Biden for President?

[Sideroxylon]

Nice try. The economy in 2014-2016 was doing just fine. Low unemployment. For someone who had a law degree, Reade seems to have had a long standing issue with finances. Could be bad luck, could be she just isn't very responsible, could be she just has problems.

I see you ignore the issue with the dates of her GoFundMe and taking on unnecessary and expensive financial responsibilities when she couldn't even pay for her car.

Is needing Biden to be guilty that important to you?

How do you feel about some of the many people who have lost jobs Hiding cars from repo?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not going to organize a lynching for Tara Reade. But just because I'm uninterested in that, I see far too many troubling issues in her past and her story to dismiss the presumptive nominee for President.

 

[Stacyhs]

How do you feel about some of the many people who have lost jobs Hiding cars from repo?

Look! Squirrel!!

I repeat:

I see you ignore the issue with the dates of her GoFundMe and taking on unnecessary and expensive financial responsibilities when she couldn't even pay for her car.

Is needing Biden to be guilty that important to you?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Look! Squirrel!!

I repeat:

I see you ignore the issue with the dates of her GoFundMe and taking on unnecessary and expensive financial responsibilities when she couldn't even pay for her car.

Is needing Biden to be guilty that important to you?

Yeah, have no idea what you are going on about. Have not been reading the keyboard PI stuff in this thread.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Another minor point: "prove she only bounced one check rather than many" is a cleverly-worded reversal of burden of proof.

It requires proving she "did not." Correct burden is "what evidence of multiple bounced checks exists?"

"The prosecutor surely wouldn't go after someone for just one" is not evidence, it is argument from incredulity.

Moving on.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, have no idea what you are going on about. Have not been reading the keyboard PI stuff in this thread.

Yes, you have. Which is why you've been commenting on it. See your posts

#2741
#2833
#2838
#2839
#2845
#2876
#3020

Let me spell it out for you:

1. Rather than pay her car payments, Reade took on the expense of boarding, feeding, a farrier, and vet bills for a horse. Only she didn't pay her vet bills. She had the vet office charge them to the rescue. TWICE. And hid the car from being repossessed.

2. Reade had someone post a GoFundMe so she could get away from her abusive husband. Only he'd divorced her several years before.

It's really pretty simple. And that's on top of her changing story. She's claimed both to have quit and to have been fired. Three former staffers deny Reade ever told them about any sexual harassment by anyone, much less Biden, as Reade claimed. Reade praised Biden for his work on sexual harassment after she claimed he assaulted her. Just last month Reade filed a sexual assault complaint with the DC police telling reporters it was about Biden...but she never mentions Biden in the actual complaint. Reade's brother first said she had told him that Biden had touched her neck and shoulders but never said anything about an assault. He changed his story 3 days later to agree with an interview she had just given saying he now remembered her saying he'd touched her under her clothes. Just this month Reade claimed she "filed a limited report with the congressional personnel office that didn't directly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment, but then later tweeted “this is false.” She goes from praising Biden to accusing him of sexual assault just after Sanders, her chosen candidate, loses to Biden.

But you find her credible.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes, you have. Which is why you've been commenting on it. See your posts

#2741
#2833
#2838
#2839
#2845
#2876
#3020

Let me spell it out for you:

1. Rather than pay her car payments, Reade took on the expense of boarding, feeding, a farrier, and vet bills for a horse. Only she didn't pay her vet bills. She had the vet office charge them to the rescue. TWICE. And hid the car from being repossessed.

2. Reade had someone post a GoFundMe so she could get away from her abusive husband. Only he'd divorced her several years before.

It's really pretty simple. And that's on top of her changing story. She's claimed both to have quit and to have been fired. Three former staffers deny Reade ever told them about any sexual harassment by anyone, much less Biden, as Reade claimed. Reade praised Biden for his work on sexual harassment after she claimed he assaulted her. Just last month Reade filed a sexual assault complaint with the DC police telling reporters it was about Biden...but she never mentions Biden in the actual complaint. Reade's brother first said she had told him that Biden had touched her neck and shoulders but never said anything about an assault. He changed his story 3 days later to agree with an interview she had just given saying he now remembered her saying he'd touched her under her clothes. Just this month Reade claimed she "filed a limited report with the congressional personnel office that didn't directly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment, but then later tweeted “this is false.” She goes from praising Biden to accusing him of sexual assault just after Sanders, her chosen candidate, loses to Biden.

But you find her credible.

I am literally laughing at you telling me what my care factor is. Nice list of my post numbers.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Reade's claim that her bad check problems were dismissed after she paid court costs and diversion program fees in addition to covering the checks and paying bank fees are consistent with the common method of handling first-time non-violent offenders.



We know she was charged with a criminal offense. We know that her case proceeded in a manner typical of that of a first-time non-violent offender. We know that she didn't simply pay what she owed. Has her lawyer claimed that it was just an accounting error?

Please summarize again what you "know" about Reade and this dastardly criminal case.

Because from where I'm sitting we have:

1) A screeenshot from an anonymous twitter user from an unspecified background check program listing 476A(A) for Reade. There's no additional detail, no indication on how the case was decided, no information at all other than her name, the date, and the statute 476A(A).

2) A court records request showing that information for Reade has been purged by court order.

3) Reade claiming that she was charged and the case was dismissed and was not relevant to her leaving the job. No one from Biden's staff has suggested this check fraud was the reason to fire her. Reade further claims that she was effectively fired prior to the datestamp for her check fraud case.

Am I missing any other facts here?

So what do we know? Almost nothing. She was charged, but we have no idea how the case was disposed. No idea if the case was prosecuted or acquitted. No idea if she was found guilty or innocent. We have no idea if it was pre-trial diversion or post-conviction restitution. We have no idea if she ever had to personally appear in court, was arrested, or was contacted by prosecutors. We have no idea that she ever had to make any plea whatsoever. We have no idea if anyone from her office knew about this problem or cared. And we'll probably never know because the record is purged, unless Reade tells us, and you won't believe it anyway.

We do know that bad checks were routinely handled by the bad check program in this county and explicitly laid out a path for accused bad check writers to avoid criminal action.

So tell me again, what do you "know" about Reade's supposed check fraud? Sounds to me like you're being extremely uncharitable to fill in these massive gaps with the most damning narrative possible about Reade, even as much more plausible, innocent alternatives exist.

To even mention this, given the massive amounts of missing knowledge, as a point against Reade's character is a massive jump to conclusions. It's an unsubstantiated smear job against a woman claiming sexual assault.

ETA:
All the news articles that I've read have used the phrase "check fraud" rather than "bad check". I don't know if that is sloppy reporting or if she was actually accused of "check fraud".

It's bad reporting. It's quite clear that her "criminal charge" was 476A(A), which is only about checks with insufficient funds. Some bad reporters have linked to statute 476, which is about more general check fraud. Again, probably a good reason to not have twitter detectives and amateurs declaring Reade a criminal based on a screenshot from a twitter rando.

This won't stop them, and probably you, from calling her a check fraud, eliding that her "fraud" was a bounced check.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There you go reinforcing the point.

They can't help themselves. Peasants shouldn't attack their betters. Let them squabble amongst themselves in filth as is their base nature, but they should not dare to lay hands on our ruling class.

Surely people here know that hiding from the repo man is a short term strategy. You can't hide it forever. Usually it's a play to buy more time so they can catch up on the car note.

 

[wareyin]

They can't help themselves. Peasants shouldn't attack their betters. Let them squabble amongst themselves in filth as is their base nature, but they should not dare to lay hands on our ruling class.

Surely people here know that hiding from the repo man is a short term strategy. You can't hide it forever. Usually it's a play to buy more time so they can catch up on the car note.

This bit seems personal to you. Yeah, you shouldn't hide a car from the repo man, but it's a minor transgression compared to all the other stuff everyone keeps pointing out and you guys keep ignoring. You know, the big stuff like the thefts, the go-fund-me page to escape from the man she divorced decades ago, the multiple contradictory versions of her story, etc.

Jeez, if you want to make it a class struggle thing, remember that Reade has a law degree and owns a freaking horse. Can you afford to own a horse? I don't think I can. Is she your version of a peasant?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This bit seems personal to you. Yeah, you shouldn't hide a car from the repo man, but it's a minor transgression compared to all the other stuff everyone keeps pointing out and you guys keep ignoring. You know, the big stuff like the thefts, the go-fund-me page to escape from the man she divorced decades ago, the multiple contradictory versions of her story, etc.

Jeez, if you want to make it a class struggle thing, remember that Reade has a law degree and owns a freaking horse. Can you afford to own a horse? I don't think I can. Is she your version of a peasant?

Why is anyone talking about her repo'd car?

Just idle curiosity about her life?

Don't be obtuse. It's a campaign to smear her as non-credible.

Based on the reporting of Tara Reade's various money problems, it seems she spends beyond her means. I'm sure this has caused her all sorts of grief over her life. I don't see this as relevant to whether she would lie about being a sexual assault victim.

There are problems with Tara Reade's claims. Her car getting repo'd isn't one of them, and people who insist on talking about it are engaged in shameless smear tactics. Exactly what I'd expect from the Krassensteins, who's "investigation" contained this and many other irrelevant snipes.

 

[wareyin]

Why is anyone talking about her repo'd car?

Just idle curiosity about her life?

Don't be obtuse. It's a campaign to smear her as non-credible.

Based on the reporting of Tara Reade's various money problems, it seems she spends beyond her means. I'm sure this has caused her all sorts of grief over her life. I don't see this as relevant to whether she would lie about being a sexual assault victim.

There are problems with Tara Reade's claims. Her car getting repo'd isn't one of them, and people who insist on talking about it are engaged in shameless smear tactics. Exactly what I'd expect from the Krassensteins, who's "investigation" contained this and many other irrelevant snipes.

You are focused on the car, apparently as a distraction from the actual problems everyone else is talking about. You know, the ones you keep ignoring or handwaving away?

 

[wareyin]

Another minor point: "prove she only bounced one check rather than many" is a cleverly-worded reversal of burden of proof.

It requires proving she "did not." Correct burden is "what evidence of multiple bounced checks exists?"

No. SuburbanTurkey (and not Reade or her lawyer btw) is making the claim that it was only one. It is his claim to prove. Asking him to do so is normal and expected here.

"The prosecutor surely wouldn't go after someone for just one" is not evidence, it is argument from incredulity.

Moving on.

Ok, sure, it's possible that this was a dramatic over-reaction many, many times greater than normal by the prosecutor, but if you're claiming extraordinary actions we're going to need some sort of evidence.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You are focused on the car, apparently as a distraction from the actual problems everyone else is talking about. You know, the ones you keep ignoring or handwaving away?

It was bait to reveal the hidden animus of some people on this forum. Bait that was swallowed whole, if you read back the last few pages. Sweeping statements about dishonesty and car loans have been made. I'm pretty proud of myself for laying this trap.

We don't have to talk about her car loan if you don't want to. I surely don't think it's relevant, but there are other people here who would disagree.

Reade's claims are largely unverifiable. It puts the party in a tough spot. Unless more accusers come forward in some sort of Weinstein or Cosby scenario, or something comes forward to definitively show that Reade is lying, we'll never know the truth about Biden. At least, that's what I see as the most likely outcome, no firm conclusion one way or the other.

We do know that he's pretty creepy and likes to nuzzle women in very offputting ways, but Reade's claims are much more serious than these strange PDA. Trump is going to do what Trump does. He'll make hyperbolic claims that have tiny nuggets of truth in them. Biden has been inappropriately handsy with women, there's very bad looking photos all over the web.

The situation with Biden is made much worse by the hard-line stance the party took with Kavanaugh. I would agree Ford was a more convincing accuser, but we are still talking about cases where guilt or innocence really can't be proven to any certainty. It's a real mess.

 

[wareyin]

It was bait to reveal the hidden animus of some people on this forum. Bait that was swallowed whole, if you read back the last few pages.

I'm reading over the last few pages, and other than as an aside in a larger post, you are the only one talking about it. Your clever trap only caught you.

We don't have to talk about her car loan if you don't want to. I surely don't think it's relevant, but there are other people here who would disagree.

Reade's claims are largely unverifiable. It puts the party in a tough spot. Unless more accusers come forward in some sort of Weinstein or Cosby scenario, or something comes forward to definitively show that Reade is lying, we'll never know the truth about Biden.

We do know that he's pretty creepy and likes to nuzzle women in very offputting ways, but Reade's claims are much more serious than these strange PDA.

The situation with Biden is made much worse by the hard-line stance the party took with Kavanaugh. I would agree Ford was a more convincing accuser, but we are still talking about cases where guilt or innocence really can't be proven to any certainty. It's a real mess.

There are always going to be cases where guilt or innocence can't be proven. Unlike Ford, Reade has nothing to back her up, so comparing the two is an apples to oranges thing.

Reade suddenly created this version of the story when her beloved St Bernard tanked. Sort of like how other BernieBro's have been making up crap about Biden's dementia, or how bad Biden was for believing what the cops told him about his wife's death when Sanders **** the bed again. And just like those other stories, hers has too many holes and contradictions to be credible.

 

[Delvo]

I surely don't think it's relevant, but there are other people here who would disagree.

Women who've ever done something bad can't be sexually assaulted.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm reading over the last few pages, and other than as an aside in a larger post, you are the only one talking about it. Your clever trap only caught you.

Take it up with Stachys, who seeems to think it's a scandal that this law degree holding women can't manage her finances.

Hiding a car from the repo man is dishonest and, in some states, illegal. You can't keep a car you can't pay for.

Nice try. The economy in 2014-2016 was doing just fine. Low unemployment. For someone who had a law degree, Reade seems to have had a long standing issue with finances. Could be bad luck, could be she just isn't very responsible, could be she just has problems.

I see you ignore the issue with the dates of her GoFundMe and taking on unnecessary and expensive financial responsibilities when she couldn't even pay for her car.

There are always going to be cases where guilt or innocence can't be proven. Unlike Ford, Reade has nothing to back her up, so comparing the two is an apples to oranges thing.

Reade suddenly created this version of the story when her beloved St Bernard tanked. Sort of like how other BernieBro's have been making up crap about Biden's dementia, or how bad Biden was for believing what the cops told him about his wife's death when Sanders **** the bed again. And just like those other stories, hers has too many holes and contradictions to be credible.[/QUOTE]

Ford's timing was equally inconvenient for Kavanaugh. I think it makes plenty of sense. If someone did that to me, I'd want to kick them where it hurts most. Nailing them to the cross when they are in the public spotlight makes perfect sense to me. I don't question Ford's motives for waiting decades. I don't question Reade's either.

 

[Segnosaur]

Based on the reporting of Tara Reade's various money problems, it seems she spends beyond her means. I'm sure this has caused her all sorts of grief over her life. I don't see this as relevant to whether she would lie about being a sexual assault victim.

It it was just a case of "spending beyond her means" then it would not be a problem. It does happen. Had she just (for example) declared bankruptcy then I double people would care about her financial issues.

The problem is not that she had money issues, the problem is the way she chose to handle those money issues, using methods that were shady/immoral at best, and outright illegal at worst.

The fact that you seem to be insinuating we are "attacking her because she is poor" is disingenuous.

And it should be pointed out... This is not just one thing. (Had it just been one bad check it might not be an issue, even if some bank may have overreacted.) It's a whole pattern... The bad check, along with a questionable GoFundMe page, along with hiding a repossessed car, etc.

And even more than that... The fact she has done shady stuff in the past doesn't mean her story is automatically false... But her changing claims about what happened with Biden means her integrity becomes a bigger issue than it might otherwise be

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[uke2se]

I think Reade is credible and that her story passes the initial BS-test. I believe this should be investigated.

I also believe that should Joe Biden still be the nominee in november, it would be irresponsible not to vote for him.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It it was just a case of "spending beyond her means" then it would not be a problem. It does happen. Had she just (for example) declared bankruptcy then I double people would care about her financial issues.

The problem is not that she had money issues, the problem is the way she chose to handle those money issues, using methods that were shady/immoral at best, and outright illegal at worst.

The fact that you seem to be insinuating we are "attacking her because she is poor" is disingenuous.

And it should be pointed out... This is not just one thing. (Had it just been one bad check it might not be an issue, even if some bank may have overreacted.) It's a whole pattern... The bad check, along with a questionable GoFundMe page, along with hiding a repossessed car, etc.
And even more than that... The fact she has done shady stuff in the past doesn't mean her story is automatically false... But her changing claims about what happened with Biden means her integrity becomes a bigger issue than it might otherwise be

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

These things are unsubstantiated. They are, at best, leads to a further story that could be investigated. Except the car repo thing. I don't see how that could be relevant at all.

Anyone making conclusions based on these half-bites of evidence is filling in the rest with their wishful thinking and/or their disdain for the poor.

These people casting stones at Reade for money problems, what exactly do you think you know about her career? I couldn't find much. She went to non-elite law school and worked for at a battered women's group. I'm not seeing a gravy train.