"You're nothing": Joe Biden rape victim comes forward in brave audio interview [up: she filed a criminal complaint]

[AcademicSaucer]

we already know her character

Former Obama Adviser Anita Dunn Helped Harvey Weinstein Strategize Before New York Times Story

On Thursday, the New York Times published a major investigation about the Hollywood mogul, who had assembled a team of top legal and PR professionals.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Click to shrink...

Oh wow

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

we already know her character

Former Obama Adviser Anita Dunn Helped Harvey Weinstein Strategize Before New York Times Story

On Thursday, the New York Times published a major investigation about the Hollywood mogul, who had assembled a team of top legal and PR professionals.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Click to shrink...

Well that's one hell of a bad look

 

[Abstrusity]

we already know her character

Former Obama Adviser Anita Dunn Helped Harvey Weinstein Strategize Before New York Times Story

On Thursday, the New York Times published a major investigation about the Hollywood mogul, who had assembled a team of top legal and PR professionals.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Click to shrink...

PR director offering solicited PR advice.

But not openly, not as part of his team, or anything.

Of course, we don't know what she said to him.
All we know is that she didn't actually work for him, and neither did her firm, as per the statement from the firm itself.
In the article.

It says "helped" in the headline, but it appears that Weinstein was referred to her by a friend and...she didn't do much but give advice, without anything else.

For all we know she told him to get bent.

This is pretty routine; we have articles that don't have particular details such that they tend to be vague and not indicative of anything in particular, other than a loose affiliation.

So I reiterate, because it seems my point was ignored in favor of a vague attempt at cheapshots:

Does this original poster believe Anita Dunn is orchestrating a cover-up for a heretofore unimpeachable organization, to favor her current employer, yes or no?

 

[thoughthaver]

PR director offering solicited PR advice.

But not openly, not as part of his team, or anything.

Of course, we don't know what she said to him.
All we know is that she didn't actually work for him, and neither did her firm, as per the statement from the firm itself.
In the article.

It says "helped" in the headline, but it appears that Weinstein was referred to her by a friend and...she didn't do much but give advice, without anything else.

For all we know she told him to get bent.

This is pretty routine; we have articles that don't have particular details such that they tend to be vague and not indicative of anything in particular, other than a loose affiliation.

So I reiterate, because it seems my point was ignored in favor of a vague attempt at cheapshots:

Does this original poster believe Anita Dunn is orchestrating a cover-up for a heretofore unimpeachable organization, to favor her current employer, yes or no?

Click to shrink...

lol yeah. if this was a republican, i would be saying the same shit so why mince words for a democrat?

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Who is "you people" again? Please explain this to me.

Here's what was said (via Vox):

Carefully explain to me how you can both not be calling someone a liar while explicitly stating that their very specific and detailed accusations are false.

You can't have it both ways.

Click to shrink...

"You People" are the folks in this thread and online elsewhere who are ready to throw Joe Biden into a volcano, as I imagine many people here have very polarized view of him, coupled with wanting their preferred candidate to win, and mix in a distinct lack of nuance when approaching these situations.

You want a more specific explanation? Ok. You responded to someone correctly pointing out that the Biden campaign has already called for a thorough investigation with "and calling her a liar".

Is this a fair or reasonable thing to do? There is obviously a difference in "we deny these allegations" and "this person is a liar". So much so, that it's clear that you're trying to add an aggressive tone that just isn't in the original statement. This begs the question... Why? Is it wrong for the Biden campaign to deny these accusations? If Joe Biden didn't do what he's accused of, should he just be expected to step down from the race anyway? No, of course not.

News organizations like CNN, NYT, etc, pay reporters to be on these kind of story beats. They aren't just going to act rashly and put out a less than thoroughly reported story of this magnitude out there. I've already seen a number of left wing sites not even mention that the suspected victim has also touted pro Putin/Russian propaganda as well. That seems like a detail that shouldn't be left out of this.

People need to step back, and wait for the fact to come out.

 

[Abstrusity]

lol yeah. if this was a republican, i would be saying the same shit so why mince words for a democrat?

Click to shrink...

Okay. Then please explain how a third party PR director paid by an organization would, sight unseen, be able to turn the victim away when she has no ability to make those kinds of decisions for the organization in question.

 

[Deleted member 4482]

Okay. Then please explain how a third party PR director paid by an organization would, sight unseen, be able to turn the victim away when she has no ability to make those kinds of decisions for the organization in question.

Click to shrink...

If it were me, I would decline to speak to a prolific rapist. You know. If I had any morals. At all.

 

[Morrigan]

Worth noting that the PR person in charge of Times Up here was Anita Dunn, who is Biden's senior campaign advisor, and also ran free PR for Harvey Weinstein when he was first accused. Both of these seem like gross conflicts of interest.

Click to shrink...

Aye, it's just a bad look at the very least. Time's Up legal defense fund hiring Anita Dunn's firm for PR, the same Anita Dunn who gave pro bono legal advice to Harvey Weinstein, just kind of... boggles the mind? I know SKDK has many clients and all, but you'd think Time's Up could... hire someone else :\

 

[danm999]

This is fucking ridiculous. Do you even care about whether or not it happened versus whether or not an accusation is made? Believe women doesn't mean guilty unless proven innocent. If you don't care to know the difference between that and treating allegations seriously, you're never going to see systemic abuse among political circles actually tackled as an issue; It'll just be kept secret until someone decides they want to advance their career, and then exposed on a case-by-case basis, when politically convenient.

Is that what you want? Abuse to continue until a judge decides they want to become a senator? Alleged hollywood wifebeaters to be damned unless they have tapes of their accusers admitting to being violent? Abuse to continue until rumblings about a senator running for president begin to be raised? Abuse to be kept under wraps after a majority of delegates have been decided in presidential primaries? I'm sure my mother, who is an abuse victim, would have liked to know about these allegations before she casted her vote for biden on super tuesday, and for these allegations to have been vetted, so she could make an informed fucking decision before the 11th hour of the election cycle.

We deserve to know what's going on and I'm fucking sick of seeing people rush to judgement without even bothering to investigate, it turns abuse into a silver bullet for elections and ruining people's lives instead of an actual fucking problem we're trying to tackle as a society

Click to shrink...

They're calling her a liar quit with the sanctimony.

 

[spam musubi]

Aye, it's just a bad look at the very least. Time's Up legal defense fund hiring Anita Dunn's firm for PR, the same Anita Dunn who gave pro bono legal advice to Harvey Weinstein, just kind of... boggles the mind? I know SKDK has many clients and all, but you'd think Time's Up could... hire someone else :\

Click to shrink...

Also, like, Biden's senior campaign advisor handling allegations brought against Biden? All of these come together to create a very bad look. If they were so concerned about optics to not take on Reade's case, this seems like a much bigger optical concern.

Okay. Then please explain how a third party PR director paid by an organization would, sight unseen, be able to turn the victim away when she has no ability to make those kinds of decisions for the organization in question.

Click to shrink...

The decision Time's Up made not to take Reade's case was purely a judgment call. They clearly must have consulted legal and PR advisors on how to react to this. If your PR director says "this case will be a landmine, don't take it, it could be considered electioneering", then that would have an impact on your decision. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[Surfinn]

"You People" are the folks in this thread and online elsewhere who are ready to throw Joe Biden into a volcano, as I imagine many people here have very polarized view of him, coupled with wanting their preferred candidate to win, and mix in a distinct lack of nuance when approaching these situations.

You want a more specific explanation? Ok. You responded to someone correctly pointing out that the Biden campaign has already called for a thorough investigation with "and calling her a liar".

Is this a fair or reasonable thing to do? There is obviously a difference in "we deny these allegations" and "this person is a liar". So much so, that it's clear that you're trying to add an aggressive tone that just isn't in the original statement. This begs the question... Why? Is it wrong for the Biden campaign to deny these accusations? If Joe Biden didn't do what he's accused of, should he just be expected to step down from the race anyway? No, of course not.

News organizations like CNN, NYT, etc, pay reporters to be on these kind of story beats. They aren't just going to act rashly and put out a less than thoroughly reported story of this magnitude out there. I've already seen a number of left wing sites not even mention that the suspected victim has also touted pro Putin/Russian propaganda as well. That seems like a detail that shouldn't be left out of this.

People need to step back, and wait for the fact to come out.

Click to shrink...

Expressing that I believe she was raped by Joe Biden (until we have even a shred of evidence that she is a liar) is not throwing him into a volcano.

