new Reade/Biden thread
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
She lies about everything, therefore everyone’s assuming that she’s lying about the “sexual assault.” The place where she said it took place literally doesn’t exist. There’s been copious vetting of her “story,” which keeps changing, in the links over the last few pages. And now even her Trump donor lawyer has quit. Give it up. |
Anonymous
No, idiot. Now you’re just trolling. Or maybe you really are an idiot. Sexual assault victims who have a LONG TRACK RECORD of lying for money and other reasons, and whose own story keeps changing, and whose witnesses keep changing their stories...need to be dealt with “cautiously,” as even Tucker says. When other witnesses, who were there at the time, indicate HER ASSAULT STORY IS A LIE by poking holes in it, then yeah. So other witnesses have pointed out that she was fired for incompetence from Biden’s office (contradicting her story about being let go because of an alleged assault), that there aren’t any “niches” in that Senate basement hall (contradicting her story that she was raped in one), and that she wouldn’t have been asked to serve drinks at a fundraiser (as she claimed) because that would have been illegal. |
Anonymous
Very bad logic. You draw the wrong conclusions. No, it means that anyone, including a sexual assault victim with a history of lying, deceit and dishonesty is not themselves a credible source. So anything that such a victim says needs to be corroborated and confirmed by outside information: 3rd parties who can confirm, external data like reports filed, etc. In the case of Reade, dozens of people have been interviewed, including many that she herself identified as being able to confirm or corroborate her claims. The vast majority have no knowledge of her claims, have no recollection of anything similar to whats she contends and believe that what she claims did not happen. She has 2 people who she told that will confirm that she told them that it happened. She keeps changing her story of documentation. She claimed that she filed a report about sexual assault, then when questioned, said that it was only a report about sexual harassment. When no such documentation could not be found, she changed it to a report about being made to feel uncomfortable and even that could not be found. She claims that a completely vague recording of a woman from 1993 confirms that she told her mother about being assaulted, but her mother has passed and the comment from the unidentified woman is so completely vague it could be made to construe about anything she wants it to be. She got fired and it could be that she told her mother that she was angry about being fired and it would fit the quote. She has a history that shows she has no compunction against lying as it conveniently suits her and she had no problems playing with details and facts and spinning stories to be completely different. So, why would she have any credibility as a victim. You need a lot more than that to destroy an accuser's career and reputation. |
Anonymous
+1,000,000 It's (almost) funny how, when called on something and proved wrong, they do indeed continue to move the goalposts. |
Anonymous
You don't get into law school by lying about your undergraduate degree. The undergraduate school supplies transcripts, etc. Maybe there are current requirements that weren't in place when she was admitted. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that she was, indeed, admitted and graduated from Seattle University School of Law? |
Anonymous
Again: Ramesh Ponnuru wrote an excellent rebuttal to the Faludi piece. You just disagree. Doesn't mean his wasn't a smart opinion. I could just as easily say Faludi's was the stupid take. |
Anonymous
The article says Seattle’s requirements were the same then as they are now. Maybe she forged a transcript? Who knows. But it’s pretty clear she didn’t get a BA at that college. |
Anonymous
You are desperate to close this thread, aren't you? Can you prove that Biden is innocent? Nope. And so we'll continue to discuss this. If it upsets you, don't click on it. |
Anonymous
DP. I agree with the PP. Just wait until we have someone with a sketchy background, perhaps a history of lying, accuse a prominent Republican (again, I should say). You will be first in line claiming her background should have *nothing* to do with the assault accusation. It'll be fun trotting out all of these posts, won't it? |
Anonymous
Can't prove a negative. But the evidence amounts to he said/she said where the "she" has more than one hole in her story plus may have committed fraud and perjury. |
Anonymous
Oh, the irony. The utter hypocrisy! |
Anonymous
Faludi had data: the number of tweets of "BelieveAllWomen" vs. "BelieveWomen" by Rep/Dem, compiled for her by a Harvard librarian. Ponnuru's take was lame and half-hearted. Even Ponnuru gives ground on this issue (Ponnuru says Faludi succeeds a bit and conservatives have erred). But then Ponnuru backs herself into a corner, and finds herself claiming that the phrase "Believe women" totally needs the word "some" to be clear. Or something. Which is a ludicrous straw man. Here's Ponnuru. Try not to laugh at the verbal gymnastics.
|
Anonymous
Surely even you can admit that she has "credibility" problems, right? And even in criminal cases, jurors are instructed that if a witness lies about one thing, the jurors can decide not to believe any of the witness' testimony. |
Anonymous
Good point. Top pp, do you believe Reade? While you're at it, do you believe any of Trump's victims: |
Anonymous
I agree with Ponnuru. “Believe Women” implies (very clearly) that we are to believe ALL women. There is absolutely no way you can deny that. |