Megan Kelly's interview with Tara Reade
about 42 minutes:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HeZiKvOA0o&feature=youtu.be]
Tara Reade’s big on-camera interview wasn’t on Fox News or CNN. It was on Megyn Kelly’s YouTube channel. - The Washington Post https://t.co/qtHg63pWT0
— Rich McHugh (@RichMcHugh) May 9, 2020
Exclusive: Court docs from 1996 show @ReadeAlexandra told ex-husband about sexual harassment in @JoeBiden’s Senate office. Story @SLOTribune https://t.co/6MMqYdMHGG
— Matt Fountain (@MattFountain1) May 7, 2020
Rich McHugh on Twitter
Alexandra Tara Reade on Twitter
#IBelieveTara on Twitter including:
Silenced by people like you, Diane, who would drag her through the mud if she came forward. #IBelieveTara Feinstein Blasts Tara Reade: ‘Where Has She Been All These Years?’ https://t.co/fhcmqaRohI
— JustBurnItTheFuckDown (@kicranston) May 8, 2020
#IBelieveJoe on Twitter
including this detractor:
#IBelieveJoe is trending because the #MeToo movement was apparently a bizarre sham led by liberal hypocrites looking for an excuse to cancel people they didn't like.#BelieveWomen, but only until it becomes inconvenient to do so. pic.twitter.com/3ps9QhHV4l
— YOUTUBE.COM / VITO Ⓜ (@VitoGesualdi) May 1, 2020
Comments
I watched it last night
Excellent interview. Thanks for all your additional links!
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
i'd answered straightaway,
but i must have pressed Preview instead of Save. sorry. : (
It’s taken me a long time to find this again,
as I’d mistakenly thought I’d emailed it myself. And apparently Tara Reade has two different Twit accounts. In any event:
blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
My colleague @lyta_gold has written a masterful demolition of over a dozen bullshit arguments that have been deployed to justify disbelieving @ReadeAlexandra, going systematically through that dreadful USA Today piece and showing how illogical it is. https://t.co/XyWdEIYKJC
— Nathan J Robinson (@NathanJRobinson) May 4, 2020
but two hyperlinks within lead to:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H5NJZMDumY]
and Meet Creepy Joe...rubs, fondles, etc with photos', thetimes.co,uk...
aaaaand, i'm alrady locked out without registering for a month free, yada, yada.
42 minutes of Tara Reade --
I think the thing that keeps me from watching it is that (and this triple-reinforces the points about patriarchy) nobody wants to talk about rape. I'm sure it took immense courage for Tara Reade to come out with this stuff, and to have to endure legions of Biden bullies, many of them female... How about if we send the entire male political class to re-education camps where they'll be required to write research papers on the works of Susan Brownmiller?
As for the Biden bullies, they've all pretty much worked themselves into a corner with this "Trump is a fascist" thing. So they all think they've got this grand scheme in place, "hey let's all hide the truth about Joe Biden and then he'll get elected" or something like that. Thing is, it takes some Donald-Trump-level stupidity to come up with a campaign idea like that, and that's saying a lot, because Donald Trump is really stupid. Couldn't they just launch a campaign aimed at discouraging women from voting for Trump? He's a fkn rapist!
"Oh but the Donald is a fascist y'know and if he's re-elected democracy in America will die! So we must diss Tara Reade and uphold Joe Biden." That's their out-on-a-limb argument. Question for the Biden bullies: if The Donald were the least bit interested in getting rid of American democracy, why would he permit a November election in the first place, much less one in which he might lose? And if The Donald were a fascist, wouldn't the Dem leadership be the least bit interested in, y'know, resisting his worst policy initiatives rather than voting for them and putting up someone as pathetic as Joe Biden against him?
So I'm still not seeing the need to watch Megyn Kelly and Tara Reade. Can't I just respect both of them at a distance? Their detractors are out there making names for themselves as idiots. That's enough, isn't it?
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
it's fine w/ me
if it's fine with you. as i'd said to mhagle, i'd just watched the text versions via richard mcHugh on twitter. oh, fie; i just looked, and my comment hadn't taken. well, opinions vary, of course. don't sweat it.
That's it!
I could READ the interview. I'm a speed-reader, so that wouldn't take long.
Why didn't I think of that earlier?
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Okay I read it.
It confirmed what I thought beforehand.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
'confirmed' what?
if i might ask.
Joe is horrible --
and Tara Reade does not have ulterior motives.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
thank you; it's
a bit different than your 'people don't want to talk about rape', at least as i understood you. (
A poetic reply to your aversion to watching Tara Reade video
You don't have to swim in the muck
To know Joe Biden is a schmuck.
Thanks for the link to Lyta Gold's article --
-- it's well worth reading and not much different from my perspective. It's also completely consistent with the initial reporting (December 1992) on the decades long sexual assaults by Oregon Senator Bob Packwood.
What I want to add again is that Reade's ex-husband used what she told him about what was happening to her in Biden's office against her. (Again why it's not so safe for a woman to confide in a man - relative, friend, boyfriend, spouse - and why Reade was unlikely to have told him more than she told her brother.) As if an experience of sexual harassment would cause a woman to later erroneously claim that she was being stalked. Reade's story about her ex.
my stars, amiga.
what a stunning addition. thank you for your digging.
Reade said far more about being
in a physically abusive relationship/marriage in her interview with Kelly than she had in any other interviews, but she still didn't dwell on all the horrible details as she does in her 2008 WIP piece. My interpretation is that how much she willing says depends on how safe she feels to speak. Even in her WIP piece, she used a pseudonym for her tormentor.
Stunning interview.
Megan was tough on her but fair. She gave an interview over a month ago with Crystal Ball and she was less self assured. Now she seems like she has come to a place where she has her act together and can talk with a calm self assurance. I find her very believable. Of course it certainly helps to have all those videos of creepy Joe moments AND now the sworn testimony of her ex-husband. Also her narrative of her boss paints a very believable picture of how work place harassment tends to be covered up for bosses. I'll be that part felt very familiar to Megan.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
to say the truth,
and while i'd heard her name before, i wasn't even sure who megan was. thanks for reading and commenting so positively and emphatically, fishtroller 02.
If I had a daughter
and Biden or anyone else for that matter, touched her like he does with all these children, I would kick his ass to a frigging pulp. Vice president / presumed dem nominee or not, no one's position should enable this kind of behavior. It's truly sick that our society tolerates it at all.
The fact that we as a society have a president who has been credibly accursed of sexual assault by more than one woman, and that the "other party" is running a candidate that is credibly accused of sexual assault by more than one woman, to me, indicates we have a society that has some fucked up values about sex, violence and self control.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
lyta gold had called
(in my firt comment) such touching, sniffing, wandering hands...'grooming', and while her current affairs exposé is lengthy, she'd also chronicle the many ways in which creepy joe is a serial liar.
one is reminded of priests grooming altar boys.
We live in different societies...
...all equally real, all side by side, hardly ever realizing when they pass each other by.
Think of (silly example) how different the Flanders household is from the Simpson household despite their physical proximity.
Ultimately, "society" and "culture" are illusions. We need to get back to the reality of the individual, and the logic that proceeds from that. Marx and Bernays (damned be the name of the latter, in particular) alike declared war on the Enlightenment, and it's led to this dystopia.
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!
I believe Tara Reade
I thought Megan Kelly did a very good job of interviewing her. She asked tough questions but allowed Reade to answer. Only then did Kelly ask a follow up question for clarification.
I have found Tara Reade to be very credible all along. Most of the time, sexual assault cases like this are really about power. In Reade's case, a very powerful man used his position to assault her knowing that she would have no real recourse.
The way that Tara Reade has been treated is an abomination. It takes a lot of courage for a woman to come forward in a sexual assault case because in most cases, it is her word against the man's word. When the assailant is a very politically powerful man, it is much more difficult for a woman to come forward. Not only does she have to relive the trauma of the sexual assault, but she is forced to have every inch of her life examined and smeared by the political partisans.
I have noticed in the three interviews that I have seen or heard that Tara Reade was most emotional about what Joe Biden said to her after he assaulted her physically. He told her that she was nothing, nothing to him. That was an emotional assault piled upon the physical assault. He stripped her of her worth with those words. This is also why I so strongly believe what she is saying is the truth.
It often takes years, if ever, for a woman to overcome the trauma of sexual assault. This is why women such as Reade often wait years before they are well enough to tell their story. In the case of Reade, she had told parts of her story earlier and then as she became more comfortable in talking about it, we are now hearing the whole story. I believe that by doing so, Reade is finally liberating herself from this trauma.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
what a fulsome and psychologically
sound comment, gulfgal. in biden's case, it may be at the intersection of power (no one can touch me! (as noted in the photos of him grooming young children) and that in order to feel some sort of sexual release, non-consensual sex is more arousing.
and yes, to be told 'one is nothing' after such abuse must be even more devastating: 'you're just a mosquito in the face of my vast power!'
as to your final paragraph, lyta writes in a similar vein:
thank you, gulf gal, for paying such acute attention to tara's plight.
Interesting interview ...
… a lot more detailed than Mika's comparatively lame effort with "Sleepy Joe" on MSDNC last week. Only weak point of her story, I thought, was her mother telling her to keep records of everything and yet she didn't get a copy of the complaint with the Senate personnel office. As a formal Fed employee, I believe you have a right to copy your own personnel files, but of course, rules could be different for political appointees like Senate staffers. Of course, she didn't follow her mother's advice and file a complaint with the DC police at the time (I think perhaps she was mistakenly going along with advice from her friend in Kennedy's office, and perhaps her brother as well, both of whom told her to keep her mouth shut.)
On other hand, the fact there's tangible evidence like the tape with her mother's call to Larry King and her ex's petition that references harassment dating to the mid-90s does offer some strong support to the view that something untoward happened while she was in Biden's employ.
FWIW - there may not be a Senate
(or House) personnel office as such an office everywhere else is understood. Congressional offices are like mini fiefdoms and all staffers serve at the pleasure of the Senator or Rep. From what I could glean (and I may be wrong), the office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms does the admin processing (salary, benefits, etc) for Senate staff. Individual files may not contain much more than hire date, position title, W-4, promotion, and termination. As of 1992 complaints were intra-office (Senator or Representative); the only other venue was the Senate Ethics Committee. That year a Senate Fair labor practices office was established which was assumed to include sexual harassment complaints but it would have been barely functional in 1993, and formally was independent; so, it's anyone's guess what they did with any complaints or forms.
I'm unclear on the sequence of events, but it's not unusual for people to mix up chronology when tell their story. Reade sets the requests to serve drinks at a Biden thing early in her tenure. Undefined if the touching predated that request (which she declined), but it continued over the next few months. When did she lodge her complaints with Baker, Kaufman, and the other senior staffer? When did Baker tell her to dress more conservatively, before or after Reade complained? Was she relieved of her intern supervision assignment and stuck in a windowless office after lodging her complaint with those three individuals, and was that before or after the alleged assault? It's my impression that she filled out a complaint form some weeks after the assault and after being 'demoted.'
Considering Mika is on MSDNC, she did a good job on ByeDone
Yes, Mika could have been tougher, but allowing a MSM front-pager to openly criticize JoJo was just the opening of the door.
The most stunning facet to me about the interview, was the posture, pursed face and oozing hostility that Mika demonstrated when talking to Biden. She did not buy his bullshit non-denial denial.
Would that the Almighty Fracker in the Sky would open a giant sinkhole under JoJo's basement, taking him and enabler-puppeteer Jill down to magma. A fitting immolation.
The mother's call to LK
did not reference either sexual harassment or assault claims. Mom only referred to "problems" her daughter was having "working in the office of a prominent senator".
Maybe TR had told her mother of some harassment issues there, causing her to no longer be employed in Biden's office. Or maybe it had to do with a Biden office post-hiring check into her background which might have pulled up this:
We don't know, but the timing is interesting, (though it's possible too it could be coincidental). And this wouldn't have been from one bad check written but rather a previous pattern of check fraud which then became a criminal court matter. We need to know more to fill out what exactly happened, but it doesn't look good for her credibility. And it jibes with the charges publicly made by her ex employer Lynn Tanner, ca 2016 at the horse rescue ranch, where the employer accused Reade of lying and stealing from her nonprofit:
Man, are you guys reaching.
You know what that email really points to? Retaliation from Biden people for Tara complaining about Joe, including the filing of bogus charges that were never followed up on and smearing by FoBidens not just once, but again when Reade detailed the bad behavior in an email.
But hey, I admire your spunk. Given the record of corroboration already on the books, I wouldn't want the job of defending this creep.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
yep; her attorney said she'd
paid it off, charges were dropped. BFD. (i'd been watching on twitter) #GotchaTara!
The statute required
"willful intent to defraud", so it's likely not a matter of one innocently bounced check. She might have been in the criminal court system for previous check fraud. We don't know the whole story yet, but it's suggestive of someone who may have had a pattern of writing bad checks, which got her into the criminal court process.
