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

[TexasTiger 12,876]

1 minute ago, alexava said:

Well, how this credibility keeps shifting. 

Also read that one of the friends who remembered hearing about it years ago had to be reminded of the conversation.

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Also read that one of the friends who remembered hearing about it years ago had to be reminded of the conversation.

I saw that earlier today. 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Just now, alexava said:

I saw that earlier today. 

Seems like one would remember a bombshell story like that.

[alexava 6,973]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Seems like one would remember a bombshell story like that.

I think she also said she would still vote for Biden. 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

42 minutes ago, alexava said:

I think she also said she would still vote for Biden. 

Well, look at her choices.

[Mikey 16,603]

Lets see: The Ford woman couldn't remember exactly what year she was "assaulted", she couldn't remember which house or even in what part of town, she knows there were others there but she can't remember who they were and she didn't have anybody from that time to back up her story. Reade with her contemporary witnesses and precise description of the scene looks solid as a rock compared to Ford, yet Ford was to be believed and Reade isn't? That ridiculous.

My personal thoughts are that if someone waits multiple years before complaining, it should be too damn late. But if you're going to believe the Ford woman, believing Reade is a slam dunk.

[alexava 6,973]

27 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Lets see: The Ford woman couldn't remember exactly what year she was "assaulted", she couldn't remember which house or even in what part of town, she knows there were others there but she can't remember who they were and she didn't have anybody from that time to back up her story. Reade with her contemporary witnesses and precise description of the scene looks solid as a rock compared to Ford, yet Ford was to be believed and Reade isn't? That ridiculous.

My personal thoughts are that if someone waits multiple years before complaining, it should be too damn late. But if you're going to believe the Ford woman, believing Reade is a slam dunk.

I didn’t believe Ford until she sat in front of the senate. Where BK looked ridiculous. Reade, has been all over the place with what she told to whom. But I agree on both that if you wait decades it’s too late to get justice and it literally is. It’s not too late to wreck  someone’s career. 

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

6 hours ago, alexava said:

I didn’t believe Ford until she sat in front of the senate. Where BK looked ridiculous. Reade, has been all over the place with what she told to whom. But I agree on both that if you wait decades it’s too late to get justice and it literally is. It’s not too late to wreck  someone’s career. 

Seems like 30 year old sexual harassment charges are becoming a mandatory part of all campaigns, etc.... with you on the waiting for decades business. The true motive for bringing up is always suspect to me. I was not impressed at all with Ford. BK was  awkward but good to know he likes and embraces beer. 

[aubiefifty 16,791]

On 5/1/2020 at 9:26 PM, 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.   

Report post

Posted 2 minutes ago

  On 5/1/2020 at 11:45 PM, 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.

newsweek.com

 

Here's what's true in the infamous Trump-Russia dossier

By Greg Price On 5/17/18 at 8:10 AM EDT

6-7 minutes

Special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed one year ago today to probe Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The anniversary is not an occasion for celebration for President Donald Trump, who has labeled the investigation a "witch hunt."

But well before Mueller was in the national spotlight, a former British intelligence officer was gathering information about Trump and his campaign's potential ties and collusion with Russia to win the White House.

Christopher Steele and his 35-page dossier not only alleged collusion between the president's campaign and Russia. It also stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime had cultivated Trump for "years" and even had potentially damaging information on the billionaire real estate mogul.

Mueller's probe, which he technically took over from the FBI, was not prompted by Steele's dossier. Instead, the investigation began when former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos drunkenly told an Australian diplomat that he knew Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Australian officials then alerted U.S. officials, and the FBI opened its probe in July 2016.

Ever since, media reports, U.S. intelligence services and Mueller's team itself have proven key parts of Steele's dossier.

Here's what we know to be true in the dossier, which has plagued Trump since before his presidency even began.

Dossier Claim: Russia Meddled

Revelation: The U.S. intelligence apparatus concluded that Russia interfered in 2016's election in a report released in January 2017. Though Steele's name is not mentioned in that report, it does back up his reporting that Russia was actively interfering in the election process.

Dossier Claim: Russia Had Dirt on Clinton and DNC

Revelation: Much of the dossier is devoted not only to Trump but to Russia's—specifically Putin's—distaste for former Secretary of State Clinton. "Putin motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary Clinton," one line of the dossier reads. Another line said: "The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whom President Putin apparently both hated and feared."

Steele later cites one source as stating Russia that was behind the leak of hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails to WikiLeaks.

The U.S. intelligence community confirmed not only that Russia had tried to meddle in the election but that it was the source of the hacked DNC emails released by WikiLeaks.

Dossier Claim: Putin Was in Charge

Revelation: On the very first page of the dossier, Steele explains that the election meddling was "endorsed by Putin" and that the effort was "both supported and directed" by him. The U.S. intelligence report reached the same conclusion, writing that Putin "ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the presidential election." According to Steele's sources, Putin and Russia had been cultivating Trump for "at least 5 years."

 

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort leaves the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., following a hearing on April 4. Manafort worked extensively in Ukraine as a political consultant and received millions in payments. He now faces charges that include conspiracy against the United States. Getty Images/Chip Somodevilla

Dossier Claim: Mr. Cohen Goes to Prague

Revelation: The president's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was accused in the dossier of meeting with "Kremlin representatives" in Prague in August 2016. Cohen has repeatedly denied traveling to the Czech capital, but McClatchy last month reported that Mueller had evidence the trip happened.

The report stated that Mueller's team discovered proof Cohen got to Prague through Germany. The two countries are part of a number of European nations with an open borders agreement that allows undocumented travel. However, no other media outlet has been able to confirm McClatchy's reporting.

Dossier Claim: Russian Diplomat Was a Spy

Revelation: Steele also claimed that Russia was worried a diplomat named Mikhail Kalugin was heavily involved in the meddling operation. Afraid he would be exposed, Russia pulled Kalugin out of Washington on "short notice." Steele actually misspelled Kalugin's name, but the U.S. government had identified Kalugin as a Russian spy, the BBC reported in March.

Dossier Claim: Page Met With Russians

Revelation: Carter Page previously denied having met with Russian government officials during his trip to Russia in July 2016, but he admitted to the meeting while speaking to the House Intelligence Committee last November. Page was a foreign policy adviser to Trump's campaign and in June 2016 delivered a speech in Washington praising Putin. And as early as September 2016, U.S. officials were looking into Page's contacts in Russia, Yahoo News reported.

Dossier Claim: Manafort Received Payment for Work in Ukraine

Revelation: Paul Manafort, who is facing serious charges from Mueller's team, worked extensively in Ukraine for years before Trump hired him as campaign chairman in 2016. The longtime Washington lobbyist received $12.7 million from the political party of former pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych between 2007 and 2012, The New York Times reported on August 14, 2016. Manafort resigned from the campaign after that report.

Steele's dossier states that Yanukovych and Putin met the day after the story broke, and the former made assurances to the latter that no trail could be found.

"This had been held in secret on 15 August near Volgograd, Russia, and the Western media revelations about Manafort and Ukraine had featured prominently on the agenda," the dossier says about the meeting. "Yanukovych had confided in Putin that he did authorize and order substantial kick-back payments to Manafort as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no document trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this."

In April 2017, financial records unearthed by the Associated Press confirmed that at least $1.2 million went to Manafort's company from Ukraine.

 

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Seems like 30 year old sexual harassment charges are becoming a mandatory part of all campaigns, etc.... with you on the waiting for decades business. The true motive for bringing up is always suspect to me. I was not impressed at all with Ford. BK was  awkward but good to know he likes and embraces beer. 

I do too. Just not on such an emotional level. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

On 5/1/2020 at 7:23 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

That doesn't appear to be the case.

Instead, a Senate Historical Office staffer said the Fair Employment Practices records 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."

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

 

On 5/1/2020 at 8:09 PM, Brad_ATX said:

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

Then why wont he release his records from the U of Delaware? Asking for a friend...If Ms Reade is correct, and i believe that she is, then there will be others, more than the already 7-8 that have come forward. Let's wait and see.

Kudos to Biden: I can see both sides with DJT and VPJB. I was struck that Biden emphatically said there were no NDAs. I do believe him on that. He was very clear, straight forward etc, not like with "Releasing the Records" part. For those of you that support Trump, here is a huge difference. DJT has possibly a dozen or more NDAs. That should tell you a whole lot about DJT and his supporters. An NDA is basically saying that you are ashamed or afraid of being ashamed of how Relationship X looks to the world. If you dont make bad decisions to have those relationships, you wont have NDAs.

[AUDub 11,148]

53 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Then why wont he release his records from the U of Delaware?

This is pretty obvious.

First, this isn't abmormal. Norm for pretty much everyone in politics. Those records include correspondence with foreign figures, work on policy, etc. Those files would certainly have things that are either sensitive politically or national security wise if Biden were to become President. They’re not for some political operatives to form a fishing expedition. And even if there's nothing, it could be easily spun to make political hay. The Podesta e-mails where a simple Rigatoni recipe was somehow spun into pedophilia code is a more ridiculous example of this. 

Second, these records are also likely not even cataloged and digitized. This would not be fast.

Third, any records related to a complaint by Ms. Reade wouldn't be there, but under Senate personnel records. Those can be accessed and likely already have been (I do not doubt the Obama team's vetting was extremely thorough) in search of such a complaint.

53 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

If Ms Reade is correct, and i believe that she is, then there will be others, more than the already 7-8 that have come forward. Let's wait and see.

There's no pattern here, and voters are already well aware of Biden’s issues with boundaries. She is the only one that has leveled an accusation of assault.

If another credible accusation of that nature surfaces, he needs to be off the ticket. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

11 hours ago, Mikey said:

Lets see: The Ford woman couldn't remember exactly what year she was "assaulted", she couldn't remember which house or even in what part of town, she knows there were others there but she can't remember who they were and she didn't have anybody from that time to back up her story. Reade with her contemporary witnesses and precise description of the scene looks solid as a rock compared to Ford, yet Ford was to be believed and Reade isn't? That ridiculous.

My personal thoughts are that if someone waits multiple years before complaining, it should be too damn late. But if you're going to believe the Ford woman, believing Reade is a slam dunk.

Yeah, don’t forget the *timing* thing of the release of Ford’s accusation.  Feinstein held the Ford letter until it was strategically advantageous to release it.  Reade’s tweet, referenced earlier, pales in comparison.

Ford sent a letter to Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, on July 30 alleging that Kavanaugh “physically and sexually assaulted” her at a party in the early 1980s.

This allegation should have been immediately acted upon by Feinstein. 

If Feinstein thought Ford’s allegation was credible, she should have shared it with the committee for it to be investigated discreetly, which would have protected the confidentiality of all parties. If the allegations were supported, then Kavanaugh could have been forced to withdraw without Ford’s name ever becoming public. Ford has said she wanted confidentiality. 

If Feinstein decided the allegation was not credible, she should have kept it confidential. 

Yet Feinstein chose a third course. She chose not to share the information with her colleagues. She chose to wait to act on the information until after she held a private meeting with Kavanaugh, after 64 other senators held private meetings with Kavanaugh, after Kavanaugh testified for more than 30 hours under oath before the committee, and after more than 1,000 written questions were submitted and answered by Kavanaugh. 

Feinstein never once raised the allegation or shared the letter with her fellow members of the committee — not until it became politically expedient to do so.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/sen-dianne-feinstein-owes-metoo-an-apology-for-the-kavanaugh-ford-debacle

[DKW 86 7,424]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

This is pretty obvious.

First, this isn't abmormal. Norm for pretty much everyone in politics. Those records include correspondence with foreign figures, work on policy, etc. Those files would certainly have things that are either sensitive politically or national security wise if Biden were to become President. They’re not for some political operatives to form a fishing expedition. And even if there's nothing, it could be easily spun to make political hay. The Podesta e-mails where a simple Rigatoni recipe was somehow spun into pedophilia code is a more ridiculous example of this. 

Second, these records are also likely not even cataloged and digitized. This would not be fast.

Third, any records related to a complaint by Ms. Reade wouldn't be there, but under Senate personnel records. Those can be accessed and likely already have been (I do not doubt the Obama team's vetting was extremely thorough) in search of such a complaint.

There's no pattern here, and voters are already well aware of Biden’s issues with boundaries. She is the only one that has leveled an accusation of assault.

If another credible accusation of that nature surfaces, he needs to be off the ticket. 

Apparently you arent paying attention. They do not say that the records are in the Senates hands. They have said over and over might be. Others are quite sure they are in the UOD's hands. And why we wont ever see them.

[DKW 86 7,424]

Tara Reade’s Ex-Neighbor on Biden Sexual Assault Allegation: I Believed Her Then & I Believe Her Now

 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

30 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Apparently you arent paying attention. They do not say that the records are in the Senates hands. They have said over and over might be. Others are quite sure they are in the UOD's hands. And why we wont ever see them.

That’s just plain dumb. Other folks personnel documents are not in a politicians personal papers. Show me an official source that says otherwise.

[alexava 6,973]

I missed if this was already covered. But why would any relevant document be at the UoD?

[AUDub 11,148]

11 minutes ago, alexava said:

I missed if this was already covered. But why would any relevant document be at the UoD?

A formal complaint would not be there.

It is possible that there would be memos or meeting notes and the like where the issue was discussed at the time. 

[AUDub 11,148]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yeah, don’t forget the *timing* thing of the release of Ford’s accusation.  Feinstein held the Ford letter until it was strategically advantageous to release it.  Reade’s tweet, referenced earlier, pales in comparison.

Ford sent a letter to Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, on July 30 alleging that Kavanaugh “physically and sexually assaulted” her at a party in the early 1980s.

This allegation should have been immediately acted upon by Feinstein. 

If Feinstein thought Ford’s allegation was credible, she should have shared it with the committee for it to be investigated discreetly, which would have protected the confidentiality of all parties. If the allegations were supported, then Kavanaugh could have been forced to withdraw without Ford’s name ever becoming public. Ford has said she wanted confidentiality. 

If Feinstein decided the allegation was not credible, she should have kept it confidential. 

Yet Feinstein chose a third course. She chose not to share the information with her colleagues. She chose to wait to act on the information until after she held a private meeting with Kavanaugh, after 64 other senators held private meetings with Kavanaugh, after Kavanaugh testified for more than 30 hours under oath before the committee, and after more than 1,000 written questions were submitted and answered by Kavanaugh. 

Feinstein never once raised the allegation or shared the letter with her fellow members of the committee — not until it became politically expedient to do so.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/sen-dianne-feinstein-owes-metoo-an-apology-for-the-kavanaugh-ford-debacle

FWIW you can go back and read the Kavanaugh thread. You won't find anyone defending Feinstein's handling of it. 

[AUDub 11,148]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

FWIW you can go back and read the Kavanaugh thread. You won't find anyone defending Feinstein's handling of it. 

In fact:

 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

A formal complaint would not be there.

It is possible that there would be memos or meeting notes and the like where the issue was discussed at the time. 

Unlikely any personnel file material will be there.

[AUDub 11,148]

So there was another accusation the other day against Biden. Christine O'Donnell's niece Eva Murray, who was 14 at the time, leveled that accusation that Biden commented on the size of her breasts at a very specific time and place in 2008, the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show. 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/woman-claims-biden-sexually-harassed-her-when-she-was-14-years-old-by-complimenting-her-breasts/

Quote

The woman, Eva Murry, told Law&Crime that Biden complimented her on the size of her breasts at the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show in 2008, a long-running roast of and party for politicians, journalists and prominent business figures held each year in Delaware. Murry says she remembers the event occurring sometime around May of that year.

One friend and her sister said that Murry told her details of the alleged incident more or less immediately after it happened. Four other friends of Murry’s said they were told about the incident, with the same details, between two and three years after it originally occurred.

Law&Crime interviewed Murry, her sister, and those friends over the course of multiple days. Murry is the niece of former Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell and said she occasionally received school credit for attending such political events. O’Donnell was running a long-shot campaign against Biden at the time that the alleged sexual harassment incident occurred.

Turns out Biden was never there.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/biden-campaign-provides-documents-to-dispute-eva-murry-sexual-harassment-allegation/

Quote

On May 1, Eva Murry came forward to allege that former vice president and presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden sexually harassed her at a dinner in 2008. Law&Crime published her account (which has now been updated) along with corroborating witnesses who asserted that she had shared the details with them. Thirty-six hours later, the Biden campaign responded and denied that allegation by providing a series of documents that cast doubt on one of the key specifics of Murry’s allegation.

 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

So there was another accusation the other day against Biden. Christine O'Donnell's niece Eva Murray, who was 14 at the time, leveled that accusation that Biden commented on the size of her breasts at a very specific time and place in 2008, the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show. 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/woman-claims-biden-sexually-harassed-her-when-she-was-14-years-old-by-complimenting-her-breasts/

Turns out Biden was never there.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/biden-campaign-provides-documents-to-dispute-eva-murry-sexual-harassment-allegation/

 

ABC spread that lie all across twitter.

[AUDub 11,148]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Unlikely any personnel file material will be there.

For all intents and purposes, bordering on impossible.

This is the attempt to manufacture a "but her e-mails!" scenario for 2020. 

[AUDub 11,148]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

ABC spread that lie all across twitter.

My hackles went up immediately I saw the name Christine O'Donnell.