President Joe Biden - Kamala Harris Administration

#60,777
#60,777
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and rekinhavoc
#60,778
#60,778
www.theblaze.com

Bombshell internal docs reveal the extent of Team Biden's political miscalculations | Blaze Media

'The worst political advice in the history of the world.'
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com

The memo also capitalizes and bolds every reference made to Biden, presumably to avoid any confusion for the reader. The document was circulated just 73 days before Biden's now-infamous performance on June 27, 2024.

“By holding the first debate in the spring, YOU will be able to reach the widest audience possible before we are deep in the summer months with the conventions, Olympics, and family vacations taking precedence,” the memo reads.

“In addition, the earlier YOU are able to debate the better, so that the American people can see YOU standing next to Trump and showing the strength of YOUR leadership, compared to Trump’s weakness and chaos."

1752055353122.png

I'm YOU right Jill?
 
#60,779
#60,779
  • Like
Reactions: rekinhavoc
#60,782
#60,782
Sea Ray said:
I actually agree with the doctor. Biden does have rights of privacy when it comes to his health. Doesn't surprise me that the Dr won't answer questions about it
Click to expand...

Is the Dr a .gov Dr or Biden's personal physician? It would make a difference.
 
#60,784
#60,784
Sea Ray said:
I actually agree with the doctor. Biden does have rights of privacy when it comes to his health. Doesn't surprise me that the Dr won't answer questions about it
Click to expand...
Per the headline, the doctor isn't refusing questions on doctor/patient privacy grounds, but on 5th Amendment grounds, meaning, the doctor doesn't want to say anything that would incriminate him in a crime. Pretty damning, at this point, as to his knowledge that he may be complicit in a criminal cover-up.

hog88 said:
Is the Dr a .gov Dr or Biden's personal physician? It would make a difference.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't. Regardless of the employer, if the doctor is seeing the patient, the patient is the one who has the privacy rights. Think: military doctors. Obviously paid by government, but their patients still have protections.

There are exceptions that can be made to those privacy rights, but until those exceptions are met, the patient still has those rights, it isn't the doctor's decision what to share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62 and Smallvol#1
#60,785
#60,785
Sea Ray said:
What difference would that make? He's protected by HIPAA laws regardless
Click to expand...

IDK how it would work with the President but in the private sector HIPPA doesn't apply to work comp cases. Doesn't apply in the military either, I'm also pretty sure HIPPA doesn't apply when a Dr has been subpoenaed by a court to testify.

But in any case the tweet said that he took the 5th, he didn't invoke the HIPPA protections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#60,786
#60,786
Sea Ray said:
I actually agree with the doctor. Biden does have rights of privacy when it comes to his health. Doesn't surprise me that the Dr won't answer questions about it
Click to expand...
I think the committee was trying to find out if the Dr lied about Biden's mental health...the Dr publicly attested Biden was mentally fit...the Dr does not want to get caught lying under oath so he takes the 5th...if Biden was truly mentally fit as the Dr claimed, then the Dr had nothing to hide and should have testified...seems there is a coverup of Biden's mental fitness leading up to the election...he should have least said something about how Biden's stage 4 prostate cancer went undetected for so long...


1752078692606.png
 
#60,787
#60,787
jmacvols1 said:
I think the committee was trying to find out if the Dr lied about Biden's mental health...the Dr publicly attested Biden was mentally fit...the Dr does not want to get caught lying under oath so he takes the 5th...if Biden was truly mentally fit as the Dr claimed, then the Dr had nothing to hide and should have testified...seems there is a coverup of Biden's mental fitness leading up to the election...he should have least said something about how Biden's stage 4 prostate cancer went undetected for so long...


View attachment 754063
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think HIPPA applies to those questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz
#60,789
#60,789
Sea Ray said:
What difference would that make? He's protected by HIPAA laws regardless
Click to expand...
It's not quite that simple. There's lots of legal yada/blah blah but here's a rundown.

HIPAA and Subpoenas, Orders, and Administrative Demands – Holland & Hart's Health Law Blog

hhhealthlawblog.com hhhealthlawblog.com

"The HIPAA privacy rules (45 CFR § 164.501 et seq.) generally prohibit healthcare providers and their business associates from disclosing protected health information in response to subpoenas and other government demands unless certain conditions are satisfied."

Obviously it's not carte blanche to compel testimony but HIPAA's protections are by no means absolute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#60,790
#60,790
Ritzwatch said:
Per the headline, the doctor isn't refusing questions on doctor/patient privacy grounds, but on 5th Amendment grounds, meaning, the doctor doesn't want to say anything that would incriminate him in a crime. Pretty damning, at this point, as to his knowledge that he may be complicit in a criminal cover-up.


It shouldn't. Regardless of the employer, if the doctor is seeing the patient, the patient is the one who has the privacy rights. Think: military doctors. Obviously paid by government, but their patients still have protections.

There are exceptions that can be made to those privacy rights, but until those exceptions are met, the patient still has those rights, it isn't the doctor's decision what to share.
Click to expand...
Per the headline? You can’t judge anything by the headline. In the article it clearly states that the doctor “is asserting Dr-Patient privilege “ as well as 5th amendment self incrimination. Both arguments are legally sound although the latter does suggest that he did something wrong

 
  • Like
Reactions: Smallvol#1
#60,791
#60,791
Sea Ray said:
Per the headline? You can’t judge anything by the headline. In the article it clearly states that the doctor “is asserting Dr-Patient privilege “ as well as 5th amendment self incrimination. Both arguments are legally sound although the latter does suggest that he did something wrong

Click to expand...
All I had was the headline, link wouldn’t open for me on the computer I was using. 🤷‍♂️
 
#60,792
#60,792
Sea Ray said:
I actually agree with the doctor. Biden does have rights of privacy when it comes to his health. Doesn't surprise me that the Dr won't answer questions about it
Click to expand...
I don’t agree that the doctor should have taken the fifth. Invoking the fifth by its nature protects from self incrimination. But I strongly agree that doctor/patient relationship should have been respected and instead the doctor should have just told them to go fornicate with themselves in the corner it’s none of their damn business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#60,794
#60,794
So in reading the short two questions which the good doctor took the fifth on he absolutely did himself no favor in taking the fifth that I can see.

"I'm going to read the first two questions that were asked. 'Were you ever told to lie about the president's health?' He pleaded the Fifth Amendment. He would not answer that question. The second question, ‘Did you ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?'" House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters after the meeting.
Click to expand...

So those are basic questions and taking the fifth just seems needlessly self incriminating. The first question doesn’t even relate to the patient data. Only was he asked to misrepresent what the data actually was vs what was released. Taking the fifth there pretty much self incriminates I’d say. On the second question which is somewhat related to actual patient data he again didn’t need to take the fifth to avoid giving them a sound bite. Hell why not just say no? Who could even say he was lying. Unless he’s a neurologist and/or did specific mental competency testing how could he even draw a reasonable conclusion to answer the question as asked in either an affirmative or negative fashion. 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smallvol#1 and dovervolz
#60,795
#60,795
NorthDallas40 said:
So in reading the short two questions which the good doctor took the fifth on he absolutely did himself no favor in taking the fifth that I can see.



So those are basic questions and taking the fifth just seems needlessly self incriminating. The first question doesn’t even relate to the patient data. Only was he asked to misrepresent what the data actually was vs what was released. Taking the fifth there pretty much self incriminates I’d say. On the second question which is somewhat related to actual patient data he again didn’t need to take the fifth to avoid giving them a sound bite. Hell why not just say no? Who could even say he was lying. Unless he’s a neurologist and/or did specific mental competency testing how could he even draw a reasonable conclusion to answer the question as asked in either an affirmative or negative fashion. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I wonder if he had to sign an NDA, and if he is taking the 5th to satisfy that. I know that wouldn't have legal/5th ramifications, but seems like it could get him in trouble regardless if there was one.
 
#60,796
#60,796
LouderVol said:
I wonder if he had to sign an NDA, and if he is taking the 5th to satisfy that. I know that wouldn't have legal/5th ramifications, but seems like it could get him in trouble regardless if there was one.
Click to expand...
I’d imagine anybody working in the West Wing has to sign multiple NDA’s but I’d submit he has likely stronger protections in doctor/patient privacy. Regardless in seeing the two questions asked, assuming those were not misrepresented, I think he screwed the pooch in taking the fifth unless he could not truthfully say “no” and “hell if I know”
 
#60,797
#60,797
NorthDallas40 said:
I’d imagine anybody working in the West Wing has to sign multiple NDA’s but I’d submit he has likely stronger protections in doctor/patient privacy. Regardless in seeing the two questions asked, assuming those were not misrepresented, I think he screwed the pooch in taking the fifth unless he could not truthfully say “no” and “hell if I know”
Click to expand...
it get it, more just wondering.

he could always go slick willy with it. depends on what your definition of is is. or tongue and cheek but honest.

"yeah they asked me to lie. he weighed 5lbs heavier."
"his plaque levels were higher than Nadler's belt line and they wanted me to say it was normal."
"they didn't want me to say his pee stank, even though he just had some asparagus"
"he did actually skin his knee falling up the stairs/off the bike, and I said otherwise to avoid embarrassment"
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#60,798
#60,798
So, if a physical is required as part of your job (i.e. pilot, nuclear worker, etc) is your boss not entitled to know if you are unfit for the job? In the case of Biden, the American people are the employers and should have a right to know if the guy with the nuclear codes is competent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boca Vol, chuckiepoo, Smallvol#1 and 2 others
#60,799
#60,799
Switch 625 said:
So, if a physical is required as part of your job (i.e. pilot, nuclear worker, etc) is your boss not entitled to know if you are unfit for the job? In the case of Biden, the American people are the employers and should have a right to know if the guy with the nuclear codes is competent.
Click to expand...
If the boss makes it clear that a consent to release of the results is required before doing the physical sure. The potential employee is under no obligation to consent. And the boss is under no obligation to offer employment as a result.

Also the potential employee is the grantor here. Not the boss strong arming the doctor after the fact without employee consent.
 
#60,800
#60,800
NorthDallas40 said:
If the boss makes it clear that a consent to release of the results is required before doing the physical sure. The potential employee is under no obligation to consent. And the boss is under no obligation to offer employment as a result.

Also the potential employee is the grantee here. Not the boss strong arming the doctor after the fact without employee consent.
Click to expand...
I can’t fail a physical and hide it from my employer if being physically capable of doing my job is a requirement. All presidents since I can remember have had at least health reports released but not necessarily the details like bloodwork and such. We simply cannot have a brain dead CIC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, Vol since 77, dovervolz and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top