Biden for President?

[llwyd]

Well, compared with Trump, Biden is Lincoln, Washington, Churchill and FDR combined. All else is details. This election is a critical emergency.

 

[wareyin]

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?

Yes, yes, you are good at shooting the messenger. In your opinion, the skeptical position should be that there is absolutely no relation to Reade's being taken to court for fraud 4 days before her final paycheck? That certainly doesn't seem like a rational position. Do you think it would be unusual for an employer to fire someone who is involved in a fraud case, and apparently pled guilty?

I don't think Reade can conclusively prove why she left Biden's office, given her 4 contradictory accounts over the matter (so far). I'd be very surprised if Biden could prove why she left his office either, since she was an unimportant Aide (a high turnover job) 27 years ago who didn't even work there for a year. eta: and Reade herself claimed she didn't think he knew why she left (although she doesn't appear to be a credible witness over the matter given her story changes)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, yes, you are good at shooting the messenger. In your opinion, the skeptical position should be that there is absolutely no relation to Reade's being taken to court for fraud 4 days before her final paycheck? That certainly doesn't seem like a rational position. Do you think it would be unusual for an employer to fire someone who is involved in a fraud case, and apparently pled guilty?

I don't think Reade can conclusively prove why she left Biden's office, given her 4 contradictory accounts over the matter (so far). I'd be very surprised if Biden could prove why she left his office either, since she was an unimportant Aide (a high turnover job) 27 years ago who didn't even work there for a year. eta: and Reade herself claimed she didn't think he knew why she left (although she doesn't appear to be a credible witness over the matter given her story changes)

I see no reason to have any position on the importance of a minor court action absent evidence that anyone knew or acted on it. There's a very obvious reason why Reade might not mention a decades old bounced check diversion, because it wasn't relevant.

Reade's lawyer claims that she paid her debt and the whole thing was diverted and purged, as was common in such cases. Is there any reason to believe this isn't true?

Unsure if this was the same in the 90's, but here's the county bad check program. It's quite clear that prosecution only occurs if bad check writers refuse to pay during the diversion process. Sounds like Tara paid and the case went away, as the program intends.

https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/District-Attorney/Special-Prosecutions/Services/Bad-Check-Program.aspx

What's next, a parking ticket? Overdue library books? Didn't rewind her rental VHS tapes?

Twitter detectives are grasping at straws.

 

[wareyin]

I see no reason to have any position on the importance of a minor court action absent evidence that anyone knew or acted on it. There's a very obvious reason why Reade might not mention a decades old bounced check diversion, because it wasn't relevant.

Why wouldn't a fraud case against be relevant? (It's not a bounced check diversion, that's your spin on it)

I understand why she wouldn't want it known now, but I'm fairly certain that her employer would have found it relevant then. Why do you think they wouldn't?

lawyer claims that she paid her debt and the whole thing was diverted and purged, as was common in such cases. Is there any reason to believe this isn't true?

Other than Reade's history of making false claims? That would be one good reason to believe it might not be true. Anyway, why would her paying her debt after the fraud case make the fraud case not matter?

Unsure if this was the same in the 90's, but here's the county bad check program. It's quite clear that prosecution only occurs if bad check writers refuse to pay during the diversion process. Sounds like Tara paid and the case went away, as the program intends.

https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/District-Attorney/Special-Prosecutions/Services/Bad-Check-Program.aspx

It's also quite clear that it doesn't happen because of a single overdraft despite your claims that it did.

What's next, a parking ticket? Overdue library books? Didn't rewind her rental VHS tapes?

Twitter detectives are grasping at straws.

Someone is definitely grasping at straws, but I don't think it's the people pointing to the fraud case, the multiple thefts from a charity, and the ever changing story as evidence that Reade isn't credible.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Why wouldn't a fraud case against be relevant? (It's not a bounced check diversion, that's your spin on it)

I understand why she wouldn't want it known now, but I'm fairly certain that her employer would have found it relevant then. Why do you think they wouldn't?



Other than Reade's history of making false claims? That would be one good reason to believe it might not be true. Anyway, why would her paying her debt after the fraud case make the fraud case not matter?



It's also quite clear that it doesn't happen because of a single overdraft despite your claims that it did.



Someone is definitely grasping at straws, but I don't think it's the people pointing to the fraud case, the multiple thefts from a charity, and the ever changing story as evidence that Reade isn't credible.

It's literally called the bad check program. If you can't see how that's a synonym for a bounced check, I don't know what to tell you. Almost seems like you're being deliberately uncharitable, but I couldn't see why you'd have a motive for that.

Not sure what gotcha you're trying to get about getting bounced twice vs once. In all likelihood, Tara wrote a bad check, had insufficient funds the two times it was presented to her bank, and paid up during the diversion program. Each check has to be perused individually. So we have evidence that Tara wrote a bad check once and paid it off during diversion. A real criminal mastermind.

If your standard for dishonesty is anyone who ever had a check bounce, you are pretty much saying that poor people in the checking era were untrustworthy. Bouncing checks were a common enough problem they had a dedicated diversion program for it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

What era? In the last 20 years or so, overdraft policies have been around.

I was in my 20s when I had this happen with some checks and while no charges came my way, it was explained to me in stark terms that they very well could.

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.

I don't know nor did I intend to address that issue.

I was describing diversion and probation as I understand them.

Do with the information as you wish.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, compared with Trump, Biden is Lincoln, Washington, Churchill and FDR combined.

Yes, I can certainly agree that Biden has all the appeal of four rotting corpses.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I can certainly agree that Biden has all the appeal of four rotting corpses.

And a quadruple warmonger.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And a quadruple warmonger.

Has Biden been warmongerous? Both Clintons were somewhat, but I can't recall anything Biden specifically did or said to indicate bellicosity. (For me, I'd like him a bit better if he were mildly pugnacious, globally. Somebody needs to challenge the Russians, damn it, and for some reason that isn't going to be Republicans any more.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Has Biden been warmongerous? Both Clintons were somewhat, but I can't recall anything Biden specifically did or said to indicate bellicosity. (For me, I'd like him a bit better if he were mildly pugnacious, globally. Somebody needs to challenge the Russians, damn it, and for some reason that isn't going to be Republicans any more.)

Biden was a leading Democratic cheerleader for the war in Iraq which is probably greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Biden was a leading Democratic cheerleader for the war in Iraq which is probably greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.

Meh. Iraq, Schmiraq. Lots of people in both parties were stupid on that one. I can't stand Biden but I don't assign him an undue heaping of blame for that debacle. It's been twenty years, time to let it go.

 

[theprestige]

Biden was a leading Democratic cheerleader for the war in Iraq which is probably greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.

He also vice-presided over Obama's decision to get involved in hostilities in Libya and Syria, among other places.

But the joke I was actually trying for fell flat. Something about Lincoln, Washington, Churchill and FDR all being big ol' warmongers. It tried to build on TM's subversion of the list, but subverted it in a different way, causing confusion instead of jollity. Sorry 'bout that!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Meh. Iraq, Schmiraq. Lots of people in both parties were stupid on that one. I can't stand Biden but I don't assign him an undue heaping of blame for that debacle. It's been twenty years, time to let it go.

I mean, many of the same people that advocated for that war are still in positions of power in DC. No one was really held accountable, so there's really no reason why they wouldn't make a similar decision again.

The fact that this bipartisan blunder really didn't have much consequences at all for those involved is a big part of problem.

But yeah, Biden isn't really outstanding in this regard.

 

[wareyin]

It's literally called the bad check program. If you can't see how that's a synonym for a bounced check, I don't know what to tell you. Almost seems like you're being deliberately uncharitable, but I couldn't see why you'd have a motive for that.

When one has a record of fraud and theft (from a charity), I find it hard to be charitable to them. If a record of deceit and dishonesty doesn't make you discount a witness, what would? So far even her specifically telling you not to believe her previous claims hasn't made a dent in your belief, so what would it take?

Not sure what gotcha you're trying to get about getting bounced twice vs once. In all likelihood, Tara wrote a bad check, had insufficient funds the two times it was presented to her bank, and paid up during the diversion program. Each check has to be perused individually. So we have evidence that Tara wrote a bad check once and paid it off during diversion. A real criminal mastermind.

Your hypothetical is not a historical account. There is no gotcha in disputing your dishonest spin from fraud charges down to a simple bank overdraft. That's something that not even Reade is claiming.

If your standard for dishonesty is anyone who ever had a check bounce, you are pretty much saying that poor people in the checking era were untrustworthy. Bouncing checks were a common enough problem they had a dedicated diversion program for it.

And we're right back to who among us hasn't been taken to court for fraud, stolen from a charity we worked for multiple times, etc! You may want to pretend that every instance that comes up should be treated as though it is in a vacuum, but I see no reason that the rest of us have to fringe reset to a belief that Reade is credible as another instance of her not being so is added to the large pile.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

When one has a record of fraud and theft (from a charity), I find it hard to be charitable to them. If a record of deceit and dishonesty doesn't make you discount a witness, what would? So far even her specifically telling you not to believe her previous claims hasn't made a dent in your belief, so what would it take?



Your hypothetical is not a historical account. There is no gotcha in disputing your dishonest spin from fraud charges down to a simple bank overdraft. That's something that not even Reade is claiming.



And we're right back to who among us hasn't been taken to court for fraud, stolen from a charity we worked for multiple times, etc! You may want to pretend that every instance that comes up should be treated as though it is in a vacuum, but I see no reason that the rest of us have to fringe reset to a belief that Reade is credible as another instance of her not being so is added to the large pile.

Why do you think that diversion programs for bad checks were standard practice? Maybe it's an acknowledgement that bounced checks are often aren't really a matter for criminal court and are usually not caused by fraudulent intentions?

I'm hoping you're just woefully ignorant on how things worked when checks were more commonly used. Otherwise this strikes me as a deeply classist argument for why all poor folks who can't pay their bills are morally flawed.

SHE WENT TO COURT FOR FRAUD!!1!. Get a grip. She bounced a check and paid it. probably got a little administrative fine to go along with it. A firm wrist slapping. The court purged the record, because everyone knew that this is ticky-tack crap that isn't a criminal matter.

The modern instant debit card has automated this process with overdraft fees. Those that pay their overdraft fees are not considered fraudsters.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

As I stated in an earlier post, her case wasn't a bad check case. It was an ALTERED check case. It's hard to change the name or amount on a check by accident. Not to mention that in both an altered check case and a bad check case, it is only a crime IF the prosecutor can prove that there was an intent to defraud someone. An accidental overdraft is NOT a crime (fortunately, since a lot of us who have been around since before the advent of electronic banking would have criminal records).

Reade's case was expunged because she went through a diversion program. This is common for first-time offenders who commit non-violent crimes. It doesn't mean that the crime was no worse than a speeding ticket.

Just because the charge wasn't officially lodged until August 2 doesn't mean that Biden's office might not have known about it before then. Nor do we know when Reade actually left. Since her lawyer lied about what the charge entailed, why should we believe his account of when her last day was?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As I stated in an earlier post, her case wasn't a bad check case. It was an ALTERED check case. It's hard to change the name or amount on a check by accident. Not to mention that in both an altered check case and a bad check case, it is only a crime IF the prosecutor can prove that there was an intent to defraud someone. An accidental overdraft is NOT a crime (fortunately, since a lot of us who have been around since before the advent of electronic banking would have criminal records).

Reade's case was expunged because she went through a diversion program. This is common for first-time offenders who commit non-violent crimes. It doesn't mean that the crime was no worse than a speeding ticket.

Just because the charge wasn't officially lodged until August 2 doesn't mean that Biden's office might not have known about it before then. Nor do we know when Reade actually left. Since her lawyer lied about what the charge entailed, why should we believe his account of when her last day was?

Please explain further, I don't follow.

The post you cited lists her as cited for 476A(A), which pertains to checks written with insufficient funds.

Not sure what you're going on about the meaning of Check Fraud. Her case lists the statute for bounced checks explicitly.

Am i missing something?

476a.
(a) Any person who, for himself or herself, as the agent or representative of another, or as an officer of a corporation, willfully, with intent to defraud, makes or draws or utters or delivers a check, draft, or order upon a bank or depositary, a person, a firm, or a corporation, for the payment of money, knowing at the time of that making, drawing, uttering, or delivering that the maker or drawer or the corporation has not sufficient funds in, or credit with the bank or depositary, person, firm, or corporation, for the payment of that check, draft, or order and all other checks, drafts, or orders upon funds then outstanding, in full upon its presentation, although no express representation is made with reference thereto, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=476a.

She bounced a check, got charged, and got diversion. Sounds an awful lot like she coughed up the money and that was the end of it.

 

[xjx388]

It's also quite clear that it doesn't happen because of a single overdraft despite your claims that it did.

It happens anytime a merchant refers a bounced check to the DA. Some merchants don't do that; some do it everytime. We could do it but we'd rather work with people than create legal trouble for them. There is no reason we couldn't refer the first bouned check a person gave us to the DA.

Someone is definitely grasping at straws, but I don't think it's the people pointing to the fraud case, the multiple thefts from a charity, and the ever changing story as evidence that Reade isn't credible.

I have a question . . . I've seen this allegation that she stole from a charity. Why are those allegations taken seriously? The charity never prosecuted her. They are, basically, only stories told by Lynn Hummer. Kind of like the stories told by Tara Reade . . . You accept Hummer's allegations, pretty much at face value and use them to attack Reade's credibility. I find that interesting.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It happens anytime a merchant refers a bounced check to the DA. Some merchants don't do that; some do it everytime. We could do it but we'd rather work with people than create legal trouble for them. There is no reason we couldn't refer the first bouned check a person gave us to the DA.


I have a question . . . I've seen this allegation that she stole from a charity. Why are those allegations taken seriously? The charity never prosecuted her. They are, basically, only stories told by Lynn Hummer. Kind of like the stories told by Tara Reade . . . You accept Hummer's allegations, pretty much at face value and use them to attack Reade's credibility. I find that interesting.

Because Tara Read isn't Credible^TM
Clearly she had a falling out with this person who runs that charity where she was volunteering. This person's account on how events shook out should be taken as Gospel Truth, ignoring that this person is obviously very angry with Reade.

I suspect some elements of that story are true, and some are not. Apparently that's grasping at straws when it comes to Biden accusers.

 

[wareyin]

I have a question . . . I've seen this allegation that she stole from a charity. Why are those allegations taken seriously? The charity never prosecuted her. They are, basically, only stories told by Lynn Hummer. Kind of like the stories told by Tara Reade . . . You accept Hummer's allegations, pretty much at face value and use them to attack Reade's credibility. I find that interesting.

Hummer has provided the documentation to substantiate their claim. Simple as that.