Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NY Times: Biden campaign ‘inaccurately’ claiming NYT found Tara Reade’s allegation ‘did not happen’

NY Times: Biden campaign ‘inaccurately’ claiming NYT found Tara Reade’s allegation ‘did not happen’

“Buzzfeed reported on the existence of talking points being circulated by the Biden campaign that inaccurately suggest a New York Times investigation found that Tara Reade’s allegation ‘did not happen.’ Our investigation made no conclusion either way.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGNGxOUs3iw

A BuzzFeed News report on Tuesday found that presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign has circulated talking points when it comes to Tara Reade. She accused him of sexual assault in 1993.

The talking points used information from a New York Times investigation, but the publication said the campaign is “inaccurately” describing the information.

Biden’s campaign has addressed and denied Reade’s allegations. No one has actually asked Biden about the allegations.

From the supposed talking points (emphasis mine):

“Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed,” the talking points read, according to a copy sent to two Democratic operatives. “In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.”

“Here’s the bottom line,” they read. “Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”

The NYT said its investigation did not say that nothing happened:

“Buzzfeed reported on the existence of talking points being circulated by the Biden campaign that inaccurately suggest a New York Times investigation found that Tara Reade’s allegation ‘did not happen.’ Our investigation made no conclusion either way,” a spokesperson for the Times said in a statement. “As Buzzfeed correctly reported, our story found three former Senate aides whom Reade said she complained to contemporaneously, all of whom either did not remember the incident or said that it did not happen.”

The spokesperson continued, “The story also included former interns who remembered Reade suddenly changing roles and no longer overseeing them, which took place during the same time period that Reade said she was abruptly reassigned. The Times also spoke to a friend who said Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time; another friend and Reade’s brother say she told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden.”

However, we must not forget that the NYT changed a few things in the report because Biden’s campaign whined to the editors.

The NYT originally wrote: “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”

NYT executive editor Dean Baquet told NYT media columnist Ben Smith “that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct, and that’s not what the sentence was intended to say.”

Smith asked why the paper did not explain that. Baquet insisted the editors “didn’t think it was a factual mistake.” He personally “thought it was an awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways and that it wasn’t something factual we were correcting.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh !!!

How sweet it is!

I hope the horny, old pervert Sleepy Joe finally gets sent out to retirement over this.

SeekingRationalThought | April 29, 2020 at 8:32 pm

Just another lie from Joe Biden. Only an idiot would expect something else. Even if he were to try to tell the truth, he couldn’t put it together in a coherent sentence. Well done Democrat Party.

Comanche Voter | April 29, 2020 at 8:35 pm

Yo Joe! Your high school buddy Corn Pop woulda told you-you can’t get that stink off your finger!

Many of these classically trained professional journalists with the highest ethical standards are working for news organizations that are either in bankruptcy (McClatchy) or soon to be. These pillars of journalistic integrity are now floating the idea of a bail out because they destroyed their own business model by pushing fake news.

McClatchy was in bankruptcy before the China Flu had any impact on their business but they are sniffing around looking for some of that free money. This despite the fact that they have spent over $19 million on bankruptcy lawyers in the past several months. They seem to have some politicians willing to push this.

Is it not a flaming conflict of interest when a politician who is dependent on the recommendation of their local paper to propose legislation that directly benefits that paper?

Watch Pelosi and the dems try to work this into the next relief bill.

    Milhouse in reply to Anchovy. | April 29, 2020 at 11:59 pm

    Is it not a flaming conflict of interest when a politician who is dependent on the recommendation of their local paper to propose legislation that directly benefits that paper?

    Not really, though this is exactly the sort of goo-goo sentiment that “journalists” like to push whenever they’re not involved.

    The theory that positive news coverage is a “thing of value” is dangerous. It’s the theory behind the bogus charges Binyamin Netanyahu is facing next month.

    The thing is, it’s impossible to participate in politics without worrying about news coverage. Everything a politician does has to be done with an eye on how it will be reported. Now it’s one thing if a politician tries to secure a bailout only for outlets that support him and not for ones who have the same need but oppose him. But when he’s acting for the whole industry it’s hard to say how else he should act. Should that industry be deprived of political advocates precisely because all politicians depend on it?!

      Neo in reply to Milhouse. | April 30, 2020 at 9:26 am

      So, you’re saying a “good word” isn’t part of a quid pro quo only if it’s a news organization on the one end … or does this apply across the board ?

        Milhouse in reply to Neo. | April 30, 2020 at 11:41 am

        I’m saying that it is not corrupt for a politician to take into account the prospect of favorable coverage, and the avoidance of unfavorable coverage. Nor is it corrupt for a politician to do favors for those he hopes will help him in his job (as opposed to a hope for personal gain). Basically, persuading people to vote for someone should not be treated like a personal gift; it’s a constitutionally protected activity, after all.

OH Deplorable | April 29, 2020 at 9:26 pm

The New York Slimes, one of tentacles of the propaganda branch of the DNC. Herr Goebbels would be proud.

The New York Times publishes an article over the Easter weekend:
“We Investigated this Reade thing, and found nothing.”
This is all everyone on the left needs to hear.
No need for CNN or any Biden loving journalists to look into the matter any further.
The esteemed paper of record that everyone on their side worships said Joe is innocent! Moving on!
So now the MSM, all the talking heads and the Biden campaign have their new mantra.
“Joe didn’t do it. The Times said so.”

2nd Ammendment Mother | April 30, 2020 at 10:50 am

Taking a page out of the Hillary playbook…. claim you’ve been cleared by people who never investigated you, claim 17 agencies support your decisions when 17 agencies were never consulted for an opinion…. tomorrow, he’ll announce that he’s not sure what difference it makes

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend