Biden for President?

[Lurch]

The following concerns only knowingly making false accusations... Honest confusion and defective memory are another matter.

If there are not already, there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.

If one falsely claims an injury for which the penalty is, say, 10-20 years in jail for the alleged perpetrator, then if such claim is found to be a deliberate lie the penalty for such should be the same punishment.

Otherwise, if a fixed penalty for false accusations is the sanction, the incentive exists for an even bigger lie. A too-light handling for a Big Lie only invites its invocation because of the potentially bigger payoff relative to the penalty.

I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.

 

[Lurch]

[Repeat post]

 

[Stacyhs]

The following concerns only knowingly making false accusations... Honest confusion and defective memory are another matter.

If there are not already, there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.

If one falsely claims an injury for which the penalty is, say, 10-20 years in jail for the alleged perpetrator, then if such claim is found to be a deliberate lie the penalty for such should be the same punishment.

Otherwise, if a fixed penalty for false accusations is the sanction, the incentive exists for an even bigger lie. A too-light handling for a Big Lie only invites its invocation because of the potentially bigger payoff relative to the penalty.

I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.

Or the falsely accused could file a civil defamation suit. It would be more difficult to prove BARD that the accuser was intentionally lying in a criminal case while a civil case would only require a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The following concerns only knowingly making false accusations... Honest confusion and defective memory are another matter.

If there are not already, there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.

If one falsely claims an injury for which the penalty is, say, 10-20 years in jail for the alleged perpetrator, then if such claim is found to be a deliberate lie the penalty for such should be the same punishment.

Otherwise, if a fixed penalty for false accusations is the sanction, the incentive exists for an even bigger lie. A too-light handling for a Big Lie only invites its invocation because of the potentially bigger payoff relative to the penalty.

I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.

What quaint notions of truth. And imagine having an ethical framework.

 

[xjx388]

Do you score points every time you ignore objections to this mischaracterization of yours? We are assessing whether she is likely to be fabricating her story, and a history of fabricating similar stories is relevant no matter how much you personally want to ignore them.

What similar stories? If she has a documented history of making sexual assault allegations that aren’t true, that may be relevant. But I haven’t seen that. Have you?

A documented history doing that would be actual evidence.

In the case of Wohl and Burkman you take their past actions as relevant to assessing their credibility. Why are you upset when others do the same for Reade?

Because W’s and B’s past actions are directly relevant and well-documented. They get people to lie about sexual assault.

Bad checks, alleged charity theft, etc are not directly related to whether or not Reade would make up a lie about sexual assault. They are mere character attacks to discredit her.

Am I to take it that someone who falsely claims to be a victim of assault would be somehow physically or mentally unable to falsely claim to be the victim of sexual assault? Is there some sort of fundamental difference between the two? Or is this just someone being overly pedantic to muddy the waters?

Of course not. But a documented history of fabricating sexual assault claims is evidence that the person makes up such claims. We would need very strong evidence that it happened in order to take it seriously. In fact, we need good evidence either way. Take someone like Ford. There’s no evidence she makes up such claims but there’s very little evidence to support the claim in the first place so her “credibility” isn’t even a factor. Reade’s claim suffers from the exact same lack of evidence so why do we need to analyze her credibility?

In my view, Ford’s claims and Reade’s claims are the same as far as whether or not we should take them seriously enough for the relevant candidate to step down.

OTOH a history of ripping off charities, even if well-documented, has no bearing whatsoever in the matter.

If a prospective employee has a documented history of embezzling from multiple employers, that’s evidence that the person shouldn’t be hired in a position of financial trust. Maybe they could be a good nurse, though.

None of the rest was an attack on her character either, no more than using Wohl's history to asses how credible his claims are, or your prospective employee's criminal history and work ethic as told to you by his previous employers to determine if you should hire him is attacking these people's characters.

To be clear, I don’t ask previous employers about “work ethic.” I only confirm employment. There’s too much room for bias in asking about “work ethic” or “were they a good employee.” I also don’t discuss such things if I happen to be called.

Documented evidence, directly related to the matter at hand, is relevant and necessary to consider.

Allegations, rumors, innuendo and anything not related to the matter at hand is irrelevant and can be ignored.

Now, you’ve suggested that Reade has made false allegations before. Can you cite that?

 

[wareyin]

Now, you’ve suggested that Reade has made false allegations before. Can you cite that?

I can point out that it's been discussed in this thread, as well as in several of the articles that you've been so critical of.
From this article:
Reade's husband divorced her in 1996. She accused him at the time of punching her in the arm and slamming furniture.

Years later that morphed into claims that he had punched her in the face and that she had visited the DA over it. None of that info was in the allegations of assault in the divorce. Reade also claimed her ex husband had become a person of interest in the murder of two of his ex girlfriends.

From a much discussed article posted here already
Two decades after he had divorced her, and had gone on to remarry and lived in another state, Reade was still trying to convince people that her ex husband stalked her at night and that she needed them to create a Go-Fund-Me account so she could afford to escape him.

Reade also accused her father of abuse. Oddly enough her new allegations against Biden closely resemble a passage from one of her father's books. It's been posted and discussed in this thread several times, but apparently you missed it.

Now, I predict that you will get pedantic and claim that these are merely allegations of assault (and being a murderer, and a stalker) and not allegations of sexual assault, but somehow will be unable to state a reason why they are fundamentally different.

 

[Stacyhs]

From Wareyin's third link above, I found this. For some reason it seems so awfully familiar:

Following the same pattern as the ‘mental decline’ narrative which went from ‘Biden has dementia’, to ‘well maybe not dementia but he’s old/frail/something’s not right’, to ‘people are talking about it, so maybe there’s something there’, to ‘it may not be true but he should just address it’, the Reade narrative is playing out just the same way.
It’s like a 12-step program for disinformation, the goal being to keep the narrative in the ether as long as possible even if it’s just to create doubt. Even if under the guise of being pro-active.But just like the mental decline narrative, the Reade story has failed. Instead it’s backfiring on the few who are trying to give it new life. Like a hand grenade being desperately lobbied across the field and blowing up as the needle’s pulled every time. But this isn’t backfiring on Trump and the Republicans. It’s backfiring on *us*. It’s undermining our credibility on the left since ‘the calls are coming from inside the house’. The overwhelming memes and social media posts I see are from those purporting to be left.

(Looks around the thread and recognizes a few names....)

 

[xjx388]

I can point out that it's been discussed in this thread, as well as in several of the articles that you've been so critical of.
From this article:
Reade's husband divorced her in 1996. She accused him at the time of punching her in the arm and slamming furniture.

Years later that morphed into claims that he had punched her in the face and that she had visited the DA over it. None of that info was in the allegations of assault in the divorce. Reade also claimed her ex husband had become a person of interest in the murder of two of his ex girlfriends.

From a much discussed article posted here already
Two decades after he had divorced her, and had gone on to remarry and lived in another state, Reade was still trying to convince people that her ex husband stalked her at night and that she needed them to create a Go-Fund-Me account so she could afford to escape him.

Reade also accused her father of abuse. Oddly enough her new allegations against Biden closely resemble a passage from one of her father's books. It's been posted and discussed in this thread several times, but apparently you missed it.

Now, I predict that you will get pedantic and claim that these are merely allegations of assault (and being a murderer, and a stalker) and not allegations of sexual assault, but somehow will be unable to state a reason why they are fundamentally different.

That is indeed relevant and similar enough. I did miss it in all the other stuff.

It’s interesting. I think it could indeed make one think that perhaps she is capable of making up an accusation to suit her purposes. I don’t think it’s enough, if we are going to take the allegations seriously enough to dig stuff up, to dismiss her claim. It doesn’t make bad checks, charity shenanigans, etc suddenly relevant.

If anything, it does raise the level of evidence required to call for Biden to step down.

The problem is that there was never going to be real evidence in the first place. We didn’t need to know about that stuff in order to arrive at the same place I have been from the start. I’d err on the side of not discrediting accusers. But that’s just me.

 

[Stacyhs]

From Wareyin's third link above, I found this. For some reason it seems so awfully familiar:

Following the same pattern as the ‘mental decline’ narrative which went from ‘Biden has dementia’, to ‘well maybe not dementia but he’s old/frail/something’s not right’, to ‘people are talking about it, so maybe there’s something there’, to ‘it may not be true but he should just address it’, the Reade narrative is playing out just the same way.
It’s like a 12-step program for disinformation, the goal being to keep the narrative in the ether as long as possible even if it’s just to create doubt. Even if under the guise of being pro-active.But just like the mental decline narrative, the Reade story has failed. Instead it’s backfiring on the few who are trying to give it new life. Like a hand grenade being desperately lobbied across the field and blowing up as the needle’s pulled every time. But this isn’t backfiring on Trump and the Republicans. It’s backfiring on *us*. It’s undermining our credibility on the left since ‘the calls are coming from inside the house’. The overwhelming memes and social media posts I see are from those purporting to be left.

(Looks around the thread and recognizes a few names....)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.

I disagree. If a mentally disturbed person accuses their neighbor of being a serial murderer, should they receive the Death Penalty for it? Good police work should be able to weed out such cases without causing even more injustice.

I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.

I'll tell you what enrages me even more - a true accusation that is twisted by lies and corruption into looking like a lie, then the accuser being prosecuted and convicted for their 'false' claim. The potential for abusing your 'false witness' law is enormous, and bound to be used by the rich and powerful to get away with heinous crimes by making accusers even less likely to come forward.

Not being the vengeful type, I would be happy to simply see the Truth come out, and that alone be enough punishment for the false accuser (if they are). Only in cases where the lies are part of a 'shakedown' attempt should further charges be laid.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I’d err on the side of not discrediting accusers. But that’s just me.

I'd 'err' on the side of finding the truth, and accepting whatever it tells me. An accuser may be be discredited by it, or their credibility may be boosted. But it would be wrong to not investigate simply because you are afraid of discrediting the accuser.

The question of course is:- why do you take this stance now, when in a previous case you held the opposite view? The fact that one of the accused was a Republican nominee is... pure coincidence? And yet these 'coincidences' keep popping up again and again.

 

[wareyin]

That is indeed relevant and similar enough. I did miss it in all the other stuff.

Thank you.

It’s interesting. I think it could indeed make one think that perhaps she is capable of making up an accusation to suit her purposes. I don’t think it’s enough, if we are going to take the allegations seriously enough to dig stuff up, to dismiss her claim. It doesn’t make bad checks, charity shenanigans, etc suddenly relevant.

It demonstrates that she is definitely capable of making up accusations to suit her purposes as she has done so already. No, this information is not enough that we should simply dismiss her claims with no investigations. Of course we should investigate, and thus far the investigations have found no physical location that would match her description, coworkers who dispute many aspects of her claims (Female aides not serving drinks, the reason she was fired, whether she reported anything, etc), and Reade having a history of making false allegations. The bad checks were only possibly relevant as evidence that her claim of quitting Biden's employ was false. Now that evidence shows they happened a year beforehand, they are no longer relevant. The charity shenanigans included her asking another volunteer to set up that GoFundMe in 2016 that you were unaware of, so they are relevant.

If anything, it does raise the level of evidence required to call for Biden to step down.

The problem is that there was never going to be real evidence in the first place. We didn’t need to know about that stuff in order to arrive at the same place I have been from the start. I’d err on the side of not discrediting accusers. But that’s just me.

You are claiming that there was never going to be any evidence, but now we'd need better evidence to call for Biden to step down? Better than...the nothing you say is all we could have? That's helpful.

I'd rather than those on the right and those on the far left hadn't tried to use Reade like a cheap disposable tool, especially while pretending they actually cared about her or her feelings. But that's just me.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'd 'err' on the side of finding the truth, and accepting whatever it tells me. An accuser may be be discredited by it, or their credibility may be boosted. But it would be wrong to not investigate simply because you are afraid of discrediting the accuser.

The question of course is:- why do you take this stance now, when in a previous case you held the opposite view? The fact that one of the accused was a Republican nominee is... pure coincidence? And yet these 'coincidences' keep popping up again and again.

You wont.

 

[xjx388]

I'd 'err' on the side of finding the truth, and accepting whatever it tells me. An accuser may be be discredited by it, or their credibility may be boosted. But it would be wrong to not investigate simply because you are afraid of discrediting the accuser.

What do you base the truth on? Actual evidence relating to the accusation? Then it has nothing to do with credibility. It has to do with: it happened or it didn't. The truth does not depend on the credibility of either party.

The question of course is:- why do you take this stance now, when in a previous case you held the opposite view? The fact that one of the accused was a Republican nominee is... pure coincidence? And yet these 'coincidences' keep popping up again and again.

You'll have to remind me.

 

[xjx388]

Thank you.



It demonstrates that she is definitely capable of making up accusations to suit her purposes as she has done so already. No, this information is not enough that we should simply dismiss her claims with no investigations. Of course we should investigate, and thus far the investigations have found no physical location that would match her description, coworkers who dispute many aspects of her claims (Female aides not serving drinks, the reason she was fired, whether she reported anything, etc), and Reade having a history of making false allegations.

Ok, I don't totally disagree with that. Progress.

The bad checks were only possibly relevant as evidence that her claim of quitting Biden's employ was false.

If Biden's camp had said, "She was fired because of fraud charges, not becaue of sexual harassment accusations," then maybe you'd be right. But literally no one has said that's why she was fired. It was always just an insinuation based on a virtually detailless screenshot.

Now that evidence shows they happened a year beforehand, they are no longer relevant. The charity shenanigans included her asking another volunteer to set up that GoFundMe in 2016 that you were unaware of, so they are relevant.

The GoFundMe may be relevant, somewhat, but the allegedly shady horse trading is not.

You are claiming that there was never going to be any evidence, but now we'd need better evidence to call for Biden to step down? Better than...the nothing you say is all we could have? That's helpful.

Remember my position: There is no evidence (and no possibility of obtaining evidence at this late date) so there is no need to investigate further. In such cases, we give the accused the presumption of innocence. Case closed.

If the accuser has a documented past of fabricating allegations, the evidence for the allegation has to be strong. So even if there was a little evidence (Biden was known to be flirtatious with her, she filed a report, etc) it wouldn't be enough. We would need stronger evidence than that (she knows the time and place it happened and this is corroborated by other people she told, the report reflects the same facts, she has contemporaneolus* journal entries detailing the attack, she was fired suddenly after making the report, etc).

But in the end, the evidence is king. We need some shred of evidence to investigate, not just a bald accusation.

I'd rather than those on the right and those on the far left hadn't tried to use Reade like a cheap disposable tool, especially while pretending they actually cared about her or her feelings. But that's just me.

Here we agree.


*I was going to edit this typo, but I like it too much.

 

[Lurch]

I disagree. If a mentally disturbed person accuses their neighbor of being a serial murderer, should they receive the Death Penalty for it? Good police work should be able to weed out such cases without causing even more injustice.

I'll tell you what enrages me even more - a true accusation that is twisted by lies and corruption into looking like a lie, then the accuser being prosecuted and convicted for their 'false' claim. The potential for abusing your 'false witness' law is enormous, and bound to be used by the rich and powerful to get away with heinous crimes by making accusers even less likely to come forward.

Not being the vengeful type, I would be happy to simply see the Truth come out, and that alone be enough punishment for the false accuser (if they are). Only in cases where the lies are part of a 'shakedown' attempt should further charges be laid.

I did indicate that the sanctions would be for instances of deliberate intent. More specifically, now, with malice aforethought, fully cognizant of the lie as such. Certainly, accusations arising from mental defect are not in the same class. It would be absurd to not factor in the vagaries of the human condition. But where shown to be so, conscious misrepresentation is a vile act.

Relying on the outing of truth to be a sufficient deterrence overlooks the phenomenon in which for some people infamy IS fame.

 

[Ziggurat]

Relying on the outing of truth to be a sufficient deterrence overlooks the phenomenon in which for some people infamy IS fame.

Infamous is when you're more than famous.

 

[wareyin]

I did indicate that the sanctions would be for instances of deliberate intent. More specifically, now, with malice aforethought, fully cognizant of the lie as such. Certainly, accusations arising from mental defect are not in the same class. It would be absurd to not factor in the vagaries of the human condition. But where shown to be so, conscious misrepresentation is a vile act.

Relying on the outing of truth to be a sufficient deterrence overlooks the phenomenon in which for some people infamy IS fame.

I don't agree with your proposal. I think it would have too much of a chilling effect on legitimate accusations. I think we need a middle ground between theprestige and xjx388's ignore-all-accusations-unless-the-act-was-videotaped and women who have been sexually assaulted having to worry that by merely accusing their attacker the woman risks jail time.

 

[Stacyhs]

It seems Tara Reade's story has even more variations:

As Tara Reade was leaving her job at Joe Biden's Senate office in 1993, she told a close colleague that she believed she was being let go for an unfair reason -- that she was being terminated because of a medical issue she had been dealing with.The former colleague, Ben Savage, described this decades-old alleged exchange with Reade in an interview with CNN. He declined to be quoted on the specific medical condition that he said Reade shared with him around that time.

Savage recently reached out to reporters at media outlets, including CNN, after Reade alleged she was assaulted by Biden. The accusation left him in "disbelief and shock," Savage said. And Reade's claim now that she was fired in 1993 as retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment is not what he witnessed, he said.
Reade was overwhelmed by some of her duties at work, which included helping to sort and respond to constituent mail, Savage said. He recalled that some of Reade's tasks were taken away from her, and said his understanding at the time was that she was terminated because of performance issues.

(Savage had the desk next to Reade in the basement office they shared)

In the course of multiple phone interviews with CNN in recent weeks, Reade confirmed some biographical details that appear on her now archived website. She has described an idyllic-sounding childhood of running around on a farm in northern Wisconsin. She said she was immersed in nature and fell in love with horseback riding.

(Reade has also claimed she had an emotionally and physically abusive father)

Reade told CNN that she received a bachelor of arts degree from Antioch University in Seattle under the auspices of a "protected program," personally working with the former president of the school to ensure her identity was protected while she obtained credits for her degree. She also said that she was a visiting professor at the school, on and off for five years. Presented with this, Karen Hamilton, an Antioch University spokesperson, told CNN that "Alexandra McCabe attended but did not graduate from Antioch University. She was never a faculty member. She did provide several hours of administrative work."An Antioch University official told CNN that such a "protected program" does not exist and never has.

Stacey Lentz, who worked as a receptionist for then-Sen. Kent Conrad in the early '90s and lived in Reade's dorm, said Reade was "the kind of girl, once she's wherever she is, you know her."
CNN reached out to Lentz because Reade described her repeatedly as one of her closest confidants during her time in Washington, and somebody she may have confided in about the alleged sexual harassment and assault. But Lentz, who now operates a modeling agency in Fargo, North Dakota, said while she and Reade were close, she had not remembered which lawmaker Reade had worked for until she saw recent news reports. She also did not recall Reade confiding in her about sexual harassment or assault
Asked whether she remembered Reade complaining about work, Lentz said the reporter's question triggered a memory. "There was drama with her work. I can see flashes of her talking to me," Lentz said. "She wasn't having a great time at work."

("Drama" going on but no mention to a close friend of harassment, much less assault.)

Reade's own writings offer yet other reasons for why she left Biden's office -- and ultimately Washington. In one deleted Medium post, she said she "resigned" to pursue acting and writing, and also because she was tired of the US government's "deception and xenophobia." In another since deleted post, Reade wrote that she left Washington and returned to the Midwest so her then-boyfriend could manage a congressman's campaign.

In more recent years, Reade has praised Biden on social media on numerous occasions.
The praise, according to some of Reade's acquaintances, happened in private, too. Reade pet sat for Margie Estberg's cats in December 2017 in Aptos, California, Estberg told CNN. She said that around this time, Reade brought up the fact that she had once worked for Biden. "I said, 'Is he a good guy?' Because I'm just curious to know," Estberg recalled. "And she said, 'Oh yeah, he is.' I said, 'Oh good, I'm glad to hear that.'"Estberg said Reade also described having had a lot of fun while working for Biden.

(The guy who sexually assaulted her was "was a good guy"?)

Reade described to CNN a meeting in which Biden stood behind her and put his hand on her shoulder and massaged her neck under her hair. Her close friend also told CNN that Reade described to her a staff meeting in which Biden rubbed her neck and swirled her hair around his finger in front of interns.But in interviews with CNN, multiple former Biden aides said this stood out because Biden rarely interacted with junior staff.
Melissa Lefko, who, like Reade, was a staff assistant in Biden's office in the early 1990s, said staff assistants and interns were among those who worked in Biden's so-called "front office" in the Russell Senate office building. That office was located down the hall from -- and separated in between by then-Sen. Strom Thurmond's office -- the room where Biden and some of his senior aides worked. This meant Lefko and her junior colleagues in the front office rarely had face time with Biden, she said. Several other confirmed this physical configuration of Biden's personal Senate office.
"I've been searching my memory and I really think he stepped into the front office once the entire time I worked there," Lefko told CNN.

Savage said he could not recall a single meeting in the years that he worked in Biden's office that was attended by junior staff, interns and Biden. "He didn't deal with junior staff, ever," said one former longtime aide to Biden, who asked not to be named.

(No other staffer has claimed to have seen the incident Reade described or to ever have seen him behave that way.)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html

 

[theprestige]

LOL. Isn't it time for you to remind us that Biden is still senile?