from Jeff Bezos’s Fishwrap News
‘Allegation against Biden prompts reexamination of “Believe women”, Annie Linskey, Sean Sullivan, May 2, 2020 (?), washingtonpost.com
“On Friday, facing his own accusations, he stressed on MSNBC [< Mika on Morning Joe] the importance of “taking the woman’s claims seriously when she steps forward — and then vet it, look into it.”
That shift in Biden’s tone reflects the way a former staffer’s claim that he assaulted her 27 years ago is raising new questions for the #MeToo movement. Democrats and women’s activists, eager to unseat a president they consider deeply misogynistic, are facing tough decisions over whether to stick by Biden or distance themselves — and whether to redefine what emerged as a stark rallying cry after centuries of injustice: “Believe women.”
Among those publicly wrestling with such issues is Alyssa Milano, an actress, #MeToo activist and Biden supporter. “How do progressive women choose between the p—y grabber in chief who has done so much damage to our country and a man who has allegations made against him?” “Believing women was never about ‘Believe all women no matter what they say,’ it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default.”
Now ya gotta love this; it’s not just about seeking the Truth, no, but:
“Some longtime women’s rights activists warn that downplaying former staffer Tara Reade’s claims could undermine the movement’s credibility by suggesting it only targets men whose policies it dislikes.
“I think that this could potentially signal the end of MeToo,” said Michele Dauber, a Stanford University law professor who heads the Enough is Enough Voter Project and has called for an investigation. “The failure to investigate, and the failure to live by our principles, will become silencing.”
Then the authors note Republlicans crying hypocrisy because: Brett Kavanaugh 2108. Then corroboration by Reade friend Lynda LaCasse, confirmed by the WaPO, but leaving out Reade’s mum having called in the accusations to Larry King Live, Reade having confirmed her voice later on Twitter, iirc.
““He looks very believable, too,” LaCasse said Friday in an interview with Democracy Now!, an independent news program. “But I’m hearing this today, and I heard Tara a long time ago telling me that. So, I’m struggling with it, with the election now.” She still intends to vote for Biden, she said.
Yes, we well remember the Pink Pussy Hats marches in DeeCee and other venues, and the oft-heard: ‘We felt so empowered!’
The authors note that none of the women who hope to be Biden’s VP choice including Klobucahr and Kamala Harris have raised a peep against Biden, whose pointed interrogations of Kavanaugh raised their political profiles and helped to fuel theirown Presidential bids.
Sen. #MeToo firebrand Gillibrand is quoted as saying “Vice President Biden has vehemently denied these allegations, and I support Vice President Biden.” Pelosi? ““I want to remove all doubt in anyone’s mind — I have great comfort level with the situation as I see it, with all the respect in the world for any woman who comes forward, with all the highest regard for Joe Biden.” What Solomonesque bullshit!
They’d also contacted “the Squad” who were outspoken in their condemnation of Kavanaugh. None responded nor provided a comment. before Biden’s appearance on Morning Joe, and guess what? None responded or provided a comment.
Alleged anti-Trump Republican Ana Navarro-Cardenas who’s on the board of Time’s Up, an organization dedicated to combating sexual harassmen and assault is quoted as saying:
“Every accused, whether president of the United States or president of the Hair Club For Men, should be held accountable and expected to directly respond to the allegations with seriousness and transparency; “Joe Biden did just that with his one and only accuser, though he should have done it sooner. Donald Trump has yet to do that with his dozens of accusers. Given what we know today, it’s Joe Biden by a mile for me.”
Now I suppose the Bezos rag just might see the possibilities of Dementia Joe’s failures to know which office he’s running for, inability to even read a teleprompter, and the fact that Trump would wipe the floor with him in any debate…as a big ‘Uh-Oh!’ So who would offer to step in for Biden even if he sustains another brain aneurysm? Hellary Clinton or Michael Bloomberg?
OTOH, and FWIW 4now: from thehill.com, May 3, 2020, this logical fallacy sophistry:
“Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez on Sunday stood by the group’s decision not to form an investigative panel to look into a sexual assault allegation against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
“If Barack Obama had any indication that there was an issue, Barack Obama would not have had him as his vice president. Barack Obama trusted Joe Biden,” he said. “I trust Joe Biden. And those investigations have been done.”
Perez told ABC’s “This Week” that there have been “so many investigations” into Biden, including the vice presidential vetting process, which he called the “most comprehensive.”
The DNC chairman was defending his communications director’s response to The New York Times editorial board, which requested the DNC create an investigative panel to examine a sexual assault allegation made by former Senate aide Tara Reade.
The DNC called the concept “absurd” on Saturday.”
Tara Reade on Twitter
(cross-posted from Café Babylon)
Comments
TR should take a polygraph
that would be very strong.
refusal to do it looks bad, imo.
obvious move.
i hadn't known she'd refused
earlier. in any event, from her twitter account:
I put it badly
don't know that anyone has asked her to do it.
it is just an obvious thing to do.
as far as I know she hasn't done it.
Polygraphs aren't admissible in court
because the results aren't reliable enough. What they measure, and ALL they measure, is the level of tension. The theory is that "tension = falsehood/guilt", but it ain't necessarily so. Sociopaths/psychopaths can beat the polygraph with ease, as can someone absolutely convinced of the rightness/righteousness of their deeds; while someone full of angst from other causes and/or from being a victim will probably show tension.
In other words, it's only somewhat more reliable than "reading body language" - and at least as subjective.
See link in post below. (Somebody else got there first.)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I think Joe Biden
Should take a polygraph. That would be very strong, and refusal to do it looks bad imo.
Then again...how about this? He could ask the Univ. of Delaware to release the records they are refusing to release.
Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin
unlikely he will do it
But if she passed a polygraph it would be much tougher to dismiss her story.
If Biden did attack her, I would like to see him nailed to the wall.
At this point it's clear she told a version of this story in the 1990's.
Was it true? Do not know. She could have been explaining away a bad job result.
A couple of polygraphs and it's a different ballgame.
I'm just surprised this hasn't been proposed. (as far as I know)
I am not on Biden's side here.
Polygraph testing doesn’t actually prove anything
It’s well-documented that polygraphs are not foolproof, by any means.
The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)
(Interesting article if anyone wants to know why they are not very accurate...)
Anyway.
I think no one is suggesting a polygraph because what they want is for this story to die. Now.
Joe has been fully accepted by the party, no matter what he’s done, and the women running for VP have sufficiently demonstrated their loyalty and willingness to say and do anything to protect Biden, no matter how low they have to stoop to do it.
Biden supporters claim to feel vindicated because Reade now says the report she says she filed In 1993 did not state anything any rape or sexual assault. So that proves Biden is innocent and she’s a liar. Doncha see?
There’s nothing to be gained by keeping the story alive with polygraphs or anything else. I’m expecting they will roll out some new distraction pretty soon and everyone will need to “move on.”
Forget polygraphs
It’s true, polygraphs do not work. There is a reason they are not accepted in court. I worked with a woman who failed one in connection with a missing valuable package. She was accused and mistreated for two hours. The inspectors tried to browbeat her into confessing. She was in tears and finally worn down to the point she put her hands out and said, “Just put the handcuffs on me. I am not going to confess to something I did not do.” At that point they backed off. The missing package showed up somewhere a couple months later but of course the woman never received an apology.
Anya
"Lie detectors" are garbage used to terrorize people
into confessing.
https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph
I would never voluntarily take one. Years ago I read a study that showed that "lie detectors" are about 50% accurate. Flipping a coin would be cheaper if the questioner was impartial. If I was forced to take one I would have a severe anxiety attack during the entire procedure because I would know I was being railroaded.
They are most useful for forcing false confessions by bullying and terrorizing the person being questioned. Your post makes complete sense to me and I am glad you were able to help that woman.
50% seems prtty random,
but sociopaths can pass them easily. more accurate would be micro-expressions, as in the program 'lie to me', or what occurs on one's face between the other contrived expressions.
but of course he'd never submit to one, and given reade filed her police report on april 9, 2020...knowing that the statute of limitations has expired...well, here, i'd included this on my last report:
‘Active investigation: DC police probe sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden’, April 21, 2020, washingtonexaminer.com
reade hopes so, too.
she hadn't kept a copy of her complaint to the senate personnel office, although iirc, she'd used rather meek words at the time. i just found this via the washington examiner.
her medium account on april 6, 2019: 'a girl walks into the senate'.
So...are people not aware polygraphs don't work?
Under the circumstances, I don't see any harm in Reade taking one for show (unless somebody rigs it?), but I am honestly kind of surprised so many people would give a damn about them. Is knowledge of their hokum status really that esoteric?
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
didn't that know polygraphs have no value
I thought taking one would be an easy way to give her story more credibility in the "court of public opinion".
maybe not.
Weeell...
...If most people still don't know they don't...then it might.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
A tell
One thing stood out to me: the reference to there being "dozens of allegations" against Trump, but "only one" against Biden. There have been 17 allegations against Trump, many came out in the summer of 20116 and were similar to his "locker room talking". While it is very believable that his accusers felt the need to come forward when they had till then refrained but now that he was running for President they had to, it is also very possible that the timing is suspect. Biden, otoh, has actually dozens of publicly filmed acts of inappropriate behavior, albeit much lesser offenses. My point is not to judge the different accusations, but to point out the blatant bias of the author. The picture of Ms Reade is also problematic. It is clearly of a young woman. Ms Reade must now be about 50. Showing a picture of her at 23 is an attempt to prejudice the accusation, exactly the tactic #metoo is combating.
On to Biden since 1973
you seem a bit confused.
the WaPo authors never provided a photo of reade, and i've used a newer one. on her twitter account, she definitely looks twenty-five years younger.
but this was not the authors opinion, i was quoting (as they'd been):
Alleged anti_Trump Republican Ana Navarro-Cardenas who’s on the board of Time’s Up, an organization dedicated to combating sexual harassment and assault is quoted as saying:
but yes, there have been, & may continue to be...more biden accusers popping up. i know snoopy dawg's been on this trail for quite some time, and likely knows how many.
They talk about this a lot --
on the Facebook profiles of women friends of mine who declare their refusals to vote for rapists. The Biden bullies respond to all this by barging onto these women's Facebook profiles and announcing their collective stupidity to the world.
Like I said earlier, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of the Two-Party System.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
reade's friends on twitter
have said someone's even created a fake farcebook account in her name, and iirc, she's not even ON the thing. why anyone would be is way beyond my ken.
I’ve been trying to avoid this story...
But it is difficult to not see the “news” covering this fiasco. Here’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.
First, I have no idea whether Biden actually raped Tara Reade. I think it is likely he did, but I also realize we will never know. It will remain a he-said, she-said situation, and pretty much no one cares what it true. It’s all politics.
Yesterday I saw multiple news reports that Reade changed her story from saying she had made a complaint at the time, to now saying this report she filed at the time did not include any allegations of rape or sexual assault, so there’s no reason to bother looking for it. She did not officially report it at the time, or tell anyone except her mother, her brother, and a neighbor. Maybe a few others.
One glance at Daily Kos and I saw several diaries stating unequivocally that this was the end of it. The whole thing was hereby proven entirely false, and Reade was/is a liar and probably mentally ill. Joe is innocent. David Alexrod weighed in that the Obama team thoroughly vetted Biden as their VP pick, and found nothing to concern them.
Now I get to the part of this that really makes me angry:
Joe Biden is a KNOWN pedophile/child molester.
There do not need to be ANY allegations or official reports. There is video footage of him fondling young girls in public — ages from toddlers to teens. This is not in question. All anyone has to do is watch the footage. I won’t post any of it because it literally make me sick, and it’s been posted here many times already. You either watch these videos and know what he is, or you stick your head in the sand. There’s also many photos and videos of him sticking his nose into girls’ and women’s hair, grabbing them by the arm or shoulders and forcing them close enough to get his nose into their hair, hands on their breasts from behind, and so on.
That Joe Biden is a sexual predator and child molester is clear as day.
NO ONE in the media or the supposed “me too movement” have so much as even mentioned this.
Why are the media not showing this footage and asking Joe Biden questions like, “Do you see the look of disgust and fear on that child’s face? Do you see how that child is cringing and leaning away from you? Do you see how that child tried to step back from your grasp and you forcefully restrained her? There is video of you doing this to dozens of children. Why do you do those things Joe?”
But Noooooo! Not one person, not one question. It is willful blindness. It infuriates me.
Now we have Tara Reade and her sketchy accusations. And we have people all over the dem party saying there is no proof he did it, and there are inconsistencies in her story... therefore: Joe is 100% innocent! A perfect gentleman! Even Obama said so!
From here on, the fact that Biden is a sexual predator who preys mainly on young girls will forever be deemed false. By now I am actually hoping that Trump uses those pictures and the video footage in every campaign ad they run against Biden. I hope Biden loses in a massive landslide. For all I can tell, having Tara Reade make a sketchy rape allegation that would go nowhere was a plan to inoculate Biden against the changes of being a sexual predator at large. If so, it seems to have worked like a charm.
I hate Biden and the Democrats more than ever. Who knew that was even possible? Biden makes my skin crawl... but the ones I hate even more are the enablers. Watching these dem women lining up to say they believe him and he’s a good guy just make me so angry that I cannot tolerate even listening to any of them. I am so done with the Democrats.
The establishment uses this tactic frequently.
I call it inoculation. It can be done two ways.
Someone gets accused of something. Send somebody out to make a similar, but ridiculously extreme or oddball charge. Debunk one, and you destroy the credibility of the other. (I believe the Podesta pizza accusation was probably along these lines, but that's just my guess).
Someone gets accused of something. Send somebody out to make a similar, quite credible charge. Discredit it with as much fanfare as possible. Debunk one, and you destroy the credibility of the other. This version is much more powerful than the first version (in most cases).
"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
It's called poisoning the well
A famous example is the false story about there being no plane at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Disproving that was meant to discredit the whole idea that something untoward happened that day. Mention building seven, and they just get angry to this day.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Sketchy Accusations?
When I was 7 years old, my 13 year old sister molested me. I freaked out at school and was sent to a psychiatrist, who I refused to talk to. I never told my parents or my friends what happened. I went from all an A's teachers pet to a kid that spent more time in the principal's office than in class. I didn't tell my wife until more than 20 years after we married. It came out inadvertently while reminiscing with my brother, who was also molested.
Did I tell more about what happened to me as years went by? Yes, I did. Does that make it sketchy? I hope not.
Sketchy... please allow me to clarify
I should have been more specific, as I see several people are misunderstanding.
First, as I have written before, like you I was also a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and I was raped by a ‘friend of the family’ at age 14. I purposefully did not mention that again because I took a LOT of grief on here for mentioning it previously. I was openly accused of making it all up, and repeatedly accused of trying to “out-victim” other survivors, making it into a competition of trauma, and so on.
In reality, just like you did here, I was actually saying that I completely understand what it is like, why victims often do not make reports or tell anyone the entire truth, sometimes for decades, why you can remember some details exactly, while forgetting other details. Etc. I KNOW very, very well why victims do not come forward, and why what they are willing to share may change over time. (And I hope you do not get the same flack for telling your own story. But you’re a man, and you’re not standing up for Christine Blasey-Ford, so you will probably be ok.)
My point in using the word sketchy was not that I do not believe Tara Reade, or that I personally find her story lacks credibility.
I mean, there are problems with it, just like with Dr. Ford — who I also believe.
— She didn’t report it at the time.
— She doesn’t remember where it happened. (This one I do find unlikely.)
— She came out a few months ago against Biden for “making her uncomfortable” by touching hers shoulders and hair, but failed to mention sexual assault, and in fact she specifically defended Biden then by saying “it’s not him, it’s the people around him...” whatever that means.
— She has bragged over the years about having worked for Biden.
— Her mother on Larry King show said her daughter didn’t want to report “the powerful senator” out of respect for him. (Respect for the person who raped you? Really?)
— She recently (yesterday) confirmed there was NO report made about any rape or sexual assault.
All of these things make her story appear sketchy, and taken together, allow her to be discredited. There is absolutely no way on earth to prove what he did. Therefore, he will walk away redeemed, and she will be both believed and maligned.
It’s not about whether her story is true, or believable. It is that there are so many doubts and inconsistencies. Just like Dr. Ford.
And just like my own story. If the person who raped me wasn’t already dead, there is still no way in hell I would tell the world now in hopes of any justice being done. My story is “sketchy” too. i don’t have any witnesses. I have a few friends and my spouse who I have told about it. I have a lost 15 years while I went suicidal and crazy before finally getting some real help to heal. I have 45 years of silence to answer for, if I tried to accuse him now.
This is why victims most often do not come forward. Our stories are almost always sketchy. And we know it. Anytime you think about outing them publicly, that voice whispers “... no one will believe you...” and that voice is right. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
correct as to this:
her report to the senate personnel dept. was very mild and for good reason as it turned out. what she filed with the deecee police was quite specific. the rest i won't even attempt to address, except to say how tragic for both you and edg.
i thank you both for sharing your stories, and am sure we all send you light, love, and more healing.
omigod! A flashback!
I was about 6 or 7, my family visiting relatives. Cousin Charlie asked me to step into a closet with him. I did. He showed me his dick. I hit him in his mouth with my left fist. He told on me, vice versa. Family visit ended abruptly.
I played the piano at the idiot's wedding 20 years later because the bride begged me. I hear through the family grapevine he is near death. I haven't followed up with inquiries.
We probably all have stories we have long since stopped thinking about.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
now i can't say how much of it
was simply childhood curiosity as to...anatomical differences? kinda akin to 'i'll show you mine if you show me yours', but that's pretty common as far as i know. but it's your flashback, your hidden memory, so the meaning is entirely up to you, of course.
my sole 'likely rape' memory is entering our house and finding my sister on the floor in an embrace with a family friend of my parents: a drunk (but executive in some big firm in akron ohio) who'd at one time smashed the mirror in my dark corner bedroom in the downstairs part of the house...thinking someone was attacking him when he saw his own reflection in the glass. she, of course, denies it to this day, or did, save that we're now estranged (for good reasons on my part).
thanks for sharing.
Thanks wendy
Although I have to say I’m frustrated that the discussion went this way. I did not want to get into anyone’s personal story or even whether or not anyone personally believes her or not.
My entire point was about how this story has been used to exonerate and inoculate Biden against all discussion of his habits regarding molesting young girls and young women. How the focus on Tara Reade has snuffed out any chance of his pedophilia and hair fetish and sexually aggressive behavior toward young girls and young women to be noticed.
This specific discussion is an example of what I was talking about. Forget his many years of molesting children on camera. Let’s discuss Tara Reade.
I do take responsibility for the side track, due to my short-hand use of the term sketchy. Of course I should have known that if I attempted to give my opinion, it would be misinterpreted and attacked, while doing exactly what I was trying to oppose. I often look back and wish I’d just kept quiet. This is one of those times.
oh, lawdie,
do i hear ya on "I often look back and wish I’d just kept quiet", lol. but no apologies necessary, amiga.
i'd type #MeToo, but i'd meant to add to gulf gal that the reporting of this 'movement' was almost solely at the WaPO, and had a seriously mccarthyite feel to it. men accused anonymousy were fired on spec: opera singers, al franken (as the authors on this piece showed and gave other examples) freaking sherman alexie, and so many more.
the sole person who'd demanded to meet his (then unnamed) accusers in court was the brilliant australian actor geoffrey rush...who was exonerated in court. my Q at the beginning was Why Isn't There are #HeToo movement (females demanding sex of underlings...or else)? yanno?
How in the hell....
do you apply "lesser of two evils" thinking to rape and call yourself a social justice warrior, anti-rape advocate, feminist, or whatever they're calling themselves these days?
“Every accused, whether president of the United States or president of the Hair Club For Men, should be held accountable and expected to directly respond to the allegations with seriousness and transparency; “Joe Biden did just that with his one and only accuser, though he should have done it sooner. Donald Trump has yet to do that with his dozens of accusers. Given what we know today, it’s Joe Biden by a mile for me.”
So he got on TV and delivered some talking points about it without making mouth farts or using innuendo or bigoted words. And that puts him "ahead" of Trump somehow?
What does "held accountable" even mean? Apparently it means you publicly acknowledge the accusations, politely, and without blowing raspberries.
So really, all Trump would have to do to be golden is to go on TV and publicly, politely respond to the women who have accused him and then he'd be neck and neck with Biden. Is that the logic?
"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
It's really quite simple.
You stick a (D) next to their name. All is now forgiven. Any complaints can be papered over by yelling "Putin!"
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
That would just be business as usual
if the people involved weren't also busily shouting from the rooftops that they are feminists and everyone they don't like is a misogynist monster.
This is a really fucked up thing that hasn't, IMO, been going on for the last forty years, but more like the last ten--and especially the last four.
"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
No that's just between-election-years fun.
Real business as usual means government auctioned off to the highest bidder, with (D) and (R) cheerleaders keeping dissenting voices out of the mix. Real business also means Congress is totally kewl with no Post Office and the economy in sub-Great-Depression condition.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
mouth farts noting that
'women have a right to be heard' and 'i voted for the "defense of women act".
but sure, it's been going on for a lot longer. think anita hill, for instance. JFK was quite a philanderer, as well, although no internet then. likely at the conjunction of sex addiction and power, much like bill clinton, yes?
trying to find if hill might be on twitter, my bing search kicked up: Biden accuser Tara Reade says Anita Hill saga influenced her to stay silent in 1990s, 9 hours ago, fox news. (with video)
What hasn't been going on for that long
is feminism itself belonging to the establishment. The people who excused JFK, Clinton, etc., weren't trying to sound like Carrie Chapman Catt or Betty Friedan. In the 80s and 90s, and even the early oughts, the establishment didn't try to speak as if it was the voice of liberation. It told the voice of liberation that they were expecting too much, that they were deluded idiots for thinking they could create a more just society. Now they continue to spew the "pragmatism" and LOTE thinking, but simultaneously try to talk like they're sticking it to the man. When they take discourse in that direction, they start talking for the independent Left, the grassroots movements of morality, as well as talking for the Democratic party--and they make it look like it's all the same thing. That's the part that's new. It's Age of Obama toxic nonsense. It started when they realized how cool it was to have the first African-American president working for them. They could assume the moral position without being moral, just on the basis of having him talk for them. Just on the basis of his skin color.
"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
ahhhh; thanks for
illuminating/explaining what you'd meant in the first place. ; )
Couldn't agree more
... . Establishment feminism is nothing more than cheap establishment identity politics. It's a manipulative power game that exploits victims of human injustice to destroy political enemies of the Establishment. They reek of hypocrisy.
And the moment these feminist posers got a taste of Political Power as 'insiders', they lost their moral compasses and succumbed to biased, power-greedy corruption.
I remember them trying to redefine "feminism" to skeptical young feminists who were not yet corrupt, during the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. Their self-serving hypocrisy was appalling.
Whoever vetted Biden did a horrible job
.
There have been many videos of Biden touching and fondling women and girls and yet people are surprised that he might have gone even farther and actually sexually assaulted a women.
My whole point with this story is the utter hypocrisy of how Tara's allegations have been treated. From absolutely believing all women when Dr. Ford accused K who did not file a police report or have as much evidence against him as Tara Reade does against Biden. The democrat women who are saying that they believe Biden over Tara after they came out in favor of Dr. Ford just shows me how morally bankrupt the democrats are. This goes especially for the DP voters who all believed Dr. Ford, but are now saying worse things every day. Going from Biden could rape 100 women and I would still vote for him to saying that I would marry my rapist if that means getting Trump out of office to this absolutely disgusting one. I would vote for Biden even if he raped my young daughter.
I am sorry that I don't have the tweet for the last one to show that someone did write it. I have been having a cache problem with Twitter for a month and it takes up to 10 minutes to grab a tweet. I updated my OS on my Ipad and I am good to go. Hopefully I will see it again.
I do believe Tara because of the fact that she got demoted at work and one person has verified that. She said that her mom called into Larry King and yes there is a video of that. She told her neighbor about awhile ago who then has verified it. Taken these facts and put them up next to Dr. Ford's allegations I see that there is a double standard for how Tara's allegations are being looked at. She is getting death threat and has had her personal information online. Who is doing that to her needs to be cleared up whether it's dems or repubs doing it, but it just highlights why so many people will not come forward if they have been sexually assaulted..
Biden is making the claim that he is unaware of anyone accusing him of being inappropriate. This is a damn lie. Lucy Flores did just that last year or so and Biden said that he would try to do better. Now 6 more women have come out since then and said the same thing. Pelosi, Harris, Klobuchar and others must have heard about that. But they will stand behind Biden and throw Tara's bravery under their effing pussyhat bus. And for what? Biden will probably lose to Trump so what will they when the next woman takes the chance to come forward. What their denial is saying to women is that powerful men like Biden, Trump, Weinstein, Epstein and way too many others absolutely do have the right to abuse women.
Many people have been covering Tara's story outside the main stream media and here is Jimmy on that. I haven't watched it all yet, but I am pretty sure he will do a good job.
Eta: Jimmy is doing a great job pointing out the inconsistencies even more than other have so far. I agree that any accusation should be investigated, but that wasn't what people were saying when Dr. Ford came forward.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
This has to be a twisted 'joke'
Seriously, if there is a child, she should be taken into care if this a bona fide comment.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
a most excellent summary
and well-deserved rage rant, snoopy dawg. i'd just typed up yonder that i reckoned you'd know jut how many, and so on. that.was.quite.a.D Tweet. amoral doesn't begin to cover it.
I, for one, do not find Tara Reade's story
sketchy at all. I have listened to her interview with Katie Halper and her interview with Rising. Two journalists have been on this story as well. Ryan Grim of the Intercept and Rich McHugh of Business Insider. McHugh is the one who actually found the two most recent corroborating witnesses to Tara's story. A private citizen is who found the Larry King Live tape. McHugh has stated that he interviewed Tara Reade at least five times and her story remained the same. The stories told by the four living witnesses corroborate all or portions of her story. Two of those witnesses were told by Reade contemporaneously, immediately after the rape. Tara also told her late mother who advised Tara to file a police report which Tara refused to do. Shortly after, Tara's mother called into Larry King Live.
I remember from the Katie Halper interview that Tara originally questioned herself as to what did she do to make Biden attack her. This is very common among women who often blame themselves for a sexual attack, be it rape or something short of rape. We also must remember that Tara Reade was quite young at the time and as a lower ranking staffer probably felt powerless in the situation. According to Reade,the thing that really hurt was the fact that Biden said to her that she was nothing. This was a man flexing power against a powerless young woman. And that was very clear in the Katie Halper interview because the incident still has a profound effect upon Reade.
Unlike Dr. Ford's allegation against Brett Kavanaugh whom every Democrat stated must be believed, Tara Reade has five pieces of corroborative evidence. I find those who say "believe all women" or "I believe Dr. Ford, but do not believe Tara Reade" to be hypocrits. It takes an enormous amount of courage for a woman to come forward about a rape allegation period. If that allegation is against a very powerful man, it takes even more courage because she knows that those with power will do everything to destroy her. I believe Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden to be true.
What is happening here is the complete discrediting of the Me Too movement which will set justice for victims of rape back decades.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Well said, gulfgal98. n/t
i believe her, too.
and katie halper is all over reade's twitter account. i loved: "i wanted to BE a senator, i didn't want to sleep with one". but yes, she was a nothing, and as she'd also said, she didn't even reckon biden had known why she quit after being demoted. she never did say if she'd served the cocktails as biden had requested, after another staffer told her she sure as hell was not required to.
i got my ass pinched waitressing in breckenridge, colorado once. management sided with...the customer. i tore off my apron, threw it on the bar top, walked out, and got a construction job. never even went back for my paycheck.
I am working at the office, but
I want to point out something CRITICAL to corroborating evidence, in this instance, Tara's deceased mom, her brother, and the neighbor.
If they knew each other, were close enough to coordinate their statements, that makes it look like a coordinated lie.
If, however, these 3 people are not acquainted, do not run in the same social circles, and are unlikely to have coordinated their statements, everyone's credibility soars.
I am unaware of any state court that will allow a lie detector results into evidence.
The complaint exists in Biden's senatorial archives. The more it stays hidden, the more he looks afraid. It is further corroborating evidence that adds to credibility.
I am working on such evidence from multiple individuals right at this moment. Several women who saw a man abuse his son. I am assembling the info, determining how much of this info can be of use at trial. These women do not know each other.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
the stature of limitations
has long expired, and reade won't even sue him in civil court, so not much of it matters, imo. but no, as far as i know, many of the friends she'd told weren't one another's friends, as far as i can make out.
Even without court, and if I were
Reade, I would sue...
what I point out is standard evidence considerations that absolutely apply to this essay, and this discussion, when people are starting to take sides.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
given that reade has
already received death threats, her personal ID numbers have been exposed, etc., my guess is she wouldn't care for the risks were she even to sue him in civil court. but wight stay tuned, i suppose.
Re: Credibility
It’s interesting to me that the burden of credibility is dumped on Tara when, aside from the photographic and filmed evidence of Biden making unwanted advances towards women, we are talking about someone who had to drop out of the 1988 race for issues of plagiarism and lying and even in this race has made some fantastic claims (having marched in civil rights marches, being arrested trying to see Mandela, etc.) that they had to admit weren’t true. Biden is a serial liar. Not gaffes or stutterer or anything else. A liar. Period.
Also, IIRC, I have seen anonymous reports that Biden’s people already checked the Senate records and the U of Delaware archives. Take it for what it’s worth, but draw your own conclusion as to why he’s pushing so hard against opening up the Delaware archive and so ok with the other. If he isn’t guilty, I’ll eat my hat.
Edit to add: I do understand the problem here. The MSM has ignored Biden's curious history with the truth throughout out this campaign. They've been only too happy to blow off this year's lies, if they even acknowledge them at all, and I've yet to hear the '88 campaign mentioned at all, even though there's vintage footage of MSM coverage of it floating around. All the people who have propped Biden up are in this together and they have to all stay on the same page with this. Sadly, I think unless a smoking gun is revealed or more accusers step forward, they'll point to the Morning Joe interview and say "we answered all questions and are ready to move on" and that will be just peachy. I feel for Ms. Reade who, as my SO put it, is living every survivor's nightmare.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Not just this years lies
But as you said everyone is ignoring his history of lying and plagiarism for which he had to drop out.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Everyone honestly concerned with this serious matter
is acting ethically. Yet unfortunately I think the analysis itself now appears conveniently timed because it covers over earlier unacceptable demonstrations of Biden's irreversible dementia. This is a man chosen for his disposability. I wonder who has already been picked and funded for both top dem offices.
Oh great point
I hadn’t thought about that. But it makes perfect sense doesn’t it? And if you’ve had a chance to watch the interview you will see how coherent Biden was during it. How did they pull that off?
As to who they have picked to step in for him I’m still gonna go with Hillary. Why not? Democrats got away with doing it once before. The whole point up to this is getting Bernie to drop out. Is this the plan that was made in 2016?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Yes, my tbought too
Thank you snoopy.
So then who will be plastic enough to be Her VP?
Probably another weak person like Tim Kaine
I mean seriously why did she choose one of the biggest blue dawg democrats after she stressed how she would throw a few bones to progressives? That negated everything she said. And just what did he bring to the ticket to get more people to vote for her? How many people even knew who he was?
But then anyone she does pick has to not threaten to her in any way. I don't think it could be any of the women who ran this time because they are probably more popular than she is. I think if dems do put her in either as VP or replacing Biden they know that Trump will win. I have changed from saying dems would rather lose to Trump than let Bernie win to dems want to lose to Trump. Period. He is doing things that both parties have been dreaming of and once again democrats tell us that they don't have the votes to block him. Bull. As we have seen the GOP do time and time again it just takes ONE VOTE to block or filibuster a bill. Funny that democrats don't ever us that option. And it is kinda hard to say you don't want what Trump is asking for when you repeatedly keep voting for them.
And this is why I think Bernie's speech on Lindsay Graham's reluctance to not extended UE was just kabuki. He could have said no he will not vote for the bill and will block it until our needs are met. He didn't. I am getting ready to mute him on Twitter because he is now telling us what he is trying to get us. Sure Bernie, pretend you are working hard when you have absolutely no leverage and you won't go against Schumer. Bipartisanship is just kabuki theater IMHO because both parties serve their donors who give to both parties to cover their bases.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Tim was one of the individuals --
who bankrupted the DNC so that Clinton's forces could take it over. Hillary was just repaying a favor, that's all.
“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser
alligtor ed said there
are short-term anti-dementia meds hemight have been given.
my bets in the OP were bloomberg (because Bezos's rag), or hellary. maybe a ticket? or michelle as VP? this nation loves royal dynasties.
p.s. mute bernie because: this? ‘Bernie Sanders poses as critic of corporate bailouts he voted for’, Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey, 30 April 2020, wsws.org
gawd's blood: vandanna shiva retweeted a may 3 'revolution' tweet of his.
agreed, and a
question i'd asked in the OP, and no one taken notice of it. any bets?
Here you go
This was back when the media hired journalists. Those days are long gone.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Burden of proof
falls on the accuser. This seems right to me.
I agree with everything you say about Biden. He is a nasty piece of work. There is ample evidence of his "taking liberties" with women and girls.
Those incidents alone are more than enough to disqualify him, in my opinion.
But did he attack Reade?
No witnesses, no physical evidence, no mention of the assault in her written complaint.
Once again I would like to see Biden knocked out of the race.
He is a dog in so many ways.
It just seems that it will be tough to do it, based on what we have so far.
They got rid of Al Franken
for similar things. Once they made an example of him there's no turning back. Double standards all over the place, if you're a dem.
great comment,
and good on you, and good on your SO for being so empathetic to her plight. disappeared evidence? wot?
i'll just park this here as well:
Something's Rotten In Denmark, IMO. Mr M and I
have a huge walk-in closet full of stacks of banker's boxes--decades of Federal Service between us. For cryin' out loud, a federal employee can't sneeze without a paper trail.
Dr JC mentions,
Does anyone have any more info regarding the claim of 'Senate records?' IOW, does anyone 'know' whether or not Reade's federal employment was under rules which would apply to OPM authority? (Office Of Personnel Management)
I ask, because the reams and reams of forms and paperwork that we have, are also maintained in the OPM Archives of personnel records.
BTW, I haven't seen or read much about her case due to having my hands full with other projects, right now. So, there's that. Guess it's possible that someone (here) has already posted copies of her SF-50's and SF-52's. If so, please point me to the essay.
Again, keep in mind--federal employees can't 'go to the loo' without a SF-50/SF-52 being generated. Which, by the way, is the only way to 'prove' (thru documentation) that she was demoted or fired. Unless, her position, somehow, doesn't come under OPM purview. (even so, whatever the administrative authority, there would likely be a similar form to document all personnel actions)
Case in point--it's possible to have a "lateral reassignment." Neither a promotion, nor a demotion. Similar to TDY for military members. That's 'why' I'd like to see the personnel file/paperwork that the NYT claims to have reviewed. For transparency, why didn't they publish it (redacted SS number, etc.)?
Frankly, from my observation of most MSM reporting, they're generally too ignorant of anything to do with our federal bureaucracy/institutions to be able to accurately interpret her personnel file--if it hit them with a 2X4!
Later.
Mollie
THANK YOU America's Physicians & Nurses, All Medical Personnel, First Responders, To Include Medical (EMT/Paramedics/Ambulance), Pharmacy Personnel, Fire Depts, Police Depts, Retailers/Grocers--Especially, To Marginally-Paid Frontline Retail Cashiers & Clerks.
Last, but not least,
THANKS to America's Truckers/Delivery Persons, Especially, To Over-The-Road/Long Haul Truckers Who Obviously Have The Capacity To Shut Down The Entire Country, If They Were To Choose To Sit Out The Current Public Health Crisis, In Order To Protect Their Own.
You are all truly heroes.
Godspeed.
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.”
~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“Love makes you stronger, so that you can reach out and become involved with life in ways you dared not risk alone.”
~~Author Unknown, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD) Website
“In a world where you can be anything–be kind.”
~~Author Unknown
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive.”
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Utterly hilarious
From the you can’t make this up file.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Of all people...
...to take the At Least I'm Consistent Award home from this.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
lord luv a duck;
that's beautifully consistent! (i'd call him aunt pittypat as john aravosis does, but that would be...sexist of me....)
I love it when he makes
that pig face. Don't you just want to stuff an apple right in there?
Dagnabbit! Just lost what I found about federal
civilian personnel records.
Major thunderstorm going on, here. So, not the time for a re-do.
As much as I detest Uncle Joe, it sounds correct to me that his U of D papers would not contain personnel records--official ones, anyway.
Having said that, don't understand 'why' he'd object to a search of Reade's name, in case MFR's (Memorandum For Record) or other correspondence was contained in them.
Bottom line, sounds as though either the two Business Insider reporters, or, Uncle Joe confused this agency,
National Archives and Records Administration,
with this agency,
The National Personnel Records Center's (NPRC).
If you notice, the mailing address for the civilian personnel archives is contained in the second link.
IOW, she doesn't need to 'ask' the Senate, or Biden, for a copy of her own OPF (Official Personnel Folder).
Here you go,
Postscript: That is, unless she her position was classified as 'excepted' service, and, there is another authority that administered the records of such Senate employees.
Thinking about Tweeting her this address. Couldn't hurt anything, if she has no other recourse.
Mollie
THANK YOU America's Physicians & Nurses, All Medical Personnel, First Responders, To Include Medical (EMT/Paramedics/Ambulance), Pharmacy Personnel, Fire Depts, Police Depts, Retailers/Grocers--Especially, To Marginally-Paid Frontline Retail Cashiers & Clerks.
Last, but not least,
THANKS to America's Truckers/Delivery Persons, Especially, To Over-The-Road/Long Haul Truckers Who Obviously Have The Capacity To Shut Down The Entire Country, If They Were To Choose To Sit Out The Current Public Health Crisis, In Order To Protect Their Own.
You are all truly heroes.
Godspeed.
“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.”
~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator
“Love makes you stronger, so that you can reach out and become involved with life in ways you dared not risk alone.”
~~Author Unknown, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD) Website
“In a world where you can be anything–be kind.”
~~Author Unknown
“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive.”
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Suggest you send this information to
Ryan Grim and Katie Halper who would work with Reade to access her file. Reade has been specific that she filled out a form from personnel concerning her complaint of Biden and didn't hear anything back from them. By 1993 (by the late seventies in many corporations) personnel offices didn't sit on sexual harassment complaints and took them seriously. So, what was done in this instance? Was in under investigation when Reade left? Had it even gotten far enough along for personnel to contact Biden's office?
There's a reported inconsistency as to
who Reade filed her complaint with. The Union Adam Riquelmy April 3, 2019:
Business Insider, Rich McHugh April 27, 2020:
I had read both of those reports before viewing Reade's interview with Halper and her story seemed consistent to me. What I hadn't read was Ryan Grim's report which on this point does differ from the others:
As I rarely read The Intercept because too much reporting there is IMO weak, I suspect that Grim misunderstood what Reade had said. Absent a clarification from Reade, my guess is that she may have complained to Baker (and possibly others in Biden's office), but she filed a complaint with the Senate personnel office and not with Baker. It would be quite useless to file a complaint with a superior about the superior's boss.
Around 1980 a somewhat odd and socially awkward company attorney that had done some decent work on a account for me was fired for the way he looked at the breasts of a young clerk who had filed a complaint with personnel. Nobody that I knew of doubted what the young women alleged nor that it disturbed her, and none of us could defend his behavior.
Only in the
This should be the smoking gun
Tara has said that she was demoted after she brought a complaint against Biden after she said what she did and one person has verified it. But would that be documented somewhere that would prove it happened? If so then it’d go a long way towards showing something did happen.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
[Edited] Hi, SD--yes, to your question,
(even though you weren't addressing me
)
[Edited: emoji typo]
That was partly the point I was trying to make about the SF (Standard Form) 50 and 52.
SF 50
Notification of Personnel Action (PDF file) [335.25 KB]
SF 52
Request for Personnel Action (PDF file)
IOW, the SF 52 is the supervisor's request for a specific personnel action; SF 50 is the employees notification of same personnel action.
Federal employees should be given copies of both in their OPF (Official Personnel Folder).
Remember, when one files a grievance (in any of the various federal systems), they often wind up in Court, or federal arbitration.
So, the employee normally has the burden of proof. Having said that, even if Reade has the personnel forms to prove that she was demoted and/or fired, that doesn't necessarily prove that it was grounds of retribution. Especially, unless she's able to demonstrate that she was harassed.
(Which is not to say the corroborating testimony from her friends or family wouldn't be considered. It likely would be, if they'd be willing to testify, or be deposed.)
Of course, in most of the grievance systems, the standard of evidence is not the same as in criminal court. It's a "preponderance of the evidence."
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
From what I've read/heard, I don't recall
that Reade said that she'd been formally demoted. Reassigned without explanation would be closer to her story. Unfortunately, she's also said that she was having difficulty with one or more other staffers prior to the alleged assault, and therefore, shifting her and her assignment to a separate room could have been their effort to get her to leave and been coincidental chronologically to the alleged assault.
A "protect the boss" working environment would be much higher in a US Senate office than most offices; so, none of Biden's long-term staffers would recall anything that Reade has said. And without far more specificity from Reade, a reporter wouldn't know who he/she could challenge. As several staffers conferred on a request allegedly by Biden to have Reade serve drinks at a private Biden event (and there was some disagreement as to the propriety of it), was this out of the ordinary for Biden? Or was this an instance of protect the boss? (Reade declined to act as the help at that event.) Was the advice to Reade to dress more conservatively nothing more than a professional woman's advice to a young employee or an instance of protect the boss who others could see had been leering at Reade?
Reade claims to have complained to supervisors in Biden's office but at that time can't imagine that there was any formal internal process for a harassment complaint/grievance. However, by 1993 (with the possible exception of the military) policies in the public and private sector were in place to file sexual harassment grievances with the personnel office that was outside the chain of command. Reade claims that that's what she did (but only after the alleged assault). (Anita Hill didn't but that was just enough years earlier that such a process may not have been in place and/or known to young employees.) If so, the record would be in the OPM files and not Biden's (don't doubt that anything that could possibly have hit Biden's files would have been destroy ASAP.) Assuming it existed and no OPM staffer subsequently destroyed it.
Fix already in? "Sec Senate declines disclose information
on Tara Reade complaint against Biden."
Gotta run, for now. Here's the link from The Hill,
Secretary of Senate declines to disclose info on Reade complaint
I've seen the terms 'demoted' in postings, not necessarily in articles. That's one reason that I've mentioned that this allegation needs to be clarified by personnel action forms, or some form of documentation. (Not to say that it is, or, is not correct--I've not followed this story, to speak of--just beginning to attempt to ferret out the facts.)
Let me clarify, didn't mean to indicate that I doubt her story, or, that Reade isn't truthful. My point is that one can't 'win' against the PtB, unless they have proof--or, can substantiate (at least) some of their claims by documentation, and, of course, have a very plausible and compelling case.
Still checking out some stuff. At this point, believe that Reade was in 'excepted' service, not the competitive service (merit system) like me, Mr M, and millions of other civil servants.
Figures.
Easier for the PtB to make their own rules . . .
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Entire mess smells like Kabuki (to me). Biden's
an attorney, and would (you'd think) have top-notch staff and legal counsel.
IOW, was his 'ask' to the Secretary of the Senate on national teevee just theatrics? Or, are he and his team so inept that they really didn't know that 'the complaint' was protected by law?
(That is, if it wasn't shredded at the time.)
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Mollie, might be some kabuki going on.
The Secretary of the Senate appears not to be the office that would have access to the personnel records of Senate staffers. Neither does it appear to be under the jurisdiction of OPM which is part of the Executive branch. It appears that Senators and Reps do their own staff hiring and firing -- no different from appointed positions by the executive branch -- therefore, while employed those staffers are federal employees but not civil service employees. Their federal employment status (health insurance, retirement benefits, etc.) appears to be administered by the Office of the Sergeant of Arms and Doorkeeper. As the law enforcement office of the Senate, it would seem to fall to that office to receive complaints from staffers. No wonder there's so much confusion around this matter.
Thanks for that info, Marie. At a glance,
it sounds similar to what I was suggesting--her position would be under 'excepted service,' not the competitive/merit-based Civil Service System.
Having said that, (and I read it hurriedly) it still appears to me that OPM is the authorizing hiring authority, granting Schedule A 'excepted service' hiring authority to the various Senate Offices.
