A number of those who crossed paths with Bidenâs accuser say they remember two things: She spoke favorably about her time working for Biden, and she left them feeling duped.
...
As part of an investigation into Readeâs allegations against Biden â charges
that are already shaping the contours of his campaign against a
president who has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by
multiple women â POLITICO interviewed more than a dozen
people, many of whom interacted with Reade through her involvement in
the animal-rescue community.
A number of those in close contact
with Reade over the past 12 years, a period in which she went by the
names Tara Reade, Tara McCabe or Alexandra McCabe, laid out a familiar
pattern: Reade ingratiated herself, explained she was down on her
luck and needed help, and eventually took advantage of their goodwill
to extract money, skip rent payments or walk out on other bills.
The people quoted in this article
provided copies of past emails, screenshots of Facebook Messenger or
text exchanges with Reade, copies of billing invoices or court records
detailing their grievances or correspondence. POLITICO also reviewed
dozens of public records, including court documents, divorce filings and
Readeâs 2012 bankruptcy records.
The accounts paint a picture of
Readeâs life in the years leading up to her allegations, in which she
spoke often of her connection to Biden but also of troubles in her
personal life and a need for money. Sexual abuse victims sometimes offer
contradictory information about their alleged abusers, so her comments
do not necessarily refute her claims against the former vice president.
But they add weight to the evidence that she spoke positively about him
in the years before she accused him of digitally penetrating her in the
early â90s.
Reached by phone, Reade declined to answer specific questions and referred the matter to her attorney, Douglas Wigdor.
I suppose it would be politically incorrect to point out that, even if the accusations against Biden are taken at face value, it would show he believes no means no and stops.
You can only get a no when you ask...
"Are you ok with me pinning you against the wall and sliding a hand up your dress?"
I suppose it would be politically incorrect to point out that, even if the accusations against Biden are taken at face value, it would show he believes no means no and stops.
Earlier this year, Tara Reade claimed that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee forced her against a wall and put his hands up her skirt when she worked as a staffer in his Senate office in the early 1990s. The narrative became instant red meat for Fox News, which has made the allegations one of its top stories across its cable and digital platforms, largely aggregating or riffing on reporting done by mainstream outlets while lamenting a supposed lack of media coverage of the story.
According to a transcript search via media-monitoring service TVEyes, the Reade accusations have been mentioned at least 289 times on the network since late March, when Reade first detailed them in an interview with leftist podcast host Katie Halper.
THIS 1996 COURT DOCUMENT BOLSTERS RAPE CLAIM AGAINST BIDEN
Normally I'd be compelled to remind people that everyone deserves due process. But Joe Biden just this week reminded people that he doesn't believe in due process. So seriously, screw Joe Biden's due process. I'm not the one who made the rules. I'm just a comedy writer who moonlights in political snark. Who was told I hate women when I said the Brett Kavanaugh allegations looked like a political stunt.
The only question now: Does the DNC drag Biden across the finish line? Or is he just made to feel comfortable until nature takes its course?
That court document, filed by Reade's then-estranged husband in 1996, mentions only sexual harassment and not sexual assault. It does not provide any detail that might corroborate Reade's claim of sexual assault.
Asked for comment Thursday, the national press secretary for Bidenâs presidential campaign, T.J. Ducklo, said the campaign is not commenting on the latest development at this time.
However, the campaign did provide a comment from Ted Kaufman, who was Bidenâs chief of staff at the time. âI have consistently said what is the truth here â
that she never came to me,â Kaufman said. âI do not remember her, and
had she come to me in any of these circumstances, I would remember her.
But I do not, because she did not.â
THIS 1996 COURT DOCUMENT BOLSTERS RAPE CLAIM AGAINST BIDEN
Normally I'd be compelled to remind people that everyone deserves due process. But Joe Biden just this week reminded people that he doesn't believe in due process. So seriously, screw Joe Biden's due process. I'm not the one who made the rules. I'm just a comedy writer who moonlights in political snark. Who was told I hate women when I said the Brett Kavanaugh allegations looked like a political stunt.
The only question now: Does the DNC drag Biden across the finish line? Or is he just made to feel comfortable until nature takes its course?
If we were honest with ourselves this is true and sometimes the price is payed gladly with altruistic intentions for the greater good. This is why I have no issue at all with someone who votes for Biden and supports the metoo movement in regards to prioritizing the voice and concerns of women victims of sexual assaults or harassment. Just acknowledge that you are paying a price. After all, virtually all of us here have already chosen an alleged abuser of women in an election. I did it twice myself. Once in 1992 and again in 96.
In regards to the second remark, you are as naive as you are intelligent.
So we all have 3 choices: Trump, Biden, or neither. Let's agree neither hands your choice to others.
If you support #metoo, who do you pick? If you support the pro-life movement, who do you pick? If you support current gun laws, who do you pick? Lower taxation, lower regulation, the environment, immigration reform, and anything else that may be important to you, who do you pick?
Analyzing the limitations of your options is critical. You don't have to surrender your principals to vote...you have to prioritize them.
Personally I am holding true to exercising my right to vote as a protest to the 2 party duopoly meaning anybody but a D or an R. It has never been easier to maintain my tradition started back in aught 10. In other words, I am in the neither camp. As long as your reasoning is intellectually honest then you have the credibility to proceed with your choices and makes it easier for those that hold different opinions to work with you and of course that goes both ways.
If we were honest with ourselves this is true and sometimes the price is payed gladly with altruistic intentions for the greater good. This is why I have no issue at all with someone who votes for Biden and supports the metoo movement in regards to prioritizing the voice and concerns of women victims of sexual assaults or harassment. Just acknowledge that you are paying a price. After all, virtually all of us here have already chosen an alleged abuser of women in an election. I did it twice myself. Once in 1992 and again in 96.
In regards to the second remark, you are as naive as you are intelligent.
So we all have 3 choices: Trump, Biden, or neither. Let's agree neither hands your choice to others.
If you support #metoo, who do you pick? If you support the pro-life movement, who do you pick? If you support current gun laws, who do you pick? Lower taxation, lower regulation, the environment, immigration reform, and anything else that may be important to you, who do you pick?
Analyzing the limitations of your options is critical. You don't have to surrender your principals to vote...you have to prioritize them.
(...) but I agree with what Biden says above and have never wavered from this notion regardless of the political party of the accused. You should try it, there is no confusion.
Unless there's the threat of a socialist getting the Democratic nomination, in which case you'd feel compelled to vote (expediently) for the lesser evil alleged rapist (aka Trump)...
This is true, it would take something that dangerous, but that is about the only thing. Though sadly it looks like the pandemic has pushed us into socialism anyway. How ironic that we are destroying our grandchildren's hope by having them foot the tab for shutting the economy down and it is helping the environment which was the concern of our grandchildren as well. Seems like either way, we are screwing our descendants.
Just goes to show that almost everyone has a price (or a fear) that might make them put their principles on hold.
If you actually had socialism, workers would be prioritized (in any bailout scheme), not capital...
If we were honest with ourselves this is true and sometimes the price is payed gladly with altruistic intentions for the greater good. This is why I have no issue at all with someone who votes for Biden and supports the metoo movement in regards to prioritizing the voice and concerns of women victims of sexual assaults or harassment. Just acknowledge that you are paying a price. After all, virtually all of us here have already chosen an alleged abuser of women in an election. I did it twice myself. Once in 1992 and again in 96.
In regards to the second remark, you are as naive as you are intelligent.
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Also: SQUIRREL!
Nobody has to refute or disprove "Joe's creepiness". They might actually agree to some extent. However, your tremendous hypocrisy still stands as well.
Only being blind to your own tremendous hypocrisy, permits you to say that, while offering a straight face.
Obviously your personal mottto is 'Rules for thee, but not for me.'
And: SQUIRREL !
There ya go. I've been beaten up for using whataboutism here for years, by R and many, many others.
I always forgot to counter it in a timely way to neutralize it. Now I'm doing things a little differently now and it is fair game for using it. They use it, call em out if they ask for it. Doesn't mean that you can't use it, too. Now it's, so what ? Kinda like grammar police.
It's getting easier to do now because their over confidence is getting in their own way and their game is slipping as a result.
As long as your reasoning is intellectually honest then you have the credibility to proceed with your choices and makes it easier for those that hold different opinions to work with you and of course that goes both ways. 
