Tara Reade Biden allegation megathread

[DrScholl]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Nobody cares about Brett Kavanaugh right now and he isn't being discussed, but you all are so obsessed with Republican politicians and judges that you can't shut up about how they were supposedly wrong. Besides that the allegations against Kavanaugh weren't changed several times and Ford didn't go on Twitter hash tagging campaigns while revealing her allegations (which were vetted by newspapers).

And if I recall no one used a decades old phone call into a television show as evidence against Kavanaugh.

Reade is a liar and it's clear as day that she is, but your sorry self just wants to save Trump and is willing to push this lie. Reade said that her mother was a caller to Larry King and told him that she was sexually harassed, but after the transcript was dug up she says she remembers as the transcript reads. She's a liar.

[DrScholl]

Just a heads up for the "we don't even know it was Reade's mother" folks in this thread, it seems pretty clear this was in fact Reade's mother.  The caller location and date match up, and Reade said the call existed before it was dug up.

Sure all of that lines up, but from a factual standpoint it's irresponsible for anyone to report this without a disclaimer that the caller's identity cannot be truly verified. But considering that it's not from a legitimate news source it's not surprising that it's being reported as the gospel.

[Del Tachi]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Nobody cares about Brett Kavanaugh right now and he isn't being discussed, but you all are so obsessed with Republican politicians and judges that you can't shut up about how they were supposedly wrong. Besides that the allegations against Kavanaugh weren't changed several times and Ford didn't go on Twitter hash tagging campaigns while revealing her allegations (which were vetted by newspapers).

And if I recall no one used a decades old phone call into a television show as evidence against Kavanaugh.

Reade is a liar and it's clear as day that she is, but your sorry self just wants to save Trump and is willing to push this lie. Reade said that her mother was a caller to Larry King and told him that she was sexually harassed, but after the transcript was dug up she says she remembers as the transcript reads. She's a liar.

That's right, they only used a 30 year old day calendar and old therapist's notes that didn't even include any identifying information. 

My point is not to equate the Kavanaugh situation to the Biden allegations because quite frankly I don't care.  My point is that the people who believe/disbelieve these allegations (or any others, including those against Kavanaugh or Trump) do so for explicitly political reasons.  Once you try to justify your reactions through a moral lens, you're left typing yourself up in knots, double standards, and inconsistent thinking.

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation for political reasons.  You support Biden for political reasons.  Can't we both admit to that simple fact and agree that we're only willing to "believe women" as long as it justifies a political end?

[GeorgiaModerate]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Do you really want to make that argument with Donald Trump as President?

[Del Tachi]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Do you really want to make that argument with Donald Trump as President?

I support Donald Trump for political reasons, as stated above, just as you support Biden for political reasons.  Moral equivalence is not what I'm attempting to establish here, just that we will believe/disbelieve whatever we want as long as it suits our politics.   

[Hindsight was 2020]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Do you really want to make that argument with Donald Trump as President?

I support Donald Trump for political reasons, as stated above, just as you support Biden for political reasons.  Moral equivalence is not what I'm attempting to establish here, just that we will believe/disbelieve whatever we want as long as it suits our politics.   

That crap doesn’t fly when the Dems nuked Al Franken’s political career after his accusations

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Do you really want to make that argument with Donald Trump as President?

I support Donald Trump an admitted serial sexual predator for President and supported putting an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court for political reasons, as stated above because I am a horrible person, just as I assume that you support Biden for political reasons even though Biden clearly did not do anything to this random crazy person.  Moral equivalence is not what I'm attempting to establish here, just that we will believe/disbelieve whatever we want as long as it suits our politics since I've concluded that because I'm a sociopath who believes that just because I am morality bankrupt, everyone else must be too.   

FTFY

[Del Tachi]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Do you really want to make that argument with Donald Trump as President?

I support Donald Trump for political reasons, as stated above, just as you support Biden for political reasons.  Moral equivalence is not what I'm attempting to establish here, just that we will believe/disbelieve whatever we want as long as it suits our politics.   

That crap doesn’t fly when the Dems nuked Al Franken’s political career after his accusations

Al Franken's career was "nuked" because Democratic leadership was in the position of having to pay lip service to an electoral/media constituency they were on friendly terms with (the "MeToo" guys).  That's a political consideration.  Its for that reason that hypothetical "Republican Al Franken" wouldn't have been pressured to resign, Mitch McConnell owes nothing to Alyssa Milano or whoever. 

[Del Tachi]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Do you really want to make that argument with Donald Trump as President?

I support Donald Trump an admitted serial sexual predator for President and supported putting an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court for political reasons, as stated above because I am a horrible person, just as I assume that you support Biden for political reasons even though Biden clearly did not do anything to this random crazy person.  Moral equivalence is not what I'm attempting to establish here, just that we will believe/disbelieve whatever we want as long as it suits our politics since I've concluded that because I'm a sociopath who believes that just because I am morality bankrupt, everyone else must be too.   

FTFY

If that's what you have to believe in order to justify your politics, I won't stop you.  But it probably explains why no one outside of your bubble finds anything you say very convincing.  It's why the evil Republicans don't bat an eye when you call them "sociopaths".

[GeneralMacArthur]

Hmmmm

Evidence For

On the one hand, you have Tara Reade's mother, after Reade was fired, complaining that she had "problems" in her office.

On the other, you have Christine Blasey Ford's polygraph test, her therapist notes, her e-mails from before Kavanaugh was nominated, her re-design of her house to deal with the trauma, the fact that Kavanaugh lied repeatedly about his drunken party-bro behavior to try to hide the whole thing, the fact that Kavanaugh's accomplice and best friend was a notorious alcoholic sex pervert, etc.

Evidence Against

On the one hand, you have Tara Reade being a pathological liar and fraudster with 5 or 6 outstanding lawsuits, repeatedly promising evidence that doesn't materialize, her utterly insane Twitter posts, her story changing more times than I can count, her loving Joe Biden for decades after he allegedly raped her, and her absurdly obvious political motives.

On the other, you have... what exactly was the case against Blasey Ford?  Was there literally any evidence in Kavanaugh's column?  That he didn't write "raped a girl" in his calendar (despite having the party in his calendar)?  That USAToday article everyone loves to cite about Ford "changing her story" is an opinion piece by a Federalist contributor who claims contradictions like "the therapist notes say Ford was in her late teens, but actually she was 15."

Verdict

Clearly these two allegations are exactly equivalent and no reasonable person could possibly believe one and not believe the other.  The only reason you could believe Ford and not Reade is because you're a political hack.

[DrScholl]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Nobody cares about Brett Kavanaugh right now and he isn't being discussed, but you all are so obsessed with Republican politicians and judges that you can't shut up about how they were supposedly wrong. Besides that the allegations against Kavanaugh weren't changed several times and Ford didn't go on Twitter hash tagging campaigns while revealing her allegations (which were vetted by newspapers).

And if I recall no one used a decades old phone call into a television show as evidence against Kavanaugh.

Reade is a liar and it's clear as day that she is, but your sorry self just wants to save Trump and is willing to push this lie. Reade said that her mother was a caller to Larry King and told him that she was sexually harassed, but after the transcript was dug up she says she remembers as the transcript reads. She's a liar.

That's right, they only used a 30 year old day calendar and old therapist's notes that didn't even include any identifying information.  

My point is not to equate the Kavanaugh situation to the Biden allegations because quite frankly I don't care.  My point is that the people who believe/disbelieve these allegations (or any others, including those against Kavanaugh or Trump) do so for explicitly political reasons.  Once you try to justify your reactions through a moral lens, you're left typing yourself up in knots, double standards, and inconsistent thinking.

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation for political reasons.  You support Biden for political reasons.  Can't we both admit to that simple fact and agree that we're only willing to "believe women" as long as it justifies a political end?

So you are basically saying that you supported Kavanaugh regardless of what he did, got it.

The difference here is that this person in question is clearly a liar with several revision and inconsistencies with her story. If she was accusing a Republican and had the same inconsistent story, bizarre behavior and clear political motive then I would certainly not believe her either. There is no double standard here.

[DrScholl]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Do you really want to make that argument with Donald Trump as President?

I support Donald Trump an admitted serial sexual predator for President and supported putting an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court for political reasons, as stated above because I am a horrible person, just as I assume that you support Biden for political reasons even though Biden clearly did not do anything to this random crazy person.  Moral equivalence is not what I'm attempting to establish here, just that we will believe/disbelieve whatever we want as long as it suits our politics since I've concluded that because I'm a sociopath who believes that just because I am morality bankrupt, everyone else must be too.   

FTFY

If that's what you have to believe in order to justify your politics, I won't stop you.  But it probably explains why no one outside of your bubble finds anything you say very convincing.  It's why the evil Republicans don't bat an eye when you call them "sociopaths".

Sociopaths don't bat an eye because they do not care what others think about their evil actions. Be careful how you frame things.

