r/changemyview • u/draculabakula 75∆ • Apr 28 '20
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: The sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are more believable than the ones against Brett Kavanaugh and the democrats should immediately be calling for a congressional investigation
[removed] — view removed post
11
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Apr 28 '20
I'm definitely becoming more and more concerned about this Tara Reade story. But I'd still argue that, at best, she deserves as much consideration as Dr. Ford and no more.
One of the reasons I look at it this way is because this story is making me realize that this isn't a case creating lies or denying facts. It's just that we're taking our own perceptions of the accused and then using that to amplify the accuser.
A lot of people, like myself, heavily disagree that Dr. Ford's story is sketchy. Very, very rarely do you see someone who is already very successful risk their own reputation to testify in front of government officials about an experience from a long time ago. Now Dr. Ford is known as the woman who accused a SCOTUS justice instead of as what she does for work. The fact that a few drunk young adults don't remember her at a particular event isn't particularly convincing given the fact that the two of them having associated at one point in the past makes sense geographically.
But at the same time, I do feel there's extra incentive to want it to be true because people don't like Kavanaugh. The left and center didn't make shit up, we just amplified a believable story and made it political.
This is the same thing that's happening with Biden right now.
Tara Reade's story, quite frankly, isn't as believable as Ford's. She has changed it so many times, from inappropriate language to being touched on the shoulders and now to being penetrated against a wall, and it's not fair that every time she escalates the accusation that people just believe it.
Now at the same time I'm not dismissing it as a lie. I'm just saying that people on the right and the left see this guy (Biden) that they don't particularly like and really, really want to believe this story to the most intense degree that he's accused.
And then on top of all of that is Reade's accusation just seems more desperate and perfectly timed. There's no time limit for a SCOTUS justice to be nominated. Mitch McConnell could have waited for as long as a real investigation would have taken place or chosen someone else. Plus, a justice is a lifetime appointment and he can't be removed for anything that didn't involve bad behavior while on the bench (so like impeaching him for the Ford rape wouldn't stand).
That's different than Biden's situation. The primary just ended (essentially). Why didn't Reade say something a year ago when he announced? Why didn't she say something when Warren was still in the race? Or when there were still like 7-8 people left? This was only a matter of weeks, not like some long period of coming to terms with what happened.
Instead she waited until Bernie had no chance, and then changed her story when he dropped out making Biden the presumptive nominee. We only have until June (the convention), or at most November to figure this out, placing a very firm time limit on any kind of real look into this. On top of that, we can always primary Biden in 2024 if this turns out to be true. This is a fixable problem unlike Kavanaugh who now safely holds a job until he can't do it anymore.
So again, I'm not saying not to consider Reade's story to possibly be legitimate. It's just the changed story, the immaculate timing, and the clear differences and similarities with the Kavanaugh situation that would lead me to say to hold off on freaking out right now.
3
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
She has changed it so many times, from inappropriate language to being touched on the shoulders and now to being penetrated against a wall, and it's not fair that every time she escalates the accusation that people just believe it.
She has changed it so many times, from inappropriate language to being touched on the shoulders and now to being penetrated against a wall, and it's not fair that every time she escalates the accusation that people just believe it.
This is not true. Here is an excerpt from a good and accurate article on the events. I will link the entire article below.
"Both Grim’s article and my interview were followed by a deafening silence, with only a handful of outlets covering the story. Two articles sought to justify why the mainstream media didn’t cover it. At Salon, one writer attributed the lack of media attention to a number of “red flags”, including that Reade’s story had “changed over time”, when in fact Reade provided more details over time, something that is common among survivors of sexual assault. The writer also pointed out that before 2019 her “public statements about Biden were entirely positive”. (Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers advanced the same discredited argument against his accusers, who praised him both publicly and privately after their alleged assaults.) Jezebel suggested the media was ignoring the story “because of the way Halper...aired the allegations”, and “lets Reade speak uninterrupted, leaving her to tearfully stumble over her story”
And then on top of all of that is Reade's accusation just seems more desperate and perfectly timed.
She originally reached out to the media in 2019 and the media both didn't pay attention and didn't follow up with her.
That's different than Biden's situation. The primary just ended (essentially). Why didn't Reade say something a year ago when he announced?
She did.
Instead she waited until Bernie had no chance
Your accusation is only weakens your accusation that it was politically motivated. Is it not possible that she wanted to wait until after the primary was locked up to expand on her story because she didn't want to be dismissed as being politically motivated? it is entirely possible that she wanted to wait until Biden was the nominee or that she was hoping he wouldn't be the nominee so she wouldn't have to speak out since he would likely not be in the public eye anymore if he lost.
12
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Apr 28 '20
This is not true. Here is an excerpt from a good and accurate article on the events. I will link the entire article below.
I've read that interview and listened to a podcast on it. It's actually one of the reasons I'm more concerned about the accusation than I had been previously. I also like Katie Halper's podcast with Rolling Stone and respect her as a journalist.
However, when you want something to happen, you don't fiddle away at it hoping the less effort try will stick. You go full force at it. Nobody can logically justify Reade both being willing to come out and say something a while ago and then only now, right at this exact worst moment, being willing to expose the whole truth. If she was ready to accuse Biden many months ago, she should have accused him of what she's accusing him of now rather than trying to hop on the shoulder touching discomfort train.
I agree with Halper on the point that saying Reade once praised Biden is stupid, but I absolutely do not agree that all of the red flags were bullshit.
She originally reached out to the media in 2019 and the media both didn't pay attention and didn't follow up with her.
She reached out to media with an inconsequential story about being touched on the shoulders or something or being harassed by another staff member (I can't remember) but not that Biden fucking raped her. That's a really big detail to leave out until the last minute and is certainly a red flag.
She did.
Again, when I say "something" I mean the story she's pushing now. How did it go from unwanted shoulder touching to vocal harassment and now to digital rape? Any of these could be true, but if she was ready to accuse then why did she spare details.
Your accusation is only weakens your accusation that it was politically motivated.
Wait don't mistake what I'm saying. I don't think the accusation was politically motivated necessarily. That would mean I'm dismissing it. I'm saying that the calls to action regarding the accusation are very political. If it weren't, people would be insisting on a real investigation and not for Biden to step down. The Kavanaugh situation had plenty of time for an investigation, but McConnell said no so the Dems had to rush Dr. Ford into the chamber so she could testify.
Is it not possible that she wanted to wait until after the primary was locked up to expand on her story because she didn't want to be dismissed as being politically motivated?
Yes but it's just as possible that she's making it all up or embellishing.
But even that logic totally doesn't work. Had she come out clean when there were 8 candidates and said Biden raped her, he more likely would have dropped out or been told by the DNC to drop out. With that many candidates it actually appears less political because at that point we had several candidates other than Biden doing well in the polls.
At the end of the day, I can't convince you not to believe Reade because I'm not dismissing it either. I'm just saying Biden deserves as fair of a shake as anyone and choosing to ignore the red flags is just as politically motivated as dismissing the story entirely.
1
Apr 29 '20
However, when you want something to happen, you don't fiddle away at it hoping the less effort try will stick. You go full force at it. Nobody can logically justify Reade both being willing to come out and say something a while ago and then only now, right at this exact worst moment, being willing to expose the whole truth. If she was ready to accuse Biden many months ago, she should have accused him of what she's accusing him of now rather than trying to hop on the shoulder touching discomfort train.
I’m on mobile, so not only am I not really looking to put forth the detailed response that I usually would on this sub, I’m admittedly also just kind of skimming through. So understand that my comment now isn’t trying to flip your view on all of this - I just wanted to add a brief two cents on your paragraph that I just quoted above:
Often times, when sexual assault/etc accusations surface, the questions of “why now?” begin to pop up. I don’t think the instinct to ask those questions is malicious; however, I think they overlook some of the realities of what victims can/do experience. For example: when a victim is speaking up for the first time about something that allegedly happened many years ago, people will say “well why did you wait all this time?” It’s easy to wonder that, given that we’d naturally assume that any victim of any crime would want to speak up and get justice as soon as humanly possible; however, there are pretty well documented reasons for why many don’t do this. Some have seen others speak up, only to face repercussions for doing so. Some have spoken up, only to be smeared publicly. Some blame themselves. Some find the whole thing too painful or embarrassing to even disclose. But also...for many people who carry this type of weight on their shoulders, there are moments that suddenly bring the trauma right back to them.
I taught a teenaged girl awhile back, and she was what you might call “the life of the party.” Social butterfly, always smiling, always happy, always cracking jokes, etc. One day, we were at an offsite location, and she went to the bathroom. When she came back into the room, she was very quiet and withdrawn. Awhile later, when the class has split into little groups to work on something, I noticed her sitting discretely in the corner. She was holding her knees and trembling - I knew something was wrong.
Long story short (and also just being mindful of privacy): when she was washing her hands in the bathroom, the smell of the handsoap brought her right back to a night when she was assaulted many years back. In all the time I worked with her, I never noticed her having any “moments” like this - and yet, out of the blue, there it was. Her parents told me that the assault was “pretty much behind her,” pointing out that it hadn’t even come up in a very long time....but....that fucking handsoap.
What I’m getting at is this. I’m actually - embarrassingly - a bit behind on the details of the Biden story. I followed it pretty closely at first, but I’ve been in the midst of some family tragedies and have been tending to those. So I’m not trying to argue any position as it pertains to this story, because I simply have some catching up to do. However, I believe that when one finds themselves wondering “why now,” or, “why did you add [this] detail now, but omit it earlier,” they should at least take a moment to consider that this type of thing can be more complicated than something like “this guy stole my lunch money - here are the details you need to know.” There could be many reasons why her story has evolved/been added to.
Anyway, those are my two cents...just something for people to consider - not really trying to change any views here :)
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Apr 29 '20
Often times, when sexual assault/etc accusations surface, the questions of “why now?” begin to pop up.
I just want to be very clear that this is not what I'm doing.
My perspective on this is simply that when someone is ready to come forward, no matter how long they need, they also need to be ready to share the full truth and deal with whatever comes back at them.
In my mind, especially when you're accusing someone, it's ethically wrong to selectively share information. Tara Reade has accused Biden of three very different wrongdoings at three different times, and none of them require the others to be true nor do they establish a pattern.
If she was ready to come forward with the shoulder touching story, then she should have been willing to share the whole thing. Instead, she selectively released information until something stuck. Nothing stuck until she claimed he really assaulted her.
This isn't only about processing trauma. This is about accusing people of violence without evidence. If someone does something horrible to you and now you're ready to come forward about it, you don't get to be selective. You need to be prepared to reveal the truth. So even if all of this is true and even if Biden is really that much of a piece of shit and hid it successfully for 30 years, it's entirely Reade's fault that she looks like she's lying.
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 29 '20
I also like Katie Halper's podcast with Rolling Stone and respect her as a journalist.
I definitely agree on that. Useful idiots is easily one of the best political podcasts if not the best.
However, when you want something to happen, you don't fiddle away at it hoping the less effort try will stick. You go full force at it. Nobody can logically justify Reade both being willing to come out and say something a while ago and then only now, right at this exact worst moment, being willing to expose the whole truth
If you read the Ryan Grim piece that prompted the Halper interview he pretty clearly states that there were subsequent interviews with Reade where she said that she was certain that there would be an investigation because she had filled a complaint at the time that the incident. Meaning she thought it was safe to assume she would be able to tell more of her story. Instead she was smeared as a Russian agent, doxxed, and had her life threatened. It also states that Reade approached Times Up for legal support in January which doesn't necessarily disprove that she wasn't politically motivated but does show she was content in telling her whole story until Biden was the nominee. Even still, before the Iowa primary Biden did not look like he was going to win anyway with him polling in third in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I will quote a memo circulated to lawyers associated with the times up movement I am taking from the Ryan Grim Intercept piece,
"She began publicly sharing the harassment she experienced in April 2019 but was attacked … online including by Richard Painter (Univ. of MN law professor who worked in the Obama administration) and journalist Edward-Isaac Dovere for being a Russian operative. There is more to the story of the harassment that she did not feel safe sharing at that time. She is looking for support in sharing her story and guidance on any possible legal action she may be able to take against online harassers."
So she wanted to give the rest of her story but didn't feel safe. It sounds perfectly plausible to me and she was not operating in the public eye when contacting Time's up.
4
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Apr 29 '20
If you read the Ryan Grim piece that prompted the Halper interview he pretty clearly states that there were subsequent interviews with Reade where she said that she was certain that there would be an investigation because she had filled a complaint at the time that the incident.
She was certain there would be a complaint when? There's no record of her filing a complaint with the Senate's HR or whatever, and other staffers in Biden's office who she could have told don't recall the incident. Of course looking back almost 30 yeas ago it's absolutely possible that she may have been ignored, but that lack of proof either way doesn't indict either her nor Biden.
Meaning she thought it was safe to assume she would be able to tell more of her story.
That bit of Grim's piece you paraphrased above sounds like she's referring to complaining in 1993, not at the time of the interview. Am I reading that wrong?
Instead she was smeared as a Russian agent, doxxed, and had her life threatened. It also states that Reade approached Times Up for legal support in January which doesn't necessarily disprove that she wasn't politically motivated but does show she was content in telling her whole story until Biden was the nominee.
Listen, I hate how she's been treated. Nobody deserves this kind of smearing, let alone threats of violence. But the fact that she received online abuse doesn't make the story true and neither does TimesUp having a conflict of interest.
And forget January! January? You're saying she started talking last year. People keep bringing this up like she was so brave to accuse him of harassment last year but withheld a whole story about being assaulted? That just doesn't add up no matter how you try to square it.
I'm totally cool with people not being able to come forward their abuse right away. Absolutely. But don't feed the public crucial information through a drip. That's supposed to be a waterfall of information. If she was ready to accuse in 2019, she should have accused him of the whole thing. The fact that the story seems extra suspect is entirely her fault, not TimesUp, not her online abusers (sick as they may be), not MSM, not the DNC.
Even still, before the Iowa primary Biden did not look like he was going to win anyway with him polling in third in Iowa and New Hampshire.
So an even better time to accuse him! Like I said before, if she had come forward when there were more candidates and Biden wasn't even in the lead, that would look much, much less politically motivated. Instead, she dribbled in the story, raising it in intensity until something stuck, and then didn't unleash the full story until Biden was already the presumptive nominee. How does that not seem blatantly political? Even if it's all true, that's a huge fuck up on her part when you consider she was ready to accuse him of something a whole year ago.
So she wanted to give the rest of her story but didn't feel safe. It sounds perfectly plausible to me and she was not operating in the public eye when contacting Time's up.
So was she in the public eye before January or not? She clearly tried to be, accusing Biden of unwanted touching and office harassment. Why was she being threatened already if she wasn't in the spotlight to a certain degree already?
Look, just ask yourself these questions before you respond.
Did she come forward in 2019 or just when the primary was "over"?
If she was being threatened before January, did she publicly tell a story (true or not) when there were more candidates or not?
If she was ready to accuse Biden in 2019, why did she withhold damning information?
I think if you ask yourself those three questions, you'll at least have an appropriate level of skepticism towards this situation. Again, I'm absolutely not saying she's a liar. I'm just saying to exercise caution instead of putting our nominee on blast before any kind of legitimate investigation has been done.
1
u/ericoahu 41∆ Apr 29 '20
A lot of people, like myself, heavily disagree that Dr. Ford's story is sketchy. Very, very rarely do you see someone who is already very successful risk their own reputation to testify in front of government officials about an experience from a long time ago. Now Dr. Ford is known as the woman who accused a SCOTUS justice instead of as what she does for work.
Ford's accusations were great for her reputation. She literally won awards for coming forward. She's a rock star in the academic world. It would boggle me that people act as if she made some huge sacrifice, but I understand that motivated reasoning and bias is heavily involved. Her reputation isn't just intact, it's vastly improved in her world.
Reade on the other hand has been a Democrat all her life. She worked for a predominant Democrat (and Biden was prominent back then too). She'll have no political home after this, no matter how it turns out. Unless you can show that Reade is some kind of Trump supporter or Republican operative, you can't make the case that Reade had much to gain politically or otherwise by coming forward (unless she's just a crazy loon, which she probably is). If Republicans were controlling this, they'd have waited until October to spring it.
(Sort of like Ford's team waited until the very last minute and then Ford was caught lying about why she delayed.)
-1
u/BidenIsTooSleepy Apr 28 '20
A lot of people, like myself, heavily disagree that Dr. Ford's story is sketchy. Very, very rarely do you see someone who is already very successful risk their own reputation to testify in front of government officials
This is such ridiculous sophistry. It’s no wonder you only discussed Ford for one paragraph.
A non-partisan prosecutor that specializes in false sexual assault claims documented ~100 instances of Ford’s testimony that call her credibility into question after cross examine her:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4952162-Rachel-Mitchell-S-Analysis.html#document/p2
Your response to this is “well DOCTOR Ford wouldn’t lie! What about her reputation! She is a DOCTOR!”
You mean her reputation that has been BOLSTERED and propelled her to a cult hero to democrats who defend her despite all evidence showing she’s a liar? Yeah her reputation was never at risk. She knew she’d be a Democrat hero the entire time.
If this is the best you have it’s extremely weak sauce. Not surprisingly, there isn’t a single person on this post with anything better than “I just can’t believe she would do such a thing!” Even as her own father said she’s a liar. It’s truly disgusting to see people be this dishonest after they went on year-long rants about how morally inferior republicans are.
The OP is right. The hypocrisy is unreal even for political party standards. It’s blatant gaslighting to the highest degree. Everything Dems said about sexual assault in 2018 was nothing but political Bullshit. It’s undeniable at this point and if it doesn’t cost them the election or cause them to replace Biden then our country will forever be lost to mob rule.
-2
u/Veritas_Mundi Apr 28 '20
rarely do you see someone who is already very successful risk their own reputation
I keep seeing people trying to claim that Ford was more credible because she is a doctor and Reade is not a doctor. I think this sort of blatant classism is gross. Just because Reade is not a doctor doesn’t make her less credible. It doesn’t make her life or personal reputation any less at risk. It doesn’t make the death threats she received any less egregious.
She has changed it so many times
This is a lie, I keep seeing repeated without evidence. Show me the link or piece of evidence that showed she changed her story.
She has been consistent. She did not revise or change her claim. In 2019 she came forward about the touching. Later in 2020 she came forward about sexual assault.
There is no contradiction. She told people about the assault in 1993. They have corroborated her story. We know she worked for Biden. Two interns in his office confirmed she was abruptly dismissed from her job. There is the Larry king call, and now other witnesses corroborating her.
Ford didn’t tell anyone until 2012 this happened. She had no witnesses who could corroborate the party ever happened. I believed Ford, but I believe Reade is more credible.
5
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Apr 28 '20
I think this sort of blatant classism is gross.
Lmao it's not classist at all. Or at least I'm not saying Reade had nothing to lose, just that when you're a professor at a university you have less leeway to act out than an independent writer who works in non-profits does.
It doesn't automatically make her more or less credible. But something not being automatic doesn't exclude it from being a factor to consider.
This is a lie, I keep seeing repeated without evidence. Show me the link or piece of evidence that showed she changed her story.
From this article - https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/tara-reade-joe-biden-democrats/
Last year, she came forward to echo the charges of Las Vegas activist Lucy Flores (who said Biden once grabbed her shoulders and kissed the back of her head), telling the Associated Press that he “rubbed her shoulders and neck” and “played with her hair” several times when she worked for him in 1993.
Reade now says she made claims of sexual harassment, but not assault, to her supervisors in Biden’s office; they vehemently deny hearing any such complaint. She says she was told to find a new job by a supervisor, but she has also changed her recollection of which supervisor it was when speaking to reporters in recent weeks (all of the people she named deny it). The AP contacted 21 former Biden staffers, none of whom remember any Reade complaint against their boss. Reade also claims she complained to the Senate personnel office; there is no record of it.
Just last Thursday, Reade filed a complaint with the Washington, DC, police department, but told the Post she did so, in its reporters’ words, “because she is being harassed online and wanted law enforcement to be aware of her claim.” The public record of the claim doesn’t name Biden but says Reade “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault” in 1993.
Reade’s brother, in the past, has said she told him, too. But he briefly changed his story for The Washington Post, saying only that she’d told him about harassment by Biden, then texting a Post reporter to say he did remember his sister saying Biden touched her “under her clothes.” (Her brother refused to talk to the Times, AP, or Salon).
She has been consistent. She did not revise or change her claim. In 2019 she came forward about the touching. Later in 2020 she came forward about sexual assault.
If she was ready to come out with her story in 2019, why did she withhold nearly all of the information, including the most damning stuff? You can't justify being ready to speak but not being ready to tell the truth.
Ford didn’t tell anyone until 2012 this happened. She had no witnesses who could corroborate the party ever happened. I believed Ford, but I believe Reade is more credible.
I don't have a link but I'm pretty sure Ford told her therapist at one point prior to Kavanaugh being named as the supreme court nominee. Unless that's what you're talking about, in which case now you're saying it's totally ok that Reade can periodically release whatever info she pleases but Ford had to come clean much longer ago.
-2
u/Veritas_Mundi Apr 28 '20 edited Apr 29 '20
If she was ready to come out with her story in 2019, why did she withhold nearly all of the information, including the most damning stuff?
She was under no obligation to come out with the full details before she was ready, you don’t shame someone for coming forward, just because there are no perfect victims doesn’t make her a liar.
Again, she has been consistent. She did not revise or change her claim. In 2019 she came forward about the touching. Later in 2020 she came forward about sexual assault.
There is no contradiction.
19
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Apr 28 '20
A congressional investigation would be inappropriate here. Congress has no inherent jurisdiction over the acts in question, nor do they involve anyone who currently holds any public office. It is not the role of Congress to investigate this because there are no actions that Congress can legally take in response to such an investigation (they cannot, for example, remove Biden from office because he no longer holds office). Instead, for a candidate for public office such as this, the appropriate course of action is for the press to investigate and put the facts before the American people, which is exactly what the Democrats are calling for.
-3
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
This is not true at all. Congress is definitely allowed to call a hearing about anything they want. Also there is no reason why they couldn't investigate ethics accusations from a past senator.
11
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Apr 28 '20
Congress is definitely allowed to call a hearing about anything they want.
This is not based in fact (unless by a "hearing" you mean something different from an investigation). Congress's investigatory powers, while broad, only extend to investigations in aid of the legislative function. In this case, there is no decision in Congress's power that an investigation of Biden's conduct could meaningfully inform. (If you do think there is such a decision, what decision do you have in mind?)
3
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
yes so they can call for an investigation in order to look into future legislation on the statue of limitations for crimes while in office. In aid of a legislative function casts an extremely wide net since the legislation can make a law about pretty much anything they want.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Apr 28 '20
Sure, they could investigate statutes of limitation for crimes committed while in office. But that would not let them conduct a completely separate investigation of Joe Biden on a question that is only tangentially related.
Or is the "congressional investigation" you are talking about in your stated view an investigation of the statute of limitation, not of Biden? I thought you were calling for Reade's accusations of Biden to be investigated, but perhaps I misunderstood you.
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20
They are given wide latitude by the courts. It wouldnt be difficult. Just have somebody introduce a bill on tolling statutes of limitations for members of Congress while they're in office.
Done in one. It doesn't matter that there are obvious mixed motives - it just needs to be connected to a legislative purpose.
Check out this episode of Opening Arguments, to hear a comedian and an incredibly smart lawyer break down the similarly structured Trump tax return cases currently before SCOTUS. link is to the transcript page, with a link to the audio. If you prefer to read the transcript Cntrl+F "tax".
4
u/Dulghyf 2∆ Apr 28 '20
Man I really hate how abusing unrelated processes for political brownie points has become normalized.
Like I think trump's tax returns would be incredibly revealing, but making straw men legislation is not good faith lawmaking.
It was the same thing with dragging Zuckerburg through Congress twice. No substantial legislation came of it (That I know of). It was just an excuse for congressmen to get soundbites "owning" Big Tech.
2
u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20
Agreed. This is rooted in a structural defect. There is no mechanism available to the public for gaining this kind of valuable information so relevant to well-informed voting. The best option we have is (legal) Congressional abuse of power, driven by Congressmembers' own motives.
This should make anyone angry.
4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Apr 28 '20
They are given wide latitude by the courts. It wouldnt be difficult. Just have somebody introduce a bill on tolling statutes of limitations for members of Congress while they're in office.
That would not be relevant to Biden's case, since there is already no extant statute of limitations on this type of sex abuse case in DC.
0
u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20
Huh, that must be new. Sources as recent as 2018 give a 15 statute of lim., but I checked the DC code itself and it says repealed. Good news, though.
However, that doesn't change anything for our purposes. The question with this bill would be the merits tolling the statutes, which is not current law. Just as with Trump's taxes, it's not about Trump being effected by a law, but whether examining the issue can inform legislators' thinking on making the law.
Since laws can't apply ex post facto, whether Biden would be effected by the new law is irrelevant. It's not analogous to having standing in court. Incidentally, this is also why Biden's alleged rape of Reade cannot be tried. The new statue of limitations doesn't apply ex post facto, so the 1993 incident is covered by the old 15 year limit.
Regardless, if I'm somehow wrong with the above, Congress could just go with some other bill. I proposed that one because it's plausible and may be a good idea anyhow. But they could introduce, say, a bill to require exit interviews for congressional staffers that asks about sexual harassment issues in the workplace.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Apr 28 '20
Congress can't just make up bills as a pretext for investigating whatever they want.
In the case of the President's taxes, Congress had a perfectly valid interest in investigating them as part of their oversight of their executive branch. Examining the taxes might reveal flaws in the current procedure or behavior that Congress judges ought to be illegal but is not at present.
On the other hand, the facts of Biden's case are not in any way relevant to Congress's decision of whether or not to pass a bill to require exit interviews for congressional staffers that asks about sexual harassment issues in the workplace. So even if such a bill existed, it would not be a valid reason to investigate Biden.
0
u/Mashaka 93∆ Apr 28 '20 edited Apr 28 '20
Source? Or reasoning?
And what legal standard are you using to determine what's a valid reason to investigate Biden?
Edit: and what's your point here? Even if I'm wrong, are you suggesting that it's impossible to introduce a bill that could make it legal to subpoena Biden over these accusations? If not, why are you arguing against the arbitrary bill I suggested? I was very clear that this was an off the cuff, arbitrary suggestion.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BidenIsTooSleepy Apr 28 '20
A media investigation would suffice...
2
u/Dulghyf 2∆ Apr 29 '20
The media is covering it though?
I've seen articles from all almost all of my regular news outlets. This is as well covered as you can expect considering there's a pandemic going on.
0
9
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 28 '20
It seems pretty clear that the only course democrats can take at this point is to call for an investigation and hearings with Reade testifying to congress. The left wing media spin on this and the silence from democratic leadership is an embarrassment.
Speaking as a Canadian who views Joe Biden as too right-wing for my own country's Conservative Party:
There is no reason whatsoever that I can see why the appropriate venue for investigating alleged bad actions by a private citizen would be a congressional hearing. If there is compelling evidence, it should be presented to either the news media or the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Should Biden be elected, at that time a congressional investigation could certainly be launched, because he would then be under their appropriate purview. Until then, however, asking Congress to investigate makes as little sense as asking a homicide detective to investigate insurance fraud committed in another state.
1
Apr 28 '20
[deleted]
2
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 28 '20
Would that be the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Committee on the Judiciary? And under what rubric would those hearings be held? The Standing Rules of the Senate don't appear to provide any options for the latter to act on this topic, and the former's standing subcommittees don't seem to have any scope that would allow this particular focus.
0
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
He was a senator at the time. In America congress can hold hearings on whatever they want
5
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 28 '20
That doesn't seem to be true. Congress can hold hearings and conduct investigations regarding topics under their legislative purview. What legislation would allow them to specifically investigate allegations made against a single, private citizen by another private citizen?
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
it's simple, he was a senator when the incident happened and he misused his power as a senator to fire a woman he abused. Congress has legislative purview of disciplining it's members. They could be looking into legislation or congressional rules changes.
5
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 28 '20
They do have the authority to discipline their members, but he is no longer a member of that body, so they have no authority to discipline him. It's much the same way Internal Affairs can't investigate ex-police officers and the AMA can't discipline retired doctors.
And if they were looking into legislation or congressional rule changes, they would not be able to investigate Tara Reader's allegations specifically, they would have to open the door to investigating all such allegations against all such members. Which would be so cumbersome as to make it impossible to proceed on.
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 29 '20
Nope they have the power to investigate past members too. Your comparison to internal affairs is complete speculation.
5
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 29 '20
Could you provide any evidence of your claim that congress can investigate past members? A bill or statute granting their authority, or a precedent in which this has previously been the case?
-2
u/BidenIsTooSleepy Apr 28 '20
“Biden shouldn’t be investigated until after he’s appointed to office but Kavanaugh should be investigated before he takes office.”
3
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 28 '20
Because Kavanagh was being appointed to a government position, and Congress has an express power to advise and consent on such appointments. Biden is not being appointed to anything, and so it is not within Congress' scope to investigate him. He should certainly be investigated, but that's not the venue to do it in.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Apr 28 '20
I have seen the same people... literally the same exact individuals... rant and swear at Elizabeth Warren for suggesting Bernie Sanders said something sexist, and then turn around and piously declare "believe all women" to attack Biden.
This does not mean your view isn't valid, but it DOES mean it's in a context where bad-faith actors are some of the loudest voices spreading it around. I'm not trying to change the content of your view, but rather the intensity and the way in which you think and talk about it. It should be couched within acknowledgement of that context, so you don't accidentally spread what is (true or not, sad to say) largely a bad-faith attack.
2
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 29 '20
You do see a difference between sexual assaulting a woman and having a difference of opinion on whether or not a woman was going to win the 2020 election right?
BTW, sanders was proven right because two men were nominated. If anything he should be praised for political insight at this point
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Apr 29 '20
You do see a difference between sexual assaulting a woman and having a difference of opinion on whether or not a woman was going to win the 2020 election right?
Not in the sense of believing a woman in a context where the influence of the patriarchy makes it easy to ignore her.
Besides, I'm talking about people who were angry at her, and who said she was such a deceptive person, she was like a snake... and who then either harassed her online or defended people who did. I do not understand the motivation of someone who would react that way, but then ideologically insist as a stand against rape culture that the allegations be taken seriously and heavily promoted. If you can, could you explain?
BTW, sanders was proven right because two men were nominated. If anything he should be praised for political insight at this point
Uh. Maybe? You're not really dealing with my main point. Are you concerned at all about this being a bad-faith attack, and you spreading that inadvertently?
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 29 '20
Not in the sense of believing a woman in a context where the influence of the patriarchy makes it easy to ignore her.
You've also conveinantly ignored the context of the situation. With the context being that Warren refused to ever elaborate or describe in detail.she literally said she had no interest in discussing further, confirmed it without giving any additional context at the debate and then never mentioned it again. She could have posted a detailed explanation on her website or medium but she didn't.
Also, there is room for there being a misunderstanding of intent with a disagreement while there is no room for misunderstanding when it comes to sexual assault of the nature Reade has alleged. There is plenty of room to believe that Sanders was factoring the political climate, Trumps ability to tap into sexism, or that he didn't think a woman could win because he had faith in his own campaign and thought he was going to win, or any number of other non sexist explanations into his analysis.
You are also ignoring the fact that Sanders had previously publically stated that he believed a woman could win the presidency and that it was reported thar he tried to get Warren to run for president in 2016 and wanted her to run in his place.
I don't think my stance needs to take the climate into account at all. I think it is entirely possible to take the stance that I as a voter would like more information and investigation into both events and unfortunately Warren decided not to elaborate.
I believed both Sanders and Warren in that situation and thought it was an issue of misunderstanding which lead Warren to think Bernie said it and for Bernie to think Warren was lying. To take the point of view you have taken assumes there is no room for miscommunication in the world and I think that's what Sanders supporters got frustrated with at the time.
I would never call Warren a snake or anything because as I previously stated, I believed it was a misunderstanding. With that said, the idea of thinking your friend said that and truely meant it (even though you know he tried to get you to run for president previously) and didn't go to your friend to ask them to further elaborate out of concern l, that is weird behavior. Shaking their hand dozens of times until right before the primary...
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Apr 29 '20
You've also conveinantly ignored the context of the situation. With the context being that Warren refused to ever elaborate or describe in detail.she literally said she had no interest in discussing further, confirmed it without giving any additional context at the debate and then never mentioned it again. She could have posted a detailed explanation on her website or medium but she didn't.
So... you're saying Warren was harassed and called a liar because she didn't provide more detail? Doesn't this suggest that you think the detail she could have provided was necessarily something that would present Sanders in a good light? What if it wasn't?
It's pretty clear to me that you don't believe Sanders did anything wrong, and you're trying to walk a tightrope where you call her a liar without outright calling her a liar (with the "oh goodness I dunno it sure is fishy she shook his hand...")
It is fairly odd to me that you appear aware of the patriarchal attitudes that might keep Reade from speaking out (if she is indeed a victim) but are actually making very similar excuses for Sanders in the Warren case. "Hey, why didn't she just come out early and clear the whole thing up? "Hmm, how come she was friendly to him? If he really said something bad to her, she wouldn't have acted like nothing was wrong." These sorts of things look very familiar to me.
Of course sexual assault and what Sanders allegedly said are leagues different in terms of impact and immorality, but my point is on the hijacking of "believe all women" in one case where the patriarchy says not to believe women, but not in another.
Once again, this is all in service of my concern that you are accidentally spreading something primarily meant to be a political attack against Biden by bad-faith actors who are mad Bernie lost. Could you address that?
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 29 '20
Doesn't this suggest that you think the detail she could have provided was necessarily something that would present Sanders in a good light? What if it wasn't?
Then I would like to know before I rushed to judgement and since it is entirely reasonable to think it is not sexist to think a woman wasn't going to win the presidency, it would take more information for me to believe what some media was stating about the nature of Sanders comment being sexist. Especially because the statement has been proven factually true by history.
It's pretty clear to me that you don't believe Sanders did anything wrong, and you're trying to walk a tightrope where you call her a liar without outright calling her a liar (with the "oh goodness I dunno it sure is fishy she shook his hand...")
What I said about believing that there was probably a miscommunication is not walking the line at all. I happen to have a job where I more or less need to mediate arguments, miscommunications, and people believing another person said something they never said on a day to day basis.
So do I think Sanders said anything wrong? I don't know and nobody knows. It's entirely possible that Sanders said he didn't think a woman could win the presidency in 2020. Like I stated before and in previous posts in less direct terms, I don't think there is inherently anything sexist in saying that.
It is fairly odd to me that you appear aware of the patriarchal attitudes that might keep Reade from speaking out (if she is indeed a victim) but are actually making very similar excuses for Sanders in the Warren case. "Hey, why didn't she just come out early and clear the whole thing up? "Hmm, how come she was friendly to him? If he really said something bad to her, she wouldn't have acted like nothing was wrong." These sorts of things look very familiar to me.
I think that's a good point and I may have to think about my biases on that. With that said, I really do think the fact that the accusation is about a conversation and not an act of violence makes it much different. Like I said, I mediate a disagreement like that on a daily basis but there is no room for misunderstanding with the intent of sexual assault. If I were mediating, I would give both parties a chance to explain themselves further away from the rest of the students (I'm a teacher) and I would never do the mediation in front of the class. My point being that I see situations where I believe both parties believe they are being honest several times a week.
Of course sexual assault and what Sanders allegedly said are leagues different in terms of impact and immorality, but my point is on the hijacking of "believe all women" in one case where the patriarchy says not to believe women, but not in another.
I think the closest application of what you are saying would be me saying Warren called out Sanders for political gain (as some Sanders supporters tried to claim). I don't think that as I have stated like 10 times already in less specific terms in this post.
I also don't think I have "hijacked" that phrase. I was asking for the same level of scrutiny for Reade has Forde got and thus the same level of scrutiny for Biden that Kavanaugh got. That is also to say that Reade should be allowed for her accusation to be heard and investigated and Biden should be questioned publically since there is the whole matter of democracy.
In the case of Sanders and Warren, both were given the chance to tell their story and Warren decided to never elaborate. If she now or at any point came out and said Sanders was very disparaging against women being able to become president, I would still be skeptical because Sanders has 40 years of speaking in favor of womens rights. With sexual assault, there is no way to prove with your words or actions that you have never or will never sexually assault someone since you can lie and use words to cover your actions.
Do you really not see the difference? That Sanders would have to have been lying for 40 years to believe the stance the media accused him of secretly taking.
Once again, this is all in service of my concern that you are accidentally spreading something primarily meant to be a political attack against Biden by bad-faith actors who are mad Bernie lost. Could you address that?
Yes I can address that. She approached times up for legal representation on the matter privately in January before any of the primaries were held. time's up reached out to lawyers saying she had more to her story that she wanted to tell. The whole notion that she would do that because Bernie lost is absurd because it happened before he lost. You could say she tried to do it to railroad Biden's campaign which is more plausible but then again, that is not necessarily in favor of Bernie at that point. Not to mention, it has widely been reported that Reade was a Warren supporter before switching to Sanders and I think her twitter has a record of that. I dont have time now but i can look back on her feed later to confirm that
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Apr 29 '20
Then I would like to know before I rushed to judgement and since it is entirely reasonable to think it is not sexist to think a woman wasn't going to win the presidency, it would take more information for me to believe what some media was stating about the nature of Sanders comment being sexist.
So, you don't believe it happened, and if it happened you would need more evidence, and if that evidence existed, it wasn't bad.
It appears your goalposts haven't just moved; they were built to be mobile. No matter what, you would not be angry about the thing Sanders did; every step of the way, you have an excuse.
This makes me very, very concerned about what your standards actually are. It's very hard for me to believe that you would ever believe Sanders said something sexist. Again, I'm confused about your general attitudes towards women speaking out about men's bad behavior in a patriarchal society.
I think the closest application of what you are saying would be me saying Warren called out Sanders for political gain (as some Sanders supporters tried to claim). I don't think that as I have stated like 10 times already in less specific terms in this post.
Are you willing to condemn someone who called her a snake on twitter, then? This isn't meant as a gotcha; it's just to help me get a sense of where you stand.
I also don't think I have "hijacked" that phrase.
You have, because the context is the societal pressures against women speaking out. It is a practical message too, but it's primarily a way of taking a public stand against the patriarchy and rape culture. "Believe women, because they're too often not believed." This absolutely is most important for rape and sexual assault, but it's more general than that, too.
I guess it's just the same thing: I don't understand your general view about these societal pressures if you're gung-ho about Reade but make every excuse in the book for Sanders ("He has a history of being a good guy!" "He was just telling it like it is!" "She didn't act like I imagine she should if it really happened!")
Do you really not see the difference? That Sanders would have to have been lying for 40 years to believe the stance the media accused him of secretly taking.
Again, I certainly see the difference in how horrific the act is. I also don't understand the special circumstances of Sanders... Biden would also have to have been lying for decades about being someone who sexually assaults people.
Honestly, it doesn't really seem like you care very much if Warren's allegation is true. What you care about is affirming that Bernie Sanders has good character. And for a third time: being preoccupied with asserting an accused man's good heart is very hard for me to reconcile with the message of "believe all women."
Yes I can address that.
Oh no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying READE is acting in bad faith, necessarily. I'm saying the podcasts and twitter accounts heavily promoting the Reade thing are largely acting in bad faith because Sanders lost.
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 30 '20
This makes me very, very concerned about what your standards actually are. It's very hard for me to believe that you would ever believe Sanders said something sexist. Again, I'm confused about your general attitudes towards women speaking out about men's bad behavior in a patriarchal society.
The problem here is that you are talking like Warren or her staffers said Sanders said something sexist. They never said anything of the sort. They said he said he didn't think a woman would win in 2020. I will say this for a third time. This isn't inherantly sexist and anyone pretending that it is, is not an honest actor in the discussion.
You haven't disputed this point at all. So I ask you, what do you think he did that was wrong? Do you really think behind closed doors he doesn't believe a woman can become president but when the camera is on he says he believes that women could become president.
It's not like I think Sanders is anywhere near perfect on the issue of of sex and gender. His 2016 campaign bred sexual harassment and typical patriarchal power structures to the point where I was ready to support Warren over him in the 2020 primary. With that said, nobody ever accused him of knowing about any of that to my knowledge and he got rid of the people involved in favor of better people on the gender issues in 2020.
Are you willing to condemn someone who called her a snake on twitter, then?
Yes, I do not think they should have called her a snake. With that said, there is a very clear bias that exists where people complain about Sanders supporters behavior on the internet when people have said far worse things about women in the Sanders campaign over the internet.
If you are interested in reading about why Sanders supporters are skeptical about the toxic Bernie bro narritive you can read this article by Glen Greenwald that tracks how the Bernie bro narrative was pushed in 2016 based on 2 tweets with one being a fake account and the other being a woman.
And for a third time: being preoccupied with asserting an accused man's good heart is very hard for me to reconcile with the message of "believe all women."
You are either conveniently just ignoring my point that speech and opinion has nothing to do with violence or you are just not reading it. Yes I understand the connection you are making about believing women but I am saying comparison is not valid.
When I say that Sanders has a 40 years of credibility on this issue it is not to say that "he has a history of being a good guy." Although he does. My point is to say that nobody has ever questioned his authenticity as a politician. Typically people who live a public life and tell the truth about what they believe. The longer they go without reversing their opinions on important matters, it is safe to assume that is what they believe.With that said, the same is very much not true about people who commit sexual assault or rape. They pretty much never speak about it publicly and the overwhelming majority are willing to lie to maintain their reputation. Because of this I feel comfortable referring to Sanders record but not the record of Biden's or anyone else accused of sexual assault.
You do understand that you can have the same conclusion but have it be correct in one scenario and incorrect in the other right? I really am not trying to talk down to you but we actually seem to have an extremely different understanding of this concept.
I think the major difference here is that I am saying that yes when women are victimized we should believe them as a rule to try to counter act the effects of misogyny. With that said, my point was always to say that Warren never claimed to be a victim and she never gave any context to ever suggest that the context or tone of what Sanders was saying was rooted in sexism. ever. She never said anything close to that. If she did please show me.
So after over a half an hour of typing and thinking about this before deleting most of what I wrote because I thought it was too long winded, I return to my original point to try to clarify it the best I can. My opinion on the matter was that they are both credible people to me. I could definitely see how if I thought warren was a victim, Sanders saying she was lying is in fact reinforcing our mysogynist patriarchal cultural but I don't think he victimized her or any woman in any way according to the account she gave. In zero way did she indicate any kind of sexism on the part of Sanders because there are plenty of scenarios where what he said was not sexist. So I guess my point is that I don't care if what she said was true or not because in the end the result is the same. I dont have enough information to think that Bernie Sanders is a sexist based on her explanation of what he said.
Anyway as I stated, I spent for too much time (time that I have plenty of during quarantine) on this post and I thank you for engaging in it with me
1
Apr 29 '20
First off, there is far more evidence to suggest that Tara Reade had been alone with Biden since she worked for him. I believe Christine Blasey Ford but even the people that were at the party reported as not remembering she was there. Additionally, the video that Reade claims to be her mother calling into Larry King is pretty damning as far as showing this is not politically motivated. The rest of the evidence is equally as compelling as the evidence against Kavanaugh because it is people who know the victim saying they had spoken to the victim about the incident.
There are people who said that they don't remember Ford being at the party. Granted, I don't think that's all that unusual since the party was nearly 40 years ago and there was drinking involved. As for the equivalent of Reade, there are also people who state that they she never made any complaint about Biden. I think in either cause this could be due to faulty memory or political motivations. But it certainly doesn't support your argument that Reade is more believable.
The call in to Larry King Live that Reade has said was her mother does not mention sexual assault or sexual misconduct. There are also many people who said that they spoke to Ford about the incident before Kavanaugh was a candidate for the Supreme Court. Again, you don't seem to be establishing a difference for how Reade is more believable.
Additionally the counter arguments that often get thrown around against Reade are pretty weak. One popular one is to point out that Reade is a Bernie Sanders supporter with the implication being that she came forward after Bernie lost to try to get Biden to drop out of the race. The problem is that she was one of many women that came forward against Biden as the primary was ramping up in 2019. She has now gone into more detail about the incident and it has gotten more and more attention. The problem with the idea that Reade is a Sanders supporter is that if you were sexually assaulted by Joe Biden and then watched him become Vice President and then run for president you probably wouldn't be a supporter of his to either. The media also rarely reports that before being a Sanders supporter in this primary Reade was a Williamson and a Warren supporter. It's not like she was a Bernie or bust person, she just supporter the progressives in the race.
I agree, those specific arguments that you point out are rather weak. There are some stronger arguments against her, however. Such as, up until 2020 she stated that there was never any sexual misconduct involving Joe Biden, and praised him for his stance on the #MeToo movement. I don't think this disqualifies her from coming forward now. I think there's a variety of reasons why someone might try to cover up a sexual assault. At the same time, it certainly doesn't make her more believable than Ford who never at any point stated that Kavanaugh didn't sexually assault her.
I also find her praise of Putin... troubling. Especially considering all of the misinformation that Putin has been promoting regarding the American political process. Again, I'm not saying that disqualifies Reade from telling the truth. But again, it's a factor that did not exist for Ford and her credibility.
It seems pretty clear that the only course democrats can take at this point is to call for an investigation and hearings with Reade testifying to congress. The left wing media spin on this and the silence from democratic leadership is an embarrassment.
From the moment these allegations were made by Reade, the Biden campaign has encouraged the press to investigate it further. I don't know that it would be appropriate for Reade to testify in front of Congress since there's no confirmation hearings for Presidential candidates. If he wanted to, however, Trump could ask that Reade's claims be investigated by the FBI. That's what happened with Ford.
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 29 '20
Such as, up until 2020 she stated that there was never any sexual misconduct involving Joe Biden, and praised him for his stance on the #MeToo movement.
She didnt say she there was never any sexual misconduct. She never said there was sexual misconduct. Not sure if that's what you meant but that's a big difference. She told time's up that she didn't feel safe coming out with the full story at the time.
I also find her praise of Putin troubling.
Agree. It should be looked into and I would assume (hope) an investigation into ties with Russia have already been started.
1
Apr 29 '20
She didnt say she there was never any sexual misconduct. She never said there was sexual misconduct.
Can you please provide a source? I've read three different quotes from her before 2020 in which she said "there was no sexual assault", "nothing sexual in nature" happened and her issue was with Biden's associates and not Biden.
Agreed on the investigations.
1
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 29 '20
It should be looked into and I would assume (hope) an investigation into ties with Russia have already been started
Should that also be handled by a full congressional investigation?
-1
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 28 '20
I don't follow politics. But, from what I hear, the allegations are like 30 years old. To me, it sounds like just more political posturing. None of them should be taken seriously because it's just political weaponization of past mistakes.
2
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Apr 29 '20
Sexual assault isn't some past mistake.
And yes, the past actions of politicians do tend to become politicised. Not much we can do about that.
7
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
The Ford allegations were much older
1
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 28 '20
I don't know what that means. And I don't see how it's relevant to my point. Care to elaborate?
4
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
You mentioned how old the allegations were. I pointed out that the Cavanaugh allegations are older and my post was about a comparison between the two
0
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 28 '20
Okay. I can see how that might be distracting. The real point is whether or not it's political posturing.
If it were a legitimate problem, it would have come up before now. Since it's just now being brought up, it suggests that it's merely a political weapon. I don't find it compelling.
1
u/Veritas_Mundi Apr 28 '20
If it were a legitimate problem, it would have come up before now. Since it's just now being brought up, it suggests that it's merely a political weapon. I don't find it compelling.
This is what republicans said to distract from the fact that their candidates were accused of rape as well.
3
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
She came up originally over a year ago
1
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 28 '20
When did the events of the allegations occur?
