The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[sandorski]

You're just trying to gaslight us into believing that "not about (whatever)" & "not only about (whatever)" actually mean the same thing. And a lot more, of course. Your current efforts remind me a bit of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch- "He's not dead! He's pining for the fjords!"

Why do you always ignore the second part of those statements? You know, the parts that go with them as a complete Thought.

 

[ivwshane]

This thing is starting to smell.

The right gives away its game every time. When you see a concerted effort by the fringe websites and fox and the story was previously vetted by good sources and haven’t “latched” on to it, then it’s bull shit.

When the “extreme“ left tries to do something similar and you don’t see the mainstream media pick it up, then you know it’s bull shit as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Her previous story was that she filed a complaint against Biden for sexual harassment. Now she says it didn’t say sexual harassment. Oh, and it wasn’t a formal complaint either, just an intake form, and of course no one remembers it and no one can find it.

If this isn’t highly problematic to you, you are engaging in motivated reasoning. It’s especially telling that as soon as Biden said ‘sure, release any complaint’ she started backtracking.

 

[Aegeon]

On top of the other issues with Reade's story, you also have the matter that Reade falsely previously asserted that MSNBC did not/refused to invite her for an interview while MSNBC is now confirming they previously had done so but she declined the interview.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256634251845435397

Now maybe this could be somehow explained by a miscommunication by someone associated with Reade, but Reade has yet to explain the situation, and it appears she also made an at least misleading assertion in relation to the Washington Post's willingness to interview her.

Given none of Reade's possible witnesses backing her story are actually eyewitnesses, Reade's inherent credibility as a witness does apply and making a different basically provably false claim is an issue at this point.

(While theoretically MSNBC could have made an intentionally false claim with respect to an interview, in practice they clearly would not have done so given the extent of the potential massive blow-back if they got caught, and that they could be subject to discovery proceedings with respect to evidence since Reade could potentially pursue a libel lawsuit against them for a knowingly untrue claim like that at this point.)

 

[JEDIYoda]

She made that claim 1 year ago, not just now.

can`t you just give it up?? It is so freaking obvious she is not telling the truth and it is also obvious her definition of sexual assault is not a normal definition!!

 

[HomerJS]

On top of the other issues with Reade's story, you also have the matter that Reade falsely previously asserted that MSNBC did not/refused to invite her for an interview while MSNBC is now confirming they previously had done so but she declined the interview.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256634251845435397

Now maybe this could be somehow explained by a miscommunication by someone associated with Reade, but Reade has yet to explain the situation, and it appears she also made an at least misleading assertion in relation to the Washington Post's willingness to interview her.

Given none of Reade's possible witnesses backing her story are actually eyewitnesses, Reade's inherent credibility as a witness does apply and making a different basically provably false claim is an issue at this point.

(While theoretically MSNBC could have made an intentionally false claim with respect to an interview, in practice they clearly would not have done so given the extent of the potential massive blow-back if they got caught, and that they could be subject to discovery proceedings with respect to evidence since Reade could potentially pursue a libel lawsuit against them for a knowingly untrue claim like that at this point.)

My opinion on this now is this woman is lying. It's collapsing under its own weight.

MSNBC is going to emerge in a strong position after this because they took it seriously, did not let bias get in the way of their solid investigation of the facts.

In fact all the so called "liberal media" has done a unbiased investigation from start to finish.

 

[BUTCH1]

Good question. I'm not sure. What would it take to believe Kavenaugh? I am not sure I can answer that question either.

There are some differences, Ford had gone on to become a professor at several universities, Reade comes off as a scrub that stole from a non-profit. She also did not suddenly change her story and submitted to a polygraph. Reade is avoiding interviews now, I wonder why?. How could she, (or any person), effusively praise Biden as a champion of women's rights if he committed this violet crime against her?.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree I am getting terse. For that I am sorry, but I seem to be the only Member of this Forum willing to remain consistent and engaged on these issues and not just be swayed by Political Considerations. The inconsistencies are beginning to make me think that Kavenaugh was indeed part of a scheme of being railroaded, at least the people involved in both cases seem to be acting that way.

That's fine. What I wish to stress is that we believe in the arguments we present because we believe we have presented them according to reality, not according to our perception of reality. There is a subtle difference. The first is an unconscious assumption we make that is un-examined and is a kind of bigotry or hubris that we have just such a capacity. The second point of view contains within it the realization of our own possible error, that maybe, say in this case, and as you well put it, you suggest you 'seem' to be the only member who is consistent. But what if that isn't a fact, that others are just as consistent and so on.

But my point extends from there: What if you are correct and you ARE the only one who is consistent. My question is this: What does it matter emotionally. Why has this made you, as you expressed it, terse. I believe this happens because some sacred cows are involved, some 'good thing' you believe in that you fear will be taken if you are wrong, perhaps your wish to see yourself as consistent and to live up to it and a wish for that principle to be universal and obvious to everyone. This is how I saw it operate in me, my precious one ring. It was just such assumptions I hid from myself.

My personal take on this issue goes something like this: We will never know for sure what happened back all those years. Biden is either guilty or innocent. If he is guilty I will sleep just fine knowing that he can't ever enjoy his own full self respect, the most valuable thing a person can have, in my opinion. If he is innocent, great. I am going to vote for him anyway because Trump is a known sexual offender and a monster in other ways to boot. I will be content with the fact that Biden has done a lot to improve the societal position of women, generally even if he did something unbecoming of a man to one.

I think then, that I am more relaxed about this than you may be because I don't believe anybody can escape justice even when they appear to have gotten off Scott free.

Ignorance isn't bliss, it is only the relief that comes from having no idea of what you miss when you aren't real.

 

[Jhhnn]

This thing is starting to smell.

Starting? I'm reminded of a song-

 

[UberNeuman]

can`t you just give it up?? It is so freaking obvious she is not telling the truth and it is also obvious her definition of sexual assault is not a normal definition!!

Let him keep digging. The dirt has been falling back in the tunnel on top of him. lol.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why do you always ignore the second part of those statements? You know, the parts that go with them as a complete Thought.

Semicolon-

Semicolon | The Punctuation Guide

www.thepunctuationguide.com

 

[sandorski]

Re-read the article. I misread it. I suppose we'll see how this plays out from here, but I'm still curious as to why there is no reason/documentation to her sudden demotion and loss of job.

 

[Starbuck1975]

My opinion on this now is this woman is lying. It's collapsing under its own weight.

MSNBC is going to emerge in a strong position after this because they took it seriously, did not let bias get in the way of their solid investigation of the facts.

In fact all the so called "liberal media" has done a unbiased investigation from start to finish.

Except of course the fact that the MSNBC interview didn’t address the neighbor, and some have rightfully pointed out that Biden waffled a bit when the subject of the University of Delaware documents came up.

 

[compuwiz1]

<<--------puts on his tinfoil hat.

It's too early to drop Biden for this reason. That won't happen for another 90 days, closer to the actually election, then that will be the reason to drop him, and also because of mental issues. Hillary comes in to save the day, block Sanders from reemerging, and save the Democratic party. You think this plan isn't on someone's agenda? It could happen...

 

[Aegeon]

<<--------puts on his tinfoil hat.

It's too early to drop Biden for this reason. That won't happen for another 90 days, closer to the actually election, then that will be the reason to drop him, and also because of mental issues. Hillary comes in to save the day, block Sanders from reemerging, and save the Democratic party. You think this plan isn't on someone's agenda? It could happen...

Uh, on top of the obvious weakness of Reade's claim at this point, the rest of this scenario makes no sense. (Biden would not have been able to handle himself in the one on one debate with Sanders if the dementia claims were actually true for example.) Even if Biden did drop out if Sanders were not picked, it would be vastly more likely to be one of the other primary candidates who at least did pick up some delegates as an inherent advantage when it got to the convention. It also is highly implausible that most of the delegates or super-delegates would actually be inclined to pick Hillary again even if they didn't opt for someone who actually ran. (I.E. why go for the person who managed to lose to Trump last time around?) In other words even if that case it would be realistically someone like Andrew Cuomo or the like.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Except of course the fact that the MSNBC interview didn’t address the neighbor, and some have rightfully pointed out that Biden waffled a bit when the subject of the University of Delaware documents came up.

Yes and you know why? Because the neighbors can offer nothing more than heresay....so they do not figure in at all!!

 

[woolfe9998]

Here we go again. So yesterday Reade told AP the following in regards to this alleged complaint.

the main word I used — and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”

Reade: 'I didn't use sexual harassment' in Biden complaint

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tara Reade, the former Senate staffer who alleges Joe Biden sexually assaulted her 27 years ago, says she filed a limited report with a congressional personnel office that did not explicitly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment.

apnews.com

Then after they started reporting everywhere that she now claims the complaint said nothing about sexual harassment, today she tells NBC news:

I filed a complaint re sexual harassment and retaliation but I am not sure what explicit words on that intake form until we all see it again.

Tara Reade is disputing a report that says her complaint against Joe Biden didn't refer to sexual assault or harassment

Reade alleges Biden assaulted her in a Senate corridor in 1993 when he put his hands under her skirt and underwear without her consent.

www.businessinsider.com

Following her various gyrations is making me nauseous. At this point, it's difficult to conceive of a sexual assault allegation with less credibility than this one. I can understand why she's started cancelling interviews.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I can understand why she's started cancelling interviews.

So can I!! Here Republican handlers are retreating back under the rocks where they came from....

 

[Jhhnn]

Re-read the article. I misread it. I suppose we'll see how this plays out from here, but I'm still curious as to why there is no reason/documentation to her sudden demotion and loss of job.

You're a man on a mission, huh? To tear down Biden & split the Democrats, obviously. Better luck next time. You'll have to recycle the senile Joe & Ukrainian corruption smears until somebody dreams up something better. I'm sure you can handle it, right?

 

[soundforbjt]

Fox is still pushing the story hard today...Nancy Grace was just on Watter's World and said (paraphrasing) "if this is true, it's worse than Kavanaugh and Trump."

 

[JEDIYoda]

Fox is still pushing the story hard today...Nancy Grace was just on Watter's World and said (paraphrasing) "if this is true, it's worse than Kavanaugh and Trump."

FOX is on a mission...they afraid that Trump is losing to Biden!

 

[Fenixgoon]

Fox is still pushing the story hard today...Nancy Grace was just on Watter's World and said (paraphrasing) "if this is true, it's worse than Kavanaugh and Trump."

oh wait, they're serious. let me laugh even harder.

 

[Jhhnn]

Except of course the fact that the MSNBC interview didn’t address the neighbor, and some have rightfully pointed out that Biden waffled a bit when the subject of the University of Delaware documents came up.

Which bolsters Reade's non-existent credibility not in the slightest. She's come undone.

 

[UberNeuman]

"Iiiiiiiiiiiii'mmmm so upset.... whydondent Joe grab me by my puss! HUH!?! Mama's got some goood stuff down there.... Is it. is it. is it because i haven't defecated in over 25 years?!? mama's gonna tell you what's what after 'nother Jager shot..."

 

[BUTCH1]

Here we go again. So yesterday Reade told AP the following in regards to this alleged complaint.

Reade: 'I didn't use sexual harassment' in Biden complaint

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tara Reade, the former Senate staffer who alleges Joe Biden sexually assaulted her 27 years ago, says she filed a limited report with a congressional personnel office that did not explicitly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment.

apnews.com

Then after they started reporting everywhere that she now claims the complaint said nothing about sexual harassment, today she tells NBC news:

Tara Reade is disputing a report that says her complaint against Joe Biden didn't refer to sexual assault or harassment

Reade alleges Biden assaulted her in a Senate corridor in 1993 when he put his hands under her skirt and underwear without her consent.

www.businessinsider.com

Following her various gyrations is making me nauseous. At this point, it's difficult to conceive of a sexual assault allegation with less credibility than this one. I can understand why she's started cancelling interviews.

I see her as a fat, broke, no one, looking for some sort of relevance or a chance to $ell her story to someone. Give us a fucking break, NO ONE who got forced up against a wall and digitally penetrated would then go one down the road to praise the person who did this. I can understand that sometimes women will not report these crimes, but to publicly praise the person who did that to you is laughable.