OP
OP
VOX just picked it up.
A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited controversy
A woman says Biden assaulted her in 1993 and has filed a criminal complaint.
www.vox.com
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Intercept: Time’s Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden, Citing Its Nonprofit Status and His Presidential Run
- Thread starter FliX
- Start date
www.vox.com
From the Vox article:
Also since Biden's team has responded expect this to gain more traction.
Because all assault victims immediately go to their superiors who're close to the accused who is also their boss.
Also since Biden's team has responded expect this to gain more traction.
yikes, is this what you bring to the table when talking about sexual assault allegations? What Bernie is going to say about it? christ
Ms. Reade, in her original allegation of harassment, specifically states that others were present/knew about it, that she spoke to another female colleague about it, and that she then reported it.
One would assume that, like most offices, gossip gets around in a Senate Office as well.
I think some of you should mentally prepare for the fact that Biden's team is very up for this getting more traction.
Whether you believe Ms. Reade or not we're talking about an allegation first made last year that no major news source followed up on and those originally reporting it never substantiated. It was then, per Ryan Grim, presented to TimesUp who chose not to pursue.
Joe Biden had a former staffer, from this time period, specifically call him out for being part of the political machine in a tell-all book a few years ago and mentioned nothing about sexual harassment/assault.
You can take that for what you will, but for those assuming the Biden campaign is trying to bury this now, what makes you think they'd wait almost 30 years to do so? Biden ran for POTUS twice prior to this. He was then vetted for VP and ran for and won the office twice. While the harassment might not have been worth burying at the time sexual assault wouldn't have been a minor thing even then (ex. how Clinton's history was covered through the 90's. While it never stopped him politically it was a talking point the media and the political right covered) or any of his other runs for higher office since.
Unless something really shocking comes out I'm betting those investigating this are either going to find no trail or a trail so long ago buried and brushed over as to be indistinguishable from it.
from vox to fox
www.foxnews.com
picking up steam
Biden campaign adamantly denies allegation of sexual assault
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign on Friday adamantly denied a newly surfaced allegation of sexual assault leveled by a former Senate staffer, calling the claim concerning the purported incident decades ago “false.”
www.foxnews.com
picking up steam
from vox to fox
Biden campaign adamantly denies allegation of sexual assault
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign on Friday adamantly denied a newly surfaced allegation of sexual assault leveled by a former Senate staffer, calling the claim concerning the purported incident decades ago “false.”
picking up steam
It begins. Biden is going to be asked about this in an interview now, guaranteed. Please let us get another debate, let Bernie go all-in on this. Biden needs to answer for these accusations himself, not through proxy.
Maybe Bernie should pour a gas can over his head and drop a match too while he's at it.
Bernie was told about this per her own words. He didn't do anything then, he probably wont know. There friends
Samantha Bee Responds to Joe Biden | Full Frontal on TBS
Samantha Bee feels out some options regarding Joe Biden's current accusations.Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/fullfrontalsamb?sub_confirmation=1Follow Ful...
youtu.be
That was way after he was vetted for VP. People overlook a lot of things when vetting. Also in 2008 much of the world didn't take sexual assault or harassment as seriously or with as much attention as they do now. Much less the times Biden was a senator.
I mean, in this specific case the victim said she filed a report about the discriminatory behavior (but not the assault), which is why they are refuting details of her allegation specifically. She was very specific in other encounters/details and actions that should be able to be corroborated. So hopefully her coworkers and friend in the other Senators office (don't recall who ATM) can come forward and confirm what she is saying.
Bernie isn't going to do shit on this. He probably is on Biden's side in this case even. He's his buddy and probably thinks he wouldn't do this.
There have been claims that Reade approached at least Sanders and Warren, as well as some claims of Harris' campaign, with this information. None chose to follow up.
Regardless of whether she's telling the truth there is a real good chance that there is no corroborating evidence.
Or worse, directly contradictory evidence just waiting to be discovered, and the far left media just stepped on a credibility landmine.
A lot of predators do this in the open to normalize it and deflect any suspicion iirc.
Sadly, it works because there are lots of people who have excused his behavior as "harmless affection". Yeah, no, that kind of shit isn't normal.
This is a tale brought to us by your ass.
This is too volatile for Bernie to touch. If it doesn't get corroborated and Bernie goes hard on this, it is political suicide for him. If he goes hard on it and Biden is the nominee anyway, it hands the win to Trump. And to many this will be weaponized as part of the toxic Bernie bro narrative. He's between a rock and a hard place here.
note to mods since they've been pretty aggressive about bans in this thread: I am aware of the staff post but this is a ramification of the allegations and how it could impact the final election result.
Well if that'd be the case with Biden then that's 10 times worse.
For Top Democrats, Joe Biden Is No Al Franken
Two years after forcing Al Franken’s resignation from the Senate over sexual misconduct allegations, prominent Democrats now have to decide whether to stand on principle or keep silent about the latest assault accusations against Joe Biden. We asked them — and so far, most are choosing to keep...
jacobinmag.com
Jacobin reached out to the twenty-nine Democratic and independent senators who had called for Franken's resignation three years ago and are still in office, in some cases leaving multiple voicemails and emails, and sometimes speaking directly with staffers. Some of those senators have since endorsed Biden for president, including Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ). Of those twenty-nine, only one — Ohio's Sherrod Brown — offered a statement in response:
"Every woman has a right to be heard without fear of intimidation or retribution, and I will always fight for that right."
Perhaps the most surprising silence came from Senator Gillibrand, who has carved out a profile as a champion of women and sexual assault victims. Gillibrand has fought for years to ensure accusers in the military can be heard and see justice, and she was the first senator to call for Franken's resignation in 2017, without an investigation into the allegations first.
I am not sure you can really compare this situation as a 1 to 1 comparison to that one given there was actual pictures of Franken feeling up the woman which is generated a lot of the attention for him to drop out. If there were pictures of Biden assaulting her like there was with Franken you'd see similar calls for him to drop out.For Top Democrats, Joe Biden Is No Al Franken
Two years after forcing Al Franken’s resignation from the Senate over sexual misconduct allegations, prominent Democrats now have to decide whether to stand on principle or keep silent about the latest assault accusations against Joe Biden. We asked them — and so far, most are choosing to keep...
Jacobin reached out to the twenty-nine Democratic and independent senators who had called for Franken's resignation three years ago and are still in office, in some cases leaving multiple voicemails and emails, and sometimes speaking directly with staffers. Some of those senators have since endorsed Biden for president, including Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ). Of those twenty-nine, only one — Ohio's Sherrod Brown — offered a statement in response:
"Every woman has a right to be heard without fear of intimidation or retribution, and I will always fight for that right."
Perhaps the most surprising silence came from Senator Gillibrand, who has carved out a profile as a champion of women and sexual assault victims. Gillibrand has fought for years to ensure accusers in the military can be heard and see justice, and she was the first senator to call for Franken's resignation in 2017, without an investigation into the allegations first.
This awful picture is what forced Franken out:
Accusations have never been enough in situations like this for politicians. Either the accusation has to been vetted by one of the top tier news outlets (as was the case with the Washington Post and Blasey Ford) or there has to be actual proof, as was the case with Franken to generate focus and attention on it impacting a candidate/elected official.
Last edited:
I am not sure you can really compare this situation as a 1 to 1 comparison to that one given there was actual pictures of Franken feeling up the woman which is generated a lot of the attention for him to drop out. If there were pictures of Biden assaulting her like there was with Franken you'd see similar calls for him to drop out.
This picture is what forced Franken out:
So why aren't those same people, who care so much about victims, calling for an investigation which could turn up evidence. They don't want evidence, they want it to go away so yasss king can continue unimpeaded to the convention.
He not an elected official, there is no process for an internal investigation. He isn't a senator. The only investigation would be as noted, the vetting process done by the major papers. And the Times/Post never touch these things unless they fully pass their vetting criteria.
I am not sure you can really compare this situation as a 1 to 1 comparison to that one given there was actual pictures of Franken feeling up the woman which is generated a lot of the attention for him to drop out. If there were pictures of Biden assaulting her like there was with Franken you'd see similar calls for him to drop out.
This awful picture is what forced Franken out:
Accusations have never been enough in situations like this for politicians. Either the accusation has to been vetted by one of the top tier news outlets (as was the case with the Washington Post and Blasey Ford) or there has to be actual proof, as was the case with Franken to generate focus and attention on it impacting a candidate/elected official.
In other words, "believe women" unless they're accusing a politician (on my team), then they're what, probably lying and better have a smoking gun?
The DNC doesn't vet people looking for it's endorsement for the most powerful position in the country? It could be done if the will was there, it's not because they've already coronated Biden and nothing will change that.
What are you talking about? The DNC doesn't endorse primary candidates.
What do you call the dnc convention nominating someone? I call that an endorsement. You're arguing vocabulary instead of arguing the facts because the facts paint an abhorrent picture of Biden defenders.
OP
OP
I dunno, all those gifs and videos of Biden being a creep look very similar to me...If there were pictures of Biden assaulting her like there was with Franken you'd see similar calls for him to drop out.
This awful picture is what forced Franken out:
The DNC doesn't pick the nominee, the voters do. It doesn't matter who the DNC wants. It's who gets the most votes and thus the most delegates. For example, no one in the RNC leadership in 2016 wanted Trump as the nominee but the voters picked him so it wasn't as if they had a choice. If democratic voters picked Marianne Williamson it's not like the DNC could overrule them.
Is your stance that the DNC doesn't do any sort of vetting for political candidates?
The DNC in it's nature cannot, they are required to be impartial and not get involved in the nominating process in terms of tipping the scales one way or the other.
Let's say the DNC changed its rules and started vetting candidates and vetted the accusation and found it to be credible, that still doesn't mean they can overrule the decision of the voters to nominate Biden.
There is no avenue for the DNC to tip the scales to favor one candidate or the other or deem one candidate not allowed to have the nomination and so forth. Remember the rule changes that were implemented after 2016 to remove the power of super delegates and have the nomination determined 100% by the outcome of the votes.
And America will continue to suffer the consequences of not having a strong party system.
I think people's discomfort is in quietly accepting such a clearly dysfunctional status quo
You're just gaslighting here, if these politicians wanted to support Reade like they did with Tweeden, they would call for this matter to be investigated. It was politically expedient for them to do so when MeToo was in full swing, but now it seems they aren't so keen to potentially hurt one of their own. It's a matter of will not capability.
I'm listening to her being interviewed right now on Democracy Now! on FM radio.
She's going through it a bit better than I've heard from her previous interviews.
Edit: She claimed one of the lawyers said they couldn't come up with a defense for her because it was Joe Biden.
Edit2: found the video
She's going through it a bit better than I've heard from her previous interviews.
Edit: She claimed one of the lawyers said they couldn't come up with a defense for her because it was Joe Biden.
Edit2: found the video
I am not sure you can really compare this situation as a 1 to 1 comparison to that one given there was actual pictures of Franken feeling up the woman which is generated a lot of the attention for him to drop out. If there were pictures of Biden assaulting her like there was with Franken you'd see similar calls for him to drop out.
This awful picture is what forced Franken out:
Accusations have never been enough in situations like this for politicians. Either the accusation has to been vetted by one of the top tier news outlets (as was the case with the Washington Post and Blasey Ford) or there has to be actual proof, as was the case with Franken to generate focus and attention on it impacting a candidate/elected official.
User banned (1 week): Hostility, harassment and inflammatory accusations over a series of posts and across multiple threads.
I'm getting sick and fucking tired of you running interference for Biden across every thread that involves Tara Reade's accusation of rape, calling for proof and more evidence despite the multiple allegations of inappropriate touching and harassment other women have also reported. Many of which is brazenly done on camera, in front of the rest of the world (some linked above).I am not sure you can really compare this situation as a 1 to 1 comparison to that one given there was actual pictures of Franken feeling up the woman which is generated a lot of the attention for him to drop out. If there were pictures of Biden assaulting her like there was with Franken you'd see similar calls for him to drop out.
This awful picture is what forced Franken out:
Accusations have never been enough in situations like this for politicians. Either the accusation has to been vetted by one of the top tier news outlets (as was the case with the Washington Post and Blasey Ford) or there has to be actual proof, as was the case with Franken to generate focus and attention on it impacting a candidate/elected official.
You've been downplaying her accusation since it showed up and no amount of "other people are saying/according to them" is going to change that. I see you.
A year ago, you swore up and down that if even one person accused Biden of sexual assault, we should "burn him alive" and that if any woman says she felt assaulted by him "throw him under the bus".
Turns out all of that is complete and utter bullshit and that you don't actually care about victims of abuse. You care more about burying a story to protect our probable nominee because you value that more than giving accusers a voice.
You are the reason why victims of sexual assault don't step forward. You are a silencer.
