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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.