new Reade/Biden thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/lawyer-drops-tara-reade-as-client-274635

“Much of what has been written about Ms. Reade is not probative of whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted her, but rather is intended to victim-shame and attack her credibility on unrelated and irrelevant matters,” he wrote. “We genuinely wish Ms. Reade well and hope that she, as a survivor, is treated fairly. We have and will continue to represent survivors regardless of their alleged predator’s status or politics.”

Not sure what your point is. Even in quitting, her lawyer can't say anything bad about her. This is just fluff to cover the obvious negative implication of quitting after one week.

He speaks the truth. That’s what my point is.

It's her lawyer's opinion. By definition it is whatever advantages his client and always will be. Might as well quote yourself and say "see, I'm right!"

Yes, and actions speak louder than words.

He dropped her because he couldn't press her case effectively, because she's lying all the damn time.

And that may be so, but the bolded is still true. Sad that this even has to be explained.

What's sad is that you think quoting her withdrawing attorney strengthens rather than weakens your case. He's literally the least credible person in the world on anything related to her case.

ONCE AGAIN: that doesn’t mean that what he said is not true - about Reade and about any victim. And if this particular woman was accusing a Republican, I’m sure you’d be falling over yourself in agreement. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/lawyer-drops-tara-reade-as-client-274635

“Much of what has been written about Ms. Reade is not probative of whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted her, but rather is intended to victim-shame and attack her credibility on unrelated and irrelevant matters,” he wrote. “We genuinely wish Ms. Reade well and hope that she, as a survivor, is treated fairly. We have and will continue to represent survivors regardless of their alleged predator’s status or politics.”

Not sure what your point is. Even in quitting, her lawyer can't say anything bad about her. This is just fluff to cover the obvious negative implication of quitting after one week.

He speaks the truth. That’s what my point is.

It's her lawyer's opinion. By definition it is whatever advantages his client and always will be. Might as well quote yourself and say "see, I'm right!"

Yes, and actions speak louder than words.

He dropped her because he couldn't press her case effectively, because she's lying all the damn time.

And that may be so, but the bolded is still true. Sad that this even has to be explained.

What's sad is that you think quoting her withdrawing attorney strengthens rather than weakens your case. He's literally the least credible person in the world on anything related to her case.

ONCE AGAIN: that doesn’t mean that what he said is not true - about Reade and about any victim. And if this particular woman was accusing a Republican, I’m sure you’d be falling over yourself in agreement. Hypocrisy at its finest.

You don't know me. I don't even have a screen name. But you are sure of what I would do in some hypothetical situation. And so I am a hypocrite in your mind. Which seems to really matter to you, but is no type of reasonable argument.

But I am calling you a hypocrite based on you current behavior right here. Not based on what you maybe did in the past or might do in the future. Right now, you
1) Quote someone paid to be a hypocrite for his client, and
2) Refuse to actually defend someone you are ostensibly defending. Just like the paid hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what "historically disadvantaged" or "under-represented" community she belongs to. Did she claim that she is "historically disadvantaged" by way of being a "victim" of domestic abuse?

The more we find out, the more she seems like a person who has been lying ALL of her life to take advantage of other people's sympathies. And because it is considered inappropriate to question someone who says they are a victim of domestic violence, she's has been able to get away with it.

Sickening.

Well she was a victim of domestic abuse that had a court ordered restraining order against her ex. She fled, becoming a divorced mother of a child and changed her name to protect herself and her child. Being a single parent and a survivor of domestic abuse that was living under an assumed name for protection seems like an historically disadvantaged situation. There are many such single mothers who need a second chance to get their life restarted. And that is certainly one type of situation that special programs like the Access Admission Program were designed to cover.

I'm not saying this as a Reade supporter, since I for one don't believe her allegations, but I certainly think that her history at that point was the type of story that special admissions programs would take into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what "historically disadvantaged" or "under-represented" community she belongs to. Did she claim that she is "historically disadvantaged" by way of being a "victim" of domestic abuse?

The more we find out, the more she seems like a person who has been lying ALL of her life to take advantage of other people's sympathies. And because it is considered inappropriate to question someone who says they are a victim of domestic violence, she's has been able to get away with it.

Sickening.

Well she was a victim of domestic abuse that had a court ordered restraining order against her ex. She fled, becoming a divorced mother of a child and changed her name to protect herself and her child. Being a single parent and a survivor of domestic abuse that was living under an assumed name for protection seems like an historically disadvantaged situation. There are many such single mothers who need a second chance to get their life restarted. And that is certainly one type of situation that special programs like the Access Admission Program were designed to cover.

I'm not saying this as a Reade supporter, since I for one don't believe her allegations, but I certainly think that her history at that point was the type of story that special admissions programs would take into account.

+100
Absolutely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what "historically disadvantaged" or "under-represented" community she belongs to. Did she claim that she is "historically disadvantaged" by way of being a "victim" of domestic abuse?

The more we find out, the more she seems like a person who has been lying ALL of her life to take advantage of other people's sympathies. And because it is considered inappropriate to question someone who says they are a victim of domestic violence, she's has been able to get away with it.

Sickening.

Well she was a victim of domestic abuse that had a court ordered restraining order against her ex. She fled, becoming a divorced mother of a child and changed her name to protect herself and her child. Being a single parent and a survivor of domestic abuse that was living under an assumed name for protection seems like an historically disadvantaged situation. There are many such single mothers who need a second chance to get their life restarted. And that is certainly one type of situation that special programs like the Access Admission Program were designed to cover.

I'm not saying this as a Reade supporter, since I for one don't believe her allegations, but I certainly think that her history at that point was the type of story that special admissions programs would take into account.

No. She SAYS she experienced abuse. Her ex denies it.

See the pattern here?

[Anonymous]

Anyone still defending Reade should take a look at tge AP story on her. She is a full fledged scam artist and drama queen who has literally been lying all her life.

She also accuses almost everyone she comes into contact with of "harassing" her, and their are emails to prove it.

She also accuses all the men she is involved with of abuse.

She has been fired from job after job after job because of her outrageous behavior.

She has repeatedly scammed friends and stolen from them.

Tara Reade is a full on lying nutjob.

[Anonymous]

Why is this thread still open? I’ve seen plenty of threads of higher merit get summarily closed, but this trash heap remains open for business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone still defending Reade should take a look at tge AP story on her. She is a full fledged scam artist and drama queen who has literally been lying all her life.

She also accuses almost everyone she comes into contact with of "harassing" her, and their are emails to prove it.

She also accuses all the men she is involved with of abuse.

She has been fired from job after job after job because of her outrageous behavior.

She has repeatedly scammed friends and stolen from them.

Tara Reade is a full on lying nutjob.

“The Associated Press reports that one of Reade’s key corroborators, an anonymous friend who worked in the U.S. Senate with Reade and described vomiting upon hearing the accusation, did not initially mention it in an interview last year. The AP writes that this friend “confirmed Reade’s original, limited account of harassment by Biden. When Reade added assault to her allegation in March of this year, this friend also added those details to her own recollection.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-accusers-life-marred-by-abuse-and-financial-hardship/2020/05/22/379bab38-9c0c-11ea-ad79-eef7cd734641_story.html?_gl=1*a4a7c8*_ga*ZjhqaDkycnR3TjQ3VUw4dmFXN0hoRjAySnYyUXJnNnVPSUVuY1phbWdrU2FtaE1VLXpkdjJ3RnB6RVVZXzhBcw..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what "historically disadvantaged" or "under-represented" community she belongs to. Did she claim that she is "historically disadvantaged" by way of being a "victim" of domestic abuse?

The more we find out, the more she seems like a person who has been lying ALL of her life to take advantage of other people's sympathies. And because it is considered inappropriate to question someone who says they are a victim of domestic violence, she's has been able to get away with it.

Sickening.

Well she was a victim of domestic abuse that had a court ordered restraining order against her ex. She fled, becoming a divorced mother of a child and changed her name to protect herself and her child. Being a single parent and a survivor of domestic abuse that was living under an assumed name for protection seems like an historically disadvantaged situation. There are many such single mothers who need a second chance to get their life restarted. And that is certainly one type of situation that special programs like the Access Admission Program were designed to cover.

I'm not saying this as a Reade supporter, since I for one don't believe her allegations, but I certainly think that her history at that point was the type of story that special admissions programs would take into account.

No. She SAYS she experienced abuse. Her ex denies it.

See the pattern here?

+1. Also, while in "witness protection," she went on radio shows and tweeted under her own name. Hardly the actions of someone who was afraid for her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone still defending Reade should take a look at tge AP story on her. She is a full fledged scam artist and drama queen who has literally been lying all her life.

She also accuses almost everyone she comes into contact with of "harassing" her, and their are emails to prove it.

She also accuses all the men she is involved with of abuse.

She has been fired from job after job after job because of her outrageous behavior.

She has repeatedly scammed friends and stolen from them.

Tara Reade is a full on lying nutjob.

“The Associated Press reports that one of Reade’s key corroborators, an anonymous friend who worked in the U.S. Senate with Reade and described vomiting upon hearing the accusation, did not initially mention it in an interview last year. The AP writes that this friend “confirmed Reade’s original, limited account of harassment by Biden. When Reade added assault to her allegation in March of this year, this friend also added those details to her own recollection.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-accusers-life-marred-by-abuse-and-financial-hardship/2020/05/22/379bab38-9c0c-11ea-ad79-eef7cd734641_story.html?_gl=1*a4a7c8*_ga*ZjhqaDkycnR3TjQ3VUw4dmFXN0hoRjAySnYyUXJnNnVPSUVuY1phbWdrU2FtaE1VLXpkdjJ3RnB6RVVZXzhBcw..

Her other witness, her brother, also changed his account to match Reade's changing account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what "historically disadvantaged" or "under-represented" community she belongs to. Did she claim that she is "historically disadvantaged" by way of being a "victim" of domestic abuse?

The more we find out, the more she seems like a person who has been lying ALL of her life to take advantage of other people's sympathies. And because it is considered inappropriate to question someone who says they are a victim of domestic violence, she's has been able to get away with it.

Sickening.

Well she was a victim of domestic abuse that had a court ordered restraining order against her ex. She fled, becoming a divorced mother of a child and changed her name to protect herself and her child. Being a single parent and a survivor of domestic abuse that was living under an assumed name for protection seems like an historically disadvantaged situation. There are many such single mothers who need a second chance to get their life restarted. And that is certainly one type of situation that special programs like the Access Admission Program were designed to cover.

I'm not saying this as a Reade supporter, since I for one don't believe her allegations, but I certainly think that her history at that point was the type of story that special admissions programs would take into account.

No. She SAYS she experienced abuse. Her ex denies it.

See the pattern here?

+1. Also, while in "witness protection," she went on radio shows and tweeted under her own name. Hardly the actions of someone who was afraid for her life.

Here’s a source for that: http://ascammersnightmareisjustice.blogspot.com/2020/04/tara-reade-legacy-of-lies-part-one.html

As stated they live not far from one another. For years though Reade is not her legal name, she was in a popular radio show, did numerous articles on animal shelters, etc. Some with her picture. What happened to this life of fear and hiding she was supposedly leading? He could easily have heard her, seen her, located her.

The same source says Reade filed the abuse charge shortly after her Ex’s business became very successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/lawyer-drops-tara-reade-as-client-274635

“Much of what has been written about Ms. Reade is not probative of whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted her, but rather is intended to victim-shame and attack her credibility on unrelated and irrelevant matters,” he wrote. “We genuinely wish Ms. Reade well and hope that she, as a survivor, is treated fairly. We have and will continue to represent survivors regardless of their alleged predator’s status or politics.”

Not sure what your point is. Even in quitting, her lawyer can't say anything bad about her. This is just fluff to cover the obvious negative implication of quitting after one week.

He speaks the truth. That’s what my point is.

It's her lawyer's opinion. By definition it is whatever advantages his client and always will be. Might as well quote yourself and say "see, I'm right!"

Yes, and actions speak louder than words.

He dropped her because he couldn't press her case effectively, because she's lying all the damn time.

And that may be so, but the bolded is still true. Sad that this even has to be explained.

What's sad is that you think quoting her withdrawing attorney strengthens rather than weakens your case. He's literally the least credible person in the world on anything related to her case.

ONCE AGAIN: that doesn’t mean that what he said is not true - about Reade and about any victim. And if this particular woman was accusing a Republican, I’m sure you’d be falling over yourself in agreement. Hypocrisy at its finest.

So the new Con ploy is to insist Dems prove a negative: I heard Biden has a refrigerator full of ice cream that’s even bigger than Nancy’s! Prove it’s not true!

All the while ignoring Trump’s 25 sexual misconduct victims.

You are hypocrisy at its finest.

Wow - your mind us so closed and your loyalty to the far left has you unable to begin comprehending the "believe to woman/stop shaming the victim regardless of evidence" unless it's against a liberal is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this thread still open? I’ve seen plenty of threads of higher merit get summarily closed, but this trash heap remains open for business.

You want it closed because your liberal buddy is getting the shakedown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this thread still open? I’ve seen plenty of threads of higher merit get summarily closed, but this trash heap remains open for business.

You want it closed because your liberal buddy is getting the shakedown?

You should rather want it shutdown given the drubbing that Reade’s credibility is undergoing right now, what with her sworn testimony at trials now proven false (so that defense lawyers are calling for convictions based on her testimony to be overturned) and her own lawyer dropping her like a hot potato. Tsk tak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what "historically disadvantaged" or "under-represented" community she belongs to. Did she claim that she is "historically disadvantaged" by way of being a "victim" of domestic abuse?

The more we find out, the more she seems like a person who has been lying ALL of her life to take advantage of other people's sympathies. And because it is considered inappropriate to question someone who says they are a victim of domestic violence, she's has been able to get away with it.

Sickening.

Well she was a victim of domestic abuse that had a court ordered restraining order against her ex. She fled, becoming a divorced mother of a child and changed her name to protect herself and her child. Being a single parent and a survivor of domestic abuse that was living under an assumed name for protection seems like an historically disadvantaged situation. There are many such single mothers who need a second chance to get their life restarted. And that is certainly one type of situation that special programs like the Access Admission Program were designed to cover.

I'm not saying this as a Reade supporter, since I for one don't believe her allegations, but I certainly think that her history at that point was the type of story that special admissions programs would take into account.

No. She SAYS she experienced abuse. Her ex denies it.

See the pattern here?

Not entirely.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html

While he acknowledged that he was violent with Reade in February 1996 and said he apologized for that, he did not acknowledge other violent incidents Reade mentioned in her own testimony.

The incident that he acknowledged and which left her physically harmed (bruised), was the one for which she was granted the restraining order for and why she fled with their daughter. And while he did not acknowledge the other violent incidents, his word is just as suspect as hers is. Physical abuse that leaves marks is rarely an isolated incident. Most of the incidents that are one time only, are not so serious as to cause that amount of physical damage (I did a lot of research when my sister was seriously hurt by my a$$hole ex-BIL). This is very unlikely to be a one-time only offense.