Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But Mom never said what daughter told her or who she meant. There was no allegation of sexual assault or even other misconduct.
Yes. All this tells us is that something happened in 1993, that prompted Mom to call Larry King's show, concerned about how her daughter should handle some kind of serious falling out between the daughter and the Senator's office where she worked.

That's all.

One possibility I'm sure you've already considered is that mother and daughter have been fabulizing since at least 1993.
 
Yes. All this tells us is that something happened in 1993, that prompted Mom to call Larry King's show, concerned about how her daughter should handle some kind of serious falling out between the daughter and the Senator's office where she worked.

That's all.

One possibility I'm sure you've already considered is that mother and daughter have been fabulizing since at least 1993.

The call sounds like it was vetted by a lawyer. I doubt a lawyer was involved (perhaps the mother had that sort of background) but it seems to selectively exclude information in order to prevent exposure to liability (and preserve the reputation of the prominent senator's political party or at least the reputation of the prominent senator's state party apparatus).

I think any investigation into the Biden senate staff records should have the goal of presenting to the public the circumstances under which she left the staff.
 
Last edited:
The call sounds like it was vetted by a lawyer. I doubt a lawyer was involved (perhaps the mother had that sort of background) but it seems to selectively exclude information in order to prevent exposure to liability (and preserve the reputation of the prominent senator's political party or at least the reputation of the prominent senator's state party apparatus).
.....

The thing is that if a lawyer was involved he would have advised her of all her options, including how to file a harassment complaint and how to pursue civli and criminal charges. She wouldn't have needed to call a talk show and say "Oh, what do I do?" And she might have been circumspect just to avoid identifying/embarrassing her daughter.
 
The thing is that if a lawyer was involved he would have advised her of all her options, including how to file a harassment complaint and how to pursue civli and criminal charges. She wouldn't have needed to call a talk show and say "Oh, what do I do?" And she might have been circumspect just to avoid identifying/embarrassing her daughter.

I'm assuming her call was a cry for help, along the lines of "is there any other way to handle this, besides the destructive process of pursuing charges in court?"

Sadly, no, there isn't.

If there's one thing we've learned since 1993, it's that you really do need to file charges contemporaneously with the assault.
 
The thing is that if a lawyer was involved he would have advised her of all her options, including how to file a harassment complaint and how to pursue civli and criminal charges. She wouldn't have needed to call a talk show and say "Oh, what do I do?" And she might have been circumspect just to avoid identifying/embarrassing her daughter.
Because the world is so fair and victims always get to pursue justice without worry.

Again, there's this sustained blindness to the power dynamic aspect.

If, as alleged, a complaint was filed against a powerful person and all that's heard back is "no such complaint exists," seriously now, wouldn't that make you pause? Wouldn't that give you a chill? Would the idea of escalating to legal action seem to be "encumbered" by concerns of retaliation at that point?
 
Because the world is so fair and victims always get to pursue justice without worry.

Again, there's this sustained blindness to the power dynamic aspect.
.....


I'm not claiming that she should have or even could have pursued action, and certainly not that it would have been easy. I'm just responding to the speculation that the call sounded legally vetted, and noting that a lawyer would already have answered the questions she called the talk show to ask.

For reference, a couple summaries of the allegations and responses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...070d66-7067-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/15/seriousness-flaws-tara-reades-allegations/
 
I'm not claiming that she should have or even could have pursued action, and certainly not that it would have been easy. I'm just responding to the speculation that the call sounded legally vetted, and noting that a lawyer would already have answered the questions she called the talk show to ask.

For reference, a couple summaries of the allegations and responses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...070d66-7067-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/15/seriousness-flaws-tara-reades-allegations/

The post you seem to be referring to states the following:

"I doubt a lawyer was involved ... "
 
Last edited:
I'm not claiming that she should have or even could have pursued action, and certainly not that it would have been easy. I'm just responding to the speculation that the call sounded legally vetted, and noting that a lawyer would already have answered the questions she called the talk show to ask.



For reference, a couple summaries of the allegations and responses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...070d66-7067-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/15/seriousness-flaws-tara-reades-allegations/
The legal vetting doesn't preclude other considerations (like considering what was of topical interest to have the panel discuss).

Legal "vetting" by the broadcaster isn't about helping the caller understand their situation and rights. It's not free legal advice. It's to protect the broadcaster.

If she'd named the Senator, she wouldn't have gotten on the air. That exposes the network to risks. That's the kind of "legal advice" their employer (the broadcaster) wants callers aware of.
 
The legal vetting doesn't preclude other considerations (like considering what was of topical interest to have the panel discuss).

Legal "vetting" by the broadcaster isn't about helping the caller understand their situation and rights. It's not free legal advice. It's to protect the broadcaster.

If she'd named the Senator, she wouldn't have gotten on the air. That exposes the network to risks. That's the kind of "legal advice" their employer (the broadcaster) wants callers aware of.

Not to get bogged down here, but I was only addressing whether she might have talked to a lawyer herself before making the call. Talk shows don't make callers pass legal scrutiny, and once they're on the air they can say anything they want until they get cut off. (If you've ever watched some of the call-ins on Cspan, you've heard some doozies.)
 
Not to get bogged down here, but I was only addressing whether she might have talked to a lawyer herself before making the call. Talk shows don't make callers pass legal scrutiny, and once they're on the air they can say anything they want until they get cut off. (If you've ever watched some of the call-ins on Cspan, you've heard some doozies.)
I'll admit I'm no longer sure where her mother talking to a lawyer or not prior to calling a talk show fits in terms of evidentiary weight.
 
I think any investigation into the Biden senate staff records should have the goal of presenting to the public the circumstances under which she left the staff.

Indeed. Reade herself has claimed variously that she quit to move across country with her boyfriend, that she quit because she was upset with how the Washington elite treat Putin, and that she was fired. This is one of many discrepancies in her story that should be looked into, although if she quit rather than was fired we probably won't ever know why.
 
Because the world is so fair and victims always get to pursue justice without worry.

Again, there's this sustained blindness to the power dynamic aspect.

If, as alleged, a complaint was filed against a powerful person and all that's heard back is "no such complaint exists," seriously now, wouldn't that make you pause? Wouldn't that give you a chill? Would the idea of escalating to legal action seem to be "encumbered" by concerns of retaliation at that point?

I'm pretty sure Reade claims that she never filed a complaint with Biden's office, and that she filed a complaint with the Senate in 1993 that didn't name Biden or allege sexual assault. I am a bit confused with all the different claims she's making, but so far as I know she hasn't claimed to have made a sexual assault complaint until 2020, and even now there are conflicting accounts as to whether she accuses Biden in the 2020 report filed.
 
But Mom never said what daughter told her or who she meant. There was no allegation of sexual assault or even other misconduct.

Uh-huh. It could have been another daughter working for a senator. It just so happens Biden's accuser left in August of 1993 and this call was in August of 1993. Pure coincidence. Also, just because a woman on this call-in show did not mention sexual assault does not mean she didn't believe there was sexual assault. If she had said on a popular political show that a US senator sexually assaulted her daughter, it might result in unwanted attention. Remember, the daughter claims she was mortified that her mother even called in. It's the word of a disgruntled former-staffer against a prominent US senator. Most people are primed to believe the elected leader -- unless you're a hard-core R/D and it was someone from the other party who allegedly did the assaulting.

I suspect that a large percentage of the 20-somethings working on Capitol Hill have told their Moms or somebody else that their jobs are miserable and their bosses are jerks. In many cases they are, and that's why there's a high turnover in those offices. That's a long, long way from claiming that a prominent Senator raped her in a public place.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/politics/tara-reade-mom-larry-king/index.html

I do not understand what this is supposed to mean. Yes, regular jerk behavior is more common than sexual misconduct. I have no trouble believing that a high percentage of US presidents are jerks. I also do not have trouble believing that out of our 44 presidents, we've had a few rapists (including the current occupant). Similarly, I have no trouble believing some of our one-thousand-plus senators have engaged in unwanted touching, especially in the pre-Bob Packwood era.

I don't have any trouble believing that famous people do bad things. I have a lot of trouble believing that this particular person did this particular thing, a vile act that no one else has ever accused him of before or since. One factor is that she says she can't remember where it happened. But she worked on Capitol Hill. She knows what's where. She says she was sent to take his bag to him. But she doesn't remember where she was sent? And is it plausible that he would have done this in a public corridor where a scream or a struggle would have been heard, and he would have been recognized by anyone responding? There might even have been security cameras. And how could he be sure that she wouldn't go straight to a phone (pre-cell era) and call the cops?

You sound like a Republican. It's normal for people to forget seemingly unforgettable details after a traumatic event (consistent with Ford forgetting which house the party took place in). According to her story, he thought she liked him so he inferred willingness. The public place oddly makes her story slightly more plausible in my view. If she's just making something up, then she could invent something more believable.

Now before all of the good little "skeptics" pop a big rubbery one, I am not suggesting that I automatically believe more outrageous stories. Woody Allen was accused of touching his daughter while visiting his ex's house, in full view of her staff. He'd ask, "Why would I do this in her house in front of people who hate me?" Because they can't invent a story where he's alone with her in private; they're constrained. Now, maybe Reade is similarly constrained in that Biden is virtually never alone with lowly staffers. I'm not familiar enough with that office environment.

On the other hand, I have no trouble believing the Biden engaged in unwanted touching, and she's dramatically embellished the story because the truth "isn't enough" to raise awareness about this all too real "predator." Blacks commonly deal with racism, but nooses from homophobic MAGA dudes familiar with the show Empire?? Just saying there's the usual, subtle racism isn't going to get enough attention. But, again, I wouldn't believe Bill Clinton's willy barfed all over a fat chick's dress.

I also have no problem believing that she wasn't cut out for Washington, but the story she tells herself is that evil, corrupt DC-people are to blame for driving her away.
 
And, today Biden said the next round of stimulus needs to be a "hell of a lot bigger than 2 trillion dollars".

Never mind what I said earlier. I'll still vote for him, assuming he gets the nomination and is running against Trump, but would it be too much to ask to have a politician who is under 70, and who won't promise everyone anything they want.

As least Vermin Supreme only promised a pony.
 
Uh-huh. It could have been another daughter working for a senator.
.....

Aw, c'mon. "Mom and daughter." Mom and her daughter. I'm not suggesting that the woman had more than one daughter working in a senator's office. I apologize for my lack of precision.
 
Last edited:
And, today Biden said the next round of stimulus needs to be a "hell of a lot bigger than 2 trillion dollars".

Never mind what I said earlier. I'll still vote for him, assuming he gets the nomination and is running against Trump, but would it be too much to ask to have a politician who is under 70, and who won't promise everyone anything they want.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom