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

[IronMan70 3,277]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Oh, that dog hunts. 

First of all, you seem not to understand how analogies work. Biden said that the article said he didn't do it, which it did not. Trump said that the report said he didn't do it, which it did not. I was 100% correct and you should be embarrassed. Dog hunts.

Second of all, you're mistaken about the legal stuff. But I believe that you've put some thought and effort into coming to the conclusion that you were going to come to no matter what, so I'm not going to bother trying to convince of you of what plainly stated facts already failed to.

I will share two more quotes, though, for the edification of anyone else reading who isn't already cognizant of what happened and why:

https://apnews.com/94323cfc164c4759ba6bf84ad2a46203

That dog is sleeping on his back in the sun on the porch. Your analogy is terrible for this reason. Keep in mind that an accused is presumed innocent. If he is investigated and no charges are brought, he remains innocent. At that point the prosecutor cannot flip the burden on its head by saying "we couldn't prove him innocent." That's right Mueller, juries do that not you and he knows that. Now let's address the 2 excerpts you quoted from his report. Remember this is Mueller's saying this. It was him trying to rationalize or justify what they did and this is why.

A long-standing Justice Department legal opinion “says the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Mueller said. 

Let's look at this. Mueller would know this from the time Rosenstein gave him the job. If that was really a defining factor he would know this from the start. Then what was he doing investigating the POTUS in the first place. His job was to investigate (he did), indict (he didn't) or recommend indictments to the DOJ (he didn't).

“Under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” Mueller said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view that, too, is prohibited.”

The same thing applies here and again, if this was defining Mueller would have know this from the time he took the job. You wouldn't be investigating the POTUS in the first place. No, both these statements and many others were there to rationalize, make excuses, have it both ways and smear. So other than that, what the hell were they really doing for 2 years.

We are finding that out almost daily. Mueller knew that in Jan '17 the FBI was told by Steele's own sub source that the dossier "was not factual, it was made up, hearsay or bar talk". Yesterday we find out that Mueller knew, by way of Bill Priestep's newly released hand written notes and Strozk's new texts, that the FBI was trying to frame Flynn, "trying to get Flynn to lie or get him fired". Mueller had all those documents from day 1. Many more have been revealed.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, IronMan70 said:

That dog is sleeping on his back in the sun on the porch. Your analogy is terrible for this reason. Keep in mind that an accused is presumed innocent. If he is investigated and no charges are brought, he remains innocent. At that point the prosecutor cannot flip the burden on its head by saying "we couldn't prove him innocent." That's right Mueller, juries do that not you and he knows that. Now let's address the 2 excerpts you quoted from his report. Remember this is Mueller's saying this. I maintain this was him trying to rationalize and justify what they did and this is why in the the short version.

A long-standing Justice Department legal opinion “says the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Mueller said. 

Let's look at this. Mueller would know this from the time Rosenstein gave him the job. If that was really a defining factor he would know this from the start. Then what was he doing investigating the POTUS in the first place. His job was to investigate (he did), indict (he didn't) or recommend indictments to the DOJ (he didn't).

“Under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” Mueller said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view that, too, is prohibited.”

The same thing applies here and again, if this was defining Mueller would have know this from the time he took the job. You wouldn't be investigating the POTUS in the first place. No, both these statements and many others were there to rationalize, make excuses, have it both ways and smear. So other than that, what the hell were they really doing for 2 years.

We are finding that out almost daily. Mueller knew that in Jan '17 the FBI was told by Steele's own sub source that the dossier "was not factual, it was made up, hearsay or bar talk". Yesterday we find out that Mueller knew, by way of Bill Priestep's newly released hand written notes and Strozk's new texts, that the FBI was trying to frame Flynn, "trying to get Flynn to lie or get him fired". Mueller had all those documents from day 1. Many more have been revealed.

Holy crap dude, what the hell are you talking about?

Please show me where Mueller's report explicitly stated that Trump was absolved of all wrong doing or please stop responding to my posts on this subject. (Since you can't do the former, thank you in advance for doing the latter.)

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

That dog is sleeping on his back in the sun on the porch. Your analogy is terrible for this reason. Keep in mind that an accused is presumed innocent. If he is investigated and no charges are brought, he remains innocent. At that point the prosecutor cannot flip the burden on its head by saying "we couldn't prove him innocent." That's right Mueller, juries do that not you and he knows that. Now let's address the 2 excerpts you quoted from his report. Remember this is Mueller's saying this. It was him trying to rationalize or justify what they did and this is why.

A long-standing Justice Department legal opinion “says the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Mueller said. 

Let's look at this. Mueller would know this from the time Rosenstein gave him the job. If that was really a defining factor he would know this from the start. Then what was he doing investigating the POTUS in the first place. His job was to investigate (he did), indict (he didn't) or recommend indictments to the DOJ (he didn't).

“Under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” Mueller said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view that, too, is prohibited.”

The same thing applies here and again, if this was defining Mueller would have know this from the time he took the job. You wouldn't be investigating the POTUS in the first place. No, both these statements and many others were there to rationalize, make excuses, have it both ways and smear. So other than that, what the hell were they really doing for 2 years.

We are finding that out almost daily. Mueller knew that in Jan '17 the FBI was told by Steele's own sub source that the dossier "was not factual, it was made up, hearsay or bar talk". Yesterday we find out that Mueller knew, by way of Bill Priestep's newly released hand written notes and Strozk's new texts, that the FBI was trying to frame Flynn, "trying to get Flynn to lie or get him fired". Mueller had all those documents from day 1. Many more have been revealed.

You're dense bro.  The basis of the Mueller investigation, commissioned by President Trump's own administration and a Republican Congress, was this:

According to its authorizing document,^[5] the investigation's scope included allegations of "links and/or coordination" between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.^[6][7] Mueller was also mandated to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

 

And there were indictments.  34 to be exact.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489

[IronMan70 3,277]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Holy crap dude, what the hell are you talking about?

Please show me where Mueller's report explicitly stated that Trump was absolved of all wrong doing or please stop responding to my posts on this subject. (Since you can't do the former, thank you in advance for doing the latter.)

 

That's it ? It should be obvious what I'm talking about unless of course you are intentionally trying to be dense. How many times do you have to be told the same thing before you finally get it. One more time.

Of course Mueller didn't say that because, PROSECUTORS DO NOT DO THAT, THEY AREN'T AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT, IT'S NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT. You get it ? The subject of an investigation is innocent going in and innocent going out, if not indicted. Even if the subject was indicted he is still innocent. At that point he becomes accused but presumed innocent, unless/until proven guilty. For Mueller to even go near the subject in his summary was a serious violation. 

[IronMan70 3,277]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

You're dense bro.  The basis of the Mueller investigation, commissioned by President Trump's own administration and a Republican Congress, was this:

According to its authorizing document,^[5] the investigation's scope included allegations of "links and/or coordination" between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.^[6][7] Mueller was also mandated to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

 

And there were indictments.  34 to be exact.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489

Apparently you are dense, I said POTUS indictments. Mueller's statements in his summary were about POTUS. With respect to the 34 indictments you refer to, the 28 indictments on Russians were dropped. To this date there hasn't been solid proof that they even existed. It ran up the numbers big for awhile but it was bull. The other 6 were indicted for process crimes during the investigation or financial crimes from years ago. None of the 6 were indicted for anything to do with colluding with Russians. That's all they could come up with after 2 years.

Which brings me back to your first point about the authorization documents. At the time of the authorization documents DAG Rosenstein and SC Mueller already knew there was no Russian collusion by the campaign. They continued to use the Steele dossier, which they knew in Jan '17 was baseless, to get FISA warrants. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

Apparently you are dense, I said POTUS indictments. Mueller's statements in his summary were about POTUS. With respect to the 34 indictments you refer to, the 28 indictments on Russians were dropped. To this date there hasn't been solid proof that they even existed. It ran up the numbers big for awhile but it was bull. The other 6 were indicted for process crimes during the investigation or financial crimes from years ago. None of the 6 were indicted for anything to do with colluding with Russians. That's all they could come up with after 2 years.

