Kind of bothers me how many people around here seem to be so giddy about this. Simply thinking this is going to knock Biden down to pull Bernie back up. Calling for Biden to drop, not because of the allegation, but because he's not your preferred candidate. And that's what it is.
Allegations should always be taken seriously but until this gets reported by outlets other than The Intercept call me skeptical. The reason I'm skeptical... The Intercept is alone. And The Intercept has had an agenda from the beginning... Bernie Sanders.
And let's be real other organizations have likely already investigated this. This is not a new story. Do people seriously not think everyone would run with this if a story existed? There is no vast conspiracy.
It didn't come from the god damn intercept, it's from her own words based on an interview on The Katie Halper ShowKind of bothers me how many people around here seem to be so giddy about this. Simply thinking this is going to knock Biden down to pull Bernie back up. Calling for Biden to drop, not because of the allegation, but because he's not your preferred candidate. And that's what it is.
Allegations should always be taken seriously but until this gets reported by outlets other than The Intercept call me skeptical. The reason I'm skeptical... The Intercept is alone. And The Intercept has had an agenda from the beginning... Bernie Sanders.
And let's be real other organizations have likely already investigated this. This is not a new story. Do people seriously not think everyone would run with this if a story existed? There is no vast conspiracy.
It didn't come from the god damn intercept, it's from her own words based on an interview on The Katie Halper Show
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
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.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.
To quote someone that put it far more eloquently than I ever could.Kind of bothers me how many people around here seem to be so giddy about this. Simply thinking this is going to knock Biden down to pull Bernie back up. Calling for Biden to drop, not because of the allegation, but because he's not your preferred candidate. And that's what it is.
Allegations should always be taken seriously but until this gets reported by outlets other than The Intercept call me skeptical. The reason I'm skeptical... The Intercept is alone. And The Intercept has had an agenda from the beginning... Bernie Sanders.
And let's be real other organizations have likely already investigated this. This is not a new story. Do people seriously not think everyone would run with this if a story existed? There is no vast conspiracy.
THE STORY DIDN'T EVEN COME FROM THE INTERCEPT! THE INTERVIEW IS WITH KATIE HALPER, WHO IS WITH ROLLING STONE! THE POST WAS ON SOUNDCLOUD!
WHAT THE FUCK
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.www.vox.com
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.www.vox.com
So can people stop saying it's not being reported by credible sources now?
Just read it, thank you Vox for giving her a voice.
Hopefully others follow up.
Part of the reason Reade sought legal help, she told Vox, was that she faced harassment when she initially came forward last year. She also faced scrutiny into her background. In particular, critics pointed to that now-deleted 2018 Medium post in which Reade called Putin "a compassionate, caring, visionary leader" and said, "To President Putin, I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to see Russia as I do, with eyes of love."
In the same post, she wrote that she left government work in her 20s in part because "I love Russia with all my heart" and "I could not stand to watch the deception and xenophobia that came from my own American government."
Reade told Vox that when she wrote the praise of Putin, she had "watched a bunch of Noam Chomsky" and was working on a novel set in Russia. She says she no longer feels the same way about Putin since learning more about domestic violence in Russia.
The current social media reactions to Reade's assault allegation could be broken down into several camps: those who cite her praise of Russia and imply that she or her supporters are working on behalf of Sanders, Trump, or Putin; and those who cite the need to believe people who come forward to report sexual misconduct.
Your point being?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 doingIn the article, it describes the allegations of Reade's credibility and has praised Putin in the past.
Biden's campaign on Friday denied Reade's allegation. "Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims," deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said in a statement to media. "We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false."
In addition to Bedingfield's statement, the Biden campaign also released a statement from Marianne Baker, an executive assistant to Biden from 1982 to 2000. "In all my years working for Senator Biden, I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone," Baker said. "These clearly false allegations are in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades."
It was corroborated by those two in the orginal.Can we get a title update? It's being corroborated by two other people and Vox is now reporting.
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.The Vox article was updated with a response from the Biden campaign:
At least they acknowledged the story, though we knew this would be the response.The Vox article was updated with responses from the Biden campaign:
The Vox article was updated with responses from the Biden campaign:
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.The Vox article was updated with responses from the Biden campaign:
how would Kate Bedingfield know whether the allegations are false or not?
Well if she did, then I guess we'll find that out pretty quickly as records are kept.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.
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.how would Kate Bedingfield know whether the allegations are false or not?
And what if digging finds that no complaint is on file?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.
That doesn't suggest that anyone would actually know if Biden raped her or not. They weren't there.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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).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?
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.And I'll repeat: there is an extremely likely possibility that people who are associated with Biden (The guy running for president and probably nominee) would want to protect him in regards to divulging information that is not provable.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
What do you mean?
What does him running for President have to do with it?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.
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.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?
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?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.
But yet he and his staff took the time to sideline Reade and basically end her career for reporting sexual harassment.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.
Kind of bothers me how many people around here seem to be so giddy about this. Simply thinking this is going to knock Biden down to pull Bernie back up. Calling for Biden to drop, not because of the allegation, but because he's not your preferred candidate. And that's what it is.
Allegations should always be taken seriously but until this gets reported by outlets other than The Intercept call me skeptical. The reason I'm skeptical... The Intercept is alone. And The Intercept has had an agenda from the beginning... Bernie Sanders.
And let's be real other organizations have likely already investigated this. This is not a new story. Do people seriously not think everyone would run with this if a story existed? There is no vast conspiracy.
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?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.
What I think he thought.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?
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.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.
MSNBC/CNN/NYT/WaPo also have an agenda, just so you know. And it's not a good one.Kind of bothers me how many people around here seem to be so giddy about this. Simply thinking this is going to knock Biden down to pull Bernie back up. Calling for Biden to drop, not because of the allegation, but because he's not your preferred candidate. And that's what it is.
Allegations should always be taken seriously but until this gets reported by outlets other than The Intercept call me skeptical. The reason I'm skeptical... The Intercept is alone. And The Intercept has had an agenda from the beginning... Bernie Sanders.
And let's be real other organizations have likely already investigated this. This is not a new story. Do people seriously not think everyone would run with this if a story existed? There is no vast conspiracy.
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 sure what more he could do but deny it if it ever came up again, which is currently what he's doing.
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?