In any case, check fraud might well have been something which the Biden office would have demoted/terminated her for, as it would go to her lack of honesty (esp if she failed to disclose this info in her job app and interviews) and for security reasons. Or the Biden office mgr may have pointed out what they had found doing a routine background check, and at that point TR might have agreed to step down. Anyway, hardly a BFD.
might have, might have, might have
Your wishful thinking is pathetic.
If this were a case of multiple priors that necessitated pursuing charges of intentional conduct, then simply paying the ONE bill should not have resulted the charges being dismissed, as the prosecutor would have felt confident of evidence of other priors that showed a pattern of intentional conduct.
That didn't happen. She paid the bill and they dropped the charges, so clearly whoever or whatever triggered the filing in the first place (cough, cough), it isn't because of some secret check kiting history that exists only in your own fevered, innuendo-mongering imagination.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
you're assuming facts not in evidence.
one inadvertently bounced check might bring those charges under CA or county law. i've done so in the past. no amount listed, either. but a misdemeanor. yes, she's lucky they hadn't issues a bench arrant to appear, as the might have for people of color.
but you've inadvertently reminded me of the f'ed up: Universal Credit Card Default:
I found TR credible
good answer to polygraph issue.
willing to go under oath, be cross examined.
one detail stood out.
Reade said Biden had an easy time because of the type of panties she was wearing.
She was to meet her boyfriend later. Kind of embarrassing, but it rings true.
Would she she invent that?
Do not think so.
Megan Kelly did a great job.
i may just have to watch
the whole interview, then, and i agree with her noting the type of panties being a truthful tell. video interviews are a rough ride for me.
i just checked this bloke's twit account, and his tweets were protected, but he'd said tara would have had to had her hips thrust forward for biden's creepy digits to have penetrated her.
i couldn't get the video to load, but this was on tara's twit account. AFAIK, bill maher's always been an #Asshole, and proud of it.
on edit: it plays, and there's a Newsweek quasi-transcript as well. his long 'Love letter to Putin' was epic.
The ignorance of a 40 year old virgin
The so-called bloke obviously has never been laid or has only experienced very overweight females.
She would invent that
if she needed to explain why, contra the rather strict dress code for women working in gov't in D.C. at that time, she wasn't wearing the required pantyhose, which would make the alleged assault much more difficult to quickly accomplish.
Did the lazy Meghan Kelly bother to spend 10 minutes researching whether women working in a senator's office back then would have been allowed to come to work bare-legged? Haven't seen the interview, from the former Fox host who also had sexual harassment claims against her boss(es) there. But I suspect no such questioning of Reade's story occurred at that level of detail, though it's in these details where Reade runs into trouble.
Details, indeed.
I've never seen a requirement for pantyhose, rather just hose – if that was even a requirement. After all, this didn't happen in 1952...
Further, at the time, midi-type dresses were quite common. Some folks wore only knee-highs with these types of dresses.
But D.C back in that time
might have still had cultural attitudes dating back to the 1950s. This isn't exactly my area of expertise -- I"m neither a woman nor did I work in D.C. in the early 90s, but this article from just that time talks about strict dress codes involving women wearing pantyhose; no mention of mere hose.
Door check.
I'd urge you to talk with some women. A requirement for pantyhose rather than hose could only be considered coming from a regulation written by a male ...and a rather inexperienced one at that.
Can you imagine the enforcement of such a rule? As a woman enters the office, the pantyhose police immediately demand, "Hike that dress, lady! You'd better not be having a garter belt under there!"
I don't happen to have
any written office dress code from D.C. in that period, esp one commonly in use in congressional offices. Though the stated code given to female employees would likely have instructed women to not go to work "bare-legged". So it might not have specified pantyhose per se, but I'd guess women had shifted to wearing pantyhose instead of hose, particularly as there was a very popular pantyhose line of items put out by L'Eggs at the time.
Again, I am not an expert here -- perhaps women of that time found the new, or sheer type of pantyhose easier to put on/wear than the more traditional hose.
Not every woman likes or wears pantyhose
Not now, not then, not ever. I tried them, I hated them, I abandoned them. And I have never, anywhere, encountered a "must wear pantyhose" requirement.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
back in the days
that i felt the need to wear the infernal things, i'd cut the legs off a pair, pull the elasticized panities part over the other pair...so the crotch wouldn't fall down my thighs.
but in one way, i was relieved at the invention, as i was allergic to the nickel (i assume) maybe the rubber, in the clasps, and would develop raging blisters on my thighs.
long ago, i had a tape with a mess of songs including 'guys in ties'. i performed it a restaurant/bar one night, and got taken to the woodshed by women afterward;whoosh. kewl someone put up on youtube recently. it sure resonated with me... ; )
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uKb2CNpnIQ]
Well yes, to each her own.
And the pantyhose invention may have been preferred just for its simplicity and not having to deal with the annoying clasps that come with wearing hose.
The WaPo article I cited written in 1993 does not mention hose but only pantyhose, which tends to suggest that was women's preferred choice then.
indeed.
and additionally...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dSazFK3uNY]
lol. and maybe they'd
required a girdle with elastic and metal fasteners for long nylon hose.
Michael Tracey
announced on twitter the other day that he is trying to put together an investigative report on the Tara Reade/Alexandra McCabe story.
Very good to hear. Tracey has great credibility as an independent-minded reporter/political analyst. And no axe to grind in the sexual harassment/assault area. Facts and logic, and let the chips fall where they may, tend to drive him far more than most on the pro-Reade/McCabe side who utterly fail to dig deep into the allegations and seem to be driven far more by political animus towards the accused while hoping for Biden to be forced out in favor of Bernie.
Dead-naming, are you?
It's just as rude and uncool to do to someone who has merely changed their name as it is to do to someone who has changed a whole lot more than that.
There quite obviously is an "I Refuse To Believe Tara Reade" movement, and it is at least partially politically motivated.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Nothing 'mere' about Reade's name change
-- she detailed the how and why in her WIP article (linked above in my comment). The Biden/sexual assault apologist in the Reade threads here is now getting close to being a domestic violence apologist.
here it is:
Defying the Rule of Thumb: A Domestic Violence Survivor’s Story;, by Alexandra McCabe, February 13, 2009, womens int. perspective (WIP)
a hair-on-fire read; awesome marie had dug it outta the wayback machine.
Are you sure it's
only a benign matter of "merely changing her name?" I've seen her use about 4 variations on her name, first, middle and last. There are probably more. Since her credibility for her incendiary charge is in question, it is reasonable to consider evidence like name changes from a more skeptical pov. Especially as we see evidence of her check fraud from the time period in question. And allegations from a recent employer of lying and theft.
Changing one's name is not unknown with those who seek to hide their true identities bc they have something to hide. From creditors for instance. More on this later perhaps, when I have time to dig up some cites reporting a number of prior incidents, a pattern of making allegations against people in her life, which call her credibility into serious question.
On the second item you raise, there may well be politics involved here, but it's largely on the accuser's side. Note for instance when TR decided to come out with her most serious charge -- in the middle of a tough primary campaign, when she she says she was supporting Bernie. Note too that her newly hired pro bono attorney is a Trump backer and max contributor. And note also the number of small media Bernie backers who have been promoting her story -- Katie Halper, Krystal Ball, Jordan Chariton, Ana Kasparian, Cenk, etc. Quite a long list. Do you think politics is not an important part of how they have one-sidedly covered the TR story so far, as this Bernie group consistently fails to apply any critical thinking skills and skepticism to the matter?
Yes, politics is involved, and will be going forward, as the Trump campaign will likely hope to make Tara Reade Joe Biden's running mate in the fall.
No politics driving my skepticism however -- I was the first here, roughly the summer of 2019, to note Biden's obvious signs of mental decline. I was always either going to vote for Bernie or Tulsi, but I was never a cheerleader here for either. Biden was not in my top 10, and I was never going to back someone who so consistently wanted to cut SS. But now that he's about to become the official nominee, I don't believe in changing horses unless there is a valid reason. Tara Reade's questionable allegation is not a valid reason.
happy mother's day
to you, and all of us, wokkamile. have you ever considered wokkamiling in tara's shoes?
too many 3-day weekend chores, too much everything, and i need a rest.
Well, how aboot
wokkahalfamile. That's bc in the initial stages of this story, back in March/early April, I was inclined to believe her. But that was from just skimming the surface of the news stories.
Then those stupid fact thingies came along about her story and past, and I had to cut short my wok.
And you (and many others here) - - have u wokked even a tenth of a mile in the accused's shoes? I know, it's Joe Biden. No one here supported him in the primaries, no one is happy with him getting the nom, wokkamile included. But shouldn't the principle hold regardless of who's being accused?
And how about the test of one's principles of putting the shoe on the other foot? Would you still be ok with carrying water for, say, a woman who was accusing Howie Hawkins of sexual assault despite some obvious holes and inconsistencies in her story? Would you be so similarly believing and fiercely pro-accuser as with Reade? I think as with the hypo of Bernie being accused, that the question answers itself.
It's not "believeALLwomengullibly" as you seem to think
It's "Start with the presumption that there's something to report", and work out what (you think) the story is as you go.
One thing I do not think you realize is that debunkers are out in brigades, some of them out of sheer willful malice, some out of defending the "boys will be boys" rape culture, some out of sheer desperation ("OMG we GOTTA defend Biden, he's our ONLY chance to oust Trump!"). Every woman knows that if she dares report (even attempted) assault or rape, every single detail of her past will come under intense scrutiny, and if she has ever done anything wrong, or even slightly "improper", it will be used to discredit and defame her. And you wonder why so few women come forward, and those who do generally open up very slowly and gradually?
The bottom line here, whether or not you do believe Tara Reade, is that Biden's conduct is indefensible. He's a woman-botherer and a little-girl-botherer, and he shouldn't be in any public office - and wouldn't be in any sane and orderly society.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
excellent response, amiga.
i gotta say that bringing in the strawman/strawwoman touch about howie hawkins and an alleged accuser was a masterful touch./s
The "straw man" objection
is just your own straw man attempt at avoiding the valid point I raised. I was merely trying to apply the same standard you apparently use, the simple but dangerous MeToo one, to other cases.
How about the rape charges against Julian Assange? Did you automatically believe the woman accuser there?
If the MeToo standard of Believe All Women Regardless is not your position, what is?
watching and waiting
for more, might be my position. many men have been accused of rape, and found guilty in the press, you know many of the examples, rolling stone magazine, for one.
yes, i was disturbed by the women claiming they'd been raped by assange in sweden, but the charges stemmed from the women wanting to compel an STI test. the case was closed, then reopened thrice, as i pointed out in this long diary back in april, 2019. jennifer robison's tweets are at the bottom.
Jeremy Corbyn shows his true colors
on edit: far simpler: from justice4assange on the rape charges: especially #6.
and RT's up with: Biden says ‘responsible’ journalists have duty to investigate Reade claims… yet will not authorize opening his archives, 12 May, 2020, RT.com
looking forward to dementiaJoe naming reade as his VP, though.
Your standard seems
a bit vague and unhelpful, to the extent I understand it at all
All allegations in this area are not worthy of reporting, if you mean by the media. Though with social media available, and more than a few willing, uncritical prog podcasters and hosts helping her, it seems TR hasn't had a problem getting her story reported. Her claims of being "shut down" by the media are just laughable.
Some recent allegations for instance by right-wing persons and groups do not merit reporting, given their source. Such as the wild allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against Dr Fauci, Pete Buttigieg and even Liz Warren. IN the case of Fauci, a couple of RW troublemakers were involved in paying a woman to allege sexual deeds by the doctor. Thankfully, the woman they picked finally fessed up -- but only, it seems, after the 2 fraud artists wanted her to also give them the name of another woman she might know who would be willing to play this game for money.
Project Veritas also has a long track record of making false public allegations against figures on the left/Dems. Not worth reporting -- it would just encourage them.
Who is making the charge does matter therefore. Esp when, with no witnesses or physical evidence nor date/time/place specified, some cases turn solely on the credibility of the accuser -- what else is left for the accused to rebut? With legal training of her own, the accuser here had to know her credibility would come under scrutiny.
My interest on that issue is whether she has any track record or pattern of making strong allegations against people in her orbit or any record of dishonesty. Turns out she does: 1) Strong allegations against her father. 2) Physical abuse charges against her ex (including insinuating he may have had a role in several murders). 3) A former supervisor at a YWCA (black woman) whom Reade accused of reverse racial discrimination (being "too white"). 4) All sorts of pity party allegations against the recent former employer at the horse rescue ranch, which owner has a stellar reputation in the community. 5) Record of some legal trouble over check fraud (the extent of which is still unclear), going to her honesty. 6) Biden (only in the past year, not so much in the previous 26 yrs).
Could be this woman may just have been extraordinarily unlucky in the people in her life. Or it could be there is some personal issue with this woman (to put it delicately), which is what the horse rescue former employer, who saw her up close for months, believes. I tend to think that ex employer is probably on the right track and has solid credibility.
As for asinine comments online, nothing surprising there. It's the internet and anonymous posting prevails, which gives many an added incentive and layer of protection to be jerks. But that situation is happening on both sides, and so also consider the attacks made by the MeToo Believe All Women Regardless brigade on the left -- they are out in force piling on Michael Tracey for daring to take a skeptical position, far worse than a few angry posts directed at me here.
Bringing a critical eye to these type of stories should be the default position, as they are ultimately just bald allegations with no solid substantiation -- and they could happen one day to someone you care about, a father, brother or close friend. Those who point this out are not therefore immoral or evil -- we are just seeking the truth and some sense of justice in the COPO where even a disliked political figure should still not be tarred and feathered and convicted solely on the accused's word.
good night; thanks for the conversation.
even her detractors have a right to be heard, which is why i'd included the #IBelieveJoe.
for tara: hope you get to higher ground soon!
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hGSqqhhokE]
Did listen to the interview in full right now
and read the comments.
My emotional response to the whole bubblebath of hot air breathless reporting and 'coming out'-cracking-voiced-half-teared revelation about the assault, is just that it turned me off. I thought why do I have to read all of it? It took her mother to make her file a 'report', she then even didn't make a copy of? (What kind of office assistant or staffer would be that idiotic not to do at least that?) And someone had to gave her an advice to dress a little bit more boring, less sexy and OMG all that lingery stuff. How political important is it to know what kind of underwear someone wears unless the one who does, runs around the Capitol's underground hallways half naked?
It's not a matter of believing her or him, it's about: Is the whole story important enough?
That Joe Biden is 'nothing' to me, like Tara was 'nothing' to him, was not dependent on knowing this story about him being a little 'non-manly ass' of man, dragged out in front of the cameras and media. He is a nothingburger, which, had you the chance to 'taste' (like tara did) doesn't even taste juicy. Fouly meat with mildew and viruses on it. The way Biden used his son's military service and death due to cancer, is enough to recognize that the man has a little underwhelming character.
Sound off the alarm. Nobody died. It wasn't a contageous virus and mildew is only disgusting to have to digest while not dried out. It's dust and after 25 years it's dead.
I can believe her story (do not like the story), but have no respect for her possible motives to make all the efforts she made to 'get published'. End of story.
I would never vote for Biden and didn't need to know, if Tara's underwear was difficult to conquer for dirty little fingers penetrate the entrance to paradise and nirvana.
Just for the irony and fun here a definition of how to reach nirvana:
https://www.euronews.com/
i'm pretty sure i've
understood your lengthy comment, but certainly can't agree with all of it. she wasn't eager to 'get published', but to be taken at her world about biden's having finger-raped her. i have other quibbles, as well, but i do respect your right to you opinion and conclusions, mimi.
fun stuff on 'reaching nirvana'.
I think she talked about her many efforts to get
her story into the media in the video herself. My source are her own words. The only thing I believe is that in Europe her story would not have not gotten attention other than by ridiculous little boulevard newspaper, who nobody takes serious anyhow. I am not surprised that her story (some 25 years after the incidence) was rejected apparently by those she tried to convince to write about it.
I know most women don't like to hear the other side. I can see a victim, but not one that became a victim as consequence of the sexual assault, but one who can not wrap her mind around her own incapability to kick Biden in the you-know-where and give him a good blue eye with a well targetted punch in his face. As long Biden had no weapon to enforce a rape, the trauma she suffered through the incidence might be unforegettable to her, but is forgettable for the purpose of publishing it 25 years later, especially because Biden is in a political campaign. And that she should have considered that.
It is unfortunate that Biden had not a boss under which he worked. Had he a superior, who could bave fired him, it would have made her case a little easier. I am not a lawyer to know how to best help her, there were little chance back then and are not now, that she could have 'won' and achieved what Biden deserved: to lose his job over that behavior.
In some cases the media and press is not your helping tool, but the contrary becomes true. Avoiding to speak to the media as long as you don't have all 'material proofs' in your hands to back up your accusations is just an absolute necessity to make a successful argument. At least that is my experience.
But the 'crime' in my case was way more serious and provable and not a sexual assault case, But holding the story tightly to myself over more than a year without telling any coworker, family member or friend (I was tempted to get advice from) was essential. Not to reach out to the media, which I could have easily done, because I worked with the media before that happened, helped to gather all the material proofs quietly and thoroughly. They convinced in the end those, who could fire my former boss and it destroyed his further political career he otherwise might have had. They did fire him and even didn't ask me to leave. (But I left on my own into another job within the media environment) If I would have failed I would have become a co-perpetrator. So, I was glad I made it through unharmed and successful.
I think there is a cultural difference of how people feel about what counts as sexual misbehavior / harassment /a sexual assault and what to do about it, if you encounter it in the work place.
I had once a very young American intern (may be 22 years old) who worked under my supervision as an intern and was supposed to help the news producers for the German evening news to 'watch out fo US-based video material' that was fed into our studios for production purposes.
So, she watched and saw pictures of Merkel walking out of a building somewhere in Germany. It was summer weather and Merkel wore a kind of leight-weight business-like suit. With a lot of phantasy you could have an idea about where her nipples popped out a little through the top's tissue. But you really needed magnifying glasses to see that at all. The young girl was really upset and told me that this is an unacceptable outfit to wear and that Merkel was really unprofessional. I was that suprised that I never forgot that girl and only can shake my head about her judgement til today.
Anyhow, it's not important. So forget about the story. Nothing for Ungood. I am glad I was never assaulted, that's for sure.
https://www.euronews.com/
Thanks for your comments, mimi,
though it's important to remember the assault allegation has not remotely been proved. It remains a mere allegation that rests solely on her credibility, which now is in serious question as we learn more about her.
And Reade has had plenty of opportunities to tell her story, such as it is (in her constantly changing accounts). Last year she spoke with a number of news organizations (print mainly) who listened to her. And all along, for years, she has been able to get her personal stories out through social media and also the occasional local paper. This is not a person who is shy about going public with what is going on in her life (or what is going on in her mind). She is apparently also not shy about asking others for money -- as with her several GoFundMe accounts and her alleged requests of the horse rescue ranch employer for financial help.
It is so very obvious to me we should be very skeptical of someone like this who always seems to be a victim, always telling others about her alleged problems. I don't know if this is just drama queen attention seeking, a need to be the center of attention, money, some misguided attempt at rescuing her reputation over some side issue (e.g, her prior unusually worshipful comments about Putin) or something more fundamental and organic about her psychological makeup.
As for the story going away, it's possible and Michael Tracey seems to be preparing a major investigative piece on Reade which could finally convince enough progressives in the media that they embarrassed themselves by picking the wrong horse. Or it could just hang around, not proven nor completely disproven, in which case the Trump campaign will be sure to use it against Biden in the election.
i see the difference:
'published' v 'story into the media'. interesting vignette and outcome of your own story, as well. i did finally read part of the transcript of the interview, and was disturbed by her praise of biden far later in time. but that may have been out of fear (or cowardice, even).
but of course her charges will never be proven. but i will say that RT had featured a report that the Google Play list had jettisoned her mum's call to larry king live, and had even tinkered with the episode titles and numbers to cover their tracks. bad form, and quite suspicious, imo.
and remember: even a couple (a few?) of tara's friends she'd told earlier and believe her: will still vote for biden because: trump.
with friends like those ...
"voting for Biden because Trump" one should question the reality of a 'friends-concept'.
All one can do is voting for none of the two above. Both have the same unwanted behavior patterns and psychological 'malfunctions'.
Not voting at all gives the ones, you don't wanr to be elected into office, more chances to end up there.
I guess you have to have new candidates, a new party and a new movement. Otherwise emigrate. It is no fun anymore to see quite decent people to be threatened in ways that they seem to have been broken spiritually (I mean competing political candidates) I just can't help wondering who, with what and when those, who one can consider being decent and honest candidtates, were threatened behind the curtain with violence against them or their families. I can't explain the break-down of candidates like Sanders, AOC and if I recall that correctly also Ilhan Omar in any other way.
I really feel I don't understand the situations correctly.
https://www.euronews.com/
I understand, but to be taken by her word
isn't going to be enough in a sexual assault case. Biden wants to be taken by his word as well. None of the two have proofs for their words. So, as wokkamile explained below, without material proofs it's a "he-said-she-said" case, which hangs around and fizzles away without repercussions for the perpetrator of the assault and the perceived victim.
It's sad, I believe in her story, but the way she didn't defend herself, just wasn't helpful to achieve whatever she wanted to achieve, which is not quite clear as well - according to her own words.
In order to make Biden resign, she needed more than the verbal accusation. I think though that many folks would hesitate to still vote for Biden, because somehow it"s telling something about him that you don't want to see in your potential representative or president.
May be a couple of self-defense fighting classes would bave been more helpful.
https://www.euronews.com/