Biden for President?

[TragicMonkey]

Not really. She's provided a vet bill and said that Reade defrauded her relating to that bill, for example. We don't know that the "defrauded" part is true. You are taking her word for it.

It's time to deposition the horse!





Lord, if only I had a nickel for every time I've said that!

 

[wareyin]

Sure, Reade could have been kiting checks for decades and stealing pension checks out of mailboxes. Who knows? When you use your imagination, anything is possible. There's no evidence for anything beyond the single bad check.

Where's your evidence that it was a single bad check? Why are you making that claim when Reade isn't?

The twitter detectives found a single reference to a purged record concerning a bounced check. Occam's razor is that she was in a bad-check diversion program that exists explicitly to extract payment for bad checks and remove these cases from the criminal court.

It looks like a bad check diversion program, it quacks like a bad check diversion program, and walks like a bad check diversion program, but it could still be an elephant. I can't prove it wasn't an elephant.

The twitter detectives found a fraud case to pile on top of the theft cases, and the previous false claims Reade made regarding her "rich and powerful defense contractor" father sexually assaulting her, and the multiple contradictory versions of this story Reade has told, but you still want to claim she's an elephant.

 

[wareyin]

It's a strange story, someone with good interview skills should ask her about it, confront her with the evidence.

Concluding that she committed fraud based on this is extremely reckless. Rushing to do so in order to smear her and dismiss her sexual assault claim is disgusting.

Wait, concluding that she committed fraud based on which time she committed fraud? The one with the court case or the one that the charity has documents and witnesses (multiple) for? Or is there another fraud case we're supposed to be claiming isn't fraud until and unless Reade (credible witness that she is) admits it is fraud?

But then what? The BernieBros who only care about her story as a reason to attack Biden will claim that we can't believe her admission to have committed fraud, after all she isn't credible because she committed fraud, so she didn't commit fraud and is therefore credible! Except when she isn't, depending in which story they're believing at the time.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Where's your evidence that it was a single bad check? Why are you making that claim when Reade isn't?



The twitter detectives found a fraud case to pile on top of the theft cases, and the previous false claims Reade made regarding her "rich and powerful defense contractor" father sexually assaulting her, and the multiple contradictory versions of this story Reade has told, but you still want to claim she's an elephant.

Now you're just making things up. Reade has no other criminal record. There is no theft "case", there's an allegation by a disgruntled pseudo-boss from a charity.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wait, concluding that she committed fraud based on which time she committed fraud? The one with the court case or the one that the charity has documents and witnesses (multiple) for? Or is there another fraud case we're supposed to be claiming isn't fraud until and unless Reade (credible witness that she is) admits it is fraud?

But then what? The BernieBros who only care about her story as a reason to attack Biden will claim that we can't believe her admission to have committed fraud, after all she isn't credible because she committed fraud, so she didn't commit fraud and is therefore credible! Except when she isn't, depending in which story they're believing at the time.

no, I've been quite clear that people who commit fraud can still be sexually assaulted or otherwise victimized. Tara Read could robbed that charity blind and still have been a victim in the 90's. It's almost as if they aren't connected events at all.

I'm just disgusted how the metoo people have circled the wagons around Biden.

It's one thing to remain skeptical of claims, but to personally attack an accuser is a betrayal of everything MeToo stood for.

This online mob of amateur investigators desperately trying to smear Reade as some lying, stealing, attention-whoring liar is repugnant. Shame on them all.

It's too late at this point. the message has been sent. Women, keep your mouth shut, because the price for failing to be "credible" in the court of public opinion is extremely high.

 

[theprestige]

It's time to deposition the horse!





Lord, if only I had a nickel for every time I've said that!

Hopefully you'd only have the one nickel; but you'd gotten rich off of saying "depose the horse".

 

[wareyin]

no, I've been quite clear that people who commit fraud can still be sexually assaulted or otherwise victimized. Tara Read could robbed that charity blind and still have been a victim in the 90's. It's almost as if they aren't connected events at all.

