[throwawa3495]

Oh, i definitely agree that as a private company Twitter is well within its rights to censor what it believes is "misinformation" but an important line has been crossed today by Twitter and Facebook.

A story about potential corruption of a candidate for the US president has been censored by two of the largest information brokers in the world. Also interestingly, no denial from Joe Biden about the authenticity of these emails. Wouldnt that be the first thing you'd do if this wasnt true? lol

[Barrin92]

>Wouldnt that be the first thing you'd do if this wasnt true?

If i was Joe Biden and the yellow press came after me honestly I'd do exactly what Joe Biden does and ignore them rather than giving them oxygen.

If people like Biden or Clinton responded every time someone tries to capitalise on some bullshit attached to their name they'd not be doing anything else

[Thorrez]

> I'd do exactly what Joe Biden does and ignore them rather than giving them oxygen.

Joe Biden ignored the reports? The article says Joe Biden responded, saying the meeting didn't take place:

> In a Thursday afternoon statement, the Biden campaign said the paper “never asked . . . about the critical elements of this story,” and that a review of “Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time” show that “no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.” The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails, though no other media outlet has confirmed the Post’s story so far.

[aksss]

That reply seems eerily similar to their response to Tara Reid’s allegations - “we have no official record of that in our boxes of records that we looked through”

Yep.

[Thorrez]

Joe Biden's response doesn't say "the calendar says the meeting didn't happen". His response says "the meeting didn't happen".

[aksss]

In his official statement[0], the campaign stated that the meeting didn’t happen as the second clause of a sentence that began with the contextual announcement that they had reviewed his official schedule. There is an implicit dependency in those two halves of the same sentence. If you think that is just a casual wordsmithing mistake you have no idea how PR works. I guarantee that is carefully crafted. The release went on to say that they do not exclude the possibility that some informal meeting may have taken place.

[0] “Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”

[the_only_law]

> Also interestingly, no denial from Joe Biden about the authenticity of these emails. Wouldnt that be the first thing you'd do if this wasnt true?

I assume most politicians at the presidential candidate level have some sort of PR team that works to come up with some official response to these sorts of controversies

[throwawa3495]

"JOE BIDEN SPOKESMAN ANDREW BATES hits back at the N.Y. POST STORY, via NATASHA BERTRAND and KYLE CHENEY: “Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as ‘not legitimate’ and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump Administration officials have attested to these facts under oath.

“The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story. They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani - whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported - claimed to have such materials. Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”

idk, read for yourself

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2020/10/14/...

[Covzire]

Why would they have documented illegal/potentially illegal activity in the "official schedule" anyway? The claim that the official schedule somehow supports the rebuttal is pretty flimsy.

[throwawa3495]

yeah exactly, that's what I was trying to convey. Like why include this qualifying language about "checking the official schedule" but for some funny business being afoot?

It's just a kinda legalistic answer, you'd give in a deposition but is kind of besides the point now.

[the_only_law]

I mean I don't particularly have much stake in whether its true or not, I'm just saying I'm not shocked he's not responding to it immediately for vaguely similar reasons to why people tell you not to talk to the police without a lawyer, whether you're innocent or not.

[throwawa3495]

that's a fair point, just if its not true its pretty easy to say "not true, fake news" instead, what the answer that's provided is "we checked the schedule and didn't see it there" which is kinda suspicious.

Like the censorship of "misinformation" would be more persuasive then I think.

[Thorrez]

> we checked the schedule and didn't see it there"

That's not what Biden said.

Biden said "and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place." That clearly is a denial that a meeting took place. It's not conditioned on a calendar entry. It's not saying "the calendar says no meeting took place", or "according to the calendar no meeting took place".

[nl]

When a politician is ambushed with a question like "when did you stop beating your wife" the politician can't respond to the allegations because that ads to the story ("politician denies beating his wife").

This is politics 101.

[Thorrez]

But Biden did respond to it. He said the meeting didn't take place.

[aksss]

The official statement predicates the denial on their search for an official record of it. “Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”

There’s an implicit dependency between these two clauses - we looked at the official schedule (there was no record, so,) no meeting took place.

Sentence construction in crisis management publications like this is poured over and very deliberate. Do not imagine this is just sloppy sentence construction.

[mcphage]

> just if its not true its pretty easy to say "not true, fake news" instead, what the answer that's provided is "we checked the schedule and didn't see it there" which is kinda suspicious.

Wait, so you're saying that providing an alibi as to why the claim is impossible is more suspicious than dismissing it as fake news without a defense? I'm not sure how else to interpret what you're saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but that position is mindboggling to me.

[throwawa3495]

Just because it wasn't on Biden's "official" schedule, doesn't mean it didn't happen. My point is that saying "the meeting didnt happen" is less suspicious than saying "We checked the official schedule and find no record that the meeting happened"

Bc, of course, light bribery probably does not go down when you're on the official schedule