Secret Service Inadvertently Confirms

PJay

PJay

Well-Known Member
Gateway Pundit story Biden sexually assaulting agents girlfriend

"In 2017, the Gateway Pundit exclusively reported that a Secret Service agent was suspended for a week in 2009 for shoving then-Vice President Joe Biden after he cupped his girlfriend’s breast while the couple was taking a photo with him.
The situation got so heated, a source who was a Secret Service agent at the time told TGP, that others had to step in to prevent the agent from hitting the then-Vice President."


www.thegatewaypundit.com

Secret Service Inadvertently Confirms Gateway Pundit Story About Biden Sexually Assaulting Agent's Girlfriend | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

In 2017, the Gateway Pundit exclusively reported that a Secret Service agent was suspended for a week in 2009 for shoving then-Vice President Joe Biden after he cupped his girlfriend’s breast while the couple was taking a photo with him.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This story is just as bad as the ones this forum normally bashes.

It's based on someone "Speaking on the condition of anonymity", and how did the SS "confirm" the story? They stated that the files they'd normally have on the person was destroyed "due to retention standards".

This was a FOIA request for information from 11 years ago and by them saying that they destroy records in accordance with their own standards somehow confirms this person's story?
 
B

BernieP

Resident PIA
Chris0nllyn said:
This story is just as bad as the ones this forum normally bashes.

It's based on someone "Speaking on the condition of anonymity", and how did the SS "confirm" the story? They stated that the files they'd normally have on the person was destroyed "due to retention standards".

This was a FOIA request for information from 11 years ago and by them saying that they destroy records in accordance with their own standards somehow confirms this person's story?
Click to expand...
retention standards my ass, those records were tossed on day 1.
They never made it in. The agent was probably suspended for some charge and any relation to assaulting a protectee was destroyed.
 
Tech

Tech

Well-Known Member
Let's just say the positions of the Pences and guest are different then the Bidens photos.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
This story is just as bad as the ones this forum normally bashes.

It's based on someone "Speaking on the condition of anonymity", and how did the SS "confirm" the story? They stated that the files they'd normally have on the person was destroyed "due to retention standards".

This was a FOIA request for information from 11 years ago and by them saying that they destroy records in accordance with their own standards somehow confirms this person's story?
Click to expand...

Now if we can just ignore all of the memes, the video's and pictures of Biden sniffing and fondling and the charges made by a member of his staff, we could all be like Chrissy and actually believe that Biden did not feel up this woman.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Hijinx said:
Now if we can just ignore all of the memes, the video's and pictures of Biden sniffing and fondling and the charges made by a member of his staff, we could all be like Chrissy and actually believe that Biden did not feel up this woman.
Click to expand...

I know, I know. Silly me for asking for pointing out your hypocrisy. You know good and well that you'd be the first on the "but anonymous sources!" bandwagon if if the roles were reversed.

BernieP said:
retention standards my ass, those records were tossed on day 1.
They never made it in. The agent was probably suspended for some charge and any relation to assaulting a protectee was destroyed.
Click to expand...

Who knew Biden was such a powerful guy. It's weird though. Someone I knew flew with Biden around the world. Only ever mentioned getting Chrsitmas cards from him. Never mentioned Biden groping his wife at parties. But I guess it's plausible.

Then again, it appears the Privacy Act of 1974 says:
Retention and disposal:
Click to expand...
All Judicial cases, 30 years after case closure; non-judicial criminal investigative cases (except non-judicial check and bond cases), 10 years; non-judicial check claim and bond forgery cases, 5 years; administrative files of an investigatory nature, 5 years; all other files and records the disposition of which is not otherwise specified, 5 years; investigations for other districts, 2 years; receipts vary with the case file to which they pertain; investigation control forms, varies; arrest history forms, indefinite; headquarters criminal investigative case files, 30 years; indices and microfilm copies are retained for an indefinite period; consensual and non-consensual interception indices, 10 years or when investigative use no longer exists, whichever is longer; fingerprint and photograph files, at varying intervals in accordance with record retention schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Click to expand...
www.federalregister.gov

Privacy Act of 1974; United States Secret Service-001 Criminal Investigation Information System of Records Notice

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and as part of the Department of Homeland Security's ongoing effort to review and update legacy system of record notices, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue USSS.003 Criminal Investigation Information System, August 28,...
www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov

Is there any indication that this was a judicial case or a headquarters criminal investigation which would have to be held for 30 years? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like admin files only need to be retained for 5 years.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Chris0nllyn said:
This story is just as bad as the ones this forum normally bashes.

It's based on someone "Speaking on the condition of anonymity", and how did the SS "confirm" the story? They stated that the files they'd normally have on the person was destroyed "due to retention standards".

This was a FOIA request for information from 11 years ago and by them saying that they destroy records in accordance with their own standards somehow confirms this person's story?
Click to expand...

This was my first thought in light of the Trump bashing the military story. Both sides are just as capable of fabricating stories, in a timely manner, to try to influence votes.
 
CPUSA

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
I know, I know. Silly me for asking for pointing out your hypocrisy. You know good and well that you'd be the first on the "but anonymous sources!" bandwagon if if the roles were reversed.



