Wait, WHAT? Joe Biden’s Daughter Wrote That Her Father Showered With Her?

Ew.

But more importantly, since this information was published on line more than a year ago, why are we only hearing about it now?

Let’s back up, shall we? The matter came to the media’s attention after Federal agents in New York raided two homes, one in New York City and one in suburban Westchester County, targeting members of Project Veritas, James O’Keefe’s shady guerilla journalism group. The investigation is being handled by FBI agents and federal prosecutors in Manhattan who work on public corruption matters, and relates to the theft of Ashley Biden’s diary in 2020. Project Veritas did not publish her diary, but dozens of handwritten pages from it were posted on the National File on Oct. 24, 2020, a little more than a week before the Presidential election.

I never heard about this, did you? The mainstream media embargoed the story—they were already occupied trying to make sure the public thought Hunter Biden’s laptop revelations were “Russian disinformation,” and even conservative media ducked diary and its revelations. Entries in the diary include Biden’s daughter writing that she believes she was sexually molested as a child; that she shared “probably not appropriate” showers with her father, [Probably???], her struggle with drug abuse and her troubled marriage and multiple affairs, plus entries showing the Biden family’s fears of scandals involving her brother and others that show a deep resentment for her father

Yesterday, the FBI confirmed that the diary indeed belonged to Ashley, leading to the website that originally published it taking a victory lap. The current article links to two from right before the election: “EXCLUSIVE SOURCE: Biden Daughter’s Diary Details ‘Not Appropriate’ Showers With Joe As Child,” and the entire diary itself.

The mainstream media is still smothering the story as much as possible. In the New York Times report on the raids and the diary theft, the daughter-dad showers are never mentioned.

Observations:

1. How Joe Biden was able to slip past #MeToo with his documented record of inappropriate touching of women and children still astounds me, and show the head-exploding hypocrisy of progressives and feminists. This story is obviously relevant to that issue, and, of course, the news media withheld coverage.

Now tell me again how suggesting that the election was stolen from Trump is “a lie.” This was not a level playing field.

2. Stipulated: stealing a diary is a gross violation of privacy, but once the diary is public, it’s public, like the Panama Papers and Wikileaks. The public had a right to know.

3. Does anyone doubt for a millisecond that a stolen diary belonging to one of Trump’s children detailing anything so disturbing as showers with Dad would have been all over CNN, MSNBC, the Times and the Washington Post the day it was available? Consider all the publicity Trump’s bitter niece received during the campaign.

4. Maybe Ashley’s diary is full of fantasies. Maybe it’s all untrue. It doesn’t matter: by the standards the news media applied to potentially embarrassing information about Donald Trump, it was newsworthy, and especially newsworthy before the election.

5. Personally, I had seen and heard enough long before the diary was brought to my attention to conclude that Joe Biden is one sick bastard who has been protected by our journalists, the enemies of the people. This latest bit of evidence just confirms that belief.

50 thoughts on “Wait, WHAT? Joe Biden’s Daughter Wrote That Her Father Showered With Her?

  1. “The investigation is being handled by FBI agents and federal prosecutors in Manhattan who work on public corruption matters, and relates to the theft of Ashley Biden’s diary in 2020.”

    Why would these agents and prosecutors be investigating the theft of a diary or did I misunderstand the context of the statement. This seems like a local police matter at best and an illegal abuse of power at the worst. I would be interested in knowing what served as the probable cause to raid the homes of members of Project Veritas.

    • I think anytime a crime involves a federal elected official, the FBI has jurisdiction.

      As to probable cause, that is a very good question. I’d like to know exactly what federal crimes are being investigated. This looks like, at worst, a simple theft, and I’m unaware of a federal law against petty theft. The diary itself has no intrinsic value other than as a source of salacious information against Ashley Biden and her family.

      Project Veritas is likely not the subject of the investigation, since they refused to publish the diary after it was offered to them because they couldn’t confirm its authenticity, or so they say. Since they did not in fact publish it, I’m inclined to believe them.

      In any case, this is a curious development to say the least. I have come to expect the news media to be overtly biased, and this is just a more ridiculous version of what we saw in the Hunter Biden laptop case.

      But I’m not nearly as interested in the media suppression. Like most of us, I’m so jaded when it comes to the media that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they held collective seances to channel the ghost of Joseph Goebbels every Wednesday.

      What interests me is why is the FBI suddenly interested? This thing was so well and truly buried that Jesus himself might have a hard time resurrecting it. This story bears watching.

      • Jurisdiction doesn’t necessarily create an obligation to act though, does it? It seems like the Justice Dept. has in recent years been as curiously selective as much of the press on what they investigate (and even facilitate), and what they ignore.

    • “Why would these agents and prosecutors be investigating the theft of a diary…”
      The answer is probably in the same file containing the answers as to why the Justice Department would be interested in keeping an eye on raucous (conservative) citizens at local school board meetings, or why Secret Service agents would show up and try to disappear Hunter’s fraudulently executed firearms purchase background check form, and why his wife was not investigated for stealing and dangerously disposing of the firearm. Maybe those records also contain the explanations of why we’re just now finding out the extent of agency involvement in the Steele Hillary/DNC Trump-Russia collusion dossier hoax.

      There must be some commonality there…if only someone could figure out what it might be…

  2. Full disclosure: I threw all of my kids ( 2 boys and a girl) in the shower with their dad when they were each very little (18 mos and under). Made my life easier. The fact that Biden’s daughter even remembers the showers (so probably older than 3) tells me she was too old to be showering with her dad. And where was her mother? Where the hell was her mother?

  3. I can see why it wasn’t reported on though. I would hope with a tabloid style news breaking the story, you would go to extreme lengths to verify the information. It would be hard to verify a stolen diary, especially if you didn’t want to. Tbh I didn’t know he had a daughter.
    PS Joe Biden’s private life could be a plot for a lifetime tragic movie it’s so jacked up. Anyone who is privately surrounded by this much disfunction… idk seems to me that’s a tell all by itself. But the voters knew that.

    • Which voters? I see no indication that the knee-jerk Democratic lever-pullers knew that at all, or they were in denial. Biden’s sexual harassment accuser’s claims were also withheld by many publications, including the Times.

  4. I thought that Project Veritas showed a lot of integrity by not publishing the diary which was given directly to them. They felt it couldn’t be verified beyond doubt, and tried to give it to one of Ashley Biden’s attorneys, who rejected it. They finally gave it to law enforcement. And even though they did NOT publish any part of it, their people were raided by the FBI & DOJ, which as mentioned was a gross abuse of power.
    I know that these days, anything considered “sensational” by the media goes, but I think that anyone releasing the contents of that diary, esp if Ashley was indeed the victim of childhood molestation, was heinous as well as unethical. Whomever publicized it only victimized her again.

    • I certainly agree with you about Ashley. She should not be forced to confront this in public, in a perfect world. Alas, everything is political now, and we can blame the biased, unethical media and our poisonous political environment for dragging a possible victim of abuse out for a nice, public rectal exam over something she was probably still working through.

      I feel no remorse for any damage Joe Biden suffers, he doubtless deserves worse if there is any truth to Ashley’s musings, and I would grant them the rebuttable presumption of truth.

      I am reminded of all those poor souls “cancelled” by social media exposure of childhood tweets or other information. Some of those folks didn’t even have the excuse of a famous father. When you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

    • All true, but it is irrelevant. There has to be a single standard, and witholding such a document isn’t it. Moreover, if a publication wanted to prove it was Ashley’s they could have. Hunter’s laptop story was also withheld using the “uncertain identity” argument.

      • This was someone’s PRIVATE diary containing someone’s private thoughts and fantasies, not an appointment diary, laptop, or whatever. What ever is in a private diary should not be published anywhere without the diary writer’s permission even if it is legal to do so. The fact that a private diary of a Trump child would be published by the news media doesn’t make it right to say that a Biden child’s diary should be published, but rather it means that a Trump child’s diary should also not be published.

        • The standard is the standard. The news media’s standard is that if a stolen document—there’s noting unique about a diary—has national interest and contains information the publics should know, then it’s published. You really think stolen classified government documents are more appropriate to publish than a personal diary? They aren’t. In fact, they are more illegal to reveal than a diary.

          I didn’t make the rules, or the standards, but the news media has to apply them to everyone with the same brush, no matter what they are. “The fact that a private diary of a Trump child would be published by the news media doesn’t make it right to say that a Biden child’s diary should be published, but rather it means that a Trump child’s diary should also not be published.” And if wishes were horses. A Trump child’s diary would be published, especially before an election. The reasponse to a double standard can’t be…”But…but…its shouldn’t be that way!”

          • Standard or not it seems unethical to go out of your way to publish the personal thoughts of someone without their permission.

            • Of course it is. But when the diary contains relevant information to an election, the news media can print it and will print it, and can’t be punished for printing it. The ethical principle is NOT “Don’t print stolen private documents.” That principle has already been rejected by the news media, it’s not changing, and thus it is irrelevant. The principle under discussion is: “The news media shall use the same standard to decide whether to print stolen matter with relevance to the public and nation regardless of the individuals involved.” That meets Kant’s Universality Principle

  5. I didn’t even read the story on the Daily Mail yesterday, assuming it (the article and the FBI raid) involved an attack on and sliming of Project Veritas, James O’Keefe and the right generally.

  6. 5. Personally, I had seen and heard enough long before the diary was brought to my attention to conclude that *Joe Biden is one sick bastard* who has been protected by our journalists, the enemies of the people. This latest bit of evidence just confirms that belief.

    Jack, tell us again why it is unethical to publicly speak the phrase, Let’s go Brandon?

    • Asking that question means you’d never understand the reasonable and ethical answer.

      Maybe ask a different question. It could reveal a mental capacity to comprehend an accurate reply.

        • His dishonest question is why.

          He is trying to make Jack sound inconsistent by the very working of his question.

          This jeans he is not curious to learn, but wants to make Jack wrong to readers and he himself thinks Jack is wrong.

          Rather than say that directly, he uses a passive aggressive question which means he will never accept a real answer nor would he be able to comprehend a real answer.

          If he truly was curious, he would have asked the question differently.

          Hope that clarifies.

          • “His dishonest question is why.”

            Dishonest? You don’t say…

            “If he truly was curious, he would have asked the question differently.”

            Now we’re getting somewhere. Curious, you led with nukes; you consider merely alerting him to what you deem more acceptable messaging?

            “Hope that clarifies.”

            Sure does!

            I’ve served the Caped Crusader, I KNOW the Caped Crusader, the Caped Crusader IS a friend of mine; mmm99, you are no Caped Crusader.

          • MMMary99,
            I wrote my comment below before reading your comment above. Your assessment is wholly inaccurate.
            You should have waited a while to see how the conversation developed. Passive aggressive?

        • His dishonest question is why.

          He is trying to make Jack sound inconsistent by the very working of his question.

          This means he is not curious to learn, but wants to make Jack wrong to readers and he himself thinks Jack is wrong.

          Rather than say that directly, he uses a passive aggressive question which means he will never accept a real answer nor would he be able to comprehend a real answer.

          If he truly was curious, he would have asked the question differently.

          Hope that clarifies.

        • That’s 100% correct. I’ll explain the distinction between a substantive, if blunt diagnosis and a pure invective if I must, but you should know the difference. Biden has long indicated an unhealthy lack of impulse control involving women and young girls. That is not appropriate for anyone, especially inappropriate for a leader, and respecting the office does not require hiding reality. The context is the public voting for a candidate while having such facts withheld. I don’t believe sick bastards should ne elected President. The public should have had sufficient data to withhold votes from a sick bastard. Bastard means, among other things, “an unpleasant or despicable person.” I am adamant that anyone who harasses subordinates, feels up women and showers with his daughter is unpleasant and despicable, and I am obligated to let as many people as possible know it.

          If you thought that was a “gotcha!” it was a pathetic one.

          • “I’ll explain the distinction between a substantive, if blunt diagnosis and a pure invective if I must, but you should know the difference.” I do. Just wanted to hear your rationalization.

            In real world application, either one disrespects the office. Your answer works well in the classroom for teaching purposes but when stated publicly I highly doubt people are going to pause and consider the difference between a “blunt diagnosis and a pure invective.” Either way people are going to hear the Prez being trashed and by extension the office as well.

            Biden has *earned* the FJB invective for turning our country upside down and forcing people to get the jab or lose their livelihood, etc. The *context* of his administration’s pure destructiveness makes the FJB meme just as appropriate as your blunt DX, and not just some random course epithet.
            People have many legitimate reasons for hating Biden’s guts and because of his tyrannical behavior they are expressing themselves.

