The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[soundforbjt]

Yes, it's hard to believe someone when all the evidence that's available is feels. One piece of evidence would be nice to continue on investigating, but there seems to be none available.

 

[Jhhnn]

Secretary if Senate says - "lol lets keep this going..."

Secretary of Senate declines to disclose information on Tara Reade complaint against Biden

The Secretary of the Senate has informed former Vice President Joe Biden that it has “no discretion to disclose” the existence of former aide Tara Reade’s complaint of sexual assault against t…

thehill.com

They can't disclose anything to Biden for the sake of Tara's privacy. OTOH, she could get a copy, I'm sure. But she says she never filed an actual complaint complaint, anyway. Just an intake form. Or something. Meanwhile, the secretary of the GOP controlled Senate leaves open the possibility that such a thing even exists. Excellent mind fuck.

If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. The bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell because nobody will believe you had the audacity to just make it up.

 

[soundforbjt]

They can't disclose anything to Biden for the sake of Tara's privacy. OTOH, she could get a copy, I'm sure. But she says she never filed an actual complaint complaint, anyway. Just an intake form. Or something. Meanwhile, the secretary of the GOP controlled Senate leaves open the possibility that such a thing even exists. Excellent mind fuck.

If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. The bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell because nobody will believe you had the audacity to just make it up.

They don't have squat and if they do (doubtful), they're holding it for later in the election.

 

[sandorski]

Oh then let’s take the word of that 14 year old then. She told people that same week creepy Joe complimented how well endowed she is.

Why are you trying to conflate 2 separate things?

 

[sandorski]

Secretary if Senate says - "lol lets keep this going..."

Secretary of Senate declines to disclose information on Tara Reade complaint against Biden

The Secretary of the Senate has informed former Vice President Joe Biden that it has “no discretion to disclose” the existence of former aide Tara Reade’s complaint of sexual assault against t…

thehill.com

ugh, the sooner this gets resolved the better.

 

[eelw]

Why are you trying to conflate 2 separate things?

So I get we should hold Biden to same scrutiny as Kavanaugh. But why shouldn’t these two accusers be held to the same standard? Again Biden as Axelrod said, passed the VP vetting. Not a single peep during 8 years as VP. Even 2 years after the administration change. But conveniently only now the accusers come. The second one proven false. The first one on far shakier ground than Ford’s allegation.

 

[sandorski]

Translation, they've got nothing, but will let this play out in the hopes of hurting Biden.

Possibly, but they might have something and drop it at a time most strategically. Like how Hillary got snookered by Comey.'(not accussing him of anything, but his timing hurt her badly)

 

[interchange]

1 I don't find this to be very compelling. Mainly because certain things people don't just blurt out, especially if there are concerns around power dynamics and also the person speaking is not directly involved. The mother was likely respecting her daughters wishes or concerns.

As for her Tone, like I have said earlier in the thread, what Tone should she have? Especially when you are involving a Third Party on a National Live broadcast and trying to protect someone close to you at the same time. She wasn't trying to expose anyone, she was asking for help in what avenue should be taken to get a proper addressing of concerns. It was especially timely due to the guests on his show at the time would seem likely to have ideas on the subject.

2 I believe the brother was 15 or so at the time. How many 15 year olds would be told full details of such a thing? Not too many I suspect.

3 Victims of Sexual Assault don't always fully divulge what happened to them to everyone. They are generally quite guarded on the subject.

I'm not saying they refute her account of sexual assault. I'm saying they don't corroborate it in any significant way because they are accounts of something different.

4 As far as I understand it, Tara informed her that she was going to come forth with the full details and wanted some backup with it if she was willing. Granted, it could be nefarious in the sense of being a lie/deception. However, it is not unreasonable to ask someone to help if you wanted to finally put yourself out there on something as risky as this.

I am merely stating reasons why the corroboration is suspect. And my personal impression is that most likely the neighbor is not lying but that her account still isn't credible. Here's a more comprehensive reference for the evidence base on memory as it applies to the courtroom: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/. Essentially, memories are constructions we make. Someone who is a victim of a sexual trauma is likely to remember quite clearly at least several aspects of the trauma. The majority of other memories which are not so personal and encoded under heightened stress are quite fallible and significantly subject to influence of what is externally presented and thought to be credible. If something is emotionally validating, we are apt to find it true and defend it with certainty. Someone's certainty in recollection is not an indicator of the quality of their actual memory. In this case, I think it's probable Reade told her some story of inappropriate behavior by Biden (whether true or not, sexual or not, there is some consistency that such a narrative had existed at the time). The shared recalling of facts in the present? Highly fallible.

Contrasting to Blasey-Ford's therapist notes: given that the alleged event would have been significantly traumatic personally to Blasey-Ford, it is likely that there are quite many specific details which would be encoded quite immutably in her mind. It doesn't make them infallible, and there are many aspects of the event which she would not likely remember better than anything else in her life, but things like who the perpetrator was would be reliable across a long time span. That wouldn't be the case for the therapist hearing it. It's unlikely that it would be traumatic for the therapist, and their focus on details would be contending with need for emotional validation, attention to the responses of both Blasey-Ford and her husband, and things that are specifically relevant to the work rather than shared details which may not have been presented in a logically organized fashion as the goal would likely have been to provide emotional context. The notes were made after a session, so unless the therapist was consulting a recording or detailed process notes, they would likely be doing their own reconstruction of what was said. Obviously, medical records would intentionally omit many details as well. I'm not sure when the therapist notes were written, but probably immediately after a session, possibly a few days later. In fact, there were some inconsistencies with the details between Ford's allegations and the therapist notes. While that is a problem, it certainly aligns with the kind of accuracy as would be expected from a note taken from a recent memory of someone else's story.

Anyway, these are some of the reasons I find Blasey-Ford's corroboration of a narrative existing as presented pre-dating the context in which she may have motivation to create or modify one significantly more compelling than Reade's.

 

[fskimospy]

So I get we should hold Biden to same scrutiny as Kavanaugh. But why shouldn’t these two accusers be held to the same standard? Again Biden as Axelrod said, passed the VP vetting. Not a single peep during 8 years as VP. Even 2 years after the administration change. But conveniently only now the accusers come. The second one proven false. The first one on far shakier ground than Ford’s allegation.

If we're talking about holding people to the same standard than shouldn't the comparison be Biden to Trump?

I mean we aren't even talking about the horde of accusers in 2016, Trump was credibly accused of rape about 9 months ago and is fighting tooth and nail against giving a DNA sample which Carroll says could be used to confirm her account. He also got busted lying about never having met her so his denials are not very credible.

 

[sandorski]

So I get we should hold Biden to same scrutiny as Kavanaugh. But why shouldn’t these two accusers be held to the same standard? Again Biden as Axelrod said, passed the VP vetting. Not a single peep during 8 years as VP. Even 2 years after the administration change. But conveniently only now the accusers come. The second one proven false. The first one on far shakier ground than Ford’s allegation.

Ford was accused of Timing as well. It doesn't matter Why Now. If it happened it happened, that is why it should be fully addressed.

This other recent accusation was, to start with, pretty weak as far as infractions go. At best it was just another "Creepy Joe" type thing wherein something awkward transpired. Secondly, it has already been shown he wasn't even there, so, open and shut. There is no equivalency to be made here and this accusation is off topic to the Reade allegation.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It’s not atypical for a victim to do that, especially when there is a power dynamic at play. It’s also part of the playbook to attack the victim. We should believe her because that is the standard Biden supported before he was the one facing accusations.

Yet whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

 

[soundforbjt]

Yet whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Unlike the poster you replied to, the standard has never been BELIEVE HER unconditionally, it was take the allegations serious and investigate to see if there's merit and not dismiss for no good reasons. Some are twisting it to mean it's true until it's proven not true. That is not the true intention.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

That's the standard for imprisoning someone, not the standard we have to apply to presidents or SCOTUS justices.

 

[sandorski]

I'm not saying they refute her account of sexual assault. I'm saying they don't corroborate it in any significant way because they are accounts of something different.



I am merely stating reasons why the corroboration is suspect. And my personal impression is that most likely the neighbor is not lying but that her account still isn't credible. Here's a more comprehensive reference for the evidence base on memory as it applies to the courtroom: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/. Essentially, memories are constructions we make. Someone who is a victim of a sexual trauma is likely to remember quite clearly at least several aspects of the trauma. The majority of other memories which are not so personal and encoded under heightened stress are quite fallible and significantly subject to influence of what is externally presented and thought to be credible. If something is emotionally validating, we are apt to find it true and defend it with certainty. Someone's certainty in recollection is not an indicator of the quality of their actual memory. In this case, I think it's probable Reade told her some story of inappropriate behavior by Biden (whether true or not, sexual or not, there is some consistency that such a narrative had existed at the time). The shared recalling of facts in the present? Highly fallible.

