Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 295: Bern After Reade-ing

(+) Yeah! (+)

Leafeon13N posted...

I am arguing with complete morons on Twitter right now.

One just tried to cite the CDC website lag count for the death total but the CDC updated their website to show the real count and they hadn't checked.

I empathize with this, surely you can see why I sometimes come to this topic extremely blackpilled lmao

---

Yeah the Chinese government is being stubborn about this whole thing. Doesn't make it any less ridiculous for Trump to blame the country for the virus, but it admittedly doesn't help either.

---

I blame the government of China and the President of the United States. The blame is not mutually exclusive.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I empathize with this, surely you can see why I sometimes come to this topic extremely blackpilled lmao

He blocked me. Ultimate form of validation.

The Chinese government isn't responsible for the virus! Or for America's poor handling of it.

---

...this is a horrible addiction.


---

How are Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman still not in jail

https://reason.com/2020/05/07/she-said-anthony-fauci-sexually-assaulted-her-now-she-says-jacob-wohl-and-jack-burkman-paid-her-to-lie/

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

So basically Trump pressured the DoJ to drop the case to save him the political fallout of a pardon?

Hopefully the judge will see this for what it is and reject it.

Getting a deadly virus to own the libs!

We the People hired Trump to clean house at the DOJ and he's succeeding. Takes a crook to know a crook, apparently.

LordoftheMorons posted...

How are Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman still not in jail

https://reason.com/2020/05/07/she-said-anthony-fauci-sexually-assaulted-her-now-she-says-jacob-wohl-and-jack-burkman-paid-her-to-lie/

woman's being pretty bold coming out with all this.
if even half her story is true these guys are complete fucking nutjobs and aren't in jail because nobody's pressed charges, possibly because there's nobody to press charges.

like really, what are you gonna arrest them for?

---

Wanglicious posted...

woman's being pretty bold coming out with all this.
if even half her story is true these guys are complete fucking nutjobs and aren't in jail because nobody's pressed charges, possibly because there's nobody to press charges.

like really, what are you gonna arrest them for?

Isn't paying someone to commit a crime, a crime?

---

oooh oooh is this a good opportunity for us to bring back the classic "in a libertarian society, would it be legal to hire a hitman" debate?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Isn't paying someone to commit a crime, a crime?

But is making false allegations to the media a crime if you don't make them to the police?

---

SmartMuffin posted...

oooh oooh is this a good opportunity for us to bring back the classic "in a libertarian society, would it be legal to hire a hitman" debate?

Any libertarian society that isn't smart enough to ban that won't exist for long before being conquered or overthrown.

---

At the very least I assume that if any of Wohl's targets wanted they could sue for slander

...though actually I think for slander you need to prove damages, so Wohl and Burkman would have the defense of "we're such fucking obvious clowns that literally no one believed us any time we tried running this same con"

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Isn't paying someone to commit a crime, a crime?

what crime did she commit?
not being sarcastic or joking here, like redsox said, lying to the media/press wouldn't be a crime.

like you can say they're willingly committing defamation, sure. ...but then the person being defamed needs to be the one to press charges and that's not gonna be something they get prison time for anyway. what crime did she commit, what crime did they commit, and who's there to press charges against them?

bear in mind, i'm not including the possibility of her going after them, entirely possible there's something she can get them on. i'm just looking for what they've done.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

At the very least I assume that if any of Wohl's targets wanted they could sue for slander

...though actually I think for slander you need to prove damages, so Wohl and Burkman would have the defense of "we're such fucking obvious clowns that literally no one believed us any time we tried running this same con"

I don't think that will work. But they may have a better defense - not having enough money to be worth suing. Unless he's already inherited a small fortune or is Justin Bieber or something, or you can sue someone else at the same time, no 22-year-old is worth suing.

---

AOC soon to become a capitalist after making her millions on the stalk market:

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1258516156408713216?s=21

---

Wanglicious posted...

if even half her story is true these guys are complete f***ing nutjobs

You didnt know that about them already
---

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/article242527331.html

The declaration exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reades more recent allegations of sexual assault.
Reades then-husband Theodore Dronen wrote the court declaration. Dronen at the time was contesting a restraining order Reade filed against him days after he filed for divorce, Superior Court records show.

In it, he writes Reade told him about a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Bidens office.

In the filing dated March 25, 1996, Dronen testified that he met Reade in the spring of 1993 while the two worked for separate members of Congress in Washington, D.C.
Dronen wrote that Reade told him she eventually struck a deal with the chief of staff of the Senators office and left her position.
It was obvious that this event had a very traumatic effect on (Reade), and that she is still sensitive and effected (sic) by it today, Dronen wrote.

Um...if this article is true that these filings exist, Joe Biden needs to drop out now. This is a million times more concrete than Kavanaugh at this point.

I cant verify if the source is legit, maybe the mainstream media will report on it! (lol)

---

That appears like it could be consistent with any of the several versions of her story

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/article242527331.html

Um...if this article is true that these filings exist, Joe Biden needs to drop out now. This is a million times more concrete than Kavanaugh at this point.

I cant verify if the source is legit, maybe the mainstream media will report on it! (lol)

It shows she didn't just make this up now, but it doesn't prove Biden did anything wrong. It shows that Tara Reade told her husband in the 90s about this.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That appears like it could be consistent with any of the several versions of her story

Yikes.

---

To continue that, if its true it proves that all of Bidens staff who claimed she never brought up issues are straight up lying, and thats ignoring that WHATEVER HAPPENED shook her enough that her husband testified about it in court as changing her personality.

Thats a pretty wild response, LotM, like Im genuinely floored.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

You didnt know that about them already

i didn't, no. they do something high profile before i'd have known?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/article242527331.html

Um...if this article is true that these filings exist, Joe Biden needs to drop out now. This is a million times more concrete than Kavanaugh at this point.

I cant verify if the source is legit, maybe the mainstream media will report on it! (lol)

i mean... entirely possible it's true but if it is this is something that can easily be vetted.
at this point the skeptical case is basically "something probably happened but we don't know what."
this would be the first independent source saying it was sexual.

i guess it's time for Warren to be the compromise candidate...!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That appears like it could be consistent with any of the several versions of her story

Lol

---

As has been said I'm sure, someone changing their story should not be nearly as big a red flag as it is traditionally held to be. And eyewitness testimony is much less reliable than it's traditionally been held to be. It's because people have to make sense of the world around them as they experience it, and people do it by building models of the world which change as new information comes in. That doesn't make them dishonest, it's just how people function. Now if you are a powerless staffer in the 90s and you were attacked by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee...... you are probably going to choose your words in such a way as to try to avoid conflict.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That appears like it could be consistent with any of the several versions of her story

Yikes

So there is a very troubling trend of investigating the credibility of the complainant by investigating who they told and when. That isn't very direct evidence, but the focus goes there because it's the only thing that can be investigated 25 years later. But this is both ineffective for determining truth, and places the victim on trial.

The presumption of innocent until proven guilty also protects victims - so that where there is doubt, the accused can be acquitted without concluding that the complainant is "not credible." The increasing trend, started by the left, of needing to believe one person or the other but refusing to admit that they lack the evidence to reliably decide - this is really bad and hurts everyone.

---

red sox 777 posted...

So there is a very troubling trend of investigating the credibility of the complainant by investigating who they told and when. That isn't very direct evidence, but the focus goes there because it's the only thing that can be investigated 25 years later. But this is both ineffective for determining truth, and places the victim on trial.

The presumption of innocent until proven guilty also protects victims - so that where there is doubt, the accused can be acquitted without concluding that the complainant is "not credible." The increasing trend, started by the left, of needing to believe one person or the other but refusing to admit that they lack the evidence to reliably decide - this is really bad and hurts everyone.

Yeah. It doesn't mean anything. They could have just started lying then. However, this is still MUCH more corroboration than Ford had towards her claim, when the left called for Kavanaugh's head.

It isn't even close at this point.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yeah. It doesn't mean anything. They could have just started lying then. However, this is still MUCH more corroboration than Ford had towards her claim, when the left called for Kavanaugh's head.

It isn't even close at this point.

That's why Kavanaugh had to be confirmed. We had to set a precedent. Replacing him with another conservative judge wouldn't have set that precedent. It's like the guy in Mississippi who was convicted 6 times by white juries and had his conviction overturned 6 times for the prosecutors striking jurors based on race. At that point, it doesn't matter if he did it, the precedent must be set, for the benefit of the country as a whole, that that kind of kangaroo court process will not be allowed.

---

did biden use his calendars as diaries?

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

did biden use his calendars as diaries?

You keep saying this, so I'm curious. What do you find incredible about that? I've never kept a calendar or diary so I don't know much about how they are used.

---

i mean it doesn't prove the most important part of the allegation - Biden fingering Reade - but it would clear up that 1) there was indeed a complaint and 2) it was sexual. going a step further it says she struck a deal with the chief of staff, that'd lead to more areas of discovery. nothing here is proving anything but it is evidence suggesting that something happened, probably sexual, and it was brought up at the time with people in his office before getting shuffled off to the side. that is considerably more than the claim that nothing happened at all and should apply more pressure to the basic premise of name searching her in records, which Biden vehemently opposed to doing.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

To continue that, if its true it proves that all of Bidens staff who claimed she never brought up issues are straight up lying, and thats ignoring that WHATEVER HAPPENED shook her enough that her husband testified about it in court as changing her personality.

Thats a pretty wild response, LotM, like Im genuinely floored.

No, it doesn't prove that. It proves that she told her ex-husband that she "struck a deal" with Biden's chief of staff to leave her job (something she's also had several explanations for), and that she told the ex-husband about sexual harassment. It does not prove that she made a complaint about that harassment, and says absolutely nothing about what form that harassment might have taken. What it does prove is that regardless of whether or not she was in fact assaulted, she only told her husband that she was sexually harassed (at least at the time of that filing).

---

red sox 777 posted...

You keep saying this, so I'm curious. What do find incredible about that? I've never kept a calendar or diary so I don't know much about how they are used.

it's just an absurd statement. no sane person uses a calendar as a diary. also, the actual calendars that were shown revealed that he was full of shit about this - they said stuff like "seeing grease II with michelle." that's not a "diary entry," that's... a calendar note.

during the hearing, kavanaugh said a lot more stuff that ranged from ridiculous to evidently false (which is why he never should have been confirmed), i just find that one particularly funny.

---

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation

I was really hoping this thread wasn't going to become about Tara Reade again, but since it has I might as well ask what everyone thinks about this article.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, it doesn't prove that. It proves that she told her ex-husband that she "struck a deal" with Biden's chief of staff to leave her job (something she's also had several explanations for), and that she told the ex-husband about sexual harassment. It does not prove that she made a complaint about that harassment, and says absolutely nothing about what form that harassment might have taken. What it does prove is that regardless of whether or not she was in fact assaulted, she only told her husband that she was sexually harassed (at least at the time of that filing).

Yes, she probably wasn't comfortable talking about the details. Or, he didn't want to drag her name through the mud by talking about details in a public court record.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, it doesn't prove that. It proves that she told her ex-husband that she "struck a deal" with Biden's chief of staff to leave her job (something she's also had several explanations for), and that she told the ex-husband about sexual harassment. It does not prove that she made a complaint about that harassment, and says absolutely nothing about what form that harassment might have taken. What it does prove is that regardless of whether or not she was in fact assaulted, she only told her husband that she was sexually harassed (at least at the time of that filing).

Nice. I hope you said the same about Ford and Kavanaugh!

---

...even i gotta say you're reaching on that one.
not that you aren't technically correct in your assessment but there's some clear juggling going on here to reach the conclusion, most notably how you're gonna strike a deal on something that results in you leaving without that involving a complaint.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it's just an absurd statement. no sane person uses a calendar as a diary. also, the actual calendars that were shown revealed that he was full of shit about this - they said stuff like "seeing grease II with michelle." that's not a "diary entry," that's... a calendar note.

during the hearing, kavanaugh said a lot more stuff that ranged from ridiculous to evidently false (which is why he never should have been confirmed), i just find that one particularly funny.

This is the funniest comment I have ever read.

No sane person can use a calendar as a diary of events. LMFAO.

Like, that is even hard to digest.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it's just an absurd statement. no sane person uses a calendar as a diary. also, the actual calendars that were shown revealed that he was full of shit about this - they said stuff like "seeing grease II with michelle." that's not a "diary entry," that's... a calendar note.

during the hearing, kavanaugh said a lot more stuff that ranged from ridiculous to evidently false (which is why he never should have been confirmed), i just find that one particularly funny.

Honestly I'm amazed that a high school student kept a calendar at all. That shows an amazing level of organization in my eyes. Maybe he wasn't into writing too much in a diary - just occasional notes that could fit on a calendar.

---

Xeybozn posted...

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation

I was really hoping this thread wasn't going to become about Tara Reade again, but since it has I might as well ask what everyone thinks about this article.

I did actually read that earlier. It does bring up two additional things that make me further doubt Reade:

1. The testimony of people she told has changed along with her story
2. She has demonstrably lied in her claims that WaPo never followed up with her.

---

Corrik7 posted...

This is the funniest comment I have ever read.

No sane person can use a calendar as a diary of events. LMFAO.

Like, that is even hard to digest.

...do you know what a diary is

---

If she says Washington Post didn't follow up with her, I believe her. The mainstream media have taken the NY Times v. Sullivan decision as basically a license to lie and mislead. Don't trust them ever.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...do you know what a diary is

Do you?

diary

1. a book in which one keeps a daily record of events and experiences.

His calendars were his record of events.

Like, you just dig yourself a hole every time you speak. LMFAO.

---

Wanglicious posted...

...even i gotta say you're reaching on that one.
not that you aren't technically correct in your assessment but there's some clear juggling going on here to reach the conclusion, most notably how you're gonna strike a deal on something that results in you leaving without that involving a complaint.

If there actually was a deal then yeah, Im sure the CoS was was told. That assumes, however, that she truthfully told her husband the reason she left Bidens office. As shes had several different accounts of the reasons for her leaving, and whether or not it was voluntary, Im not entirely convinced that she necessarily did.

---

ah, so basically your position is that she was lying to her husband.

---

The fact he felt the event changed Tara as a person was the most interesting part.

---

On a sidenote, I always find if quite weird how people interchangeably use the words sexual assault and sexual harassment and for a wide range of acts.

I have seen people use sexual assault for someone saying an unwanted comment for example.

---

it's because words are violence, corrik. God. smh.


---