Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, April 30, 2020

Former federal prosecutor goes over her "alleged accusations" and finds many inconsistencies and holes in her story.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Rut row, looks like this accusation is a hoax and a big fat nothingburger.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Holes?" - Jeff

#1 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-04-30 08:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#BelieveHer

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-04-30 09:34 PM | Reply

Holes?
I heard two fingers, one hole.
Two holes brings a taint to this tail.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 12:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Adds a taint
Dang it.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 12:52 AM | Reply

#F---MeToo

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-05-01 02:15 AM | Reply

A lot more holes in Ford's story but that didn't stop the left.

#6 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-05-01 06:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A lot more holes in Ford's story but that didn't stop the left.

#6 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Ummmm no.

But nice try, even though we all know it's reflexive.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-01 08:50 AM | Reply

"Holes?" - Jeff

Boof? -JeffJ

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-01 08:50 AM | Reply

a lot more holes in Ford's story but that didn't stop the left.

#6 | POSTED BY Comrade Fishyp***y

Not even close to the same universe you troglodyte.

The fabricated Hunter Biden story was strike one.
This fabricated story is strike two.
Looks like Election Day will be strike 3 where the GOnP will be sent back to ride the pine.

Order your crying towels now Madge, the blue tsunami on election day will finish off the Grand Old Nazi Party for good.

#9 | Posted by a_monson at 2020-05-01 12:29 PM | Reply

Posts 1 through 7 are completely disconnected from any point the author makes.

Instead of discussing his points, righties have simply peppered the comment section with lame 'burns' and deflections from the story.

Nobody could have anticipated.

#10 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-05-01 12:51 PM | Reply

Wow, it's really that hard to see that the first 7 or so posts don't have to connect to what the author is saying?

The point is that when the accuser was accusing someone with an R it was all #believeher. Holes in the story, they don't matter #believeher ad nauseam.

So, the only point is now that the accuser is pointing at a name with D after it... Everyone has regained their senses, and things like does the story make sense matters again.

#11 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-05-01 03:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

@11

Another (R)tard hiding behind the libertarian label.
Your hypocrisy is very telling.

#12 | Posted by a_monson at 2020-05-01 05:35 PM | Reply

Sitting in the middle I can't tell if one side is being hypocritical without "having" to be forced onto the other team?

Your rigid thinking is very telling.

#13 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-05-01 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

LOL @ you being "in the middle!"

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-01 06:30 PM | Reply

Exactly how am I not Snoofy?

#15 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-05-01 07:13 PM | Reply

Where is "the middle," when you've got one accuser accusing one guy, and 26 accusers accusing the other guy?

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-01 07:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Author of the article is a hack.
"Delayed reporting ... twice." She told people at the time of the event, unlike Dr Ford. Again the double standard...Dr Ford changed her story multiple times and that was never a factor in believing her.

"Implausible explanation for changing story" We know now very clearly that women do change their story for many multitudes of reasons.

"People who contradict Reade's claim." The author includes an blatant lie by one of those 'people who contradict Reade'. It beggars the imagination that someone could honestly claim to have "never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct (by Biden), period." There have been too many instances of woman complaining of Biden's inappropriate conduct, conduct he has since apologized for, to believe Baker's quoted lie. We know that people are willing to lie for Biden, this invalidates the author's point.

"Missing formal complaint." NY Times couldn't access the records (I'm sure they tried oh-so-hard) because the University of Delaware, which is the repository of those complaints, refuses to release them to the public.

"Memory lapse." More double standard: The inability to recall day/place/specifics was not in any way a problem for believing Dr Ford's story, but then she wasn't accusing a Democrat.

"The lie about losing her job." Here the author is ------- lying. She didn't leave her job after refusing to serve drinks...that refusal happened in early 1993, according to the author's citation. Reade was released in August. The author is hoping you won't bother to actually check the story.

"Compliments for Biden." Weinstein, another prominent Democrat rapist, also got emails and tweets of love and respect from the women he raped. An prosecutor worth a damn would realize that.

"Rejecting Biden, embracing Sanders." & "Love of Russia and Putin. " A twofer. Neither of those points have any bearing on what happened in 1993, or the fact that she admitted it to people at the time. The fact that her rape may have left lasting scars on her psyche which manifest in some bizarre ideas...like not wanting to sleep in a bedroom without 2 doors...well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that such a situation was reported to have happened.

#17 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-02 03:42 AM | Reply

"Suspect timing." I guess rape victims find that the best time to come forward is when the country really needs to know something about a person who is up for the biggest job interview of their life. And again, that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that she brought this up with people decades ago. People who come forward and admitted that she brought it up to them.

"Statements to others." Wow, her brother didn't come forward with more information than she felt comfortable sharing until she felt comfortable sharing it? What a monster. And the fact that Reade continued to tell people about the attack, as another two the author brings up, does not in any way eliminate the 2 who have come forward to the press and chosen to remain anonymous who were told at the time that it happened. I really liked this quote "The problem with statements from therapists friends is that the information they recount is only as good as the information given to them." It's funny that when you tell something to a therapist, it must be gospel...but if you tell something to a friend, it's only as good as your word. That ------- double standard rears its ugly head again.

"Lack of other sexual assault allegations." Funny that the author had to include 'assault' in there, because there have been numerous cases of Joe Biden's inappropriate touching of women and young girls. And there was only 1 allegation of sexual assault against Weinstein...until there wasn't.

"What remains. " An author trying desperately to pretend to 'believe women' while working so very diligently to invoke a double standard against the accusers of 'their guy'. The author even admitted that they wrote another column critical of one of Biden's other accusers.

Verdict: The author chooses not to believe some women.

#18 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-02 03:43 AM | Reply

Think now up to 8 or 9 accusers now...not counting the pedo videos...

#19 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2020-05-02 04:07 AM | Reply

#19 Those are amateur numbers.
- dirty don

#20 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-02 04:34 AM | Reply

AVADORE

The word was not "believe." It was "give the benefit of the doubt."

I also agree with the timing here. Very suspicious. So suspicious, in fact, that it fits a Trump modus operandi. That alone is also plenty enough to give Biden the same "benefit of the doubt" that's accorded his accuser.

Before we take a chance that this is one of Trumps dirty tricks to sway the election, let's see what turns up in Biden's Senate papers.

You do want to be fair, don't you?

#21 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-05-02 04:48 AM | Reply

#21. Bidens papers reportedly have been sanitized already by operatives

#22 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2020-05-02 05:18 AM | Reply

Cavanaugh had 26 accusers Snoofy? I'm not talking about trump, I'm comparing reactions about Fords accusations and these against Biden.

Similar enough accusations, but the #believeher is out the window.

I'm pointing out there is no consistency on either side, so makes me a Trump supporter in your eyes

#23 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-05-02 09:44 AM | Reply

Biden sucks, Bernie has less baggage. Even Justin Amash has less baggage. Th Dems sure know how to pick em' can't pick a winner In a one horse race. Trump will win again because the corporate Dems are so stupid they can't even be bothered to have the NY primary for president but all the the other primaries are going forward. They say Trump will cancel the election, but the only election that's been cancelled was done by them. They deserve to lose.

AND I REALLY HATE TRUMP.

#24 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-02 12:07 PM | Reply

Food for thought:

STEMthebleeding @STEMthebleeding

(Thread)
So let's unpack a little of what would take for
@JoeBiden
to get Tara's complaint removed. First, some basics.
It was 1993.
He was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

twitter.com

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-02 01:22 PM | Reply

"She also voted for Obama-Biden TWICE. Who would vote for someone who supposedly did that to her for VP TWICE??? I call total --------."

twitter.com

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-02 01:34 PM | Reply

" She also voted for Obama-Biden TWICE. Who would vote for someone who supposedly did that to her for VP TWICE??? I call total --------."
.-some idiotic (R)tard
""""""""

Big Russian/Trump/GOnP money more than likely.
Her story is getting more holes in it by the hour.

#27 | Posted by a_monson at 2020-05-02 02:44 PM | Reply

"Cavanaugh had 26 accusers Snoofy? I'm not talking about trump, I'm comparing reactions about Fords accusations and these against Biden."

But... Why?
Blackout Bart isn't running for President.

If Biden and Bart are on par, then it should be easy for you to believe Ford as much as you believe Reade.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-02 02:55 PM | Reply

AND I REALLY HATE TRUMP.
#24 | POSTED BYEFFETEPOSER

^
Mostly it seems like you really hate yourself.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-02 02:56 PM | Reply

How so? Not saying you're nescessarily wrong,but why?

#30 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-02 03:30 PM | Reply

Hate Trump hate Biden hate Hillaty hate the Church.

You define who you are by the things you hate.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-02 03:31 PM | Reply

Don't most people?

#32 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-02 03:34 PM | Reply

That's a dodge.
This isn't about most people.
Stay focused.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-02 05:18 PM | Reply

I also agree with the timing here. Very suspicious. So suspicious, in fact, that it fits a Trump modus operandi. That alone is also plenty enough to give Biden the same "benefit of the doubt" that's accorded his accuser.

Before we take a chance that this is one of Trumps dirty tricks to sway the election, let's see what turns up in Biden's Senate papers.

You do want to be fair, don't you?

#21 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-05-02 04:48 AM
It's Trump's SOP to go back in time and have a woman inform multiple people that Biden raped her in 1993? Did he borrow Obama's time machine?
And if UD continues to refuse to make those documents available? I don't expect anything to come of this from a legal perspective. The matter is long beyond any limitation of prosecution. I just want to see the same people who were up in arms over Dr Ford's claims against a Republican behave precisely the same over Reade's far more serious claims, with a larger body of evidence, against a Democrat. It's just a job interview...and there is ample time for Democrats to choose a better candidate who is saddled with these numerous, credible claims of sexual assault and inappropriate touching.

Wouldn't that be fair? And far less hypocritical than the currently displayed behavior.

#34 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-02 05:32 PM | Reply

'who is NOT saddled with...'
My mistake.

#35 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-02 05:36 PM | Reply

inform multiple people that Biden raped her in 1993?

Wow. This story just grows and grows with each retelling.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-02 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Tara's story just collapsed. I hope the rubles were worth it.

#37 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-02 09:54 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

She's accusing Biden of rape?

Now that is newsworthy.

#38 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-02 10:49 PM | Reply

I'm not leaning either way on this issue, but the coincidence recently laid out regarding her story and its parallel to her father's novel is just adorable:

There's also one detail that Stern's analysis doesn't include, because it's a recent discovery. Online sleuths discovered a passage in a novel written by Reade's father, Bob Moulton, that sounds somewhat similar to the graphic account she began telling publicly about Biden in March:
After several weeks of flirting with him she spent the night in his room on Bleeker Street next door to the Russian strip tease joint. As soon as he closed and locked the door he put his hands up her skirt grabbed her buttocks slid his hands under her panties spread her cheeks and rammed his fingers into her. In spite of her fear she eventually responded and they coupled on the rickety bed jolting it until its metal legs nearly gave way.
That book, published in 2010, was written well after Reade claims she was assaulted, but long before she publicly accused Biden of the assault or provided similar details. Now, it's possible she never read her dad's book, or that she told him about the assault and he decided to turn it into a hot encounter for his book. Those things are possible.

But beyond the detailed skeptical analyses of former prosecutors and popular feminist authors, Reade's allegations strain credulity based on her own shifting and contradictory statements, and the obvious political motivations, and timeline of her revelations. I have no trouble saying I don't believe Tara Reade's allegations.

That's not really what these demands for Biden to respond are about, though. As Amanda Marcotte pointed out, this has been a bad faith enterprise from the start. Embittered fans of Bernie Sanders tried to weaponize the slogan #BelieveWomen, and that will continue to be the order of the day from every quarter that stands to gain something from peeling the bark from Biden.

This is already evident in the constant drawing of false equivalence between Reade's allegations and those of Christine Blasey Ford. Oh, so you believed Ford but not Reade? wHy wOn't yOu bElIeVe wOmEn?

But Ford's allegations, while difficult to verify (which was the very point of all those hearings) were backed up by, in my view, stronger evidence, and lacked the severe deficiencies of Reade's claims. That doesn't stop people of bad faith " from all sides " from perverting #BelieveWomen into "believe all women at all times no matter what."

That's been going on since the slogan first appeared, and that will include the mainstream press, in very short order.

www.mediaite.com

#39 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-02 10:57 PM | Reply

"This is already evident in the constant drawing of false equivalence between Reade's allegations and those of Christine Blasey Ford. Oh, so you believed Ford but not Reade? wHy wOn't yOu bElIeVe wOmEn?"

I read an article recently (I'll try to find it) which pointed out a big difference between Ford's allegation and Reade's in terms of the potential political motivation of each accuser. Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, had Republican Senators decided to believe it, would have resulted in Kavanaugh's nomination being withdrawn or defeated, but it would not have resulted in Trump losing his ability to nominate a SC justice. He could and would have nominated another conservative judge, in the model of Scalia and recommended to him by the Federalist Society. Dr. Ford surely knew this. Reade, OTOH, whose twitter hashtag once read "BernieIsOurFDR, waited until Bernie was no longer likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee before coming forward with her allegation against Biden (after twice voting for him as VP). If Democrats in Congress and in the country decide to believe her, Biden will be ousted as the nominee, which in turn will open the door to Bernie being the Democratic presidential candidate in the fall.

Setting aside the believably of both woman's claims, only the claims of one of them has the potential to change the trajectory of a political party and potentially of the country as a whole.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-02 11:27 PM | Reply

The Crucial Difference Between Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh

A presidential election is not a Supreme Court nomination

arcdigital.media

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-02 11:32 PM | Reply

Andrew Feinberg @AndrewFeinberg

(Thread) Reading over Tara Reade's interview with Katie Harper, a few things in her account jump out as sounding strange to me, speaking as someone who has spent many many hours in the Capitol complex.

Here are some quick thoughts and notes. 1/

twitter.com

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-02 11:43 PM | Reply

Trump: Two in tha pink, one in tha stink!

Biden: Reminiscent of the end of a religious service, "Love ya brother." Pats shoulders in solidarity.

#43 | Posted by madscientist at 2020-05-03 12:54 AM | Reply

AVIDORE @ #34

"and there is ample time for Democrats to choose a better candidate . . . "

You just gave yourself away. Trump fears Biden, too. ~ LOL

#44 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-05-03 03:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She's accusing Biden of rape? Now that is newsworthy. - #38 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-02 10:49 PM
What she's accused him of certainly meet the definition of rape in the legal sense. Ignorance of that reality isn't particularly newsworthy.
thelawdictionary.org defines rape as "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or ---- with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

You just gave yourself away. Trump fears Biden, too. ~ LOL

#44 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-05-03 03:22 AM
I don't care in the slightest what Trump fears. I care about where I cast my vote. Last presidential election I didn't pull the lever for Trump or Clinton...You see, I'm not casting my vote for someone who abuses women, as Trump has, or the people that defend and protect abusive men, like Sec. Clinton protected her husband and defamed the very women that he abused.
Are you the kind of person who votes for sexual abusers or people who defend a sexual abusers?

#45 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-03 04:53 AM | Reply

" Are you the kind of person who votes for sexual abusers or people who defend a sexual abusers?"

Hey, Trump voter:

eat my shorts.

#46 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-05-03 08:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

" Are you the kind of person who votes for sexual abusers or people who defend a sexual abusers?"

Tara Reade is both, which is one of the reasons many are questioning her allegations now. She voted for Biden twice and praised him many times over the years. She had one tweet in which she said something like, "I am a former Biden staffer. Listen to him. He speaks the truth." Why go out of your way to promote a man who sexually assaulted you and ruined your life? Also, when Biden was VP, he was a heartbeat away from the presidency. I have difficulty understanding why she voted to put him in that position. It would be good if she did an interview and answered these questions.

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-03 08:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1) Women should be closely listened to in regards to allegations of abuse. I've known too many victims personally not to take that view.

2) It should always be borne in mind that some people will say anything, for reasons all their own. I've known too many crazy people not to take that view.