Contrasting to Blasey-Ford's therapist notes: given that the alleged event would have been significantly traumatic personally to Blasey-Ford, it is likely that there are quite many specific details which would be encoded quite immutably in her mind. It doesn't make them infallible, and there are many aspects of the event which she would not likely remember better than anything else in her life, but things like who the perpetrator was would be reliable across a long time span. That wouldn't be the case for the therapist hearing it. It's unlikely that it would be traumatic for the therapist, and their focus on details would be contending with need for emotional validation, attention to the responses of both Blasey-Ford and her husband, and things that are specifically relevant to the work rather than shared details which may not have been presented in a logically organized fashion as the goal would likely have been to provide emotional context. The notes were made after a session, so unless the therapist was consulting a recording or detailed process notes, they would likely be doing their own reconstruction of what was said. Obviously, medical records would intentionally omit many details as well. I'm not sure when the therapist notes were written, but probably immediately after a session, possibly a few days later. In fact, there were some inconsistencies with the details between Ford's allegations and the therapist notes. While that is a problem, it certainly aligns with the kind of accuracy as would be expected from a note taken from a recent memory of someone else's story.

Anyway, these are some of the reasons I find Blasey-Ford's corroboration of a narrative existing as presented pre-dating the context in which she may have motivation to create or modify one significantly more compelling than Reade's.

I agree that Memories are quite malleable and can be very unreliable. However, you are really going into speculative territory in trying to assert the greater believability of Ford over Reade here.

The phone call is the one Objective Fact that exists between these 2 allegations. What I mean by that is that it is an event that occurred near the Allegation that establishes some kind of issue. That in itself bolsters Reades allegation significantly more than Ford's. What it means is another question, but clearly an allegation about something and someone was being made at the time that we now decades later can see for ourselves. I can not see that as not substantial.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ah yes, still the phone call, let's see what we know for sure about the call:
1)Who made the call? : Some unknown woman.

2) Where did the call originate? : The caller claimed she was from the same city as Tara's mother, though there's ZERO proof the call originated there.

3) Did the caller collaborate any of Tara's allegations? : No, the accusations were very vague.

So, what do we have here as solid evidence? Zip, Zero, Nada.

 

[Jhhnn]

ugh, the sooner this gets resolved the better.

The only way it gets resolved is to admit that Reade is not credible, something that should be beyond obvious at this point. I mean, it doesn't stink if you're upwind, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah yes, still the phone call, let's see what we know for sure about the call:
1)Who made the call? : Some unknown woman.

2) Where did the call originate? : The caller claimed she was from the same city as Tara's mother, though there's ZERO proof the call originated there.

3) Did the caller collaborate any of Tara's allegations? : No, the accusations were very vague.

So, what do we have here as solid evidence? Zip, Zero, Nada.

But it creates doubt, which is the point of the whole exercise entirely.

 

[fskimospy]

While this is a screencap, assuming it is accurate we have another inconsistency. She previously claimed her story was in the National Archives, now she doesn't know.

 

[sandorski]

The only way it gets resolved is to admit that Reade is not credible, something that should be beyond obvious at this point. I mean, it doesn't stink if you're upwind, right?

Incorrect. There are too many qustions left unanswered hat can be answered.

 

[soundforbjt]

Incorrect. There are too many qustions left unanswered hat can be answered.

Yes, but the majority of the remaining questions focus on Reade's credibility, she has demonstrated none so far.

 

[sandorski]

While this is a screencap, assuming it is accurate we have another inconsistency. She previously claimed her story was in the National Archives, now she doesn't know.

Perhaps because she can only specuate where they are depending on what she has been informed about it? This is a reach to criticize.

 

[UNCjigga]

While this is a screencap, assuming it is accurate we have another inconsistency. She previously claimed her story was in the National Archives, now she doesn't know.

Somewhere, a piss drunk Nick Cage is on the phone with Disney like, “Hey you guys, I gotta GREAT story idea for National Treasure 3!!! The hunt for Tara Reade’s complaint!!!”

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps because she can only specuate where they are depending on what she has been informed about it? This is a reach to criticize.

She's saying she has supporting documents in the National Archives. It appears she does not. That's bad.

Also, she claims she was shunned in the office after her allegations. Why is it that more than 20 people in the office at the time she was have no memory of this? Not even one of them. Are they all covering it up?

 

[soundforbjt]

Perhaps because she can only specuate where they are depending on what she has been informed about it? This is a reach to criticize.

Wait I thought she had her employment records...was she being untruthful?

 

[Jhhnn]

Incorrect. There are too many qustions left unanswered hat can be answered.

Utterly irrelevant questions in light of her proven mendacity. You don't want it to end, ever, anyway. You've proven that entirely. Maintain the faux controversy by any means possible.