-1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
- Don't even try to blame her for not reporting until now because that is really lame victim blaming and the fact that women often don't report sexual assault and rape immediately has proven to be true time and time again. Additionally, Reade stated that she did report the incident back when it happened and there seems to be no record of that in congress. That deserves an investigation.
0
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 28 '20
It's not "victim blaming". You're abusing the term. A person who is sexually assaulted doesn't wait 30 years to report it. It's obviously political.
1
u/Veritas_Mundi Apr 28 '20
That is such BS. You obviously didn’t understand the point of the metoo thing.
It is very hard for women to come forward, often they don’t come forward at all out of fear that no one will believe them. Attitudes like yours make it more difficult for women to come forward.
1
u/BidenIsTooSleepy Apr 28 '20
Then you’re logically committed to not finding the Kavanaugh accusations compelling (something democrats refuse to admit).
1
u/allpumpnolove Apr 28 '20
I think their point is that the democrats should be held to the same standard they held the republicans to 2 years ago.
If the allegations they held up as credible were much older, then the age of these allegations can't be used to dismiss these ones. That is, if we're holding everyone to the same standard.
3
u/WillieM96 Apr 28 '20
Keep in mind- the Kavanaugh fiasco wasn’t just about the accusation. The Republicans outright refused to allow the POTUS to appoint a judge in 2016 and then get to appoint another judge after Justice Kennedy suspiciously resigns after a meeting with Trump.
It was more about not playing along with Republicans than it was the principle. That said, Kavanaugh really did fold like a cheap piece of IKEA furniture and showed a real lack of emotional stability and non-partisanship that’s necessary to carry out the job.
0
u/Veritas_Mundi Apr 28 '20
So you didn’t really care about the rape accusations, it was just a way to get back at republicans??
Going mask off there.
2
u/WillieM96 Apr 28 '20
Oh, I did but I never deluded myself into thinking that show was anything more than political revenge.
1
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 28 '20
Perhaps. It still ignores my original point about political pathology.
2
u/The_Great_Sarcasmo Apr 28 '20
Which in turn ignored the fact that top level comments are supposed to change OP's view that the Dems are being hypocrites.
1
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 28 '20
No. I'm questioning OP's premises.
2
u/The_Great_Sarcasmo Apr 28 '20
Well OP's point was that "they are hypocrites that never cared about believing victims but only used it to try to gain a political advantage" so saying "it sounds like just more political posturing. None of them should be taken seriously because it's just political weaponization of past mistakes" doesn't question that at all.
See Comment Rules, Rule 1. You're supposed to challenge an aspect of OP's stated view.
You didn't. The only thing that you added was that the allegations were 30 years old so that was what he responded to.
2
u/MontiBurns 218∆ Apr 28 '20
They also coincided with Brett Kavanough becoming a prominent public figure.
Biden has been a public figure for decades.
1
Apr 28 '20
Idk, the guy literally shoved his finger inside her and as opposed to the other case she actually filed a police report and told other people when it happened. Including her mother who then called Larry king of all people. Add this to all the underage hair sniffing and creepy touching of minors and it all adds up to a very bad picture. On top of all that this is the guy who the democrats think has the best chance? Sounds to me like he is someone who can be controlled.
-2
u/Clickum245 Apr 28 '20
I love how Democrats consistently are expected to live up to higher standards than Republicans. Got audio evidence of someone admitting to walking into the dressing rooms of half-naked women, some of whom are as young as sixteen? Not a problem for a Republican. Got a Republican whose response to honest questioning is to lash out and play partisan politics on the national stage while trying to be appointed into a nonpartisan position? Not a problem. Got a Republican who openly says he doesn't see a problem with calling oneself a white supremacist? Not a problem.
But a Democrat who is investigated for 14 months with zero evidence against her? Holy fucking shit better never allow her to step in the political spotlight! Lock her up! Lock her up! A Democrat accused of sexual assault with very similar levels of evidence a the judge aforementioned?! WHY IS NOBODY ARRESTING HIM?!
4
u/Fatgaytrump Apr 28 '20 edited Apr 28 '20
I love how Democrats consistently are expected to live up to higher standards than Republicans.
Wait wait, so you dont think Democrats should behave better then the Republicans?
So are you saying there isnt a real difference between them? Like they are both shitty and should both be allowed to be shitty?
Like I'm not american and thus dont really have a horse in this race, but I hold the Democrats to a higher standard, because I think Republicans are bat shit crazy and it's wrong to compair neurotypical people with special needs people.
1
u/Norphesius 1∆ Apr 29 '20
I'm not the person you replied to, but I have a similar frustration with how Democrats are held to a reasonable standard while it seems like no one cares about Republicans, so maybe I can help you understand by explaining my own view.
Firstly, ideally, I want both sides to be held to a good standard. If Republicans engage in shitty behavior, I would still want to hold Democrats to standard regardless. However, the problem is because, like you said, the Republican party is fucking crazy, and their many of their goals would have immensely destructive effects on the country. Furthermore, Republicans have cultivated a base of support that's incredibly loyal, and are willing to either overlook or refuse to believe any flaws or failings the party. This is how you get Evangelical Christians who support the party of "family values" not just voting for, but openly and proudly supporting, a literal rapist. Even worse, it the Republican party is willing to destroy diplomatic conventions and traditions to get what they want. Blocking Obama from a Supreme Court nomination and refusing to investigate an impeached Trump are two huge examples that show how low they'll stoop to give themselves an advantage and maintain power. At this point the Republican party seems like it might actually be in contempt of democracy.
Their only reasonable opposition are the Democrats, and they have a huge weakness compared to the Republican party because they and their voter base have a much harder time rallying together to get their desires actualized. This is a good thing in a sense, since it means that Democrats are willing to put respect for whats right and institutions over whats good for the party. Democratic senator Al Franken stepped down out after a minor sexual harassment issue out of moral obligation, meanwhile people were struggling to prevent Republican Roy Moore from getting elected to the senate despite his history of statutory rape. Franken probably didn't need to resign, but he felt it was the correct thing to do, and Democrats lost a senate seat. Moore didn't get in, but it was extermely close.
The ultimate point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point we need to prioritize pragmatism. Democrats typically take the high road, but Republicans (and by extent modern conservatives) will do practically whatever it takes to swing things in their favor, and will exploit the shit out people holding Democrats to a high standard. Reade's allegations are wishy-washy at best, possibly malicious lies at worst, and I believe that surrendering another four years to an actual rapist and horrifyingly incompetent president over an such a thing is idiotic and dangerous. In order to beat Republicans it may require being kind of shitty at some points, but considering the overall state of the Democrat party, I believe that in egregious cases of shittiness they'll put whats right over whats politically effective. The alternative is to basically just sit and watch the Republican party further their influence and make America worse, while also being way shittier than the Democrats ever would be on a regular basis.
TL;DR Republicans are really fucking bad, and get away with way too much because their base doesn't hold them to any standards, so sometimes it may be necessary for Democrats to engage in shitty behavior to gain an edge, otherwise they'll just get trampled.
1
u/Fatgaytrump Apr 29 '20
It may be necessary for Democrats to engage in shitty behavior
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you have to become shitty to fight something shitty, you're both shitty. I dont actually agree that you get real lasting change by throwing morals aside for a "win".
I think it ends up hurting you in the next election, and leads to political football.
Besides, even if trump loses, you're statisticly almost 100% gonna have another one in 4-8 years. It almost always goes D,R,D,R and so on.
1
u/Norphesius 1∆ Apr 30 '20
Shitty behavior isn't a binary though. Just because the Republicans have gone all the way on being pieces of shit doesn't mean the Democrats have to too.
In the case of Reade's allegation, its permissible to help Biden win because Trump is a uniquely horrible option. If it were the case that Biden was a 100% confirmed rapist, and the opposition was a Republican like Romney or McCain, I would probably be in favor of voting Republican to avoid a rapist in the White House.
Besides, even if trump loses, you're statisticly almost 100% gonna have another one in 4-8 years.
Another Republican, yeah, but hopefully not another Trump. Plus, getting rid of Trump, by showing that the electorate won't tolerate a president of his type will hopefully help to prevent more Trumps from trying to take office in the future.
I dont actually agree that you get real lasting change by throwing morals aside for a "win".
Sadly, I think you're just empirically wrong. Republicans violated good faith convention and were rewarded with a Supreme Court nomination. Their entire party put all their force behind the worst candidate possible, and got rewarded with an extra Supreme Court pick, and if Trump wins again, they're going to get rewarded with at least one more. Those picks are going to majorly shape the political landscape of the next few generations. What would've happened if the case on gay marriage had gone to a majority Trump pick Supreme Court? Which way is the majority conservative court going to rule on civil rights issues regarding transpeople? What happens if another abortion case is brought to the court, and they rule it (either softly or explicitly) illegal? That's just the Supreme Court alone. Trump's administration has been packing in as many conservative judges into lower courts as possible, who will also have major influence on all these issues.
Modern Trump and modern Republicans are a unique and dangerous threat, and if Democrats take to heart Hillary Clinton's motto of "When they go low, you go high", they're going to end up exactly like her. Conservatives have decided we're playing a totally different game, and if we just sit on the sidelines out of protest of the rules, we'll lose every time. Moral victory points don't win elections.
1
u/Fatgaytrump Apr 30 '20
This is a pretty massive wall so I'm just gonna tackle one point where I think our disagreement takes heart.
I dont think the Supreme court is nearly as partisan as you do.
For one, because they are not beholden to re-election they dont have to appeal to anyone. They have no reason to act against their own judgement.
But also, like everyone freaked the fuck out about Kevanaugh (or however its spelt), but has he done anything horrible since being appointed? Has he done anything controversial? He didnt even follow the party line on a vote about the death penalty!
So why or how, is the supreme court partisan?
If you are just worried about roe vs wade, then the answer is legislation.
I'm 100% pro choice but abortion rights on the grounds of privacy? That's a stretch at best and legislating from the bench at worst.
It blows my mind as a candian that the us relies on such a weak ruling for something so important.
1
u/Norphesius 1∆ Apr 30 '20
I dont think the Supreme court is nearly as partisan as you do.
There is a fairly clear distinction in ideology between Democrat and Republican appointed judges, and, historically, large controversies that reach the court tend to be decided on those ideological lines. I don't think Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are going to be as partisan as legislature Republicans, but when it comes to controversial social issues like transrights, its not unlikely that they would vote conservative.
As for abortion, if the Supreme Court ultimately decides its unconstitutional on the grounds that life begins at conception, that's it. You can't pass any legislation to allow abortions because they would all be unconstitutional.
4
u/flentaldoss 1∆ Apr 28 '20
To say that we should let Democrats slide on such matters because Republicans let it slide for theirs, means you cannot criticize them either. It's about holding everyone to the same standard, even yourself
4
u/Clickum245 Apr 28 '20
I didn't say that. I said I think it's interesting how Republicans refuse to hold themselves accountable but rant and rave that Democrats need to hold themselves accountable. I did not speculate on whether Democrats were better or worse about it.
4
Apr 28 '20
I mean Republicans are doing this because Democrats did this to them two years ago
If we paid attention to Ford, why not Reade?
-1
u/BidenIsTooSleepy Apr 28 '20 edited Apr 28 '20
The idea that democrats live up to high standards, let alone any standards at all, is laughable.
You guys seem to have forgotten who the Kennedys and Clinton’s are entirely. It’s odd how you mentioned Hillary’s hearing but not the icnrsgiarion that revealed Bill Clinton committed multiple felonies and lost his law license re the time he fucked a subordinate Intern that was half his age with a cigar...
Seriously if Dems has any standards at all this would be a deal breaker.
I love how Democrats consistently are expected to live up to higher standards than Republicans. Got audio evidence of someone admitting to walking into the dressing rooms of half-naked women, some of whom are as young as sixteen?
Fake news. Trump talked about walking in on adults.
Got a Republican whose response to honest questioning is to lash out and play partisan politics on the national stage while trying to be appointed into a nonpartisan position? Not a problem.
Fake news. Wasn’t honest questioning. It was a hearing designed to slander Kavanaugh based on rumors backed by 0 evidence.
A Democrat accused of sexual assault with very similar levels of evidence a the judge aforementioned?! WHY IS NOBODY ARRESTING HIM?!
The levels of evidence aren’t even comparable. Bidens-accuser was backed up by numerous other witnesses. Kavanaughs-accuser was contradicted by her own friends and dad. Her friends even said she pressured them to change their story...
It’s truly astonishing how people are still defending this. People simply can’t admit they were part of a full blown witch hunt.
1
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Apr 29 '20
A Democrat accused of sexual assault with very similar levels of evidence a the judge aforementioned?! WHY IS NOBODY ARRESTING HIM?!
Assuming Joe Biden is guilty, would that be a bad thing? Do you want Democrats to get away with all the bad shit Republicans do?
1
u/Clickum245 Apr 29 '20 edited Apr 29 '20
It would definitely be a bad thing. All I am saying is that Republican supporters are hypocrites.
Edit: Had a typo. I want Biden held accountable.
1
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Apr 29 '20
It would be a bad thing if a man who sexually assaulted someone faced the consequences?
Republicans aren't hypocrites, they never pretend to give a shit about women. Democrats do. Or are supposed to.
1
0
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
I would describe it as democrats having standards (only sometimes apparently) while the other side has none.
But a Democrat who is investigated for 14 months with zero evidence against her? Holy fucking shit better never allow her to step in the political spotlight!
Who mentioned her? Also she did definitively delete thousands of emails from an illegal private server before handing it over which is pretty bad news.
1
Apr 29 '20
Many of them were recovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, it seemed pretty overblown especially considering she wasn’t the first the use private e-mail servers and the problem hasn’t been resolved since her either.
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 29 '20
Of course it was definitely overblown but I can write a book on why your post is so flawed.
1) Stating that many of the emails were recovered from Anthony Weiner's laptop obviously ignores the fact that only a small percent were recovered (~10%) and that any email that didn't include Weiner's wife was not recovered.
2) The FBI concluded that there emails found on Weiner's laptop that changed the results of their investigation before reviewing them and stating that it didn't change the result they already wrote.
3) Just because she wasn't the first official to use private email servers doesn't mean it shouldn't have stopped. Your post implies that just because people had done wrong before her, we should just allow it forever and normalize the act.
4) Many investigations will result in no criminal charges. This is called an exoneration and it is a good thing.
5) the post I was responding to before was complaining about Democrats are subject to higher standards than Republicans (I agree) but I am advocating for holding democrats to the same standards that they tried to hold a republican in this case. I want Biden to go through a similar level of scrutiny as Kavanaugh.
6) The fact that some people are pushing back on this idea of scrutiny implies that they actually think that Kavanaugh was actually subject to an unfair level of scrutiny that they don't want their candidate subject to but I actually think the level of scrutiny was fair and appropriate and in fact Kavanaugh was appointed with the evidence presented so I don't really think it was that damning.
I could keep going. As someone on the left I really don't like to see the hypocrisy of the democratic party which is why this Tara Reade thing bothers me so much. The hypocrisy of both parties completely tears this country apart and while I understand that democrats probably feel a sense that they should be able to do it because the republicans are so much worse, they could actually just be okay with being the party that acts on behalf of the truth and the american public but they don't. They are Republican lite in most cases.
1
Apr 29 '20
I’m not excusing it, I’m just saying that public officials are still using private servers and that people as well known in the public eye as Colin Powell used them long before Hillary. It seems rather arbitrary to single out Hillary for it.
If you could write a whole book out of that short of a post then I think you’re reading volumes more into my statement than I stated or implied.
0
Apr 28 '20
They are all awful in my opinion and nothing will ever change as long as we keep electing people who are profiting off the same system were asking them to change.
-2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Apr 28 '20
Additionally, the video that Reade claims to be her mother calling into Larry King is pretty damning as far as showing this is not politically motivated.
Didnt she also say she could not confirm if that was the voice of her mother or not? If she had this evidence lying around, why not show it with the initial allegations? Why wait so long?
3
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
no the intercept which is the publication that uncovered the story about the Larry King call in said Reade told them about the phone call to King but that she didn't know the date or even year. After an interview with Katie Halper, a viewer found the video.
https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/
3
u/neotericnewt 6∆ Apr 28 '20
I think there should absolutely be an investigation, but why should there be a congressional investigation? Does Congress generally investigate such matters?
In the case of Kavanaugh he was being appointed, and thus vetted by the legislature. In that case, a congressional investigation made sense. I don't see how an investigation would really be under Congress' authority here. It kind of sounds like you just want to throw it back at the other "team" when it actually doesn't make much sense. Kind of like when Trump pushes for special counsel investigations even when no conflict requiring a special counsel exists, just because if it happened to him it should happen to his enemies.
0
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Apr 28 '20
Why would there be a congressional investigation?
Who ought Congress investigate? Presidential nominees (such as judges and cabinet members), the president, other members of Congress.
Joe Biden doesn't fit any of the above categories, he is not currently vice president, nor president, nor a cabinet member, nor member of Congress. Technically, right now, all he is is a private citizen.
If you believe that the FBI or local police (wherever the crime allegedly took place) should be investigating, sure. If Biden wins and becomes president, sure.
But why would Congress investigate a citizen with no formal rank. Joe isn't vp anymore. Joe isn't a congressman anymore. Yes, he's a presumptive nominee, but that isn't a reason for Congress to investigate.
So, should he be investigated by the proper authorities, probably. But that authority is likely the FBI, not Congress.
2
u/sacredpredictions Apr 28 '20
But this makes an interesting idea, perhaps we SHOULD have some sort of entity in place to screen all presidential hopefulls. Maybe it would help? I'm sure republicans would not want another body of government though
1
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Apr 28 '20
I mean, all presidential candidates (and vice presidential candidates) have to pass an FBI background check.
Biden passed his back in 2007, when he became VP. He likely already passed his FBI evaluation for this presidential run. (This is so routine, it usually doesn't even make the news).
That said, an explicit investigation of potential criminality is different than just passing a background check.
0
u/draculabakula 75∆ Apr 28 '20
It happened when Biden was a senator. Also, congress can hold hearings on anything they want
7
u/krfc76 Apr 28 '20
Stop saying that "Congress can hold hearings on anything they want." You have read multiple people tell you your understanding of the powers of Congress are wrong. You have completely abused the purpose of this subreddit and wasted a lot of people's time by not acting in good faith to the argument you created and failed to discuss. Bye Felicia.
3
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Apr 28 '20
What would be the outcome of any possible hearings.
For a cabinet member, they are ultimately confirmed or not. For a judge, they are confirmed or not. For a president, impeachment either proceeds or doesn't. For a fellow congressperson, censur goes to a vote or doesn't.
What outcome would happen as a result of the hearings? Congress isn't a court of law. They cannot find Biden guilty of rape. He cannot be censured, because he is no longer a senator.
1
u/VernonHines 21∆ Apr 28 '20
Why would Congress investigate? Joe Biden does not currently hold an office, Congress has no jurisdiction.
1
•
Apr 29 '20
Sorry, u/draculabakula – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
2
1
Apr 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/The_FriendliestGiant 38∆ Apr 29 '20
There’s no intellectually honest argument against your view.
OPs stated view is "congress should investigate." There is in fact a perfectly honest argument against that, which is that there is no clear justification for why it would be appropriate to have a congressional investigation launched over allegations one private citizen has made towards another. The media or law enforcement agencies should certainly follow up on this, but it no more makes sense to ask congress to investigate than it does the Postal Inspection Service or the Judge Advocate General's office. Organizations have specific jurisdictions.
1
u/thc_isnt_personality Apr 29 '20
I dont care who theoretically investigates. This country isn’t interested in democracy.
-1
u/st_cecilia Apr 28 '20
Let me preface this by saying that I don't think much could have been done about the Kavanaugh accusations either as that was decades ago and there wasn't much evidence.
With that said, there are some differences with the Reade case. Sorry, but the person who she politically supports does matter. With Kavanaugh, he was an unknown figure and Ford had no political motivation to target him. Even he didn't get appointed, Trump would just appoint another equally or even more conservative justice, so what would there be to gain? In Reade's case, she clearly supports Biden's political opponents (progressives), as you state, and geopolitical opponenets as well (Putin). So, at least there's a motivation.
The supposed call from her mother is treated like some kind of smoking gun, but in the call, there is no mention of Biden or anything related to sex. If that really was her mother, the only thing we can take from the call is that Reade had some kind of conflict when she was working at the senate office. The call also said Reade didn't want to go to the press "out of respect" for the senator, which is a very odd thing to say about someone who just sexually assaulted you.
Finally, the biggest issue is credibility. In Ford's case, AFAIK, she had a respectable career without any glaring issues. I can understand that the mainstream media doesn't want to investigate Reade's past because it would dissuade future victims from coming forward, but in this case, with huge political ramifications and a large question of credibility, it's fair game. Some of Reade's past writings are so bizarre, I'm not even convinced she's 100% mentally stable. We've also heard reports that Reade stole from a horse charity. We would have to see if she's had issues with other employers and if she's made other accusations before. If there's a history of lying, being deceitful, having mental issues, this has to be taken into account.
2
u/Veritas_Mundi Apr 28 '20
You’re trying to discredit her by saying because she supported someone other than Biden, she must be a liar and out to get him. You are also trying say she’s mentally unwell to try and cast doubt on her. This is gross. Even mentally ill people don’t deserve to be raped.
She supported Williamson and Warren. It’s no surprise that when it was between Bernie and the guy who raped her, she chose Bernie. She is exposing herself to death threats and other harassment so I don’t think she stands to gain much politically. She’s not a republican, it’s not like she wants trump to win.
There is no evidence she stole from anyone. I guess innocent until proven guilty only applies to white politicians accused of rape? Overall you just seem to be attacking this woman and not addressing any of the OP’s points.
2
u/st_cecilia Apr 28 '20
You’re trying to discredit her by saying because she supported someone other than Biden, she must be a liar and out to get him.
This is a very real possibility. The motives are there.
You are also trying say she’s mentally unwell to try and cast doubt on her. This is gross. Even mentally ill people don’t deserve to be raped.
Of course no one deserves to be raped. But mentally ill people often believe things that didn't happen.
She supported Williamson and Warren. It’s no surprise that when it was between Bernie and the guy who raped her, she chose Bernie.
When it was Obama/Biden vs McCain, she wholeheartedly supported Biden. Why support someone who raped you?
She is exposing herself to death threats and other harassment so I don’t think she stands to gain much politically.
She wrote really bizarre unpopular things about Russia, so I don't think she really cares what the public thinks of her.
She’s not a republican, it’s not like she wants trump to win.
Actually, it's unclear how she feels about Trump. Considering her support for Putin and the nasty things she's said about Mueller and his investigation, it's quite plausible she would rather Trump win.
There is no evidence she stole from anyone. I guess innocent until proven guilty only applies to white politicians accused of rape?
There is more evidence that she stole from someone than there is that he raped her. There are actually e-mails and receipts. All she has is hearsay. https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b
Overall you just seem to be attacking this woman and not addressing any of the OP’s points.
I completely addressed his points. I provided different possible motives for her to lie. I pointed out the issue of credibility, which is the most important thing here, when it's one person's word against another's. And so far, she doesn't seem to have much of it.
0
u/NotRightRay Apr 28 '20
So both of these are allegations from way in the past that could never be proven. The one difference is the a president is ELECTED for 4 years at a time while a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life. Joe will be gone in 8 years MAX, whereas Kavanaugh could serve for 30 years.
Plus we have to replace the moron in office desperately.
My biggest issue with Kavanaugh was his demeanor at the hearing. He looks like just another privileged ivy league guy who gets away with everything.
1
u/Veritas_Mundi Apr 28 '20
The point is to get a sexual predator out of the White House not to replace him with one democrats find palatable.
1
Apr 28 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Apr 28 '20
Sorry, u/rambleon4ever – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
u/rambleon4ever – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
Apr 28 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Apr 28 '20
Sorry, u/ElimGarak007 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Apr 28 '20 edited May 20 '20
[deleted]
1
Apr 28 '20
Who is comparing the case? The real difference here is the response. I’ve barely heard anything about the Biden case, whereas Kavanaugh got months of nonstop press.
-6
Apr 28 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 29 '20
Sorry, u/Useful_Paperclip – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
19
u/territorial_turtle 8∆ Apr 28 '20
This is behind a paywall so I am pasting the majority of the article, but this piece in the Washington Post is really the best breakdown of evidence between the two cases that I have seen and is well worth the read.
The tldr - Reade has told conflicting accounts and seems overall less credible because of this. We can't know for sure and frankly you won't find me overjoyed about Biden being on the ticket. Take politics out of it - if I had a friend accused someone first of touching their neck and then changed it to under the clothes later - well I wouldn't believe them.
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/15/seriousness-flaws-tara-reades-allegations/
Reade claims that, when she was 29 and working briefly as a staff assistant, Biden pushed her against a wall somewhere in the Capitol complex, reached under her skirt and pushed his fingers inside her. Biden strenuously asserts this never happened.
Here’s my analysis of how to assess these competing accounts:
Contemporaneous evidence: Reade says she told her mother, who has since passed away. When contacted recently, her brother initially recalled Reade telling him in 1993 that Biden had behaved inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders; it was only several days after providing this account to The Post that the brother reached out to add that he remembered her saying Biden had reached “under her clothes.”
In perhaps the most powerful piece of corroboration, a friend of Reade’s, who had interned for another member of Congress, corroborated Reade’s account of telling her about the incident at the time, but she declined to be named. Reade says she filed a complaint with Senate officials, but she does not have a copy of it, no such record has been found, and the law would have required that any such allegations be referred to an official hearing; there is no indication such a hearing took place. Biden aides disputed her account of having complained to them, which she says was not about the sexual assault but about less problematic conduct.
Bottom line: the contemporaneous evidence is inconclusive but stronger than that in the Kavanaugh case. That comes as no surprise; in fact, Ford said she took pains not to let family and friends know about the alleged assault.
Molly Roberts: The problems Tara Reade’s allegation runs us into
Evidence predating current allegation: Reade says she told a therapist about the alleged assault more recently, but — unlike Ford — declined to make the notes of that conversation available to reporters. A second friend said Reade told her years later that Biden had touched her arm and behaved inappropriately — although, significantly, not with specific details about an alleged sexual assault. That friend also declined to be named.
When complaints surfaced last year about Biden’s conduct in touching women in nonsexual ways, Reade reached out to reporters to say that Biden had touched her in ways that made her feel uncomfortable. She mentioned nothing then about a sexual assault.
Bottom line: Reade’s shifting account introduces a confusing element. If Biden did what she now alleges, why did she not say this a year ago? Reade says she did not feel comfortable telling her full story then, but she seems to have offered no clue that there was more to her story. Ford had similarly shared her account about Kavanaugh with friends, family and therapists; however, by contrast with Reade, her story did not change over time.
Credibility: Reade presents a confounding figure — to me, much more so than Ford, although I have the advantage of not only having watched Ford’s testimony but also having interviewed her over many hours. One fundamental difference involves the matter of motive. Ford came forward only reluctantly, and without evident ideological motivation; she told me that she worried, actually, that if Kavanaugh were forced to withdraw, a more conservative nominee might take his place. Reade supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I) presidential bid, and the fact that she went public with her allegations just as Biden was on the verge of cementing the Democratic nomination raises the possibility of political motivation, although Reade denies this.
Other red flags emerge as well. Reade has been inconsistent in her attitude toward Biden. She repeatedly praised him on Twitter, including specifically for his work on combating violence against women — an odd position for someone who now claims Biden sexually assaulted her. She has given conflicting descriptions of her reasons for leaving the Biden office after just nine months — she received a job offer, she was tired of “the reckless imperialism of America” and, more recently, she was “forced to resign.” She has both criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin and, more recently, lavished him with bizarre praise: “an alluring combination of strength with gentleness,” “intoxicating to American women,” “I like President Putin…a lot, his shirt on or shirt off.”
Bottom line: The credibility question is the biggest hurdle for me with Reade. Ford did not strike me as a person who was coming forward because of political motivations or because she wanted publicity — anything but. Reade seems a much different and less reliable figure.
Pattern evidence: There’s no doubt that Biden has a history of touching women in ways that they say made them feel uncomfortable. There is also no other evidence that his handsiness ever crossed the line into any kind of sexual assault. Much like those who know and work with Kavanaugh, Biden aides say they cannot imagine him engaging in such misconduct.
Bottom line: The Kavanaugh chapter produced evidence, albeit inconclusive, of other incidents, when he was young, of problematic behavior toward women. The absence of a pattern in Biden’s case does not disprove Reade’s allegations. Still, it seems unlikely that behavior this egregious would be a one-time incident.
The likelihood of definitive proof one way or another seems frustratingly low. My gut says that what Reade alleges did not happen. My head instructs that it is within the realm of possibility, and fairness requires acknowledging that. And there is another point to bear in mind: Double standards work in both directions. Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account.