From my experience, practically all federal facilities/agencies have their own on-site HRO, but, they're overseen by OPM. For that matter, on military installations, an HRO may be overseen by another larger HRO in the military command. (IOW, the smaller HRO's are satellite offices)
What I took away from the SAA blurb is that, aside from supervising Senate Pages*, they mostly oversee some operational services for the Senate--such as, being "responsible for all Senate computers and technology support services, recording and photographic services, printing and graphics services, and telecommunications services. The SAA also provides assistance to all Senate offices with their staffing, mailing, purchasing, and financial needs. The offices of the SAA that are responsible for providing these and other services include Capitol Facilities, the Operations Division, Customer Relations, Financial Operations, Human Resources, and Information Security. The SAA also shares responsibility for the U.S. Capitol Police, the Capitol Guide Service, the Senate Page Program, the Senate Office of Training and Development, and the Capitol Telephone Exchange."
That's because, when I followed one of the SSA links for hiring, all the positions were for the SSA, proper. Not a single listings was shown for the Senate Offices.
But, maybe I'm misinterpreting that.
I did read that the SSA has its own HRO. Heck, maybe I'll call them, and ask if they accept applications for Senate Office personnel, there. The worst they can do is refuse to answer me, or, refer me somewhere else.
Anyhoo, my takeaway is that Reade was an 'excepted service' hire, authorized by OPM under what's referred to as Schedule A. Certainly, my 'direct' knowledge of federal service is of the 'competitive/merit-based' Civil Service system. Mr M and I always worked in positions classified as GS or GM--General Schedule, or, Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS). Maybe this is a different animal, altogether.
I'll swing back by (tonight or tomorrow), and post a link and an excerpt about Schedule A excepted hires, once I finish taking care of several chores--including getting our delivery order for Wally World ready before the cut-off time.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Its the SSA office -- not SAA
Take a look at the Senate Employment Bulletin. Most list SSA as the contact office for listed jobs -- even those listed for various Senators. There are exceptions - such as "Page School Instructor" that applies to the Secretary of the Senate. OTOH, a Proctor for the Senate Page Program applies to the SSA.
My bad--I automatically think SSA, because
I often write about entitlements, and, sorta have SSA for Social Security Administration, on the brain.
I understand that there are HRO offices located within various agencies. And, I think you're correct that the SAA oversees all the hiring (not just Senate pages), since I just re-read 'excepted' service hiring authority (blurb) on the official OPM website. Sorry! The print is so fine, I missed that they grant this hiring authority to the Executive Branch. (the first time I read it)
So, where does Ms Reade go now? To the SAA?
Honestly, my 'guess' is that Biden or his staff destroyed any complaint, years ago. According to a blurb I read, Senators have tremendous discretion regarding which documents they include in their collection. Can't imagine Biden would (intentionally) transmit an incriminating document to any entity, including a University, to be archived.
Too bad she didn't retain a copy of the complaint. That's one of the first things they tell new federal employees (keep a copy of all personnel records, which they usually furnish). At least, when I went through orientation, that was the case.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
What a bureaucratic
mess, and bore. Whatever, Biden has called for her complaint, which Reade/McCabe no longer has a copy of, to be made available, but has said his own archives at the U of Del would not have personnel records, and I believe the university concurs. They wouldn't want such potential privacy/legal issues to deal with.
On this issue, Biden is right not to just open up everything just to get at her complaint, and the whole collection of some 1200 boxes I understand has not yet been completely inventoried and sorted. Besides, TR has said -- if I understand her shifting story correctly -- that the complaint did not include allegations of sexual assault or even harassment, so what's the point?
Meanwhile, her story is changing yet again. Apparently back in March when she announced that additional little matter of sexual assault which she had neglected to mention previously, at that time she also went back to edit a medium.com post she had published
Also in recent days, and after the Biden MoJo interview, she has cancelled her own interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, someone who has a history of asking challenging questions to guests, and has declined to be interviewed by CNN's Don Lemon. So much for the MSM supposedly blocking her from telling her story. Maybe she got informed that CW wouldn't be the same type of softball interview she had enjoyed with advocate-hosts like Katie Halper and Krystal Ball.
The more we learn about her, the more her credibility looks shaky. And that's all she has, and the burden is on her to substantiate her latest charges, not on Biden to disprove them.
The more you know about victims of
sexual harassment and assault by a powerful man, the less you would be so quick to judge a claimed victim. Read The Reporter who knew too much. Unfortunately, there hasn't been an investigative journalist reporting on this and we, the public, are left with a single "she said/he said" and not much on which to base a reasonable conclusion.
Maybe you missed it,
but in responding recently to an accepting pro-TR poster here who doubted my fairness on the issue, i noted that actually at the outset of her latest story, and after hearing that her mother had called in on LK in 1993 and after reading about the alleged "corroborating" neighbor-friend, I was inclined to believe her. So much for immediately dismissing her claims.
Those were the headlines only, however. Digging a little deeper, which overly trusting TR advocates in the media (KB, KH, Ana Kasparian, and one Jimmy Dore) always fail to do, the "corroboration" was revealed as considerably less than advertised. Then I saw the story on her work with a recent previous employer who runs a nonprofit, per the cited story at medium.com, where the employer alleged that TR was a liar, manipulator and thief. About that time some serious doubts about her seeped in. Hard to see how others here don't also see this, but as I've noted, this story also is about politics, which may be the deciding factor for many diehard Bernie people.
As for the BP story, sorry but not interested in revisiting another negative story from the past at this time.
re the lack of independent journalists looking into this one, at least we have a consistently smart take from Michael Tracey at this twitter feed. Someone like Matt Taibbi would be a natural for a story like this, but of course he probably feels an objective look at the TR case would create problems with his co-host, the pro-TR advocate Halper.
Unfortunately the medium.com article itself is suspect
because the Krassensteins have a long record of dishonesty themselves. Do a Web search on "krassenstein" and note things like "banned from Twitter", "Ponzi schemes", etc.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
That attempt to rebut
has already been made, and it's just a way to sidestep the TR credibility issue by shooting the messenger, an ad hom way of acknowledging you don't have a substantive argument to make.
Q for you: if the Krassenstein /medium.com story is bogus, made up, false, aren't the reporters and medium.com opening themselves up to tremendous legal liability with a libel suit -- one from Reade and one from her ex employer? If TR's ex-employer did not have that interview, and did not make those quotes, then the reporters and medium would get destroyed easily in court. Not even close. Goodbye reporters and medium.com. Hello to a lot of $$$ for Reade and her ex employer.
Meanwhile, why give so much credibility to accusations against the reporters from what may/may not have been going on with the extra phony accounts? Maybe it's as the reporters claim, maybe not. And why give such credence to a major social media corp entity's banning order like it's valid? We all know most of them act in brutally crude and often political and stupid ways -- YouTube, FB all have a long recent track record of highly questionable censorship/banning and deliberate manipulation of algorithms for those they disfavor.
Further, if the medium story
is totally false, where are the public (tweet) complaints from the ex employer and Reade? TR should have plenty of tweets striking back against medium's story, but if so I am not aware of them.
Where is the call from TR and the ex employer for medium to retract and apologize? Haven't seen that.
If the story is false, why haven't TR's several loud media backers like Krystal and Katie and Ana been all over this story's veracity and why haven't they brought it up constantly?
I have seen no such pushback on the story except as noted by a couple of posters here on the shoot the messenger angle. But if I've completely missed something as to substance that calls the whole medium.com story into question as phony, please enlighten me.
It took me a while to check up on the details
but one thing worth noting is that the Krassenstein brothers are RABID Trumpophobes, and have been on the attack against him for years. This means that their perspective is biased, and they would want to find "evidence" to discredit Tara Reade because she is a direct threat to Biden's attempt to defeat Trump.
