Biden for President?

[Stacyhs]

I've been on the bipartisan pushback side.

What "hay" have I made of this accusation? I don't recall ever suggesting the accusation was true and that Biden is therefore disqualified, or anything like that. The last couple weeks in this thread has been mostly you and others doing a deep dive into Reade's reputation, and me and others mostly saying that's probably not necessary since the claim can just be dismissed on its (lack of) merits anyway.

You've been defending against an attack nobody has actually been making in several weeks.

I never said you suggested the accusation was true, but you've been a big part of keeping the conversation alive. You've made many comments within the last two weeks regarding Reade including why her credibility is irrelevant.

It was wareyin that resurrected it, remember? At least, I think it was him that sounded the alarm that once the Reade thing went under, we'd return to the senility and Huntergate things.

Personally I thought both those topics were pretty much played out. I'm not a big fan of parsing Joe Biden's behavior for senility (for a mix of principled and pragmatic reasons). If he's a gaffe machine, he's a gaffe machine. That's not going to go away just because we haven't talked about it for a month.

But I have no problem riffing on wareyin's warning.

WAREYIN: If we stop talking about Reade, they'll just bring up Biden's senility again.

STACYHS: Let's keep talking about Reade!

ME: When you put it that way, I can see how it kinda makes sense to keep talking about Reade, far past the point where anyone is trying to defend her accusations.

Tell you what: If you stop talking about Reade's reputation, I promise not to bring up Biden's senility.

Nope. As long as there's a Trump campaign ad airing using Reade's allegations, it's a relevant topic. And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility. When more information is found relevant to that, it will be presented and discussed. Discuss Biden's 'gaffes' all you want; they're fair game. But that's not the same as 'senility' and you know that. But nice touch.

 

[Suddenly]

I do like how the Times article refers to the credit hours required to graduate without saying anything about this being 20 years ago and whether anything has changed about that. Also the 45 hours of "prior learning" as if that and transfer credit are the same thing.

As a student enrolled in AULA’s Bachelor’s Completion Program, you can transfer the credits you’ve already earned from an accredited institution. A maximum of 135 transfer units (calculated as quarter units) can be credited toward your BA degree at AULA.
...

Units accepted for transfer count toward the 180 minimum required for the degree.

If we want to play detective and ignore that the information is 20 years later, she could transfer in 135, so...

She sent The Times a screenshot of a transcript showing her with 35 course credits,

Math fans will note this leaves her short of the 180 needed. Which would lean towards "no degree."

It is possible that in 2000 they were still on a semester system and that 35 is well enough to put her over the top (like if these numbers are the more classic 120/90 instead of 180/135). I don't know that, but then again I'm not writing for the NYT.

 

[Bob001]

There is a possibility that she could have gotten into the law school without a college degree (it isn't explicitly stated as a requirement for their "Access Admission Program").

It is stated on their admissions page. I suspect the Access option is for people who don't have great grades and test scores, not for people who didn't graduate from college. Why would they have any reason to do that?

As a candidate for admission, you must have earned a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university prior to your enrollment.

https://law.seattleu.edu/admission/prospective-students/applicants/admission-requirements

The issue is that she was testifying as an "expert witness", so if she exaggerated her background then the other side (in this case, the defense) might have grounds to argue that she didn't establish herself as an "expert" and therefore should not have been allowed to testify.

She also would have been committing perjury in court, and accepting payment from the DA's office under false pretenses. This is a serious problem for her.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We've now made the transition from "how can we prove she's lying about Joe Biden?" to "how can we make sure she's punished for her lies?"

Oh yeah like that's our fault.

It doesn't have anything to do with people in the forum. They are just posting what they are reading and hearing.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It is stated on their admissions page. I suspect the Access option is for people who don't have great grades and test scores, not for people who didn't graduate from college. Why would they have any reason to do that?

https://law.seattleu.edu/admission/prospective-students/applicants/admission-requirements

Yes, it is stated on their admission page. But it is not stated on their "Access Admissions Program" page.

 

[Stacyhs]

I do like how the Times article refers to the credit hours required to graduate without saying anything about this being 20 years ago and whether anything has changed about that. Also the 45 hours of "prior learning" as if that and transfer credit are the same thing.




If we want to play detective and ignore that the information is 20 years later, she could transfer in 135, so...



Math fans will note this leaves her short of the 180 needed. Which would lean towards "no degree."

It is possible that in 2000 they were still on a semester system and that 35 is well enough to put her over the top (like if these numbers are the more classic 120/90 instead of 180/135). I don't know that, but then again I'm not writing for the NYT.

Their academic catalogue online only goes back to 2008-09. They were on the quarter system then. But this from Wikipedia states:

From its inception, racial and gender equality, independent study, and independent thinking were integral parts of Antioch College. Six students were accepted for the first quarter: four men and two women who came to share the same college classrooms for the first time in the U.S

I think it's safe to assume it was on the quarter system at the time Reade attended.

 

[shemp]

"Joe Biden: Not half as bad as Donald Trump. Biden 2020!"

6.

 

[xjx388]

And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility.

And what is credibility predicated on, if not one's reputation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not?

 

[Suddenly]

The issue is that she was testifying as an "expert witness", so if she exaggerated her background then the other side (in this case, the defense) might have grounds to argue that she didn't establish herself as an "expert" and therefore should not have been allowed to testify.

Probably not. She claimed a degree with a concentration in poly sci, which is consistent with the degree program she claims and which has nothing to do with the subject matter of her testimony. It is a biographical detail way more than it is a qualification as an expert.

She was qualified based on work experience.


All you need to be qualified as an expert witness is special knowledge that is helpful to the jury. You can be a convicted meth cook with a 10th grade education and be an expert about what items are suitable to use as part of an improvised lab. There is a published case about using a drug addict as an expert to establish the identity of a controlled substance (instead of a lab report).

The way this is possibly useful to attack a conviction is as undisclosed exculpatory evidence that would have been useful to impeach a state witness. Pretty clear that being able to catch a witness lying on the stand would have had some effect at trial. It isn't that simple, but that is the general idea.

 

[wasapi]

I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not?

If she had taken the exam even once and failed, wouldn't there be some record of that? Just curious.

 

[Suddenly]

I am curious if Reade graduated from Seattle University Law School (which apparently is not in question), why isn't she a lawyer? Never took the Bar? Why not?

The California bar exam is famously brutal.

Past that, most careers in law suck.

Probably a combination. Flunk the bar once or twice, fall into something else while planning to try again, see how miserable most of your former classmates who passed the bar feel, and consider it a bullet well dodged.

Not an unusual career path.

 

[Bob001]

Probably not. She claimed a degree with a concentration in poly sci, which is consistent with the degree program she claims and which has nothing to do with the subject matter of her testimony. It is a biographical detail way more than it is a qualification as an expert.

She was qualified based on work experience.
.....

Except if she testified under oath that she "graduated" from or "had a degree" from Antioch, that would be a lie if it's not true. If she just said she "attended" Antioch, that would not be the same. Tell any employer that you "graduated" from college when you only attended a couple semesters, and it will be a problem.

And of course all this raises the question of whether she exaggerated her work experience, too. She apparently claimed to be a "legislative assistant" to Biden, which is a distinct job on Capitol Hill, rather than office help. What did she actually do to be designated an "expert" on domestic violence?

 

[Suddenly]

And what is credibility predicated on, if not one's reputation?

One's reputation of credibility in matters of substantially equal weight and where there is no justifiable reason to lie?

That and the unreliable nature of the human brain.

If the degree thing turns out to be a willful hoax, that would do it.

Bouncing checks not so much. Hustling rent depends on whether the alternative is homelessness.

Honestly, it could be the most honest person in the world making her claim and given the circumstances I'd not really see it as all that likely to be true. At some point honesty has nothing to do with whether a memory is credible.

 

[Bob001]

Yes, it is stated on their admission page. But it is not stated on their "Access Admissions Program" page.

Why do you think a college degree wouldn't be required? Law school admissions relies heavily on grades and LSAT scores. Here's their alternative:

Though their potential for success may not be accurately reflected by traditional indicators such as standardized scores or undergraduate GPAs, Access Admission students have demonstrated grit, intellectual curiosity, and the ability to overcome substantial obstacles.

So they give applicants a break based on other accomplishments and circumstances. Why would you think they wouldn't be expected to finish college?

 

[Suddenly]

Except if she testified under oath that she "graduated" from or "had a degree" from Antioch, that would be a lie if it's not true. If she just said she "attended" Antioch, that would not be the same. Tell any employer that you "graduated" from college when you only attended a couple semesters, and it will be a problem.

This wasn't a job interview.

And of course all this raises the question of whether she exaggerated her work experience, too. She apparently claimed to be a "legislative assistant" to Biden, which is a distinct job on Capitol Hill, rather than office help. What did she actually do to be designated an "expert" on domestic violence?

She did enough for the judge to not grant an objection from the defense.

 

[theprestige]

I never said you suggested the accusation was true, but you've been a big part of keeping the conversation alive. You've made many comments within the last two weeks regarding Reade including why her credibility is irrelevant.

Nobody is pushing the accuastion, but you're still putting day after day of effort into refuting it. Why?

Nope. As long as there's a Trump campaign ad airing using Reade's allegations, it's a relevant topic. And it's not Reade's reputation that's the topic, but her credibility. When more information is found relevant to that, it will be presented and discussed. Discuss Biden's 'gaffes' all you want; they're fair game. But that's not the same as 'senility' and you know that. But nice touch.

Nobody's defending her credibility. Why do you keep attacking it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

The California bar exam is famously brutal.

Past that, most careers in law suck.

Probably a combination. Flunk the bar once or twice, fall into something else while planning to try again, see how miserable most of your former classmates who passed the bar feel, and consider it a bullet well dodged.

Not an unusual career path.

Not that Suddenly needs back up, but I second this post.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nobody is pushing the accuastion, but you're still putting day after day of effort into refuting it. Why?

Has it slipped your notice that others are presenting new information and I am mostly responding to it? Just as you do. But nice try.
As for 'why?", I already addressed that in my last post.

Nobody's defending her credibility.

They may not be defending it, but there are plenty...including you...arguing that her credibility is irrelevant to the case. It's not.

Why do you keep attacking it?

Why do you keep refuting the fact that credibility IS important in cases such as this? Despite the fact you've been quoted and cited evidence from multiple sources that it isvery important. Whether you think it should be is irrelevant. In reality, it is.

Using words like "attacking" is an obvious appeal to emotion. To 'attack' something is negative. I'm not attacking her credibility; I'm discussing it.

 

[Bubba]

Who you gonna replace Biden with ?

Hillary ?