Rep. Omar Declares That She Believes Biden Is A Rapist But Should Be The Next President

440px-Ilhan_Omar,_official_portrait,_116th_CongressWe have been discussing special dispensation granted to former Vice President Joe Biden by Democratic members and the media.  Yesterday, Rep. Iihan Omar, D-Minn., became the latest member to declare that she believes that Biden did rape a Senate aide and is continuing to lie about the crime in public statements.  However, Omar reaffirmed that she will do everything in her power to make him the next president of the United States.

Many Democratic politicians and commentators have struggled with the clearly hypocritical position of declaring Biden innocent while previously insisting that women “must be believed.” The problem is that, if you declare that no one has a right to be simply believed, it requires a full and fair investigation. However, Biden has refused to open up his records to look into any allegations of sexual harassment or sexual abuse by Reade or others.  Thus, you can either declare Biden to be innocent without such a review of this papers as has Speaker Nancy Pelosi or you have to call for his records to be reviewed.  The alternative is to just accept his guilt as a rapist (thus avoiding the need for an investigation in that and other claims) but say it really doesn’t change anything. Indeed, the Bush ethics lawyers chastised Omar for admitting that she believes Reade because it might undermine Biden’s election chances.

Omar told the British Sunday Times. ““I do believe Reade,  Justice can be delayed but should never be denied.”  She then however proceeded to deny any sense of justice beyond saying that Reade will be believed and then ignored.  Omar insisted that she would work to elect Biden even though she believes him to be a rapist.

Notably, Biden recently declared that a voter who believe Reade should not vote for him.

I fail to the moral high ground in this statement or how it is better than saying that you do not believe Reade.  The most principled position is to agree that Biden should open up all of his records, including those under lock and key at the University of Delaware, to a search for any sexual abuse allegations by anyone.  However, I have previously said that I believe that Biden has the stronger case thus far in the controversy.  Yet, politicians like Omar want to maintain that they believe all women but that it does not matter.  It does not matter if such women were raped or that Biden is the rapist under their logic. It is a position that risks moving from the role of a denier to that of an enabler. Omar is saying that she will campaign for a politician who not only, in her view, raped a staffer but is going around the country lying about the rape.  It is hard to imagine the parallel universe where that is a morally superior, or even a morally cognizable, position

112 thoughts on “Rep. Omar Declares That She Believes Biden Is A Rapist But Should Be The Next President”

  1. OK, I guess it’s the 3rd link that’s causing a problem for some reason.
    The source and title is:
    Business Insider: The 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct

  2. >> Omar is saying that she will campaign for a politician who not only, in her view, raped a staffer but is going around the country lying about the rape. It is hard to imagine the parallel universe where that is a morally superior, or even a morally cognizable, position.

    The moral logic is painfully simple and clear: in Omar’s view, even though Biden has sexually assaulted a woman, and is lying about it, he would make a (much) better president than Trump, and that good outweighs the evil of his assault and dishonesty. How in the world can a genius (no sarcasm) like Turley possibly miss this? (sincere question)

    The moral logic is even more painfully clear when it is considered that Omar undoubtedly also believes the TWENTY FIVE women who have accused of Trump of sexual misconduct, including rape.

  3. An empty shell can be manipulated in any fashion the powerful see fit. Maybe in a time of Sanders, Omar and AOC that is what the powerful people behind the Democratic Party want.

  4. Rape is a way of life in Islam. Being victims of (what we would call) statutory rape is a way of life for young Islamic girls and Islamic men are absolutely free to rape any and all “infidel” women. It simply doesn’t phase them. And that’s not even counting the little boy victims…

  5. WGAFF? What a propaganda mill this site has become and will probably only get worse as the election gets closer.

    Trump can accuse a dead woman of being unfaithful and a TV host of killing her and the controversy is whether Twitter should ban him? How about if he can be allowed in mixed company and on TV before 11:30 at night or just on HBO?

    The President is a complete pig – and a lying one at that – and JT is busy nursing “controversies” from 3rd tier actors on the national stage, all to the end of distraction and tarring the cult leaders opponent in November.

  6. I bet Poor Old Al Franken is feeling like a super-schmuck about now.

    Beyond that, don’t you Democrats reading this get repulsed by Omar’s stance??? Why are you still voting for Democrats? “Omar” is the kind of monster you are putting into power.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Because Democrats aren’t as weak, inept, incompetent and corrupt as the current resident of the White House.

      But it is awesome how the Trumpers are all getting up on their imaginary high horse about this. Love it. The hypocrisy is staggering. No wait…, we’re talking Repubs. Correction; the hypocrisy is normal.

      1. Yeah, because Democrats are kewl with nominating someone they think is a rapist. How about you guys nominate Bernie instead?

        Really partisan Democrats are sociopaths, and they just don’t get it. All this right and wrong stuff.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky – Biden has said he is going to have a woman VP. Because of his idiotic comments to The Breakfast Club, there are some that feel that he is now required to pick a black female. Therefore, all black females must vote for Biden and his female VP who will replace him as President.

  7. Democrats, the party of ‘social’ diversity, They accept rape, incest, thievery, bribery, and stupidity.

  8. Cheating on the spouse is so common it is just ignored by most.
    This situation is not a minor cheating scandal.
    The theory is that if they are a rapist their entire character is under question. Let us judge not by the color of skin but by the content of character. But judge we must.
    Does sexual fidelity matter any more? “No” says Omar.
    Does character matter any more? Omar says “no.”

    The Party Agenda matters more to Omar.

    Speaking of character, did Omar marry her brother? Did she divorce him before or after her relations with her current sex partner?
    From Snopes: Why did Omar’s 2016 campaign literature reference Ahmed Hirsi as her “husband” when she hadn’t yet divorced Ahmed Elmi or married Hirsi? Why did Omar say in her 2017 divorce filing that she’d had no contact with Elmi since June of 2011 when she was seemingly photographed with him in London in 2015? Why has Elmi not put the matter to rest by coming forward and explaining the nature of his relationship with Omar?

    1. You claim to be quoting Snopes, but you aren’t.
      Here’s their actual analysis, which undermines your argument: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/

      You write ” Does character matter any more? Omar says ‘no.’”

      If you cared about character yourself, you wouldn’t have misrepresented the Snopes article. Or don’t you care about the Commandment “Thou shalt not lie”?

      1. Is snopes credible? I only ask

        ttps://www.boston25news.com/news/trending-now/snopescom-cofounder-pleas-for-help-says-the-website-may-shut-down-for-good/570330121/

        Updated: July 24, 2017 – 6:27 PM
        Snopes.com, which bills itself as “one of the Internet’s oldest and most popular fact-checking sites,” is in dire financial straits and hopes to raise $500,000 it says is needed to keep the site afloat, according to a GoFundMe linked to by Snopes.

        Snopes’ GoFundMe says the site has been “cut off from our historic source of advertising income.” Co-founder David Mikkelson founded the site with his then-wife Barbara Mikkelson in 1994, according to the page, incorporating Bardav, Inc. — a name using a combination of their first names — as a company to control the site.

        The debt stems from a legal battle between Bardav, now managed exclusively by David Mikkelson, and a web services provider, Proper Media, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. When David and Barbara Mikkelson divorced in 2016, Barbara left Bardev, Inc. and sold her 50 percent equity interest in Snopes to Proper Media.

        David Mikkelson says that while he maintains control of the site’s content, he says the site is otherwise held “hostage” by the media company, despite the fact that he’s attempted to “end” the contract with them:

        [The] contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage. Although we maintain editorial control (for now), the vendor will not relinquish the site’s hosting to our control, so we cannot modify the site, develop it, or — most crucially — place advertising on it. The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us.

        The GoFundMe states that money raised will go to “continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees).”

        Bardav, Inc. was sued by Proper Media this year, shortly after Mikkelson moved to end the contract Bardav, Inc. held with Proper Media. Proper Media claims that they’re the victims of “a lengthy scheme of concealment and subterfuge to gain control of the company and to drain its profits.”

        The story of Snopes is deeply tied into the Mikkelson’s divorce, which accounts say was exacerbated by managing the site.

        A Daily Mail investigation says that after he and Barbara split in 2015, David Mikkelson married a former escort and porn actress who he promptly hired to work for Snopes.

        Barbara claims David embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for exotic trips and prostitutes and insisted on a raise of $120,000, giving himself a $360,000 annual salary. David Mikkelson says his ex-wife took millions of dollars from their joint account to buy property in Las Vegas.

        They settled their divorce in 2015 after initially struggling to agree on an arbiter, according to the Mail.

        I DONT HOLD IT AGAINST SNOPES THAT HE MARRIED A PORN STAR / ESCORT

        I HOLD IT AGAINST HIM THAT’S HE’S ELEVATED HIMSELF TO THE STATUS OF “FACTCHECKER” AND HE HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY

        I ASK, IS HE EVEN CREDIBLE?

        APPARENTLY HIS FORMER PARTNER/ WIFE HAD HER OWN SIDE OF THE STORY

        DID SNOPES BRING HIS “FACT CHECKER” CARD IN AND WAVE IT AT THE JUDGE?

        OH WAIT HE SETTLED.. HMMM

          1. Snopes sometimes is credible and sometimes not. Same with Wikipedia. Both have the same problem when it comes to politics. They are biased and are not always honest.

            We expect CTHD to agree with anyone that agrees with the left. He will even convict an innocent person without proof. He will state proof exists in the FBI reports but will never provide the lies Flynn supposedly made in context. That is dishonesty hiding under the guise of being committed to honest discussion.

            1. He will state proof exists in the FBI reports but will never provide the lies Flynn supposedly made in context.
              ____________________________________________________________
              The FBI reports provide the evidence that Flynn did not lie to the FBI and yet you dishonestly try to claim that the FBI is somehow responsible for the conviction of Flynn for lying to the FBI.

              The only evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI was provided by Flynn himself. Mueller and Trump and Flynn all claimed Flynn lied to the FBI despite the fact that both agents that interviewed Flynn reported that they believed he was not lying and none of their superiors at the time ever disputed the assessment of the two agents who conducted the interview.

              The story that Flynn lied to the FBI came into being after Mueller was selected by the Trump administration to take control of the Russia investigation away from the FBI.
              While the FBI had control of the investigation the FBI took the position that Flynn had not lied to the FBI and that the FBI could find no other crimes for which charges could be made,

              Mueller, the DOJ and Trump took the same evidence the FBI had and with the help of Flynn concocted the story that Flynn had lied to the FBI after the FBI was removed from the case.

              1. “yet you dishonestly try to claim that the FBI is somehow responsible for the conviction of Flynn for lying to the FBI.”

                Your sentence barely makes sense much like another on this blog. I claimed no such thing even if true. The FBI did not act in a just fashion and did not comply with the rules of the game.

                The rest of your response is even worse. It is nearly completely unintelligible and has nothing to do with my coment about Snopes or CTHD. If you want to play the part of a Shakesperean fool try not to be a real fool.

                1. “yet you dishonestly try to claim that the FBI is somehow responsible for the conviction of Flynn for lying to the FBI.”

                  Your sentence barely makes sense much
                  _____________________________________________________________

                  A) The FBI investigated and provided evidence that cleared Flynn of any criminal activity.

                  B) Then the investigation was taken from the FBI and put under the control of the Trump DOJ.

                  C) The Trump DOJ found no new evidence.

                  D) After the DOJ took control the story that Flynn lied to the FBI was invented by the Trump DOJ with the help of Flynn.

                  E )Now the same two parties that created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI are asking the court to sweep the whole mess under the rug and make it go away.

                  Can you comprehend those 5 facts?

                  _____________________________________________________________
                  The FBI did not act in a just fashion and did not comply with the rules of the game.

                  ____________________________________________________________
                  What is unjust or wrong about investigating and reporting correctly that the subject was found to have done nothing for which he could be charged.

                  1. “Can you comprehend those 5 facts?”

                    First you have to get your facts straight and on solid ground. Then provide which circumstances you are talking about and then provide proof. So far you sound quite silly. There is no need to comment on the second statement until you get things straight in your mind. So far your rhetoric is as foolish as your twin’s.

                    1. First you have to get your facts straight and on solid ground.
                      ___________________________________________________
                      If you think you can refute these facts lets hear it:

                      A) The FBI investigated and provided evidence that cleared Flynn of any criminal activity.

                      B) Then the investigation was taken from the FBI and put under the control of the Trump DOJ.

                      C) The Trump DOJ found no new evidence.

                      D) After the DOJ took control the story that Flynn lied to the FBI was invented by the Trump DOJ with the help of Flynn.

                      E ) Now those same two parties that created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI are asking the court to sweep the whole mess under the rug and make it go away.

                    2. You will have to learn how to straighten your own facts out not just in this post but in almost every post you have written.

  9. Clinton had sex with an intern in the oval office, Biden may or may not have had sex with Reade. Add this to a long list of other ‘indiscretions’ on the part of the Left and you still can support Biden? If one isn’t able to draw a line in the sand (and keep it). then one is without honor or integrity.

  10. How about checking in with the vetting done by the Obama campaign? Do you not actually think this issue wasn’t put under the microscope then? Even if that wasn’t Reade’s claim then?

    It’s just that with you waiting out in the wings for contrarian style sniping purposes the campaign of the first person of color running for president in a nation built on the back of slavery would’ve had to be on their A game, Professor.

    Faux moral outrage at sexual abuse allegations of one candidate are pretty worthless when compared to the much more vouminous allegations of the other. Seems the question we should be looking at is how we as a nation are left with the choice over which old guy is less dinged up by allegations of sexual abuse. And that one of them paid off a porn star to spank his bulbous butt with a rolled up magazine before banging him so he’d actually leave the room.

    1. i agree that sexual mischief is not the primary criteria. we have not had a saintly leader in the West since Saint Louis of France, IX of his name, reign ended 1270. why bother over it now.

      Trump is the better candidate than Biden along the more relevant dimensions

    2. “…in a nation built on the back of slavery…”
      Laughing.
      We had a horrible destructive war – a nation destroyed to stop slavery.
      We’re still being destroyed by it.

  11. It is certainly discomforting to watch the left willing to twist logic and truth like a pretzel in order to maintain power and destroy the very essence of this nation. Why anyone claiming allegiance to this constitution could endorse anyone on the dem side of the line is beyond my comprehension.

  12. Oh , by the way, Omar is just a fifth column jihadi nihilist not worthy to be taken seriously. What’s next outta her vile mouth? Throwing gays from rooftops?

  13. While I agree with every critic you’ve made, I don’t see a substantive argument against choosing Biden over Trump. We’ve certainly had worse me than Biden in office, including present company.

    1. Aninymous:
      “We’ve certainly had worse me than Biden in office, including present company.”
      ********************
      Well you’re sorta jolly well right. Clinton was a serial rapist. Biden is a piker with only one so far. Trump has never been credibly accused of rape but hey why let that little fact stop your Dimocraric race to the bottom of virtue. The Left never needs Virtue until it’s opposite rears it’s ugly head and then the Left is on its knees demanding traditional outrage and scorn for evil. Funny how that works. Hypocrisy is a riot.

      1. My earlier reply isn’t showing up, so let’s try again.

        Your claim that “Trump has never been credibly accused of rape” is bull.

        I’ll post 3 articles about the various allegations against Trump, including rape. I doubt you have any explanation — other than partisan politics — for you find the allegation against Biden credible but the multiple allegations against Trump not credible.

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sexual-assault-allegations-all-list-misconduct-karen-johnson-how-many-a9149216.html

        https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-running-list-of-the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-misconduct_n_57ffae1fe4b0162c043a7212

            1. Again: I doubt you have any explanation — other than partisan politics — for you finding the allegation against Biden credible but the multiple allegations against Trump not credible.

              If you have a non-partisan explanation, present it. Otherwise, don’t pretend that your response is anything other than your partisanship.

              1. (Should be) Committed:
                Well, you dismiss any defense as “partisan” so why bother. The truth is that none of these witnesses are credible hence the vociferously anti-Trump press has ignored them. When even your enemies won’t ally with your other enemies, it mus be because they detract from the fight.

                1. “Well, you dismiss any defense as ‘partisan'” is bull. I asked you for an explanation (not a “defense”), and you haven’t presented one, so it is literally impossible for me to have dismissed it.

                  Instead, you resort to ad hom and begging the question, both fallacies.

                  “none of these witnesses are credible”

                  Explain why you believe Reade to be credible and none of the women who have accused Trump to be credible. You present your opinion as if it’s a fact, but run away from substantiating it in any way.

                  1. Committable:
                    I gave you a logical explanation: People who typically investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing have failed to do so. The allegations are stale and involve persons whose veracity has never withstood any sort of scrutiny. That makes them mere and sheer allegations and the fact that Trump’s cadre of lunatic enemies won’t get near them with a ten foot pole tells me all we can know about the likelihood of accuracy of these claims. Of course, I’m all ears for your corroborative proofs. (BTW I don’t believe Reade either, as I’ve said)

                    1. Your continued name-calling puts you on my DNFT list. After this response, I’m done; no doubt you’ll like that.

                      Contrary to your claim, there’s been considerable scrutiny for some of these. For example, Trump is facing a defamation case right now over Carroll’s allegations, which he denied, and the court refused Trump’s bid to have it dismissed: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2020/2020-ny-slip-op-50021-u.html
                      This case was even mentioned as evidence in a SCOTUS case that’s still pending, Trump v. Vance.

                      That you’re unaware of evidence doesn’t imply it doesn’t exist.

                    2. “puts you on my DNFT list.”

                      CTHD along with making claims he cannot defend is now competing with Santa Claus.

    2. “I don’t see a substantive argument against choosing Biden over Trump.”

      I don’t recall a President in my lifetime who was unable to put a coherent sentence together when pressed on any issue. But, I suspect that to Democrats, like hypocrisy, coherence is not considered substantive.

Leave a Reply