Yes, I have. Is there a point here or are you just implying I'm posting in bad faith? Because if so I think you should knock it off: people can disagree with you on the internet without being bad faith actors.I'm just trying to figure out if you've even read what's being discussed, for starters.
I agree. And I hope everyone else does as well.Thanks. Cause I may have taken her side for a long while, but this was never about her specifically, as much as it was about a lot of the early bullshit directed at her. Regardless of whether or not any of her story ends up being true in the end, a lot of people were all too quick to dismiss her accusations, for reasons that I still feel were mainly political. And that's wrong, and I wanted to make a clear stance against the bullshit double standard that we should only believe women until it becomes inconvenient to our own causes. Not every woman is telling the truth, but EVERY woman deserves to have their voice heard. That's what #BelieveWomen is actually about, and Tara turning out to be a pathological liar doesn't change that one iota.
Fucking excuse me?Why are people wasting time responding to the guy who is posting in 100% bad faith in this thread?
That was already covered in that the university has her on record as attending.
Yeah I get you, and I hope that if she was used as an expert witness then they were using qualifications beyond just a BA and JD. But I wouldnt be surprised if she was used without further qualifications, because prosecutors do that sort of thing often.I want to let you know that (as usual), I agree with all of this. The gist of what I was going for was: "I hope she had additional background that led them to hire her as an expert other than just a BA and JD."
Our points are similar: it doesn't take a degree to be qualified as an expert, and a degree does not necessarily make someone an expert. In many cases, they're related. But not always. (I worked with a few forensic psychologists, although as expert consultants with the possibility of testifying.)
Yes, I have. Is there a point here or are you just implying I'm posting in bad faith? Because if so I think you should knock it off: people can disagree with you on the internet without being bad faith actors.
What the fuck are you even saying?So we're going to roll with gaslighting about her lying of educational records to downplay Biden.
Yay for whataboutism from pragmatic centrists!
The first paragraph here is literally a non-sequitor.A lot of her actions detailed in this article and in the one with past landlords portray her as someone who embellishes stuff or flat out lies about her credentials, then proceeds to double and triple down when people do actual digging into the facts.
An easy solution is to stop tossing throwaway comments and discuss the article, like most of us are.
Equate giving a bad speech with a dozen plus accounts of perjury if you want to imply bad faith, by all means.Yes, I have. Is there a point here or are you just implying I'm posting in bad faith? Because if so I think you should knock it off: people can disagree with you on the internet without being bad faith actors.
Really weak to be corroborating your account with a transcript from the law school... The same law school that she allegedly lied to about the degree in question, that was used to get her into that law school. One would expect her to corroborate her story with, you know, the college she got her degree from....
Also, lying about a degree to get into a school is one thing, but lying under oath about your credentials as an expert witness is some real shit. The option was always open for her to tell the truth in court when questioned, but it looks like she did not do that.
Hmm no? The CNN article is from May 19th, the updated article in the OP is today (21st). Check the threadmarks.That's old news chum.
This seems to be the most recent info:
Tara Reade appears to have lied under oath about her education, defense lawyers seek to get convictions overturned in cases where she testified
Don't do this, please. And I'm saying this as someone who has believed Tara all the way up to this point. (In case my avatar didn't make that clear enough. Thought this rate,, that avatar is almost certainly being removed within the next 24 hours. God, I am so fucking pissed about all of this.)...www.resetera.com
Reade may have potentially provided incorrect credentials and committed perjury which could lead to the release of many criminals.
Oh yeah? Joe Biden once read someone else's speech.
We're through the looking glass here.
The part that always gets left out here is that the portion taken from Kinnock was a standard part of Biden's stump speech, and he had at several other times properly cited Kinnock when delivering the speech. Not doing so that time was obviously wrong, but probably falls more into Biden's issues with speaking and memory than outright malice.There is a remarkable difference here. Political rally speeches are frequently plagiarized or borrow heavily from others. Melania Trump recited Michelle Obama's speech almost verbatim, and was given shit over it. The speaker rarely writes these speeches, but instead outsources that to a member of their staff. There aren't victims other than perhaps rendering the words less meaningful.
Tara Reade is claimed to have falsified her credentials under oath (illegal, perjury) and that can have very real ramifications on the lives of individuals incarcerated. It's not just sloppy borrowing/plagiarizing a stump speech...it's a crime.
Exactly this. Followed by doubling and tripling down. It's maddening.
Exactly this. Followed by doubling and tripling down. It's maddening.
As an attorney myself I'm interested to see if anything comes of that. I just checked my emails from a few years ago and I had to have my undergrad send an official copy of my transcript directly to my law school as part of the admissions process (cost me $9, smh.) Presumably she would have had to do the same, though obviously a long time ago.Yea, the only way the law school could really corroborate it is by providing the official transcript that was sent to them in the admissions processing showing she had her degree.
The part that always gets left out here is that the portion taken from Kinnock was a standard part of Biden's stump speech, and he had at several other times properly cited Kinnock when delivering the speech. Not doing so that time was obviously wrong, but probably falls more into Biden's issues with speaking and memory than outright malice.
I mean it was already investigated. CNN asked the university and university said she didn't graduate.But if it was a lie, why would she say that she's telling the truth, especially when it shouldn't be that hard to investigate this ?
Its even more annoying because the article itself doesnt have anything to do with Biden. Its about how her perjury could lead to 20 cases being thrown out.Reade may have potentially provided incorrect credentials and committed perjury which could lead to the release of many criminals.
Oh yeah? Joe Biden once read someone else's speech.
We're through the looking glass here.
This story is crazy. I look forward to reading any new developments on this. As someone who transferred colleges myself I can say the process is not always perfect...
I wanted to know why CNN did not mention the Seattle U transcript.
They said she attended. You're making shit up. Lying, you might say.
A pathological liar? Is that what you want to say about a victim of spousal abuse?
Did Joe Biden plagiarize a speech during his 88 presidential run?
I mean, as long as we're bringing up unrelated insinuations of being a liar.
I wanted to know why CNN did not mention the Seattle U transcript.
The process in late 90's/early 2000's was the same, at least at the schools I am familiar with.As an attorney myself I'm interested to see if anything comes of that. I just checked my emails from a few years ago and I had to have my undergrad send an official copy of my transcript directly to my law school as part of the admissions process (cost me $9, smh.) Presumably she would have had to do the same, though obviously a long time ago.
But if it was a lie, why would she say that she's telling the truth, especially when it shouldn't be that hard to investigate this ?
It's not literally meaningless to present the subject of the article's own claims.
That's not about his speech, and considering he wasn't kicked out of school, they at least believed it was unintentional as claimed.
Because she didn't have a transcript. The quote said she supplied an unofficial transcript of the course work she completed before her name change.I wanted to know why CNN did not mention the Seattle U transcript.
Because that's a less direct way of establishing the fact than going directly to the source. They went to the actual source.I wanted to know why CNN did not mention the Seattle U transcript.
What does Biden's old stump speech have to do with any of this?
No, it says she provided an unofficial record of her degree qualifications from Seattle U.Because she didn't have a transcript. The quote said she supplied an unofficial transcript of the course work she completed before her name change.
Which is exactly what the university is saying. She attended. Took courses. But didn't graduate.
It's not literally meaningless to present the subject of the article's own claims.
A lot if your only intent is to bring down Biden rather than support actual victims.What does Biden's old stump speech have to do with any of this?
It would have to be cleared up with an official document from the school. The same school that just made a public statement saying she didn't graduate from there.
People are always just way too quick to "choose sides" and defend them unconditionally, people are still doing that in this thread despite all of the recent stuff about the accusationThis is why it is important to take accusations seriously but not condemn the accused without a proper investigation.
It's not literally meaningless to present the subject of the article's own claims.
But an Antioch spokeswoman, Karen Hamilton, told The Times that while Ms. Reade had attended classes, she was certain Ms. Reade had not received a degree.
In her testimony in the 2018 trial, Ms. Reade was questioned about her degree by Mr. Soltesz. She testified that she received a liberal arts degree, as was stated on her résumé provided by the district attorney's office. "The focus was political science," she said, according to a trial transcript.
Ms. Reade also told the court that she was currently a substitute teacher but had worked in domestic violence prevention for more than two decades and testified in more than 20 cases. Her career began, she said, in Mr. Biden's office.
"I was a legislative assistant," she said, according to the testimony. "He worked on the Violence Against Women Act, the federal act."
Staff lists published in 1993 show Ms. Reade listed as a staff assistant, a different position from the legislative assistant job she cited in her testimony. Both titles are common in congressional offices, with legislative assistant indicating a slightly more senior post that involves working on policy. In multiple interviews, Ms. Reade described her duties as managing the interns, never mentioning any direct work on the Violence Against Women Act.
In an interview, Mr. Soltesz described Ms. Reade as "well spoken" and "a good witness on the stand," and said he was impressed by her experience with Mr. Biden.
But both Mr. Soltesz and Scott Erdbacher, the lawyer for Ms. Vasquez, raised objections to Ms. Reade's testimony, according to the transcript, saying they were skeptical that her work experience qualified her as an expert. The judge overruled them.
Ms. Reade maintains that she has an undergraduate degree, saying the school has no record of her graduating because of special arrangements put in place to protect her from her ex-husband. She sent The Times a screenshot of a transcript showing her with 35 course credits, her department as "BA Completion" and nothing listed under "date conferred" or "degree conferred." According to the photo, she entered school on Oct. 2, 2000.
Even if Ms. Reade was not found to have perjured herself, exaggerating qualifications as an expert witness could be grounds for reversal of a verdict.
"An expert can only testify in certain circumstances," said Mark J. Reichel, a criminal defense lawyer based in Sacramento who formerly worked as a federal public defender. "One of them is that they have expertise above the regular person. The jury is entitled to hear your qualifications."