And I'm not sure why "he asked for the records to be released" is somehow a proper response to people taking his word without an investigation lol.
And remember this guy who was in the Senate from 1973 until 2009 apparently wasn't aware at all that it was against the law to release these records.
And I also need to point out an actual investigation into the allegations would involve more than looking at those records anyways. So again I wonder why somehow would feel it valid to note in the face of the claim of people believing Biden without investigation.
Originally posted by Silent Master
He didn't order all the records open, why lie?
Biden sent a letter to the Secretary of the Senate asking her to release any documents related to a possible complaint made by Reade.
Reade then stated that she did not explicitly accuse Biden of sexual assault or harassment in her complaint, only to later state that she did not file a complaint at all.
She then cancelled a television appearance to discuss it, because she does not want to further incriminate herself in case she gets sued.
Nice try, troll.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biden sent a letter to the Secretary of the Senate asking her to release any documents related to a possible complaint made by Reade.Reade then stated that she did not explicitly accuse Biden of sexual assault or harassment in her complaint, only to later state that she did not file a complaint at all.
She then cancelled a television appearance to discuss it, because she does not want to further incriminate herself in case she gets sued.
Nice try, troll.
Why lie?
And yes lies of omission are lies. Or are you just uninformed?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biden sent a letter to the Secretary of the Senate asking her to release any documents related to a possible complaint made by Reade.Reade then stated that she did not explicitly accuse Biden of sexual assault or harassment in her complaint, only to later state that she did not file a complaint at all.
She then cancelled a television appearance to discuss it, because she does not want to further incriminate herself in case she gets sued.
Nice try, troll.
All the records would include the University of Delaware archive and he flat out refused to have them even searched for her name.
Why did you lie?
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol senate rejected his request, as I'm sure this man involved in government for decades knew they would.But you tried 🙂
Yet, it caused Reade to retract her statement that she filed a complaint, even though she worked in the Senate for decades, and should have known better, right?
Originally posted by Surtur
Why lie?And yes lies of omission are lies. Or are you just uninformed?
Originally posted by Silent Master
All the records would include the University of Delaware archive and he flat out refused to have them even searched for her name.Why did you lie?
Then why did Reade retract her statement in the face of such an obvious lie?
Originally posted by Silent Master
All the records would include the University of Delaware archive and he flat out refused to have them even searched for her name.Why did you lie?
He lied by omission via not divulging she pushed back on the story claiming the complaint didn't refer to sexual assault and said it wasn't true.
He also lied by saying she didn't go on Fox because she didn't wanna incriminate herself. Via her own words: she tried avoiding an appearance on Fox for a long time because she was afraid people would try to say she is playing politics. No other outlet would have her on so she agreed to go on Fox, then cancelled because she was getting death threats.
Originally posted by Silent Master
She didn't retract her statement, why are you lying?
Yes, she did. She claimed that she filed a sexual harassment complaint. Then she said she filed a complaint, but did not mention sexual harassment. Then she said she went to file the complaint, started filling out the information, and changed her mind, and did not file it after all. She keeps changing her story when people call her bluff. It is going to be really embarrassing for you retards when she loses a defamation lawsuit.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, she did. She claimed that she filed a sexual harassment complaint. Then she said she filed a complaint, but did not mention sexual harassment. Then she said she went to file the complaint, started filling out the information, and changed her mind, and did not file it after all. She keeps changing her story when people call her bluff. It is going to be really embarrassing for you retards when she loses a defamation lawsuit.
She said that while she didn't use that specific term, she believes that the actions she described were sexual harassment in nature.
Why are you so dishonest?
Originally posted by Silent Master
She said that while she didn't use that specific term, she believes that the actions she described were sexual harassment in nature.Why are you so dishonest?
I've noticed that in the past whenever someone is making a sexual assault allegation and their behavior didn't quite match up to how we think they'd behave...this was usually shrugged off by the left, they'd quote some expert talking about how trauma makes survivors do weird things.
Now this doesn't seem to apply. Heck people have bashed Reade for praising Biden. Now, when Harvey Weinsteins victims continued to sleep with and praise him we were told trauma does weird things. But then...the democrats weren't going to lose any real political power by turning on Weinstein. It's the same reason they turned on Franken.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Citing Project Veritas in an investigation of Project Veritas is like using the bible to prove the veracity of the bible.
In this particular case, did they link to the court docs? If they did, no, that's wrong. They can comment on their own court docs if they want.
Someone tell me if they linked to their court docs. Either Adam_Poe is spot-on or he's only partially correct.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In this particular case, did they link to the court docs? If they did, no, that's wrong. They can comment on their own court docs if they want.Someone tell me if they linked to their court docs. Either Adam_Poe is spot-on or he's only partially correct.
Where's the doubt?
That it was deceptive editing? That they're lying about it never having been called deceptive editing?
I haven't tried to hunt the court docs down, but is this something we can see? And if not, wouldn't concerned parties force a retraction real quick?