[Del Tachi]

This is more pathetic than the email server crap. A court of law would throw something like this out because without a telephone number on record to cross check for research there is nothing to confirm that was actually her mother that called in. Second, her mother is dead which means another source of real verification is gone and third, what Reade claimed her mother said on the phone doesn't match up. The caller didn't mention sexual harassment like Reade claims, but she also says the actual transcript "gelled" with her memory. That's a whole lot of inconsistency.

But remember, this is a presidential election - not a criminal case.  The standard isn't whether or not Biden is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but whether or not these allegations diminish his fitness for office and impede his character.  Do we reallywant someone with such a demeanor as President of the United States?

At least, that was the standard you and other red avatars had during the Kavanaugh allegations.  Doesn't seem so fair now, does it?  Instead, you're picking through this poor woman's story to find any minute inconsistency possible.  #BelieveSurvivors?

Nobody cares about Brett Kavanaugh right now and he isn't being discussed, but you all are so obsessed with Republican politicians and judges that you can't shut up about how they were supposedly wrong. Besides that the allegations against Kavanaugh weren't changed several times and Ford didn't go on Twitter hash tagging campaigns while revealing her allegations (which were vetted by newspapers).

And if I recall no one used a decades old phone call into a television show as evidence against Kavanaugh.

Reade is a liar and it's clear as day that she is, but your sorry self just wants to save Trump and is willing to push this lie. Reade said that her mother was a caller to Larry King and told him that she was sexually harassed, but after the transcript was dug up she says she remembers as the transcript reads. She's a liar.

That's right, they only used a 30 year old day calendar and old therapist's notes that didn't even include any identifying information. 

My point is not to equate the Kavanaugh situation to the Biden allegations because quite frankly I don't care.  My point is that the people who believe/disbelieve these allegations (or any others, including those against Kavanaugh or Trump) do so for explicitly political reasons.  Once you try to justify your reactions through a moral lens, you're left typing yourself up in knots, double standards, and inconsistent thinking.

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation for political reasons.  You support Biden for political reasons.  Can't we both admit to that simple fact and agree that we're only willing to "believe women" as long as it justifies a political end?

So you are basically saying that you supported Kavanaugh regardless of what he did, got it.

The difference here is that this person in question is clearly a liar with several revision and inconsistencies with her story. If she was accusing a Republican and had the same inconsistent story, bizarre behavior and clear political motive then I would certainly not believe her either. There is no double standard here.

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation regardless of the unsubstantial allegations against him, yes.

If she was accusing a Republican, she would instantly have more credibility among parts of the media (just as what is happening here, in the inverse) due to strictly partisan reasons.  Reade's story would have been unlikely to even attract the same level of critical scrutiny from mainstream press outlets if it wasn't to protect their anointed savior, The Honorable Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.   

[roxas11]

Maybe in a time climate before this Virus showed up her allegation would have been A bigger deal But now things have changed and with all due respect people lives and the economy is way bigger than either Tara Reade or Joe Biden

I just think the reality is Tara Reade Picked the worst time possible to attempt to "ME TOO" Biden
because by the end of the day the most important news to come out is not some old Larry king interview about her..... its this News about the economy that will effects everyone

Grim new CBO projections: Unemployment worse than in Great Recession through 2021


If this turns out to true a lot of people will understandably simply not be in the mood to even care about any of this at all. The unemployed are not going care about what did or did not happen to her decades ago

they are going to care about the pain and suffering their families are feeling right at that very moment and if Biden speaks to that issue He will president

Sorry Tara Reade but this election will not be about you.......Its The Economy stupid

[DrScholl]

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation regardless of the unsubstantial allegations against him, yes.

If she was accusing a Republican, she would instantly have more credibility among parts of the media (just as what is happening here, in the inverse) due to strictly partisan reasons.  Reade's story would have been unlikely to even attract the same level of critical scrutiny from mainstream press outlets if it wasn't to protect their anointed savior, The Honorable Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.   

I don't really care who you support. You were the one who brought of Kavanaugh, not me.

The media doesn't just run with this sort of stories. Republicans tried to discredit the allegations against Roy Moore by having a woman call in a fake story, but the Washington Post saw through it. These outlets protect themselves from libel suits that could ruin them in credibility and finances.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation regardless of the unsubstantial allegations against him, yes.

If she was accusing a Republican, she would instantly have more credibility among parts of the media (just as what is happening here, in the inverse) due to strictly partisan reasons.  Reade's story would have been unlikely to even attract the same level of critical scrutiny from mainstream press outlets if it wasn't to protect their anointed savior, The Honorable Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.   

False.  Julie Swetnick also accused Kavanuagh, with Avenatti as her lawyer, and the media didn't take it seriously at all.  In fact there were several articles discrediting her and pointing out problems with her story, just as there have been with Tara Reade.

[Del Tachi]

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation regardless of the unsubstantial allegations against him, yes.

If she was accusing a Republican, she would instantly have more credibility among parts of the media (just as what is happening here, in the inverse) due to strictly partisan reasons.  Reade's story would have been unlikely to even attract the same level of critical scrutiny from mainstream press outlets if it wasn't to protect their anointed savior, The Honorable Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.   

False.  Julie Swetnick also accused Kavanuagh, with Avenatti as her lawyer, and the media didn't take it seriously at all.  In fact there were several articles discrediting her and pointing out problems with her story, just as there have been with Tara Reade.

And do you not remember the reactions of the red avatars here when the Swetnick story broke? 

[LimoLiberal]

It looks like Reade experienced some sort of harassment if not full-on sexual assault. This sucks. He always seemed like a good person. I'll still vote for him, but I won't do it enthusiastically.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation regardless of the unsubstantial allegations against him, yes.

If she was accusing a Republican, she would instantly have more credibility among parts of the media (just as what is happening here, in the inverse) due to strictly partisan reasons.  Reade's story would have been unlikely to even attract the same level of critical scrutiny from mainstream press outlets if it wasn't to protect their anointed savior, The Honorable Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.   

False.  Julie Swetnick also accused Kavanuagh, with Avenatti as her lawyer, and the media didn't take it seriously at all.  In fact there were several articles discrediting her and pointing out problems with her story, just as there have been with Tara Reade.

And do you not remember the reactions of the red avatars here when the Swetnick story broke? 

What about it?  People on the internet say a lot of dumb stuff.  That doesn't make you right, lol

[GeneralMacArthur]

It looks like Reade experienced some sort of harassment if not full-on sexual assault. This sucks. He always seemed like a good person. I'll still vote for him, but I won't do it enthusiastically.

What on earth are you talking about?  There's zero evidence that Tara Reade experienced any sort of sexual assault and the pile of evidence that she didn't continues to grow by the day.

Are you just trolling?

[wbrocks67]

It looks like Reade experienced some sort of harassment if not full-on sexual assault. This sucks. He always seemed like a good person. I'll still vote for him, but I won't do it enthusiastically.

Um, there's no proof that Joe Biden did anything to her. Your post is somehow assuming that Reade is telling the 100% truth here.

[wbrocks67]

This does more to weaken her credibility (her description of the call not being even remotely close to the transcript) than it does to strengthen it.

This. We're still on this thing? And the fact that the Intercept is still on their "bring Biden down" mission is getting tiresome.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

It looks like Reade experienced some sort of harassment if not full-on sexual assault. This sucks. He always seemed like a good person. I'll still vote for him, but I won't do it enthusiastically.

What on earth are you talking about?  There's zero evidence that Tara Reade experienced any sort of sexual assault and the pile of evidence that she didn't continues to grow by the day.

Are you just trolling?

I wouldn't pay him too much attention. The man is a well-known concern troll.

[Del Tachi]

Just a heads up for the "we don't even know it was Reade's mother" folks in this thread, it seems pretty clear this was in fact Reade's mother.  The caller location and date match up, and Reade said the call existed before it was dug up.

Sure all of that lines up, but from a factual standpoint it's irresponsible for anyone to report this without a disclaimer that the caller's identity cannot be truly verified. But considering that it's not from a legitimate news source it's not surprising that it's being reported as the gospel.

That’s a ridiculously high standard to apply in this case; it’s impossible to verify the identity of an anonymous caller.  But like you said, the fact pattern is consistent with Reade’s allegations

[LimoLiberal]

It looks like Reade experienced some sort of harassment if not full-on sexual assault. This sucks. He always seemed like a good person. I'll still vote for him, but I won't do it enthusiastically.

What on earth are you talking about?  There's zero evidence that Tara Reade experienced any sort of sexual assault and the pile of evidence that she didn't continues to grow by the day.

Are you just trolling?

Dude. I was just as skeptical as you were but her mom corroborated 27 years ago that she was experiencing some sort of untoward behavior from a prominent Senator. I have doubts that it was the groping she described for a variety of reasons (imo it was harassment), but as someone who supports victims of sexual assault and harassment, it's obvious to me that we should take her allegations seriously.