Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Toni]

I'm afraid you don't understand. I can tell it was an unwanted sexual advance. What I can't tell is why it was also classified as an attempted sexual assault. It can't be because it was an unwanted sexual advance, because the first example was an unwanted sexual advance but not a sexual assault.



Of course, you conflate criticising feminism -- and feminists -- with "anti-woman animus". I suppose this is sufficient for you: anti-feminist means anti-woman. Of course, it is the exact opposite. I believe feminism harms men and women.

But, as we all know, beliefs are irrational and cannot be willed away - even with education or evidence.

I never said all beliefs were irrational nor did I say education or evidence can't change people's beliefs. It simply does not follow from what I've said about beliefs.

The difference between an unwanted sexual advance and an attempted or threatened (or accomplished) sexual assault is the latter comes with an implied or explicit threat of force or actual force.

Most women and lot of men have experienced an unwelcomeor unwanted sexual
advance. Someone tried to pull you into a kiss that you don’t want. Lots of times it’s simply what we used to call a pass. You don’t return someone else’s feelings. Happens. Hopefully no hurt feelings.

It is an assault or attempted assault when someone attempts to isolate you from help, or seeks to prevent your escape from their advances or does not respect your refusal and attempts or does force unwanted sexual contact. That happens too often.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I asked Ford only to clarify.

Which he did. The end.

 

[Ford]

I asked Ford only to clarify.

I offered clarification, but clarification only works with someone who is actually paying attention and attempting to understand the scenarios presented.

It was obvious -- apparently to people who already agreed with Ford -- that his first example was not sexual assault (and apparently not even an unwelcome sexual advance!), but that his second example apparently was an (attempted) sexual assault.

What you still seem to not grasp is that one of the people in the first example was ME. I remember it well. She was wearing green. The event was at a popular club that the business had rented for the occasion. It was during "happy hour" and later on in the evening another employee named Toni (no relation) arrived and the VP of the company asked me to introduce her to him (Toni had that effect on people). You, on the other hand, are taking something I experienced and rewriting the incident to fit YOUR narrative. Sorry, but as the owner of the lap and the cheek, I get to decide whether I was assaulted. I was there. You were not. You do not get to pontificate upon the finer intricacies of the event, because you were nowhere near when it happened.

As for the second incident, it is important for you to remember that the woman in question is the same one that flirted with me in the first. She was our receptionist, and I interacted with her on a daily basis. I can speculate on her motives for flirting with me, but I won't cover that here. You on the other hand don't even know her name, let alone anything about her, so it is out of your lane to speculate on those. I also worked with the Solid Gold Asshole on a daily basis, went to his house, and I was one of the few staffers in the department who were not called to testify in the lawsuit that happened after his unceremonious exit from the company. Furthermore, I have first-hand information regarding the second incident (knowing both of the participants) and you only know what I've told you...which should be more than enough to determine that it was indeed an attempted sexual assault.

One thing I didn't tell you is that Solid Gold Asshole was also (the equivalent of) an assistant manager. Therefore in addition to his greater size, there was a power dynamic at work in the garage incident. What really blows my mind is your apparent argument (below) that since SGA was rebuffed or unsuccessful in his attempt to forcefully hold her down and kiss her, it was therefore not attempted sexual assault at all. This is the equivalent of saying "well the guy tried to rape a woman, but he didn't actually penetrate her, so no harm, no foul."

To Ford, and to you and to Toni, the second example was attempted sexual assault and you accepted that without question. Ford has said it was but can't explain to me why it was not an unwanted sexual advance that was, apparently, successfully rebuffed.

(sighs) Again, it's not just my "narrative." I know the parties involved, the locations of the incidents, had corroboration from several sources on the second incident - including from the victim herself - and can provide a level of detail you cannot. Or perhaps you'd like to regale us with your knowledge? Just tell me the cross-streets of the building, the name of the complex, the type of restaurant that was on the main floor, the floor of the parking garage where it took place, and whether it was in the designated employee spaces or in the overflow area. I'll wait...

Actually, I won't. That would be ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as you trying to rewrite my own experiences to fit your own view of the world.

 

[Elixir]

Forty something pages of this shit... and way back in March, enough questions arose about Tara Reade's honesty and the likelihood that she was lying that when hair-sniffing Joe welcomed a full investigation, that should have put the issue on hold pending the outcome.
I assume this article was brought up in this thread way back when, but just in case:

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

UPDATE 4/25/20: We have been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization.

Details here

She seems to have a pretty bad rep - not that having a bad rep disqualifies her from telling a story, but the really really glaring thing is that it is almost inconceivable that she would have been attacked in the manner she now describes, but when she filed a report she didn't make any such accusation. Why would she risk reprisals without even telling what happened?
At this point I flat out don't believe her. I believe every woman who I have seen come forward to tell how Trump assaulted them, I believed Ms Ford when she described what Kavanaugh did to her... but this actually stinks.
Can anyone here picture sleepy joe boasting about grabbing women by the pussy and about how he can get away with it?
I guess it's just the fact that Trump is a corrupt asshole, Kavanaugh is an apparent asshole and sleepy joe simply doesn't come across that way.

 

[J842P]

Forty something pages of this shit... and way back in March, enough questions arose about Tara Reade's honesty and the likelihood that she was lying that when hair-sniffing Joe welcomed a full investigation, that should have put the issue on hold pending the outcome.
I assume this article was brought up in this thread way back when, but just in case:

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

UPDATE 4/25/20: We have been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization.

Details here

She seems to have a pretty bad rep - not that having a bad rep disqualifies her from telling a story, but the really really glaring thing is that it is almost inconceivable that she would have been attacked in the manner she now describes, but when she filed a report she didn't make any such accusation. Why would she risk reprisals without even telling what happened?
At this point I flat out don't believe her. I believe every woman who I have seen come forward to tell how Trump assaulted them, I believed Ms Ford when she described what Kavanaugh did to her... but this actually stinks.
Can anyone here picture sleepy joe boasting about grabbing women by the pussy and about how he can get away with it?
I guess it's just the fact that Trump is a corrupt asshole, Kavanaugh is an apparent asshole and sleepy joe simply doesn't come across that way.

That article is full of crass rationalizations and red herrings. Some points might have substance, they might cause doubt, although they certainly do not exonerate Bide. They could have been applied to many accusers of Harvey Weinstein - inconsistent stories, praise for the accused by the alleged victim later, etc - or Christine Blasey Ford - didn't speak about it until much later, some inconsistencies, etc.

All the Putin stuff is a complete red herring, the Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to Russia. It is sickening to behold.

It is clear partisanship that some might find this believable or not. This is most stark vis-à-vis the Kavanaugh debacle. I think the only fair conclusion is that there is not enough information to decided on the veracity of the claim, and I thought the same thing about Ford and Kavanaugh. For sure, the Democrats dismissing Reade's claims are going to look like enormous hypocrites.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Forty something pages of this shit... and way back in March, enough questions arose about Tara Reade's honesty and the likelihood that she was lying that when hair-sniffing Joe welcomed a full investigation, that should have put the issue on hold pending the outcome.
I assume this article was brought up in this thread way back when, but just in case:

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

UPDATE 4/25/20: We have been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization.

Details here

She seems to have a pretty bad rep - not that having a bad rep disqualifies her from telling a story, but the really really glaring thing is that it is almost inconceivable that she would have been attacked in the manner she now describes, but when she filed a report she didn't make any such accusation. Why would she risk reprisals without even telling what happened?
At this point I flat out don't believe her. I believe every woman who I have seen come forward to tell how Trump assaulted them, I believed Ms Ford when she described what Kavanaugh did to her... but this actually stinks.
Can anyone here picture sleepy joe boasting about grabbing women by the pussy and about how he can get away with it?
I guess it's just the fact that Trump is a corrupt asshole, Kavanaugh is an apparent asshole and sleepy joe simply doesn't come across that way.

