You gotta hand it to the New York Times. They will credulously parrot any “unnamed source” who makes any claim against the Trump White House. But when it comes to Joey Fingers Biden, they go out of their way to be willfully blind.
According to a NYT “investigation,” former Biden staffer Tara Reade’s accusations against the Democrat’s presumptive nominee have no merit.
See, none of Biden’s other staffers corroborated her story that, when she was alone with Biden he attempted to penetrate her with his dirty digits.
Two people alone in a room and none of the other staffers can corroborate it? Wow. That’s some bang-up “investigation” you did, New York Times.
You ready for the laughable part?
Despite voluminous video evidence of Joey Fingers nuzzling, fondling, sniffing and manhandling women and girls, the New York Times actually has the temerity to claim there is simply no pattern of sexual misconduct on the part of the handsy old coot.
Um. That’s a big exemption.
We’ve all seen it with our own eyes. Joey Fingers can’t keep his hands to himself.
It’s one of the primary reasons Tara Reade’s accusation was so easy to believe.
If that’s the way Joey Fingers behaves when the cameras are rolling, how far would he take it when there’s no one around to see?
I mean that’s some limber jujitsu on the part of the New York Times to actually claim that Joey Fingers has no “pattern of sexual misconduct” BEYOND his penchant for getting handsy in front of cameras.
But see, the Times has to at least look like they’ve “investigated” Reade’s claim. That way, they can dismiss any accusations that they’re ignoring it.
Plus, now the Biden campaign can say, “Look, this has been thoroughly investigated and it is without merit. We will not respond to any further questions on this matter” (or, what I like to call it: “the Clinton defense”).
This isn’t about “investigating” Tara Reade’s claim; it’s about providing cover fire for the Democrat Party’s presumptive nominee.
As I said the other day, I don’t know if Tara Reade’s accusation is true. How can we? According to Reade herself, there were two people in that room – Reade and Joey Fingers.
I do find the timing of Reade’s claims just as suspect as the timing of Christine Blasey Ford’s. Unlike the phony baloney “Believe Women” crowd, I don’t take the accusation alone as “proof.” Besides, weaponizing these kinds of accusations for political purposes is unfortunately rather common.
But the New York Times’ “investigation” of Reade’s claim is so fraught with double-standard hooey, I don’t buy a thing they say.
Like Reade, nobody could corroborate Blasey-Ford’s claims. In fact, the people Blasey-Ford said were present at this alleged house party have no memory of the party let alone Blasey-Ford’s account of it. Yet that didn’t stop the New York Times – or any of the rest of the garbage news media — from using her claim to try and destroy Brett Kavanaugh.
Blasey-Ford herself couldn’t couldn’t remember what year, whose house, how she got there, how she left. The only thing she remembers with absolute clarity is that she drank only one beer.
The difference between Reade and Blasey Ford, however, is a significant one. Ford didn’t tell anyone for thirty years; Reade, on the other hand, did not keep it to herself — something the NY Times even admits.
A friend said Tara Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time, and another friend and a brother of Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden.— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 12, 2020
But the lack of corroboration that didn’t stop the New York Times from promoting Blasey-Ford’s accusation is more than enough for them to dismiss Reade’s claim against Joey Fingers.
Even if they have to pretend that the pervy old coot’s long history of inappropriate touching is not a “pattern of sexual misconduct.”
Gosh, I wonder why nobody trusts the American news media.
The New York Times has already “edited” the article to remove their absurd “beyond the hugs, kisses and touching” part. No doubt that tweet will disappear soon as well. That’s okay. I made a screen capture of it.
Aaaaand there you have it!
We've deleted a tweet in this thread that had some imprecise language that has been changed in the story.— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 12, 2020
“Imprecise language.” LOL!
“Contradictory” language is more like it. Good grief, what a bunch of hacks.
Hit the Tip Jar!
Every dollar makes a difference! Hit the DONATE button in the side bar. Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE.
Please White List Patriot Retort
Not everyone can afford to make a donation. But you can still help keep this site solvent by white listing PatriotRetort.com in your ad blocker. Ads help pay for this site and ad-blockers hurt that effort. I made sure that the ads that appear here will not obstruct or interfere with your enjoyment of the content. So please add PatriotRetort.com to your white list.