Were Joe Biden up for a SCOTUS position instead of the Presidency, at this point he would surely be facing a Kavanaugh-style hearing into these charges. The charges come with much more corroboration than any of the ones pointed at Kavanaugh (which is to say, more than none whatsoever plus exculpatory evidence suggesting that the charges were probably to certainly false).
So who runs the hearing on potential Presidents? The mainstream media, right? When do we get started with that? Or is it just going to be The Intercept and some right-wing publications?
8 comments:
I disagree on the evidence against Biden. The only way there could be more corroboration than of that against Kavanaugh is that zero is greater than the negative amount against Kavanaugh.
Against Biden, after all, all we have is an accuser's accusation, together with others claiming she told them about it. We have no corroboration worth the candle. "An anonymous friend" says Reade told [her/him] about the alleged incident? How believable is that? The other two are family members? How believable are they?
And: somebody called Larry King and discussed some incident. All we have on how that relates to Biden is Reade's claim that the caller was her mother.
All anybody knows about this thing is what Reade says. The Intercept has neither new evidence nor credibility on this story.
Plus, Reade's public telling has gotten more colorful: she began with being felt up, then when that got no attention, she added sensationalism of digital penetration.
Innocent until proven guilty is still the way of our nation, the best efforts of Progressive-Democrats notwithstanding. There are some "pundits" now calling for Biden to speak directly on the matter, he's obligated to somehow. No, he isn't. He's been accused of a crime, and he has no obligation to speak at all on the matter.
Reade's charge is serious enough to warrant investigation by actual investigators, but the real problem is the dishonesty of the NLMSM's treatment of each of the two cases--Kavanaugh and Biden--along with the radically differing treatments of the two cases.
The political problem of Biden's silence is strictly one of NLMSM manufacture. Politically (and on matters of health, come to that), there's plenty about which to criticize Biden; there's no need to make stuff up or to hype something that's not close to being proven.
Eric Hines
There’s enough to say that it’s corroborated that she described an incident with a former boss. That’s not corroboration of the specific charge, but it would have been enough to derail Kavanaugh. It was down to the wire with him in spite of most of the charges being obvious frauds, the most plausible charge being negatively corroborated even by the lady’s own named witness, and dozens of women eager to testify to his kindness, character, and support of their legal careers.
There’s enough to say that it’s corroborated that she described an incident with a former boss
Absolutely. But did the incident occur? Based on the publicly available information, there isn't enough to say that it did.
That's what Biden faces. The claim should be investigated by actual investigators, but their outcomes would be the only information worth taking seriously beyond triggering the investigation itself.
Eric Hines
I think you meant to say if Biden were a Republican and were up for a SCOTUS position....
Mr. Hines, of course you are correct, but until the media and DC start playing by what we agree are the correct rules across the board, then we have to demand at least consistency in the rules they're making us play by. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask. When they admit they were wrong, and that yours is the correct position, we can all do what is right and return to that standard.
I don't demand consistency. I would put up with a declared bias.
I am disgusted by claims of fair, balanced, impartial truth-telling, investigative, independent, rational, and evidence-based journalism that concocts biased narratives behind closed doors, follows the lead of a very few NY or DC outlets, insults the consumer, and collaborates in calls for the censorship of dissenters.
douglas, which is why I said this in my first comment: the real problem is the dishonesty of the NLMSM's treatment of each of the two cases--Kavanaugh and Biden--along with the radically differing treatments of the two cases.
Eric Hines
Biden does not remember, so he is innocent right?
Epstein doesn't want to die, so he did not die.
Post a Comment