            • In real world application, either one disrespects the office.

              There is a substantiative difference between saying the president is an awful person, and then explaining in detail why, versus shouting “Fuck the President!” at the top of one’s lungs at every available opportunity.

              • Sure when you put it that way Rich.
                First, there is a meaningful *visceral* difference between hearing Let’s go Brandon (kindafunny) and FJB (notfunnyatall).
                Second, in the real world/real time people are not contemplating Jack’s explanation when hearing blunt diagnosis vs pure invective.
                You have not challenged the reasoning of my latest comment but instead cherry picked one short sentence and ignored the rest.

                • Let us concede that a crowd shouting “One sick bastard!” would be just as unethical as shouting “Fuck Joe Biden” or its many variants.

                  However, the difference between mere vapid sniping in public and characterization of specific actions of the president on a blog should be apparent.

                  • Rich, why do you insist on using FJB instead of LGB? Why not be consistent and characterize our Prez as a pedophile instead of one sick bastard?

                    I am not arguing the venue of the remarks is a determining factor in the office being disrespected.

            • Wrong. A mere hateful assault is only disrespect, serves no substantive or analytical purpose, and simply lowers the bar for what is legitimate civic discourse.”Fuck Joe Biden” is pure disrespect. It’s not criticism. The President should not be subjected to mere abuse, which undermines respect for the office.

              Criticism, in contrast, is not only legitimate but necessary. “Fuck” is an obscenity. “Bastard” is a description, and its context was clear. In past posts, I described Trump’s conduct as idiotic, or him as an idiot because of idiotic conduct, always described. Biden’s treatment of girls and women is a matter of record. The diagnosis of “sick bastard” in that context is neither hateful nor gratuitous.

            • I think my comments contribute a lot!

              And you are wrong. Let’s go Brandon is almost worse than FJB because it MEANS “fjb” and people ARE disrespecting The office while thinking it’s”cute.” And not realizing the rationalize they’ve made to engage that way. So in my view it’s more disrespectful because it’s dressed in being “funny.”

              It’s show how far we’ve slipped.

              And I didn’t NEED to wait before commenting to see how the conversation would go.

              It’s gone precisely as I anticipated it would by your first “non question,” question.

              What I don’t get is why you don’t comprehend Jack’s very clear answers and explain actions.

              Unless you simply never wanted to understand in the first place.

              MM

              P.s. sorry Jack if I’m out of line here. Normally I’m polite, so I hope I’ve not crossed the line.

              • Mary,
                I understand Jack’s argument but disagree. Why are you unable to comprehend that or is it because you simply do not want to?

                Jack’s argument is the Office should be respected and LGB is a major disrespect but one sick bastard is not.

                My position is there is a tipping point where POTUS has earned all the public disrespect heaped upon her/him, and the fact the Office is by extension disrespected is acceptable collateral damage.
                Biden has crossed that line. If you disagree with that logic then it literally doesn’t matter what POTUS does; the Office must always be respected and only certain criticisms are acceptable.

      • Bluntly, that comes over as mere idolatry. How and why “must”? Please bear in mind that any claim of it being somehow special is just precisely what makes it idolatrous. He is as deserving of respect as anybody else, short of showing otherwise, but to claim more must rest on something or it rests on nothing.

  7. I’m surprised there’s no mention of Maria Piacesi… Apparently she recently confirmed the nipple pinch when she was eight, and then deleted her social media account due to blowback. The media somehow didn’t see video evidence of Biden being handsy with a child as being worth covering.

  8. Here is Jonathan Turley writing on his story:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/07/fbi-raids-project-veritas-over-a-missing-biden-diary/

    I don’t understand the story at all. Why was Biden’s daughter keeping a diary, where was it kept, and who knew about it? Who gave the diary to Project Veritas and when? Was the diary stolen or “misplaced”? Project Veritas didn’t publish it because they couldn’t verify it belonged to Biden’s daughter, and turned it over to law enforce so why raid their offices and O’keefe’s residence? Was this raid a pretext to silence a media organization hostile to the Biden Administration, in particular, and Big Left in general, sending the message, “we know where you live and work”?

    jvb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.