Yep, she appears to be a grifter. Maybe too strong of a word. But she's not credible. Clearly something happened with Biden that she didn't like 30 years ago. But it dosn't appear to be sexual. She told a couple people. Told her Mom. Mom called in to say that an uncomfortable event happened with a powerful senator (it probably was Biden). But it wasn't sexual. Then many years go by. She decides that she wants to get him. She proof reads her father's book. Then she makes up her story that came out of the book. Not only did this cause short term damage to Biden, but it weakens legitimate sexual assualts.

 

[J842P]

Forty something pages of this shit... and way back in March, enough questions arose about Tara Reade's honesty and the likelihood that she was lying that when hair-sniffing Joe welcomed a full investigation, that should have put the issue on hold pending the outcome.
I assume this article was brought up in this thread way back when, but just in case:

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

UPDATE 4/25/20: We have been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization.

Details here

She seems to have a pretty bad rep - not that having a bad rep disqualifies her from telling a story, but the really really glaring thing is that it is almost inconceivable that she would have been attacked in the manner she now describes, but when she filed a report she didn't make any such accusation. Why would she risk reprisals without even telling what happened?
At this point I flat out don't believe her. I believe every woman who I have seen come forward to tell how Trump assaulted them, I believed Ms Ford when she described what Kavanaugh did to her... but this actually stinks.
Can anyone here picture sleepy joe boasting about grabbing women by the pussy and about how he can get away with it?
I guess it's just the fact that Trump is a corrupt asshole, Kavanaugh is an apparent asshole and sleepy joe simply doesn't come across that way.

Yep, she appears to be a grifter. Maybe too strong of a word. But she's not credible. Clearly something happened with Biden that she didn't like 30 years ago. But it dosn't appear to be sexual. She told a couple people. Told her Mom. Mom called in to say that an uncomfortable event happened with a powerful senator (it probably was Biden). But it wasn't sexual. Then many years go by. She decides that she wants to get him. She proof reads her father's book. Then she makes up her story that came out of the book. Not only did this cause short term damage to Biden, but it weakens legitimate sexual assualts.

I'm sorry, but her brother corroborates her story, and he was told after it happened. And a neighbor also corroborates that she was told about the sexual assault a couple years after it happened, in the mid 90s. Two other people, although they remain anonymous, claim Tara Reade told the about a sexual assault, one in the 90s, the other in the early 2000s.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Forty something pages of this shit... and way back in March, enough questions arose about Tara Reade's honesty and the likelihood that she was lying that when hair-sniffing Joe welcomed a full investigation, that should have put the issue on hold pending the outcome.

Yes, well, again, this isn't AT ALL about Reade. This is all Trump has; to desperately appeal to Democrats (who are the only voting bloc that actually gives a shit about women) so that enough women, in particular, don't vote. They have nothing else, which is why the usual suspects just keep regurgitating the phrase "creepy Joe."

If ANY of these fuckheads actually gave a shit about women the way they are pretending to now, they wouldn't have voted for Trump in the first place. They have no say in this matter. The only relevant voices in regard to these allegations are Democrat voices.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yep, she appears to be a grifter. Maybe too strong of a word. But she's not credible. Clearly something happened with Biden that she didn't like 30 years ago. But it dosn't appear to be sexual. She told a couple people. Told her Mom. Mom called in to say that an uncomfortable event happened with a powerful senator (it probably was Biden). But it wasn't sexual. Then many years go by. She decides that she wants to get him. She proof reads her father's book. Then she makes up her story that came out of the book. Not only did this cause short term damage to Biden, but it weakens legitimate sexual assualts.

I'm sorry, but her brother corroborates her story, and he was told after it happened. And a neighbor also corroborates that she was told about the sexual assault a couple years after it happened, in the mid 90s. Two other people, although they remain anonymous, claim Tara Reade told the about a sexual assault, one in the 90s, the other in the early 2000s.

How do you explain the coincidence that Tara's story was also in a fictionalized book written by her father? How do you explain that away? Just an incredible coincidence? And there are people who have the courage to go on the record to deny her allegations. How do you explain that? Then she's an attorney, but yet she has no custody claim evidence? I actually do want an investigation, and then charges if this is made up for political reasons.

 

[Elixir]

Forty something pages of this shit... and way back in March, enough questions arose about Tara Reade's honesty and the likelihood that she was lying that when hair-sniffing Joe welcomed a full investigation, that should have put the issue on hold pending the outcome.
I assume this article was brought up in this thread way back when, but just in case:

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

UPDATE 4/25/20: We have been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization.

Details here

She seems to have a pretty bad rep - not that having a bad rep disqualifies her from telling a story, but the really really glaring thing is that it is almost inconceivable that she would have been attacked in the manner she now describes, but when she filed a report she didn't make any such accusation. Why would she risk reprisals without even telling what happened?
At this point I flat out don't believe her. I believe every woman who I have seen come forward to tell how Trump assaulted them, I believed Ms Ford when she described what Kavanaugh did to her... but this actually stinks.
Can anyone here picture sleepy joe boasting about grabbing women by the pussy and about how he can get away with it?
I guess it's just the fact that Trump is a corrupt asshole, Kavanaugh is an apparent asshole and sleepy joe simply doesn't come across that way.

That article is full of crass rationalizations and red herrings.

Easy to say.

Some points might have substance, they might cause doubt, although they certainly do not exonerate Bide.

That's why the Trumputin machine keeps harping on it. Meanwhile, rational people should just STFU about it until the full investigation THAT BIDEN REQUESTED is done.

They could have been applied to many accusers of Harvey Weinstein

Gee, too bad sleepy joe doesn't have "many accusers", right? I'm sure the TCFA can work on that though.

- inconsistent stories, praise for the accused by the alleged victim later, etc - or Christine Blasey Ford - didn't speak about it until much later, some inconsistencies, etc.

Ford didn't file a report at the time complaining about an unwanted kiss or some offense that is completely insignificant compared to what she claimed when she came forward. Anyone who does THAT is suspect. I can't think of a single example where someone did that and the greater offense was later found to be true. Can you?

All the Putin stuff is a complete red herring, the Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to Russia. It is sickening to behold.

I agree that it's sickening. Trump is so kompromatted he can't take a shit without Uncle Vlad's blessing.

It is clear partisanship that some might find this believable or not..

And to others it's just - clear.

Some people STILL can't tell that Trump is a scumbag.

 

[Derec]

How do you explain the coincidence that Tara's story was also in a fictionalized book written by her father?

And part of EJC's story was in a Law and Order episode. Both are fakers and clout chasers.


"Most people think of rape as being sexy."
E. Jean Carroll

 

[Elixir]

How do you explain the coincidence that Tara's story was also in a fictionalized book written by her father?

And part of EJC's story was in a Law and Order episode. Both are fakers and clout chasers.


"Most people think of rape as being sexy."
E. Jean Carroll

One out of 25 ain't bad, right?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm sorry, but her brother corroborates her story, and he was told after it happened.

Not quite. He first only corroborated the version of the story regarding Reade being touched on the neck and shoulders:

Hours after the Times, the Washington Post followed up with a story, also finding no evidence of any other allegations as serious as Reade’s, following interviews with Reade, more than a half-dozen former Biden staffers and people Reade says she told about the assault. The Post spoke with Moulton, Reade’s brother, who said Reade told her in 1993 that Biden had touched her inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders—but not the alleged sexual assault. In a text message days after the interview, Moulton sought to clarify his remarks and told the Post that he also recalled Reade saying Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.”

That one's own brother would somehow not have remembered the single most important aspect of the story--that his sister had been forcibly penetrated--until several days after the interview and then only use a heavily qualified phrase like "under her clothes," (which still does not corroborate her claim of being forcibly penetrated) is difficult for me to accept.

I don't have a sister, but I have brothers and you can be damn sure that if one of my brothers told me that he had been forcibly penetrated by a boss--let alone a US Senator; i.e., that a US Senator had stuck his fingers in my brother's anus--that would be the very first thing I would corroborate and in no uncertain terms.

Perhaps neither Ms. Reade nor their mother ever told her brother the full story at the time--or in the almost thirty years since--but if that's the case, then he still isn't corroborating her claim of being sexually assaulted; merely that she told him Biden touched her neck and shoulders and that, at some point, he allegedly put his hand "under her clothes," which likewise, does not confirm her claim of being digitally penetrated in her vagina.

 

[J842P]

I'm sorry, but her brother corroborates her story, and he was told after it happened.

Not quite. He first only corroborated the version of the story regarding Reade being touched on the neck and shoulders:

Hours after the Times, the Washington Post followed up with a story, also finding no evidence of any other allegations as serious as Reade’s, following interviews with Reade, more than a half-dozen former Biden staffers and people Reade says she told about the assault. The Post spoke with Moulton, Reade’s brother, who said Reade told her in 1993 that Biden had touched her inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders—but not the alleged sexual assault. In a text message days after the interview, Moulton sought to clarify his remarks and told the Post that he also recalled Reade saying Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.”

That one's own brother would somehow not have remembered the single most important aspect of the story--that his sister had been forcibly penetrated--until several days after the interview and then only use a heavily qualified phrase like "under her clothes," (which still does not corroborate her claim of being forcibly penetrated) is difficult for me to accept.

I don't have a sister, but I have brothers and you can be damn sure that if one of my brothers told me that he had been forcibly penetrated by a boss--let alone a US Senator; i.e., that a US Senator had stuck his fingers in my brother's anus--that would be the very first thing I would corroborate and in no uncertain terms.

Perhaps neither Ms. Reade nor their mother ever told her brother the full story at the time, but if that's the case, then he still isn't corroborating her sexual assault; merely that she told him Biden touched her neck and shoulders and that, at some point, he allegedly put his hand "under her clothes," which likewise, does not confirm her claim of being digitally penetrated.

Putting your hand under someone's clothes is pretty clear cut sexual assault, especially in the context in which it is alleged to have happened. The fact that this detail was left out doesn't change that, of course, it would be weighed by the jury if this were a trial. But it isn't.

My point was simply that Harry's claim that she didn't claim that she was sexually assaulted until recently is false, if we believe the brother and the neighbor.



It is still corroborating.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not quite. He first only corroborated the version of the story regarding Reade being touched on the neck and shoulders:



That one's own brother would somehow not have remembered the single most important aspect of the story--that his sister had been forcibly penetrated--until several days after the interview and then only use a heavily qualified phrase like "under her clothes," (which still does not corroborate her claim of being forcibly penetrated) is difficult for me to accept.

I don't have a sister, but I have brothers and you can be damn sure that if one of my brothers told me that he had been forcibly penetrated by a boss--let alone a US Senator; i.e., that a US Senator had stuck his fingers in my brother's anus--that would be the very first thing I would corroborate and in no uncertain terms.

Perhaps neither Ms. Reade nor their mother ever told her brother the full story at the time, but if that's the case, then he still isn't corroborating her sexual assault; merely that she told him Biden touched her neck and shoulders and that, at some point, he allegedly put his hand "under her clothes," which likewise, does not confirm her claim of being digitally penetrated.

Putting your hand under someone's clothes is pretty clear cut sexual assault, especially in the context in which it is alleged to have happened. The fact that this detail was left out doesn't change that, of course, it would be weighed by the jury if this were a trial. But it isn't.

My point was simply that Harry's claim that she didn't claim that she was sexually assaulted until recently is false, if we believe the brother and the neighbor.



It is still corroborating.

...and apparently also someone who wants to remain anonymous. Taking sides on this has clear consequences in our divisive partisan country.

I do not necessarily believe her, but there are just too many parallels between this and Kavanaugh or others.

 

[repoman]

If you need an example of how a guy can seem rapey to others without realizing:

 

[J842P]

Not quite. He first only corroborated the version of the story regarding Reade being touched on the neck and shoulders:



That one's own brother would somehow not have remembered the single most important aspect of the story--that his sister had been forcibly penetrated--until several days after the interview and then only use a heavily qualified phrase like "under her clothes," (which still does not corroborate her claim of being forcibly penetrated) is difficult for me to accept.

I don't have a sister, but I have brothers and you can be damn sure that if one of my brothers told me that he had been forcibly penetrated by a boss--let alone a US Senator; i.e., that a US Senator had stuck his fingers in my brother's anus--that would be the very first thing I would corroborate and in no uncertain terms.

Perhaps neither Ms. Reade nor their mother ever told her brother the full story at the time, but if that's the case, then he still isn't corroborating her sexual assault; merely that she told him Biden touched her neck and shoulders and that, at some point, he allegedly put his hand "under her clothes," which likewise, does not confirm her claim of being digitally penetrated.

Putting your hand under someone's clothes is pretty clear cut sexual assault, especially in the context in which it is alleged to have happened. The fact that this detail was left out doesn't change that, of course, it would be weighed by the jury if this were a trial. But it isn't.

My point was simply that Harry's claim that she didn't claim that she was sexually assaulted until recently is false, if we believe the brother and the neighbor.



It is still corroborating.

...and apparently also someone who wants to remain anonymous. Taking sides on this has clear consequences in our divisive partisan country.

I do not necessarily believe her, but there are just too many parallels between this and Kavanaugh or others.

I would say that the hypocrisy is astounding, but it's pretty much par for the course in politics.

 

[Toni]

Forty something pages of this shit... and way back in March, enough questions arose about Tara Reade's honesty and the likelihood that she was lying that when hair-sniffing Joe welcomed a full investigation, that should have put the issue on hold pending the outcome.
I assume this article was brought up in this thread way back when, but just in case:

Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable once the story is fully investigated.

UPDATE 4/25/20: We have been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization.

Details here

She seems to have a pretty bad rep - not that having a bad rep disqualifies her from telling a story, but the really really glaring thing is that it is almost inconceivable that she would have been attacked in the manner she now describes, but when she filed a report she didn't make any such accusation. Why would she risk reprisals without even telling what happened?
At this point I flat out don't believe her. I believe every woman who I have seen come forward to tell how Trump assaulted them, I believed Ms Ford when she described what Kavanaugh did to her... but this actually stinks.
Can anyone here picture sleepy joe boasting about grabbing women by the pussy and about how he can get away with it?
I guess it's just the fact that Trump is a corrupt asshole, Kavanaugh is an apparent asshole and sleepy joe simply doesn't come across that way.

That article is full of crass rationalizations and red herrings. Some points might have substance, they might cause doubt, although they certainly do not exonerate Bide. They could have been applied to many accusers of Harvey Weinstein - inconsistent stories, praise for the accused by the alleged victim later, etc - or Christine Blasey Ford - didn't speak about it until much later, some inconsistencies, etc.

All the Putin stuff is a complete red herring, the Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to Russia. It is sickening to behold.

It is clear partisanship that some might find this believable or not. This is most stark vis-à-vis the Kavanaugh debacle. I think the only fair conclusion is that there is not enough information to decided on the veracity of the claim, and I thought the same thing about Ford and Kavanaugh. For sure, the Democrats dismissing Reade's claims are going to look like enormous hypocrites.

Except: Biden is calling for an investigation. GOP blocked testimony much more damning about Kavanaugh (gang rapes). One side seems to be seeking the truth, the other seems to be hiding it or making up stuff.

 

[Ford]

That article is full of crass rationalizations and red herrings. Some points might have substance, they might cause doubt, although they certainly do not exonerate Bide. They could have been applied to many accusers of Harvey Weinstein - inconsistent stories, praise for the accused by the alleged victim later, etc - or Christine Blasey Ford - didn't speak about it until much later, some inconsistencies, etc.

All the Putin stuff is a complete red herring, the Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to Russia. It is sickening to behold.

It is clear partisanship that some might find this believable or not. This is most stark vis-à-vis the Kavanaugh debacle. I think the only fair conclusion is that there is not enough information to decided on the veracity of the claim, and I thought the same thing about Ford and Kavanaugh. For sure, the Democrats dismissing Reade's claims are going to look like enormous hypocrites.

Except: Biden is calling for an investigation. GOP blocked testimony much more damning about Kavanaugh (gang rapes). One side seems to be seeking the truth, the other seems to be hiding it or making up stuff.

Yeah, but why don't you address this very important point?

All the Putin stuff is a complete red herring, the Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to Russia. It is sickening to behold.

This is nothing new, after all. For as long as I've been alive and longer, Republicans have been trying to calmly downplay the non-existent threat of "Russia, Russia Russia" that the Democrats have been selling for just as long.

From the time that Democrat Senator Joe McCarthy launched his completely unfair investigations into Hollywood conservatives, to the time when Saint Reagan stood atop the Berlin Wall and said "Mr.Gorbachev, I like what you've done here...looks nice! We're thinking about something similar on our southern border" the Democrats have been trying to gin up a false narrative that we're somehow opposed to our friends in Moscow. As any good, conservative Republican will tell you, the Kremlin has been nothing but our besties on the world stage forever, but those evil Democrats have been trying to sabotage our "special relationship" with Russia from day one.

And don't get me started on the naked nepotism of Biden. Certainly no Republican would see to it that one of their children got a cushy job in government, let alone a son in law!

 

[thebeave]

That article is full of crass rationalizations and red herrings. Some points might have substance, they might cause doubt, although they certainly do not exonerate Bide. They could have been applied to many accusers of Harvey Weinstein - inconsistent stories, praise for the accused by the alleged victim later, etc - or Christine Blasey Ford - didn't speak about it until much later, some inconsistencies, etc.

All the Putin stuff is a complete red herring, the Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to Russia. It is sickening to behold.

It is clear partisanship that some might find this believable or not. This is most stark vis-à-vis the Kavanaugh debacle. I think the only fair conclusion is that there is not enough information to decided on the veracity of the claim, and I thought the same thing about Ford and Kavanaugh. For sure, the Democrats dismissing Reade's claims are going to look like enormous hypocrites.

Except: Biden is calling for an investigation. GOP blocked testimony much more damning about Kavanaugh (gang rapes). One side seems to be seeking the truth, the other seems to be hiding it or making up stuff.

Geez, I didn't think anyone still believed that silly Julie Swetnick gang rape story. Even the liberal media gave up on that one pretty quick:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-gang-rape-claim-falls-apart/

Soon enough, as I wrote yesterday, Swetnick’s story began to fall apart. The Wall Street Journal contacted “dozens of former classmates and colleagues” and couldn’t find anyone who could corroborate Swetnick’s claims. A previous employer had sued her for defamation and fraud — claiming that she made uncorroborated sexual-harassment claims against two colleagues in a “transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate behavior.” And that’s but one incident among others that cast doubt abut Swetnick’s truthfulness.

In the space of five days, the story changed from spiking or drugging punch to giving girls cups. It changed from standing in line to gang rape a girl to standing outside a door, laughing.

Moreover, when MSNBC tried to corroborate her story, Swetnick “provided four names of friends she says went to the parties with him. One of them says he does not recall a Julie Swetnick. Another of the friends she named is deceased. We reached out to the other two and haven’t heard back.”

While we should dismiss Swetnick’s claims as lacking credibility, we cannot allow this incident to disappear from public consciousness. The furious response to those who questioned Swetnick’s claims, and the credulousness that led even Senator Dianne Feinstein to ask about them at a Senate hearing says something disturbing about the extent to which “believe women” — combined with partisan hatred so intense that we’re willing to believe the worst about our opponents — can sometimes morph into “believe anything.”