Biden for President?

[xjx388]

By your standard, if there is no supporting evidence -- and what would you need? witnesses? video? -- then the woman's complaint would have to be rejected out of hand.

Not necessarily. We will almost never have direct evidence as you describe; but, we can often have corroborating/circumstantial evidence. With Reade (and Ford) we can't even have much of that. They told people contemporaneously, that's not nothing, but it's also not much. It happened decades ago. Given the lack of evidence and the remoteness of the alleged incident, it's the kind of accusation that each person either has to decide to give some weight to, or they don't. I don't blame people if they reject it out of hand. I don't fault people for thinking, given Biden's creepy behaviour with women, "yeah, that could have happened."

What I have a problem with is dismissing the claim because you found out that the accuser has some issues with her "credibility." I mean, it's like you didn't even read the part you snipped out. Do you not see the problems with such an approach?

Alternatively, you could look at whether she has a history of telling the truth -- or not -- about important matters. One thing we know about people is that they generally do what has worked for them in the past. If someone has an extensive, proven pattern of lying and fraud, that makes it harder to take her word alone about an explosive allegation for which there is no evidence.

"Word alone" is never enough to take an allegation too seriously. "Bob embezzles from his company!" is an allegation for which there is no evidence for. It's just an allegation. Why should anyone give it much weight at all? Let's say the person making the allegation has an impeccable reputation -no black marks, no history of lies, manipulation or theft. Does this make the allegation more likely to be true? Even if no evidence can be found? I don't think it does. There is either evidence or there isn't.

If a prostitute alleges rape, does her illegal activity make her accusation less likely to be true? No it does not.

It's a fault in human nature that women who have "shady" pasts are less likely to believed. Why advocate a strategy that perpetuates this injustice?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I see a range of things that might have happened between Reade and Biden:

at the extreme, Biden did something horrible a long time ago and, as far as we know (and by now we would most likely know) never did anything similar ever again.
In that scenario, the Biden we vote on in November is not the Biden who assaulted Reade.

at the other extreme, Reade has a, possibly legitimate, grievance against Biden's office from the time she worked there, possibly involving inappropriate physical contact or speech, but falling far short of coercion or assault. And since then, Reade has escalated the accusations in the hopes of profiting from doing so.

 

[xjx388]

I notice XJ is laser focused on this one person's claim and ignores the 2 dozen women who accuse Trump of sexual assault. Now I am not aguing Trump did those things but here we are considering Trump or Biden and XJ has hand waved Trump's issues and can only talk about a claim against Biden that cannot be confirmed in the slightest way.

Makes you go hmmmmm.

Don't break your head with all that thinking; this is a thread about Biden.

 

[Travis]

Well those two investigative pieces put this to bed. Reade has lived a life as a grifter. She plays on people's sympathies and coasts along from grift to grift.

And when you combine that with the new evidence that Biden did not have staffers work fundraisers, let alone pick out women with "nice legs", and the fact that the only hallway where the supposed assault could have happened is just not a place it could have physically taken place I think we can declare this a non story.

A life long con artist found some Bernie Bros that were willing to push a dubious story because they were determined to subvert the will of voters and have Fingerwag White Flight installed as the nominee even though people had coalesced against him and people allowed their prejudices to keep this going long past when it should have.

 

[Travis]

This bit is absolutely damning in the PBS investigation. Women who worked as staffers in the Senate kept a list of senators to avoid in an attempt to keep new staffers safe. Biden was not someone anyone worried about.

At the time, a climate of harassment and sexual entitlement existed in some offices in the Senate, driven by some male senators whose behavior was well known on Capitol Hill.

“We all worked in a culture where men put their hands on you, often,” said Mary Byrne, who worked in the Senate from 1988 to 1995. “I remember sitting at a desk outside the Agriculture Committee and one staffer would come in and give you a shoulder massage, say you are doing good,” Byrne said. “Men there felt they had access to your body as a young woman.”
Byrne also said she remembers walking in on a female deputy chief of staff sitting on a senator’s lap. Another person who worked in the Senate at the time told the NewsHour he recalled seeing a senator with his arm around the waist of a young female staffer on an elevator.

