Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it time to close this thread and create a 3rd 80 plus page one?

Maybe. Or, just close it and stop with it.

The Con attempts to frame Biden have failed thoroughly.

Eva Murry was lying.

Reade was lying, plus she has a terrible history of lying for most of her life.

But now that Reade's been exposed for what she is, do we need to keep going? She'll likely be punished IRL by the people she's defrauded. She's probably going to lose her law degree (for entering law school under the false pretenses of having an undergraduate degree). I don't even know what the penalty is for perjuring yourself in court as a supposed expert witness.

Anonymous wrote:Is it time to close this thread and create a 3rd 80 plus page one?

Reade declined to comment for this story and instead texted a screenshot from a previously published article where she claimed she obtained an undergraduate degree under a special arrangement with a former chancellor of the university, Toni Murdock.

However, university officials conferred with Murdock, an Antioch official told POLITICO, and confirmed that no special arrangement existed.

Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Reade graduated from there in 2004. According to a 2009 article in the law school’s alumni magazine, Reade entered law school under an alternative admission program.

In a follow-up question about whether students in that program can be admitted without a bachelor’s degree, a spokesman pointed to current requirements, which require an undergraduate degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy shit has this opened a Pandora’s box for Reade and for all the people she lied to, including judges.

“Prosecutors and defense attorneys reviewing scores of cases where Tara Reade appeared as an expert witness and potentially misrepresented her credentials.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/tara-reade-credentials.html#click=https://t.co/A2jzQUhmcr

The nail in her coffin !!!!

Damn, the woman does nothing but lie and scam her way through life. Looks like her testimony put people in jail! And now scores of cases will likely have to be relooked at.

Yup.

“Reade, the former Joe Biden staffer who recently accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1993, stated she had an undergraduate degree that her college says she never earned and appears to have exaggerated her role in Biden’s office, according to trial transcripts in two court cases reviewed by POLITICO.

Six cases involving Reade’s testimony are already under review by the Sixth District Appellate Program, Executive Director Patrick McKenna told POLITICO Thursday. The state-funded office oversees appointed defense counsel in appellate cases covering four California counties, including Monterey County, where the prosecution often tapped Reade as an expert witness.”
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/21/tara-reade-biden-expert-testimony-274460?cid=apn&__twitter_impression=true

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

Hilarious that this is probably the same PP who posted "This was never a thing. Show me ONE place where 'Believe All Women' was stated before Tara Reade story broke. Go ahead. I'll wait."
And then someone names a source. NPR no less! A VERY reliably liberal source.
And now it's "that's pathetic"..."How long did it take you?"
:roll:

What's your new goalpost today?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy shit has this opened a Pandora’s box for Reade and for all the people she lied to, including judges.

“Prosecutors and defense attorneys reviewing scores of cases where Tara Reade appeared as an expert witness and potentially misrepresented her credentials.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/tara-reade-credentials.html#click=https://t.co/A2jzQUhmcr

The nail in her coffin !!!!

Damn, the woman does nothing but lie and scam her way through life. Looks like her testimony put people in jail! And now scores of cases will likely have to be relooked at.

Anonymous wrote:Holy shit has this opened a Pandora’s box for Reade and for all the people she lied to, including judges.

“Prosecutors and defense attorneys reviewing scores of cases where Tara Reade appeared as an expert witness and potentially misrepresented her credentials.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/tara-reade-credentials.html#click=https://t.co/A2jzQUhmcr

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

DP. There really is no difference. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t sound like she actually read the piece. Nor do you. Or perhaps you’re not capable of understanding it. It’s a toss up.

:lol: Too funny and so predictable. You don't like his opinion, so you try and dismiss it - and of course the opinion of anyone else who challenges you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

DP. There really is no difference. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t sound like she actually read the piece. Nor do you. Or perhaps you’re not capable of understanding it. It’s a toss up.