The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[Jhhnn]

Dems should just let them get these Blue Star documents. It won’t be a clown show until they bring in people to testify.

It's between Blue Star & the Senate committee. It's a political fishing expedition. They figure sliming Burisma will slime Hunter will slime Joe, as well. The sentiment to oust Shokin was universal among western govts helping to bail out Ukraine. His investigations were mostly just shakedowns. Burisma? Shee-it, Sherlock. The privatization of Ukrainian state assets was all corrupt to some degree or another. The govt was corrupt, so businessmen had to be as well. Those were the rules. When the rules change business changes its behavior to match.

 

[UberNeuman]

Well, hell... Mighty quiet in these parts these days... hmmm... wonder why....

 

[theeedude]

Nobody gives a shit about Buestar and Burisma, just makes GOP look even more out of touch with them focusing on those fake scandals in the middle of a pandemic. Try telling someone unemployed But But But BlueStar Burisma.

 

[fskimospy]

View attachment 21485


Well, hell... Mighty quiet in these parts these days... hmmm... wonder why....

It is a mystery.

 

[Starbuck1975]

False. The woman said she did not remember the party so she couldn’t say either way. This is in marked contrast to the people reported on in the PBS story who directly said Reade’s descriptions were wrong.

The difference is that while the media has ripped apart the discrepancies in Reade’s story, there was a huge benefit of the doubt given to the holes in Dr. Ford’s.

I don’t know why you keep desperately attempting to equate the two. It’s a sure fire loser.

Because they’re equivalent

Sad attempt. We are discussing Reade’s actions specifically, not some nebulous culture.

I take it you didn't grow up in the 80s or watch any of the teen movies of that era or listen to any Van Halen songs. So so nebulous.

Says everyone with knowledge of what records are given over to universities. If you think the office records of every congressman running for office should be in the public domain then why didn’t you complain about Al Gore, John McCain, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Mike Pence?

They didn’t stand accused of any crimes, although if you look at my posting history, I’ve consistently asserted that documents pertaining to the activities of a government official working in their official capacity should be in the public domain.

‘There needs to be an investigation!’

‘Okay here’s an investigation.’

‘No, that doesn’t count.’

The only investigation that mattered is whether or not a record exists of her submitting a complaint. Exposing the troubled life of an accuser is not an investigation, its the playbook I thought we were supposed to be moving away from.

We can! I do not think you are applying similar standards of evidence in this case though and as evidence has piled up that Reade is not a credible person you are discounting it.

That means we have different perspectives.

I think if we knew what we know about Reade now when she made her allegation no one would take it seriously.

I think if these allegations surfaced say in January, Harris and Warren amongst others would have buried Biden with it as was done to Bloomberg.

 

[eelw]

But what is there to investigate? There’s no physical proof. It’s he said/she said. There’s witness testimony that supports both sides. Motives and actions is what has to be looked into.

Edit - physical proof of the assault. The employment records won’t help. Not like it will say she was removed because he fingered her. And it won’t say it was fired because she’s a lying grifter.

 

[fskimospy]

The difference is that while the media has ripped apart the discrepancies in Reade’s story, there was a huge benefit of the doubt given to the holes in Dr. Ford’s.

Man, sure sounds like there should have been an investigation then.

Because they’re equivalent

No. People saying Kavanaugh is a good guy is not equivalent to people directly refuting Reade’s claims.

I take it you didn't grow up in the 80s or watch any of the teen movies of that era or listen to any Van Halen songs. So so nebulous.

They didn’t stand accused of any crimes, although if you look at my posting history, I’ve consistently asserted that documents pertaining to the activities of a government official working in their official capacity should be in the public domain.

The only investigation that mattered is whether or not a record exists of her submitting a complaint. Exposing the troubled life of an accuser is not an investigation, its the playbook I thought we were supposed to be moving away from.

That means we have different perspectives.

I think if these allegations surfaced say in January, Harris and Warren amongst others would have buried Biden with it as was done to Bloomberg.

False. When a complaint relies SOLELY on the credibility of the person making it, investigating that person’s credibility is the #1 most important thing. Even if a complaint turned up it wouldn’t matter unless they found evidence to substantiate it because again, it would be purely based on Reade’s credibility and at this point her credibility is basically zero.

I mean at this point she appears to be inventing stories about secret diplomas from a school she never got a degree from but somehow we are still supposed to believe her when she tells other stories.

 

[fskimospy]

But what is there to investigate? There’s no physical proof. It’s he said/she said. There’s witness testimony that supports both sides. Motives and actions is what has to be looked into.

Edit - physical proof of the assault. The employment records won’t help. Not like it will say she was removed because he fingered her. And it won’t say it was fired because she’s a lying grifter.

There is not witness testimony that supports either side other than the two people supposedly involved.

It’s as simple as this - the accusation is based solely on what Reade has said. We now know she lies about things routinely, therefore we cannot trust she is not lying here. Case closed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Man, sure sounds like there should have been an investigation then.

Typically, the investigation is of the accused, not the accuser.

No. People saying Kavanaugh is a good guy is not equivalent to people directly refuting Reade’s claims.

Correct, but a benefit of doubt was extended to Dr. Ford’s claims that were not extended to Reade.

False. When a complaint relies SOLELY on the credibility of the person making it, investigating that person’s credibility is the #1 most important thing. Even if a complaint turned up it wouldn’t matter unless they found evidence to substantiate it because again, it would be purely based on Reade’s credibility and at this point her credibility is basically zero.

Have you ever seen the movie “The Accused”? When it comes to sexual assault, the standard playbook is to tear down the accuser.

I mean at this point she appears to be inventing stories about secret diplomas from a school she never got a degree from but somehow we are still supposed to believe her when she tells other stories.

She is not a sympathetic accuser, but the only relevant investigation would be to determine if a record of her complaint exists. The media’s exhaustive reporting on aspects of her life unrelated to that claim is not a good thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Typically, the investigation is of the accused, not the accuser.

False, the investigation is of the accusation itself, including the accuser. Not to mention Joe Biden accused her of lying, so it’s only proper to see if she lies a lot. Turns out she does.

Correct, but a benefit of doubt was extended to Dr. Ford’s claims that were not extended to Reade.

Glad we agree the two are not the same then.

Have you ever seen the movie “The Accused”? When it comes to sexual assault, the standard playbook is to tear down the accuser.

She is not a sympathetic accuser, but the only relevant investigation would be to determine if a record of her complaint exists. The media’s exhaustive reporting on aspects of her life unrelated to that claim is not a good thing.

This is ludicrously false. First, the media has exhaustively searched for a record of the complaint and have not found one. Reade herself conveniently claims not to have it despite having her other employment records.

So in the absence of this record what makes sense is to investigate the circumstances, as PBS did, finding they did not support her story, and to investigate the credibility of the person making the claim. Both investigations have turned out very poorly for Reade.

 

[Jhhnn]

She is not a sympathetic accuser, but the only relevant investigation would be to determine if a record of her complaint exists. The media’s exhaustive reporting on aspects of her life unrelated to that claim is not a good thing.

Well, yeh, but she said it was just a request for counseling that didn't claim assault. Go figure. I'm also confident that a copy is hers for the asking if such a thing ever existed in the first place. Highly unlikely, just like the whole "Joe Biden grabbed me by the pussy in the hallway" routine. It's a great example of the theory of the big lie in action. If you're going to lie, tell a whopper because people won't believe you had the impudence to just make it up.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I'm actually a little worried guys, hear me out:

Joe Biden can rape literally anything now and get away with it.

Donald Trump and by extension the GOP has managed to so completely destroy any remaining shred of credibility the right wing has had in this country that they have effectively given CARTE BLANCH to Joe Biden to rape, since so many of us have been left with no other choice than to yet again vote for the lesser evil.

Tomorrow a mix tape of Joe Biden raping small, furry, lovable woodland creatures could drop, and I'd still vote for him.

The Donald and the GOP going to be responsible for forcing me to vote for a Deep State Racist Rapist.

 

[interchange]

Because they’re equivalent

Do you truly believe this is the case?