Salon has some additional details and their own attempts at inquiry: https://www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-...-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/
They claim that Time's Up wouldn't take the case because Tara wasn't actually interested in pursuing legal action and didn't need connection to legal resources in the way Time's Up facilicates. While this obviously doesn't have a bearing on the veracity of the allegations this doesn't smell like a conspiracy
They claim that Time's Up wouldn't take the case because Tara wasn't actually interested in pursuing legal action and didn't need connection to legal resources in the way Time's Up facilicates. While this obviously doesn't have a bearing on the veracity of the allegations this doesn't smell like a conspiracy
I'm leaning towards this story not getting much traction in the wider general public as the large news organizations stay clear of it.
And hopefully we can stop jumping on the Dunn putting pressure on Time's Up until further compelling evidence.
This kind of contradicts the narrative from Times Up because they said that she did want representation but they didn't want to give it to her, then they spent months trying to find her other representation and she got frustrated and gave up.
"Under both her current and prior name, Reade has expressed public support for a variety of Democratic politicians in the past, ranging from Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson. Then, over the past few months, Reade began heavily retweeting pro-Sanders accounts and regularly engaging with prominent Sanders supporters like Halper.
(...)
The timeline shows that Reade's involvement in the online world of Bernie fandom coincided with her escalation of accusations against Biden. To be clear, this does not mean she's lying. But taken along with the other discrepancies in Reade's accounts — which are also, on their own, not reasons to discredit her — it's enough to make publications take a slow and careful approach to amplifying this story. "
What the fuck is the logic that her starting to specifically support Sanders is particularly untrustworthy? Maybe she just didn't want her rapist to be the nominee, and come January it was obvious it was going to be Sanders or Biden as the nominee. Is she saying being a Sanders supporter in particular is untrustworthy in a way being a Booker or Warren supporter is not?As for her changing her story, she has corroborators proving her position from 1993 to 2019 was exactly the same, to feel safe enough to publicly accuse him of the same inappropriate behavior we now have tons of examples of, but not safe enough to accuse him of sexual assault. It's extremely understandable that her risk assessment changed once it was clear he's going to be the nominee, because I'm sure she'd much rather not throw herself under the bus if he was going to leave public life in a few months anyway.
When asked why her story had changed so much in the past year, Reade told Salon that she had considered describing the assault to the original reporter from the local Nevada paper, but the "way he asked the questions" had "shut me down."
Has she even changed her story at all, or has she only added to it? Sounds to me like she was preparing herself to not lie with a "no" if the reporter ever asked something like "Is that all he ever did to you?".
I'm surprised they didn't bring up her praise for Putin too. Whether she's a Bernie supporter is absolutely irrelevant if there is no evidence that it's associated with her being a liar about the allegation.
Also people used "changing story" against the Leaving Neverland accusers too. Lots of parallels here (on ERA and online) actually in regards to the way the accusers are treated.
The article brings up a lot of irrelevant stuff only to then say it's probably not a big deal. Then why muddy the narrative?
To be clear, I have no problem believing Biden did it, and I have no reason to think she's lying about what happened to her. I thought the Salon piece just presented a pretty clear outline of why more media hasn't jumped on the story with the same level of vigor they did the Kavanaugh accusation, or the "Time's Up collusion" angle specifically yet.
it's a way of writing about the issue of the major outlets silence without taking a firm stance on the appropriateness of holding off.
very on brand for salon
The same exact thing people are doing in this very thread and elsewhere, look above. I quoted one of people who are doing it.
Basically "I'm just asking questions/providing information".
You don't this unless you believe those positions yourself. If the article was being honest it would provide arguments and counters, like the Vox article did. Instead we're presented vague information like "well she's a Bernie supporter, that's probably why more people aren't reporting it yet":
And then passing it off as being a part of "contains such a high number of complicating factors" oh and also "coronavirus", despite CNN finding time to post an article about the top women Biden could pick for VP or AP writing about how Biden is no longer representative of a "boy's club" and conveniently including, first thing in their article, how he has already addressed previous accusations of inappropriate touching/sexual harassment.
I'm not arguing that any of these places are "covering it up" or that there's some grand conspiracy, but I am arguing that they're deliberately turning a blind eye to a credible allegation of rape. Or choosing not to report on it. Because there are plenty of excuses for them to use in order to not do it.
Last edited:
If this truly is their standard, then they shouldn't have reported on Kavanaugh either. There were "red flags" about the timing and political preferences of Ford too, as republicans were so happy to point out.
I find the contradiction extremely distressing, because the idea of using these actions and victims as tools for political sport is extremely distressing to me. The worst outcome from this metoo movement would be if women are believed or disbelieved by their political convenience.
I'm sure the response here and from the media in general wouldn't be drastically different if this weren't Joe Biden and instead a prominent republican.