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

[AUDub 11,149]

57 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secretary-of-senate-says-cannot-comply-with-biden-request-to-release-records-on-purported-reade-complaint

Any senate committee could authorize the release. 

[DKW 86 7,425]

The Audacity of Grope-Daily Show 2015

[TexasTiger 12,888]

A year ago Tara Reade tweeted “this was the real story.” She’s since edited a copy on her website. But she wrote this only a year ago:

https://www.theunion.com/opinion/columns/alexandra-tara-reade-a-girl-walks-into-the-senate/

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 5/4/2020 at 8:08 AM, Mikey said:

This is what politics had become these days. Sadly, it's not going away any time soon, if ever. "So, Ms. Presidential Candidate, a fellow who claims to be your ex-boyfriend says he got you pregnant and you had an abortion 42 years ago, when you were age 15. Any truth to that? Care to open your lifetime medical records for public examination? No? Why not? What are you hiding?

It went there when we allowed the records of a teenager to be drug in front of the nation. Cat is out of the bag. It is where we are today, sadly.

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 5/4/2020 at 10:07 AM, homersapien said:

Trust me, people won't be voting for Biden as much as they will be voting against Trump.

There. He said it. The Anti-Maga brain dead approach. This really isnt a Presidential Election and we all know it. 65% of the nation  are just voting The Party Line...

Screw the people's needs, Screw policies, Screw good govt. It is just about the parties.

WTG...

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 5/4/2020 at 8:36 PM, DKW 86 said:

The Audacity of Grope-Daily Show 2015

Gee, I noticed no one commented on the Daily Show Audacity of Grope, from 2015.

Joe Biden has a long long well known history of being handsy with women. Hell the Daily Show had Samantha Bee covered in palm prints simulating her being palmed by Biden and everyone was OPENLY joking about it. Biden is kind of like Weinstein. Before everyone came out, the entire community was making fun of his atrocious behavior. Everyone knew...

https://youtu.be/H1OHGRIt13w

[TexasTiger 12,888]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Gee, I noticed no one commented on the Daily Show Audacity of Grope, from 2015.

Joe Biden has a long long well known history of being handsy with women. Hell the Daily Show had Samantha Bee covered in palm prints simulating her being palmed by Biden and everyone was OPENLY joking about it. Biden is kind of like Weinstein. Before everyone came out, the entire community was making fun of his atrocious behavior. Everyone knew...

https://youtu.be/H1OHGRIt13w

Oh, good Lord. 🙄

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

There. He said it. The Anti-Maga brain dead approach. This really isnt a Presidential Election and we all know it. 65% of the nation  are just voting The Party Line...

Screw the people's needs, Screw policies, Screw good govt. It is just about the parties.

WTG...

I've said the same thing Homer did.  It's nothing new.  Nearly every time an incumbent POTUS is running, the election is a referendum on that person.  It's also similar to how Doug Jones won the Senate.  Lot of people simply voted against Roy Moore, mostly by staying home.

And for some of us, the first step to getting back to good government is to vote against this president.  It actually has nothing to do with the party, but is more about this one individual.

Your world view is far to utopian sometimes for your own good.

[Grumps 3,704]

41 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I've said the same thing Homer did.  It's nothing new.  Nearly every time an incumbent POTUS is running, the election is a referendum on that person.  It's also similar to how Doug Jones won the Senate.  Lot of people simply voted against Roy Moore, mostly by staying home.

And for some of us, the first step to getting back to good government is to vote against this president.  It actually has nothing to do with the party, but is more about this one individual.

Your world view is far to utopian sometimes for your own good.

I agree with your post for the most part, but I can certainly understand DKW (and hopefully almost everyone else) being extremely frustrated by the nominees for POTUS for the past two elections. Trump x 2 and Mrs. Clinton and Joe Biden...is that anywhere close to the best either party can do? What we are doing is not working at all.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

30 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I agree with your post for the most part, but I can certainly understand DKW (and hopefully almost everyone else) being extremely frustrated by the nominees for POTUS for the past two elections. Trump x 2 and Mrs. Clinton and Joe Biden...is that anywhere close to the best either party can do? What we are doing is not working at all.

Then we have no one to blame but ourselves.  Each of those candidates won through a process in their parties where they received the most votes.  The parties aren't choosing the nominees.  We are.

[IronMan70 3,277]

On 5/2/2020 at 12:45 AM, Brad_ATX said:

Don't apologize for having dinner.  It's Friday night.  This place isn't important in the grand scheme of life.  Hope you enjoyed with family or friends.

 

* Core things confirmed from Steele:

- Mainly his central claim that Russia did in fact attempt to help Trump win.  Just a few samplings:

The Mueller Report backed "Steele's central claim that the Russians ran a 'sweeping and systematic' operation ... to help Trump win"

Newsweek said "the dossier's main finding, that Russia tried to prop up Trump over Clinton, was confirmed by" the ODNI assessment.^[21] ABC News stated that "some of the dossier's broad implications—particularly that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an operation to boost Trump and sow discord within the U.S. and abroad—now ring true."

- Also from the Dossier, Manafort's cooperation with Russian interests in the Ukraine has proven accurate.

- And "The Mueller Report confirmed that the dossier was correct that the Kremlin was behind the appearance of the DNC emails on WikiLeaks."

- That Carter Page did in fact meet with Rosneft officials.  He admitted this under oath after initially denying.

 

* The committee is run by a Republican majority.  The Senate has not refuted the acceptance of the findings at all.

Thanks for your reply.  Yes we had a great weekend and actually it lasted thru Tuesday. We are having some great weather up here. I hope you had a good weekend as well. Also, I guess if we continue this conversation we should find another thread, maybe not, since we are OT in this Biden thread. Let me respond to your points.

The core issue of the Mueller investigation was whether collusion occurred and/or if Russia tried to interfere. We already know the answers to those questions. No on the collusion, yes on trying to interfere. Of course they have been trying to interfere since the 50s so that should come as no surprise. Let me address your other topics.

* Russian preference- My position has been that it doesn't matter who they preferred but let's take a brief look at it anyway. The question of preference originated from Steele's anonymous sub-sub source and/or from Brennan's ICA submitted in Jan '17. We don't know who came up with the idea first. All Mueller did was adopt the Brennan ICA. He never did an independent investigation of this himself. There have been rumors that there was actually information to the contrary and that Brennan kept it out. Information on that has now begun to surface.

Fred Fleitz, former National Security Council Chief of Staff and CIA Analyst was interviewed by an Epoch Times reporter. During their discussion Fleitz revealed the existence of an unpublished House Intelligence report that contradicts the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Fred Fleitz: "The House Intelligence Community discovered from the CIA that there was evidence that the Russians actually wanted Hillary Clinton to win the election and for Trump to lose. And this was strong intelligence. The reason was they thought Hillary was a known quantity. Trump was an unknown quantity and they were worried he would bring anti-Russian hawks into the administration. That information according to a House Intelligence staff, they told me this, was excluded over the objections of CIA analysts by Brennan. On the other hand, there was weak intelligence that the Russians wanted Trump to win. And according to House Intelligence Committee staffers this was included over the objection of CIA officers by Brennan. So Brennan actually slanted this analysis, choosing anti-Trump intelligence and excluding anti-Clinton intelligence. The problem is the House report, which I think is full of all these bombshells has been stuck at the CIA since the fall of 2018.

And, I’m hoping that Rick Grenell or maybe John Durham, who is doing an investigation of government misconduct surrounding the election. I’m hoping one of them is going to pry this loose because the American people have to know about it."

 

He is referring to a House Intel committee report sent over to the CIA for clearance review in late '18, so we know it exists. As I said it doesn't matter either way. Not whether Russia preferred Trump, Clinton, neither or both. Brennan and Steele muddy the waters with this issue. The important question is did either of them collude. We know Mueller found no evidence of Trump collusion.

* Manafort- We know Manafort worked for the former Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych (a Russian interest) on his election campaign and on media relations before and after. This was well known public knowledge. Steele is revealing nothing new here.

* Russia and the email hack- This has been one of the better ones in circulation the last couple years and we see the same pattern.. Steele says it, Brennan claims it and Mueller accepts it. To this date no law enforcement or government agency has ever examined the DNC server to be able to make such a finding and that would include Brennan's CIA.

On Jan 5th and again on June 8th 2017, Comey testified under oath that the FBI was denied access to the DNC servers. He said they went back and forth with the DNC to no avail. He said they finally just took the word of Crowdstrike, the DNC contractor.

In an FBI investigation, most especially in one this big, when they were denied access a court order would be attained for FBI computer analysts to complete a forensic examination. No formal FBI conclusion would be made unless and until that was done. Absent that, their official position would be they cannot make a determination either way.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/sjames-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d/

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

* Carter Page-  Steele claims Page was a Russian spy and that was false. Carter Page did talk to Rosneft officials, he was an energy consultant. But do you know why and why he initially hid it ? Carter Page was a confidential informant for the CIA and FBI.

 http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/the-fbi-knew-carter-page-was-a-cia-agent-reporting-on-russians-in-aug-2016-but-hid-it-from-the-fisa-court-to-get-spying-warrant-on-trump/  

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/carter-page-setup-by-fbi-he-was-fbi-employee-fbi-told-fisa-court-he-was-a-russian-spy/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-director-carter-page-was-surveilled-illegally/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/17/fisa-court-rebukes-fbi-over-handling-carter-page-surveillance/2677516001/

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

The parties aren't choosing the nominees.  We are.

Sobering words Brad.

[McLoofus 35,182]

50 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

We already know the answers to those questions. No on the collusion

But Mueller's report didn't say that. Just like the NYT article didn't specifically say that Biden didn't rape that lady. 

53 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

We know Mueller found no evidence of Trump collusion.

Which is different than "total exoneration". Even trump has backed off of that language. 

More quotes from Mueller that directly contradict your premise:

Quote

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

And yes, exculpate and exonerate are synonymous. 

Never mind that you've been wrong about a lot of this subsequent stuff. My analogy was correct. 

[IronMan70 3,277]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

And yes, exculpate and exonerate are synonymous. 

Never mind that you've been wrong about a lot of this subsequent stuff. My analogy was correct. 

Not wrong at all but I see you're still smarting over that, lol. Prosecutors do not "exonerate". If they broach that subject in a negative way it is a violation. That is 100% correct. Your analogy was the worse analogy in history.  

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

Not wrong at all but I see you're still smarting over that, lol. Prosecutors do not "exonerate". If they broach that subject in a negative way it is a violation. That is 100% correct. Your analogy was the worse analogy in history.  

Then why did trump say that Mueller's report totally exonerated him? 

[IronMan70 3,277]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Then why did trump say that Mueller's report totally exonerated him? 

Those were his non-legal words and he can do that. I will say this, if you had been waiting 2 years for the end of an investigation knowing you didn't collude with Russia you might use the same words too.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

Those were his non-legal words and he can do that. I will say this, if you had been waiting 2 years for the end of an investigation knowing you didn't collude with Russia you might use the same words too.

And that is relevant to the accuracy of his comments how? That is relevant to Joe Biden falsely claiming that a newspaper exonerated him of rape when that is not accurate and that is not their job how? That is relevant to the obvious similarities between the comments how?

It's tempting to use words like strawman and deflection but I'm growing concerned that you might not even have those buttons on your controller.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Actually, I take that back. While Trump's right to say things that aren't true is completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, it actually is one more similarity that strengthens the analogy that I made. So it is relevant to Biden's comments in that way. My B.

[DKW 86 7,425]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

 The parties aren't choosing the nominees.  We are.

Where is that video of the Democrat Party Official telling everyone that "Votes dont actually mean anything. That the Party Members, and only the party members, Select the Nominee."

BTW, Hitler says Hi! 

He won his election too.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

[IronMan70 3,277]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

And that is relevant to the accuracy of his comments how? That is relevant to Joe Biden falsely claiming that a newspaper exonerated him of rape when that is not accurate and that is not their job how? That is relevant to the obvious similarities between the comments how?

It's tempting to use words like strawman and deflection but I'm growing concerned that you might not even have those buttons on your controller.

 

I was referring to Mueller in the role of prosecutor, you keep ignoring that. 

 

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Actually, I take that back. While Trump's right to say things that aren't true is completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, it actually is one more similarity that strengthens the analogy that I made. So it is relevant to Biden's comments in that way. My B.

 And here I spent my time answering the other post and you took it back, geesh. Now you are back on that analogy "thang" again ? Oy vey

[AUDub 11,149]

52 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

BTW, Hitler says Hi! 

He won his election too.

Godwin's Law confirmed again. 

[IronMan70 3,277]

26 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Do you think he told him to sniff kids' hair too ? Hmm, it's possible.

[AUDub 11,149]

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Edgy! Timely! Topical!

No need to dig back 20 years to feed your meme generator when our sitting president cheated on his *wife with a pornstar and then paid the pornstar not to talk about it.

*Not sure which wife. He cheated on all of them. Was even banging the current one while married to the previous one.