I really hope you're not insinuating that I'm doing this because I want Bernie to win, because that's a vile and baseless accusation. Many people here don't give a shit about that.

Biden's camp specifically called her allegations "false". That means she is lying, full stop. There is literally no reasonable way around this. You can't both say what she's saying is false and that she's not a liar. They're inseparable. They did call her a liar, full stop, they just didn't literally use the word.

Quit trying to discredit the accuser, in regard to the bolded. It has fucking nothing to do with her claims. She already walked back her praise of Putin and said she loves the people of Russia, that they shouldn't be lumped up in what he's done (due to developments over the years). If you even bothered to listen to her story at all, you'd know this.

So do you think Vox, HuffPost, The Guardian and Newsweek "rashly put out a less than thoroughly reported story"? They're literally reporting on what she said in interviews and that her story has been corroborated by her brother and friend (she told them at the time).

Stop trying to discredit her based on baseless bullshit.

 

[thoughthaver]

Okay. Then please explain how a third party PR director paid by an organization would, sight unseen, be able to turn the victim away when she has no ability to make those kinds of decisions for the organization in question.

Click to shrink...

you act like these organizations exist in a vacuum and that outsider forces aren't capable of influencing their decisions. which is ludicrous, especially when we're talking about the campaign of a major presidential candidate. so yeah, until further notice, i'm assuming that some talking was done, loopholes were found and the case got pushed out.

 

[Deleted member 8463]

edit wrong thread sorry

 

[Isilia]

People who go out to report sexual harassment just end up with more harassment. More often than not, it's not a positive experience to reveal you were assaulted by someone. That alone gives a bit of credibility to the victims' cases in my eyes.

Yeah sure there are cases when it turns out they were lying, but those are like a tiny dot in a sea of cases that never receive any justice.

I can adopt the wait an see approach, but I'm still going to lean towards the victim.

And what I always ask myself is why people just cannot keep their hands to themselves.

 

[spam musubi]

Time's Up not taking up Reade's case because it could be considered electioneering is also generally bullshit because they have an article on their site that talks about how Michael Bloomberg's NDAs harm women (posted before he dropped out), and another one about how they participated in the democratic debate process. Airing a rape allegation against someone is not a political campaign activity. Their cited reason is weak.

 

[Volimar]

Time's Up not taking up Reade's case because it could be considered electioneering is also generally bullshit because they have an article on their site that talks about how Michael Bloomberg's NDAs harm women (posted before he dropped out), and another one about how they participated in the democratic debate process. Airing a rape allegation against someone is not a political campaign activity. Their cited reason is weak.

Click to shrink...

According to them, they were allowed to advise her, but not fund her. They only fund about 2/3 of the cases that come to them for it.

 

[Deleted member 42055]

People are still arguing on the hill of mentioning Putin/Russian propaganda ..while straight faced trying to claim others have a bias? Come on

 

[Surfinn]

People are still arguing on the hill of mentioning Putin/Russian propaganda ..while straight faced trying to claim others have a bias? Come on

Click to shrink...

It's absolutely disgusting and transparent.

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Expressing that I believe she was raped by Joe Biden (until we have even a shred of evidence that she is a liar) is not throwing him into a volcano.

I really hope you're not insinuating that I'm doing this because I want Bernie to win, because that's a vile and baseless accusation. Many people here don't give a shit about that.

Biden's camp specifically called her allegations "false". That means she is lying, full stop. There is literally no reasonable way around this. You can't both say what she's saying is false and that she's not a liar. They're inseparable. They did call her a liar, full stop, they just didn't literally use the word.

Quit trying to discredit the accuser, in regard to the bolded. It has fucking nothing to do with her claims. She already walked back her praise of Putin and said she loves the people of Russia, that they shouldn't be lumped up in what he's done (due to developments over the years). If you even bothered to listen to her story at all, you'd know this.

So do you think Vox, HuffPost, The Guardian and Newsweek "rashly put out a less than thoroughly reported story"? They're literally reporting on what she said in interviews and that her story has been corroborated by her brother and friend (she told them at the time).

Stop trying to discredit her based on baseless bullshit.

Click to shrink...

The fact that you think I'm trying to discredit this person is wrongheaded, and inaccurate. Taking sexual assault seriously means exactly that, it doesn't mean assuming the person accused is automatically guilty.

I will wait and see how this story develops, and it's already been confirmed that a number of people have previously investigated her claims, and are now doing so again. I encourage everyone to take a collective deep breath and not rush to harsh judgement about either party involved.

People are still arguing on the hill of mentioning Putin/Russian propaganda ..while straight faced trying to claim others have a bias? Come on

Click to shrink...

I'm not arguing on any hill, it's an important fact of this story and her statements about Putin and Russia was apparently part of the reason she wasn't taken terribly seriously before. Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

If you think it's outrageous to claim that some people who support Bernie Sanders would want this story to be true, in order to get him the nomination, than sadly I don't think you've been around politics enough.

 

[Deleted member 42055]

I'm not arguing on any hill, it's an important fact of this story and her statements about Putin and Russia was apparently part of the reason she wasn't taken terribly seriously before. Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

If you think it's outrageous to claim that some people who support Bernie Sanders would want this story to be true, in order to get him the nomination, than sadly I don't think you've been around politics enough.

Click to shrink...

I'm not indulging this. Have fun

 

[Abstrusity]

According to them, they were allowed to advise her, but not fund her. They only fund about 2/3 of the cases that come to them for it.

Click to shrink...

And set her up with connections to lawyers who could take this case, and other resources.

And, as per 501(c)(3)s, once someone becomes presumptive nominee, they can't do that anymore. That's why Trump IMMEDIATELY set his reelection campaign basically the day after he was inaugurated. As a presumptive nominee barring anything else, he'd be the Republican Candidate, meaning 501(c)(3)s wouldn't be able to actively fund against or for him legally.

So, once Biden became the presumptive nominee on Super Tuesday, it was over. Because, barring this allegation being found to be credible (hopefully anyway), Biden will be the Democratic candidate.
And if Time's Up were still involved, they would then have to either drop it, or lose their 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, as they were funding a public charge against a candidate.
Because a nonprofit cannot support or oppose, financially, verbally, or in writing, candidates that would be elected.

Now, this doesn't affect Bloomberg's NDAs, because he was never on track to win the nomination. It WOULD cover Sanders, however, who was the other one candidate who had a ghost of a chance.
Because of Biden's polling, he has been the presumptive Democratic candidate since he announced his run. And though he may have undershot his polling when it came time for primary voters at first, it's clearer by the day that he will be.

Ergo, you run up against losing your nonprofit status. And once that happens, you become completely beholden to large donors, some of whom could pull your funding at the drop of a hat if you ever come across accusations of their improprieties.

So I don't see it as beyond the pale that Time's Up couldn't take it directly, but still giving her resources to check and lawyers' numbers to call shows to me that they wanted to help.

 

[PMS341]

Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

Click to shrink...

Say again? Are you seriously comparing the two?

 

[Madison]

Folks we need two investigations of equal importance:
1. Investigate the fact that the leading democratic has accused of rape months after being accused of harassment by 7 women
2. Investigate that the accuser said something about Putin

 

[Surfinn]

The fact that you think I'm trying to discredit this person is wrongheaded, and inaccurate. Taking sexual assault seriously means exactly that, it doesn't mean assuming the person accused is automatically guilty.

I will wait and see how this story develops, and it's already been confirmed that a number of people have previously investigated her claims, and are now doing so again. I encourage everyone to take a collective deep breath and not rush to harsh judgement about either party involved.



I'm not arguing on any hill, it's an important fact of this story and her statements about Putin and Russia was apparently part of the reason she wasn't taken terribly seriously before. Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

If you think it's outrageous to claim that some people who support Bernie Sanders would want this story to be true, in order to get him the nomination, than sadly I don't think you've been around politics enough.

Click to shrink...

Are you kidding me with this? Disgusting. Her comments about Putin are completely irrelevant and warrant no investigation whatsoever.

This is why victims don't come forward. You are contributing to their silence.

 

[Laughing Banana]

The fact that you think I'm trying to discredit this person is wrongheaded, and inaccurate. Taking sexual assault seriously means exactly that, it doesn't mean assuming the person accused is automatically guilty.

I will wait and see how this story develops, and it's already been confirmed that a number of people have previously investigated her claims, and are now doing so again. I encourage everyone to take a collective deep breath and not rush to harsh judgement about either party involved.



I'm not arguing on any hill, it's an important fact of this story and her statements about Putin and Russia was apparently part of the reason she wasn't taken terribly seriously before. Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

If you think it's outrageous to claim that some people who support Bernie Sanders would want this story to be true, in order to get him the nomination, than sadly I don't think you've been around politics enough.

Click to shrink...

You're just doing what many others have been doing many times in the early parts of this thread : downplaying the rape accusation.

Only difference is you're just being wordy about it.

 

[Stooge]

The only part of the Putin piece that has any merit of looking into is her previous claim that she left DC because of American imperialism which contradicts her recent interviews.

I personally chalk it up to am artistic flourish of a writer, but Fox News already pointed to it. I'm sure their machine of wanting to hurt Biden but think rape culture is stupid and made up is hurting their collective consciousness.

I do think the Putin piece is likely why her less serious accusations from last year were not picked up anywhere. But Biden running his hands on a woman's neck wasnt man bites dog at the time either, where this is. So now major outlets are going to cover and look into the story.

Her having some wacky political opinions in 2016 has nothing to do with something that happened in 1993. I'm at least happy that Bidencamp isn't leaning into that or 'Sanders supporter' as a defense.

I mean, all things considered short of copping to the crime they don't appear to be engaging in the normal pattern of extra shitty character assassination. We will see if that lasts.

 

[RussTC3]

Are you kidding me with this? Disgusting. Her comments about Putin are completely irrelevant and warrant no investigation whatsoever.

This is why victims don't come forward. You are contributing to their silence.

Click to shrink...

Nothing is irrelevant when it comes to an investigation.

 

[RockGun90]

The fact that you think I'm trying to discredit this person is wrongheaded, and inaccurate. Taking sexual assault seriously means exactly that, it doesn't mean assuming the person accused is automatically guilty.

I will wait and see how this story develops, and it's already been confirmed that a number of people have previously investigated her claims, and are now doing so again. I encourage everyone to take a collective deep breath and not rush to harsh judgement about either party involved.



I'm not arguing on any hill, it's an important fact of this story and her statements about Putin and Russia was apparently part of the reason she wasn't taken terribly seriously before. Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

If you think it's outrageous to claim that some people who support Bernie Sanders would want this story to be true, in order to get him the nomination, than sadly I don't think you've been around politics enough.

Click to shrink...

If you weren't trying to discredit her, then why suggest the articles mention her Russia comments? What value do they have to her accusations, other than feeding the narrative that she's lying and that she's a Russian agent?

 

[Surfinn]

Nothing is irrelevant when it comes to an investigation.

Click to shrink...

..what? She should be investigated because she favorably discussed Putin once? This is as important as investigating whether or not she was raped by Biden?

 

[MrCinos]

Speaking with Newsweek, Reade said she had been working on a novel set in Russia at the time and had been forming her views based on "Oliver Stone documentaries" and other media that made her feel Russia was being misrepresented to the U.S. public.

"Since then, doing more research, I don't support Putin at all," she said.

"I've never been to Russia, I'm not going to Russia. Putin would not like me. I'm a vegan feminist. I'm the antithesis of what they would like," she said.

Click to shrink...

From newsweek article. Why are we still talking about Putin/Russia stuff as if it's an issue now?

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Say again? Are you seriously comparing the two?

Click to shrink...

I'm only comparing them in the sense that I think if we're going to take people seriously, we shouldn't pick and choose what we do and do not factor into our understanding of a person. Thank you for asking me to clarify, as it wasn't my intent to suggest the two things were "equal crimes" or what not.

If you weren't trying to discredit her, then why suggest the articles mention her Russia comments? What value do they have to her accusations, other than feeding the narrative that she's lying and that she's a Russian agent?

Click to shrink...

They hold value to this story because those comments are what presumedly caused serious investigations into the matter to fizzle out, and Russia is has actively tried to interfere in the last few elections?

Are you kidding me with this? Disgusting. Her comments about Putin are completely irrelevant and warrant no investigation whatsoever.

This is why victims don't come forward. You are contributing to their silence.

Click to shrink...

It's not irrelevant at all. If a story broke that as a part of a Russian troll/election meddling operation, someone had been told to accuse a political candidate of sexual assault, would any of us be surprised? No of course we wouldn't.

