-
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.
"You're nothing": Joe Biden rape victim comes forward in brave audio interview [up: she filed a criminal complaint]
- Thread starter Frozenprince
- Start date
- Status
nobody is fucking giddy about sexual assault, what the fuck. seems to me that you are so hung up on this bernie or biden team bullshit that you can't even show an ounce of understanding or sympathy for a woman speaking out against a very powerful abuser. #believewomen
It didn't come from the god damn intercept, it's from her own words based on an interview on The Katie Halper Show
Stop making believing women a political game. Stop spreading misinformation. Stop silencing accusers.
Plus we weren't saying this when The Intercept reported on Christine Blasey Ford.
"Believe women*" indeed
Misinformation from me? I don't know anything to be true. I'll take the allegation to be true until it's proven otherwise. I'm saying I will be less skeptical when others report. The Intercept is reporting on an interview from the Katie Halper Show. No one can deny The Intercept does not have a political agenda against Biden and for Bernie. And that's why I have skepticism.
I said I believe the allegation to be true until proven otherwise. I'm done and out.
I'm sadly not surprised this story isn't getting more attention. Coronavirus is dominating the news. We're in a worldwide pandemic. And it's actually helping Trump's approval numbers.
I'm not trying to downplay the allegations against Biden. They are very serious and absolutely should be investigated.
I'm not trying to downplay the allegations against Biden. They are very serious and absolutely should be investigated.
Yes, misinformation from you. You're saying people are only interested in this because they want Bernie to be president, and you're also tying her allegation with The Intercept which has fucking nothing to do with it. It's from The Katie Halper Show. It wouldn't matter if Fox News reported on it because they're not associated with her story. The words are coming from the victim herself.
So kindly stop saying shit that harms victims of sexual assault, thanks
I had a feeling something like this was going to come out. That compilation video of him touching and sniffing the hair of those women and children(who are also obviously increadibly uncomfortable) was so freaking disgusting. How can someone be so blatantly creepy and predatory while a camera is on them and just have no self awareness. It shows a severe lack of empathy. First thing I thought was that if he was willing to do that on camera than he's done something much worse off it. I cannot and will not vote for him. I just hope enough people go out and vote for Bernie and a miracle happens.
To quote someone that put it far more eloquently than I ever could.
Believe women, no if's or but's.
In Joe Biden's own words:
Listen to this:
Tara Reade, Joe Biden's accuser, finally tells her full story (excerpt)
Hear the full interview https://soundcloud.com/katie-halper/tara-to-post Read Ryan Grim's article https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/ Support the show https://www.patreon.com
soundcloud.com
Watch this:
Rising exclusive: Joe Biden accuser Tara Reade speaks out
Former staffer for Joe Biden Tara Reade's first on-camera interviews where she recounts her experience from the 1990s with then-Senator Joe Biden including i...
www.youtube.com
Krystal Ball blasts media's Joe Biden #MeToo coverup
Krystal Ball talks about Tara Reade's Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and #MeToo's role.About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan ho...
www.youtube.com
Vox has a report on this:
www.vox.com
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
So can people stop saying it's not being reported by credible sources now?Vox has a report on this:
A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited controversy
A woman says Biden assaulted her in 1993 and has filed a criminal complaint.
Just read it, thank you Vox for giving her a voice.
Hopefully others follow up.
I won't believe it till the NYT or WAPO report on it. /sVox has a report on this:
A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited controversy
A woman says Biden assaulted her in 1993 and has filed a criminal complaint.
In the article, it describes the allegations of Reade's credibility and has praised Putin in the past.
..yeah, and her follow up saying that she regrets praising Putin. What are you doing
The Vox article was updated with responses from the Biden campaign:
Their second statement is so tone deaf because it's clear why assault victims don't 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.
At least they acknowledged the story, though we knew this would be the response.
how would Kate Bedingfield know whether the allegations are false or not?
Reade has expressed that she did file a conduct complaint against Biden (not about the rape though) at the time. Maybe some digging from journalists can produce evidence of this? Would keep people from doubting her accusations.
Tragedy is well underway. :/
?? That's the stance of the Biden campaign as presumably Biden has denied it to his campaign. She herself personally doesn't know whether the allegation is false or not.
?? That's the stance of the Biden campaign as presumably Biden has denied it to his campaign. She herself personally doesn't know whether the allegation is false or not.
Well if she did, then I guess we'll find that out pretty quickly as records are kept.
Would Marianna Baker have records of any harassment complaints? I feel they should make any and all complaints public so we can see if there was a pattern of abuse during that time period.
They quoted someone who worked for Biden, starting around the same time as Ms. Reade, who denied seeing anything of the sort. As Ms. Reade's original allegation of sexual harassment included a claim that it was in front of others and something she reported there is a likelihood that its something a staffer at the time would be at least secondarily aware of.
And what if digging finds that no complaint is on file?
In her original allegation Ms. Reade specifically mentioned that Biden's "chief of staff" was involved in sidelining her, though she doesn't provide a name. Ted Kaufman was Biden's Chief of staff from the mid-70's through the mid-90's, so that would mean him. He's a former senator. Doesn't seem like he'd be particularly hard to contact.
That doesn't suggest that anyone would actually know if Biden raped her or not. They weren't there.
My stance is: I believe her and until we have actual evidence that she's lying about being raped, that will continue to be the case.
I suggest that to everyone else, including you
I would assume Ms. Baker's comment goes more to the original allegation, which Reade has stated was witnessed/known about by others and that she reported.
People associated with Biden are very likely going to deny anything happened/would happen. That shouldn't come as a surprise. It's going to come down to her word against his, regardless of who was told what. It almost always does in these situations.
Except Ms. Reade's allegation specifically points to others being aware of the sexual harassment incident and yet more involved in sidelining her career after she submitted a complaint.
And depending on what Biden was doing in April of 1993 there could likely be travel logs to corroborate one way or the other.
So I'll repeat: If no complaint for the sexual harassment incident can be found, and that is something that would still be on-file presumably, and no person who worked in Biden's office in that time will corroborate the sexual harassment, do you think this is still a he said/she said with both parties of equal credibility?
And I'll repeat: there is an extremely likely possibility that people who are associated with Biden (The guy running for president and probably dem nominee) would want to protect him in regards to divulging information that is not provable (ie their memory of his behavior/comments he's said).
Again I'll repeat: until we get evidence that she lied about her story and that she was not raped, I believe her.
You're already casting doubt on her story without even having a valid reason to and it's an extremely bad look.
I'm not casting doubt on it at all. Just pointing out that you're treating belief as a one way street. Your argument so far is that if corroboration is found Biden is clearly guilty, but if none is found, despite Ms. Reade's allegation suggesting that there should be, its her word against his.
What about if its the word of Biden and pretty much everyone else who worked in that office at the time? When does Biden, in your view, stop being an "alleged" rapist?
I'm just curious because, honestly, I think its very, very likely that nothing is found. Biden ran for POTUS twice after this. He was vetted for VP, ran and won twice. He's been a target of a lot of dirt digging and a sexual harassment report that would have been found by any political opponent via simple FOIA requests has never been brought up.
I'm not saying Ms. Reade is lying either. I'm saying that if she's telling the truth its pretty naive to think that Biden's team would wait until 30 years later to bury it.
Drek's posts seem totally reasonable. I don't get this attitude, it's insulting. Like you seem unwilling to even acknowledge the witness aspect of the accusation (maybe because you weren't aware of it?) and are alleging decades-old bias preemptively, possibly even to witnesses that may have been victims themselves.
Errr why would trust what the chief of staff says over this? She's accusing him of sidelining her if he were to agree to any of that he'd be liable to at minimum a reputation damage. He has no reason to admit to this even if it was the case.
I never said anything about Biden being guilty, that's the court of law. I said I believe her until we have evidence that she's lying. Obviously if he was somehow found guilty and convicted, he would no longer be alleged.
It's possible that they didn't think it was a big deal because this is prior to MeToo. She also didn't tell anyone that she was raped until very recently, which I'm sure would have been a way bigger deal than inappropriate touching in the 30 years leading up to this moment.
Again, nothing being found in regards to talking to Biden's staff doesn't mean she is a liar or that she wasn't raped. Dude is running for president.
I'm not suggesting trust. You build a case by getting people on the record and seeing how stories line up. Kaufman is a named central figure in Ms. Reade' allegations. He should be easy to contact. He should have some recollection. Get it on the record then work down the staff tree looking for inconsistencies.
What do you mean?
People on this forum have been claiming that mainstream media would "bury" this via non-coverage. I'm saying that if you think Biden committed sexual assault in 1993 why in the world would you think he wouldn't have already had a response for it in case it came up when he ran for senate the next ~4 times, POTUS twice, and VP twice?
What does him running for President have to do with it?
And guilt doesn't always mean in a court of law. One can be guilty of a non-criminal, immoral act. For example, DC has a 15 year statute on sexual assault, so from a criminal standpoint guilt is simply not possible now.
Probably because it wasn't reported until now and he didn't even think of forcing his fingers inside of a woman as rape in 1993. Or that the incident would come up again. And I'm not sure what else there is to do except deny it, which is what his campaign is currently doing.
Do you have a source for Biden's thinking of what constituted rape in 1993? Or are you just saying what you think he thought?
But yet he and his staff took the time to sideline Reade and basically end her career for reporting sexual harassment.
To clarify:
Wouldn't think to cover up sexual assault in 1993.
Would end a woman's career for complaining about sexual harassment in 1993.
Damn, you've got some people here working overtime on this to discredit her.
The irony of that last line after writing that entire post is not lost on me.
The irony of that last line after writing that entire post is not lost on me.
Last edited:
Uhh maybe his former staff wouldn't want him to look like he sexually harassed or assaulted someone in the middle of his run for president?
It's simple: I believe her, and will until there is evidence that shows she's lying.
What I think he thought.
I'm not sure what more he could do but deny it if it ever came up again, which is currently what he's doing.
MSNBC/CNN/NYT/WaPo also have an agenda, just so you know. And it's not a good one.
It's not a "conspiracy" to point out how corporate owned media works.
The good news here is Reade has given some pretty specific details around this story which should be able to be corroborated. She has spoken of filing official reports, about talking to staffers from other Senate offices at the time and has a good timeline around several other events that happened. Obviously we're never going to get any "proof" of the rape because there never is. But we should at least be able to corroborate a lot of the other troubling activity around this which should give her story more credibility.
You don't think a multi-term senior senator planning to run for POTUS in the near future could do anything to scrub evidence or build an alibi proactively, in 1993 when basically all documentation was still paper?
I'm not 100% up on this, and maybe someone can verify, but I would assume there would be document retention requirements for a Senators office. I mean, they would obviously burn anything really horrible, but it's very hard to completely scrub a paper record of anything that could be used to verify certain aspects of the story.
I mean, I doubt there was a sign-in sheet at the Senate gym or anything that handy, but we could likely at least be able to put Biden in DC at the time, etc. Like, there were clearly votes and senta committee meetings going on that we could get at. This would have been less than 2 months into Clinton's first term and we would have expected a pretty active Senate confirmation process. So, we should be able to at least track down roughly where Biden would have been at the time.
U.S. Senate: 1993 Executive Calendars
www.senate.gov
- Status