Karma: Democrats' weaponizing of sexual assault allegations comes back to bite
The allegations of Tara Reade are serious, and they highlight something that is both tragic and amazing (if one were to only pay attention to their rhetoric about Trump, Kavanaugh, etc.): democrats don't actually care about women's issues.
Their leaders and pundits--Gillibrand, H. Clinton, DailyKos front-pagers and popular diary authors--care about one thing: electing more democrats. It doesn't matter if the democrats they want to elect rape women and it especially doesn't matter if there are "mere" allegations of these deeds.
But they'll gladly politicize and raise the visibility of these sorts of allegations when they target Republicans.
And now this is coming back to bite them. I couldn't be happier about that. I couldn't be sadder at the thought that it doesn't matter. Most democrats simply aren't going to care about this, if they even hear about it.
One other thing to note: the media is not calling any of these hypocrites out. Sure, they sometimes make references to statements during the Kavanaugh hearing, but they stop short of calling this for what it is (hypocrisy, politicizing of sexual assault allegations), just like they stop short of calling out politicians' lies for what they are. They're worse than useless--they're part of the problem.
PS: I am not going to judge the allegations Ms. Reade has put forward in this or any other essay. I believe that we live in a culture that makes it easy for men to commit sexual aggression on many levels and get away with it. I do not believe that justifies the use of allegations of sexual misconduct to ruin lives and careers, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss these claims out of hand, either. Obviously, I'm especially opposed to treating allegations as a political football.
Comments
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that
Stacy Abrams is one of the hypocrites you mention. I was kina of surprised, given the fact that the election was stolen from her also (see Sanders campaign) in Georgia, and people were genuinely saddened by that fact...at first. That is until she showed herself to be a total opportunist. (and hack)
Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin
Yeah, Abrams’ twisting in that interview
was sad to watch. Here you have a black woman throwing a white woman under the bus to defend an old white guy who has done as much as any republican to hurt poor black people of all genders.
That’s how screwed up democrats’ weaponized identity politics have become.
You can tell what kind of person she is
When you see that she listed her two favorite books as Atlas Shrugged and Ender's Game. Ayn Rand and Orson Scott Card...
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
Now I've got to see her list
That's crazy and disqualifying.
She ought to be
disqualified as VP just on the basis she's only been in the state lege. With Biden taking office, if that happens, at age 78, the next in line has to be more than someone just checking a couple of IdPol boxes.
Add to those reasons anyone who joins Neera Tanden & CAP
Enders Game?
I read that as a powerful condemnation of how older generations abuse naive but talented children to cover their own fears and inadequacies. Something that we seem to forget every time a war comes along.
His later work was often terrible but I found Songmaster and Hart’s Hope (and even Speaker for the Dead) moving.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Not really his books
But his political views. He calls himself a Democrat but he's a vocal neocon. He supported both McCain and Gingrich.
In addition he's a huge homophobe.
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
The truth
will set you free! Who will experience that freedom? We're fixin' to find out!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
not to mention Biden and Anita Hill
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/24/rewatching-...
Think he will make it to the nomination? I expect the old switcheroo in this uncontested joke of an election.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
50/50
If the dems think they're on top of this, they'll stick. The r's could go full Bengazi and emails on Biden over the sexual harassment allegations right now, but if they wait till the convention is over it'll do the most damage. If the dems have doubts they'll throw him under the bus for a "reluctant" Cuomo. After all, he can talk mean to the republicans *swoon* .
Chris Hayes went under the bus too
The audacity that he covered the top trending story of Tara Reade's allegations against Biden.
There have been at least 5 diaries about how Tara Reade is just trying to take down Biden because her story keeps changing, she edited an article on Medium where nothing she edited had anything to do with her accusation against Biden and because she once said nice things about Putin. There are 3 on it today. OMG sexual assault victims shouldn't have free speech. Why? Reasons.
One is from a male veteran federal prosecutor
And every story about Biden must include the fact that 25 women have accused Trump too. But Russia is the biggest winner. And yet they make fun of Trump supporters who will not look at the facts in front of their faces. GO figure.
ETA
How many men have you seen Joe sniffing their hair or giving massages to or putting his hands on the shoulders or chests?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Biden's campaign keeps saying that he has been for women's right
his entire career because of the Violence against Women act, but don't forget that he was also responsible for welfare reform that sent women and kids deeper into poverty. The crime bill that saw many black men thrown into prison leaving women responsible for raising their kids on the own with one income. And the bankruptcy bill that hurt women possible more that men. Did those bills hurt women more than the VaWa help them?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
A longer segment
I haven't been able to watch this yet, but I think it is the one I watched last night.
I read the counter punch article from 2008 last night so there is the proof that Biden has been accused of being a hound dawg before.
Chris of course is now a Russian asset. Great job democrats for pushing this on your sycophantic supporters.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Link to this article
https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/23/quot-change-quot-quot-hope-quot-...
Is there any more info on that senator's wife and the Biden harassment?
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Thank you for posting the link
Here is one more collaboration that people were aware of Biden's action when he was in the senate. As people are pointing out there is much more evidence that backs up Tara's story than there was from Dr. Ford and that is what points out the glaring hypocrisy of the democrats and others in MeToo. As for more stories of his time in the senate I haven't heard anything, but I bet that the Trump campaign will set their snoopers on the trail to uncover any.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Loved Biden's denial video!
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
When the dems took out Franken
they put on the concrete overshoes. Franken could have been part of the force to design a respectful process for determining crime and punishment for sexual harassment. He really was distraught over the allegations. But no matter what, believe the woman, extract the maximum punishment. Much better to collect a scalp and count coup.
I guess if non lefty dems can do no wrong, then they're totally unprepared to even contemplate the consequences. So it's kill the bitch and praise St. Joe.
modus operandi
how is it evil succeeds while truth dies? These are monsters. Bad for society.
Yes
Most of the women I've asked tell me there is some action taken against them sexually, touching, threatening.....the other 5% don't want to talk about it.
I don't know what it's like for the 1%, but the Clintons and Kennedys are democratic saints and with their sordid pasts I don't see how Biden won't be canonized. I'll even chip in for the cannon.
I unsubscribed donation list left and right
in the past few days with a comment "Fingering Joe". I have abandoned my ActBlue account and will not want to donate any more. Money is better spent to pay tips to the brave souls who go to groceries to pick food and deliver for us.
Exactly
why invest any more in monied politics?
It's a friggin' business. Rather it go to my
mechanic.
@QMS True. I also
True. I also unsubscribed from Bernie. Too disappointed that he would drop out and leave his supporters holding the bag.
They won't leave me the hell alone.
Keeps coming through my phone, which used to be my partner's phone, and she never donated, so???
"How can we best grow our online grassroots network?"
Fuck. Off.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
my prediction of Biden's statement
this is not what he's said, or will say, just my impression of what it'll be like.
"Look, first of all, as to this allegation, you know I believe in a woman's right to be heard but..ok, look, this never happened and...I mean, come on, man, if...look, the New York Times even investigated and found out it ....look, what I want to say is, you know, why would I do that? My sister Jill would never ....because, look, in the final...what I..."
makes about as much sense
as anything else he spouts
great distillation!
Joe’s accusers are all lying dog-faced pony soldiers.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Hey man!
Biden didn't get to his elevated position without
sticking his grubby hands where they don't belong.
Gropers get rewarded in this version of entitled rule.
Yuck
Democrats are complete fakes
And have always been. They are scared stiff of real issues like peace, economic justice, and real rights, like a right to an education, a job, health care and a roof over your house. So they dive into identity issues, but then get tripped up by egotistic sexual abusers to whom they then provide cover. Look at her heinousness, the poster wife for excusing sexual abuse. After she did that she should have been disqualified for life from running for any office. But no, all of the so called women's rights advocates in the party encouraged her and supported her. All fakes.
Bernie was the first democratic candidate that dared to lean even slightly to the real left, and he got kneecapped by the entire lot of them, and liked it.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
abusive relationships
the new normal
end it here
abusive ruler wanna bees
getting stale
say enough already
What about
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbyMeMApC3U]
Huey Long?
I'm still neutral on
the TR allegation. Was never a believer in the easy breezy MeToo mantra of We Believe the Women and always try to give the presumption of innocence, esp wrt 27 yo allegations. More info needed, esp to back up her claim.
Joe Biden will appear on MoJoe tomorrow am to answer the allegations.
Some Qs: Why did she wait so long to make this allegation if it was true? Where is the contemporaneous backing evidence -- paperwork of her complaint in the senate office, her copy of same, also contemporaneous accounts from others. Her mother calling into L King in 1993 -- seems odd that she didn't make a more specific allegation on behalf of her daughter, as she was calling anonymously, and odd too that she said her daughter didn't want to come forward "out of respect for the senator". Why would she respect someone who just sexually assaulted her?
And this neighbor-friend who talked with TR about the allegations ca 1995-6 : very odd that this neighbor finishes her account by saying she would probably end up voting for Biden this year. WTF??
There were no witnesses to the alleged assault, and so it all turns on her credibility. And has she been consistent in her story over the years? Apparently not.
And how common is it for someone to have only one allegation against him of this nature, and not a repeated pattern, as with D Trump?
There are many legitimate reasons
for a victim of sexual assault to have some minor inconsistencies in recollection, to wait to report it (or, quite often, to never report it) to others, etc. Often these reasons boil down to this: fear of being smeared or having one’s honesty impugned. The more powerful/famous the perpetrator, the more likely the smears are to happen, and the more severe (up to and including death threats).
In this case, Dems are accusing Reade of everything from being mentally unstable to being a paid agent of Russia. I am 99.999% certain she’s received death threats or will soon.
That’s why women especially don’t come forward with this sort of thing for a long time, which itself leads naturally to some inconsistencies in recollection.
Again, I’m not judging Reade’s allegations. That isn’t the point of this essay, which is to highlight the hypocrisy of dems defending Joe over this.
If you lifted some of the comments from DK or democratic subreddits or what have you and presented them anonymously, the reader would be forgiven if they mistook them for Republicans’ defenses of Trump. They’re that bad, or worse.
I understand she
might have been reluctant and the allegation might have merit.
But how about the mother calling in to a talk show anonymously -- why her reluctance to speak in more specific terms? And why the comment about her daughter not wanting to come forward "out of respect for the senator"? Respect for someone who has sexually assaulted you?? Doesn't add up.
These and others are just obvious questions that pop out in this case, which no one here has yet to address. No reasonable discussion of the case can happen w/o dealing with them, and I couldn't help but notice that prior to my post, no one was asking any such questions.
this case, from what I've read so far, might well go beyond my usual tendency to take the unpopular position as an intellectual exercise. But I hope to see some good specific responses to my questions above. Meanwhile, she might be the real deal, and she might not.
Or “respect”
in the sense of their power to obliterate you? Certainly little point in publicly riling the beast with “he’s a slimy bastard.”
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
BTW
Either you don't read comments here or you have dismissed them because we have covered and answered your questions numerous times. I have left you detailed ones in in a previous thread. And they have been answered in other essays and numerous articles. Why don't you answer them yourself by doing some reading on your own? The truth is out there.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Can't say this is the law in any state
other than Texas, but if a citizen is aware a crime has been committed, takes no action to get the cops to investigate, then that person can be prosecuted for that crime.
Sexual harassment is not a crime.
Rape is another thing.
If anyone had been willing to give Reade some early support and dignity, she might have felt like discussing the fingers insertion. Speculation, of course, but she emphasized in her Halper interview that nobody gave a damn. She was ignored.
One thing that you cannot accuse her of doing is trying to make money off of this, and she knew when she came forward, she would be threatened, harassed, and ruined.
Why would Reade ask for this? What is her motive?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
We don't know her
motive for possibly fabricating the serious charge against Biden, but like you we can all speculate, as everyone is unique and not everyone is as pure as the driven snow.
At the medium.com cited article below, wrt her previous employer at the horse rescue place, the employer speculated that TR's lying, manipulating and stealing , or much of that, was about attention and sympathy seeking. Her speculation, but not to be lightly dismissed as TR worked for her for nearly 2 yrs and that employer knows her better than anyone commenting here.
"easy breezy"?
Have you ever noticed, walking by women in the street, that many will deliberately avoid looking at men? why do you think that is?
I believe assaults are not reported because of the types of questions you ask. They're nit-picky and re-victimize the woman. "Prove it!!" Then the poor victimizer gets all the sympathy.
Yes, the overall
sentiment in many quarters from MeToo was a little too easy and dangerously so. Women can be victims and also lie. A mere allegation that doesn't hold up but is merely asserted is, never should be enough.
And my post here was to suggest that before we jump to conclusions we should consider the other side. I'm getting a definite sense that this TR case is being looked at here solely through a political lens. I get it -- there is much about Joe Biden to despise. But even despised political figures deserve to be treated fairly.
I would still like to see someone offer answers to the specific Qs I posed above, rather than general statements about female victims.
Yes because rape is usually a public event
Did you mean to say this?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Yes I did mean
to say that, in order to stress that this allegation rests solely on her credibility.
Doesn't rape usually involve physical evidence left behind?*
Did you also have any response to the several Qs I posed which go to the credibility of the accuser? Again, I don't assert she has fabricated the case, but don't the known facts as I allude to raise concerns?
* See, for example, E. Jean Carroll's rape allegation against one Donald J. Trump currently part of a lawsuit she has brought, winding its way slowly as usual through the legal system, where she is asking for DJT to give a DNA sample, as she kept her dress from that day.
Insertion of fingers
will leave little or no evidence to trace back to the perp. The DNA test on the woman would have to be done fairly quickly, right at the time she is wondering what the hell just happened.
All the man has to do is clean his hands before he touches a door knob on the way out of the room.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Well obviously.
My point to the other poster is that bc this alleged sexual assault involved no physical evidence traces (unlike the E. Jean Carroll rape allegations against DJT) and bc there were no witnesses, then this case rests solely on her credibility. Do you agree, otc?
And what about her credibility? Has her story been consistent over the years? No it hasn't. The sexual assault allegations came only recently, 27 yrs later, after previously she had talked only in terms of uncomfortable touching, and before that only about Biden's staff being the problem -- "bullying" her.
It seems rather clear that her story has evolved over time, going from complaints about Biden staff, to complaints about Biden doing his Biden touchy-feely on her shoulders, to finally, 27 yrs or so after the fact, Biden sexually assaulting her. The fish keeps getting bigger and bigger in the retelling.
Does she have any history of other complaints, something that might suggest there is an agenda here? According to one article (I believe via medium.com -- will check later) she worked a few yrs ago at an animal rescue shelter for horses and the owner wrote about her manipulative and dishonest behavior. This does not help her credibility.
Contemporaneous corroboration from others she spoke to? Krystal Ball and others defending her make much of her mother calling LK and her neighbor recently speaking out about talking to her about Biden back in 95-6, but in neither case can these be seen as corroborating her sexual assault claims. Her mother called in anonymously but only spoke vaguely about her daughter's "issues" or "problems" in the Biden office. So odd that with the safety of anonymity, she couldn't bring herself to bring up the sexual assault allegation. I find that a very striking tell. (also to note re TR's credibility: she previously misrepresented and oversold her mother's call, making it seem more specific in the charges her mother related, whereas her mother only spoke in vague, general terms.)
Also in recent times her brother gave a newspaper interview where he talked about his sister complaining to him about Biden's alleged "harassment" in the office, but then the brother had to call the reporter a few days later bc he forgot to mention Tara had also told him about a sexual assault. Sure.
Let's see the contemporaneous documentation of her complaint on the sexual assault. She apparently doesn't currently have a copy, but Biden has encouraged the Nat'l Archives to release anything they have, which is apparently the place these things are kept. Kind of curious behavior for Biden, if guilty as charged, to point people in the direction where documentation of a complaint could be found.
No one here yet has answered any of these issues I raise. I'm not going to be able to spend hours on this, but will likely have a little more later, and will be able to respond to posts here only if substantive and specific.
Well, my simple solution for you
would be to strike you from the jury pool. You have made up your mind, you are prejudiced, unwilling to keep an open mind to any other point of view about Ms. Reade.
Despite having no motive at all, and the reward of being destroyed by society for the rest of her life, and she made her allegations. Every day, she will get anonymous death threats. She will be a pariah to any current or future employer. And so will her brother, and so will her neighbor.
Your experience with rape is that of a gnat.
I, unfortunately, have brushed up against it professionally for 35 years.
Everything about this cries out motive of the victim to make her outcry.
I think you are dead wrong, vice versa.
And I don't give a shit, hope you don't, either.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
You don't know
if she has "no motive at all" and is pure as the driven snow. Please.
And speaking of your hypothetical jury pool, you don't think just a few of you here are a tad prejudiced against the accused Biden, on political grounds? Laughable.
I merely ask some relevant questions, and I'm almost made persona au gratin here.
OTC, I thought lawyers were trained to look at both sides of an issue?
I am not one, but do my best to look at this from the other side, you know, the side which wasn't being heard here.
Just a little more in a moment, and then I need to move on, unless someone has a good counter to some of the credibility issues I've raised.
Here is how it works.
The prosecutors are the ones to assess her case.
Lawyers are trained to determine facts, theories, laws, that are applicable to both sides.
And then beat the dog shit out of the oppositions'.
As for giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, all laws give that to him. Not you, not me. Black letter laws.
No politics involved, unless it is inserted by someone who happens to be running for political office. Or by someone who supports that politician.
It is stupid to use it in support of either Biden or Reade.
Let the facts be revealed and tested.
It should be no different from the neighbor who did the same thing on the school grounds.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Here's roughly the
beginning of some twitter comments by political analyst Michael Tracey, who seems to be on the same page as me on this TR matter. There is more at his twitter feed. As much of this discussion, imo, ultimately goes back to politics, it should be noted that MT was a Tulsi backer, but also had inclinations towards Bernie. He was not a Biden backer in any way. And yes, it is comforting to have such a well-respected political analyst on my side.
That's 2 who get stricken from my jury pool.
Find that motive you believe Reade has for ruining her life for making up a false rape allegation, and everything will start to make sense.
I noted in his statement today, he couldn't remember stuff from 27 years ago. Not Reade. Not any complaint. Not where her complaint might be kept. He didn't remember anybody mentioning the complaint to him. It was 27 years ago and he doesn't remember.
He just remembers he didn't do that "thing".
He has a very strong motive to remember that one "thing" with absolute certainty.
His lawyers must have been in the bathroom experiencing some violent eruptions from both ends during that interview.
Attribute a motive to Reade.
Biden's is obvious.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Sorry but I will have
to add you to the 22 or so here who would be stricken from my jury pool, if I haven't done this already.
Memory? If it didn't happen, as Biden has maintained, what then is there to remember? You seem to again be assuming her allegations are true and that therefore it's mighty suspicious he can't seem to recall the alleged event. Once more, there's a failure here to see both sides of the story, a clear indication of bias.
And it seems clear as day that in another situation with the shoe on the other foot, had the accuser been a Biden backer and the accused been Bernie, let's say the sexual assault allegation coming out when Bernie was riding high and Biden was looking in bad shape prior to SC, can there be any doubt that many here would be all over the accuser, calling her credibility into question, asking who is really backing her effort to smear Bernie?
As to records, he did indicate personnel records are supposed to be held at the N Archives. I basically understand his reluctance to open up his own records held at the U of Delaware -- they would contain sensitive comments on foreign leaders and policy which most people sending their papers to a university would like to remain sealed until they retire from public office. This is the usual way this is done. And personnel records, according to Sen Nelson, usually aren't kept in univ archives.
Also unmentioned here I believe: 5 of Biden's former staffers also do not recall a Tara Reade filing any complaint. Of course, conveniently, while TR still has a copy of her employment records, she no longer has the copy of her alleged formal complaint. Would have been something to carefully safeguard I should think.
In any case, the accuser has already said that her alleged complaint did not involve allegations of a sexual assault, which is the heart of the matter. She made those allegations, in her evolving story, only in March of this year. Prior to that, it was a story only about Biden touching that made her "uncomfortable".
As late as 2017, she was making favorable comments about Biden on Twitter. And she disclosed that she voted for Obama/Biden both times. Again, rather peculiar behavior for someone who was supposedly sexually assaulted.
Motives to fabricate a story can range from highly personal -- she needs the attention or sympathy (alleged by one recent former employer, who called her "manipulative") -- to the political (she says she backed Bernie in the primaries), to the money she might hope will eventually come her way from various entities wanting her to continue telling her story. We don't know.
That is some mental contortion, right there!
You start by believing Biden.
I can't emphasize enough, I don't care.
You start out by not believing Reade.
I don't care.
I am glad to know this about your worldview. It will be what comes to mind in all your future comments.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Wrong again otc.
I actually started out tending to believe the TR story. When the LKing interview came out my reaction was, Hmm interesting, and the call is from 1993. When the neighbor's "corroborating" story came out, again my reaction was along the lines of This TR thing may hold up.
Then I began to look at things with a bit more skepticism. Which you apparently haven't done.
Honestly, can you say that you started out not believing TReade? Or that you believed any of Biden's denials?
So many holes in her story, so many inconsistencies -- even her own lawyer would want to probe her on these questions, and more, because the opposing attorney most certainly will in a court of law. But none of that has roused you to the least bit of skepticism about any part of her story? Just wow ...
This back and forth
is getting damn HILARIOUS!
wokkamile, I will re-read this the next time I see the dentist!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I despise the "knock yourself out" line
it's smug and insulting and a distant cousin of "I'm sorry if you were offended".
The case does not rest solely on *her* credibility
The accused is a man with a VERY VERY VERY well-documented pattern of invading women's personal space, getting unwantedly physically familiar with them, putting his hands all over them, etc.
And little girls too.
And that's just what has been publicly seen in a large number of videos.
If he's that invasive in public, what wouldn't he do in private?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
A few points, Maven:
in an actual court, the accuser (or plaintiff) would first have to make her case, which in this instance, bc no physical evidence, would rest on her credibility, as previously discussed. How else would she make it if not through contemporaneous documents (she doesn't have) or through contemporaneous accounts via others she spoke with (not yet shown, and dubious, as I've noted).
In the COPO, it's similar: unless you are going by easy, breezy MeToo Believe the Women loose standards of mere allegations are enough, then she still needs to make her case first, show she is credible. Has her story been consistent? No. Rather glaringly inconsistent, the facts there for all reasonable people to consider if only some would put aside their political distaste for the accused.
Does her previous history working for others, for instance, help or detract from her credibility? The medium.com article I've cited elsewhere here tends to show she is a bit of a loose cannon, and that's from recent work with an established, well-regarded employer who has very disparaging things to say about TR on issues of honesty.
The peculiar Biden behavior you mention has already been stipulated to famously -- see Biden's admission on camera from last year. But all that weirdness and quirkiness, which was consistent over the years, is significantly different from then crossing the major red line into criminal sexual assault, which seems unique and a one-off from Biden's usual more benign, if kinda weird, habits. I think the one-off nature of this allegation by itself calls it into question, but isn't necessarily dispositive.
Saagar included a small example of Biden doing that
How anyone can excuse his behavior of doing that to girls is beyond me, but I have been seeing people doing just that. "It's not fondling or groping or placing his hands where they should never be, it's just a generational thing where Biden grew up hugging people." Funny how he rarely puts his hands on boy or never sniffs men's hair or sniffs it or gives them shoulder massages.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Found the article
I'd seen the other day from medium.com relating the account of her former employer from 2014-16 at a horse rescue shelter where TR did volunteer work. The owner accuses TR of manipulating her, lying and stealing. Goes to her credibility, which is everything to her case.
The answers to your questions are included here
If you dismiss the info in the video because of who is in it then that's on you. It doesn't take away from the facts in the case.
The most damning one is that when Tara went on Halper's show she said that her mom had called into Larry King and talked about how her daughter was 'harassed' by a senator and wondered what the options were. Yes she said harassed not sexually assaulted which is normal behavior because this is a normal pattern that people go through. First off they are in shock and still working through what happened and that is why stories change, but they rarely change to a lesser charge. So after she talked about her mom calling lo and behold the tape of her calling in was found. I don't know what more damning evidence of collaboration people need to see because that seems to be an incredible one.
But there still are no witnesses to the incident because there usually aren't. But she immediately told 3 people which two are still alive and confirmed it. Plus her mom. I'll let our lawyer weigh in here on whether this would be enough to at least bring charges if they were within the statue of limitations. Or statute? Dunno.
As for the Medium article written by the Krassenstein brothers you might look into their history. And just because someone accused her of committing theft does not disprove that the original event did not happen. Were charges brought against her at the time? Anyone can write an article and say whatever they want, but that should be taken as just their opinion unless they can back up the facts. I didn't read all of it because I know their history of lying about stuff and that is why they got bounced from Twitter and Facebook. A veteran investigator? So? Did he interview Tara? Did the brothers? Did they question the people that confirmed what Tara said? Did they question the two reporters that did all those things? If not then it's just their opinions too.
Has that DNA been confirmed to be Donald Trump's? Has Trump been found guilty? No, but for some reason lots of people think that presumption of innocence doesn't apply to him. I can't stand him, but I still respect what the rules of the country should stand for.
If you choose not to watch the video to see how they answer your questions then I hope you will quit asking us to do it. As I said they have already been answered numerous times. It's up to you. If you do I'd love to hear your response.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Your statement
wrt the mother's remarks on LK does not appear to be true. You said:
The mother never said her daughter was "harassed"-- this appears to be a figment of your imagination. What she said was merely that her daughter was having "problems" working in the office of "a prominent senator"
As for the Rising couple, they have shown from the beginning of this story that they are clearly biased in favor of TR and against JB, with Krystal being a well-know Bernie cheerleader (yes, not just a backer but an on-air year-long cheerleader for his candidacy) and the conservative co-host going along (as they both tend to go along with each other, predictably and boringly) possibly bc it hurts the presumptive Dem nominee and he's a conservative R who may prefer another four for Donald (or at least not to have Dem Biden in office).
I think Krystal, after getting an early Skype interview with the accuser, like Katie Halper is too much invested in the story, too inclined not to ask questions about it from a skeptical pov. If Krystal has spent just 5 minutes on air asking skeptical questions of the TR story, which shows glaring holes and inconsistencies for any reasonably sober person to see, please drop that piece of video here. I watch that show fairly regularly and haven't seen it.
Which means, much of the other side of the story on Rising is either going unmentioned or is barely glossed over in passing. For Krystal especially, but others too including many here, this is just a crude, simplistic binary choice of good vs bad, Believe the victimized accuser without question and not the politically awful Joe Biden who is obviously trying to hide something. If you ask any questions about the accuser's story or her overall credibility, you get labeled as a Biden apologist or a True Blue No Matter Who type.
Among her many faults on this story, Krystal (who I find likable overall) is failing to dig deeper on the supposed "corroborating" accounts from the mother, the neighbor etc -- such as, what exactly did the mother "corroborate" when she talked about "problems". Were they problems the office staff created or Joe Biden? Calling anonymously would have given the mother easy opportunity to go into detail while omitting the names involved. But she didn't. Krystal never seems to point this out.
The neighbor: has Krystal ever mentioned exactly how her story "corroborates" the TR version and that the telling to her by TR occurred not contemporaneously but 2-3 yrs later? Was it in fact only about alleged harassment? Why after hearing it did the neighbor admit that she intends to vote for Biden this year? Did Krystal ever mention that latter point?
If you are getting your information on this story primarily from transparently biased sources who frame their discussions in biased ways and derive their biased opinions from that framing, then that is on you.
As for the medium.com story I cited, so far I haven't seen Reade's previous employer quoted in that article call it out as false and demand a complete retraction and apology. The reporters conducted an interview with the employer and give quotes attributed to her. If this is all false, a made up interview with made up quotes, it would seem the reporters and medium.com are opening themselves up to a major libel lawsuit from that employer, in addition to one from Reade, which would seem fairly easy for any court to figure out for the plaintiffs and it would put medium.com and those reporters out of business forever.
Do you have information that the employer is now denying having said those things? Those weren't mere "opinions" being published -- that piece from medium.com consisted of facts that can be checked (such as emails/tweets) and assertions stated as fact. The opinion part was when the ex employer offered her speculation as to what was motivating TR's manipulative behavior.
Btw, the ex employer also noted that TR mentioned Biden only briefly but they were positive comments. She too wonders why she would have only positive to say about someone who had assaulted her in such a brutal way.
....
'
Yes she has mentioned that the neighbor is voting for Biden.
Again you are missing the numerous times people have said that yes the stories change because they might still be in shock at what happened to them or that they were embarrassed to tell others that they had just been raped. Many people never come forward at all because of the way they would be treated. For some reason it is easier to believe that the person had been assaulted than it is for people to believe powerful people would do that.
My point here is that there is much more information that backs up Tara's allegation then there ever was for Dr. Ford and yet people threw their support behind her while saying Tara is lying because her story change. See point one again. They are also saying that she is a Russian puppet for once praising Putin on his looks. So the F what? What if she said that about another person that is or isn't liked? Just because she has an opinion about someone that makes her story false? Wow huge brain fart there.
Did she do anything about that theft? If not then why not? If yes then what happened with it?
First off when did she say that and second look at point one here. My point on this is the stunning hypocrisy of all those that said that they unequivocally supported and believed Ford even though she didn't file a police report and only accused K when he was being appointed to the SC. Again why didn't she come forward earlier and got a pass for it while Tara is not granted the same?
You are accusing me of being biased towards Tara because it's Biden that she has accused. You are wrong. I am calling out the hypocrisy. Period. And for those who say Biden has never been accused of acting inappropriately towards women that is false too as there have been 7 women who have come forward about it. Plus the numerous times he touched girls. The Biden campaign told the NYT to change their including this and just saying that he has never been accused before. He has and there are numerous videos that show them. They have been posted all over this site and I posted a huge graphic of a collage of his doing it. I am not going to go look for it because I don't think you can be reached.
Jimmy highlights how Nancy has changed her views on this and it's very damning.
Have you listened to Tara's story to decide for yourself whether she is credible? If not here is your chance.
This is out of order... oh well.
I haven't seen that. I see them focusing on facts so maybe it's you who are being biased perhaps? Ryan Grimm who broke the story on Dr. Ford's allegations got lots of kudos for doing it. He also broke the Tara Reade story and got thrown under the bus for doing it. You don't think that is at all hypocritical? I sure do.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Did you read this article
That fish posted up thread? It highlights the fact that Biden was known as being too free to think that he could touch women or do things that made them uncomfortable going back to 2008.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/23/quot-change-quot-quot-hope-quot-...
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
No I don't
Because I don't think you could even buy a clue on this subject.. I found your questions to be ludicrous. But I would like to know how many rapes you found that had witnesses. I'm talking about when there are only two people involved.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I am counting in my head the number of rape cases I have
handled. 6. Victim's testimony on 2; 2 to the cops admissions before I was hired; and 2 DNA tests. I also have represented 2 women who had plead guilty, then hired me to get her a divorce, and woman hire me to try to keep the State from taking away their kids.
I have been consulting attorney on 2 more. Both were found not guilty when DNA tests showed the rapist was someone else.
I have also elicited sworn testimony in family law cases that served as the basis for their later indictments.
All it takes is the right place, time, circumstances, a credible victim out cry, and off to prison you go.
Biden has way more to worry about than an election.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Well, "credible victim"
is exactly what I've been trying to point out here. That's the whole ballgame as there is no physical or DNA evidence in this type of alleged assault.
