Tara Reade Biden allegation megathread

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Will ya?

You Trump hacks keep using this line, it doesn't mean what you think it means.  You'd know that if you actually gave a damn about victims instead of just seeing them as political props to use as weapons against Democrats.

What does it mean then?

[VBM]

Christine Blasey Ford didn't go on Twitter promoting a candidate while making her allegations. Sanders supporters have gone through numerous insane machinations since Super Tuesday and this is the latest one. The media won't give this woman a platform because her story is a lie. These people will do anything to make Sanders President of the United States.

Idk if you noticed but there wasn’t a presidential election going on when Kavanaugh was nominated for SC...

[brucejoel99]

Will ya?

You Trump hacks keep using this line, it doesn't mean what you think it means.  You'd know that if you actually gave a damn about victims instead of just seeing them as political props to use as weapons against Democrats.

What does it mean then?

It means "take them seriously & investigate accordingly by looking at the evidence," rather than "automatically assume that the guy is a rapist." The evidence has to prove the claim &, in this case, it just doesn't.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Will ya?

You Trump hacks keep using this line, it doesn't mean what you think it means.  You'd know that if you actually gave a damn about victims instead of just seeing them as political props to use as weapons against Democrats.

What does it mean then?

Prior to #MeToo, when women came forward with allegations of sexual assault, they simply weren't taken seriously.

You would have police officers saying "she was asking for it" or ask "what was she wearing?"

You would have the public at large trying to rationalize the assault and say "she deserved it."

The police wouldn't even investigate, or they would do a rape kit but leave it untested.

Friends and family would all assume it was a misunderstanding or that it was somehow your fault.

If you accused a major public figure, folks would automatically assume you were a liar trying to get publicity.

The #MeToo movement changed that.  The message was "Believe Women."  When they come forward with allegations of sexual assault, don't just automatically call them a liar, or laugh at them, or assume it was a misunderstanding.  Assault does happen and it's much more common than you probably think.

However, the conservatives have twisted and misinterpreted this message to mean "Believe women no matter what."  As if belief or dis-belief is the sole step you take.  No, what happen is you believe her, and then if you are actually in a position to take actions on her claim, you investigate the claim and decide whether or not it's true.  This is not a particularly difficult subtlety to grasp.  It probably would have been better to say "Listen to women" but you would have misinterpreted that as well.

So when Tara Reade came out, we say "ok, I believe you and hear what you're saying, now I want to investigate."  We investigated, and we discovered a million huge red flags.  Now we say, we are not going to punish Biden for this, because there's so many red flags that we have huge doubts about the credibility of the accuser and her story.

It's really not that hard so stop playing stupid.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Will ya?

You Trump hacks keep using this line, it doesn't mean what you think it means.  You'd know that if you actually gave a damn about victims instead of just seeing them as political props to use as weapons against Democrats.

What does it mean then?

It means "take them seriously & investigate accordingly by looking at the evidence," rather than "automatically assume that the guy is a rapist." The evidence has to prove the claim &, in this case, it just doesn't.

Can you link to these investigation that concluded there are no evidence?


When Avenatti came out with his ridiculous claims, his client was taken really seriously and was given a lot of opportunities to speak out in various interviews. In NBC, CBS, NyT, WaPo, CNN. All lib media were discussing it.

This happened despite this
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/julie-swetnick-avenatti-kavenaugh.html

None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.

NONE.

Why doesn't Unbiased Media give same treatment to Tara Reade? What is difference here?What do I miss? (D)?

Just investigate and debunk if untrue. Win-win?

[DrScholl]

Christine Blasey Ford didn't go on Twitter promoting a candidate while making her allegations. Sanders supporters have gone through numerous insane machinations since Super Tuesday and this is the latest one. The media won't give this woman a platform because her story is a lie. These people will do anything to make Sanders President of the United States.

Idk if you noticed but there wasn’t a presidential election going on when Kavanaugh was nominated for SC...

That's irrelevant. If you were really the victim of an attack you aren't going to go on Twitter promoting a campaign in the same tweet where you are talking about the attack. And when you consider her posts about Putin it's possible that she's actually insane.

[DrScholl]

Will ya?

You Trump hacks keep using this line, it doesn't mean what you think it means.  You'd know that if you actually gave a damn about victims instead of just seeing them as political props to use as weapons against Democrats.

What does it mean then?

It means "take them seriously & investigate accordingly by looking at the evidence," rather than "automatically assume that the guy is a rapist." The evidence has to prove the claim &, in this case, it just doesn't.

Can you link to these investigation that concluded there are no evidence?


When Avenatti came out with his ridiculous claims, his client was taken really seriously and was given a lot of opportunities to speak out in various interviews. In NBC, CBS, NyT, WaPo, CNN. All lib media were discussing it.

This happened despite this
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/julie-swetnick-avenatti-kavenaugh.html

None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.

NONE.

Why doesn't Unbiased Media give same treatment to Tara Reade? What is difference here?What do I miss? (D)?

Just investigate and debunk if untrue. Win-win?

The media generally vets these stories properly. Case in point is when your side tried to have a woman submit a fake story about being assaulted by Roy Moore to discredit the real accusers. The Washington Post saw that there were holes in the story and reported that someone tried to lie to them.

[Bidenworth2020]

Ok this is extremely frustrating and I wanted to scream whilst reading it--

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

So when Tara Reade came out, we say "ok, I believe you and hear what you're saying, now I want to investigate."  We investigated, and we discovered a million huge red flags.  Now we say, we are not going to punish Biden for this, because there's so many red flags that we have huge doubts about the credibility of the accuser and her story.

It's really not that hard so stop playing stupid.

Who are "we"? Random users of Atlas/Twitter? LOL. Ok.

Why hasn't MSM just debunked the story? What's difference compared to Swetnick's beyond ridiculous claims that MSM could never collaborate?


Impeachment Inquiry gives a brilliant example of Roy Moore story. WaPo saw holes in it and debunked this bogus story. All Lib Media happily reported this was bogus!

Perhaps, they work on it. No doubt, we'll soon see the many red flags and Bernie Bros will be ashamed!

[catographer]

Everyone sucks here:

Republicans are hypocrites (believe Biden's accuser, ignore Trump's)
Biden supporters are hypocrites (believe Trump's accusers, ignore Biden's)
Sandernistas are opportunists (believe accusations against opponents regardless of truth)

[I'm in the second group-sort of... the hypocrisy doesn't make folks wrong necessarily.]

[Bidenworth2020]

Everyone sucks here:

Republicans are hypocrites (believe Biden's accuser, ignore Trump's)
Biden supporters are hypocrites (believe Trump's accusers, ignore Biden's)
Sandernistas are opportunists (believe accusations against opponents regardless of truth)

[I'm in the second group-sort of... the hypocrisy doesn't make folks wrong necessarily.]

MacArthur has repeatedly laid out in excruciating detail the major holes in her story. Can we please stop acting like us Biden supporters are just blindly claiming she is lying without evidence.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Ok this is extremely frustrating and I wanted to scream whilst reading it--

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims

Yeah between this and the HuffPo article it seems like there are a few feminist pundits willing to turn a blind eye to the numerous red flags in this story.  Why?  Because it's really easy to slap down a "Democrats and the liberal media are hypocrites" story.  It's slightly harder to say "this story is obviously baloney."  Notice how neither of these articles even mentions any of the numerous holes in the story.  It's just presented as fact and used as the basis for a "here's why I think the Democratic media won't pay attention" take.

[GeneralMacArthur]

So when Tara Reade came out, we say "ok, I believe you and hear what you're saying, now I want to investigate."  We investigated, and we discovered a million huge red flags.  Now we say, we are not going to punish Biden for this, because there's so many red flags that we have huge doubts about the credibility of the accuser and her story.

It's really not that hard so stop playing stupid.

Who are "we"? Random users of Atlas/Twitter? LOL. Ok.

Why hasn't MSM just debunked the story? What's difference compared to Swetnick's beyond ridiculous claims that MSM could never collaborate?


Impeachment Inquiry gives a brilliant example of Roy Moore story. WaPo saw holes in it and debunked this bogus story. All Lib Media happily reported this was bogus!

Perhaps, they work on it. No doubt, we'll soon see the many red flags and Bernie Bros will be ashamed!

"We" would be your target audience with your deplorable Trump hackery.  Who are you upset at.

The media?  They investigated the story, saw it for the BS it is, and ignored it, just like they did with your false flag allegation against Roy Moore.

Left-leaning individuals on Atlas/Twitter?  We investigated the story, saw it for BS, and have been diligently calling it out as BS in any social venue where it's brought up.  For instance, this very thread.

The liberal media didn't report on the fake allegation against Roy Moore until it was definitively proven fake.  Then, the story wasn't the allegation, it was that Project Veritas was putting together a fake allegation.  If this Tara Reade story is definitively proven fake, I expect it to get MSM attention because Bernie-world promoting a false allegation against Biden in a desperate attempt to torpedo his character is newsworthy.

What I don't get about you, Russian Bear, is why after a year on this forum you still run around feigning ignorance on these subjects.  Do you just enjoy being an object of ridicule and mockery?  Do you enjoy being used as a foil to illustrate the stupidity of the right?  I refuse to believe that you actually believe the things you're writing.  If you do, you need to do some self-reflection.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Tara Reade claimed earlier on Twitter to have reported to at least three separate witnesses (NOT her brother) what she "saw" as part of Biden's staff.

I'm sure these witnesses and the record of her complaint will materialize any day now.

Very odd that she describes being raped by Biden as something she "saw." Does anyone seriously believe this crap?

https://twitter.com/fliedgaff/status/1243656078627205120?s=21

[brucejoel99]

Will ya?

You Trump hacks keep using this line, it doesn't mean what you think it means.  You'd know that if you actually gave a damn about victims instead of just seeing them as political props to use as weapons against Democrats.

What does it mean then?

It means "take them seriously & investigate accordingly by looking at the evidence," rather than "automatically assume that the guy is a rapist." The evidence has to prove the claim &, in this case, it just doesn't.

Can you link to these investigation that concluded there are no evidence?


When Avenatti came out with his ridiculous claims, his client was taken really seriously and was given a lot of opportunities to speak out in various interviews. In NBC, CBS, NyT, WaPo, CNN. All lib media were discussing it.

This happened despite this
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/julie-swetnick-avenatti-kavenaugh.html

None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.

NONE.

Why doesn't Unbiased Media give same treatment to Tara Reade? What is difference here?What do I miss? (D)?

Just investigate and debunk if untrue. Win-win?

Reputable news organizations reported the Swetnick claims on the basis of the sworn affidavit that she had filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee under penalty of perjury.

In contrast, Reade went with her claim to the Intercept - a far-left publication with very little credibility & no proper editorial oversight - & her case immediately began hitting critical mass at an extremely convenient point, even though it contradicted her previous statements. She has asked for media attention &, somehow, no reputable news source seems to be taking her claims at face value. I know many people have no faith in anything that isn't in their bubble, but I still have faith in journalism. And oftentimes, when these story don't get picked up, it isn't a mass conspiracy. It's that reporters deem it bad journalism to print stories that are likely to be fabricated.

Women should be listened to, but that doesn't mean all logic should be thrown out the door. When a random girl from the South claimed to have Justin's Bieber's baby, I didn't believe it either, because the story didn't add up. It's that simple.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Democrats now appear hypocritical.  And the red avatars here ARE, if not hypocritical, walking back a whole lot of what they have said over time.

Which Old Atlas Forum was I on when I would hear the entire #MeToo and #believeallwomen schtick.  The position of Brave New Atlas Democrats is, #believeallwomenexceptaccusersofjoeandbill.  Their standard became inconvenient when it threatened to be used against their lock for the Democratic nomination.

Tara Reade has made an untimely accusation and she's changed her story, so that's two (2) strikes against her credibility.  She had lots of time to say something, and I'm skeptical of people who do this once the accused person is on the biggest possible stage.  And I certainly agree Blasey Ford's accusation is more substantial.  But it would be nice if liberals and Democrats would walk back the #MeToo rhetoric that ruled out the possibility of false accusations.  Gary Dotson and the Duke U Lacrosse team say, "Hi!", by the way.

[Yoda]

Democrats accusing a woman of lying because it's against their guy is extremely gross. Lots of mental gymnastics from Biden supporters, and you know your side is losing when you're having to resort to things like implicating because she didn't see a counselor/follow what non-survivors may consider the "traditional" path of recovering her story is somehow less meaningful or believable.

Also, Tara being a Bernie supporter in NO WAY shape or form makes her story less plausible. Come on. Use your heads. We're supposed to be better than this.

What are these mental gymnastics you're referring to? Can you give examples?

I'm only seeing very straightforward and easily explainable reasons why people are not taking her at her word. I haven't seen any tortured reasoning.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Democrats now appear hypocritical.  And the red avatars here ARE, if not hypocritical, walking back a whole lot of what they have said over time.

Which Old Atlas Forum was I on when I would hear the entire #MeToo and #believeallwomen schtick.  The position of Brave New Atlas Democrats is, #believeallwomenexceptaccusersofjoeandbill.  Their standard became inconvenient when it threatened to be used against their lock for the Democratic nomination.

Tara Reade has made an untimely accusation and she's changed her story, so that's two (2) strikes against her credibility.  She had lots of time to say something, and I'm skeptical of people who do this once the accused person is on the biggest possible stage.  And I certainly agree Blasey Ford's accusation is more substantial.  But it would be nice if liberals and Democrats would walk back the #MeToo rhetoric that ruled out the possibility of false accusations.  Gary Dotson and the Duke U Lacrosse team say, "Hi!", by the way.

You literally have to look two posts above to see a very clear explanation I wrote of why this is not the case.

So either you didn't see it at all, you saw it and ignored it, or you read it but are playing dumb.  Which is it?

The position of the Democratic Party was never that false accusations are impossible.  Maybe people like Kirsten Gillibrand or Lena Dunham.  But they are not the mainstream of the party.  We've already had a false rape allegation against Robert Mueller of all people.

[chibul]

The Democrats now appear hypocritical.  And the red avatars here ARE, if not hypocritical, walking back a whole lot of what they have said over time.

Which Old Atlas Forum was I on when I would hear the entire #MeToo and #believeallwomen schtick.  The position of Brave New Atlas Democrats is, #believeallwomenexceptaccusersofjoeandbill.  Their standard became inconvenient when it threatened to be used against their lock for the Democratic nomination.

Tara Reade has made an untimely accusation and she's changed her story, so that's two (2) strikes against her credibility.  She had lots of time to say something, and I'm skeptical of people who do this once the accused person is on the biggest possible stage.  And I certainly agree Blasey Ford's accusation is more substantial.  But it would be nice if liberals and Democrats would walk back the #MeToo rhetoric that ruled out the possibility of false accusations.  Gary Dotson and the Duke U Lacrosse team say, "Hi!", by the way.

You literally have to look two posts above to see a very clear explanation I wrote of why this is not the case.

So either you didn't see it at all, you saw it and ignored it, or you read it but are playing dumb.  Which is it?

The position of the Democratic Party was never that false accusations are impossible.  Maybe people like Kirsten Gillibrand or Lena Dunham.  But they are not the mainstream of the party.  We've already had a false rape allegation against Robert Mueller of all people.

If the intercept is not credible. Weren't they the ones that broke the Kavanaugh-Blasey ford allegations?

[brucejoel99]

The Democrats now appear hypocritical.  And the red avatars here ARE, if not hypocritical, walking back a whole lot of what they have said over time.

Which Old Atlas Forum was I on when I would hear the entire #MeToo and #believeallwomen schtick.  The position of Brave New Atlas Democrats is, #believeallwomenexceptaccusersofjoeandbill.  Their standard became inconvenient when it threatened to be used against their lock for the Democratic nomination.

Tara Reade has made an untimely accusation and she's changed her story, so that's two (2) strikes against her credibility.  She had lots of time to say something, and I'm skeptical of people who do this once the accused person is on the biggest possible stage.  And I certainly agree Blasey Ford's accusation is more substantial.  But it would be nice if liberals and Democrats would walk back the #MeToo rhetoric that ruled out the possibility of false accusations.  Gary Dotson and the Duke U Lacrosse team say, "Hi!", by the way.

You literally have to look two posts above to see a very clear explanation I wrote of why this is not the case.

So either you didn't see it at all, you saw it and ignored it, or you read it but are playing dumb.  Which is it?

The position of the Democratic Party was never that false accusations are impossible.  Maybe people like Kirsten Gillibrand or Lena Dunham.  But they are not the mainstream of the party.  We've already had a false rape allegation against Robert Mueller of all people.

If the intercept is not credible. Weren't they the ones that broke the Kavanaugh-Blasey ford allegations?

That was the Washington Post, an actual credible source.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Democrats now appear hypocritical.  And the red avatars here ARE, if not hypocritical, walking back a whole lot of what they have said over time.

Which Old Atlas Forum was I on when I would hear the entire #MeToo and #believeallwomen schtick.  The position of Brave New Atlas Democrats is, #believeallwomenexceptaccusersofjoeandbill.  Their standard became inconvenient when it threatened to be used against their lock for the Democratic nomination.

Tara Reade has made an untimely accusation and she's changed her story, so that's two (2) strikes against her credibility.  She had lots of time to say something, and I'm skeptical of people who do this once the accused person is on the biggest possible stage.  And I certainly agree Blasey Ford's accusation is more substantial.  But it would be nice if liberals and Democrats would walk back the #MeToo rhetoric that ruled out the possibility of false accusations.  Gary Dotson and the Duke U Lacrosse team say, "Hi!", by the way.

You literally have to look two posts above to see a very clear explanation I wrote of why this is not the case.

So either you didn't see it at all, you saw it and ignored it, or you read it but are playing dumb.  Which is it?

The position of the Democratic Party was never that false accusations are impossible.  Maybe people like Kirsten Gillibrand or Lena Dunham.  But they are not the mainstream of the party.  We've already had a false rape allegation against Robert Mueller of all people.

If the intercept is not credible. Weren't they the ones that broke the Kavanaugh-Blasey ford allegations?

The one thing The Intercept does that wins them their awards is publish leaks.  They have a very low bar for publishing leaks.  They don't care who it hurts, they don't care about its credibility, they don't care what the impact is.  That means they're more likely to publish your leak than other news outlets that have integrity.

In the Christine Blasey Ford case, Ford was working behind the scenes with Feinstein's office and some Senate legal/ethics folks to prepare her case.  Someone on Capitol Hill leaked that this was happening to The Intercept.  This was against Blasey Ford's wishes and hurt her ability to roll out her case in a well-controlled fashion.  Instead it plunged Capitol Hill into chaos.  You could have leaked it to the National Enquirer and gotten the exact same result.

[GMantis]

Democrats accusing a woman of lying because it's against their guy is extremely gross. Lots of mental gymnastics from Biden supporters, and you know your side is losing when you're having to resort to things like implicating because she didn't see a counselor/follow what non-survivors may consider the "traditional" path of recovering her story is somehow less meaningful or believable.

Also, Tara being a Bernie supporter in NO WAY shape or form makes her story less plausible. Come on. Use your heads. We're supposed to be better than this.

Facts aren't mental gymnastics.

What facts? At best you can say that the accusation is unlikely to be true, but there are no facts disproving it.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Democrats accusing a woman of lying because it's against their guy is extremely gross. Lots of mental gymnastics from Biden supporters, and you know your side is losing when you're having to resort to things like implicating because she didn't see a counselor/follow what non-survivors may consider the "traditional" path of recovering her story is somehow less meaningful or believable.

Also, Tara being a Bernie supporter in NO WAY shape or form makes her story less plausible. Come on. Use your heads. We're supposed to be better than this.

Facts aren't mental gymnastics.

What facts? At best you can say that the accusation is unlikely to be true, but there are no facts disproving it.

We've cited facts as evidence for why her accusation is almost certainly untrue.  Chief among these facts are:

• She is a Russophile conspiracy theorist who's proudly bragged about the political motivations for her accusation ("Biden raped me #Bernie2020").
• She deleted the articles that were evidence of her insanity, and then lied about it on Twitter.

• Her social media posts, and her background in general make her seem very non-credible.  She seems to have completely changed her worldview in the last two years, based on "watching Oliver Stone movies."  She filed for bankruptcy with over $400,000 in debt, and then changed her name.
• She seems completely uninterested in an actual legal case or investigation against Biden and solely interested in self-promotion and political assassination.
• Consistent with her doing this to help Bernie Sanders, she ran straight to Bernie-friendly media to push this story.
• The story itself is totally bizarre and contradicts everything we know about Biden's personality.  Even the most fervent Biden-haters admit that he is fiercely devoted to his wife and family.  On top of that, the dramatic dialogue like "You're nothing to me" is just ridiculous to imagine Biden saying.
• She has changed her story numerous times; for example, whom she told about the assault, and why she left her job.
   First she "didn't know why she left", then she left because she felt like she wasn't being respected, then she says she was fired in retaliation, but in her blog she says she left in protest of American imperialism.
• In addition to coming up with this new rape story, she has also changed her characterization of her previous story of Biden touching her shoulder, which she now characterizes as sexual harassment (but didn't in 2019)
• Prior to claiming to have been raped by Biden, she had long been a supporter of Biden and praised him; specifically, she has repeatedly praised him for his activities combatting sexual assault
• Biden has been a major public figure for 50 years, including VP for 8, was vetted by Team Obama and has been through two national elections, and has been the subject of extraordinary illegal efforts by the Trump administration to destroy his candidacy.  Somehow, through all of that, it never once came up that he raped a woman.  It only comes up now, when Biden is beating Tara Reade's candidate for the nomination.

[GeneralMacArthur]

One of the main reasons why you should not believe Tara Reade is that she has prosecuted her case against Biden entirely on social media and entirely in the context of trying to sink his candidacy and boost the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.

As the primary has unfolded, and in particular over the last month, her claims about Biden have evolved to become more and more extreme and dramatic, culminating in the rape accusation that she made through three of Bernie Sander's biggest media sycophants:  Katie Halper, Krystal Ball, and Ryan Grim.

The nice thing about social media is, it's not too hard to go back and find this stuff.  So let's do it (tl;dr at the bottom).

Let's rewind to:  April 2019:  "Reade says she doesn't consider the acts towards her sexualization" [1].  From the same source, we also have "Reade said she tried to share her story when she worked for Biden, but was told to say nothing" and "In June 1993 Reade found herself in an office without windows. Two months later she left Biden’s office, she said."  These are important details because she will subsequently claim to have been fired when she spoke up.

A month later, she adds an aspect not printed in the story:  She reported it to three supervisors as well as previously-mentioned Senate personnel.  May 23, 2019:  "I did file a complaint with three supervisors at the time and Senate personnel"[2]

December, 8 months later, is the first time she re-characterizes her experience as "sexual harassment".  She also changes the number of staffers from three down to two:  Dec 11, 2019:  " I reported the sexual harassment to two supervisors and Senate Personnel, I lost my job."[3]

On Jan 9, she wrote an article called POWERFUL MEN AND THE WOMEN THEY CHOOSE TO DESTROY [4].  But the only thing she mentions in this article is the drink-serving objectification outrage.  Jan 9, 2020:  "I reported Joe Biden’s sexual harassment of me at a time when no one listened and supervisors looked at me like I was the one with the problem. Some women even suggested, I comply with serving drinks to those male donors as suggested, to advance my career and winked they would like his attention or to be in the room with some of those men. This was my life, I wondered, to parade in front of men hoping I am worthy of their attention?"

During this time she is apparently a Marianne Williamson supporter.  After Marianne Williamson drops out, she switches to supporting Bernie Sanders, on Jan 20.  In the same tweet announcing her support for Sanders, she again talks about being harassed, fired, and silenced by Biden.  Jan 20, 2020:  "I have decided this week to vote for Bernie. He represents our collective needs as a nation. He will address climate change restorative justice. I am a former Senate staffer for Joe Biden, I reported Bidens sexual harassment of me and was fired. silenced." [5].

Move forward a few more weeks, now she claims her report is in the national archives.  Mar 3, 2020:  "I spoke out in 93 to Senate Personnel in national archives & last April." [6]

After Super Tuesday, her tone becomes much more aggressive.  Now it's not just sexual harassment.  Mar 5, 2020:  "First,  Biden is a misogynist pred. I worked for him. I know.the 61 Billionaires and celebs backing him are toxic.  I support a Bernie/ Warren ticket and found bernie supporters kind and inclusive." [7]

A day later, she is now saying that Biden threatened her directly, and personally fired her.  She also now adds the ominous (and worse) to her harassment claim.  Mar 6, 2020:  "I have been silenced and threatened directly by Biden. He sexually harassed me  ( and worse ) as a Senate aide and ended my career when I spoke up." [8]

There are literally dozens of tweets with her using the phrase "sexually harassed (and worse)" about Biden.  Almost all of them are either promoting Bernie or attacking Biden with some sort of Sanders talking point.  For example, after Bernie's Michigan loss:  Mar 10, 2020:  "If I could describe the rage I feel at watching the oligarchs win over millions of peoples rally call for systematic change. Or the personal, of watching Biden who sexually harassed me &worse go to power. Scorch. The. F##king. Earth. Rage. F##k unity. #NotMeUs #Bernie2020"[9]

It isn't until March 17 that she first starts suggesting that she was raped by Biden.  She writes a tweet tagging Ronan Farrow and the MeToo movement.  Of course, she also explicitly tags this as an effort to help Sanders win.  Mar 17:  "My full account of what Biden did to me is being silenced. Some people know what Biden did to me but yet it is not public. It would disqualify him.Joe Biden sexually harassed me and more Do not let me be silenced! Contact me. #NotMeUs @RonanFarrow @MeTooMVMT @BernieSanders" [10]

After Bernie gets swept again, she offers her story with Biden as an October Surprise that will rescue Bernie's candidacy.  Mar 22:  "Tell Bernie to stay in ! voters deserve to hear my silenced history w Biden" [11]

Two days later, she does the interview with Katie Halper that is released on SoundCloud.  It's quickly followed up with Ryan Grim's article at The Intercept, and then she does her Skype interview with Krystal Ball.  And that's where this all started.  So now you know how we got here.  I won't even go into the changing story between her Halper interview and her Ball interview.

Summary

In 2017 and earlier, Tara Reade was a huge Biden supporter.  After the Union article in April 2019, when she was attacked by journalists for being a Russian conspiracy nut, she became a full-time Biden hater and was really into the Hunter Biden conspiracy and talking points like "61 billionaires" and "candidate of the oligarchs."  She relentlessly promoted her NV Union article in replies to celebrities and journalists.  She called him Blue MAGA, Blue Trump, things like that.  She also complained in nearly every tweet about being labelled a "Russian asset."

Throughout all this Biden hatred, she never mentioned being raped.  In fact, she never even used the term "sexual harassment" until 8 months after the Union article was published.  After that, she started saying Biden had "sexually harassed" her in nearly every tweet across hundreds of tweets.  Based on her Jan 9 Medium post, though, the "sexual harassment" was still limited to just being asked to serve drinks at a party.  It isn't until March 5, after Super Tuesday, that the story evolves to Biden being a "sexual predator."  A day later she starts implying there is more to the story, adding the "and worse" phrase.  Like "sexual harassment", she had never used this phrase before March 5, but thereafter began using it in every single tweet, across hundreds of tweets.  Her tweets become increasingly unhinged and aggressive as Bernie continues to lose, culminating in her rape allegation, implied on March 17 and given in interview on March 24.

There is another aspect to these escalating claims.  Prior to January, her interest seems to be mostly self-promotion and anger at being labeled a Russian asset.  But once the contests start, she switches motivations, using the allegations as a way to support Sanders.  Now, when she tweets about Biden, she often tags @BernieSanders or #NotMeUs, #Bernie2020, #BernieIsOurFDR, things like that.  Her support of Sanders escalates alongside the nature of her allegations.

So what's the takeaway?

To me, it's pretty clear what's going on here.  Tara Reade is probably mentally unstable and really wants attention for her story.  Despite being a Biden supporter earlier, after she was attacked for her Putin fetishism she bore a hardcore grudge against the Biden campaign.  This is supported by her literally hundreds of zero-engagement tweets linking the Union article and complaining about the Russia allegation in responses to celebrities and journalists.  When this failed to get attention, she re-labeled it as sexual harassment, wrote an article and promoted it.

After Marianne Williamson dropped out, Reade became a die-hard Bernie supporter.  When Bernie suffered a stunning defeat on Super Tuesday, Reade suddenly began claiming there was more to the story, and made explicit her desire to use her allegations as a weapon to torpedo the Biden campaign and promote Sanders.  The nature of the story steadily evolved as the primaries continued until they became the full-fledged rape allegation we know today.  All of this was clearly done to promote the Sanders campaign as evidenced by her tagging and the context of her tweets.

Throughout all this, Reade has claimed that she filed a complaint with the Senate, which would be in the "national archives."  She also claims to have complained to several supervisors, although the number of supervisors is inconsistent between tweets.  A real journalist could go dig this stuff up, if true, and she first made this claim about a documented complaint in May 2019, so there's been plenty of time.  The fact that no journalist has uncovered it is evidence that she is lying.  That also explains why the only folks reporting this story are fake journalists uninterested in investigation, such as Ryan Grim.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

So when Tara Reade came out, we say "ok, I believe you and hear what you're saying, now I want to investigate."  We investigated, and we discovered a million huge red flags.  Now we say, we are not going to punish Biden for this, because there's so many red flags that we have huge doubts about the credibility of the accuser and her story.

It's really not that hard so stop playing stupid.

Who are "we"? Random users of Atlas/Twitter? LOL. Ok.

Why hasn't MSM just debunked the story? What's difference compared to Swetnick's beyond ridiculous claims that MSM could never collaborate?


Impeachment Inquiry gives a brilliant example of Roy Moore story. WaPo saw holes in it and debunked this bogus story. All Lib Media happily reported this was bogus!

Perhaps, they work on it. No doubt, we'll soon see the many red flags and Bernie Bros will be ashamed!

"We" would be your target audience with your deplorable Trump hackery.  Who are you upset at.

The media?  They investigated the story, saw it for the BS it is, and ignored it, just like they did with your false flag allegation against Roy Moore.

Left-leaning individuals on Atlas/Twitter?  We investigated the story, saw it for BS, and have been diligently calling it out as BS in any social venue where it's brought up.  For instance, this very thread.

The liberal media didn't report on the fake allegation against Roy Moore until it was definitively proven fake.  Then, the story wasn't the allegation, it was that Project Veritas was putting together a fake allegation.  If this Tara Reade story is definitively proven fake, I expect it to get MSM attention because Bernie-world promoting a false allegation against Biden in a desperate attempt to torpedo his character is newsworthy.

What I don't get about you, Russian Bear, is why after a year on this forum you still run around feigning ignorance on these subjects.  Do you just enjoy being an object of ridicule and mockery?  Do you enjoy being used as a foil to illustrate the stupidity of the right?  I refuse to believe that you actually believe the things you're writing.  If you do, you need to do some self-reflection.

You totally missed Swetnick. I wonder why.

You pretend there is a lot of red flags, but then MSM would happily debunk it. Rrright?

Vox did publish story and described red flags. MSM still didn't.

What I don't get about you, Russian Bear, is why after a year on this forum you still run around feigning ignorance on these subjects.  Do you just enjoy being an object of ridicule and mockery?  Do you enjoy being used as a foil to illustrate the stupidity of the right?  I refuse to believe that you actually believe the things you're writing.  If you do, you need to do some self-reflection.

It is other way around. I am the one who ridicule your ignorance and hypocrisy with stats You are the one attacking a straw man like "However, the conservatives have twisted and misinterpreted this message to mean "Believe women no matter what."

LOL, nobody claimed it but random twitter/atlas user pretend someone did and attack it hard.

Attacking straw man = showing feigning ignorance. Not other way around