The new big argument by the Dems as to why they support Joe Biden despite the allegations by Tara Reade that he raped her 16 years ago is that Obama vetted Biden in 2008 when Old Joe was chosen to run as VP and no evidence of the Reade allegations surfaced. For example, David Axrerod wrote a column to that effect and many other Dems and pundits are pushing the same point.
Think about that for a moment. Biden was vetted by Obama. Now let's remember Bret Kavanaugh. He was vetter by the Senate twice when he was considered for the position of District Court Judge and Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He was also vetted six times by the FBI in connection with his nomination for Supreme Court and lower federal courts and other positions in the government. In those prior vetting, no evidence nor even a hint of the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford surfaced. Despite that, essentially all of the people now pushing the idea that Obama's vetting of Biden is exoneration were shouting that Kavanaugh couldn't be confirmed because of Dr. Ford's unproven allegations even though all those prior vettings of Kavanaugh found no evidence to support her charges.
I can't tell you if Biden indeed raped Tara Reade. I saw his reaction to being asked some rather simple questions about it by Mika Brzezinski, and, based on my experience in litigation seeing witness reactions, it looked like he was lying. I also saw his refusal to let a non-biased third party like a big lawfirm look through his files at the U of Delaware to look for evidence of Reade's complaint from the time of the alleged incident. He has no valid reason to refuse to grant access to those files. Even so, maybe Biden is telling the truth, and maybe he isn't. Reade deserves a full investigaton, however.
What I can tell you, however, is that the Democrats and media covering for Old Joe with silly points like "Obama vetted him in 2008" are total hypocrites. The standard they applied for a man appointed to the Supreme Court (which is an important post) is much different from the one they want to use for Old Joe as he runs for president (which is a hell of a lot more important than the Supreme Court.)
Think about that for a moment. Biden was vetted by Obama. Now let's remember Bret Kavanaugh. He was vetter by the Senate twice when he was considered for the position of District Court Judge and Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He was also vetted six times by the FBI in connection with his nomination for Supreme Court and lower federal courts and other positions in the government. In those prior vetting, no evidence nor even a hint of the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford surfaced. Despite that, essentially all of the people now pushing the idea that Obama's vetting of Biden is exoneration were shouting that Kavanaugh couldn't be confirmed because of Dr. Ford's unproven allegations even though all those prior vettings of Kavanaugh found no evidence to support her charges.
I can't tell you if Biden indeed raped Tara Reade. I saw his reaction to being asked some rather simple questions about it by Mika Brzezinski, and, based on my experience in litigation seeing witness reactions, it looked like he was lying. I also saw his refusal to let a non-biased third party like a big lawfirm look through his files at the U of Delaware to look for evidence of Reade's complaint from the time of the alleged incident. He has no valid reason to refuse to grant access to those files. Even so, maybe Biden is telling the truth, and maybe he isn't. Reade deserves a full investigaton, however.
What I can tell you, however, is that the Democrats and media covering for Old Joe with silly points like "Obama vetted him in 2008" are total hypocrites. The standard they applied for a man appointed to the Supreme Court (which is an important post) is much different from the one they want to use for Old Joe as he runs for president (which is a hell of a lot more important than the Supreme Court.)
No comments:
Post a Comment