Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think that it's possible that someone searching through Biden's papers might find a letter that when taken by itself without the context of the preceding and succeeding letters could be construed to mean something completely different, and something nefarious, than it actually meant? And that this letter might be used in that manner by a competitor's campaign?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Do you think that it's possible that someone searching through Biden's papers might find a letter that when taken by itself without the context of the preceding and succeeding letters could be construed to mean something completely different, and something nefarious, than it actually meant? And that this letter might be used in that manner by a competitor's campaign?
Click to expand...

Right. We can't review the documentation of Biden's work as Senator and Vice President, because it might look bad for his campaign.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
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.
Click to expand...

Chain of custody is entirely relevant, if he's inviting a review of those papers to exonerate him.

Obviously he's not required to provide a complete collection for review. But if the collection under review is not complete, then the review has no value. Likewise, if he can't even demonstrate that the collection is complete (e.g., by having no verifiable chain of custody), then the review has no value.

So when he says that we can look at his collection, and we'll find nothing to do with Reade's allegations in it, that has no value. He's not actually providing any evidence one way or the other. I hope you're not inferring innocence, or even likely innocence, from this empty gesture.
 
theprestige said:
Chain of custody is entirely relevant, if he's inviting a review of those papers to exonerate him.

Obviously he's not required to provide a complete collection for review. But if the collection under review is not complete, then the review has no value. Likewise, if he can't even demonstrate that the collection is complete (e.g., by having no verifiable chain of custody), then the review has no value.

So when he says that we can look at his collection, and we'll find nothing to do with Reade's allegations in it, that has no value. He's not actually providing any evidence one way or the other. I hope you're not inferring innocence, or even likely innocence, from this empty gesture.
Click to expand...

This gets less and less likely. Reade herself says the accusation against Biden isn't even IN the form she filed. That seems to me to have value.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...t-she-claims-n1198741?cid=public-rss_20200502
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Do you think that it's possible that someone searching through Biden's papers might find a letter that when taken by itself without the context of the preceding and succeeding letters could be construed to mean something completely different, and something nefarious, than it actually meant? And that this letter might be used in that manner by a competitor's campaign?
Click to expand...

The columnist I linked to suggested that a panel of independent experts -- historians, archivists -- would determine whether the files contained anything relevant, and if they did Biden would decide whether to release it. That's not the same as turning the National Inquirer loose in the library.

You seem to be arguing that the files couldn't contain anything useful, and if they did it would only be abused. So the whole thing should just go away?
 
slyjoe said:
This gets less and less likely. Reade herself says the accusation against Biden isn't even IN the form she filed. That seems to me to have value.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...t-she-claims-n1198741?cid=public-rss_20200502
Click to expand...

From the link:
Reade has said that the complaint, if it’s found, would not include the sexual assault allegation that she came forward with in March.
Click to expand...

And a swing and a miss. I believe that is strike 3, or 4, or is it 6?

I do wonder how many, if any, women complained about Creepy Joe's head kissing and shoulder rubbing and why he wasn't told to knock it off long ago?
 
theprestige said:
Chain of custody is entirely relevant, if he's inviting a review of those papers to exonerate him.
Click to expand...

They are his PERSONAL PAPERS. That means that he has always legally had ownership of them and control over them. Chain of custody is meaningless because he has always been the owner and he has always been able to decide who gets to see them.

Obviously he's not required to provide a complete collection for review.
Click to expand...

He's not required to provide ANYTHING for review. They are his personal property.

But if the collection under review is not complete, then the review has no value. Likewise, if he can't even demonstrate that the collection is complete (e.g., by having no verifiable chain of custody), then the review has no value.

So when he says that we can look at his collection, and we'll find nothing to do with Reade's allegations in it, that has no value. He's not actually providing any evidence one way or the other. I hope you're not inferring innocence, or even likely innocence, from this empty gesture.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even if had received thousands of pages of documents on the Tara Reade situation, there is no guarantee that any of them would be in the collection.

It would be impossible for any legislator to function if every conversation that they had with anyone on their staff or any of their colleagues was public record. This would be one reason why senators (and representatives) are allowed to have documents that are not classified as official government business and therefore would need to be archived in the official archive.
 
Bob001 said:
The columnist I linked to suggested that a panel of independent experts -- historians, archivists -- would determine whether the files contained anything relevant, and if they did Biden would decide whether to release it. That's not the same as turning the National Inquirer loose in the library.

You seem to be arguing that the files couldn't contain anything useful, and if they did it would only be abused. So the whole thing should just go away?
Click to expand...

I suppose I should have read the article. I'm getting lazy. That might work, though there's no guarantee that everyone would be satisfied..
 
Bob001 said:
They've been together for 45 years. She probably just thinks it's an amusing part of his character, especially since he doesn't hesitate to do it in front of her.
Click to expand...

I hate to use the Emperor's clothes analogy but I do wonder if no one spoke up because no one else spoke up first.
 
Stacyhs said:
I see "Biden's got dementia" has been replaced with "Biden committed sexual assault".
Click to expand...

Some stupid slackjaw Republican is going to get the "bright" idea to combine those into, "Biden committed sexual assault and then got dementia."
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
They are his PERSONAL PAPERS. That means that he has always legally had ownership of them and control over them. Chain of custody is meaningless because he has always been the owner and he has always been able to decide who gets to see them.
Click to expand...
Even personal papers can have a documented chain of custody. Most people don't bother, though, for obvious reasons. However, it does then mean that we can't ever establish that the collection is complete and that nothing has been lost or removed or whithheld.

He's not required to provide ANYTHING for review. They are his personal property.
Click to expand...
Nobody says he's required to provide anything. Why are you arguing against claims nobody has made?

Exactly. Even if had received thousands of pages of documents on the Tara Reade situation, there is no guarantee that any of them would be in the collection.

It would be impossible for any legislator to function if every conversation that they had with anyone on their staff or any of their colleagues was public record. This would be one reason why senators (and representatives) are allowed to have documents that are not classified as official government business and therefore would need to be archived in the official archive.
Click to expand...
Now we actually agree on something.

But do we agree that a review of those documents wouldn't prove anything one way or the other about Reade's claims?

Do we agree that the whole idea of opening up that collection to a team of reviewers is a red herring and a waste of time?

Do we agree that it would be dishonest to claim that if the reviewers find nothing, that has any bearing on the truth value of Reade's claims?
 
William Parcher said:
Some stupid slackjaw Republican is going to get the "bright" idea to combine those into, "Biden committed sexual assault and then got dementia."
Click to expand...

Goes even better with his record of being caught out lying. Spice it up with uninvited hands and its a hit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom