Inconsistent stories on the record. Yes, I am asking that. I also noticed you injected the word concealing. You got a source for where she used that as an excuse for why she lied so many times? I was under the impression that she just didn't want to come forward because she feared her reputation would be tarnished, not that she was actively covering it up for Biden.You're asking why someone that was concealing a sexual assault by a US Senator was sharing inconsistent stories about why she left that job? Is that seriously what you're asking?
Inconsistent stories on the record. Yes, I am asking that. I also noticed you injected the word concealing. You got a source for where she used that as an excuse for why she lied so many times? I was under the impression that she just didn't want to come forward because she feared her reputation would be tarnished, not that she was actively covering it up for Biden.
You're asking why someone that was concealing a sexual assault by a US Senator was sharing inconsistent stories about why she left that job? Is that seriously what you're asking?
I mean the whole thing I've been referring to is essentially a series of direct quotes from her with screenshots and links to the relevant material (some are screenshots because she's subsequently deleted the pieces). The only relevant defenses are that the quotes are fake, that the quotes lack relevant context that would change their meaning, or that the quotes are misleadingly edited.
I seriously don't even know what he's having a meltdown about although it was pretty funny when he challenged my Internet Honor.
This is the third time you've dismissed my posts on this subject without even attempting to refute them or answer them honestly. Just stop posting if you are going to be worthless.Jesus fucking Christ dude.
The piece establishes that Tara Reade is not a credible person in the first place, so of course he has to discredit it. This clinches it-
Biden Accuser, Tara Reade, Allegedly Stole from a Non-Profit Organization
Exclusive interview with the owner of a Watsonville, California-based non-profit horse rescue exposes allegations of theft and deceit on…medium.com
Her reply to Hummer is classic grifter material. "You're a bad person! I can't believe you'd hurt me over the $1400 I stole from you!"
This is the third time you've dismissed my posts on this subject without even attempting to refute them or answer them honestly. Just stop posting if you are going to be worthless.
Am I missing something, she was willing to come forward in that past that a Senator sexually harassed her, but waited until years later to add the detail that she was digitally penetrated? Someone explain.
Jesus fucking Christ dude.
OR and this is just a possibility, the person losing their shit at those differences being pointed out has a completely different agenda than getting at the truth.Basically, last year she said Joe Biden ran his finger up her neck or something creepy like that but she didn't consider it a sexual thing. Then this year she said he sexually assaulted her. Last year she also said she was forced out of the office but thinks Biden didn't even know or notice. Now she says Biden orchestrated her blacklisting throughout DC.
Apparently pointing out that these are two dramatically different accounts that need to be reconciled makes you a bad person.
Then why would she explicitly say she didn't consider Biden's acts sexual in nature? She didn't have to say that. She volunteered it.
And then why would she tell one interviewer that Biden probably doesn't know why she left and then tell another that Biden fired her?
It means you seem desperate.Is Rape Sexual? Many have argued it isn't, what does that mean?
The piece establishes that Tara Reade is not a credible person in the first place, so of course he has to discredit it. This clinches it-
Biden Accuser, Tara Reade, Allegedly Stole from a Non-Profit Organization
Exclusive interview with the owner of a Watsonville, California-based non-profit horse rescue exposes allegations of theft and deceit on…medium.com
Her reply to Hummer is classic grifter material. "You're a bad person! I can't believe you'd hurt me over the $1400 I stole from you!"
It means you seem desperate.
OR and this is just a possibility, the person losing their shit at those differences being pointed out has a completely different agenda than getting at the truth.
Seems that this totally throws her credibility out the window. But do go on.This is just a Smear, totally unrelated and has no bearing on the Allegation. You understand that, right?
It was after that story, LaCasse said, that she and Reade first revisited the conversation they'd had about Biden in the mid-'90s. "She mentioned that she had come forward," LaCasse said, "and so I said, 'Oh my gosh. Yeah. I do remember that.'"
It’s astonishing that they are arguing that someone’s history of lying to, stealing from, and (apparently) lying about misconduct of one of their employers has no impact on the credibility of their statements about misconduct for another employer.Seems that this totally throws her credibility out the window. But do go on.
That’s all well and good but while you are rewarding the candidates with the best principles your opponents are voting strategically and beating you.The story is getting more troubling. I haven't commented at this point because I've been having some difficulty understanding my own feelings on the subject.
Personally, I don't make much of the Larry King call or the witness supporting a claim of harassment. That supports her original story and other accounts of Biden's inappropriate past behavior.
The thing that does concern me more is her friend's account. That's the most compelling evidence I've seen supporting Reade's most recent claims. I am still suspicious of it. Notably, from the BI piece:
Her friend connected with her after her story became public which dug up memories. That kind of refreshed memory under the influence of the relevant details being provided to her is highly suspect. Not presuming any fault on the part of LaCasse. It's simply the nature of memory, particularly when we have an emotional attachment to a particular report.
All that said, I do think the story supports Tara Reade's most recent claim. And here's the rub. There is more than typical in these cases which directly threatens the credibility of Reade. Nothing presented conclusively demonstrates an overt sexual assault happened or didn't happen. So we are in an in-between space. And even those calling for further investigation -- who is going to do it? and who will release the findings? and who would act upon the findings? If it's criminal, it's already dead in the water apparently from statute of limitations (which I wouldn't personally be in support of existing for sexual assault, but none of us get a choice here). Even if it weren't, it seems really unlikely that a criminal charge could be applied anyway. We are probably left with media. Which is probably telling quite a distorted story, and in some cases perhaps intentionally. What to do then?
Personally, if there were any situation we were facing other than voting to remove Trump, I would not vote for Biden even if that meant, for example, 4 more years of GW Bush. I disagree with @fskimospy in that our civil rights is an exercise in choosing the best of what's available. We are meant to be a more active government as a people, and I believe that, on the whole, a pattern of that approach degrades quality of government. Better in most cases to vote under principle and reward in the long run the candidates who have the best principles.
This is different. Trump is an imminent threat to America. My second choice, if it's not voting for Biden, would be revolution.
This is the third time you've dismissed my posts on this subject without even attempting to refute them or answer them honestly. Just stop posting if you are going to be worthless.
Ah yes, clearly her desire to conceal her sexual assault prompted her to say that she was fired from her job due to Biden's sexual harassment but he didn't know about it and then changed it to that she was fired from her job and he caused it because reasons.
Like, what?
I do like how your new tack is to now say that anyone questioning her numerous conflicting statements on the record about the time period in question is bad for doing so, as if alleging a sexual assault now means you cannot be questioned.
This is just a Smear, totally unrelated and has no bearing on the Allegation. You understand that, right?
Am I missing something, she was willing to come forward in that past that a Senator sexually harassed her, but waited until years later to add the detail that she was digitally penetrated? Someone explain.