March 31, 2009


On March 28, reported a "WORLD EXCLUSIVE" story of a video being shopped around of a woman alleged to be Ashley Biden, Vice-President Biden's daughter, doing cocaine. They wrote, " In addition to, representatives for the New York Post, a large British newspaper and the National Enquirer have all viewed the tape." The same article says, "The tape was made without her knowledge." March 30, wrote, "The explosive video . . . was shot with a hidden camera, has learned," implying that they received additional information without naming a source. "Our viewing of portions of the tape is consistent with that. The low, tilted angle of the camera and the actions of the woman both indicate the camera was not in plain view." They are also reporting that the lawyer has dropped the client because "he did not want to be involved due to circumstances surrounding the publicity of the matter." Today, March 31, reports they have "learned exclusively" that the video was preplanned as a setup. "It is clear from the tape that the woman said to be Ashley Biden does not know she is being filmed," they say. The New York Post however has been reporting that, "The camera follows the woman from a few feet away, focusing on her as she moves around the room. It appears not to be concealed." Keep in mind that a camera that tracks a moving person requires a human operator to control it. The New York Post also says the seller's lawyers at the time claimed that she "acknowledges the camera in a way that makes it clear she knows she's being recorded, . . . waving at it during a part of the video not shown to The Post." Why is there a discrepancy between the two reports despite both media outlets having viewed the same footage? Is it "clear from the tape that the woman . . . does not know she is being filmed," as says or does it appear "not to be concealed?" as The New York Times says. If saw the video originally, how and where did they they "learn" two days later that the camera was hidden? Was it from Biden's lawyer or someone much more powerful? Did this person also persuade the video seller's lawyer to quit as well?
UPDATE (22:53 31 March 2009): This story just hit digg! UPDATE (15:04 01 April 2009): Neither Ashley Biden nor her father have made any comments about the tape, which gives the impression that it is authentic. The story has been out of the news for a day now.


  1. I heard that the lawyer quit because of the illegality of the taping, not because of the publicity. I mean, what lawyer in the WORLD would shun publicity?

  2. We're not getting the full story, and likely never will. It might be that both the news outlets were shown different segments of the tape, but that would still not explain anything, because if she knew she was being taped, she'd not wave, and if she didn't know.. Why did she wave?

  3. The real investigation should start with the lawyer that quit, it is chilling to me to think that the government can come in and affect my legal team!! I think a grand jury inquiry into this story is definitly warranted!! Who called him? What did they say? How did they threaten him? Who ever heard of a lawyer running away from a juicy case like this?
    Rat's don't run away from garbage, they run to it, unless you scare em. There is a story here. Either the VP's daughter is a drug user or the VP's daughter is being framed. Either way, there is a "story" surrounding this video.