Byrne, like many women working on the Hill in those years, talked with other female aides about a “list” of senators to avoid.
“You got to know which senators you didn’t want to be on an elevator alone with,” said Liz Tankersley, who was Biden’s legislative director from 1985 to 1993. “No one ever said Joe Biden was one of them.”
On that list in 1993, according to multiple staffers, was Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore. He later resigned, in 1995, after the public revelation that he had engaged in years of aggressive sexual behavior toward women, including staffers. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., was also infamously on the avoid-elevator list, staffers claimed. So was another now-deceased lawmaker — Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

“I know some of those people on the list,” said former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat from Arizona who served from 1977 to 1995 and sat on the Judiciary Committee with Biden for many years. “There were several, it was almost common knowledge. And Biden was never mentioned in any of that. He went home every night to Delaware.”​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see a range of things that might have happened between Reade and Biden:

at the extreme, Biden did something horrible a long time ago and, as far as we know (and by now we would most likely know) never did anything similar ever again.
In that scenario, the Biden we vote on in November is not the Biden who assaulted Reade.

at the other extreme, Reade has a, possibly legitimate, grievance against Biden's office from the time she worked there, possibly involving inappropriate physical contact or speech, but falling far short of coercion or assault. And since then, Reade has escalated the accusations in the hopes of profiting from doing so.

Your "range" seems to be lacking the option that Reade made the whole thing up, probably for attention, maybe she even began with the false claim after being fired from Biden's office.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well those two investigative pieces put this to bed. Reade has lived a life as a grifter. She plays on people's sympathies and coasts along from grift to grift.

And when you combine that with the new evidence that Biden did not have staffers work fundraisers, let alone pick out women with "nice legs", and the fact that the only hallway where the supposed assault could have happened is just not a place it could have physically taken place I think we can declare this a non story.

This^
We have two strong pieces of evidence, the PBS report on an investigation and the Vox description of what has happened over the last year with the claim itself.

A life long con artist found some Bernie Bros that were willing to push a dubious story because they were determined to subvert the will of voters and have Fingerwag White Flight installed as the nominee even though people had coalesced against him and people allowed their prejudices to keep this going long past when it should have.

Goes a bit further speculating than I might but I see where you are coming from.

 

[Stacyhs]

There's also a link to a summary.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations

Thanks for the summary.

I agree that the evidence of Reade's story is more than paper thin and the evidence supporting that she is a liar and fabricates stories to her benefit is growing.

As I said earlier (and which some challenged unsuccessfully) is that sexual harassment/assault is a pattern of behavior...a mindset. This article reinforces that.

Sherry Hamby, the founding editor of the academic journal The Psychology of Violence, also said that any pattern is possible.

She described the idea of a 50-year-old man, the age Biden was at the time of the alleged attack, committing his first and only act of sexual assault as improbable. “In terms of likely statistical pattern, that would be an incredibly unlikely trajectory to see,” Hamby said.

Additionally, it also speaks of the culture at the time when several Senators were well known as gropers whom female staffers advised each other to avoid being alone with. Biden was never included in that group.

I found it interesting that the man who worked closely with Reade and had the desk next to hers said she was fired for not doing her job and it was he who complained about her work. I realize I'm speculating (before certain people jump in and accuse me of character assassination) but I can't help but suspect that Reade has had difficulty holding a job for very long. I suspect this may be another pattern with Reade and why she has had constant financial problems. Reade is not a stupid woman and has a law degree so one has to wonder why she was always in financial straits.

As for the 3 people who say Reade told them about being harassed by Biden after she left his staff, I think they are being truthful. But I think Reade was lying to them, manipulating them. Why? Perhaps to gain sympathy
as others said she did quite often in order to avoid or delay paying her rent or to borrow money. She played that game with accusations of being an abused wife trying to escape her husband's violence...when she was already divorced for years.

Frankly, I see a picture emerging of a woman with some very serious emotional problems.

Now all of you who will accuse me of character assassination, blah blah blah....don't bother. What I think of Reade's character is based on what I've learned of her from those who knew her and worked with her. And it is not a pretty picture.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Your "range" seems to be lacking the option that Reade made the whole thing up, probably for attention, maybe she even began with the false claim after being fired from Biden's office.

Correct.
My lower range should have ncluded any offense being mostly in Reade mind, re-interpreted years after the fact.
.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

 

[wareyin]

Not necessarily. We will almost never have direct evidence as you describe; but, we can often have corroborating/circumstantial evidence. With Reade (and Ford) we can't even have much of that. They told people contemporaneously, that's not nothing, but it's also not much. It happened decades ago. Given the lack of evidence and the remoteness of the alleged incident, it's the kind of accusation that each person either has to decide to give some weight to, or they don't. I don't blame people if they reject it out of hand. I don't fault people for thinking, given Biden's creepy behaviour with women, "yeah, that could have happened."

You are claiming that based on Biden's pattern of rubbing shoulders, you have no problem believing he escalated that to sexual assault. Yet you also claim that Reade's pattern of falsely claiming victimhood has absolutely no bearing on this instance of her claiming victimhood.

On the one hand you're willing to believe someone escalated a pattern drastically, but on the other you're unwilling to believe a pattern continued. It certainly seems like you aren't applying the same standards to Biden's credibility and patterns as you are to Reade's.

What I have a problem with is dismissing the claim because you found out that the accuser has some issues with her "credibility." I mean, it's like you didn't even read the part you snipped out. Do you not see the problems with such an approach?

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it. Twisting it to mean that would allow someone with a long document history of conning people with false claims of victimhood to do it again, to the detriment of the country this time.

"Word alone" is never enough to take an allegation too seriously. "Bob embezzles from his company!" is an allegation for which there is no evidence for. It's just an allegation. Why should anyone give it much weight at all? Let's say the person making the allegation has an impeccable reputation -no black marks, no history of lies, manipulation or theft. Does this make the allegation more likely to be true? Even if no evidence can be found? I don't think it does. There is either evidence or there isn't.

When there were just a couple of "word alone" claims that Reade engages in her typical MO, I was including "if this is true" to my statements. Now that we have a whole lot more than just one, the evidence is overwhelming.

We're to the point where multiple coworkers and clients are all telling you how Bob embezzled from them (with documentation to prove it), don't believe his pitch because he's going to embezzle from you too. And you are clutching your pearls because how dare they attack his character.

If a prostitute alleges rape, does her illegal activity make her accusation less likely to be true? No it does not.

If a prostitute with a documented history of attempted extortion involving "pay me more or I'll say you raped me" claims alleges rape, I'd say it does make her accusation less likely to be true.

It's a fault in human nature that women who have "shady" pasts are less likely to believed. Why advocate a strategy that perpetuates this injustice?

Investigating their claims and their history with making similar claims is necessary to determine if this claim, with no evidence for and plenty of evidence against, is likely to be true.

 

[varwoche]

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

I agree that her financial problems are best left out of the discussion.

Tip: Best then not to repeatedly troll the thread with this information, ST.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see lots of evidence that Reade was broke and stiffed a lot of her landlords and creditors. This is evidence that Reade is a bad tenant and probably not someone you should lend money with any expectation of repayment. The politico article details that, in matters of paying bills and borrowing money, Reade was often unreliable.

What does this have to do with her allegations about Joe Biden?

ThePrestige, and other, have already made the relevant point about this. Reade's allegations, as they stand now, are impossible to verify. Unless some new detail comes out, it's likely to remain unverifiable. Biden has denied it, and there's no road to certainty one way or the other. It's largely a dead issue.

This attempt to smear Reade is pathetic and unworthy of anyone calling themselves a skeptic. It has very little to do with vindicating Biden and a lot to do with punishing someone who dared cause a problem for their preferred candidate. This attempt to slant Reade by bringing up irrelevant failings of her personal life is a punitive campaign against a sexual assault accuser. The party of MeToo is showing what it really believes in.

I take it you didn't bother looking at the PBS piece on this.

Did you look at the Vox piece?

Seems like you decided any evidence was about unfairly smearing the accuser and you've done nothing to unconfirm that bias.

Very little if anything in the PBS piece is about Reade. It is all about vindicating Biden. You really should look at it and as far as 'being a true skeptic' look up the part about confirmation bias.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it. Twisting it to mean that would allow someone with a long document history of conning people with false claims of victimhood to do it again, to the detriment of the country this time.

It's interesting what you can learn from what someone thinks is a gotcha.

 

[wareyin]

It's interesting what you can learn from what someone thinks is a gotcha.

Indeed. Simultaneously complaining that all women should be ignored unless there's direct evidence to prove their claim and that the woman in this particular accusation should be believed despite actual evidence against her because "metoo" certainly says a lot about the posters holding those positions.

 

[johnny karate]

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it.

I’m also not aware that MeToo has manifested itself as the worst case version that its critics claim.

“Believe women” isn’t about denying due process.

It’s about treating allegations seriously, which includes a thorough investigation as part of due process.

 

[theprestige]

I agree that her financial problems are best left out of the discussion.

Tip: Best then not to repeatedly troll the thread with this information, ST.

I like how you skipped past all the people who keep appealing to her financial problems, in order to call out the one guy who's acknowledging their appeals.

 

[theprestige]

Metoo was never meant to mean that we should believe any accusation despite evidence against it.

Pretty sure that's exactly what it was meant to mean. Especially about circumstantial evidence and smear campaigns against the accuser.

 

[wareyin]

Pretty sure that's exactly what it was meant to mean. Especially about circumstantial evidence and smear campaigns against the accuser.

You're wrong.

 

[Scopedog]

Christine Blasey-Ford was traumatized for life due to her alleged assault, perhaps Tara Reade's trauma broke her mentally and grifting became a survival tool. We know the alleged assault occured before August 1992 and she was dealing with the financial debt or fraud problem around that time. If the first debt or fraud problems began after the alleged assault than #metoo must #believeallwomen, conclude that she was traumatized for life by whatever Biden may have done to her, and they must #hoistontheirownpetard.