This is two conversations, I will isolate my now twice listed objection to the first part of this conversation. They have nothing to do with how believable Reade is, I shouldn't have even devoted the two sentences I did to that like 5 posts ago. The objection was to this sentence that you typed
these articles exist because reporters took her claims seriously and investigated them.
My reply to that
These articles exist because there was an immediate campaign to discredit the claims. The amount of the scrutiny given her claims is unprecedented. If it's your claim that this scrutiny is due to her claims being taken seriously, then the inverse has to be true. The lack of investigative vigor given to the claims from accusers of other high profile politicians is because the same media didn't take these other claims as seriously. However, they were taken seriously enough to slap the accusations directly on the accused.
You said that the articles were written because her claims were taken seriously. I showed the juxtaposition of how well her claims were vetted when compared to other high profile accusations. Again if your claim is true, the inverse about the other claims have to be true, unless YOU are claiming there was widespread media bias in the other claims. I was fine with the histories of the other accusers not drug out for public consumption, the same should have happened here.
One thing I'll add that I didn't before but kk kinda did in a different context is that if her claims were taken seriously, the other claims about Biden would be mentioned in every single article that casts doubt on her claims. Neither of them are great victims.
Now for the senate files, you absolutely followed my logic perfectly. So much so in fact that I don't have to summarize it again, you nailed it.
I have two points, one I haven't made yet because I didn't realize it until I read your summation of my other posts.
If we are acknowledging there are damaging things to his candidacy in those files, how in the world can we take anyone's word that the damaging info isn't related to Reade? They are telling you, there's bad stuff in those files, maybe things disqualifying, but not about Reade, and we're just supposed to believe that without proof? That's insane.
If there are damaging things in that file, you are correct he has no obligation to make that info public, it's just that he and the party he represents has spent the last five years arguing for full transparency from a once presidential candidate, now president. That transparency they were seeking was from a private individual. The transparency they are now shielding is from a public servant from when he was an elected official. I know the democrats don't care about hypocrisy, but that's an all timer.
BTW, he did instruct his aides to check those files
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-refuses-open-senate-papers-accusers-claims-2020-4That used to be free, now it's behind a paywall, but you can see the details of the report here
https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/joe-bidens-staff-accessed-records-at-university-of-delawares-library/