I'm just disgusted how the metoo people have circled the wagons around Biden.

It's one thing to remain skeptical of claims, but to personally attack an accuser is a betrayal of everything MeToo stood for.

This online mob of amateur investigators desperately trying to smear Reade as some lying, stealing, attention-whoring liar is repugnant. Shame on them all.

It's too late at this point. the message has been sent. Women, keep your mouth shut, because the price for failing to be "credible" in the court of public opinion is extremely high.

Metoo never stood for believing the accusation despite evidence against it. I think that was the Bernie or Bust movement you're thinking of.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hopefully you'd only have the one nickel; but you'd gotten rich off of saying "depose the horse".

I exchanged grammar for gentility because I didn't want anyone to confuse "depose" for the popular sex act people do with horses. One has read of in books.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are reading this **** you are posting? This has zero bearing on her sexual assault allegations.

Not so fast....

Not only has Fox News been reporting on this now, but Reade admitted the charges in an interview with them, denying it had to do with her leaving the Biden campaign.

It was four days before she left the office, she says "it was within a month".

Video, but only 2:50 long, less if you skip Trump at the end insulting Biden about being in a basement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Clearly the timing of the charges refutes that.

And you aren't charged with a crime for bouncing a check, the bank charges you a fee and often so does whomever the check was written to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Reade was never charged with 476. She was charged under 476A(A).

lookup 476A (A). That's what' cited on the twitter rando's screengrab of an alleged background search.

I even linked it for you. earlier. It's about checks with insufficient funds.

she bounced a check. Keep digging.



Now how would a court determine if someone bounced a check with intent to defraud vs just ordinary carelessness? Maybe they could have some program to divert cases where people were willing to pay. Some kind of bad check program. Then, if they paid, they don't get prosecuted and the whole thing goes away.

Crazy idea. Would never work.

You write a check on a closed account. You write checks after the bank has notified you they will no longer honor your checks because you have written too many to be an accident. Your check(s) bounce and you don't correct the mistake.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not so fast....

Not only has Fox News been reporting on this now, but Reade admitted the charges in an interview with them, denying it had to do with her leaving the Biden campaign.

It was four days before she left the office, she says "it was within a month".

Video, but only 2:50 long, less if you skip Trump at the end insulting Biden about being in a basement.

I don't really see this as clarifying much.

Reade's attorney says the charges were dismissed. Was that because of a bad check diversion program, which exists to dismiss bounced check claims, or because of some other reason?

Again, someone should ask her about this. People online flying off the handle assuming the worst about Reade, especially when the most likely explanation is that it was a simple bad check diversion, are revealing their bad motives.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

her case was diverted and purged. Do you think that's because she was a fraudster, or because she paid what she owed and the diversion program worked as intended?

That she went into a diversion program is pretty solid proof that she didn't pay up until after she was charged with a crime.

Any of those checks you bounced could have been pursued this way. You too could have had a purged record and a-holes on twitter could call you a fraud.

I guess this needs to be stated again. For a bounced check to be a crime, the prosecutor must be able to prove that the person bouncing the check INTENTIONALLY wrote the check on an account with insufficient funds in order to obtain the good or service without paying the full price. An accidental or careless overdraft does not constitute a crime.

I'd bet that Tara Reade never "went to court for fraud". She probably got a nasty letter saying "pay up or else" and payed up. Papers moved back and forth across a desk and a few stamps were licked.

A person agreeing to repay a short check does not get charged with a crime, since as has already been stated accidents and misunderstandings do not constitute a criminal offense. And how would she get into a diversion program without going to court? Or at least have a judge approve the arrangement? Prosecutors cannot force people into diversion programs.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You're welcome! I'm partial to "vice-presided", myself.

Indeed, also worthy of note.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Diversion isn't restitution.

Where do you see that she plead guilty or was prosecuted?

She claims she completed diversion (aka coughed up the money) and the charges were dropped. Records of the charges were purged, consistent with the diversion program guidelines.

Diversion programs usually involve some sort of counseling.

 

[xjx388]

Clearly the timing of the charges refutes that.

And you aren't charged with a crime for bouncing a check, the bank charges you a fee and often so does whomever the check was written to.

You can be charged with a crime if the merchant goes to the DA. It’s totally at their discretion. Most merchants opt to avoid referring their customers for criminal prosecution, for public relations reasons, but some don’t.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Are you now claiming that a person who pleads not guilty and isn't prosecuted goes through a diversion program anyway???

Yes. That's the point of diversion. Prosecution only comes after the person does not complete the diversion program. Someone doing diversion likely never even makes a plea one way or the other. The case is dropped before then.

From the webpage for that county's diversion program:

The District Attorney will prosecute bad check writers who do not comply with the diversion program if the victim has followed proper procedure when accepting checks for goods or services.

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

I guess this needs to be stated again. For a bounced check to be a crime, the prosecutor must be able to prove that the person bouncing the check INTENTIONALLY wrote the check on an account with insufficient funds in order to obtain the good or service without paying the full price. An accidental or careless overdraft does not constitute a crime. This implies that either she refused to make good on the check or that there was a pattern of writing bad checks.

A person agreeing to repay a short check does not get charged with a crime, since as has already been stated accidents and misunderstandings do not constitute a criminal offense. And how would she get into a diversion program without going to court? Or at least have a judge approve the arrangement? Prosecutors cannot force people into diversion programs.

Again, from the diversion program's website, they will accept cases from anyone in the county that received a bad check. There's no need to show that someone was an egregious repeat offender. There's no need at that point to prove or disprove intent. Any bad check meets basic eligibility is eligible for the program. If diversion is completed, there is no prosecution. That's what diversion means, a pre-prosecution arrangement that makes the entire case go away.

Only if the case is prosecuted is it necessary to prove intent.

Again, what evidence is there that Reade was ever prosecuted?

There's a reference to purged county records. Some have claimed (I can't verify) that diversion includes purging all records of the case. I find this believable as the whole point of diversion is to settle the case without criminal consequences.

 

[xjx388]

That she went into a diversion program is pretty solid proof that she didn't pay up until after she was charged with a crime.




I guess this needs to be stated again. For a bounced check to be a crime, the prosecutor must be able to prove that the person bouncing the check INTENTIONALLY wrote the check on an account with insufficient funds in order to obtain the good or service without paying the full price. An accidental or careless overdraft does not constitute a crime.



A person agreeing to repay a short check does not get charged with a crime, since as has already been stated accidents and misunderstandings do not constitute a criminal offense. And how would she get into a diversion program without going to court? Or at least have a judge approve the arrangement? Prosecutors cannot force people into diversion programs.

That’s why diversion programs exist. The DA would rather get people to honor the check than prosecute for a crime they will have a hard time proving. But if the check writer doesn’t respond to the diversion program, that makes the case easier to prosecute -the check writer is demonstrating intent to defraud by ignoring the demand for payment.

 

[xjx388]

Diversion programs usually involve some sort of counseling.

Not in the case of bad checks. You pay the debt, there is no crime.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That’s why diversion programs exist. The DA would rather get people to honor the check than prosecute for a crime they will have a hard time proving. But if the check writer doesn’t respond to the diversion program, that makes the case easier to prosecute -the check writer is demonstrating intent to defraud by ignoring the demand for payment.

I'm glad I'm not taking crazy pills. Someone else gets this besides me.

Anyone who thinks this is wrong should look at the program. Any bad check is eligible that meets very basic criteria, and there's no need to show intent or other nefarious activity. Any check that fails to clear the bank after two attempts can be submitted.

the whole point of the diversion program is so merchants can get paid without clogging the courts and prosecuting tons of people who were willing to pay. It's a rubber stamp process.

In all likelihood, Reade paid what she owed plus an admin fee and the case went away, never prosecuted and the records were purged. The desperate search for character smears continues.