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-03 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are you the kind of person who votes for sexual abusers or people who defend a sexual abusers?
#45 | POSTED BY ATRUMPVOTER

It's funny reading a Trump voters pretend to be morally superior to anyone.

Your time as a paid troll is up for today.

Good bye.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-03 08:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Are you the kind of person who votes for sexual abusers or people who defend a sexual abusers?"

Another moral principle expressed by yet another person who claims he didn't vote for Trump?

It is, of course, necessary to say that you didn't vote for Trump in order to discuss morality.

#50 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-03 08:53 AM | Reply

"I am a former Biden staffer. Listen to him. He speaks the truth."

Actually she wrote: "My old boss speaks truth. Listen." [last tweet in the grouping listed at link]:

twitter.com

#51 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-03 09:15 AM | Reply

Per Joe Biden from a few years ago, we have to believe her without any evidence needed.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-05-03 09:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Personally I would be afraid of someone who did and said what she accuses Biden of:

During one of the April 2019 interviews with the AP, she said Biden rubbed her shoulders and neck and played with her hair. She said she was asked by an aide in Biden's Senate office to dress more conservatively and told "don't be so sexy."

She said of Biden: "I wasn't scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn't that kind of vibe."

www.msn.com

And I wouldn't like the tweet of Obama awarding Biden the Medal of Freedom (see link in above post). Again, I'd like to see her interviewed and asked about these things.

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-03 09:52 AM | Reply

I am not an expert on perpetrators of sexual assault, but I suspect those that do, do it more than once.

Trump has a long and sordid history of sexual assault and creepy pedo behavior. Biden does not.

The DNC should investigate Reade's accusation, because the DNS isn't the rapist party like the GOP. Based on Biden's history I expect him to be Totally Exonarated.

#54 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-03 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hey, Trump voter: - #46 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-05-03 08:30 AM

Just how illiterate are you?
Last presidential election I didn't pull the lever for Trump or Clinton - #45 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-03 04:53 AM

Tara Reade is both - #47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-03 08:43 AM
So I definitely won't be voting for Reade. Thank you for amending your quotation.

Biden does not.
The DNC should investigate Reade's accusation, because the DNS isn't the rapist party like the GOP. Based on Biden's history I expect him to be Totally Exonarated. #54 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-03 10:25 AM

Biden has a history of sniffing children -on video-.
dailycaller.com
www.facebook.com
Please don't pretend that Biden doesn't have a verifiable history of 'creepy pedo behavior'.
What the heck is the DNS? Is it the party of Bill Clinton who was also credibly accused of rape? www.washingtontimes.com

#55 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-03 12:38 PM | Reply

Biden is not a creepy pedo.
Trump talking about having sex with 10 year olds once they get a bit older is creepy pedo behavior.
Intentionally walking in on naked teenage girls is creepy pedo behavior.
Partying with known pedos is creepy.
Talking about having sex with his daughter is creepy pedo behavior.

Trump raped a 13 year old.

Trump is a pedo.

#56 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-03 12:47 PM | Reply

"Please don't pretend that Biden doesn't have a verifiable history of 'creepy pedo behavior'."

And please don't pretend Biden is anything but a pale shadow of Trump's 'creepy pedo behavior'.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-03 01:16 PM | Reply

Last presidential election I didn't pull the lever for Trump or Clinton - #45 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-05-03 04:53 AM

i don't believe you.

it's that simple.

#58 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-05-03 03:14 PM | Reply

@58,
I don't either, he's a liar.

#59 | Posted by a_monson at 2020-05-03 04:14 PM | Reply

Please don't pretend that Biden doesn't have a verifiable history of 'creepy pedo behavior'.
#55 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Who is ignoring the publicly available evidence of creepiness?

It's the accusation of rape that requires more evidence (corroboration), which seems to be coming out more and more.

Your illogical leap that evidence justifying a 'Creepy Joe' label should also justify a '----- Joe' label speaks volumes about your POV on this matter, however.

Full disclosure, Biden will not be receiving my vote in November, irregardless of the current topic of discussion's outcome.

#60 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-03 05:02 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort