Biden for President?

[theprestige]

: confused :

Has that not happened yet? We have an awful lot of information on someone who hasn't been investigated yet.

Allegations, amateur doxxing, and people saying other people should investigate. Biden says the NYT should investigate. The NYT says the DNC should investigate. There's no word yet on who the DNC says should investigate.

You tell us: Has an investigation happened. You have an awful lot of information, but can you tell us what investigation you got that info from? Probably not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, see references to the deferment programs in most states for just that purpose.

Are you letting your single personal anecdote influence your POV here?

I've never in my life heard of anyone being criminally charged for a bounced check.

A check written on a closed account is another story. The merchant in your case only knows the check bounced with one of those stamps by the bank saying account closed. Merchant naturally reports this to the police.

But by far the vast majority of people charged with check fraud weren't charged because they made a simple mistake.

Why should we assume deferred prosecution is for people who made innocent mistakes?
Am I reading your post incorrectly?

Deferred prosecutions is common for first offenders and certain crimes like DUI (unfortunately). It doesn't mean innocent. Innocent wouldn't need deferred prosecution, they need a court to find them innocent, no deferred prosecution needed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I'm not doing is assuming that she is guilty because she didn't mount a hearty legal defense. That is all on you....

She admitted it. She downplayed it, but nonetheless admitted it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Are you letting your single personal anecdote influence your POV here?

I've never in my life heard of anyone being criminally charged for a bounced check.

A check written on a closed account is another story. The merchant in your case only knows the check bounced with one of those stamps by the bank saying account closed. Merchant naturally reports this to the police.

But by far the vast majority of people charged with check fraud weren't charged because they made a simple mistake.

Why should we assume deferred prosecution is for people who made innocent mistakes?
Am I reading your post incorrectly?

Deferred prosecutions is common for first offenders and certain crimes like DUI (unfortunately). It doesn't mean innocent. Innocent wouldn't need deferred prosecution, they need a court to find them innocent, no deferred prosecution needed.

1). Check bounces, merchant files paperwork to bad check program
2). Bad check writer gets a nastygram in the mail, pays up
3). charges go away and records purged.

This is how it works.

I get that you can't believe that's how bad checks are dealt with. I don't know how to assuage your incredulity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed. It depends entirely on the retailer. The fact that most states have a diversion program shows that it does happen.

No, in your case it sounds like the issue wasn't a bounced check, it was a bounced check on a closed account.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Even were we to assume that this check fraud court case was somehow a complete forgery by some nefarious twitter detective, how does it negate the thefts, the dishonest go-fund-me scam, etc? And since not even Reade or her lawyer dispute that there was a check fraud case, why is it not evidence?

We can end that hypothesis given she admitted the charges were true.

 

[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

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

Yes, it's quite humorous how you claim you weren't reading "the PI stuff in this thread" when your identified posts clearly show that is false. And that's only a partial list. What next? Denial that you pushed the "Biden's got dementia" bit?

Once again, you don't address the more salient points of my post that show why Reade's credibility is in such doubt. Tell you what, why don't you tell us why we should believe Reade?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

1). Check bounces, merchant files paperwork to bad check program
2). Bad check writer gets a nastygram in the mail, pays up
3). charges go away and records purged.

This is how it works.

I get that you can't believe that's how bad checks are dealt with. I don't know how to assuage your incredulity.

Reade admits to charges.
Claims it was 'around the time she left Biden's office, within a month' despite the fact the date is right there on the charges and it was 4 days before she left Biden's office.

This is how it works.

Extensive investigation by a Vox reporter over more than a year

Eight women have now said they’ve been made uncomfortable by Biden in public settings. Reade is the lone woman to accuse him of sexual assault. This is a situation out of her control, but it means that reporters can’t build a story about Biden around a pattern of behavior, where multiple accusers boost one another’s story. Instead, reporters are looking at Reade’s account in isolation — and that account has changed. ...
If Reade had told a consistent story and shared all of her corroborating sources with reporters, if those sources had told a consistent story, if the Union piece had shaken loose other cases like hers, or if there were “smoking gun” evidence in Biden’s papers, her account might have been reported on differently in mainstream media a year ago. ...

Reade's story changed when she didn't get enough attention for her claims.

... I worked hard to find the evidence to make certain others would believe her, too. I couldn’t find it. None of that means Reade is lying, but it leaves us in the limbo of Me Too: a story that may be true but that we can’t prove.

There’s another issue at play, ... A year ago, Reade went to mainstream, national outlets including the Times, the Post, and the Associated Press. It was in the middle of a competitive Democratic primary. She had no obvious connection to any candidate. And if voters or the party pushed Biden out, it was unclear who would benefit.

This year, Reade has emerged as an ardent Bernie Sanders supporter, with a much more damaging story to tell about Biden, ...

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Reade admits to charges.
Claims it was 'around the time she left Biden's office, within a month' despite the fact the date is right there on the charges and it was 4 days before she left Biden's office.

This is how it works.

She admits she was charged, and that the case was dismissed.

What do you think diversion looks like, if not this? you can't divert a case that doesn't exist.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I must say, the second line right after the first where you make an assumption yourself is quite funny! Good job!

I made no such assumption. That was a direct reading of your post on the matter. Nobody really gives a **** at this point, though.

The important thing is that none of this matters because we have Mr. Electable to fall in line behind.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

That's some rant. The problem with it is that it's based on nothing that has been said in this thread. No one has suggested any such thing. It springs entirely from you own imagination.

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.

I'm not the one who brought up hiding the car. That was you. See post #2758. I didn't address it until you brought it up yet again falsely accusing others of making a big deal out of it. See post #2963

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?

I suppose accepting that La Revolución isn't going to happen (at least this election) is just too difficult for some. Disgruntled Bernie supporters minimizing or even ignoring the serious problems with Reade's claim and credibility only to bring up the car repossession and then accuse others of making a big deal out of it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are you letting your single personal anecdote influence your POV here?

I've never in my life heard of anyone being criminally charged for a bounced check.

Cool. Now you have.

A check written on a closed account is another story.

Not really. My address and phone number were on the check and it would have taken two minutes to follow up at either. They were just jerks who turned over every bounced check to the DA. They said as much on a sign posted at the register. Such signs used to be common in poor neighborhoods.

The merchant in your case only knows the check bounced with one of those stamps by the bank saying account closed. Merchant naturally reports this to the police.

But by far the vast majority of people charged with check fraud weren't charged because they made a simple mistake.

I like how you said that. I agree completely. But a very large number of people who made a simple mistake did have their bad checks sent to the DA and a large number of them went through diversion programs. Not the majority, not every bad check, but a large number.

Why should we assume deferred prosecution is for people who made innocent mistakes?

You shouldn't. Just so long as you don't assume that she committed fraud. Because surely if she had committed fraud the case would have been fully prosecuted and not expunged. Right?

A case file being opened and shut with no disposition tells you very little. The story you build on that little bit of information says more about you than it does the subject of the file. What story are you trying to tell us about you?

 

[Dr. Keith]

She admitted it. She downplayed it, but nonetheless admitted it.

She plead guilty to a criminal act? I missed that entirely.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, in your case it sounds like the issue wasn't a bounced check, it was a bounced check on a closed account.

The phone number on the check still worked. The address on the check still would have gotten them to me. There really isn't much difference.

And have you considered that she may have done the same thing I did? Didn't this all happen in California while she was living in DC?

You can split hairs all you want, but writing checks was always risky and fraught with dangers that we can't even comprehend today. I remember one fo my dad's friends had blank checks that he had to fill in the bank information on every check. Not your typical pre-printed check, just a piece of paper with blanks all over it that he scribbled in and expected merchants to exchange for goods and services. He was shocked when a restaurant refused to honor it, apparently they typically worked just fine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The phone number on the check still worked. The address on the check still would have gotten them to me. There really isn't much difference.

And have you considered that she may have done the same thing I did? Didn't this all happen in California while she was living in DC?

You can split hairs all you want, but writing checks was always risky and fraught with dangers that we can't even comprehend today. I remember one fo my dad's friends had blank checks that he had to fill in the bank information on every check. Not your typical pre-printed check, just a piece of paper with blanks all over it that he scribbled in and expected merchants to exchange for goods and services. He was shocked when a restaurant refused to honor it, apparently they typically worked just fine.

Have you considered she would naturally downplay the incident if it got her fired?

Have you considered she has changed her story multiple times?

Read the Vox article I linked to.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Are you letting your single personal anecdote influence your POV here?



I've never in my life heard of anyone being criminally charged for a bounced check.



A check written on a closed account is another story. The merchant in your case only knows the check bounced with one of those stamps by the bank saying account closed. Merchant naturally reports this to the police.



But by far the vast majority of people charged with check fraud weren't charged because they made a simple mistake.



Why should we assume deferred prosecution is for people who made innocent mistakes?


Am I reading your post incorrectly?



Deferred prosecutions is common for first offenders and certain crimes like DUI (unfortunately). It doesn't mean innocent. Innocent wouldn't need deferred prosecution, they need a court to find them innocent, no deferred prosecution needed.

It's leverage.

"Pay up, meet these goals.

No? You're gonna need a lawyer and their initial retainer is more than you make in 3 months.

Thaaat's more like it."

People get "charged" with things they didn't do all the time. Or for mistakes they made and will make good-faith efforts to resolve.

Why is this a mystery to so many people?

 

[theprestige]

There are plenty of good reasons to not pillory Joe Biden over Reade's allegations. None of them require doxxing Reade or doing half-assed kremlinology on her bounced checks.

The allegations in and of themselves are simply not substantive enough. Reasonable, charitable people would be satisfied to leave it at that. Reasonable, charitable, partisans would be satisfied to leave it at that.

On the other hand, there's also plenty of good reasons to pillory Joe Biden and his supporters over their reaction to Reade's allegations. The double standards, the special pleadings, the absurd crusade to crucify Reade... These are not the reactions of reasonable, charitable partisans.

I don't think Biden should have to answer Reade's charges. I do think Biden probably does have to answer why he's treating her charges differently from charges leveled by other women against other men at other times.

 

[Stacyhs]

Why is anyone talking about her repo'd car?
Just idle curiosity about her life?

Why don't you tell us? You're the one who brought the subject up. Post #2758

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

Looking into a person's accusation and determining if it's credible or not is not a 'smear campaign'. As previously provided by law sites, a person's credibility is one of, if not the, most important factors in a sexual assault allegation when there is no witness or forensic/physical evidence to support it.

You know what a smear campaign really is? Claiming someone has dementia when there is no evidence of it except for some videos of gaffes. Claiming someone was willfully lying about something when, in fact, that person believed what he was saying because that was what he'd been told for decades.

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.

Neither do I. But getting someone to create a GoFundMe for her under false pretenses is indicative of dishonesty. You know....lying.

There are problems with Tara Reade's claims. Her car getting repo'd isn't one of them,

I agree. Getting her car repo'd isn't one of them. But not paying her loan and instead choosing to take on the unnecessary financial responsibilities of a horse does show us something of her values. And then charging her personal vet bills to a horse rescue tell us even more: she's a liar and a thief.

and people who insist on talking about it are engaged in shameless smear tactics. .

May I remind you once again, that it was you who brought up the car repo and then brought it up again with accusations that "Reade attackers can't help but point out that she was hiding a car from the repo man, like that's some grave sin." (Post #2963)
We only responded to you bringing it up.

Exactly what I'd expect from the Krassensteins, who's "investigation" contained this and many other irrelevant snipes

Can you disprove anything they said? They provided quite a bit of evidence to support Lynn Hummer's claims such as witness confirmation, bills, and emails.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There are plenty of good reasons to not pillory Joe Biden over Reade's allegations. None of them require doxxing Reade or doing half-assed kremlinology on her bounced checks.

The allegations in and of themselves are simply not substantive enough. Reasonable, charitable people would be satisfied to leave it at that. Reasonable, charitable, partisans would be satisfied to leave it at that.

On the other hand, there's also plenty of good reasons to pillory Joe Biden and his supporters over their reaction to Reade's allegations. The double standards, the special pleadings, the absurd crusade to crucify Reade... These are not the reactions of reasonable, charitable partisans.

I don't think Biden should have to answer Reade's charges. I do think Biden probably does have to answer why he's treating her charges differently from charges leveled by other women against other men at other times.

At this point it's just bouncing the rubble.

The party has already decided she's a liar. The wagons are circled, her claim is dead. Any further digging into her background is just vengeance for having made the complaint in the first place.

Can't wait to find out, in a week or so, that she cheated on her algebra homework, or gave her boyfriend the clap, or any other sordid detail meant to humiliate and discredit her. Twitter is on the case!

 

[xjx388]

You got any evidence Reade was charged criminally for an innocently bounced check?

Because if not then your post is nothing but some far-fetched hypothetical.

I am not claiming that she did. Others are saying that this had to be more than a bad check and I’m illustrating that it didn’t have to be more than that.

The fact is that no one knows what the purged record actually means other than it directly references the bad check statute.