President Joe Biden - Kamala Harris Administration

#43,101
#43,101
whodeycin85 said:
Emerging Evidence Continues To Prove That Ashley Biden's Diary is Real



Almost there is a link to the actual filing..for those whom believe the reortng source isnt legit enough
Click to expand...

85SugarVol said:
Actual filing -

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23719069/project-veritas-special-master-review.pdf
Click to expand...
That filing does not address the issue of whether or not the controversial passages included were written by Ashley Biden. It only states that the diary was hers ... but that has never been a matter of dispute. The commentary provided by Trending Politics and Proud Elephant is misleading.

Yes, this is indeed more propaganda ... and the timing of it is suspicious. It looks like an attempt to deflect from Trump's legal troubles.
 
#43,103
#43,103
85SugarVol said:
Yep that’s where I got it. Usually a good idea to produce the source docs (if available).
Click to expand...
Usually I do if I post the original post...but I tagged BB85 because he has accused PV O'Keefe of forging the diary as to the reason no "legit" source (in his eyes) are running with the Biden shower stuff. Just like everyone should do. I clicked the tweet and followed the sources...even tried googling it...but I only found it when I typed it specifically.
 
#43,104
#43,104
BowlBrother85 said:
Have you read the filing yet? I'm guessing that you haven't ... and that you are taking the word of "Proud Elephant" at face value ... which is a mistake.
Click to expand...

I’ve done nothing thus far but mock your ridiculousness.

No news source is a good source. There is little to no oversight to ensure the information is accurate. The entire goal is to generate clicks for revenue. You seem to believe the sources you choose are trustworthy.

Did you know that citing a news organization as evidence in a scholarly work would pretty much get you laughed at in academic circles? Sure, you can state “CNN stated x,y,z”. But that’s only evidence that CNN stated something. Not that whatever was stated is most likely true.

I get that this is a PF. Citing news organizations is going to be prevalent. But believing that CNN or any of the news organizations you choose are somehow superior to the Proud Elephant is the mistake being made here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, dovervolz, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#43,105
#43,105
BowlBrother85 said:
That filing does not address the issue of whether or not the controversial passages included were written by Ashley Biden. It only states that the diary was hers ... but that has never been a matter of dispute. The commentary provided by Trending Politics and Proud Elephant is misleading.

Yes, this is indeed more propaganda ... and the timing of it is suspicious. It looks like an attempt to deflect from Trump's legal troubles.
Click to expand...
Do you think that if there were any truth to PV forging the diary that wouldn't be brought up in the case...?
 
#43,106
#43,106
VOLS INC. said:
I’ve done nothing thus far but mock your ridiculousness.

No news source is a good source. There is little to no oversight to ensure the information is accurate. The entire goal is to generate clicks for revenue. You seem to believe the sources you choose are trustworthy.

Did you know that citing a news organization as evidence in a scholarly work would pretty much get you laughed at in academic circles? Sure, you can state “CNN stated x,y,z”. But that’s only evidence that CNN stated something. Not that whatever get stated is most likely true.

I get that this is a PF. Citing news organizations is going to be prevalent. But believing that CNN or any of the news organizations you choose are somehow superior to the Proud Elephant is the mistake being made here.
Click to expand...
Proud elephant it the Twitter profile...the article was trendingpolitics.com or something like that
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLS INC.
#43,108
#43,108
85SugarVol said:
I’m not an attorney.

That special master filing looks like it addresses privilege?

@RockyTop85 - care to weigh in?
Click to expand...

I skimmed it, yesterday.

This was kind of similar to the Trump special master case but more of like the regular order of how things work m. PV said “these things they’re us to produce for are privileged under various privileges” and the SM was appointed to review the materials and assess claims of privilege so that it’s done with minimal harm to the party asserting the privilege. Report was a bit of a mixed bag but said some of it was and most wasn’t. The judge could decide something different.

What’s the specific question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#43,109
#43,109
whodeycin85 said:
Do you think that if there were any truth to PV forging the diary that wouldn't be brought up in the case...?
Click to expand...
The only point I'm making right now, is that filing does not do what Trending Politics says it did. It doesn't confirm that Ashley Biden wrote the passages concerning showers and sexual abuse from her dad. It only says that the diary has been confirmed as belonging to her, but that has never been a matter of dispute. That filing offers nothing new.

Trending Politics and Proud Elephant treated it like it was a bombshell ... and you ran with it.
 
#43,110
#43,110
BowlBrother85 said:
The only point I'm making right now, is that filing does not do what Trending Politics says it did. It doesn't confirm that Ashley Biden wrote the passages concerning showers and sexual abuse from her dad. It only says that the diary has been confirmed as belonging to her, but that has never been a matter of dispute. That filing offers nothing new.

Trending Politics and Proud Elephant treated it like it was a bombshell ... and you ran with it.
Click to expand...
Have the controversial passages been disputed as not her writing by anyone reasonably close to the case?
 
#43,111
#43,111
RockyTop85 said:
I skimmed it, yesterday.

This was kind of similar to the Trump special master case but more of like the regular order of how things work m. PV said “these things they’re us to produce for are privileged under various privileges” and the SM was appointed to review the materials and assess claims of privilege so that it’s done with minimal harm to the party asserting the privilege. Report was a bit of a mixed bag but said some of it was and most wasn’t. The judge could decide something different.

What’s the specific question?
Click to expand...
As an attorney if any part of that diary was a forgery would you include that in case filing?
 
#43,115
#43,115
BowlBrother85 said:
The timing of this definitely gives the appearance of being a desperate attempt to shift discussion from Trump to Biden. It's a little too obvious. I will read a report on it, however. Just provide a link to a legitimate source. That's not too much to ask, guys.

"Proud Elephant"

Really? Come on, man.
Click to expand...

What changes have you made regarding your trusted sources given the number of hoaxes you’ve been taken with over the past several years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, hog88, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#43,116
#43,116
RockyTop85 said:
I skimmed it, yesterday.

This was kind of similar to the Trump special master case but more of like the regular order of how things work m. PV said “these things they’re us to produce for are privileged under various privileges” and the SM was appointed to review the materials and assess claims of privilege so that it’s done with minimal harm to the party asserting the privilege. Report was a bit of a mixed bag but said some of it was and most wasn’t. The judge could decide something different.

What’s the specific question?
Click to expand...
They are arguing veracity, not privilege.

Did this SM filing do anything to answer questions surrounding the veracity of the passages in your opinion?
 
#43,117
#43,117
whodeycin85 said:
No just him
Click to expand...
I don't know whether those controversial passages were forged or not ... but I'm definitely not taking the word of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. They have an agenda against Democrats, and they have revealed in the past that they are not above committing acts of dishonesty to achieve their desired results.
 
#43,118
#43,118
BowlBrother85 said:
That filing does not address the issue of whether or not the controversial passages included were written by Ashley Biden. It only states that the diary was hers ... but that has never been a matter of dispute. The commentary provided by Trending Politics and Proud Elephant is misleading.

Yes, this is indeed more propaganda ... and the timing of it is suspicious. It looks like an attempt to deflect from Trump's legal troubles.
Click to expand...
I see many references to privilege in that ruling. Not much else.
 
#43,119
#43,119
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't know whether those controversial passages were forged or not ... but I'm definitely not taking the word of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. They have an agenda against Democrats, and they have revealed in the past that they are not above committing acts of dishonesty to achieve their desired results.
Click to expand...
Yea...no other news source ever spliced together footage or an interview to present 1 sided viewpoint...never happens
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and Orangeburst
#43,120
#43,120
BowlBrother85 said:
She has never publicly addressed the contents of the diary. For the most part, she is a private person. She doesn't give interviews.
Click to expand...
Not following the story closely, I suspect the diary has not been examined forensically. Is the question you have over the controversial passages stemming from a different writing style, penmanship, or just a general concern over really dirty politics?
 
#43,121
#43,121
McDad said:
Not following the story closely, I suspect the diary has not been examined forensically. Is the question you have over the controversial passages stemming from a different writing style, penmanship, or just a general concern over really dirty politics?
Click to expand...
In the filing it does say that PV verified the penmanship...his issue is with PV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#43,125
#43,125
whodeycin85 said:
Yea...no other news source ever spliced together footage or an interview to present 1 sided viewpoint...never happens
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it had never happened, but when it does there are usually consequences for those involved.

Dan Rather was forced to retire and Producer Mary Mapes were fired in 2004 for using unverifiable documents in a story about George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Stephen Glass was fired by The New Republic in 1997 for publishing numerous fabricated stories including one called "Hack Heaven" about a teenager who supposedly infiltrated a major software company. He has been denied admission into the American Bar Association because of this, as well. His career in journalism never recovered.

Janet Cooke was famously fired for her "Jimmy's World" story in The Washington Post from 1980. Her career ended as well. She works in a department store now.

The stuff James O'Keefe has done is far more egregious than this ^^^^ and yet, he faced virtually no consequences over it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top