[_a40s]

It seems that the Biden campaign isn't denying that the emails are authentic. That would be strong evidence that they are, assuming this hasn't changed in the last 24 hours: https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1316461339842289664

For what it's worth, NY Post (sorry for the link) is reporting that the Biden campaign isn't denying most of their claims: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/notice-biden-campaign-not-deny....

To be clear, this is a separate question from how the emails were obtained. That story is beyond weird and surely bogus. To be fair, it also seems to me an indication that Biden is more honest than Trump. Trump would just say the emails were fake whether they were or not.

[jedberg]

They haven't denied it yet because they have to ask his son, who is not involved with the campaign, what happened. They probably want to get all their facts straight before denying anything.

[nickff]

They would have done this immediately upon seeing the story; checking the veracity of a single highly significant fact which purports to originate from a known source doesn't take a week. Anything more than a half-day delay in responding is significant; they could have produced a repudiation video by now.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the story is true, just that the campaign has made a deliberate choice.

[edaemon]

The absence of a denial does not at all constitute "strong evidence" of anything.

[_a40s]

Of course you're right in a logical or philosophical sense, but in a political sense it certainly does. If the emails were fake, it would be politically insane not to say so. The Biden campaign can easily find this out from Hunter, so the fact that they haven't said it means either that (1) the emails are authentic (though they may still have been altered), or (2) something else is going on that we don't know about and is unusual.

[sharkmerry]

or 3) they dont want to "promote" it by refuting it. Refuting it, also give prudence to it...

[_a40s]

But they are refuting it, just more weakly. In any case, not to refute it would be gross political malpractice and I'm sure Biden has better advisors than that.

[JibberMeTimbers]

From the article, I'm seeing this:

>"We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place," it said.

>"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 US policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing," said Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Mr Biden.

>"Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath."

I'm not sure what there is to deny.

[_a40s]

Political communications like that must be parsed extremely precisely if you don't want to be tricked. The phrase "as alleged" is a huge loophole. The thread that the sibling comment linked to goes into this: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1316442180358213632

[AndrewBissell]

The Biden campaign has admitted that the meeting described in the NY Post article "might" have taken place even though it wasn't on the official schedules. This was the most newsworthy part of the article because Biden has been strenuously insisting throughout the impeachment and his presidential campaign that he never helped his son in his business dealings.

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1316521338295783424

[diob]

Refusing to comment on something is also about ignoring things of no substance and not letting an opponent control the conversation. If you read "The Ass Is A Poor Receptacle For The Head: Why Democrats Suck At Communication, And How They Could Improve" by Barry Eisler, he actually talks about how traditionally Democrats fail heavily at this. They respond to every distraction their foes throw at them, no matter how nonsensical. This let's the people on the other side control where the conversation is.

Instead of responding, I would hope the Biden campaign talks about policy.

[nickff]

There seem to be a genre of books by Democratic party partisans which talk about how their main failure is that of communication. I personally doubt that either side really controls much; some narratives are just more convincing to certain groups than to others.

[secondcoming]

Why are you apologising for a link?

[_a40s]

Some people expressed horror over previous NY Post links, and I didn't have a different one handy.

[TwoBit]

> It seems that the Biden campaign isn't denying that the emails are authentic. That would be strong evidence that they are

That's absolutely ridiculous logic.

[leadingthenet]

Is it? This is a statement about realpolitik, not absolute moral values.

[bosswipe]

If I was Biden I wouldn't talk to any Murdoch owned property either.

[nobody9999]

>It seems that the Biden campaign isn't denying that the emails are authentic.

Not denying something doesn't make true any more than not confirming something makes it false.

I neither confirm nor deny that I have a bank account at a large commercial bank. What does that tell you?

Nothing.

[dmurray]

Surely Biden's strategy is to wait it out and deny it if there appears to be no further evidence and the veracity of the existing evidence can be attacked, otherwise give a cover story. I don't think that's more honest than blustering a denial no matter what: it's just more calculating.

[save_ferris]

Not to mention that the source for the story gave a follow-up interview with several contradictory details[0]:

> He appeared not to have a grasp on the timeline of the laptop arriving at his shop and its disappearance from it.

He owns a computer repair shop and doesn't keep basic records of the devices he services? The moment he knew what he had, he didn't start taking any kind of notes?

> Throughout the interview, Mac Isaac switched back and forth from saying he reached out to law enforcement after viewing the files in the laptop to saying that it was actually the Federal Bureau of Investigation that contacted him. At one point, Mac Isaac claimed that he was emailing someone from the FBI about the laptop. At another point he claimed a special agent from the Baltimore office had contacted him after he alerted the FBI to the device’s existence. At another point, he said the FBI reached out to him for “help accessing his drive.”

How does he not remember who contacted who regarding the device? Also, how would the FBI know that he had to device to reach out to him first? This inconsistency is absolutely damning.

> Social media postings indicate that Mac Isaac is an avid Trump supporter and voted for him in the 2016 election.

> Mac Isaac refused to answer specific questions about whether he had been in contact with Rudy Giuliani before the laptop drop-off or at any other time before the Post article’s publication. Pressed on his relationship with Giuliani, he replied: “When you’re afraid and you don’t know anything about the depth of the waters that you’re in, you want to find a lifeguard.”

Seeming to realize he’d said too much, he added: “Ah, shit.”

So Rudy was your lifeguard? the reporters asked. “No comment,” he replied.

He wasn't comfortable admitting he had been in contact with Giuliani, even though it's pretty obvious at this point that he was? That doesn't sound like a citizen fulfilling their civic duty if he was in contact with a political operative.

This story absolutely stinks to high heaven.

0: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...

[zaroth]

Actually sounds exactly like a regular person would sound in this situation, being interviewed by national media about a story that could be pivotal to the election.

[save_ferris]

Completely disagree. He fails to answer basic questions about why he chose to also communicate directly with a presidential advisor instead of just talking to the authorities, he changes his story throughout the interview, and he fails to confirm critically important details about the device, who gave it to him, and how it wound up in the hands of the authorities and a presidential campaign advisor.

Being nervous in an interview is one thing, trying and failing to wing it through basic questions is entirely different. His comment about the lifeboat particularly stood out to me because he very obviously didn't want to explicitly talk about Giuliani, but he was comfortable speaking in hyperbole about it. If you're so uncomfortable to answer a question, how would you then be comfortable enough to "say it" without saying it? If I was concerned that a question could threaten my safety or legal standing, I'd stay as far away from it as possible. This guy clearly wanted the reporters to know that he had been talking to Giuliani, and once that's out there, the context of the entire story changes.

If it's a legit scandal, there's no reason that a whistleblower should reach out to a political operative in addition to the authorities. The very fact that he did this says so much about his state of mind, that he was acting in support of a candidate.

[content_sesh]

The story makes no sense and falls apart under even the most cursory inspection; most of the news is around how bogus the story is and social media's reaction to the bogus story.

Slinging unsubstantiated mud at your opponent is an old trick in politics and relies on the idea that you can make your opponent look bad just by having them address it at all.

The fact that Biden isn't addressing it is strong evidence that the story isn't getting the traction the hacks that put it out there wanted. It is not strong evidence of its truth.