Biden Issues Another Artificially Narrow Waiver In Search On Sexual Assault Evidence

220px-Biden_2013We discussed yesterday how former Vice President Joe Biden issued a request to release material from the National Archives related to the allegation of sexual assault made by former Biden staff member Tara Reade. There was less than met the eye however.  Biden adamantly refused to open up the records held by the University of Delaware and has steadfastly limited any searches to Reade’s complaint rather than any such allegations.  Now Biden is adopting the same artificially narrow approach in his letter to the United States Senate.  While CNN has been running glowing interviews about the letter, it is clearly drafted to limit the search.  Once again, I fail to understand this reluctance to simply end all discussion with total transparency.  Biden, in my view, has the stronger case here given the limited evidence and witnesses supporting Reade.  The fact of any recollection of this allegation by various staff members is highly compelling evidence. Yet, he continues to issue strangely curtailed requests while proclaiming that he is being totally transparent. It is not clear if this is just a reflexive resistance to full disclosure, over-lawyered language, or actually an effort to conceal information.

The National Archives has already declared that the earlier waiver related to their material is irrelevant since “Any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate.”  Notably, the coverage today largely does not mention the narrow construction of the letter to the Senate or the fact that it was sent after the Archives denied it had any such material.  It was the Archives that pointed out that a request had to be sent to the Senate. Instead, CNN was running interviews today praising Biden for his transparency.

Notably, the coverage has also ignored that Biden justified the initial narrow request to the Archives by assuring the public that any such material could only be found at the National Archives. The Archives is now saying that that is not true –  a fact that could have been easily confirmed by the Biden staff before his long-delayed response to the Reade allegation.

The immediate denial of the Archives that it would have such material only highlighted the steadfast refusal to open up the papers sent to the University of Delaware.  It also puts pressure on the University of Delaware in being used to block access of the media and the public.  This pressure will build if reports are proven accurate that Biden staffers have already has access to the material for an earlier review.  I think such a review is a wise move for any presidential candidate and may be unrelated to these allegations. However, it reflects the problem in allowing the privatization of such records.

What is most striking about the United States Senate letter is that it reflects Biden’s original position that he only wants a search of the complaint, not any related material from Reade or any material related to other sexual misconduct allegations. In his interview with MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski, Biden was pushed to allow the release of any material related to the Reade controversy.  However, he refused to allow a search of his papers under lock and key at the University of Delaware and has not ordered the release of any information or document on sexual misconduct allegations from other women.

Now Biden’s letter repeats his narrow position that focused on this one allegation. He asked the Senate

“I request that you take or direct whatever steps are necessary to establish the location of the records of this Office, and once they have been located, to direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search. I would ask that the public release include not only a complaint if one exists, but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation.” (emphasis added)

In fairness, this is still more disclosure that Donald Trump has allowed in relation to multiple women accusing him of sexual misconduct or his taxes.  However, if Biden wants points for transparency, he really needs to be transparent. As I have said before, the solution is obvious and simple: release any material related to any sexual misconduct or harassment allegation by anyone from any of these archives or libraries. That includes the Senate Ethics Committee, the University of Delaware, and any other archives or areas holding Biden-related papers.

CNN and other media outfits continue to run glowing accounts of these waivers with little or no discussion of how they are carefully limited in where the searches can be made and what the searches can look for.

Again, I view Biden’s position as more compelling on the current record.  However, these narrowly focused, narrowly crafted waivers only magnify concerns.  Rather than simply turn on the light, he continues to insist that searches are confined to where he is directing a flashlight.  Biden already said on MSNBC that he did not want his papers at the University of Delaware to be opened because it would be used as “fodder” against him in the campaign.  So, he wants transparency but only to the degree that he can minimize negative impacts.

I will say it again.  I have argued for decades that these papers should be public documents, not private documents.  There is no reason why presidents and senators should treat official documents filed in their offices as their personal property.  The Presidential Records Act, for example, allows a president to not only conceal material but appoint his own loyalists to make critical decisions on whether and when material can be reviewed.  Presidents can unilaterally declare matter as privileged and nonpublic to protect themselves from embarrassment and the judgment of history.

The most relevant records for reviewing Biden’s veracity and leadership are his official papers.  Yet we allow Biden to control the papers and prevent their review so that they cannot be used against him in seeking the highest office in the land.

157 thoughts on “Biden Issues Another Artificially Narrow Waiver In Search On Sexual Assault Evidence”

  1. “Tara Reade is just the new Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick: women who are first ignored, then mocked, then hated, maligned and viciously smeared by Democrats for the crime of accusing a powerful male Democratic politician of sexual misconduct. Nothing changed from the 1990s.” -Glenn Greenwald

      1. Everyone keeps saying I don’t like women. I do women all the time. I do their hair, I do their nails, I do their brothers and frankly this is all a smear campaign by all of those Trumpters getting their information from the vast right wing conspiracy.

        does anyone know how I can date Young’s brother? Hung rhymes with Young and well…

        1. REGARDING ABOVE:

          This is another cookie-cutter smear by the endlessly desperate Estovir who suffers from terminal immaturity.

        2. Estovir,

          Help us put you in perspective. Are you an actual adolescent? Or post adolescent? It’s fine to answer “Yes”.

          If you’re really a 20-something we can cut you slack for immaturity.
          It’s common to 20-somethings. But if you’re over 40, this type of immaturity is getting uncool.

            1. Anonymous, you’re probably. He will predictably twist my questions. And that’s why it’s hard to connect with someone like that. Anything you say is going to be twisted.

              But sometimes I wonder if Estovir is 23 years old but more like 17 in terms of maturity. It would explain a lot. Estovir may not care the least about politics or law. He may have no context in which to place Donald Trump. Estovir could be just a kid who thinks bashing liberals is an online sport.

              And consequently Turley’s blog is impacted by one goofy kid and a few of his friends. ‘They’ are dominating the threads with bellicose, pro-Trump sock puppets. Perhaps there’s no mechanism to prevent that from happening.

              I assumed, based on all those Catholic posts, that Estovir was well into his 30’s if not his 40’s. I mean those Catholic Journal articles didnt look like anything a 20-something would post! They really looked more on the level of an Over 50 crowd.

              But perhaps a foreign troll could think 20-something American guys read Catholic Journals. That’s something else to consider.

                1. Anonymous, now I know why you stay Anonymous. It shouldn’t be that way but it is.

                  The problem is that too many Anonymouses makes the threads less reader friendly. Think of a radio play where characters have no names. That’s how confusing it could get.

                    1. I am sticking with my theory that it really is Seth’s second personality that is breaking out. You know, Multiple Personality Disorder brought about by all the inner stress of being a DNC shill and constantly lying and deceiving people.

                      I have a pretty good eye for this sort of thing. The “more honest” Seth is rebelling against the “totally dishonest shill” Seth and trying to sabotage him. You could also view this as a battle for the soul of Seth.

                      I don’t have a dog in this fight. I am just trying to be helpful.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    2. Squeeky Fromm, GIRL reporter — You are up way past your bedtime!

                    3. You could also view this as a battle for the soul of Seth.

                      LMAO. Oh Lord, there is so much material on these boards to write a film

                      Re: the Shill…Maybe Joan is back?

  2. Lie detector test. Biden should take a lie detector test. We need a reliable testor. The accusor should take a lie detector test.
    Are these tests reliable?

      1. True. I know of three instances they failed. Tesults are not admissable in court because they are unreliable.

      1. That aside, this is an excellent video. Must watch. Kamilla Harris is especially irritating to listen to…I hope Joe picks her….she’s unlikable, along the lines of Hillary-unlikable….so pick her! pick her! Kammy Harris….as annoying and irritating as an itch you cannot scratch….

    1. “Insist on contact tracing:”

      If one were concerned with “a bizarre day-long mating ritual helped accelerate speciation in a group of Hawaiian crickets.” then one might want to listen to the author, but I don’t think that qualifies him for his advacacy.

      1. Allan engages in ad hominem as well as doesn’t pay attention to spelling.

        Didn’t read the full piece, either.

        Tch, tch.

        🐜

        1. “Allan engages in ad hominem as well as doesn’t pay attention to spelling.”

          Where is the ad hominem? You guys don’t know what you are talking about. I quoted from Science News the bio of the author. Yes, you are being foolish and the article stank. You can watch the crickets mate. What follows is the exact bio on the author. Look it up. Your supposed to be a retired professor in the sciences. You should be able to tell what good science is but apparently not.

          The full quote: “Jonathan Lambert joined Science News in 2019 as a staff writer covering biological sciences. He earned a master’s degree from Cornell University studying how a bizarre day-long mating ritual helped accelerate speciation in a group of Hawaiian crickets. A summer at the Dallas Morning News as a AAAS Mass Media fellow sparked a pivot from biologist to science journalist. He has previously written for Quanta Magazine, NPR, and Nature News.”

          1. So he is a science journalist who actually knows some science, i.e., ecology. Which is relevant to the well constructed and most clear article that he wrote.

            Too bad Allan is a know-nothing.

            🐜

            1. David, you were foolish enough to think I was throwing an ad Hominem when all I did was to quote from his bibliography. Now you are insulting me because of your own ignorance.

              I’ll give you a chance to redeem yourself. How do we contact trace that many people? Question 2 How do we manage all the assymptomatic or nearly assymptomatic carriers?

              1. Yes, it was Ad Hominem. Learn the definition.

                As for your second paragraph, read the article. Pay attention to every word. Look up the definition of those you are not sure of.

                🐜

                1. All I did was quote his credentials and tell you that he was your man with regard to crickets mating. You feel assured that his training will help you understand the epidemiology behind Covid. It sounds like you are uneducated and don’t even know what you are reading.

                  The article was lousy. Had the author talked about the realities of the numbers involved in contact tracing and explained how that would help then at least the article would have had substance. Then again as a bag of hot air you don’t care very much about substance.

                  1. Good lord, Allan. There are even cartoons to explain it to dimwits. I guess that you don’t even qualify that high up the moron scale.

                    Do try to read this piece of journalism. Try very hard.

                    🐉

                    1. I see David, after learning that the journal had a bio on the author that made you look foolish now you discovered there are comments. Tell us what comment you want reviewed and interpreted for you.

                    2. Are you one of the dimwits that learns from those cartoons? I’m asking you real questions but you can’t answer them. That is because the article stank and didn’t cover the issue he was talking about. I don’t blame him. He’s paid money to write and isn’t too concerned that people like you don’t read critically. Magazines need filler and they don’t have the money to hire experts for each topic but this article was really lame and if you can’t see that it reflects poorly on you.

                      Now you can go back and watch the mating habits of crickets to see what they can do that you can’t.

                    3. Allan, it’s not a scientific journal. That implies peer review. The article which you fail to comprehend is in the popular science press. I don’t know if there are comments.

                      Now if you had bothered to read, you would see that aTTP is a blog. With comments. Which you could read — I don’t know how much of it you will comprehend — to learn more about contact tracing. Since the popular article left you with questions.

                      I hope that I didn’t use any words that you don’t know, but you could look those up in Lexico.

                      🎓

                    4. “Allan, it’s not a scientific journal. ”

                      David, you made a fool of yourself and I let you off easy. I copied from the author’s bio and you didn’t even realize that or ask what I was talking about. It demonstrates that your due date has long expired and you are incompetent in these matters. You should have laughed it off as it was funny but instead you decided to attack only making yourself look more foolish.

    2. Insist on contact tracing:

      You have a seven or eight digit population who’ve been infected with this thing. Fat chance.

  3. OT: Governors have mismanaged their states and pension funds are now asking other people to bail them out. The complete WSJ article that is behind a paywall.

    Don’t Reward States’ Bad Decisions
    There’s a good reason Florida doesn’t need a bailout, while Illinois and New York do.
    By Rick Scott
    April 27, 2020 6:22 pm ET

    Congress has taken significant action over the past two months to address the unprecedented economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

    We’ve pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the health-care system, significantly boosted unemployment insurance that directly helps those who have lost their jobs, created a loan program to help small businesses, and provided funding to reimburse states and local governments for coronavirus-related expenses.

    There’s more Congress can do, but one thing we absolutely shouldn’t do is shield states from the consequences of their own bad budgetary decisions over the past few decades.

    The debate began last week when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the point plainly. “There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side,” he said, “to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations.”

    Democrats predictably expressed outrage. They claim that refusing to support hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for state and local governments amounts to telling police officers, firefighters and schoolteachers to “drop dead,” as New York’s Rep. Max Rose put it on the House floor. That kind of rhetoric only distracts from Democrats’ true aim: using federal taxpayer dollars to bail out poorly run states—typically, states controlled by Democrats.

    When I became Florida’s governor in 2011, we had a huge budget shortfall and had lost 832,000 jobs in four years. I had to make tough choices. We cut taxes every year—more than $10 billion over my eight years in office—and saw revenues increase every year. The state went from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs over four years to adding almost 1.7 million in eight. We turned a $2.5 billion budget shortfall into a $4 billion surplus, with $3 billion a year in the rainy-day fund.

    Florida’s pension system was funded at 83.9% when I left office, and for the first time in state history all three credit-rating agencies rated the state’s general-obligation bond at AAA. Compare that to states like Illinois, California and New Jersey, whose pension systems are funded at 38.4%, 68.9% and 35.8%, respectively, despite significantly higher taxes.

    Florida is well-positioned to address the coming shortfall in revenue without a bailout. The state may need to make some choices, which is what grown-ups do in tough economic times. And if we need to borrow a small amount in the short term to get us through this economic crisis, that borrowing will be cheaper thanks to our AAA bond rating and the reduction in state debt.

    New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said it was “irresponsible” and “reckless” not to bail out states like his, a state with two million fewer people than Florida and a budget almost double the size of ours. The opposite is true. It’s irresponsible and reckless to take money from America’s taxpayers and use it to save liberal politicians from the consequences of their poor choices.

    American families make responsible budgetary decisions every day. Well-managed states like Florida have done it for years. It’s time for New York, Illinois and California to do the same.

    Mr. Scott, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

    1. Alan, The Rockefeller Institute has compiled lists of states that pay more in taxes than they receive. And states states that receive more than they pay. Blue states DC dominate the “Donor” list.

      The ten states with largest negative balances (Donor States) are:

      Connecticut (- $4,000)
      New Jersey (- $2,368)
      Massachusetts (- $2,343)
      New York (- $1,792)
      North Dakota (- $720)
      Illinois (- $364)
      New Hampshire (- $234)
      Washington (- $184)
      Nebraska (- $164)
      Colorado (- $95)

      The ten states with the largest positive balance of payments per capita (the biggest takers) are:

      Virginia ($10,301)
      Kentucky ($9,145)
      New Mexico ($8,692)
      West Virginia ($7,283)
      Alaska ($7,048)
      Mississippi ($6,880)
      Alabama ($6,694)
      Maryland ($6,035)
      Maine ($5,572)
      Hawaii ($5,270)

      1. What do you mean by “states that pay more in taxes than they receive.”?

        Does Andrew Cuomo write out a big check to the federal government and sign his name?

        1. Alan,

          Dont play stupid. For years New York has sent more to Washington than it receives. And notice how Connecticut and New Jersey also make the list. That’s because so many big corporations are based in the New York Metro Region.

          Notice how Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky top the list of Moocher States? And to think he has the gall to threaten blue states. What a hypocrite!!

          1. I’ll repeat the question. You didn’t answer the question because you are a first tier guy and you only know sound bites. Digging deeper surpasses your level of knowledge and intelligence.

            >>What do you mean by “states that pay more in taxes than they receive.”?

            >Does Andrew Cuomo write out a big check to the federal government and sign his name?

  4. “Tara Reade pushes back on AP report, calls to ‘retract’ headline about Biden complaint”

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/tara-reade-associated-press-biden-complaint

    Excerpt:

    “I do not know what is on the form until we see it. I filed a sexual harassment complaint and included retaliation,” Reade said.

    Reade said she told The AP that she had filed an “intake form” regarding sexual harassment but did not disclose the alleged sexual assault in the complaint.

    “I asked AP to retract [the] headline,” Reade told Fox News. -Fox News

    This was the AP headline:

    “AP Exclusive: Harassment, assault absent in Biden complaint”

  5. Another Puppet Exposed, Resulting In Smear Against Seth Warner

    We’ve seen this show before. A sock puppet with a stupid name is ruffled. Which causes Crazed Idiot to respond with a smear against Seth Warner. Funny how this keeps happening: Sock puppet exposed – Seth Warner smeared. But we’re supposed to think these sock puppets qualify for personhood.

    Here’s the exchange from further down:
    ……………………………………………………………..

    Sam-I-Am says:
    She is power hungry just like lying, cheating, crooked Hillary. She wants old senile groping Joe to be pres so she can be first lady. She wants it really bad.

    Anonymous says:
    Sam, you’re an empty sock puppet; just an audio speaker feeding a canned narrative.

    Anonymous # 2 says:
    Didn’t Jonathan Turley tell you to knock it off the other day?

    Anonymous says:
    Anonymous, funny Sam cant answer. Why is that??

    Seth Warner Humps Online says:
    Sam is busy making love to his wife. Yet here you are once again humping commenters on Professor Turley’s blog.

    did your AAA battery run out from using your prostate massager all night?

    bwahahahahahaaha

    1. Regarding above:

      See that “bwhahahahahahahaha”

      That’s Estovir’s ‘signature’

  6. Jill puts up with Joe Biden because Jill is just like Joe. Marital vows and fidelity mean nothing.

    Jill Biden was married to Mr Bill Stevenson when she met Joe Biden. She went through a “turbulent” divorce from her 1st husband, demanding more money than she was awarded and married Joe months after her divorce.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20100213214833/http://udreview.com/2.1980/behind-the-stone-balloon-1.142251

    “Stevenson also had issues with a divorce case between he and his first wife, Jill Jacobs, who today is married to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). They had married in February 1970, when Stevenson was only 23 and Jacobs was a student at the university, but drifted apart and were divorced in 1976.

    He avoids details in his book, but after a turbulent court case, Stevenson walked away only paying Jacobs less than half what we she had wanted, not including the half-ownership she sought of the bar. Within months she was married to Biden.

    1. Regarding Above:

      Wow, infidelity and divorce..?? That’s shocking stuff! I’ll bet Donald Trump never had problems like that. Oh, wait a second he has!

  7. This whole mess aside, I don’t want to hear about “Dr. Jill Biden” for the next four years.

      1. Poor woman. Scared to death!

        from your AP link

        “I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable,” Reade said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press. “I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault.”

        Reade said she described her issues with Biden but “the main word I used — and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”

        1. More from the AP story

          “Reade says she was reluctant to share details of the assault during her initial conversations with reporters over a year ago because she was scared of backlash, and was still coming to terms with what happened to her.

          Two of Reade’s associates said publicly this past week that Reade had conversations with them that they said corroborated aspects of her allegation. One, a former neighbor, said Reade told her about the alleged assault a few years after Reade said it happened. The other, a former coworker, said Reade told her she had been sexually harassed by her boss during her previous job in Washington.

          The AP has also spoken to two additional people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their families’ privacy, who said Reade had told them about aspects of her allegations against Biden years ago.

          One friend, who knew Reade in 1993, said Reade told them about the alleged assault when it happened. The second friend met Reade more than a decade after the alleged incident and confirmed that Reade had a conversation with the friend in 2007 or 2008 about experiencing sexual harassment from Biden while working in his Senate office.”

  8. Columnist E. Jean Carroll Seeking Trump’s DNA For Rape Lawsuit

    The writer E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Donald J. Trump of raping her in the 1990s and is suing him for defamation, asked on Thursday that he provide a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she had on at the time of the incident.

    The request for the DNA sample was made in a letter sent to President Trump’s lawyers via email, a spokeswoman for Roberta A. Kaplan, Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, said. Ms. Kaplan asked that the sample be turned over by March 2.

    Lawrence S. Rosen, a lawyer representing the president in the defamation suit filed by Ms. Carroll, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The Associated Press was the first to report that Ms. Carroll was seeking the DNA sample.

    The move comes amid a trial in the United States Senate that will determine whether Mr. Trump, who was impeached by the House, will be convicted and removed from office.

    In a book excerpt published last June, Ms. Carroll wrote that Mr. Trump had raped her in the late 1990s in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan. She also wrote that she had kept the black wool coat-style dress that she was wearing on the day of the alleged incident.

    Mr. Trump denied the allegation, saying that he did not know Ms. Carroll, despite a photograph showing them together in the 1980s. Mr. Trump also said that Ms. Carroll had fabricated the episode to sell her book and that she was “not my type.”

    Ms. Carroll sued Mr. Trump in state court in New York in November, accusing him of hurting her career and reputation in denying her claim that he had raped her.

    A judge this month rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to have the suit dismissed on the basis that New York’s courts lacked jurisdiction to hear it, paving the way for discovery and depositions. Ms. Kaplan’s spokeswoman said the DNA request was a normal part of the discovery process, but that a judge might eventually have to weigh in on the matter.

    In requesting the sample, Ms. Kaplan wrote that there was “unidentified male DNA present on the dress” Ms. Carroll says she was wearing at the time of the alleged attack. Ms. Carroll said she had worn the dress just once since then: when she was photographed for the cover of the New York magazine issue that included the book excerpt containing the rape accusation.

    Attached to the request for the DNA sample was a laboratory report that details an examination of Ms. Carroll’s DNA; the dress and shoes she was wearing on the day in question; and the DNA of five people who “possibly came into contact with the dress at the time of the photo shoot.”

    In her request, Ms. Kaplan asked officials at the lab, the Forensic Analytical Crime Lab in California, to determine whether the five people — whose names are redacted in the report — “can be eliminated as contributors to any biology foreign to E. Jean Carroll.”

    The report notes that “acid phosphatase activity, a presumptive indication of the presence of semen,” was not detected on either the dress or the shoes. Male DNA was detected on the dress, the report says, mostly on the right sleeve, as well as on the left sleeve, the left and right front shoulder area and outside and inside the garment’s front skirt area.

    Testing eliminated several of the people whose DNA was submitted by Ms. Kaplan as potential contributors to the genetic material found on the left and right sleeves of the dress, the report says.

    Ms. Carroll is one of more than a dozen women who have accused Mr. Trump of sexual misconduct before he was president.

    Mr. Trump has denied all of the accusations, saying that the women made them up.

    Ms. Carroll is one of two women to sue him for defamation after making such accusations. The second, Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Mr. Trump’s television show, “The Apprentice,” has said that Mr. Trump kissed and groped her at his office in New York and at a California hotel a decade before he ran for president.

    Edited From: E. Jean Carroll, Who Accused Trump Of Rape Seeks His DNA In Lawsuit”

    New York Times, 1/30/20

      1. Check the media.

        Those pictures are of Joke Biden and Tara Reade.

        It’s Joke Biden’s turn.

        Sorry, Bozo.

        I think your anguish is justifiable, however, it appears that Hillary is moving Joke Biden out of the picture either for herself or for

        Moochie.

        Go throw some mud at Hillary or Obongo and see if it sticks.

    1. The dress has never been cleaned. In 24 years. Just sat in a mothball bag in her closet. And she remembers that quite precisely. (“Think of the fantasies”).

  9. That Biden staffers claim not to remember any allegation is just a reflection of the common government policy of “deny, deny, deny.” It’s called “plausible deniability.”

    1. It’s deniability alright, but it’s not even close to being plausible.

      The record, the circumstantial evidence is irrefutable.

      Joke Biden lives (in videos) on the verge of sexual harassment on an hourly basis.

      It’s “Mr. Hair Sniffer” and “Mr. Back Grabber.”

  10. Joe Biden is going to take the place of the Clintons as the gift that keeps on giving.

  11. We all eagerly await JT’s call for complete transparency from Trump on the accusations of sexual assault by 21 women, along with those involving non-disclosure agreements he no doubt mistakenly had some sign, thinking they were birthday cards, and his income tax and other financial records which might confirm what kind of con he is running with Jared, SA, Turkey, and Russia.

    We’ve been waiting.

        1. bythebook, please why do you even try to state facts and truth to people that have no interest in facts? The Trump propaganda infrastructure is embedded like a tick on this site. I mean, good for you that you even try, but what Rex Tillerson said about Trump also applies to most Trump supporters.

          1. Fish, I assume there are lurkers here and some even reachable.

            I also admit to enjoying making the regulars resort to personal insults when their quiver is otherwise empty, and it usually is given how often they use that “tactic”.

            1. Did you ever notice that a Trump supporter will never use facts in defending him? And like their Dear Leader, attack with BS, and lies.

              1. Pretty much all the time. How can they? That’s less amusing then the pretense of moral superiority from people who believe almost everything he spouts, including draining the swamp. Yeah, of IGs, competent cabinet and administrative appointees, principled GOP congressional leaders, and FBI agents.

                Kurtz is nuts, but interesting to talk to. I don’t think he’ll object to that, or I hope not.

              2. Aww Fishy, go on now. Where are YOUR facts sweetheart? All you ever do here is toss out your shite opinion…along with some name-calling. If you believe you refute or offer substantive comments here, I don’t know what reality you are operating in. You are way too funny man.

        2. FROM BOOK’S WAPO LINK:

          At another point, McEnany sought to downplay comparisons between an allegation of sexual assault recently lodged against Joe Biden by a former aide, Tara Reade, and the many similar allegations that Trump has faced.

          “Leave it to the media to really take an issue about the former vice president and turn it on the president and bring up accusations from four years ago that were asked and answered in the form of the vote of the American people,” McEnany said.

          In fact, perhaps the most serious allegation leveled against Trump — one of rape — was brought just a few months ago by journalist E. Jean Carroll. And regardless, while Trump has pushed the idea that a successful election absolves him of fault in the face of such allegations, that it isn’t how the criminal justice system works.

          1. Jean (“Think of the fantasies”) Carroll contended that Trump raped her in a woman’s dressing room at Bergdorf-Goodman. Trump was 49 at the time, Carroll, 51. That’s something that happens every day, I’m sure.

            The Trumps evidently crossed paths with Carroll and her husband at some sort of gathering in 1987. The picture snapped shows the husbands talking, not their wives. Carroll’s account has it that eight years later, he recognizes her immediately and asks her to help to pick out a gift (or asks us to believe he asks random strangers in department stores for help).

            Note, Carroll’s public writing includes a certain amount of memoir. It’s amazing the number of sexual assaults she’s suffered in her time, going back to 1956. Seems rather more like a susanbrownmilleresque fantasy about women’s lives than an actual woman’s life.

    1. “We’ve been waiting.”

      Democrats Demanded Millions Of Kavanaugh Records, But Stay Mum On Biden’s Senate Records
      After hysterical theatrics demanding records from Brett Kavanaugh’s career, Democrats haven’t said a word as Biden conceals Senate records.

      Mollie Hemingway
      The hypocrisy of Democrats, and their media allies, is on prominent display in their handling of sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden versus their treatment of Brett Kavanaugh. Another example of the hypocrisy relates to the demand, or lack thereof, for documents related to the official government work of the two men.

      Until they switched at the last minute to Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation, Democrats’ main message and procedural complaint against Kavanaugh was that they needed to review millions of public records from his time of service in the executive branch. It was the basis for their theatrics in the first round of nomination hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At issue was whether these documents were covered by executive privilege, and what kind of precedent it would create to be exchanging these documents between the branches of government. It wasn’t a new argument, but one that rears its head in confirmation battles.

      For example, Cory Booker stunned the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 6, 2018, by announcing even before questioning began that he would violate Senate rules by releasing emails that had been marked “committee confidential.” His “Spartacus” moment, as he called it, followed months of battles over how many of documents related to Kavanaugh’s work for the president had to be turned over to the committee.

      Committees usually seek paperwork when they’re trying to learn more about nominees whose judicial views are unclear. That wasn’t the case with Kavanaugh, who had spent 12 years as a prominent federal judge, with 307 opinions of his to peruse. If senators were curious about Kavanaugh’s judicial opinions, they could simply read them. By contrast, when Elena Kagan was nominated to the Court by Barack Obama, she had no opinions to her name and limited writings because she had never served as a judge. Her paperwork during her time in the executive branch was of relatively more importance.

      Paperwork from early in Kavanaugh’s career as a government lawyer and presidential aide said less about how he’d be as a judge than the 12 years he spent as a federal judge. Beyond that, Kavanaugh had more papers in the government record than other nominees. He’d served on Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation, in the White House counsel’s office, and as staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House. Technically staff secretaries have millions of papers come across their desk, even if they have nothing to do with the authorship of those papers. Nonetheless, Charles Grassley set about obtaining those papers because Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said they needed to review them.

      All papers had to go through multiple presidential reviews on account of how they affected multiple presidencies. The Whitewater papers, having previously been combed over, were easiest to produce and showed Kavanaugh in a favorable light. He had argued against releasing personally embarrassing details about President William Jefferson Clinton’s sexual misconduct, for example….

      “Millions of documents provided by thee but none by me,” is the Democrats’ apparent standard.

      Continued: https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/01/democrats-demanded-millions-of-kavanaugh-records-but-stay-mum-on-bidens-senate-records/

        1. seme – did not know that about Jill. So she would not be surprised about the others?

        2. The way the wiki biography presents it, she met him about two months ‘ere her divorce decree was signed. Virginia has digitized images of divorce decrees issued. Such are not yet available from Delaware, so verifying the date of her divorce is more challenging. Her marriage license to Biden was issued in Manhattan in 1977.

      1. Alright, I said a long time ago that I would put up a list of Latin ( and some other non-Latin words) words for MBE purposes, and I want to keep that promise from Feb., long over due, nonetheless, here we go:

        1. Ab Initio
        2. Affidavit
        3. Jurat
        4. De Minimis
        5. Dictum
        6. Forum Non Conveniens
        7. Gravamen
        8. Habeas Corpus
        9. In Camera (Secret Meeting)
        10. In Personam
        11. Lis Pendens
        12. Locus Delecti
        13. Malum In Se
        14. Malum Prohibitum
        15. Motion in Limine
        16. Prima Facie
        17. Pro Tempore
        18. Quid Pro Quo
        19. Qui Tam
        20. Res Ipsa Loquitor
        21. Res Judicata
        22. Motion to Quash
        23. Scienter
        24. Respondeat Superior
        25. Forma Pauperis
        26. Guardian Ad Litem
        27. Devises
        28. Legacies
        29. Bequest
        30. Accord & Satisfaction
        31. Motion to Strike
        32. Default vs. Default Judgement
        33. Motion to Set Aside

        If I can think of any others, I will add, but that is the jist from MC questions.

          1. DBB – I learn something new from you every single time. Lol.

            No. 19 is actually not on MBE, I just tossed it in for fun. 😉

          1. Paul – As time goes on, the chance of that Q being answered in the affirmative becomes more and more apparent.

            1. WW33 – well, the answer is a big YES for me. I am re-watching Midsomer Murders, Community and Brooklyn Nine Nine.

    1. She is power hungry just like lying, cheating, crooked Hillary. She wants old senile groping Joe to be pres so she can be first lady. She wants it really bad.

            1. Sam is busy making love to his wife. Yet here you are once again humping commenters on Professor Turley’s blog.

              did your AAA battery run out from using your prostate massager all night?

              bwahahahahahaaha

                1. Pull out the NYC White Pages, and then turn to Los Angeles White Pages, and after that IRS listing of taxpayers

                  spin on

              1. Why is Estovir the First Responder whenever a puppet has been disturbed?? It’s so predictable!
                Someone expose a sock puppet and Estovir is Johnny-On-The-Spot with his baseless smears at Seth.

    2. I saw my first flying saucer yesterday.

      It came right after the coffee cup my wife launched at me.

Leave a Reply to bythebook Cancel reply