Point of clarification and offering my opinion here. The lies she told which had nothing to do with the allegations are slightly probative here, but only just. The problem is, everyone lies sometimes. Prior lies which are unrelated and go to "general credibility" can be persuasive to juries, too persuasive. Which is why they're not usually admitted into evidence.
The thing about Reade is, there are too many problems directly related to the alleged incident. Telling inconsistent stories over time, praising Biden over sexual assault, claiming she filed a complaint when it can't be found, claiming she has records but not the complaint, later saying it wasn't a complaint but something else, giving multiple versions of why she left Biden's office, a staffer saying he personally witnessed her poor performance which is why she was fired, every known staffer not corroborating a single thing she says, alleging an assault in a place that doesn't exist. Did I miss something? I feel certain I must have.
I suppose we can look at these other things, lying to landlords and lying in court about her credentials, as icing on the cake. But it's a pretty thin layer and the cake is very thick.
While I agree with you that everyone lies sometimes and that the holes in her story of the assault are more than sufficient to undermine the credibility of her claim I think you are maybe glossing over them too easily.
Everyone lies, but not everyone falsifies their credentials under oath. Not everyone lies to steal more than a thousand dollars from their employer. These are examples of potentially criminal activity.