One wonders how long and how hard they had to look, and how small a molehill they started with before expanding it into a mountain.
I also note that the Krassensteins never checked up on the allegations of animal neglect (reports of which would NOT be found on Facebook, Twitter, or compilation websites).
CBS News gave the subject two brief lines: "Lynn Hummer, who operates a California horse rescue where Reade volunteered for a few years, told CBS News Reade wore her experience in Biden's office like a "feather in her cap." Hummer also questioned Reade's truthfulness." Probably because there's entirely too much "she-said-but-she-said".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Perhaps it was my bad --
in a legal case, the acronym for Office of the Sergeant at Arms is SAA. Agreement now seems to exist that relevant department for filing a complaint in 1993 would have been the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices. In the Wapo -1992 on Senator Packwood it was described as "A new Senate office on employment practices, which began operating this summer, would not disclose ...." (Likely correct that it began operating in 1992 but appears to have been established in 1991 before the Thomas hearing with a broad enough mandate that sexual harassment was included.) Not at all clear if any office of the Senate has/had any administrative control over that office and its records. If Reade filed a complaint, that's where it would have gone (to die), and would not have made its way to any personnel file (wherever those files exist and are stored).
Looking back at the Senators Brock Adams and Bob Packwood, the comment by Reade's mother on the Larry King show becomes more intelligible:
Respect for Packwood, silenced an untold number of women over decades until an investigative reporter found ten willing to talk to her, and there was no administrative means for reporting their allegations. It wasn't much better by 1993, and as a single complainant, no reporter would have touched Reade's story back then even if she'd been willing to tell her full story. She surfaced in 2019 when several other women complained about Biden inappropriately touching them and that's all Reade then alleged. A competent investigative journalist that managed to get Reade to tell her full story would have handled it the same way as Florence Graves handled the Packwood story: find the other victims because as Reade told it, it couldn't have been a one off for such a man. If Reade's story is true, it's a journalistic failure for which she's paying a price.
Hey, excellent comment, Marie. Thanks for
doing the research to clarify which administrative office oversaw the complaint process.
Hope Ms Reade doesn't allow all the Biden team stonewalling to discourage her--needs a top-notch labor attorney, IMO. Hard to imagine that there's not at least one who would take her case pro bono.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
At this point, the only thing an attorney
could do for Reade is help her file requests for her records that are in the control of the various Senate offices - Biden's, SAA's, and Fair Practices'. Finding the complaint she claims to have filed and any other recorded information that would add to her credibility has to be seen as a long-shot and if nothing is found, that will add more to Biden's denial. If her complaint were to be found, it would only add to her original claim of inappropriate touching and feeling uncomfortable which is no more than what Biden often did on public and isn't of great concern to Democrats because Biden was called out on his behavior last year and has apologized. Also suspect that most people accept that Reade was one of many that Biden touched/pawed in that way.
Reade's most recent allegation of sexual assault is far beyond what Biden has been called out on. Too far, imo and particularly within a few months of the multiple public reports on Packwood, for it to have been out of character for him. As such, only similar and credible reports from other women would make Reade's story more credible. Unfortunately, if such women exist, it's far less likely that they will now speak out than if a reporter attempted to find them before Reade told her story. That was a important component to breaking the Packwood story -- and even then with ten women, the Senate Ethics Committee slow-walked its investigation. It found something like forty witnesses and got its hands on Packwood's diary in which he revealed his sexual activities, and yet, that may not have been enough for the Senate to expel him. It was his financial misdeeds/crimes (also in his diary) that got him and led him to resign.
Franken -- for far less egregious public behavior than Biden (and assuming there wasn't more egregious private behavior) -- was the DP and professional feminists sacrificial lamb. The DP and professional feminists have a propensity to hitch their wagons to the wrong characters, both Clintons and Biden (and back before 11/92 feminists were a strong support base for Packwood). Politicizing sexual harassment and assaults is a major failing of those professional feminists and then they wonder why a slob like Trump gets a pass from so many people.
Heh, you got this right -
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The problem back during
the height of the MeToo thing and Franken getting quickly run out of town is that the standard of proof being used by all concerned -- esp virtue-signaling Dems and lefty-libs alike --was Just Believe the Women and Don't Ask Questions!!
It was always simplistic and stupid for Dems to be pushing that sort of incredibly stupid and dangerous standard. You didn't need to be a scientist of rocketry to see even then that one day it would catch up to ensnare one of their own, someone they would not so easily want to see pushed out the door. Yes, even Bernie in those crazy conditions would have been vulnerable -- and few on the online left would have been seen defending the accuser so aggressively.
Unfortunately, some MeToo True Believers like Krystal and Katie and Ana and the rest on the lib-left continue to use the crazy MeToo Believe the Women standard -- or are weaponizing it cynically to point out Dem hypocrisy and maybe, in their fevered dreams use it as the means to get a new nominee, like Bernie, while carrying water for a very dubious accuser with a long checkered past.
Stop it! You're using the standard MO
of patriarchal rape denialists, LEOs, media, churches, and rapist's defense attorneys.
Nobody with any credibility is citing the Kassenstein report because they are known fabricators. None of us including you know Reade or anything much about her. None of us know if she's being truthful or not, and none of us have the necessary amount of information to state that she's a serial and chronic liar. Unlike Joe Biden for whom it's well documented that he lies about very important stuff and what he's done. And somehow gets away with a lot of his lies; such as he didn't support Bush's Iraq war when in fact he not only supported it but was a cheerleader for it.
Also, those that use "lib-left" as a slur aren't worth reading/talking to. "Believe all women" as an antidote to "women always lie about rape" at least gets it right more often than the prevailing bias not to believe women, particularly those women who are fully functional, adult, and sexual beings. Of course some women, such as Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, were viewed as totally believable and not subjected to slut shaming when in fact they were lying.
I'm a leftist/socialists and feminist and in the past couple of decades haven't subscribed to much promoted by what I refer to as the Democratic professional feminists. Albright and Steinem only support a certain class of women which is very far from the principles of feminism. I'd never negatively describe women such as Krystal and Katie and others that didn't support Hillary as "lib-left." While I appreciate their efforts to give Reade a platform from which to tell her story, I can criticize them for not first having done the hard work of investigating the matter before presenting it, but that reflects the current realities of US media and they are hardly in the forefront of the reporters dispensing verifiable crap and propaganda. So save your ire for those like that at the NYT and WaPo and on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.
Oh please get a grip.
I argue purely from a relatively detached perspective -- I'm definitely not a political Biden backer, and as noted was originally inclined somewhat to believe the early headlines about the TR allegations, or at least thought Biden might be in some trouble. It appears after checking beyond the headlines -- which you barely do -- that one Tara Reade or Alexandra McCabe or Whatever Her Name Is This Week has some credibility problems and a definite track record of making serious charges against people. Her father. Her ex husband. A former employer at a nonprofit. And now Biden. This despite praising Biden, including for his work on women's issues, in tweets of recent vintage.
The Krassenstein story holds up and is confirmed when u take a look at the twitter feed of the ex employer interviewed and quoted in the piece. Her twitter handle is Pregnant Mare Rescue (PMR). If this thread were still on Pg 1 I would cite some relevant recent tweets, but that is for another time. The Krassenstein-reported story is confirmed by their interviewed source, has not been taken down or apologized for by medium.com -- deal with it. The attempts here to deflect about the story's substance alleging lying, manipulation and stealing by Reade are just harsh unwelcome truths that you apparently prefer to want to avoid.
I can bring the horse to water, but I can't force it to drink.
(last post, this thread is now off the radar)
Pages