• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Filing a false police report is already illegal. Perjury/false swearing is already illegal. This is how it should be, but...


This sort of law when aggressively enforced backfires way more than it works as intended. Even beyond discouraging a person from rightly making an allegation against a rich/powerful person.

When someone makes a wrongful allegation it is almost always an issue of it being an emotionally charged situation or because that person feels they are being coerced. This isn't a time where they are thinking in terms of the penalty for doing so, even assuming they are aware of the penalty. The deterrent effect of harsher penalties is minimal at best.

Once things cool down, or they feel like they aren't in danger if they don't make that accusation, or for that matter have a guilty conscience, they are in a position to coolly analyze their criminal exposure and be deterred from doing the right thing. So they wind up testifying consistent with their earlier statement or don't come forward years later to correct an injustice.

Both of which are a disaster for the wrongfully accused.
 
Suddenly said:
Once things cool down, or they feel like they aren't in danger if they don't make that accusation, or for that matter have a guilty conscience, they are in a position to coolly analyze their criminal exposure and be deterred from doing the right thing. So they wind up testifying consistent with their earlier statement or don't come forward years later to correct an injustice.

Both of which are a disaster for the wrongfully accused.
Click to expand...

That's a good reason to be lenient to those who voluntarily confess. But we should definitely still punish those whose lies are uncovered independently, both to incentivize people to not lie in the first place but also to encourage people who did lie to fess up early.
 
How do you differentiate a purposeful lie from a genuinely mistaken belief?

I don't have a lot of faith in the discretion of police and prosecutors to use such tools fairly or equitably.
 
Stacyhs said:
It seems Tara Reade's story has even more variations:



(Savage had the desk next to Reade in the basement office they shared)
Click to expand...
Savage has said two different things: She said was being fired for an undisclosed medical reason and he thinks she was fired because of work performance issues. So he doesn't actually know why she was fired, he only has an understanding of such. Not much help. She could very well have actually been fired because she made a sexual harassment allegation, told him that she thought it was becaue of medical issues and the staff was left with an "understanding" that her firing was for performance issues.
(Reade has also claimed she had an emotionally and physically abusive father)
Click to expand...
Why can't it be both?
("Drama" going on but no mention to a close friend of harassment, much less assault.)
Click to expand...
And? Women often tell no one because they are afraid of not being believed.
(The guy who sexually assaulted her was "was a good guy"?)
Click to expand...
Women often have complicated views of their assaulters, especially when that assaulter is someone they look up to and respect for other reasons.
(No other staffer has claimed to have seen the incident Reade described or to ever have seen him behave that way.)
Click to expand...
Which means nothing. No one saw Ford and Kavanaugh, but you probably think it actually happened despite that.

I engaged with this only to illustrate how murky the issues can be when "assessing credibility." The same information has many interpretations and insisting that one particular interpretation is likely correct is not a good practice. This is why "assessing credibility" is a fools errand. We can only rely on evidence, of which there is none. Case closed.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's a good reason to be lenient to those who voluntarily confess. But we should definitely still punish those whose lies are uncovered independently, both to incentivize people to not lie in the first place but also to encourage people who did lie to fess up early.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I'd limit it to pretty extreme and blatant circumstances, especially when the case is years old. I'd still want to be lenient to someone whose admission is a result of someone independently showing that their statement/testimony was highly suspect.
 
Suddenly said:
Sure, but I'd limit it to pretty extreme and blatant circumstances, especially when the case is years old. I'd still want to be lenient to someone whose admission is a result of someone independently showing that their statement/testimony was highly suspect.
Click to expand...

We already have a way to punish people for making false allegations of a heinous crime: Defamation torts. Seems like Biden has a pretty good case given all the people who are willing to publicly say there's no way he did this because of X, Y and Z. Sue her ass.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
How do you differentiate a purposeful lie from a genuinely mistaken belief?

I don't have a lot of faith in the discretion of police and prosecutors to use such tools fairly or equitably.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can be hard to distinguish between a purposeful lie and a genuine mistake. I don't think that's too much of a problem, though. Prosecutors are generally reluctant to prosecute cases they can't win in court, and the standards of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a lie and not a mistake mean that you're more likely to not prosecute someone who is lying than wrongfully prosecute someone who is genuinely mistaken.

Furthermore, with something like sexual assault or rape, it's pretty easy to determine that an accusation is a lie if the assault or rape provably never happened to begin with. Genuine mistakes are more likely of the form where an actual crime occurred but the victim misidentified the culprit. This has happened, and I don't think the police go after the victims in such cases.

I think deliberate false accusations are overwhelmingly of the form where the crime didn't happen (though that may not be provable), since there's little incentive for an actual victim to lie about the perpetrator. And if you have reason to falsely accuse someone, why bother actually being victimized?
 
xjx388 said:
We already have a way to punish people for making false allegations of a heinous crime: Defamation torts. Seems like Biden has a pretty good case given all the people who are willing to publicly say there's no way he did this because of X, Y and Z. Sue her ass.
Click to expand...

Filing a lawsuit would keep the story in the news, and it is likely to fade away as it becomes more and more obvious that there is little chance that the allegation is true. It would be interesting, however, to hear what her ex-neighbor, the only person who is known to have stated that she was told of an "assault", would say when testifying under oath given that she's said several things which raise doubts about whether she actually remembered.
 
So there are some new Ukraine leaks (in Ukraine) in form of tapes that seem to have been recorded by President Porky himself of his "conversations" (i.e. him being pressured to do all kinds of stuff against the interest of the Ukraine) with Biden. I have only read German analyses so far, but here is a short assessment in English which contains embedded audio of the recordings (which are of course also in English).

Biden Is Being Thrown to the Wolves, Not Poroshenko

For some reason, it is expected that Poroshenko will be jailed after talks between him and Biden were published. But it is not a blow to Poroshenko – no one needs him, no one is afraid of him, even in Ukraine, and he also will not be jailed (the Americans keep such persons for the future, like in the case of Saakashvili).

The target of this leak is Biden, Trump’s rival in the upcoming US presidential election. It is said that confidence in Donald in recent days has started to drop, as well as people’s support for him, because of the huge mortality rate during the pandemic. This tape could give him another reason to accuse Biden of committing financial fraud in Ukraine using American taxpayer money. This, along with new attacks on China, should seemingly improve Trump’s approval rating.

I want to assume that it is nationalist forces that attack globalists, but it’s unlikely. Zelensky is managed exactly the same way – only now through other curators in Washington (Pompeo) and using Kolomoisky‘s capital. Dirty and vile games on the territory of southern Russian land, which has turned into a garbage dump.

By the way, the talks should be listened to completely – it is simply the anthem of the self-humiliation in front of the “white master”. You can imagine the scornful-tired face of Biden, forced to get into the details of this monkey business of “non-brothers” [brainwashed Ukrainians consider themselves to be unrelated to Russians – ed], while billions from the pockets of Euro-Ukrainians are transferred to his accounts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
We already have a way to punish people for making false allegations of a heinous crime: Defamation torts. Seems like Biden has a pretty good case given all the people who are willing to publicly say there's no way he did this because of X, Y and Z. Sue her ass.
Click to expand...
There are 2 problems with a person like Biden using defamation torts...

1) as a public figure, there is a much higher bar to win the case (compared to a 'nobody' who happens to get slandered/libeled.)

2) as a politician, he may be hesitant to sue someone (even if someone has made provably false allegations against him) because it may seem to part of the electorate that he is "beating up" some poor person. You want to appear magnanimous, so people could make up false claims against you with the knowledge you would be less likely to respond.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
(Savage had the desk next to Reade in the basement office they shared)
Click to expand...

I'm not giving a whole lot of weight to Mr. Savage's claims right now. So far, it's just 1 person making claims without supporting evidence. We can't rule out that he either is defensive of Biden or didn't get along with Reade when they worked together (or both).
 
xjx388 said:
(The guy who sexually assaulted her was "was a good guy"?)
Click to expand...
Women often have complicated views of their assaulters, especially when that assaulter is someone they look up to and respect for other reasons.
Click to expand...
You are right... there are cases where victims have praised or in other ways remained on good terms with their supposed attackers. (Here in Canada, o have Jian Ghomeshi as an example.)

If Reade's praise of Biden after the assault were the only evidence to suggest she were lying, then that would be one thing. But it was her praise of Biden, AS WELL AS her changing testimony, AS WELL AS the lack of others coming forward with similar accusations, AS WELL AS the questionable state collaborating testimony (for example from her brother/neighbor).
 
Segnosaur said:
There are 2 problems with a person like Biden using defamation torts...

1) as a public figure, there is a much higher bar to win the case (compared to a 'nobody' who happens to get slandered/libeled.)

2) as a politician, he may be hesitant to sue someone (even if someone has made provably false allegations against him) because it may seem to part of the electorate that he is "beating up" some poor person. You want to appear magnanimous, so people could make up false claims against you with the knowledge you would be less likely to respond.
Click to expand...

3) Exposing himself to discovery. If this is a concerted enough intentional effort to smear him then she's almost certain to hire a lawyer (more like a team of lawyers) who just happen to have connections with the federalist society. At best it would be a tedious nightmare.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I'm not giving a whole lot of weight to Mr. Savage's claims right now. So far, it's just 1 person making claims without supporting evidence. We can't rule out that he either is defensive of Biden or didn't get along with Reade when they worked together (or both).
Click to expand...

You could make the same claim about any of the staffers Reade worked with who contradicted her remarks. Or any of the people who have come forward or been contacted.
 
Stacyhs said:
You could make the same claim about any of the staffers Reade worked with who contradicted her remarks. Or any of the people who have come forward or been contacted.
Click to expand...

I think that the other claims by former Biden employees (no knowledge of any sort of harassment, no knowledge of any complaints, her sometimes inappropriate attire, the unlikelihood that she was asked to serve drinks, that Biden spent almost no time with junior employees who worked in a separate suite and therefore would have been unlikely to have done his neck-and-hair thing multiple times or have noticed her legs) were made independently by multiple people.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
I think that the other claims by former Biden employees (no knowledge of any sort of harassment, no knowledge of any complaints, her sometimes inappropriate attire, the unlikelihood that she was asked to serve drinks, that Biden spent almost no time with junior employees who worked in a separate suite and therefore would have been unlikely to have done his neck-and-hair thing multiple times or have noticed her legs) were made independently by multiple people.
Click to expand...

We do know that Reade was removed from her supervisory role over other interns. Ted Kaufman, a Biden senior aide, told her she 'was not a good fit for the office" and gave he a month to find another job according to Reade. If this was done as retaliation for filing a sexual harassment claim, I doubt she would have been given a month to find another job. This is speculation, but I suspect that Reade's chronic financial problems likely arose from her inability to keep a job.
 
It's breathtaking how sure the parrots are that they can safely ignore evidence as long as it doesn't happen in the mighty Wurlitzer. Mainly because they are right.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom