The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[JEDIYoda]

1. There is a lot of evidence which supports her initial claim of sexual harassment.
2. I disagree vehemently that this is a step or two away from sticking your fingers in someone's vagina without consent.
3. Her "unrelated work issue" is an account of fraud. If such an account is credible, it's not unrelated to assessing the credibility of Tara modifying her story from sexual harassment to rape.

For the record, based on what I've seen, I personally think that the sexual harassment claim is more likely true than not and the rape claim is more likely not true than true. I would certainly welcome any sort of official investigation and getting as many accounts on the record as possible. I'm skeptical it will happen, and one of the disturbing things here is Tara's incorporation into her own story the narrative that the media intentionally ignored her, which isn't supported by evidence. Maintaining that narrative conflicts with trying to put her story out there under oath.

so essentially she screwed herself when she claimed the media intentionally ignored her...no pun intended.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

"Believe all women" is dumb... and not an idea consistent with the American system of jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty. "Believe women" is a very different message than "believe all women". And the latter was, and still is, absolutely used and it shouldn't be. The knee-jerk “you’re a hypocrite if you don’t react to this like you reacted to Trump/Kavanaugh” and pious virtue-signalling that’s supposed to symbolize a commitment to progressive ideology that doesn’t respect party lines, all betray an abject unwillingness to examine the facts from all sides.

That said, due to the fact laid out, it's entirely consistent to believe Ford and not Reade. Personally, I think it's more likely than not true that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford, and also more likely than not true that Biden did not assault Reade. I wouldn't swear to either one, and I wouldn't convict Kavanaugh in a court of law based on the evidence presented.

Lest I get accused of making that decision in a partisan manner, bullshit. I think it's more likely, than not true that Bill Clinton assaulted one or more women. And nearly certainly true that Trump did .

This is the problem with a social movement that is largely an internet hashtag. No centralization means it can be easily hijacked and co-opted by bad actors. This isn’t helped by #MeToo’s original stance of treating all accusations as legitimate by default. It made it ripe for being weaponized against politicians and the like.

People and news sources who are usually sympathetic to sexual assault victims and believe in giving accusers the platform to be heard have for the most part refrained from supporting Reade due to her credibility issues.

-- BINGO!!!

 

[theeedude]

Where's the evidence aside from he said she said and hearsay? This is not a situation where the perp has admitted to grabbing someone by the pussy.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Where's the evidence aside from he said she said and hearsay? This is not a situation where the perp has admitted to grabbing someone by the pussy.

Your name should be Commonsenseamp.....

 

[sandorski]

No, I’m saying she has made a claim that she was informed that her complaint is held by Biden. Similar to the police giving suspects custody of the complaints against them this strikes me as an unusual situation, one that merits verification.

The good news is that verification should be extraordinarily simple. All Reade has to do is point to who told her this and we can check! It’s very strange that you are so adamantly opposed to such a basic, common sense verification. You still have not explained why you are in favor of weeks or months of extensive research but so strongly opposed to a ten minute phone call. Can you help us understand?

As far as people looking through Biden’s records they shouldn’t without good reason. In case people need to be walked through this the pretty obvious goal is to get Biden to open all his records to the public, at which point they will be Hillary’s Emailsed. Since Joe is presumably not stupid, he will not do this. Similarly, I’m not aware of Bernie Sanders making all his office records public record either because he is also not stupid.

If there is independent corroboration from the prior records holder that this was transferred to Biden or that it is substantially likely it was then I think a confidential investigator should go look for it. Until then if such a simple request of verifying their story is too much it should be ignored.

Why on earth do you think this is relevant in any way? Even if she remembers the particular Person, the Record of the complaint is the only thing that verifies the claim.

You are just throwing hurdles dude, just like a Rape Apologist.

 

[sandorski]

"Believe all women" is dumb... and not an idea consistent with the American system of jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty. "Believe women" is a very different message than "believe all women". And the latter was, and still is, absolutely used and it shouldn't be. The knee-jerk “you’re a hypocrite if you don’t react to this like you reacted to Trump/Kavanaugh” and pious virtue-signalling that’s supposed to symbolize a commitment to progressive ideology that doesn’t respect party lines, all betray an abject unwillingness to examine the facts from all sides.

That said, due to the fact laid out, it's entirely consistent to believe Ford and not Reade. Personally, I think it's more likely than not true that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford, and also more likely than not true that Biden did not assault Reade. I wouldn't swear to either one, and I wouldn't convict Kavanaugh in a court of law based on the evidence presented.

Lest I get accused of making that decision in a partisan manner, bullshit. I think it's more likely, than not true that Bill Clinton assaulted one or more women. And nearly certainly true that Trump did .

This is the problem with a social movement that is largely an internet hashtag. No centralization means it can be easily hijacked and co-opted by bad actors. This isn’t helped by #MeToo’s original stance of treating all accusations as legitimate by default. It made it ripe for being weaponized against politicians and the like.

People and news sources who are usually sympathetic to sexual assault victims and believe in giving accusers the platform to be heard have for the most part refrained from supporting Reade due to her credibility issues.

Believe Women when it's Politically Expedient.

 

[interchange]

so essentially she screwed herself when she claimed the media intentionally ignored her...no pun intended.....

It's a problem with the credibility of her story. Would anyone disagree with that? But I think your post invites a sort of static designation of true or false account. There is basically zero chance that anyone other than Tara and Joe will be able to know for certain whether this happened or not, and there is plenty of opportunity for more evidence for or against Tara's story to come out.

What I think is more prudent is for us to discuss, as a priority above determining what we make of the evidence, 3 things:
1. What is the burden of proof required for us to take action? (I suggest preponderance of the evidence -- more likely than not)
2. What action should we take should that evidentiary hurdle be met? (Not voting for Joe?)
3. What is the proper forum for which to elicit and present the evidence? (This is the hardest for me since I'm not aware of any possibility for either criminal or civil litigation, and unlike Kavanaugh, a President nominee doesn't require confirmation by the Senate. So we are left with the media. But I do think, and perhaps someone more knowing can add to this, that there could be a private deposition made under oath at least)

 

[sandorski]

Where's the evidence aside from he said she said and hearsay? This is not a situation where the perp has admitted to grabbing someone by the pussy.

...and?

 

[Blackjack200]

It's a problem with the credibility of her story. Would anyone disagree with that? But I think your post invites a sort of static designation of true or false account. There is basically zero chance that anyone other than Tara and Joe will be able to know for certain whether this happened or not, and there is plenty of opportunity for more evidence for or against Tara's story to come out.

MeToo 2019: Believe Women
MeToo 2020: If you think about it, who can ever be certain of anything, really?

 

[sandorski]

It's a problem with the credibility of her story. Would anyone disagree with that? But I think your post invites a sort of static designation of true or false account. There is basically zero chance that anyone other than Tara and Joe will be able to know for certain whether this happened or not, and there is plenty of opportunity for more evidence for or against Tara's story to come out.

What I think is more prudent is for us to discuss, as a priority above determining what we make of the evidence, 3 things:
1. What is the burden of proof required for us to take action? (I suggest preponderance of the evidence -- more likely than not)
2. What action should we take should that evidentiary hurdle be met? (Not voting for Joe?)
3. What is the proper forum for which to elicit and present the evidence? (This is the hardest for me since I'm not aware of any possibility for either criminal or civil litigation, and unlike Kavanaugh, a President nominee doesn't require confirmation by the Senate. So we are left with the media. But I do think, and perhaps someone more knowing can add to this, that there could be a private deposition made under oath at least)

Except, the Media did try to ignore her. Dr Ford was headline News almost immediately. There was bupkiss about Reade and when they started to talk about it their first reactions were in attacking the Source of the first Story...which just happened to be the same Source that broke the Dr Ford Story. Strange bedfellows and all...

 

[dank69]

So you admit that finding the Truth is not up to Tara. You just don't want anyone looking through the Records.

Okay trollbag.

 

[dank69]

Except, the Media did try to ignore her. Dr Ford was headline News almost immediately. There was bupkiss about Reade and when they started to talk about it their first reactions were in attacking the Source of the first Story...which just happened to be the same Source that broke the Dr Ford Story. Strange bedfellows and all...

The media always ignores flimsy stories. Well, except for trollbag media sources.

 

[dank69]

MeToo 2019: Believe Women
MeToo 2020: If you think about it, who can really ever be certain of anything, really?

Okay trollbag.

 

[fskimospy]

Why on earth do you think this is relevant in any way? Even if she remembers the particular Person, the Record of the complaint is the only thing that verifies the claim.

You are just throwing hurdles dude, just like a Rape Apologist.

How do you not understand such simple things? If she can’t recall the person, office, or time that someone told her they gave it to Biden then she’s probably full of shit. If she can recall then that office can be contacted to see if that’s their standard procedure, if they would have kept copies, if there is any record of the investigation into the complaint, etc.

She claims something exists that no one else remembers and no one can find. She was supposedly informed of the location of this hidden document by someone.

This is literally the world’s lowest hurdle. It could be overcome by her in five seconds. If she wasn’t prepared to back up this claim she shouldn’t have made it or should retract it.

 

[sandorski]

Okay trollbag.

I'm sorry I have become Inconvenient. What part of what I said is Wrong?

 

[sandorski]

The media always ignores flimsy stories. Well, except for trollbag media sources.

Not true at all. Especially considering that a "Trollbag" media source first broke the Dr Ford story.

 

[sandorski]

How do you not understand such simple things? If she can’t recall the person, office, or time that someone told her they gave it to Biden then she’s probably full of shit. If she can recall then that office can be contacted to see if that’s their standard procedure, if they would have kept copies, if there is any record of the investigation into the complaint, etc.

She claims something exists that no one else remembers and no one can find. She was supposedly informed of the location of this hidden document by someone.

This is literally the world’s lowest hurdle. It could be overcome by her in five seconds. If she wasn’t prepared to back up this claim she shouldn’t have made it or should retract it.

I'm not the one with the lack of understanding here. The Records are Sealed. Even You know this, so quit with the nonsense, you look foolish.

 

[Blackjack200]

Okay trollbag.

I'm not a Russian asset anymore, I guess that's a modest improvement.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Believe Women when it's Politically Expedient.

...In your case, Believe women when your favorite candidate loses to a candidate you don't like

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not the one with the lack of understanding here. The Records are Sealed. Even You know this, so quit with the nonsense, you look foolish.

/facepalm

This is so painful. You are right though, one of us looks dumb.

Only the records in Biden’s possession at the university of Delaware are sealed. Any records held by the Senate ethics office would not be, or at least would not be subject to Biden’s approval.

The dumbness. It hurts.

 

[Paratus]

Why on earth do you think this is relevant in any way? Even if she remembers the particular Person, the Record of the complaint is the only thing that verifies the claim.

You are just throwing hurdles dude, just like a Rape Apologist.

Why? Because it’s a simple check to corroborate her story and the information contained in these senate records are likely sensitive.

If she’s knows who she talked to and they confirm it it bolsters her credibility which is paramount in this kind of he said she said case.

If you are getting ready to toss “Rape Apologist” on the table consider this.

A couple of months ago this Dr was accusing Sanders of hiding information about his heart attack, likely to make him seem unelectable. Should Sanders have released all his medical records because somebody accused him of hiding something? I would say no.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/450142/bernie-sanders-hiding-critical-heart-health-info/

 

[sandorski]

Why? Because it’s a simple check to corroborate her story and the information contained in these senate records are likely sensitive.

If she’s knows who she talked to and they confirm it it bolsters her credibility which is paramount in this kind of he said she said case.

If you are getting ready to toss “Rape Apologist” on the table consider this.

A couple of months ago this Dr was accusing Sanders of hiding information about his heart attack, likely to make him seem unelectable. Should Sanders have released all his medical records because somebody accused him of hiding something? I would say no.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/450142/bernie-sanders-hiding-critical-heart-health-info/

...and if the Person does not recall? It solves nothing. The actual Records are the evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

...and if the Person does not recall? It solves nothing. The actual Records are the evidence.

The person/office will surely know if turning over the sole copies of sexual harassment complaints to the targets of those complaints is their office policy. If it is not and they have no memory of doing so, case closed.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I have no horse in this race.
I do find it funny that all the deplorable’s I know are outraged!!! about this.
To all the Bros, don’t kid yourselves there is someone waiting to accuse Bernie of something similar. Deplorable’s live for muddying the water.

 

[Paratus]

...and if the Person does not recall? It solves nothing. The actual Records are the evidence.

So she has said she doesn’t recall? Haven’t staffers at the time said they don’t recall a complaint (I’m asking I’m not sure). If they did then what record are they supposed to find?