Which brings me back to your first point about the authorization documents. At the time of the authorization documents DAG Rosenstein and SC Mueller already knew there was no Russian collusion by the campaign. They continued to use the Steele dossier, which they knew in Jan '17 was baseless, to get FISA warrants. 

POTUS literally couldn't be indicted.  That's been stated here time and again with Mueller's own words.  Your contention that there would be no investigation needed if POTUS can't be indicted is contrary to the mission of the Mueller probe.

As for the indictments, it was 34 people, not total indictments.  Manafort alone had 25 different counts.

As for Steele, some of it has been proven accurate.  Other parts, not so much.  It wasn't totally baseless however.  And in case you missed it, the Republican Senate just last week reaffirmed that Russia indeed aimed to interfere and help Trump.  Which is exactly what the Mueller report and portions of Steele's dossier said too.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 hours ago, AUDub said:

It is a smart play because that record truly should be in the National Archive if it exists. 

That doesn't appear to be the case.

 

Quote

Biden called for the National Archives to release Senate documents that could shed light on Tara Reade's allegation. The Archives say they don't have them.

Kayla Epstein and Nicole Einbinder

 

7 hours ago

 

Facing an allegation of sexual assault dating from his time in the Senate, Joe Biden has called for the National Archives to release any records that might shed light on whether a complaint was ever filed against him for sexual misconduct.

There's an issue though: The National Archives says it probably wouldn't have them. Rather, they'd be controlled by the Senate, whose rules would bar their release until 2043, nearly two decades from now.

On Friday, Biden spoke publicly for the first time about a sexual assault accusation made against him by a former Senate staffer, Tara Reade, telling MSNBC that "it never happened." His campaign has previously said that the allegations are not true.

Reade has said she believes Biden's Senate papers, housed at the University of Delaware, could contain notes and personnel records that would back up her claims. Biden, however, denies the relevant records would be housed there.

In a statement released before his television appearance, Biden called for the release of personnel files that might shed light on any complaints that Reade would have made about any alleged misconduct, but said they were not at the University of Delaware:

"There is only one place a complaint of this kind could be – the National Archives," Biden said. "The National Archives is where the records are kept at what was then called the Office of Fair Employment Practices. I am requesting that the Secretary of the Senate ask the Archives to identify any record of the complaint she alleges she filed and make available to the press any such document. If there was ever any such complaint, the record will be there."

A spokesman for the archives told Insider said they do not hold records from the Office of Fair Employment Practices that Biden has referenced.

Records from the Senate's Fair Employment Practices Office, where Reade would likely have directed her complaint, and which today is known as the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, are governed by a Senate resolution mandating that "records containing personal privacy, information closed by statute, and records of executive nomination are closed for 50 years."

That means that if Reade's complaint was filed to the Fair Employment Practices office, the record would remain closed until 2043, more than two decades from now.

Filing a complaint to the Office of Fair Employment practices was a complicated, multi-step process, and not all initial complaints resulted  in formal inquiries. A total of 479 people contacted the office between 1992 and 1995 seeking assistance, according to congressional testimony from 1995. Only 102 entered the office's five-step "dispute resolution" process, which included a formal complaint and hearing, records showed.

It's also not clear where any Office of Fair Employment Practices records involving Reade might have ended up. Senate rules require all "noncurrent" records to be transferred to the General Services Administration at the end of each Congress, but GSA did not respond to Insider's request for comment.

A spokesperson for the office of the secretary of the Senate could not say where the Fair Employment Practices records might be located or when they would become public.

Biden's campaign did not respond to Insider's questions and request for comment.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-national-archives-tara-reade-documents-2020-5

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

How many times do you have to be told the same thing before you finally get it.

*****

Of course Mueller didn't say that

Oh, this gave me a good laugh. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

44 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

That doesn't appear to be the case.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-national-archives-tara-reade-documents-2020-5

Needs to be updated.  Biden has now called for the Senate to release any documents if they exist per direction of the National Archives.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/politics/joe-biden-letter-senate-tara-reade/index.html

[alexava 6,973]

On 4/29/2020 at 7:00 PM, AUFAN78 said:

As I read through the archives of BK and compare them to Biden story, it becomes rather apparent we have quite a few hypocrites on the forum. No one should be shocked by that reality, but the commentary and lack thereof from a handful of pathetic clowns who were so forthcoming with damnation over BK and silence or deflection on Biden is evident. Not that they suddenly lost my respect, but take a look for yourselves and see these pathetic clowns for what and who they are, pathetic clowns.

I bet that gate swings both ways. 

[IronMan70 3,277]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

POTUS literally couldn't be indicted.  That's been stated here time and again with Mueller's own words.  Your contention that there would be no investigation needed if POTUS can't be indicted is contrary to the mission of the Mueller probe.

As for the indictments, it was 34 people, not total indictments.  Manafort alone had 25 different counts.

As for Steele, some of it has been proven accurate.  Other parts, not so much.  It wasn't totally baseless however.  And in case you missed it, the Republican Senate just last week reaffirmed that Russia indeed aimed to interfere and help Trump.  Which is exactly what the Mueller report and portions of Steele's dossier said too.

Just got back from dinner or I would have responded sooner. Let me address your points.

 * There is no need to investigate POTUS himself IF the excuses Mueller used are determinant. If they are not, they are excuses, which was my point. We still haven't seen the 3rd scope amendment by RR. Flynn Jr maybe ? RR doesn't want that out for sure. But it appears the real "mission" of the investigation gets clearer each day.

* On indictments, I was referring to your statement with my post. You said, "And there were indictments. 34 to be exact." So I responded, "With respect to the 34 indictments you refer to......"  Yes, there can be several counts within any one indictment. I believe in this case they filed 1 indictment per person with some having multiple counts within.

* What core accusations in the Steele report were proven accurate ? The FBI said in revealed documents that they determined it was not reliable. Of course they still used it to get FISA warrants but that's another bucket of worms.

* No, the Republican Senate didn't say that. That report was filed by the Senate Intelligence committee, reaffirming the ICA from 2016. The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in 2016 was produced by CIA John Brennan. Little needs to be said about Brennan. Mueller relied on the same Brennan ICA for his report. It has also been recently revealed that the Senate Intel committee was in possession of contrary information at the time of their report but "decided" not to mention it. Here is just a tad of background info on this committee.

* The GOP Chairman of the committee is Sen Richard Burr. He just happens to be the same Senator who just got caught selling $1.7 million in stock right after getting briefed on COVID just ahead of the sharp down turn in the stock market. The Co-Chair is Dem Senator Warner. He was caught in Feb '18 contacting Adam Waldman, the agent for Russian oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska, to put Warner in touch with Christopher Steele. What did the committee say ? Oh, he told us 4 months later so it's ok now, lol. Both of them are uni-party establishment with a lot to hide themselves, birds of a feather. This is also the committee where the Dem intel aide was caught leaking classified backgound info on a FISA application to his mistress, a NY Times reporter. That whole nest is a real beauty so don't get too excited, one way or the other, by those chumps.   

[IronMan70 3,277]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Oh, this gave me a good laugh. 

Then I bet you laugh at yourself after every post you make, lol. He can't say that, so the fact he didn't say that, has zero relevance. Here is a hint, read up on the burden of proof. If you want to continue based on that foundation, fine, but not on your other silliness.

[Mikey 16,603]

9 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

Oh , so Mueller did indict Trump. I couldn't find those indictments. You have them ?

They are hidden under the pile of documents that proved the impeachment hoax. Problem is the dog ate them and pooped the whole mess out and now it's useless.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

Just got back from dinner or I would have responded sooner. Let me address your points.

 * There is no need to investigate POTUS himself IF the excuses Mueller used are determinant. If they are not, they are excuses, which was my point. We still haven't seen the 3rd scope amendment by RR. Flynn Jr maybe ? RR doesn't want that out for sure. But it appears the real "mission" of the investigation gets clearer each day.

* On indictments, I was referring to your statement with my post. You said, "And there were indictments. 34 to be exact." So I responded, "With respect to the 34 indictments you refer to......"  Yes, there can be several counts within any one indictment. I believe in this case they filed 1 indictment per person with some having multiple counts within.

* What core accusations in the Steele report were proven accurate ? The FBI said in revealed documents that they determined it was not reliable. Of course they still used it to get FISA warrants but that's another bucket of worms.

* No, the Republican Senate didn't say that. That report was filed by the Senate Intelligence committee, reaffirming the ICA from 2016. The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in 2016 was produced by CIA John Brennan. Little needs to be said about Brennan. Mueller relied on the same Brennan ICA for his report. It has also been recently revealed that the Senate Intel committee was in possession of contrary information at the time of their report but "decided" not to mention it. Here is just a tad of background info on this committee.

* The GOP Chairman of the committee is Sen Richard Burr. He just happens to be the same Senator who just got caught selling $1.7 million in stock right after getting briefed on COVID just ahead of the sharp down turn in the stock market. The Co-Chair is Dem Senator Warner. He was caught in Feb '18 contacting Adam Waldman, the agent for Russian oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska, to put Warner in touch with Christopher Steele. What did the committee say ? Oh, he told us 4 months later so it's ok now, lol. Both of them are uni-party establishment with a lot to hide themselves, birds of a feather. This is also the committee where the Dem intel aide was caught leaking classified backgound info on a FISA application to his mistress, a NY Times reporter. That whole nest is a real beauty so don't get too excited, one way or the other, by those chumps.   

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.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

A Republican operative familiar with the RNC’s vetting of Biden:

https://mobile.twitter.com/LizMair/status/1256383173929377799

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Trump’s gonna be unhappy with Lindsey:

https://mobile.twitter.com/sarahmucha/status/1256404280875114499

[DKW 86 7,424]

20 hours ago, AUDub said:

It is a smart play because that record truly should be in the National Archive if it exists. 

And now there's this:

This is a direct contradiction of a prior claim of hers. 

Well, then get Biden to release HIS  STAFF records and lets see...Oh yea, that is never going to happen because...BIDEN refuses to release the records. Is this too hard for some of you to see thru? Really?

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

Then I bet you laugh at yourself after every post you make, lol. He can't say that, so the fact he didn't say that, has zero relevance. Here is a hint, read up on the burden of proof. If you want to continue based on that foundation, fine, but not on your other silliness.

So, again, my analogy was 100% accurate. You've made that even more clear with your last two responses to me. Well, to everyone but yourself, I guess.

Here's a hint. Read up on if then statements. And analogies. 

 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

11 hours ago, alexava said:

I bet that gate swings both ways. 

I took a brief look and didn’t find much to back his assertion.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

AP with an exclusive today.  Reade's story shifting slightly again.

https://apnews.com/aec7beb03e9e0e0e6e3c58111293e0ea

[TexasTiger 12,876]

16 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

AP with an exclusive today.  Reade's story shifting slightly again.

https://apnews.com/aec7beb03e9e0e0e6e3c58111293e0ea

Guess there’s no reason to search for that complaint.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Super Tuesday...

[TitanTiger 20,482]

On 5/1/2020 at 7:35 AM, DKW 86 said:

Well, obviously talking points are just in that psycho DKW's mind. Talking Points are urban legend...carry on. <fer>

Some of you folks are so disingenuous that your intellectual schtick is just f'in pathetic. I mean 100% laughably pathetic. What are you 12? I assumed everyone here was at least college degreed of close, IQs of 120+. I see i am either horribly wrong or that some here are just posers and trolls. WTH are TPM? That may well be the most lame-ass question ever asked on this board in 18 years...

Simmer down there Beavis. I don’t make it my life’s mission to understand all your cutesy pet names for people you don’t like. I got more important things going on over here. 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Quite a contradiction from a year ago.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/reade-says-she-did-not-include-alleged-sexual-assault-in-complaint-against-biden

[alexava 6,973]

50 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Quite a contradiction from a year ago.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/reade-says-she-did-not-include-alleged-sexual-assault-in-complaint-against-biden

Well, how this credibility keeps shifting.