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you truly believe this is the case?

Concern trolls need not be consistent. They can apply one standard to the Kavanaugh situation & entirely another to the Biden situation. Because you said "believe all women" & then you didn't. Or something. You're the hypocrite, not them. Take that, Libtard!

 

[dank69]

...

Correct, but a benefit of doubt was extended to Dr. Ford’s claims that were not extended to Reade.

...

No it wasn't. Republicans wrote her off immediately and Democrats called for an investigation. When Kavanaugh perjured himself in response we considered that evidence that tips the scales toward believing Ford. Now that like a hundred people have confirmed that Reade is a lifelong grifter, the scales are tipped way toward believing Biden.

 

[pauldun170]

Normally I skip articles like this but this thread came to mind when it showed up in my news feed

Opinion | ‘Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap (Published 2020)

How feminists got stuck answering for a canard.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ivwshane]

Normally I skip articles like this but this thread came to mind when it showed up in my news feed

Opinion | ‘Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap (Published 2020)

How feminists got stuck answering for a canard.

www.nytimes.com

I know a certain someone who won’t bother reading it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do you truly believe this is the case?

Break it down, hammertime:

Neither of the accused demonstrated patterns of behavior typically indicative of sexual predators, yet both also engaged in behaviors that make the accusations plausible (Biden with the touching and hair smelling, Kavanaugh with the party culture of the 80s)

Both of the accused had numerous women who worked directly for them vouch for their character.

Neither accuser is able to definitely or accurately provide all of the details surrounding the circumstances of the assault.

In both cases, the men previously achieved highly visible positions of power, and the vetting that goes with those positions, where its reasonable to question why the accusations didn’t surface sooner.

No one witnessed the assault in either case, and witnesses who could or would have been present do not recollect any of the details as presented by the accuser.

However.

Both women consistently confided various details to different people over a period of many years.

Both accusers received threats from political partisans.

There are of course differences as well. Only one is a sympathetic accuser, the other has had a difficult life. Kavanaugh was in high school, Biden was a US Senator.

 

[UberNeuman]

lol. And the one man band marched on....

 

[Starbuck1975]

No it wasn't. Republicans wrote her off immediately and Democrats called for an investigation. When Kavanaugh perjured himself in response we considered that evidence that tips the scales toward believing Ford. Now that like a hundred people have confirmed that Reade is a lifelong grifter, the scales are tipped way toward believing Biden.

Not entirely true. Democrats quickly and assertively articulated that they believed Dr. Ford, well before all the facts were known.

 

[Starbuck1975]

There is not witness testimony that supports either side other than the two people supposedly involved.

It’s as simple as this - the accusation is based solely on what Reade has said. We now know she lies about things routinely, therefore we cannot trust she is not lying here. Case closed.

By that standard, the vast majority of sexual assault claims would never see a courtroom. Oh look, the accuser has a troubled past, case closed.

 

[UberNeuman]

I know a certain someone who won’t bother reading it.

Libertarians are a strange lot and fine GOP foot soldiers.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well, yeh, but she said it was just a request for counseling that didn't claim assault. Go figure. I'm also confident that a copy is hers for the asking if such a thing ever existed in the first place. Highly unlikely, just like the whole "Joe Biden grabbed me by the pussy in the hallway" routine. It's a great example of the theory of the big lie in action. If you're going to lie, tell a whopper because people won't believe you had the impudence to just make it up.

Let’s say such a request did surface. Would you agree it would appropriate at that point to get sworn testimony from those involved to determine if it increases an understanding of the circumstances surrounding the request?

 

[fskimospy]

By that standard, the vast majority of sexual assault claims would never see a courtroom. Oh look, the accuser has a troubled past, case closed.

She does not have a ‘troubled past’, she has a past that specifically involves her lying to people for personal benefit.

When assessing whether or not her story of being assaulted by Biden is the truth or a lie an objective and rational person would weigh the fact that large numbers of people have come forward saying she told them stories that were lies.

 

[eelw]

Sworn testimony? Again no criminal charges. Not senate approved nomination. There’s going to be no formal investigation.