Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Is there a breakdown somewhere of all the people she told, it keeps sounding like a bunch but everyone keeps talking about that one neighbor.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Lemming posted:

Wikipedia has a good breakdown:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#Accounts_by_Reade%27s_associates

The next two sections under it also talk about her family and ex-husband she also told

quote:

Natasha Korecki of Politico interviewed several former acquaintances of Reade's who said that they had bad experiences with Reade. Korecki describes two emerging themes from their stories: As recently as 2018, Reade "spoke favorably about her time working for Biden", and Reade "left them feeling duped."[56] These acquaintances believe Reade had been "deceitful" and "manipulative" with them.[56] One, attorney and domestic violence victims' advocate Kelly Klett, had rented a room in her home to Reade in 2018. Klett said that Reade phoned her in 2019 after Reade's interview with The Union alleging Biden touched her neck and shoulders. Klett said that she became suspicious of the motives behind the call, because of a sense that she "was trying to plant a story with me, so she could later say: 'I told the story to this attorney I worked with.'"[56]

Huh I hadn't heard about that, now I understand why people question that one neighbor that did not remember until Reade not that I agree with them. This whole thing is a mess did Reade ever press charges so there could be a full real investigation or has it been too long I'm not sure if sexual assault has a statute of limitations.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Fallen Hamprince posted:

Statute of limitations, for a crime committed in the 1990s only murder could still be prosecuted.

Unfortunate but unsurprising, something like sexual assault where victims can be pressured by society itself to not report the crime should not have statute of limitations.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Kalit posted:

Please take a look at https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system and https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story. Trying to bring up the criminal justice system and trusting them to conduct a "real" investigation into it when it comes to sexual assault/rape is laughable.

I mean isn't that why we should bring it up about how the system failed this woman and continues to so we can figure out what needs to change?

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Ghost Leviathan posted:

The Republicans were actively mindful to be more sensitive towards Kavanaugh's accuser an absolute loving magnitude or two more than the Democrats were towards Tara Reade, it's not even a contest.

Republicans knew they might actually get judged by their actions. Democrats knew an establishment approved candidate would get a free pass. And this was right about when they made drat well sure Bernie was ruled out, and after the 'body language expert' to prove Bernie was a secret Jewish rapist landed with a dull thud.

I don't remember many Democrats saying anything about Reade either way do you have examples?

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

some plague rats posted:

This is always an interesting take to me. I'm not having a go at you, but when you say this, do you mean "less harm for less [white, American] people" or do you think that if he stayed in office Trump would have come up with something to match the Iraq war and the 94 crime bill?

The implication here is that iraq wouldn't of happened without Biden?

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

John_A_Tallon posted:

I think it wouldn't have made the news if they didn't intend to sacrifice him as a distraction and convenient scapegoat.

Do you think the Dems have complete control over all news agencies?

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

John_A_Tallon posted:

I think that the two-thirds of voters who felt like their choices were a rapist or a rapist are mostly suckers who don't examine much very critically and would be utterly unwilling to do anything to rectify their ignorance whenever they get a choice. The point is to not give them a choice; keep rubbing their noses in the evidence until they feel like they're being gangstalked. Be completely reasonable, calm, collected, and unyielding on the truth and they'll hate you, but they'll also eventually start to believe you. It's a slow process.

So your plan is to harass everyone until what 51% of the country writes in a third party? Because there were 2 choices for President on election day last year, yes the primary should of gone differently but election day it was either Trump or Biden.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Willa Rogers posted:

:ssh: Nothing's likely to happen to Cuomo, either.

I think something will, not for any like actual justice reasons I just think he's pissed off enough people they will use this as an excuse to oust him.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Lester Shy posted:

This is an argument for inaction in all cases because doing anything might rock the boat. Trump's impeachment caused all manner of political and civil collateral damage because it delayed COVID relief by several weeks, and yet Democrats pursued it anyway, despite the fact that they knew what the outcome would be from the beginning. NY Dems have to stand up on principle at some point. Otherwise Cuomo's just going to skate, like Northam did, like Biden did, like Trump did.

It did not delay the covid bill at all.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

It's because liberals aren't satisfied with winning, they have a need to feel morally superior to everyone as well.

Conservatives stopped attacking Dr Ford, Stormy Daniels, Trump's accusers, etc almost the instant they beat them. They don't care if their guy did it, they just wanted to win, destroying those women along the way was 'just business'.

For liberals, destroying women who accused their man can never be just business, it's a moral crusade. If Paula Jones or Tara Reade are telling the truth, then the people who refused to take them seriously are the bad guys, and liberals can't be the bad guys, so they can never ever let up on these women. Ever.

This seems like quite the stretch from a single tweet from some rando.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Willa Rogers posted:

Reade's contention is that Biden literally grabbed her by the pussy.

One man bragged about it; the other actually did it.

Are you saying that Trump's sexual assault accusers are lying?

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Somaen posted:

Link to CSPAM posts denying the Uighur genocide or refugee accounts?

I don't think that's allowed? Their weird stalking threads are a one way street.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Yeah I rewatched Blossom of all things recently and a 90s show that declared itself feminist had Blossom and her 15 year old friend talk about how even after it came out he groomed and had sex with his children that they are still attracted to him because he is a "genius"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Sodomy Hussein posted:

My understanding is that Castor did not actually grant Cosby immunity, as he would need a court order to formally grant that, but the PA Supreme Court and Cosby pretended he had that for the purposes of this legal argument. Cosby proceeded to incriminate himself in the civil trial, which Castor and others no doubt anticipated. Castor making the absolutely stupid decision to announce that he would never prosecute Cosby is its own thing, however.

If you take issue with the Supreme Court's ruling, that would be a topic for an election, as they are all elected positions, but PA SC justices almost never lose elections and are almost never impeached.

The larger issues are more systemic, like this entire thing resting on just one of Cosby's 50+ accused rapes because statutes of limitations and lack of evidence makes it almost impossible to prosecute rapes, let alone when the accused is America's Dad.

The only good that might come from this is further attention to reforming sex crime laws.

I've said this before but I really feel there should be more pushing for statutes of limitations reform, sexual assault is usually done by the same people who have the power to silence a person until the timer runs out which is just hosed up.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply