Jump to content

New Evidence Supporting Credibility Of Tara Reade's Allegation Against Joe Biden Emerges


Auburnfan91

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This guy seems to have sex on the brain:

Anybody want to decipher this?  Is economic intercourse a real thing?  I bet AOC could come up with a definition.

It is. It's my night job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 438
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

It is. It's my night job.

Sounds dirty. Be sure to use protection. 

stock-photo--dollar-bills-wrapped-in-con

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Contemporary witness.  It matters because now the claim has backup during the time of the alleged assault.  And I nor Dub have called any of them liars.  We have consistently said that based on what was out at the time, it wasn't enough to implicate.  Hell man, even the Biden campaign has said that while they deny the claims, the need to be vetted by a free and independent press is still paramount and encouraged them to do so.

I know your feeble brain can't handle those complex matters sometimes.  Continue on with your Bernie persecution complex.

You are f'in clueless. Who in the name of hell in the MSM is even pretending to look at this?

Who? Please provide links with dates after the last two witnesses came forward.
You are going to find that no one is vetting, looking, investigating crap. 
THAT is the problem idiot. You are professing to wait on something that is not going to happen. 
With Kavanaugh, just for the record, I dont know what exactly happened with Kavanaugh, but I have no doubts that he was a bad actor, just from the poker-liquor-whore boat trips. No one wanting a career in public life would have gotten near those boat trips. CBF and others were the corroborating evidence for me. With Kavanaugh, the story was wildfire on cable and MSM. Biden and Reade, with far more evidence? Slightly more than crickets....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Obviously, he was using the more general meaning of intercourse as opposed to the sexual one:

- dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.

It's probably not used this way as much as it is to indicate sexual intercourse, but it's not improper, (salacious).

 

Intellectually, Is there no part of the DNC Ass you wont kiss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You are f'in clueless. Who in the name of hell in the MSM is even pretending to look at this?

Who? Please provide links with dates after the last two witnesses came forward.
You are going to find that no one is vetting, looking, investigating crap. 
THAT is the problem idiot. You are professing to wait on something that is not going to happen. 
With Kavanaugh, just for the record, I dont know what exactly happened with Kavanaugh, but I have no doubts that he was a bad actor, just from the poker-liquor-whore boat trips. No one wanting a career in public life would have gotten near those boat trips. CBF and others were the corroborating evidence for me. With Kavanaugh, the story was wildfire on cable and MSM. Biden and Reade, with far more evidence? Slightly more than crickets....

Kavanaugh had never really been publicly vetted— he was largely unknown. Biden has ran for President 3 times, served as a Senator since age 30 and served as VP 8 years, a heartbeat from the Presidency. That doesn’t mean he didn’t do this, but his life and behavior has been subjected to more scrutiny than almost anyone who has not been in public life and most that have. And folks will get a chance to consider such accusations when they vote. It just took 50 senators scared of a tweet to vote Kavanaugh in and time was short. This aren’t identical situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don Lemon GRILLS Stacey Abrams on Joe Biden Sexual Assault Allegation

Please, those of you with really open minds and functioning brains, go listen to the GRILLING Lemon gave Abrams. 

This was just another in 1001 softball interviews given about the Reade Accusations.

Literally, no one is looking into this. Abrams keeps referring back to the NYT Article that was written before the new allegations.
That article was written specifically to give cover to Biden, and it is working. Lemon let Abrams get away with not even considering the new allegations, the GAME CHANGERS as some moron on here called them. They arent game changers for the lackey press and everyone knows that. Here CNN completely ignores them and lets possibly the next VPotUS get away with ignoring them too.

Gamechanger my ass..:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Kavanaugh had never really been publicly vetted— he was largely unknown. Biden has ran for President 3 times, served as a Senator since age 30 and served as VP 8 years, a heartbeat from the Presidency. That doesn’t mean he didn’t do this, but his life and behavior has been subjected to more scrutiny than almost anyone who has not been in public life and most that have. And folks will get a chance to consider such accusations when they vote. It just took 50 senators scared of a tweet to vote Kavanaugh in and time was short. This aren’t identical situations.

Is there no reckoning the depth to which some of us will go to ignore credible allegations all for the sake of a horribly bad notion that "Biden is Electable."

You want vetting? Lets see some FBI Agents going thru the papers at the University of Delaware...

We all know THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. This is a connected DNC Member, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. If it did, it will be AFTER his staff get to cull out anything meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Don Lemon GRILLS Stacey Abrams on Joe Biden Sexual Assault Allegation

Please, those of you with really open minds and functioning brains, go listen to the GRILLING Lemon gave Abrams. 

This was just another in 1001 softball interviews given about the Reade Accusations.

Literally, no one is looking into this. Abrams keeps referring back to the NYT Article that was written before the new allegations.
That article was written specifically to give cover to Biden, and it is working. Lemon let Abrams get away with not even considering the new allegations, the GAME CHANGERS as some moron on here called them. They arent game changers for the lacket press and everyone knows that. Here CNN completely ignores them and lets possibly the next VPotUS get away with ignoring them too.

Gamechanger my ass..:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

You really don’t know the meaning of “literally.” You have zero interest in fairness. The NYT piece was solid. Stories develop with time. Since that time info has come out that both lends support to her credibility and that lessens it. You don’t fairly consider anything— you rant wildly for your agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TexasTiger said:

You really don’t know the meaning of “literally.” You have zero interest in fairness. The NYT piece was solid. Stories develop with time. Since that time info has come out that both lends support to her credibility and that lessens it. You don’t fairly consider anything— you rant wildly for your agenda. 

You do understand that LEMON gave Abrams a pass here. She ducked all the new allegations. YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT?

 And CNN let her get away with it too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You are f'in clueless. Who in the name of hell in the MSM is even pretending to look at this?

Who? Please provide links with dates after the last two witnesses came forward.
You are going to find that no one is vetting, looking, investigating crap. 
THAT is the problem idiot. You are professing to wait on something that is not going to happen. 

The NYT's article recently posted showed that they were pretty thorough.

This seems to be the pertinent part:

The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him.

And you act like the lack of speed is a strike. It really isn't. The MSM isn't twitter and not everything has to be lightning fast. Give them time to deliberate and gather facts before going off the rails. It's only been a couple of days since this corroborating witness was revealed.

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:


With Kavanaugh, just for the record, I dont know what exactly happened with Kavanaugh, but I have no doubts that he was a bad actor, just from the poker-liquor-whore boat trips. No one wanting a career in public life would have gotten near those boat trips. CBF and others were the corroborating evidence for me. With Kavanaugh, the story was wildfire on cable and MSM. Biden and Reade, with far more evidence? Slightly more than crickets....

Define "far more evidence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Is there no reckoning the depth to which some of us will go to ignore credible allegations all for the sake of a horribly bad notion that "Biden is Electable."

You want vetting? Lets see some FBI Agents going thru the papers at the University of Delaware...

We all know THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. This is a connected DNC Member, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. If it did, it will be AFTER his staff get to cull out anything meaningful.

I’m not ignoring anything nor dismissing it. I’m neither saying it did or didn’t happen— I don’t know and neither do you. I treat it like I would if I were a juror— innocent until the evidence is sufficient to persuade me of guilt. Contemporaneous accounts warrant both consideration and scrutiny. So do inconsistent accounts from the accuser. You ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit your agenda. Assessing the credibility of a witness is crucial. You’ve shown no interest in doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Idiot: The NYT Article Dropped 4-13-20, or 16 days ago. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden.html
 

It was clearly a CYA job as Ms Ball so eloquently stated. "Filled with Hypocrisy, Edits, and Whataboutisms."

That was 16 days ago. It was a whitewash article. Now the authors are reportedly getting sick over the hatchet job they did to Ms Reade. Any articles coming? Didnt think so. 

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You do understand that LEMON gave Abrams a pass here. She ducked all the new allegations. YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT?

 And CNN let her get away with it too. 

What does Abrams know about this? Grill her? What is she claiming to know? If you know one person who’s accused and think highly of that person and you’ve never met the accuser, and someone grills you about accusations that have not been subjected to legal scrutiny, what would you say? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Look Idiot: The NYT Article Dropped 4-13-20, or 16 days ago. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden.html
 

It was clearly a CYA job as Ms Ball so eloquently stated. "Filled with Hypocrisy, Edits, and Whataboutisms."

That was 16 days ago. It was a whitewash article. Now the authors are reportedly getting sick over the hatchet job they did to Ms Reade. Any articles coming? Didnt think so. 

Image

The cartoon shows your true motivation— it has nothing to do with fairness. It’s your political agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Look Idiot: The NYT Article Dropped 4-13-20, or 16 days ago. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden.html

They interviewed 30+ people, including the accuser. That takes time. You're acting like the fact that there hasn't been a thorough article in the span of two days is a strike. 

Give them time to process the newly revealed information and for the investigative journalists to thoroughly do their jobs. This isn't Twitter we're talking about.

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

It was clearly a CYA job as Ms Ball so eloquently stated. "Filled with Hypocrisy, Edits, and Whataboutisms."

I lend Ms. Ball's opinion about as much credence as I do Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh. She's a hyperpartisan. 

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

That was 16 days ago. It was a whitewash article. Now the authors are reportedly getting sick over the hatchet job they did to Ms Reade. Any articles coming? Didnt think so. 

 

And she isn't wrong an I agree with her. A corroborating witness is a hell of a game-changer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

They interviewed 30+ people, including the accuser. That takes time. You're acting like the fact that there hasn't been a thorough article in the span of two days is a strike. 

Give them time to process the newly revealed information and for the investigative journalists to thoroughly do their jobs. This isn't Twitter we're talking about.

I lend Ms. Ball's opinion about as much credence as I do Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh. She's a hyperpartisan. 

And she isn't wrong an I agree with her. A corroborating witness is a hell of a game-changer. 

Yes— if she proves credible. But the accuser also has numerous inconsistencies that need vetting, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

They interviewed 30+ people, including the accuser. That takes time. You're acting like the fact that there hasn't been a thorough article in the span of two days is a strike. 

Give them time to process the newly revealed information and for the investigative journalists to thoroughly do their jobs. This isn't Twitter we're talking about.

I lend Ms. Ball's opinion about as much credence as I do Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh. She's a hyperpartisan. 

And she isn't wrong an I agree with her. A corroborating witness is a hell of a game-changer. 

This, this, and more this.  The fact that people think real investigative reporting happens overnight is laughable.  Big stories take time.  But of course, no one in the MSM or left leaning media is actually covering this story according to some.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/politics/tara-reade-neighbor/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/29/sexual-allegations-against-joe-biden-corroborators/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-what-we-know-tara-reade/3039909001/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/joe-biden-sexual-assault-unnecessary-witnesses.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/politics/joe-biden-allegations/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/19/837966525/on-the-record-a-former-biden-staffers-sexual-assault-allegation

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/23/tara-reade-biden-202785

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-its-legitimate-to-talk-about-allegations/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 2008 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110831180050/https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/23/quot-change-quot-quot-hope-quot-why-they-must-be-talking-about-joe-biden/

CounterPunch Diary

"Change," "Hope" … Why They Must be Talking About Joe Biden!

by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

 

"Change” and “hope” are not words one associates with Senator Joe Biden, a man so ripely symbolic of everything that is unchanging and hopeless about our political system that a computer simulation of the corporate-political paradigm senator in Congress would turn out “Biden” in a nano-second.

The first duty of any senator from Delaware is to do the bidding of the banks and large corporations which use the tiny state as a drop box and legal sanctuary. Biden has never failed his masters in this primary task. Find any bill that sticks it to the ordinary folk on behalf of the Money Power and you’ll likely detect Biden’s hand at work. The bankruptcy act of 2005 was just one sample. In concert with his fellow corporate serf, Senator Tom Carper, Biden blocked all efforts to hinder bankrupt corporations from fleeing from their real locations to the legal sanctuary of Delaware. Since Obama is himself a corporate serf and from day one in the US senate has been attentive to the same masters that employ Biden, the ticket is well balanced, the seesaw with Obama at one end and Biden at the other dead-level on the fulcrum of corporate capital.

Another shining moment in Biden’s progress in the current presidential  term was his conduct in the hearings on Judge Alito’s nomination to the US Supreme Court. From the opening moments of the Judiciary Committee’s sessions in January, 2006,  it became clear that Alito faced no serious opposition. On that first ludicrous morning Senator Pat Leahy sank his head into his hands, shaking it  in unbelieving despair as Biden blathered out a self-serving and inane monologue lasting a full twenty minutes before he even asked Alito one question. In his allotted half hour Biden managed to pose only five questions, all of them ineptly phrased. He did pose two questions about Alito’s membership of a racist society at Princeton, but had already undercut them in his monologue by calling Alito "a man of integrity", not once but twice, and further trivialized the interrogation by reaching under the dais to pull out a Princeton cap and put it on.

In all, Biden rambled for 4,000 words, leaving Alito time only to put together less than 1,000. A Delaware newspaper made deadly fun of him for his awful performance, eliciting the revealing confession from Biden that "I made a mistake. I should have gone straight to my question. I was trying to put him at ease."

Biden  is a notorious flapjaw. His vanity deludes him into believing that every word that drops from his mouth is minted in the golden currency of Pericles. Vanity is the most conspicuous characteristic of US Senators en bloc , nourished by deferential  acolytes and often expressed in loutish sexual  advances to staffers, interns and the like.  On more than one occasion CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted  by Biden in the well of the senate  in the week immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident.   

His “experience” in foreign affairs consists in absolute fidelity to the conventions of cold war liberalism, the efficient elder brother of raffish  “neo-conservatism”. Here again the ticket is well balanced, since Senator Obama has, within a very brief time-frame,  exhibited great fidelity to the same creed.

Obama opposed the launching of the US attack on Iraq in 2003. He was not yet in the US Senate, but having arrived there in 2005 he has since voted unhesitatingly for all appropriations of the vast sums required for the war’s prosecution. Biden himself voted enthusiastically for the attack, declaring in the Senate debate in October, 2002, in a speech excavated and sent to us by Sam Husseini:

I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur. … [Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons. … For four years now, he has prevented United Nations inspectors from uncovering those weapons…

The terms of surrender dictated by the United Nations require him to declare and destroy his weapons of mass destruction programs. He has not done so. …

Many predicted the administration would refuse to give the weapons inspectors one last chance to disarm. …

Mr. President, President Bush did not lash out precipitously after 9/11. He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation. …

For two decades, Saddam Hussein has relentlessly pursued weapons of mass destruction. There is a broad agreement that he retains chemical and biological weapons, the means to manufacture those weapons and modified Scud missiles, and that he is actively seeking a nuclear capability. …

We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after…. [Biden confided to his colleagues that this would be a long fight, but was still for it.]I am absolutely confident the President will not take us to war alone. I am absolutely confident we will enhance his ability to get the world to be with us by us voting for this resolution. 

In step with his futile bid for the Democratic nomination, Biden changed his mind on the war, and part of his mandate will be to shore up the credentials of the Democratic ticket as being composed of “responsible” helmsmen of Empire,  stressing that any diminution of the US presence in Iraq will be  measured and thus extremely slow, balanced by all the usual imperial  ventures elsewhere around the globe.

Why did Obama chose Biden? One important constituency pressing for Biden was no doubt the Israel lobby inside the Democratic Party. Obama, no matter how fervent his proclamations of support for Israel, has always been viewed with some suspicion by the lobby. For half the lifespan of the state of Israel, Biden has proved himself its unswerving acolyte in the senate.

And Obama picked Biden for the same reason Michael Dukakis chose Senator Lloyd Bentsen in 1988: the marriage of youth and experience, so reassuring to uncertain voters but most of all to the elites, that nothing dangerous or unusual will discommode business as usual. Another parallel would be Kennedy’s pick of Lyndon Johnson in 1960, LBJ being  a political rival and a seasoned senator. Kennedy and Johnson didn’t like each other, and surely after Biden’s racist remarks about “clean” blacks, Obama cannot greatly care for Biden. It seems he would have preferred Chris Dodd but the latter was disqualified because of his VIP loans from Countrywide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

So, for the 33 days or so since the Halpern Podcast, we have these articles?

We have multiples of the evidence we had with BJK. We have 4 or more corroborating witnesses that remember the details just as she said. We have possible paper trail over at the U of Delaware that we will not be allowed to see. And still to this day, almost 5 weeks later, Biden has still not been asked nor answered one question in at least a dozen interviews. NOTHING. NOT ONE QUESTION. Anyone here think Acosta would have held back for almost 5 weeks on a story like this with the Orange Man? Of course not. We have a ton of disingenuous posting here. 

The three at the top of the page are just straight forward facts, no editorialising, no reaction from the press. Basically next to nothing. Like I said before, this isnt reporting, it is simply a post on a message board. They just google and combine stories. Nothing more. No comments. No conclusions. No there, there. Here is what we know: blah blah blah. Dispassioned nothing so they can say they covered the story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get ready for Naked Joe Biden,,,, This article consolidates about 4-5 articles into one.

Joe Biden’s inappropriate behavior goes way beyond touchy-feely behavior with young girls and invading the personal space of Democratic candidates and staffers.

In his 2014 book on the Secret Service, long-time investigative reporter Ronald Kessler wrote that female Secret Service agents were upset by Biden’s habit of swimming naked in the swimming pool in the vice president’s house in Washington, D.C., and at his home outside of Wilmington, Del., while they had to stand watch.

“Agents say that, whether at the vice president’s residence or at his home in Delaware, Biden has a habit of swimming in his pool nude,” wrote Kessler. “Female Secret Service agents find that offensive.”

He went on to write in his book, “First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of Presidents,” that because of this habit of stripping down in front of female agents to swim, and because of frequent last-minute trips to Delaware, Secret Service agents considered an assignment to Biden’s security detail to be the second worst assignment in the Secret Service after Hillary Clinton.

In an article that in the #MeToo era seems bizarre, the magazine The Atlantic ran a story in 2014 after the release of Kessler’s book entitled, “In Defense  of Naked Joe Biden” in which the writer referred to Kessler’s report on Biden as “mere gossiping about when he gets naked” saying the information has “no civic value” — ignoring the presence of the female agents and how Biden’s exhibitionism affected them.

And according to other reports, Biden didn’t just drop his clothes to take a swim but other places in the vice president’s residence as well.

According to a Nov. 14, 2017 article by Cassandra Fairbanks of Big League Politics, Biden would frequently walk around the residence naked in the presence of female agents paid to protect him.

“I mean, Stark naked… Weinstein level stuff,” a former Secret Service agent, who was not named, was quoted as saying.

He was also told Fairbanks that male agents had to protect female agents from Biden, and said one year the Christmas party for agents and naval personnel at the vice president’s home on the property of the Naval Observatory had to be canceled because if held, “…Biden would grope all of our wive’s and girlfriend’s asses.”

“He would mess with every single woman or teen. It was horrible,” the agent said. He told Fairbanks that on one occasion, a Secret Service agent was suspended because Biden had cupped his girlfriend’s breast while they were having their photo taken with him, and that the agent had shoved Biden in response.

He added that male agents would make up things to get the female agents away from Biden as they felt unsafe.

Meanwhile, a Connecticut woman came forward on Monday, saying Joe Biden touched her inappropriately in 2009 when she was a congressional staffer and said she doesn’t think he should run for president, but should instead support a female candidate.

Lucy Flores, the Nevada legislator who said she was horrified when Biden came up behind her and smelled her hair on the campaign trail when she was running for lieutenant governor in 2014, told CBS News on Monday that she wouldn’t vote for Biden in the primary if he does enter the race. On Sunday, she’d said that Biden should say sorry for the way he’s treated her and other women.

“He should apologize and acknowledge the way his behavior makes people feel ― makes women feel,” she told the Huffington Post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second #MeToo accuser comes forward: 'Joe Biden can't keep his hands to himself'

"Women of my own party are tearing apart Flores and it was my responsibility to come forward," Lappos said. "What he did was hideous. It was an invasion of personal space and incredibly awkward. Joe Biden can't keep his hands to himself. I've been hearing things and reading things for so long and I just had to say something."

She said Biden's behavior with women meant he should not run in 2020. "We have four other talented women running, he should throw his support behind them."

Earlier, Lappos told told The Hartford Courant: "It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head. Democrats say Trump this and Trump that, but that's not where we set the bar," she said. “I never filed a complaint, to be honest, because he was the vice president. I was a nobody. There’s absolutely a line of decency. There’s a line of respect. Crossing that line is not grandfatherly. It’s not cultural. It’s not affection. It’s sexism or misogyny.”

...a later statement from Russo was much more combative, denouncing the "cottage industry of lies" that the #MeToo movement had thrown up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So, for the 33 days or so since the Halpern Podcast, we have these articles?

We have multiples of the evidence we had with BJK. We have 4 or more corroborating witnesses that remember the details just as she said. We have possible paper trail over at the U of Delaware that we will not be allowed to see. And still to this day, almost 5 weeks later, Biden has still not been asked nor answered one question in at least a dozen interviews. NOTHING. NOT ONE QUESTION. Anyone here think Acosta would have held back for almost 5 weeks on a story like this with the Orange Man? Of course not. We have a ton of disingenuous posting here. 

The three at the top of the page are just straight forward facts, no editorialising, no reaction from the press. Basically next to nothing. Like I said before, this isnt reporting, it is simply a post on a message board. They just google and combine stories. Nothing more. No comments. No conclusions. No there, there. Here is what we know: blah blah blah. Dispassioned nothing so they can say they covered the story. 

Do you think these are the only ones out there?  It's a sampling.  I'm not spending my entire day looking up every article for you. 

And you should want straight reporting with no editorializing.  Conclusions and comments are for opinion writers.  They also exist.  I try not to link to them because I prefer for people to make their own decisions based on facts as we know them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

But wait....There's more.....

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/29/biden_vs_kavanaugh_how_the_metoo_numbers_stack_up_143065.html

The data provide some insights. The aftermath of Donald Trump’s election saw the birth of both the Women’s March and #MeToo as a rallying cry against male sexual harassment and assault. Despite considerable initial enthusiasm, the Women’s March has dropped off the media radar, all but disappearing by February 2019. Since November 2016, Fox News has mentioned it 1,108 times, MSNBC 1,028 times and CNN just 612 times.

Similarly, the #MeToo movement received steady media coverage from its October 2017 emergence through November 2018, but has largely vanished from CNN and MSNBC since then. Fox News continued to cover it through June 2019 and to date has mentioned it 762 times to MSNBC’s 423 and CNN’s 310, with Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” together accounting for nearly 13% of all mentions across the three channels.

In September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh captivated the media’s attention, with CNN mentioning her name 1,898 times, MSNBC 1,878 times and Fox News just 1,066 times.

In contrast, over the past month, mentions of Tara Reade’s name on cable news have been almost nonexistent. Fox News has mentioned her 57 times to CNN’s nine times, while MSNBC has mentioned her name just once the past month. Google searches for Reade’s name are just a tenth of those for Blasey Ford’s. Broadening the search to any mention of “allegations” against Biden still yields just 158 mentions on Fox, 15 on CNN and 10 on MSNBC.

Similarly, online news coverage has mentioned Reade’s allegations less than 1% as often as it did Blasey Ford’s claims

In the end, the media’s near-total silence on the allegations against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stands in stark contrast to the wall-to-wall coverage given to such claims against Kavanaugh. As #MeToo fades from the media landscape and the voices that loudly supported it for three years fall silent, it remains to be seen if the movement has simply fizzled out, or if political leanings underpin the distinction.

 

Man, Facts are sho nuff pesky things....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...