"Troubled" is a vague definition, if it means foolish choices while young that's one thing, but with Reade it's a systemic behavior pattern, lying over and over to many people about many different matters. She was asked about taking a polygraph and replied "I will if Biden will", pure bullshit, she knows a candidate for POTUS could not possibly take a polygraph, SHE is the one making the allegations, SHE needs to take one or STFU.By that standard, the vast majority of sexual assault claims would never see a courtroom. Oh look, the accuser has a troubled past, case closed.
There is no legal standard requiring that she do so. Joe Biden and other Democrats did however advocate for a standard under which Reade would receive the benefit of the doubt."Troubled" is a vague definition, if it means foolish choices while young that's one thing, but with Reade it's a systemic behavior pattern, lying over and over to many people about many different matters. She was asked about taking a polygraph and replied "I will if Biden will", pure bullshit, she knows a candidate for POTUS could not possibly take a polygraph, SHE is the one making the allegations, SHE needs to take one or STFU.
Right, but under the burden of proof standard that Biden himself advocated for when it was politically convenient, that shouldn’t matter.She does not have a ‘troubled past’, she has a past that specifically involves her lying to people for personal benefit.
When assessing whether or not her story of being assaulted by Biden is the truth or a lie an objective and rational person would weigh the fact that large numbers of people have come forward saying she told them stories that were lies.
There is no way you actually believe that Biden was advocating for the acceptance of all accusations as true despite large amounts of evidence to the contrary. This is why I say you’re concern trolling.Right, but under the burden of proof standard that Biden himself advocated for when it was politically convenient, that shouldn’t matter.
The only one I believe fits that description is Gillibrand. She also ran Al. Frankin out of Congress so at least she in consistent.Not entirely true. Democrats quickly and assertively articulated that they believed Dr. Ford, well before all the facts were known.
Break it down, hammertime:
Neither of the accused demonstrated patterns of behavior typically indicative of sexual predators, yet both also engaged in behaviors that make the accusations plausible (Biden with the touching and hair smelling, Kavanaugh with the party culture of the 80s)
Both of the accused had numerous women who worked directly for them vouch for their character.
Neither accuser is able to definitely or accurately provide all of the details surrounding the circumstances of the assault.
In both cases, the men previously achieved highly visible positions of power, and the vetting that goes with those positions, where its reasonable to question why the accusations didn’t surface sooner.
No one witnessed the assault in either case, and witnesses who could or would have been present do not recollect any of the details as presented by the accuser.
However.
Both women consistently confided various details to different people over a period of many years.
Both accusers received threats from political partisans.
There are of course differences as well. Only one is a sympathetic accuser, the other has had a difficult life. Kavanaugh was in high school, Biden was a US Senator.
Equivalent in terms of how they were handled, no.I don't want an explanation. Check your feelings. Do you really think these cases are equivalent?
Thank you for at least acknowledging Gillibrand, although I would add Harris and Biden to that list.The only one I believe fits that description is Gillibrand. She also ran Al. Frankin out of Congress so at least she in consistent.
If she filed a complaint where is the employment record?
BTW - I heard Reade is up to 15 version of her story. Still on board?
Let’s say such a request did surface. Would you agree it would appropriate at that point to get sworn testimony from those involved to determine if it increases an understanding of the circumstances surrounding the request?
There is no legal standard requiring that she do so. Joe Biden and other Democrats did however advocate for a standard under which Reade would receive the benefit of the doubt.
What’s your opinion on that editorial posted last night, believe all women vs believe women? None of us fall under believe all women obviously. But it’s not because of political convenience that we don’t believe women. Why can’t you just accept thatI am also not on board with the hypocrisy and political opportunism evident in both cases.
Equivalent in terms of how they were handled, no.
Thank you for at least acknowledging Gillibrand, although I would add Harris and Biden to that list.
Reade has a pattern of lying, and is not a sympathetic accuser. I am not on board with her accusations of sexual assault.
I am also not on board with the hypocrisy and political opportunism evident in both cases.
I can only judge Biden by what he said, but I am glad his own allegations afforded him the opportunity to clarify his position.There is no way you actually believe that Biden was advocating for the acceptance of all accusations as true despite large amounts of evidence to the contrary. This is why I say you’re concern trolling.
If Democrats were being hypocritical Al Frankin would still be in the Senate.Thank you for at least acknowledging Gillibrand, although I would add Harris and Biden to that list.
Reade has a pattern of lying, and is not a sympathetic accuser. I am not on board with her accusations of sexual assault.
I am also not on board with the hypocrisy and political opportunism evident in both cases.
We’ve been over this. There was no political risk to losing Franken, his Senate seat was safe, he was the #metoo blood sacrifice that Gillibrand used to raise her presidential ambitions...she didn’t make it very far.If Democrats were being hypocritical Al Frankin would still be in the Senate.
I am also not on board with the hypocrisy and political opportunism evident in both cases
No, you can use your own reason and determine what you think is most likely.I can only judge Biden by what he said, but I am glad his own allegations afforded him the opportunity to clarify his position.
His senate seat was not safe, Clinton carried Minnesota by less than 2%.We’ve been over this. There was no political risk to losing Franken, his Senate seat was safe, he was the #metoo blood sacrifice that Gillibrand used to raise her presidential ambitions...she didn’t make it very far.
Not to mention Franken was being talked about as a future candidate before as well.His senate seat was not safe, Clinton carried Minnesota by less than 2%.
So no, there was substantial political risk. Agree?
Funny that. It's what you've been doing for 100 pages.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Funny, when Trump says something retarded you'll twist yourself in knots to find some deeper meaning. Things are clear cut here though, right?I can only judge Biden by what he said, but I am glad his own allegations afforded him the opportunity to clarify his position.
Hell, she even lied about her education.......she claimed to be an expert witness ----The media should apologize to Joe Biden for helping this lying woman smear him.
Hell, she even lied about her education.......she claimed to be an expert witness ----
According to The New York Times, several California defense lawyers are reviewing the cases following an accusation that Reade
Testifying under the name Alexandra McCabe, Reade described herself “as an expert in the dynamics of domestic violence who had counseled hundreds of victims.”
Lawyers have raised questions about her testimony and the verdicts in those cases — after Antioch University this week disputed Reade’s claim that she graduated from its campus in Seattle, Washington.
Jeremy Dzubay, an assistant public defender in Monterey County, told the Times his office has started looking into cases involving Reade and have been putting together a list of clients who might have been affected by her testimony on domestic violence.
Criminal defense lawyer Roland Soltesz told the Times he thinks Reade’s testimony made a large difference in the outcome of a 2018 trial involving a client of his who received a life sentence for attempted murder, arson, and armed robbery.
“People have been convicted based upon this, and that’s wrong,” Soltesz told the Times, and added that he “could care less about the politics of this whole thing.”
This woman is a real work of art --
Biden has categorically denied the allegations and called them "untrue."
Reade told CNN that she graduated from Antioch University with a bachelor of arts degree from a “protected program.”
She claimed she worked with the former president of the college to make sure her identity was protected while she worked toward her degree.
Reade, per CNN, also claimed she was a visiting professor at Antioch over the course of five years.
But Antioch University spokesperson Karen Hamilton told CNN: "Alexandra McCabe attended but did not graduate from Antioch University. She was never a faculty member. She did provide several hours of administrative work."
An official added to CNN a “protected program” that Reade said she graduated from has never existed at the school.