Tara Reade Biden allegation megathread

[7,052,770]

I didn't say that this confirmed her new allegations. However, these 1996 documents are still troubling no matter how much we wish they aren't. Also, this will be used by Bernie supporters and Trump supporters and they'll run with it. We already know that people don't care about Trump's accusers. Biden will be more adversely affected by this single allegation than Trump. You both know that, whether Reade's allegations are true or not.

We already knew that non-sexual hugging story was true though. It never resonated with the voters.

The rape story would resonate if there were any evidence, but every time any "evidence" comes out, it supports the already-confirmed-admitted-and-apologized non-sexual hugging story instead.

[GeneralMacArthur]

OK guys.  So let me get this straight.

The husband doesn't describe a sexual assault, he describes sexual harassment.  And we already know from Tara's writings that she thinks being asked to serve drinks was sexual harassment.

The husband says this was traumatic for her.  We know that it's still a traumatic thing for her because she wrote hundreds of tweets in just the last year describing how being asked to serve drinks "destroyed her career" and "shattered her life."

The document doesn't name Joe Biden as having done anything at all.

Once again, it's not an actual witness to any of this, it's just someone who heard a story from Tara.

And, once again, it's someone hearing a story about harassment that had nothing to do with Biden.

It really is evidence by omission at this point.  How many people did Tara confide in about experiencing what she perceived as harassment, yet mysteriously forget to mention being sexually assaulted by a famous politician?

Literally every piece of evidence we've seen so far has been consistent with her original story.  She was asked to serve drinks and her co-workers teased/criticized her for dressing provocatively in the office.  She felt, based on statements by her co-workers and innocent physicality from Biden himself, that she was being objectified by Biden.  It developed into a conflict with her co-workers that ended with her departure from the job.  Ever since she's felt a lot of regret about losing the biggest break of her life, and a lot of anger and blame towards her former co-workers (although not Biden himself).  And she told lots of people this story, which they all vaguely remembered when contacted by the press.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Ok I honesty want to ask this of the people who believe and support Tara

IF the evidence against Biden is so strong why did she hesitate when asked to take a polygraph test. every question before that she was saying yes without any excuses when Kelly was asking her about what she would be willing to do but when they got to the Polygraph question

Terra started to hesitate and give excuses
again she did not do this with all the previous questions she was being asked
instead she said that she would only do one if Biden did 1 first

this raises many red flags to me
why would Why anybody pass up an opportunity to prove they have nothing to hide and is telling the truth. especially if The evidence is as Damming as some on her have claimed. Tarra could bring down Biden if she took and passed that test tomorrow yet she is refusing to do it unless he goes first

Her answer on that Bothered me the most and makes me question everything she is telling me

taking a Polygraph was the first thing Ford did before coming forward with her allegations against  kavanagh. It was a move that showed that she really did have nothing to hide and she was willing do whatever it took to get the facts out. she even 100 percent backed A full FBI investigation into her claims.

I’m not a Tara believer, but I completely get not wanting to take a polygraph test. They have false results too often to be proof of anything. They aren’t admissible in court in most states either.

[GeneralMacArthur]

One more thing.  The court documents say that Tara Reade "cut a deal with her supervisor" to leave the office.  This directly contradicts her statement that she was fired by Biden.

So we have yet another piece of evidence that her current story is a lie and her earlier story was true.

[7,052,770]

One more thing.  The court documents say that Tara Reade "cut a deal with her supervisor" to leave the office.  This directly contradicts her statement that she was fired by Biden.

So we have yet another piece of evidence that her current story is a lie and her earlier story was true.

Exactly. We know the argument from the dishonest media types is going to be something like "OK, so maybe the rape story isn't true but at least we've proven that her 2019 accusations are true!!!!1"

Even though we all already knew they were true before the primaries started and basically no one cared. And sadly a lot of people are going to eat it up and be down on Biden because something they already knew about came up again.

[roxas11]

Ok I honesty want to ask this of the people who believe and support Tara

IF the evidence against Biden is so strong why did she hesitate when asked to take a polygraph test. every question before that she was saying yes without any excuses when Kelly was asking her about what she would be willing to do but when they got to the Polygraph question

Terra started to hesitate and give excuses
again she did not do this with all the previous questions she was being asked
instead she said that she would only do one if Biden did 1 first

this raises many red flags to me
why would Why anybody pass up an opportunity to prove they have nothing to hide and is telling the truth. especially if The evidence is as Damming as some on her have claimed. Tarra could bring down Biden if she took and passed that test tomorrow yet she is refusing to do it unless he goes first

Her answer on that Bothered me the most and makes me question everything she is telling me

taking a Polygraph was the first thing Ford did before coming forward with her allegations against  kavanagh. It was a move that showed that she really did have nothing to hide and she was willing do whatever it took to get the facts out. she even 100 percent backed A full FBI investigation into her claims.

I’m not a Tara believer, but I completely get not wanting to take a polygraph test. They have false results too often to be proof of anything. They aren’t admissible in court in most states either.

but in this case she did not refuse to do it
she said she would only do one when Biden does one first

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Maybe someone should just ask the ex-husband what she told him?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1258542127627157504

Is this true? or is this a misrepresentation of what Kaufman has said?

"The declaration - exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California - does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade's more recent allegations of sexual assault."

... I have absolutely zero idea where they got that headline from.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

#BelieveWomenWhoDon'tDareCriticizeJoeBiden

[Landslide Lyndon]

#BelieveWomenWhoDon'tDareCriticizeJoeBiden

You'd believe Roger Stone if he came up with a story about Biden sacrificing babies at the altar of Moloch every Halloween.

[CookieDamage]

#BelieveWomenWhoDon'tDareCriticizeJoeBiden

If she accused Bernie instead you'd be calling her names and insulting her every chance you get. I don't forget what Bernie bros and lefties did to Assange accusers.

[BlueSwan]

Ok I honesty want to ask this of the people who believe and support Tara

IF the evidence against Biden is so strong why did she hesitate when asked to take a polygraph test. every question before that she was saying yes without any excuses when Kelly was asking her about what she would be willing to do but when they got to the Polygraph question

Terra started to hesitate and give excuses
again she did not do this with all the previous questions she was being asked
instead she said that she would only do one if Biden did 1 first

this raises many red flags to me
why would Why anybody pass up an opportunity to prove they have nothing to hide and is telling the truth. especially if The evidence is as Damming as some on her have claimed. Tarra could bring down Biden if she took and passed that test tomorrow yet she is refusing to do it unless he goes first

Her answer on that Bothered me the most and makes me question everything she is telling me

taking a Polygraph was the first thing Ford did before coming forward with her allegations against  kavanagh. It was a move that showed that she really did have nothing to hide and she was willing do whatever it took to get the facts out. she even 100 percent backed A full FBI investigation into her claims.

I’m not a Tara believer, but I completely get not wanting to take a polygraph test. They have false results too often to be proof of anything. They aren’t admissible in court in most states either.

I agree with this, which is also why I don't think Biden should take one.

[wbrocks67]

There's a lot of people in this thread who are trolling with the "omg this is looking really bad!!!" takes.

Yesterday we had:

A. Megyn Kelly's interview where Reade came off political, telling Biden he should step down. This interview barely trended on Twitter... Twitter of all places.

B. It came out that Reade hired not only a Trumpist as her representation, but also someone who was involved with Russian propaganda?! How is that not a terrible look

C. The court document from 1996, which also no one really seems to be reporting on .... because it doesn't prove anything, other than maybe sort of some part of her 2019 story? But even then the document doesn't even name Biden or say that Biden even DID it! So it's literally a non-starter, because nothing about Biden directly is said in it. And even that doesn't jive with her 2019 story which WAS about Biden.

This story continues to fall apart, and I wouldn't say it's a drip, drip - most of the "news" yesterday was because she did her first TV interview. I'd imagine there will be more digging for other "court documents" but I doubt that there are many others out there.

Also telling that her ex-husband clearly does not want to be dragged back into this in present day.

[wbrocks67]

Also, if we're going by that new 1996 report, this nugget sticks out:

"Dronen wrote that Reade told him she “eventually struck a deal with the chief of staff of the Senator’s office and left her position.”

Reade consistently says she was fired in retaliation. But the 1996 report says she struck a deal and left on her own accord?

[wbrocks67]

Also, the 1996 report could be referring to her original report of facing harrassment from Bidens *STAFF*.... not Biden himself

https://twitter.com/rosanthony3/status/1258609761622339586

[wbrocks67]

Also, the 1996 report could be referring to her original report of facing harrassment from Bidens *STAFF*.... not Biden himself

https://twitter.com/rosanthony3/status/1258609761622339586

Biden supporters thinking -

1). The 1996 document doesn’t say Biden committed the act. So it’s unfair to say it’s referring to him. It cannot be referring to harassment from Biden himself.

2). The 1996 document doesn’t say Biden’s staff committed the act. But it’s not unfair to say it’s from someone in Biden’s staff. It could be referring to harassment from Biden’s *STAFF* ... not Biden himself.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at? The point is that almost all of her past statements line up with what it is in the 1996 report - that she experienced harassment in BIDEN'S OFFICE, not from Biden himself. The 1996 report seems to add to that, as does all of her comments from 2019.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Biden supporters thinking -

1). The 1996 document doesn’t say Biden committed the act. So it’s unfair to say it’s referring to him. It cannot be referring to harassment from Biden himself.

2). The 1996 document doesn’t say Biden’s staff committed the act. But it’s not unfair to say it’s from someone in Biden’s staff. It could be referring to harassment from Biden’s *STAFF* ... not Biden himself.

Look pal, if Biden harassed/assaulted Reade then she should sue him for defamation since he essentially called her a liar. Then everyone would testify under oath and any confusion will be cleared up.

Will she do it? Let's say that I wouldn't bet my house on it.

[wbrocks67]

As far as I could tell, there was no mention of her Megyn Kelly interview anywhere on the morning shows, which is kind of surprising. Though I barely saw it yesterday on Twitter as well.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Biden supporters thinking -

1). The 1996 document doesn’t say Biden committed the act. So it’s unfair to say it’s referring to him. It cannot be referring to harassment from Biden himself.

2). The 1996 document doesn’t say Biden’s staff committed the act. But it’s not unfair to say it’s from someone in Biden’s staff. It could be referring to harassment from Biden’s *STAFF* ... not Biden himself.

Look pal, if Biden harassed/assaulted Reade then she should sue him for defamation since he essentially called her a liar. Then everyone would testify under oath and any confusion will be cleared up.

Will she do it? Let's say that I wouldn't bet my house on it.

This is a crap talking point. It's much harder to prove defamation than the actual crime.

[Tender Branson]

Is this still a thing ?

[pppolitics]

Reade was fired from (or left) Biden's office after she was charged with Forgery and Counterfeiting.

Is there something here?

https://twitter.com/KassandraSeven/status/1258724369636962304

https://twitter.com/biden_brigade/status/1258624117248581636

https://twitter.com/biden_brigade/status/1258642198972809216

[pppolitics]

Was she convicted of those charges? Those tweets say charges, not convicted. If she were arrested but not convicted, then it’s hypocrisy to use those charges against her, given the Democrats’s position on criminal justice (especially here in NY).

The point is, we don't know why she was fired (or left)

Now, we have a likely explanation.

Whether she was convinced or not is besides the point.

And even if true, does committing forgery and counterfeiting = no sexual assault?

No, it doesn't prove that Biden didn't sexually assault her, but it does establishes her character.

[wbrocks67]

I mean, the fact that the 1996 report literally says she struck a deal to leave, and then in 2020 she's saying she was fired for retaliation, that in and of itself shows her story doesn't add up

[7,052,770]

I think most people in the media know and believe this is very likely to be a false allegation, but they're absolutely terrified to say so, because if this did end up being true, any journalist who said otherwise would get eviscerated and blackballed for life. That Vox writer really went out on a limb to basically say she didn't believe Reade, even though she gave a lot of evidence.

Something needs to be changed about that. Well researched, good faith skepticism that's not based on a knee jerk reaction should not be condemned.

[roxas11]

As far as I could tell, there was no mention of her Megyn Kelly interview anywhere on the morning shows, which is kind of surprising. Though I barely saw it yesterday on Twitter as well.

I been calling it for week
Once this Job report comes out it will dominate and overshadow everything in the news
this is why I was never really worried about tarra because I always knew that not matter how big her story got it was going to be eclipsed By that Jobs report on Friday  

Now Im seeing this trending all over twitter

#TrumpDepression
#14.7% in April
#14.7% Unemployment

The News about us hitting the highest unemployment rate since the great depression is now by far the biggest story the county  

that news will most likely dominate the weekend and be all over the Sunday news shows.
basically tara finally had her big interview and nobody cares since people are now realizing that we are in one of the greatest economic crisis in our country history

if Biden rises to challenge  and show the American people he can handle this
he will be our next president........