Biden for President?

[wareyin]

Tara Reade's check fraud case was purged from public record after she payed up the amount she owed.

Apparently this was a common course of events for people who wrote checks with an insufficient balance. It only was prosecuted if someone who wrote a bad check refused to pay up.

This is 1990's equivalent of going negative balance on a debit card.

Is this the big reveal that destroys her credibility? A young person was living hand to mouth and had a check bounce. Is this shocking to anyone?

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1259181237245292544

Reade claims that she had already left Biden's office before the bounced check court action and that the Aug 6th date from her employment record was simply the date of her last paycheck for that pay period. Aug 6th is a Friday, a common payday.

When it became known that Reade stole $1400 from the charity she was working for, you downplayed that pretty heavily. Now you're claiming that California took people to court for a single bounced check in the 90's? This smacks of more spin and will need some corroboration.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

When it became known that Reade stole $1400 from the charity she was working for, you downplayed that pretty heavily. Now you're claiming that California took people to court for a single bounced check in the 90's? This smacks of more spin and will need some corroboration.

People claiming that Tara Reade was fired for check fraud should back up their allegation. Is this what the Reade case is now? JAQing off about vague google searches and demanding Reade explain away unsubstantiated rumors?

So far, there's a record of dropped charges that were purged from the record. This pattern of events was very common at the time for dealing with bounced checks.

What evidence is there that Biden's office was aware and acted on some check fraud allegation to fire Reade? has anyone claimed this in the Biden camp? Has anyone suggested this besides social media randos?

The Biden campaign would almost certainly release this info if they had it, because it would be a tremendously helpful exoneration to the claim. Either this isn't why they fired her, or they don't remember and/or can't find any record of this.

This smacks of desperate character assassination.

 

[wareyin]

People claiming that Tara Reade was fired for check fraud should back up their allegation. Is this what the Reade case is now? JAQing off about vague google searches and demanding Reade explain away unsubstantiated rumors?

So far, there's a record of dropped charges that were purged from the record. This pattern of events was very common at the time for dealing with bounced checks.

What evidence is there that Biden's office was aware and acted on some check fraud allegation to fire Reade? has anyone claimed this in the Biden camp? Has anyone suggested this besides social media randos?

The Biden campaign would almost certainly release this info if they had it, because it would be a tremendously helpful exoneration to the claim. Either this isn't why they fired her, or they don't remember and/or can't find any record of this.

This smacks of desperate character assassination.

You didn't read your own link, did you?

Correct - not immediately charged. Instead, check, or more likely checks bounced multiple times since most places won't press misdemeanor charges for 1 time. THEN Tara was notified & given a chance at diversion THEN she failed to comply and THEN misdemeanor charges were filed.1/

The misdemeanor is essentially brought by the court (kind of like a warrant) after noncompliance. So all this was happening in the months leading up to the charge. She should have reported to the Senate office but likely didn't. 2/

SO, once misdemeanor charges are filed, they likely get reported to the Senate. It would be immediately clear that she had failed to report her situation - which would be grounds to let her go. But a fraud misdemeanor alone was probably sufficient to disqualify her. 3/

And the timing of this makes it clear that if they didn't fire her for this offense (either b/c she lied about it or it disqualified her), she had an AWFULLY good reason to find something that would justify her being let go from the job and ASAP.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You didn't read your own link, did you?

Well if Klee from twitter says so, it must be true.

The fact that the charge was purged from record heavily implies it was never prosecuted. Occam's razor is that Reade paid up and the diversion program purged her record without prosecution.

Again, why is it Reade's burden to prove that she wasn't fired for check fraud? No one from Biden's camp has claimed this. No evidence exists that she was fired for this reason. No one is proposing this except twitter private detectives.

Just so we're clear here. Someone found this record of a purged charge against Reade and worked backwards to the conclusion that she was fired from Biden's office because she was a check fraudster. This is wild conjecture. No other evidence has come forward. No one from Biden's camp has claimed this is true.

 

[wareyin]

Well if Klee from twitter says so, it must be true.

The fact that the charge was purged from record heavily implies it was never prosecuted. Occam's razor is that Reade paid up and the diversion program purged her record without prosecution.

Again, why is it Reade's burden to prove that she wasn't fired for check fraud? No one from Biden's camp has claimed this. No evidence exists that she was fired for this reason. No one is proposing this except twitter private detectives.

The fact that there was a case filed says that it was being prosecuted. Because Reade met the diversion program conditions afterwards doesn't change that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The fact that there was a case filed says that it was being prosecuted. Because Reade met the diversion program conditions afterwards doesn't change that.

Diversion occurs after charges are filed, but before prosecution.

Why won't you answer my question? Why is it Reade's burden to disprove the check fraud firing allegation when no-one credible has made that allegation?

 

[Giz]

When did “believe all women” turn into “believe twitter detectives”?

 

[TragicMonkey]

When did “believe all women” turn into “believe twitter detectives”?

When did anybody accept blanket orders to believe whole classes of people without considering evidence?

 

[wareyin]

Diversion occurs after charges are filed, but before prosecution.

Why won't you answer my question? Why is it Reade's burden to disprove the check fraud firing allegation when no-one credible has made that allegation?

So we're clear you are upset that Reade, already demonstrated to not be credible, has had more evidence against her credibility uncovered? And, as you did before you're attacking those that found the evidence she committed fraud rather than her for committing fraud?

I'm still waiting for evidence that a single bank overdraft leads to a court case for fraud. It certainly seems like that would overwhelm the courts if that were the case.

 

[Giz]

When did anybody accept blanket orders to believe whole classes of people without considering evidence?

“for a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real — whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time.” - Joe Biden

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So we're clear you are upset that Reade, already demonstrated to not be credible, has had more evidence against her credibility uncovered? And, as you did before you're attacking those that found the evidence she committed fraud rather than her for committing fraud?

I'm still waiting for evidence that a single bank overdraft leads to a court case for fraud. It certainly seems like that would overwhelm the courts if that were the case.

Who has said that Reade was fired for check fraud? Why are you even talking about it?

As far as I can tell, some twitter dofus found this purged public record and created the "fired for check fraud" story out of whole cloth. The idea that Reade must disprove this allegation is absurd on its face.

 

[TragicMonkey]

“for a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real — whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time.” - Joe Biden

I'm not sure that's as much of a gotcha as it initially appears. He qualified it by saying "start off with", not "stop at".

 

[Sideroxylon]

I noticed some of that when we went from "W. is a war criminal!" to "Obama is doing the very best he can within a very broken system."

As long as the broken system doesn’t actually mean you are the one on poverty wages, missing medical checks and treatments you cannot afford, living with industrial pollution, cannot afford good food and education for your kids, you can live with the DP doing their best.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Standard "without concluding on the heart of the matter" disclaimer.

1) I cannot recall an instance of an overdrawn account in my own (and others willing to talk about such an embarrassing situation) life that was a single occurrence. It always cascades into absurdity very quickly.

2) It sounds like she had an SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence). A guilty plea is entered, but no sentence is delivered (though what they can throw at you is often hanging like a Sword of Damocles over the process). If certain structured goals are reached, charges are withdrawn. If the goals are not reached, parties return to the plea phase and proceed from there. These goals often revolve around participation in various programs run by state-licensed providers. There is a whole ecosystem of such programs and they know to kick money back to prosecutors (when elected) or those who appoint them to keep a steady stream of "clients" coming in.

This differs from SES (Suspended Execution of Sentence) where the defendant is found guilty and a punishment determined, but set aside if goals are reached. This is "probation" as most people are familiar with it.

Terminating an employee for being on diversion opens a lot of problems for an employer, as they are acting with prejudice towards a defendant who has not been found guilty of any crime.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

As long as the broken system doesn’t actually mean you are the one on poverty wages, missing medical checks and treatments you cannot afford, living with industrial pollution, cannot afford good food and education for your kids, you can live with the DP doing their best.

My example was meant to be limited in scope to opinions about our conduct in international conflicts. ETA: specifically as regards a change in attitudes of permisiveness.

I am at nearly poverty wages (after student loan garnishment is figured in). I don't have insurance and have thus far only been lucky that hasn't destroyed me. I rent in the midst of the city where old craftsman homes built from 1900-1920 exist, but if I look for my own home I could afford, it would be in the neighborhoods around the power plant and Bayer chemical plant. I don't have kids, but if I did, they'd be in the inner city part of the district.

Your lecture missed my point and you've entirely misjudged who I am.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Let the Reade case, complimented by the Ford case, be an instructive lesson to women everywhere.

You better come in with a kill-shot bundle of evidence if you want to accuse a politician of sexual impropriety. Otherwise, at least half the country is going to call you a lying, partisan whore. Twitter detectives are going name search your entire life and spin elaborate fantasies. Any a whiff of impropriety, ever, and total strangers will permanently ascribe the label "not credible" to your whole existence.

To be honest, unless you have a videotape of unambiguous rape, you'd probably be better off keeping your mouth shut.

 

[Giz]

I'm not sure that's as much of a gotcha as it initially appears. He qualified it by saying "start off with", not "stop at".

It’s also not what he has championed in section IX. Judged under his preferred section IX standards , he’d be found guilty.

 

[wareyin]

Who has said that Reade was fired for check fraud? Why are you even talking about it?

As far as I can tell, some twitter dofus found this purged public record and created the "fired for check fraud" story out of whole cloth. The idea that Reade must disprove this allegation is absurd on its face.

That still isn't evidence for your latest spin of a single bank overdraft resulting in fraud charges.

That said, we have evidence that Reade had a fraud case against her the same week she stopped working for Biden. The idea that they are or might be related seems to be a pretty solid one. Especially considering she stole $1400 from that charity she worked for.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That still isn't evidence for your latest spin of a single bank overdraft resulting in fraud charges.

That said, we have evidence that Reade had a fraud case against her the same week she stopped working for Biden. The idea that they are or might be related seems to be a pretty solid one. Especially considering she stole $1400 from that charity she worked for.

There is no evidence they are related. They co-exist around similar times.

No one has made the claim that they are related except for twitter randos.

Is this the skeptical position? Tara Reade was fired for check fraud, a claim that no-one involved in the office has made, until she can conclusively prove she wasn't?

 

[wareyin]

Standard "without concluding on the heart of the matter" disclaimer.

1) I cannot recall an instance of an overdrawn account in my own (and others willing to talk about such an embarrassing situation) life that was a single occurrence. It always cascades into absurdity very quickly.

I have overdrawn my account on more than one occasion. On exactly zero occasions of this was I taken to court or charged with fraud.

2) It sounds like she had an SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence). A guilty plea is entered, but no sentence is delivered (though what they can throw at you is often hanging like a Sword of Damocles over the process). If certain structured goals are reached, charges are withdrawn. If the goals are not reached, parties return to the plea phase and proceed from there. These goals often revolve around participation in various programs run by state-licensed providers. There is a whole ecosystem of such programs and they know to kick money back to prosecutors (when elected) or those who appoint them to keep a steady stream of "clients" coming in.

This differs from SES (Suspended Execution of Sentence) where the defendant is found guilty and a punishment determined, but set aside if goals are reached. This is "probation" as most people are familiar with it.

Terminating an employee for being on diversion opens a lot of problems for an employer, as they are acting with prejudice towards a defendant who has not been found guilty of any crime.

Was Reade on diversion when she was terminated, or afterwards? There seems to be some confusion over when her last day worked was, we only know the date of her last paycheck which was the same week as the fraud case was filed.