[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.”