Who knew Biden was such a powerful guy. It's weird though. Someone I knew flew with Biden around the world. Only ever mentioned getting Chrsitmas cards from him. Never mentioned Biden groping his wife at parties. But I guess it's plausible.

Then again, it appears the Privacy Act of 1974 says:

www.federalregister.gov

Privacy Act of 1974; United States Secret Service-001 Criminal Investigation Information System of Records Notice

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and as part of the Department of Homeland Security's ongoing effort to review and update legacy system of record notices, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue USSS.003 Criminal Investigation Information System, August 28,...
www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov

Is there any indication that this was a judicial case or a headquarters criminal investigation which would have to be held for 30 years? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like admin files only need to be retained for 5 years.
Click to expand...
151188

Is this the wife you're referring to?
Because it would only make sense why Joe wouldn't grope this one...nobody except for maybe you would
 
CPUSA

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
Who knew Biden was such a powerful guy. It's weird though. Someone I knew flew with Biden around the world. Only ever mentioned getting Chrsitmas cards from him. Never mentioned Biden groping his wife at parties. But I guess it's plausible.
Click to expand...

151189

Maybe it's this "friend's" wife...
Again, maybe YOU would grope her, but not everyone is into dudes pretending to be "women"...
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Chris0nllyn said:
This story is just as bad as the ones this forum normally bashes.

It's based on someone "Speaking on the condition of anonymity", and how did the SS "confirm" the story? They stated that the files they'd normally have on the person was destroyed "due to retention standards".

This was a FOIA request for information from 11 years ago and by them saying that they destroy records in accordance with their own standards somehow confirms this person's story?
Click to expand...
I see your point and, in the main, agree.

However, I do think there is something to the claim; meaning you and I read the "destroy records" bit differently. I don't think that "records were destroyed" meant the story was confirmed (your point, if I understand you correctly); rather, the Secret Service seems to be saying there was an incident but no other details can be provided because the records had been destroyed.

Two other points. First, one could dispute just exactly what it means that the Secret Service "confirmed" an incident took place. Maybe the incident is that the Secret Service officer was in the wrong instead of Biden being in the wrong. But, of course, the reverse is also possibly true: that Biden did do something along the lines of the claim. Or something else that simply involved Biden and the agent.

Second, I would be interested to know about this records retention policy. From my limited experience with records retention policies at this level of government I was honestly surprised to read that the records had been destroyed. It just doesn't ring true to me. I could see that maybe the records were transferred out of the Secret Service's immediate reach, but destroyed? I admit it could be true, but it doesn't pass the smell test for me....

--- End of line (MCP)
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Chris0nllyn said:
This story is just as bad as the ones this forum normally bashes.

It's based on someone "Speaking on the condition of anonymity", and how did the SS "confirm" the story? They stated that the files they'd normally have on the person was destroyed "due to retention standards".

This was a FOIA request for information from 11 years ago and by them saying that they destroy records in accordance with their own standards somehow confirms this person's story?
Click to expand...

Mad because chit's coming out about your childhood boyfriend Joe Biden?
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
I see your point and, in the main, agree.

However, I do think there is something to the claim; meaning you and I read the "destroy records" bit differently. I don't think that "records were destroyed" meant the story was confirmed (your point, if I understand you correctly); rather, the Secret Service seems to be saying there was an incident but no other details can be provided because the records had been destroyed.

Two other points. First, one could dispute just exactly what it means that the Secret Service "confirmed" an incident took place. Maybe the incident is that the Secret Service officer was in the wrong instead of Biden being in the wrong. But, of course, the reverse is also possibly true: that Biden did do something along the lines of the claim. Or something else that simply involved Biden and the agent.

Second, I would be interested to know about this records retention policy. From my limited experience with records retention policies at this level of government I was honestly surprised to read that the records had been destroyed. It just doesn't ring true to me. I could see that maybe the records were transferred out of the Secret Service's immediate reach, but destroyed? I admit it could be true, but it doesn't pass the smell test for me....

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...

That was my point (I'm quite frankly amazed that you were able to figure that out, Kyle, Vrai, Gilligan, et al would have you believe that my points are indiscernible, but I think you have a bit more critical thinking ability than that group).

I just don't think the person responding to the FOIA request has any knowledge whatsoever of the incident. IT's a very select group of people that would have been at that party. The party was 11 years ago. Are we to believe that the person(s) responding to the FOIA request had intimate knowledge of not only the party, but what happened at it? To me, their response was standard boilerplate language and I simply find it hard to believe that it's some veiled attempt to confirm yet deny the incident.

If we are to believe that there's some internal coverup for Biden, then why is there seemingly no belief that the Trump administration is also capable of covering up something that may make him look bad? It amazes me that so many people are willing to jump through logical hoops to convict Biden based on hearsay but absolutely refuse to believe that the other side is just as capable of the same thing. We act like both sides are power-hungry animals looking to screw over the people. Maybe Biden did it, maybe he didn't. I'm just not seeing enough info in this story to make the determination that the incident happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top