If that’s all there is, I agree. It reads like someone trying to make sense of many incidents over the years. It doesn’t say when she showered with her dad - for all we know it could be when she was a baby or a toddler.
But still, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of ‘abuse’, a man showering with his daughter is pretty squicky. But honestly, we don’t even know if it happened or is a false memory. She seems troubled and confused.
The Southern District Court of New York has issued a cease-and-desist order against the FBI, stopping them from continuing to search O’Keefe’s phones and other stuff they confiscated.
After the order was issued, the New York Times published privileged information between O’Keefe and his lawyer which apparently came from the phones and was lkkely leaked by someone in the FBI.
O’Keefe has an open lawsuit against the NY Times, so their having privileged communicatiins between O’Keefe and his lawyer seems like a pretty big deal.
Where did you read this?
So there’s a number of issues with Sam’s post, I think.
First, the FBI can resume extracting data from his phones once the independent observer is appointed. Seems reasonable. “Postponing” is probably a better word than “stopping.”
Second, the NYT published internal documents from the PV legal team, not specifically information between “O’Keefe and his lawyer.” I don’t see anything in any of the RW coverage indicating that these came from his phones. In fact, that really doesn’t make any sense. The NYT says that the legal documents are from several years ago.
Third, the only evidence that these leaked internal documents came from the FBI is a baseless accusation by O’Keefe’s own lawyer. For all we know, the NYT got them from a disgruntled former employee.
But, if you hit the paywall, does that mean you had a URL to at least check? Some of us may know how to get around the paywall. (Heck, maybe there’s even a Doper who subscribes.)
That said, I’m not sure it makes a lot of sense to bother checking. If the NYT had actually confirmed the diary was real, I would expect that the content allegedly contained within would be at the top of the news now. But I typed “Biden” into Google’s News search and nothing like that is in there.
Given the type of people who reported it and all the pedo conspiracies going around last (presidential) election, I’m not taking it all with a massive grain of salt. While not saying it’s fake might seem concerning, I think that, if they had reason to believe it was real, there would be a lot more reporting on this.
If you are hitting a paywalled link to the NYT, please feel free to post the link and tag me in the post.
I’m a subscriber which allows me to generate a certain number of non-paywalled links each month to share. I’ll be happy to generate a free link to the story.
Two people plead guilty today for stealing the diary.
PV is in some deep shit:
