The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[fskimospy]

Point of clarification and offering my opinion here. The lies she told which had nothing to do with the allegations are slightly probative here, but only just. The problem is, everyone lies sometimes. Prior lies which are unrelated and go to "general credibility" can be persuasive to juries, too persuasive. Which is why they're not usually admitted into evidence.

The thing about Reade is, there are too many problems directly related to the alleged incident. Telling inconsistent stories over time, praising Biden over sexual assault, claiming she filed a complaint when it can't be found, claiming she has records but not the complaint, later saying it wasn't a complaint but something else, giving multiple versions of why she left Biden's office, a staffer saying he personally witnessed her poor performance which is why she was fired, every known staffer not corroborating a single thing she says, alleging an assault in a place that doesn't exist. Did I miss something? I feel certain I must have.

I suppose we can look at these other things, lying to landlords and lying in court about her credentials, as icing on the cake. But it's a pretty thin layer and the cake is very thick.

While I agree with you that everyone lies sometimes and that the holes in her story of the assault are more than sufficient to undermine the credibility of her claim I think you are maybe glossing over them too easily.

Everyone lies, but not everyone falsifies their credentials under oath. Not everyone lies to steal more than a thousand dollars from their employer. These are examples of potentially criminal activity.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Point of clarification and offering my opinion here. The lies she told which had nothing to do with the allegations are slightly probative here, but only just. The problem is, everyone lies sometimes. Prior lies which are unrelated and go to "general credibility" can be persuasive to juries, too persuasive. Which is why they're not usually admitted into evidence.

The thing about Reade is, there are too many problems directly related to the alleged incident. Telling inconsistent stories over time, praising Biden over sexual assault, claiming she filed a complaint when it can't be found, claiming she has records but not the complaint, later saying it wasn't a complaint but something else, giving multiple versions of why she left Biden's office, a staffer saying he personally witnessed her poor performance which is why she was fired, every known staffer not corroborating a single thing she says, alleging an assault in a place that doesn't exist. Did I miss something? I feel certain I must have.

I suppose we can look at these other things, lying to landlords and lying in court about her credentials, as icing on the cake. But it's a pretty thin layer and the cake is very thick.

I could perhaps agree if those lies didn't involve aspects that could absolutely be potential reasons she might lie with regards to a sexual assault claim.

You forgot that she lied about the media's response to her claims. She either is counting on people not trusting the media (wonder why she might think that...) or didn't believe they'd actually have records of their communication or something. Or perhaps she thought people would just believe her and not do any fact checking. That to me is somewhat damning as that type of sloppiness is something that I see a lot with certain types of liars.

Sorry, I don't agree that stuff is a thin layer. In fact, its potentially outright criminal behavior, and it shows a pattern of such behavior that absolutely harms her credibility on such a claim.

I'd view it more like Kavanaugh's lies about drinking, it doesn't mean the sexual assault did or didn't happen, but it shows that they're willing to lie about things that aren't as severe as sexual assault claims, so its definitely going to impact how their claims are viewed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You do realize that all investigations, no matter the crime starts with the accuser right? They have to first find out if the accusations are true prior to going forward, which would lead to charges etc. It's the first step in any investigation.

There is a fine line between investigating and intentionally discrediting, but it also doesn’t account for the fact that before the investigation was complete and under comparable and nearly equivalent circumstances, Democrat politicians rallied around Dr. Ford but dismissed and accused Reade of being a liar, nor does it change the fact that Biden allowed the female candidates vying for the VP slot do the dirty work for him.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So, it's perfectly acceptable for you to exercise a double standard by accusing the other side of having their own? That's hypocrisy with chutzpah.

You've been going on for some while as if the honest truth doesn't matter. You've entertained & attempted to promote every bit of Reade's mendacity throughout, relenting only after it got completely ridiculous. Your objective is to discredit Biden & the Democrats any sleazy way you can. Pretense aside, it serves the purposes of Trump & the GOP entirely.

There is no double standard. I didn’t agree with politically weaponizing the #metoo movement during the Franken and Kavanaugh stories, and am pointing out the hypocrisy by both Democrats and Republicans now that the political stakes are reversed against Biden. Not surprising the usual suspects take offense and have great concern over this. Biden discredits himself.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no double standard. I didn’t agree with politically weaponizing the #metoo movement during the Franken and Kavanaugh stories, and am pointing out the hypocrisy by both Democrats and Republicans now that the political stakes are reversed against Biden. Not surprising the usual suspects take offense and have great concern over this. Biden discredits himself.

Now you’re projecting your concern trolling on to other people.

It’s already been pointed out that you’ve tried to twist Biden’s position from ‘you should start from a place of believing people’ to ‘people must be believed regardless of the evidence’. Shameful.

Democrats thought Ford should be believed because substantial evidence exists that shows Kavanaugh perjured himself in his denials. Reade should not be because substantial evidence exists that she is a liar. You’re just so desperate to keep concern trolling and #bothsides-ing that you can’t admit you got this one wrong.

Again, I hope you take a step back and realize you owe Biden an apology. Lots of people do.

 

[eelw]

But how did any of us discredit her account immediately? The first time we heard about her is in this topic. Right off the bat, we already knew she conveniently changed from hair sniffing to penetration. We also found out about the support Biden during #MeToo to kissing Putin’s ass. Only after we had reason to doubt her story before all this extra stuff kept piling up.

It’s the hate for Biden that prevented a few here from seeing the evidence from the get go to fully believe her story no matter what.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Now you’re projecting your concern trolling on to other people.

It’s already been pointed out that you’ve tried to twist Biden’s position from ‘you should start from a place of believing people’ to ‘people must be believed regardless of the evidence’. Shameful.

Democrats thought Ford should be believed because substantial evidence exists that shows Kavanaugh perjured himself in his denials. Reade should not be because substantial evidence exists that she is a liar. You’re just so desperate to keep concern trolling and #bothsides-ing that you can’t admit you got this one wrong.

Again, I hope you take a step back and realize you owe Biden an apology. Lots of people do.

You thought there was substantial evidence with the Ford case?

God damn you do need your head examined.

 

[bshole]

Now you’re projecting your concern trolling on to other people.

It’s already been pointed out that you’ve tried to twist Biden’s position from ‘you should start from a place of believing people’ to ‘people must be believed regardless of the evidence’. Shameful.

The safest course of action is to believe EVIDENCE.

The statement "you should start from a place of believing people" is incoherent in the context of woman saying she was raped and a man saying she was not. These are two people, there is no way to start from a position of believing them both. It is more profitable to listen to both and then gather EVIDENCE to establish which one is being truthful.

 

[TheVrolok]

The safest course of action is to believe EVIDENCE.

The statement "you should start from a place of believing people" is incoherent in the context of woman saying she was raped and a man saying she was not. These are two people, there is no way to start from a position of believing them both. It is more profitable to listen to both and then gather EVIDENCE to establish which one is being truthful.

Well, sorta.


A positive has to be proven, a negative cannot (for all intents and purposes) be proven.

You start from a place of believing the accuser, and then ask for the evidence to support the claim. You don't need to believe the negative, because it doesn't require proof.

 

[senseamp]

The media owes Biden an apology.

 

[eelw]

You thought there was substantial evidence with the Ford case?

God damn you do need your head examined.

So you rather trust Kavanaugh’s friend that was also being implicated in the attempted rape?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So you rather trust Kavanaugh’s friend that was also being implicated in the attempted rape?

No detective sherlock, I would take the same approach that @bshole stated above. It's not that I believe kavanaugh so much that I don't believe there is any substantial evidence to go on. It was ultimately he-said-she-said.... Which is what you can definitely expect for anything that is 20+ years old.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No detective sherlock, I would take the same approach that @bshole stated above. It's not that I believe kavanaugh so much that I don't believe there is any substantial evidence to go on. It was ultimately he-said-she-said.

Which makes his lies under oath even more disturbing.

 

[fskimospy]

The safest course of action is to believe EVIDENCE.

The statement "you should start from a place of believing people" is incoherent in the context of woman saying she was raped and a man saying she was not. These are two people, there is no way to start from a position of believing them both. It is more profitable to listen to both and then gather EVIDENCE to establish which one is being truthful.

Nonsense. Research shows lying about these accusations is infrequent so logic dictates you should start from that assumption.

 

[fskimospy]

No detective sherlock, I would take the same approach that @bshole stated above. It's not that I believe kavanaugh so much that I don't believe there is any substantial evidence to go on. It was ultimately he-said-she-said.... Which is what you can definitely expect for anything that is 20+ years old.

Why do you think Kavanaugh chose to perjure himself then?

 

[fskimospy]

You thought there was substantial evidence with the Ford case?

God damn you do need your head examined.

Of course, how stupid would someone have to be to not believe this?

I mean we have statements from multiple people with direct knowledge of Kavanaugh who said he perjured himself.

I love it how frequently you say other people are stupid and insane only to reveal your own stupidity.

 

[interchange]

You thought there was substantial evidence with the Ford case?

God damn you do need your head examined.

There is substantial evidence. Testimony under oath. Therapy notes. 4 affidavits from people in Ford's life sworn under penalty of perjury. Polygraph results. That is more in terms of quantity of evidence that has been used for civil judgments and even criminal ones in other cases.

Whether or not that particular evidence and evidence which isn't in favor of Ford's account means her story does not meet a particular standard of proof is entirely a separate discussion.

The fact that substantial evidence exists, however, is not rationally disputable.

 

[zinfamous]

You thought there was substantial evidence with the Ford case?

God damn you do need your head examined.

could you at least wait until noon to start the day drinking? If not for yourself, for the rest of us, please.

 

[fskimospy]

There is substantial evidence. Testimony under oath. Therapy notes. 4 affidavits from people in Ford's life sworn under penalty of perjury. Polygraph results. That is more in terms of quantity of evidence that has been used for civil judgments and even criminal ones in other cases.

Whether or not that particular evidence and evidence which isn't in favor of Ford's account means her story does not meet a particular standard of proof is entirely a separate discussion.

The fact that substantial evidence exists, however, is not rationally disputable.

Also, the post he quoted said 'substantial evidence Kavanaugh perjured himself', it was not about Ford's supporting evidence. He just didn't read it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Now you’re projecting your concern trolling on to other people.

No I’m not

It’s already been pointed out that you’ve tried to twist Biden’s position from ‘you should start from a place of believing people’ to ‘people must be believed regardless of the evidence’. Shameful.

You’re welcome to point out where Biden provided that context during the Kavanaugh hearings. Disingenuous.

Democrats thought Ford should be believed because substantial evidence exists that shows Kavanaugh perjured himself in his denials. Reade should not be because substantial evidence exists that she is a liar. You’re just so desperate to keep concern trolling and #bothsides-ing that you can’t admit you got this one wrong.

No, they assertively believed one and rejected the other when presented with comparable evidence under similar circumstances.

Again, I hope you take a step back and realize you owe Biden an apology. Lots of people do.

He is not owed an apology no matter how many times you assert that he does. I hope you take a step back to assess why you have so much concern.

 

[fskimospy]

No I’m not

You’re welcome to point out where Biden provided that context during the Kavanaugh hearings. Disingenuous.

No, they assertively believed one and rejected the other when presented with comparable evidence under similar circumstances.

He is not owed an apology no matter how many times you assert that he does. I hope you take a step back to assess why you have so much concern.

I’m not sure why you keep pretending Reade and Ford are equivalent other than it gives you an out for not giving the apology Biden richly deserves.

Until you apologize there’s nothing else to say here. Biden has been largely exonerated, Reade outed as a grifter, and people who pumped her story humiliated. Even better, Democrats stuck to their principles even when it wasn’t convenient and made sure her claims were investigated. Glad to see playing it straight is rewarded sometimes.

 

[woolfe9998]

While I agree with you that everyone lies sometimes and that the holes in her story of the assault are more than sufficient to undermine the credibility of her claim I think you are maybe glossing over them too easily.

Everyone lies, but not everyone falsifies their credentials under oath. Not everyone lies to steal more than a thousand dollars from their employer. These are examples of potentially criminal activity.

Everyone has a different idea about how much weight to assign to different kinds of evidence. I'll leave it at that.

I will say one thing about her pattern of unrelated lies - the common thread which runs through them is $$. Expert witness work is quite lucrative, especially for someone who seems to have been chronically broke for much of her adult life. She would never have been hired without an applicable degree. As for the landlords, that was all about skipping out on rent and bills.

These lies have small impact on my overall assessment of the credibility of her claims, which is already shot from the stuff we know of that is directly related. There isn't enough there to show a pattern of pathological lying, but they do show a pattern of repeatedly lying for monetary reasons. I've strongly suspected that her motive for lying about Biden has to do with money. Whether it's a payoff or she means to write a tell all book (or memoir where Biden is one chapter), I think somehow money is why she's doing it.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is no double standard. I didn’t agree with politically weaponizing the #metoo movement during the Franken and Kavanaugh stories, and am pointing out the hypocrisy by both Democrats and Republicans now that the political stakes are reversed against Biden. Not surprising the usual suspects take offense and have great concern over this. Biden discredits himself.

You haven't alleged any Republican hypocrisy until now. And you were entirely comfortable tossing aside your own supposed standards when the opportunity to attack Biden arose. Because they're the real hypocrites, not you. Oh, yeh. You betcha.

Biden discredits himself? In what way, exactly?

 

[Starbuck1975]

You haven't alleged any Republican hypocrisy until now.

I invite you to revisit my previous posts and get back to me.

And you were entirely comfortable tossing aside your own supposed standards when the opportunity to attack Biden arose. Because they're the real hypocrites, not you. Oh, yeh. You betcha.

Biden discredits himself? In what way, exactly?

He discredited himself by contradicting the standard he championed during the Kavanaugh hearings and hiding behind those contending for the VP slot under him.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You haven't alleged any Republican hypocrisy until now. And you were entirely comfortable tossing aside your own supposed standards when the opportunity to attack Biden arose. Because they're the real hypocrites, not you. Oh, yeh. You betcha.

Biden discredits himself? In what way, exactly?

Lol, Bucky doesn't accel at self reflection.