Was this Joe’s “When we’ve lost Walter Cronkite, we’ve lost the country” moment?
I doubt it. Too many hypocrites with their heads up Joe’s arse.
Yeah, not after BJ’s wife endorsed him.
[This link starts the video segment at 37:09, goes for 4 minutes]: https://youtu.be/SaRnljfPvlo?t=2229
All right! Here's the best part of the news today.
So Biden finally made his statement about Tara Reade - he said this in an MSNBC interview - he is saying, unequivocally - "Never, never happened - it didn't, it never happened."
Now, that part's good.
If you're going to deny something, you don't want to say: "Well, why do you think it happened?"
That sounds like a liar. But if you just say "did not happen - didn't happen", you might be lying, you might be telling the truth - but it's more credible if you just go directly at it - "No, that just did not happen."
But it wasn't all good for Joe Biden, because he kept talking, and you know that that's never good.
And he kept talking until he confessed, but he didn't know he confessed.
He didn't know he confessed.
Let me read it to you - he said "this". Quote.
"Oh," he said, quote: "I'm not going to question her motive," he said. "I don't know why she's saying this."
So far, he's okay, all right? He hasn't made his mistake yet - here it comes - "I don't know why after 27 years all of a sudden this gets raised."
You hear it? "I don't know why after 27 years all of a sudden this gets raised."
What's "this"?
Is "this" the thing that didn't happen? If something didn't happen, is that way the way you talk about it - the thing that didn't happen?
Do you say: "Why did the thing that didn't happen 27 years ago get raised now"?
No, you do not.
You do not use those words, if it didn't happen.
This sentence is basically a confession: "All right, I don't know why she's saying this - I don't know why, after 27 years, all of a sudden 'this' gets raised."
That's a slip, and this means it happened.
Now, you could say - you could say he's just not good at wording things.
You could tell me that maybe it doesn't mean anything. It's just a, you know - he's not careful with his words, maybe that's all.
And that's possible - I would not say anything's a hundred percent, but I'm pretty good at this stuff.
In fact, I've written in my books about how to detect lies, and although I've never written about this particular "tell", this is glaring, isn't it?
Somebody says: "Isn't that mind reading?"
Well, it would be mind reading if I weren't looking at evidence, so it's the evidence I'm looking at.
I'm not relying on "imagining" what was in his mind.
Now, it is correct that simply looking at the evidence doesn't mean I know what's in somebody's mind, so that would be mind reading - but if if somebody confesses to a crime, you can just read the confession, and maybe they don't mean it.
You know, maybe their mind is thinking something different - but if somebody confesses, you don't say I'm being a mind reader by accepting the confession, but your point is taken.