The Tara Reade accusations - what many JPP liberals don't seem to "get"

Legion

Oderint dum metuant
image-asset.jpeg
[/B]​



In the midst of the DEMOCRATS’ campaign to deny Brett Kavanaugh confirmation to the Supreme Court, Lawfare’s editor in chief, Benjamin Wittes, took to the pages of The Atlantic to argue that traditional concepts of due process were not applicable under the circumstances. Justice, he wrote, was merely an “optical” consideration, and in this case, “Kavanaugh himself bears the burden of proof.”

This upending of liberal ideals had nothing to do with the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations — opaque, decades old, and unprovable — and everything to do with the accused party, upon whom, Wittes noted, we were about to “bestow an immense honor that comes with great power.”

We don’t know if, in 1993, presidential hopeful Joe Biden sexually assaulted a woman named Tara Reade by pressing her up against a wall and digitally penetrating her without her consent.

But under Wittes’s standard, it shouldn’t matter.

Indeed, that we do not know is all that we need to know. No person in America is accorded a more “immense honor” or more “great power” than the president.

Surely, as with Kavanaugh, the existence of the accusation is disqualifying?

Apparently not, for ideals of justice seem to be quite malleable these days. Journalistic norms, too.

The same media that relayed every unsubstantiated and tawdry rumor during the Kavanaugh confirmation, and that happily transmitted the Michael Avenatti–produced gang-rape smear, is treating Reade’s story quite differently.

Why, we might ask, didn’t Reade receive the same coverage as E. Jean Carroll, a woman who accused Donald Trump of assaulting her in 1995 or 1996 at a Bergdorf Goodman store in Manhattan?

Virtually every major news organization let Carroll tell her story.

Reade has been trying to tell hers for decades. Believe women?

Indeed, to understand how to proceed, the media has only to take the advice of Biden, who two years ago argued that society had an obligation to presume that women who come forward with allegations of sexual assault should be believed irrespective of how flimsy that accusations may be: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time".

DEMOCRATS should also be following this advice.

Back in 2018, you will remember hearing the party arguing incessantly that “due process” was only a legal right, and that it was inoperative in Kavanaugh’s case because a Supreme Court hearing was nothing more than a “job interview.”

Well, so is the presidency. A presidential election is just a job interview with the American voter. There are plenty of others, no doubt, willing to take Biden’s place in the race.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s “chief legal analyst,” noted that “40 percent of the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct.”

Using this standard, if Biden wins in November, we will be able to say that two of the last three DEMOCRATS in office have been “credibly accused of sexual misconduct.”

Like many others, however, Toobin wants to have it both ways.

Simultaneously, he argues that any genuine due process was impossible — and, by the “believe all women” standard, even undesirable — yet also describes Blasey Ford as “credible.”

But if the integrity of the accuser and the plausibility of her claims matter in determining the credibility of her allegations — and I certainly believe they should — then we are in a due-process debate. And we can really only determine the “credibility” of an accuser who offers vague accusations if we question them.

Embarrassingly for Biden, he has argued that such questioning is per se inappropriate: "What should happen is the woman should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be, you know, abused again by the system. I hope that they understand what courage it takes for someone to come forward and relive what they believe happened to them and let them state it, but treat her with respect".

If this is what “should happen,” why don’t DEMOCRATS practice it — and why doesn’t Biden himself step aside in order to live by the standards he championed only two years ago?

We know why.


https://dnyuz.com/2020/03/27/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-hypocrisy/
 
Because I've been told that some people can't process "too many words", I'll break it down:

Many DEMOCRATS chant "believe women" unless another DEMOCRAT is accused.

Then they suddenly seem to remember due process, presumption of innocence, statutes of limitation and standards of evidence.

Wanting to believe something doesn't make it true.

It's not Biden's guilt or innocence that's the issue. It's the hypocrisy.
 
Indeed.

Democrats-always believe the woman...unless the accused is a Democrat (former VP).
 
:rolleyes: What we've really seen is, republicans never believe the woman...unless the accused is a Democrat.

Biden:


“It takes enormous courage for a woman to come forward, under the bright lights of millions of people watching, and relive something that happened to her,” Biden said in 2018, as he was laying the groundwork for a presidential run.”

Ford, he said, “should be given the benefit of the doubt”.

But not Tara.

Ford had no corroborating witnesses, couldn’t remember where or when the alleged incident happened and her witnesses said they could not remember it happening.

Tara has corroborating wittinesses and her mother called Larry King and asked how to handle the sexual assault on her daughter.

Tara has several women who remember Tara telling them about the sexual assault.

Biden won’t allow the records at the college to be released...he said no when asked.

Democrats- always believe the woman...unless the accused is a Democrat.

If Ford had corroborating witnesses, I would believe her, Miss Marple.

She did not. Tara does.

The NYT’s have thrown Biden under the bus. It’s all over when the NYT’s dumps you.

Did you post that you believed Juanita, Miss Marple?
 
Is that so?

Cite your sources.

I'll understand if you can't, naturally.

:D


My main source is JPP. Repugs didn't believe any of trump's accusers, Dr. Ford, Weinstein's accusers, Cosby's accusers, Matt Lauer's accusers et al. Repugs say the women are just looking for money.

You know it's true, leggiecrite. You were in the vanguard of many denials. :D :rofl2:
 
Christiecrite claims that she believed Juanita Broaddrick, Earl.

images


Quote Originally Posted by Legion
Saying so and raping are two different things. Didn't you say you believed Juanita?

christiefan915: I did. Nevertheless you're not going to lead me astray from the trump discussion by moving the goalposts again.

Legion: I know.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-that-quot/page8&highlight=juanita+broaddrick

:D
 
Biden:

“It takes enormous courage for a woman to come forward, under the bright lights of millions of people watching, and relive something that happened to her,” Biden said in 2018, as he was laying the groundwork for a presidential run.”

Ford, he said, “should be given the benefit of the doubt”.

But not Tara.

Ford had no corroborating witnesses, couldn’t remember where or when the alleged incident happened and her witnesses said they could not remember it happening.

Tara has corroborating wittinesses and her mother called Larry King and asked how to handle the sexual assault on her daughter.

Tara has several women who remember Tara telling them about the sexual assault.

Biden won’t allow the records at the college to be released...he said no when asked.

Democrats- always believe the woman...unless the accused is a Democrat.

If Ford had corroborating witnesses, I would believe her, Miss Marple.

She did not. Tara does.

The NYT’s have thrown Biden under the bus. It’s all over when the NYT’s dumps you.

Did you post that you believed Juanita, Miss Marple?


Regarding Broaddrick, yes, I did Mr. Earl.

Perhaps you can help me understand why Reade keeps changing her story about the allegations. It would make it a lot easier for me to believe her 100% if she wasn't all over the place.

"Reade said she described her issues with Biden but “the main word I used — and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”

Reade described the report after the AP discovered additional transcripts and notes from its interviews with Reade last year in which she says she “chickened out” after going to the Senate personnel office."

The AP interviewed Reade in 2019 after she accused Biden of uncomfortable and inappropriate touching. She did not raise allegations of sexual assault against Biden until this year, around the time he became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee."

"[Biden]asked the Senate and the National Archives to search their records to try to locate a complaint from Reade. But Reade is suggesting that even if the report surfaces, it would not corroborate her assault allegations because she chose not to detail them at the time."

"Tara Reade
, the former Senate aide who alleged that former Vice President oe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 while she was working on his staff, said Saturday that she isn't ready to respond to Biden's denial of the allegations.

“I’m digesting and processing everything he said,” she told The Wall Street Journal. “I will respond.”

"Reade didn't share her story publicly while Biden was previously in the White House because, she told the Intercept's Ryan Grim, she didn't want the story to impact her then-teenage daughter, and because she liked Obama. Additionally, she said she didn't know how to come forward in a pre-#MeToo era.

Reade told AP she didn't reveal the alleged assault last year when discussing the claim about inappropriate touching because she was afraid of the repercussions."
 
Back
Top