Don't you think it's important, as an officer of the court who is supposed to uphold not just the law but ethics and justice, to at least inquire into her credibility? It's just stunning to see so many here casually accept her story in the worst sort of lazy MeToo ways and then blast anyone who suggests maybe we should first look into whether her story holds up.
It's been looked into. It holds up, UNLESS
you are a Blue No Matter Who Trumpophobe who clings to the faint and fading hope that the MORE-demented, lesser-rapey little-girl-gropey corpocrat can oust the Vile Orange Boogeyman.
Since I think they both stink out loud on ice with bells on, I'm going to exercise the third-party option.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
"Joe Biden is Joe Biden"
"Vote for Joe, who has raped much less frequently than the other guy."
"I am Joe Biden, and I approve this message. And If Jill would let me, I can rape more frequently than the other guy."
"I am Jill Biden, and I approve this message."
Three Questions That Should Have Been Asked ...
Well, glad to see this finally getting more coverage in the MSM and, to that end, I got up earlier than usual to watch "Creepy Joe" on MSNBC this morning. While I kind of agree with Krystal's take, that Mika was fairly aggressive, particularly on the issue of transparency with regard to the U of D files, and, also, Joe seemed flustered, which makes one wonder how well he'd do vs Trump or a real aggressive questioner if he couldn't handle Mika Brzezinski. But I digress, my main point is that there were three main questions that should have been asked that weren't:
1. If you deny these sexual assault or sexual harassment allegations, what exactly was the nature of your interaction with Tara Reade? (Mika actually opened with this general question but then let Biden off the hook by asking a compound question that got into the allegations, given Biden room to skate -- something you would never see happen with say a well trained lawyer in a deposition or cross examination format.)
2. When you say no records exist, how do you explain her story that she was reassigned and eventually asked to leave, indicating some form of discrimination in her employment situation? (This is a general area but again, in the hands of a skilled examiner, it would consist of a series of pointed questions after parsing through the specifics of her employment situation.)
3. According to a recent news report, Tara Reade has indicated a willingness to go under oath if necessary. Would you be willing to do the same?
I am a little concerned that, with Biden emphasizing the National Archives, this could become a case of "hide the ball" as far as documents are concerned. I would think that, even as a temporary employee, there would have been performance reviews that would be in her personnel files generated in the ordinary course of business, even if the harassment complaint may have disappeared. (But why she didn't keep a copy of the complaint herself is a bit baffling to me.)
I would remind folks that, FWIW, this is the topic of an active investigation by the Metropolitan DC Police since she did file a report. Also, I heard on the tube today that she's possibly going to be on one of the TV talk shows this weekend, so I'm thinking the story ain't going away any time soon ...
Tara has refused to go on Fox News
because of how it would look which I find just as ridiculous as people not reading an article just because of the site it was posted on. If people only get their news from one source and from just one side then that just leaves them halfway informed on issues. But I've seen some site post the actual truth according to proven facts dismiss because of where it came from. I've seen it her too though.
Good for Tara for continuing to talk about this after all the crap she is getting. In the Caitlin essay she linked a tweet from Sally Albright which I find deplorable. When did it become okay for people's guilt or innocence to be decided by journalists when it comes to sexual assault victims? Especially when they don't even talk to them to get their side of the story? Stacey Abrams said that the NYT has said that it didn't happen. They tweeted that they didn't decide either way, but it looks like people are ignoring that.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
As to her employment
records in the Biden office, it is indeed interesting why she would have kept a copy of her general records but not a copy of her complaint. Seems most peculiar.
As to employment details, this could be a dicey legal/privacy issue to go into too many details, unless the accuser gives her permission for the Biden side to discuss and disclose those records, including reassignment/dismissal reasons.
Again, going back to her very recent volunteer work at the horse rescue place, where her employer had very negative comments about her behavior (cited elsewhere here from the medium.com site), we can easily imagine Reade in the Biden office just becoming a difficult person to work with. High maintenance and a headache employee. Assuming that Reade is ok with disclosing her employment details, then it would be very relevant to hear from her supervisor as to why she was reassigned/dismissed. Note here that in one of Reade's recent interviews in the past year or so, which I will try to locate, she stated her dismissal might have been for cause.
As for finally, 27 yrs later, getting around to file a police report, and given how this allegation all boils down to she said/he said with her credibility alone standing behind her story, I wonder how eager a DA would be to take this on. Especially if that medium.com story about her recent employer, that reveals TR as a troublemaking grifter, is solid.
And "going under oath": What is preventing TR from submitting an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, testifying to the truthfulness of her strongest allegations?