The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[fskimospy]

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

She apparently has all her employment records except for the employment record of the even that she says changed her life forever. Also she's not sure if it's an employment record anymore, it might have just been an intake form.

The important part is she was shunned and fired for doing this, which is supported by exactly zero of the 20+ people who also worked in the office during her tenure.

 

[soundforbjt]

Has she told any verifiable truths yet (other than working for Biden)?

 

[ivwshane]

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

Yeah I think we at least need 6-7 Benghazi style investigations about this. If we do more than 7 and nothing comes out then obviously the story was nothing but a hit job. Anything less than six investigations will only mean there are still too many questions left unanswered. Of course if Biden doesn’t win the presidency then we can ignore this whole thing but if he does win it then maybe will have to have some impeachment type investigations brought up (think Kenneth star and the white water scandal that involved infidelity).

/eye roll


For those of you who aren’t using motivated reasoning and who aren’t useful idiots, remember that the number one play used by republicans and the right is to accuse your opponents of the very thing you are guilty of:

Joe Concha and Sean Hannity agree: Sexual misconduct allegations are becoming just a "political weapon to take out opponents"

From the November 29 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

www.mediamatters.org

 

[Jhhnn]

Has she told any verifiable truths yet (other than working for Biden)?

Well, she said she was taking us on a snipe hunt...

 

[VRAMdemon]

In a move reminiscent of Robert Mueller’s fake accuser, Reade canceled a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace.

I guess she figured that the Trump channel would be a great softball outlet for pushing her ill-thought out and inconsistent smear job. Then someone probably tipped her off that Wallace is "almost" a real journalist and not a total Trump shill. So now she’s scared, she’s not ready....acting like every high profile scammer ever when the game falls apart.

I see the "politically convenient" canard is still being thrown about in this thread, when most of us have explained a myriad of inconsistencies and examples of why we don't find her accusations credible.

One can support the #MeToo Movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist in the real world and in debates like this, the movement is no more than a hit squad and will be labled as such. As it stands...That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.

 

[sandorski]

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?

It appears what? That is inconclusive due to possible Trump shenanigans.

Interns noted a sudden absence, so something noteworthy impressed upon some people. What do you think shunning is or what it would appear as, to fellow workers? Since she alleges to have been demoted from some kind of managerial position, that certainly would have changed whom she was previously hobnobbing with, other Managers for eg.

 

[sandorski]

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.

ok

 

[fskimospy]

It appears what? That is inconclusive due to possible Trump shenanigans.

Interns noted a sudden absence, so something noteworthy impressed upon some people. What do you think shunning is or what it would appear as, to fellow workers? Since she alleges to have been demoted from some kind of managerial position, that certainly would have changed whom she was previously hobnobbing with, other Managers for eg.

Why do you think not a single, solitary person who she shared the office with corroborates her account? We aren't talking about one or two people either, we're talking dozens.

Why not even one? Isn't that a huge red flag to you?

 

[sandorski]

Yeah I think we at least need 6-7 Benghazi style investigations about this. If we do more than 7 and nothing comes out then obviously the story was nothing but a hit job. Anything less than six investigations will only mean there are still too many questions left unanswered. Of course if Biden doesn’t win the presidency then we can ignore this whole thing but if he does win it then maybe will have to have some impeachment type investigations brought up (think Kenneth star and the white water scandal that involved infidelity).

/eye roll


For those of you who aren’t using motivated reasoning and who aren’t useful idiots, remember that the number one play used by republicans and the right is to accuse your opponents of the very thing you are guilty of:

Joe Concha and Sean Hannity agree: Sexual misconduct allegations are becoming just a "political weapon to take out opponents"

From the November 29 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

www.mediamatters.org

There hasn't even been 1 yet. Eyeroll in front of a mirror.

 

[sandorski]

In a move reminiscent of Robert Mueller’s fake accuser, Reade canceled a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace.

I guess she figured that the Trump channel would be a great softball outlet for pushing her ill-thought out and inconsistent smear job. Then someone probably tipped her off that Wallace is "almost" a real journalist and not a total Trump shill. So now she’s scared, she’s not ready....acting like every high profile scammer ever when the game falls apart.

I see the "politically convenient" canard is still being thrown about in this thread, when most of us have explained a myriad of inconsistencies and examples of why we don't find her accusations credible.

One can support the #MeToo Movement and not support allegations of sexual assault that do not ring true. If these two positions cannot coexist in the real world and in debates like this, the movement is no more than a hit squad and will be labled as such. As it stands...That’s not how I see the #MeToo movement. It’s too important, for too many victims of sexual assault and their allies, to be no more than that.

Speculation. Not long ago in this thread she was being criticized for this very upcoming appearance as being proof to her being a Russian plant/Grifter. It is as if no matter what she does, it's proof she's a fake.

 

[sandorski]

Why do you think not a single, solitary person who she shared the office with corroborates her account? We aren't talking about one or two people either, we're talking dozens.

Why not even one? Isn't that a huge red flag to you?

Some Interns have. You seem quite dismissive of them. Do you think everyone in an office knows everything everyone is experiencing?

 

[soundforbjt]

Some Interns have. You seem quite dismissive of them. Do you think everyone in an office knows everything everyone is experiencing?

Link to them corroborating her account.

 

[fskimospy]

Some Interns have. You seem quite dismissive of them. Do you think everyone in an office knows everything everyone is experiencing?

I don't, and no one has corroborated any of her actual accounts of a hostile environment or shunning or whatever, just that some interns said she stopped managing them.

I think a reasonable and objective person would be very curious as to why she can't find a single, solitary person who supports her description of the office and why in fact so many of them say it was the exact opposite. It's an enormous red flag.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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?

Exactly!! The Trumpster will keep on running their mouths! Even if it were to be resolved Trump would still mention it every time he gets a chance!
Truth means nothing to Trump or the Republicans, that is unless it is their truth.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

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?

or they all could have been abused my Biden......that is the way Republicans think......

 

[sandorski]

I don't, and no one has corroborated any of her actual accounts of a hostile environment or shunning or whatever, just that some interns said she stopped managing them.

I think a reasonable and objective person would be very curious as to why she can't find a single, solitary person who supports her description of the office and why in fact so many of them say it was the exact opposite. It's an enormous red flag.

It doesn't take everyone to be hostile for a hostile environment to exist. Simply having a boss turn against you could completely change your perception of the Work Environment.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Tell you what.

We'll sacrifice Biden.
If they will sacrifice Trump.

Neither man to be nominated in 2020.
Deal?

Sounds good to me. These are two shit choices tbh.

 

[interchange]

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.

That's you, then.

Perhaps I'll ask it differently. Her original account was one of sexual harassment. Why would you say the phone call supports a credible allegation of sexual assault and not harassment?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can you provide some specific evidence here where someone made statements arguing for a certain standard of evidence RE: Blasey-Ford which are not the same as they argued RE: Reade?

I'm skeptical of your premise, but believe there are likely some inconsistencies and biases to be found nonetheless. Still, you have painted a picture. Please substantiate it.

Let’s start with the inherent bias of the hashtag #ibelieveher, along with the inherent bias in acknowledging the courage of the accuser coming forward. It’s an affirmation of support for the accuser to provide a space to air the accusations.

Let’s start with Kamala Harris. In the early days of Dr. Ford coming forward, when it was premature to establish the credibility of the accusations, Kamala Harris said “I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage.”

“She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain.”

This was an assertive position in support of the accuser in a he said/she said scenario.

Everything Senator Harris said above applied to Reade, yet her statement on Reade is:

“I can only speak to the Joe Biden I know.”

I can draw this contrast for just above every Democratic Senator who affirmatively and assertively believed Dr. Ford.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yet whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

I am delighted you now embrace the concept of due process.

 

[soundforbjt]

I am delighted you now embrace the concept of due process.

So, who/what body should have a hearing on this case/allegation?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sounds good to me. These are two shit choices tbh.

I can roll with that!!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

I am delighted you now embrace the concept of due process.

I am glad that you believe that Biden is innocent until proven guilty!!
It doesn`t mean that Reade is not lying.......there is a difference..

 

[ivwshane]

There hasn't even been 1 yet. Eyeroll in front of a mirror.

Lol! The point, unsurprisingly, was lost on you. Keep being useful!

 

[ivwshane]

Let’s start with the inherent bias of the hashtag #ibelieveher, along with the inherent bias in acknowledging the courage of the accuser coming forward. It’s an affirmation of support for the accuser to provide a space to air the accusations.

Let’s start with Kamala Harris. In the early days of Dr. Ford coming forward, when it was premature to establish the credibility of the accusations, Kamala Harris said “I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage.”

“She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain.”

This was an assertive position in support of the accuser in a he said/she said scenario.

Everything Senator Harris said above applied to Reade, yet her statement on Reade is:

“I can only speak to the Joe Biden I know.”

I can draw this contrast for just above every Democratic Senator who affirmatively and assertively believed Dr. Ford.

When is Tara coming before the senate or subjecting herself to any sworn testimony?

Looks like more poor understanding from you.