It's unfortunate that the accuser said what they did, as it's just another aspect of this that's going to muddy the waters.

I don't know how many more times I need to say this, but I think accusations of sexual assault should be taken seriously. I don't think that means that guilt should be presumed until an investigation can be completed.

 

[RussTC3]

..what?

Click to shrink...

Everything is relevant, nothing is irrelevant.

 

[PMS341]

I'm only comparing them in the sense that I think if we're going to take people seriously, we shouldn't pick and choose what we do and do not factor into our understanding of a person. Thank you for asking me to clarify, as it wasn't my intent to suggest the two things were "equal crimes" or what not.

It's not irrelevant at all. If a story broke that as a part of a Russian troll/election meddling operation, someone had been told to accuse a political candidate of sexual assault, would any of us be surprised? No of course we wouldn't.

It's unfortunate that the accuser said what they did, as it's just another aspect of this that's going to muddy the waters.

I don't know how many more times I need to say this, but I think accusations of sexual assault should be taken seriously. I don't think that means that guilt should be presumed until an investigation can be completed.

Click to shrink...

I think you're being disingenuous for the sake of argument. There is absolutely nothing to imply this is some sort of fucking Russian troll operation, Jesus Christ. You are downplaying rape.

Nothing is irrelevant when it comes to an investigation.

Click to shrink...

Everything is relevant, nothing is irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

What is this

 

[Deleted member 32561]

The fact people trying to dismiss this case as merely "needing investigation" rather than pretty damning for Biden whether it's true or not (edit for clarification: and given what we've learned from MeToo is definitely true) is not as disgusting as the fact people are using the exact same type of arguments that you see every time a remotely famous person is accused of assault. "Oh, she might be a Russian agent," is no different from "Oh, she's just jealous of Vic's fame or hates him for being Christian", or "Oh she just wants fame for accusing Matt Lauer", or "She's just ashamed she slept with Harvey to get that role", or "She's a Democrat trying to stop our President from MAGA by putting Kavanaugh in!"

You're free to disbelieve her, just don't pretend for a second you give a solitary shit about victims for anything more than pretending to be progressive.

Like if you think I'm personally doing something insidious by stating these facts, look at my goddamn post history, I went fucking HAM in the Vic Mignogna topic about his assaults and sex pestery for no possible personal gain. I just fucking support people who come forward with their stories of vicitimization. And you can bet the vast majority of people "willing to throw Biden into a volcano" or whatever, also just, you know, actually care about victims rather than use their stories to play rhetorical games.

FOH with "oh but she has a bad political opinion" being just as bad as THE ACT OF FUCKING RAPE. Unless you're trying to peddle some "she might be a Russian agent" MAGAhead-level conspiracy bullshit in which case have the guts to say it.

(Also the Intercept ACTUALLY DOES MENTION THAT FACT, even though they arguably shouldn't have.)

From newsweek article. Why are we still talking about Putin/Russia stuff as if it's an issue now?

Click to shrink...

Wow so it really didn't matter after all! How about that! Big shock.

 

[Surfinn]

I'm only comparing them in the sense that I think if we're going to take people seriously, we shouldn't pick and choose what we do and do not factor into our understanding of a person. Thank you for asking me to clarify, as it wasn't my intent to suggest the two things were "equal crimes" or what not.




It's not irrelevant at all. If a story broke that as a part of a Russian troll/election meddling operation, someone had been told to accuse a political candidate of sexual assault, would any of us be surprised? No of course we wouldn't.

It's unfortunate that the accuser said what they did, as it's just another aspect of this that's going to muddy the waters.

I don't know how many more times I need to say this, but I think accusations of sexual assault should be taken seriously. I don't think that means that guilt should be presumed until an investigation can be completed.

Click to shrink...

There is nothing that suggests there should be an investigation into whether or not she is a fucking Russian operative with the intention of making up a story about rape. Jesus christ, stop.

You are muddying a rape accusation on baseless shit and it's disgusting.

Everything is relevant, nothing is irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

You don't just literally investigate anything and everything because there's an investigation. You have to have an actual reason for doing so. There is no reason to assume that she is a Russian plant because she once said something favorable about Putin.

 

[Vic Damone Jr.]

From newsweek article. Why are we still talking about Putin/Russia stuff as if it's an issue now?

Click to shrink...

It's obvious why.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

What is this

Click to shrink...

Excerpts of Nietzsche's writings as the last bits of his brain not fully penetrated by neurosyphilis succumbed?

 

[Deleted member 17810]

I think you're being disingenuous for the sake of argument. There is absolutely nothing to imply this is some sort of fucking Russian troll operation, Jesus Christ. You are downplaying rape.





What is this

Click to shrink...

As someone who has been a victim of sexual assault, I deeply resent the idea that I'm downplaying rape. I have repeated, multiple times, that this is a serious issue and it should be treated as such. This is how the law works. You INVESTIGATE accusations of crimes.

 

[PMS341]

As someone who has been a victim of sexual assault, I deeply resent the idea that I'm downplaying rape. I have repeated, multiple times, that this is a serious issue and it should be treated as such. This is how the law works. You INVESTIGATE accusations of crimes.

Click to shrink...

Saying something good about Putin isn't a crime. As someone who also has been a victim of sexual assault, you even implying there is a Russian connection in any way, shape, or form is downplaying the issue at hand - the actual crime - which is the rape by Biden, full stop. That is what investigation needs to be done, not some fear-mongering strawman that has nothing to do with this.

 

[Surfinn]

As someone who has been a victim of sexual assault, I deeply resent the idea that I'm downplaying rape. I have repeated, multiple times, that this is a serious issue and it should be treated as such. This is how the law works. You INVESTIGATE accusations of crimes.

Click to shrink...

You said investigating her once saying something good about Putin is of the same importance as investigating whether she was raped. This is muddying her account based on nothing but assumptions and conjecture, leading into conspiracy theories about her being a Russian agent.

You even said if that were the case, "would any of us be surprised"? This unnecessarily casts doubt on her credibility.

Stop

Saying something good about Putin isn't a crime. As someone who also has been a victim of sexual assault, you even implying there is a Russian connection in any way, shape, or form is downplaying the issue at hand - the actual crime - which is the rape by Biden, full stop. That is what investigation needs to be done, not some fear-mongering strawman that has nothing to do with this.

Click to shrink...

Exactly

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Saying something good about Putin isn't a crime. As someone who also has been a victim of sexual assault, you even implying there is a Russian connection in any way, shape, or form is downplaying the issue at hand - the actual crime - which is the rape by Biden, full stop. That is what investigation needs to be done, not some fear-mongering strawman that has nothing to do with this.

Click to shrink...

You should go back and read all of my posts. I think you're deeply misunderstanding me. Any accusation of sexual assult should be taken seriously and investigated. What don't you understand about that statement?

You said investigating her once saying something good about Putin is of the same importance as investigating whether she was raped. This is muddying her account based on nothing but assumptions and conjecture, leading into conspiracy theories about her being a Russian agent.

You even said if that were the case, "would any of us be surprised"? This unnecessarily casts doubt on her credibility.

Click to shrink...

Here is my first interaction with you. It would appear that you're so bent out of shape over this conversation that you don't even remember what I actually said!

What world do you people live in!?

They called for an investigation, they are denying the allegations. Maybe she is lying, maybe she's telling the truth.

Taking these kinds of accusations seriously DOES NOT equal automatic assumptions of guilt, and so many of the people online who feel the need to just throw down their hot takes only muddy the waters.

Take sexual assault claims seriously, investigate them, wait for the facts, then make a conclusion.

Click to shrink...

Keep pushing your narrative though.

 

[PMS341]

You should go back and read all of my posts. I think you're deeply misunderstanding me. Any accusation of sexual assult should be taken seriously and investigated. What don't you understand about that statement?

Click to shrink...

Hmm okay let me go back a few posts

Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

Click to shrink...

Please stop trolling in a thread about sexual assault, for real.

 

[Surfinn]

You should go back and read all of my posts. I think you're deeply misunderstanding me. Any accusation of sexual assult should be taken seriously and investigated. What don't you understand about that statement?




Here is my first interaction with you. It would appear that you're so bent out of shape over this conversation that you don't even remember what I actually said!



Keep pushing your narrative though.

Click to shrink...

I have no idea what this has to do with what I just responded to. Here's what you said:

Her statements on Putin should be taken just as seriously as her sexual assault accusations, meaning, they should be investigated as well.

Click to shrink...

It's not irrelevant at all. If a story broke that as a part of a Russian troll/election meddling operation, someone had been told to accuse a political candidate of sexual assault, would any of us be surprised? No of course we wouldn't.

Click to shrink...

All of the bolded are baseless attempts to damage her credibility, and for no good reason at all. It's based on nothing.

She has already addressed this multiple times now.

Speak for yourself, I would be surprised because no information we have suggests it in the slightest.

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Hmm okay let me go back a few posts



Please stop trolling in a thread about sexual assault, for real.

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry we can't get on the same page, and that you've taken statements of mine in ways they were not intended to be, but that doesn't mean I'm trolling, I'd never do something like that. This is the last I'll speak on this issue with you.

 

[AlwaysSalty]

.

 

[cnorwood]

Has any major news station said anything about this, when I check on youtube it's all of the "independent" media that is reporting this. Now this is insane on how the media and the democratic party co-opted the #metoo movement and weaponized it against Trump just to be a sleep when it favors them. Hopefully they are gathering the facts, but something tells me this wont be a story until Trump weaponizes it against Joe

 

[Deleted member 42055]

Can a mod sticky her most recent quote about Putin/Russian in the OP? Or can OP edit? I'm keeping this thread followed in case any new news comes out but..

I hate seeing these notifications with people flat out peddling stuff like that as a crime which necessitates just as much of an "investigation" as a rape accusation, all while ignoring her recent words denouncing Russia.

 

[Stooge]

Has any major news station said anything about this, when I check on youtube it's all of the "independent" media that is reporting this. Now this is insane on how the media and the democratic party co-opted the #metoo movement and weaponized it against Trump just to be a sleep when it favors them. Hopefully they are gathering the facts, but something tells me this wont be a story until Trump weaponizes it against Joe

Click to shrink...

The NYT editorial desk is filled with right-wing shitheads. They are not "friends" of the DNC.

They are going to be vetting the story before running it. This means calling Reade. Calling Bidens people. Trying to get documents. FOIA requests (though, I can't imagine that's a priority for the federal government ATM).

I cannot emphasize how much everyone should read catch and kill or listen to the podcast. It will tell you *exactly* what is going on here.

Right now I assume there are a few things happenning:

1) Investigative journalists are digging into records from the Senate office trying to get any documentation they can as to putting Biden in a place/time.
2) Looking for any documented complaints
3) Looking at interviewing (on or off record) anyone that Reade suggests would have knowledge from the timeframe.

The fact-checkers will be scrubbing every detail from her previous news posts and trying to verify every detail of her accounts that they can. Confirming comments she has made, syncing up timelines, figuring out any discrepancies that may or may not exist in timelines.

Then, you'll start to see real coverage of major papers.

Now, if Trump weaponizes this it may get interjected into the news cycle faster than these facts have been checked and you'll see the same language you did around Ford/Kavanaugh with lots of tip toeing around on air.

I mean, for his piece in the New Yorker they were calling people and verifying *everything* that they said happened. Even where they literally had tape from an NYPD Sting operation against Weinstein.

 

[Luminish]

PR director offering solicited PR advice.

But not openly, not as part of his team, or anything.

Of course, we don't know what she said to him.
All we know is that she didn't actually work for him, and neither did her firm, as per the statement from the firm itself.
In the article.

It says "helped" in the headline, but it appears that Weinstein was referred to her by a friend and...she didn't do much but give advice, without anything else.

For all we know she told him to get bent.

This is pretty routine; we have articles that don't have particular details such that they tend to be vague and not indicative of anything in particular, other than a loose affiliation.

So I reiterate, because it seems my point was ignored in favor of a vague attempt at cheapshots:

Does this original poster believe Anita Dunn is orchestrating a cover-up for a heretofore unimpeachable organization, to favor her current employer, yes or no?

Click to shrink...

It doesn't matter how involved she was. Either way, it's still proof she felt it was ok to help out a powerful and obvious rapist with his public image. I don't care if all she did is donate a penny to his legal defense fund, that'd still put her character and motivations into question because of how easy it'd be to just not donate that penny.

 

[Morrigan]

Those sneaky Russians, planning this since 1993 when they made her tell her friends and family. Putin was planning that far ahead, that's how much of an evil mastermind he is! /s