President Joe Biden - Kamala Harris Administration

#43,201
#43,201
BowlBrother85 said:
Mmmkay ... you might have a point in there, but this stuff with Ashley Biden's diary is just as bad or worse than any of that golden shower stuff from the Steele dossier. Granted, not very many right wing outlets have run with it. I think The New York Post did, though.
Click to expand...

The allegations in the diary have more credibility than any of the Steele dossier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs and whodeycin85
#43,203
#43,203
BowlBrother85 said:
Yes ... if those claims are credible. The only person who can make a credible claim in this matter is Ashley Biden. This story never gets where you want it to go, if she never comments on it. She has probably been advised by her attorneys not to comment on it, because Republicans won't believe her denial anyway and Democrats/Independents aren't paying any attention to this.
Click to expand...
Do you think any authority asked her if that was true?
 
#43,204
#43,204
whodeycin85 said:
Do you think any authority asked her if that was true?
Click to expand...
I have no idea ... but let's face it :

1) You wouldn't believe her, if she did publicly say that those diary entries had been forged. You would still want to hear it from a handwriting expert ... and even then, you still wouldn't believe the handwriting expert, if forgery was the conclusive opinion.

2) Due to the involvement of Project Veritas in the handling of her diary before it reached the police, I'm not going to believe those entries were made by Ashley Biden, unless she confirms that they were.

3) The only person who is capable of getting this story to a place where it could damage Joe Biden politically is Ashley Biden, and it doesn't look like she is ever going to talk about the diary publicly. That is understandable. She has nothing to gain by doing so. In a situation such as this, people are going to believe whatever they want to believe. Her commenting publicly on it, would not change the mind of a single person, who has already formed an opinion of her dad.
 
#43,214
#43,214
hog88 said:
The allegations in the diary have more credibility than any of the Steele dossier.
Click to expand...
Sure .... I mean, James O'Keefe would never stoop so low as to forge a diary to make Joe Biden look bad a few weeks before the election. What was I thinkin'?

Sometimes you are a step above the others ... and sometimes you're not.
 
#43,215
#43,215
BowlBrother85 said:
Sure .... I mean, James O'Keefe would never stoop so low as to forge a diary to make Joe Biden look bad a few eeks before the election. What was I thinkin'?

Sometimes you are a step above the others ... and sometimes you're not.
Click to expand...

It’s her diary, handwriting is without question similar, nobody has disputed it’s contents so yeah it’s a helluva lot more credible than the complete fabrication of the Steele dossier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs, dovervolz and 2 others
#43,216
#43,216
hog88 said:
It’s her diary, handwriting is without question similar, nobody has disputed it’s contents so yeah it’s a helluva lot more credible than the complete fabrication of the Steele dossier.
Click to expand...
James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have an established history of altering evidence and fabricating claims against Democrats and in support of Republicans ... and it just so happens that that is who handled the diary before it reached the police.

And as far as what is similar .... they wouldn't just forge the salacious entries ... they were in possession of the diary for close to a month. They would also add a great deal of non-salacious material and then use that as part of the overall sample as well. They had time enough to be creative with this.

... and why didn't Project Veritas ever publish these allegations themselves? Because that would have raised the stakes for them, and invited law enforcement scrutiny which they weren't willing to risk.
 
#43,217
#43,217
BowlBrother85 said:
James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have an established history of altering evidence and fabricating claims against Democrats and in support of Republicans ... and it just so happens that that is who handled the diary before it reached the police.

And as far as what is similar .... they wouldn't just forge the salacious entries ... they were in possession of the diary for close to a month. They would also add a great deal of non-salacious material and then use that as part of the overall sample as well. They had time enough to be creative with this.

... and why didn't Project Veritas ever publish these allegations themselves? Because that would have raised the stakes for them, and invited law enforcement scrutiny which they weren't willing to risk.
Click to expand...

You sure do have an active imagination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, OL SMOKEY, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#43,224
#43,224
BowlBrother85 said:
James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have an established history of altering evidence and fabricating claims against Democrats and in support of Republicans ... and it just so happens that that is who handled the diary before it reached the police.

And as far as what is similar .... they wouldn't just forge the salacious entries ... they were in possession of the diary for close to a month. They would also add a great deal of non-salacious material and then use that as part of the overall sample as well. They had time enough to be creative with this.

... and why didn't Project Veritas ever publish these allegations themselves? Because that would have raised the stakes for them, and invited law enforcement scrutiny which they weren't willing to risk.
Click to expand...

I can’t help but notice you sure are selective about your sources when it comes to things that reflect poorly on the Democrats.

Here we have a diary with a page in the middle of it in the same handwriting, and you are willing to dismiss it. While it’s not “proof”, it’s still compelling. And, as Hog pointed out, hasn’t been denied.

On the other hand, you have a long history of accepting information about Trump that was far less compelling. Some if it was so flimsy it just took a little bit of thinking to realize it had a low probability of being true. I don’t recall you being so discerning of sources then.

At a minimum, this suggests to me you should spend more time thinking and less time discerning which sources you think are valid. Because you’re not so good at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top