask to view any other employee's salary. But we could not look at their performance reports or find out if they had been subject to any sort of disciplinary procedure.

I'm sure you're right that nothing would prevent a senator from "sanitizing" his records. But the point is that allowing a search would prevent allegations of cover up, and it might possibly turn up something useful.

What is archived at the U. of Delaware is the collection of Biden's PERSONAL papers. It is not a collection of official correspondence or official meeting minutes or any other official document. The personal papers of a senator are regarded as the personal property of the senator and the senator is free to do whatever they want with the papers. Most donate them to a state university in their home state, but this is not required.

 

[Bob001]

....
What is archived at the U. of Delaware is the collection of Biden's PERSONAL papers. It is not a collection of official correspondence or official meeting minutes or any other official document. The personal papers of a senator are regarded as the personal property of the senator and the senator is free to do whatever they want with the papers. Most donate them to a state university in their home state, but this is not required.

Without debating whether the U.S. Senate operates like your previous employers, if what you say is true that's all the more reason to allow an independent search of the Delaware records. If nothing turns up, no one can claim Biden's hiding anything. And if they find a note to his chief of staff saying something like "Keep that crazy lady away from me!," or just "Tara doesn't seem to be happy here. Find out what's wrong," that might be relevant too.

 

[theprestige]

Without debating whether the U.S. Senate operates like your previous employers, if what you say is true that's all the more reason to allow an independent search of the Delaware records. If nothing turns up, no one can claim Biden's hiding anything.

Business Insider is reporting that Biden's campaign staff have been in the records as recently as March 2020:

Andrea Boyle Tippett, a spokeswoman for the University of Delaware, confirmed to Insider that individuals from the campaign have accessed the collection since Biden announced his presidential campaign in the spring of 2019. She added that the University of Delaware's library closed in mid-March due to the coronavirus, and that no one from the Biden campaign has gone to the library since its closure.

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama...is-operatives-were-sent-to-check-the-records/​

(Normally I try to go to the original source, but the BI article is behind a paywall. Sorry 'bout that. )

Without seeing the University's chain of custody for the docs, I don't think we can say with any confidence that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.

Honestly, given that low-ranking enlisted soldiers and civilian contractors are able to circumvent the security surrounding military and intelligence service data, I'm not sure why we'd even consider the possibility that Biden's records at UD are tamper-proof.

 

[Ziggurat]

Honestly, given that low-ranking enlisted soldiers and civilian contractors are able to circumvent the security surrounding military and intelligence service data, I'm not sure why we'd even consider the possibility that Biden's records at UD are tamper-proof.

Yup. Remember Sandy Berger's theft of documents from the National Archives?

(and on a side note, is it just me or does his name sound like a euphemism?)

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Business Insider is reporting that Biden's campaign staff have been in the records as recently as March 2020:

Andrea Boyle Tippett, a spokeswoman for the University of Delaware, confirmed to Insider that individuals from the campaign have accessed the collection since Biden announced his presidential campaign in the spring of 2019. She added that the University of Delaware's library closed in mid-March due to the coronavirus, and that no one from the Biden campaign has gone to the library since its closure.

Without seeing the University's chain of custody for the docs, I don't think we can say with any confidence that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.

Honestly, given that low-ranking enlisted soldiers and civilian contractors are able to circumvent the security surrounding military and intelligence service data, I'm not sure why we'd even consider the possibility that Biden's records at UD are tamper-proof.​

I guess that it is necessary to explain what "PERSONAL PAPERS" means. "PERSONAL PAPERS" are letters, documents, and other artefacts that are the property of an individual. Since they are the property of an individual, that individual is legally entitled to dispose of them in any manner they choose. As is customary, but not required, for senators, Biden has chosen to allow his PERSONAL PAPERS to be accessible to researchers and historians at some point in the future. He faces no requirement to make the collection complete and is free to dispose of any that he doesn't want the public to see. Chain of custody is irrelevant; they are papers generated by Biden while in the senate and are and have always been his property.​