GeneralMacArthur's big Tara Reade article

[GeneralMacArthur]

https://medium.com/@macarthur.cliff/the-tara-reade-case-eight-things-the-media-wont-tell-you-27d3ca14978

For quite a while now, I've been promising a big Tara Reade article.

Now, it is done.  The full case against Tara Reade, with all the evidence and primary sources, laid out in 8 separate sections.

Special thanks to all the Atlasians who helped me edit it.  You guys are amazing.

https://twitter.com/CliffMacArthur/status/1256589311387955201

[Hindsight was 2020]

Wait a second.....you’re name is actually MacArthur?!

[GeneralMacArthur]

Wait a second.....you’re name is actually MacArthur?!

lol no

[Bidenworth2020]

I am spreading it to all of the twitter and social media accounts I can. Thanks for writing this article.

[😥]

Thank you for writing this! This article is fascinating, thank you very much.

[Orser67]

Good article, I definitely learned some interesting things. I was already pretty skeptical of Reade but didn't know about the whole "Russian asset" thing.

Also, just fyi, there's a minor typo here:

The far-left figures who pushed this theory were unanimous in their opposition to establishment Democraticc candidates,

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

You did good. Normally I'd be whinging about "chaos agents" but the story needs to get out to as much people as possible.

Spread it around to anyone with reach.

[President Johnson]

Wow, a great piece. Thank you for sharing. This is absolutely amazing!

[Podgy the Bear]

This needs to be spread to every media outlet there.   

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's depressing to see that big name journalists are too lazy to fact-check a potentially explosive story like this and that a random guy on the internet has to do their job for free.

[Alben Barkley]

F—k the media!

The fact that you wrote a 1000000000000 times better article than any of the ones I’ve read from the mainstream press is PATHETIC. No offense to you, this truly is a great article and should be required reading for everyone. But it is incredibly damning that it takes this kind of amateur reporting to come up with a comprehensive account of the facts, because our “professional” media is unable or unwilling to do it. Sensationalism rules the day over facts. Their reporting has been even worse than their reporting on the emails.

[Landslide Lyndon]

3). Most women don't make traumatic sexual assault claims unless they are telling the truth, so she assumes some credibility by default (not irrefutable credibility, but some).

"Most" is doing a lot of work here.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I think a lot of Biden supporters make the same error that this article makes, asking for all this evidence and putting her statements and past under a microscope.

Biden is not under trial in court. He's not facing time in jail or a criminal record. He's not facing civil penalties. We're not looking for proof beyond reasonable doubt. We're not even looking for preponderance of evidence. People just need a sense that he might've done it. Not that it's more likely that he did than not ... just a sense that he might've done it. That's all.

For example, the article is asking for a specific time, date, location so that we could get video footage. Ordinary people don't remember specific time, date, location for stuff that happened in 1993. And exact time, date, location isn't necessary, as this isn't a court case trying to prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Then the article spends a lot of time talking about small details. So she started off saying Biden rubbed her shoulders and neck in 2019. Then in 2020, she brings up sexual assault. In 2009, she said she left with her boyfriend, then in 2019, she said said she left to protest something. She claimed Washington Post ignored her when they interviewed her. She said she complained to 2 supervisors before saying 3. etc etc

Those small details are splitting hairs when this isn't a court case. Maybe in court, a prosecutor can cast reasonable doubt and clear Biden. But this isn't a court case. Even if reasonable doubt is there, people can still believe that he might've done it.

Just keep it simple (no 5,000-word article needed):

1). She's a woman who did work for Biden.

2). She claims that he sexually assaulted her in 1992-1993.

3). Most women don't make traumatic sexual assault claims unless they are telling the truth, so she assumes some credibility by default (not irrefutable credibility, but some).

4). If the incident occurred and she waited 27 years before mentioning the incident, then she has some hesitations / misgivings / fears about going public.

5). Those hesitations / misgivings / fears means she might not easily tell the whole story at first, which explains why her statements in 2020 might differ from her statements in 2009.

6). The CNN phone call from her mother is evidence that something happened in 1992-1993 while she worked with Biden. The phone call doesn't prove that sexual assault happened, but it is evidence that something happened. Combined with her statement, it is enough to support a belief that he might've done something to her. It doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but that's not the standard we need here. He's not under trial in court.

Where is Trump’s DNA sample for EJ Carroll’s dress?

[President Johnson]

snip

Just because he's not in court doesn't mean we need to lower standards. Accusations like this are serious and should not be declared as automatically true. Especially with the issues listed in the article, there are more than serious doubts this actually happened. Accusations should be listened to, obviously, and be investigated. In this case, we're supposed to take her word without any serious evidence while she's on record of lying multiple times. It just doesn't add up.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

snip

Just because he's not in court doesn't mean we need to lower standards. Accusations like this are serious and should not be declared as automatically true. Especially with the issues listed in the article, there are more than serious doubts this actually happened. Accusations should be listened to, obviously, and be investigated. In this case, we're supposed to take her word without any serious evidence while she's on record of lying multiple times. It just doesn't add up.

Fox news is investigating this and Fox arm isnt gonna give Biden a free pass,  but multi females have accused Biden already of sexual misconduct .

If this backfires on the Dems again and Trump is reelected,  Bernie Bros would say I told you so, again

[GeneralMacArthur]

snip

Just because he's not in court doesn't mean we need to lower standards. Accusations like this are serious and should not be declared as automatically true. Especially with the issues listed in the article, there are more than serious doubts this actually happened. Accusations should be listened to, obviously, and be investigated. In this case, we're supposed to take her word without any serious evidence while she's on record of lying multiple times. It just doesn't add up.

Fox news is investigating this and Fox arm isnt gonna give Biden a free pass,  but multi females have accused Biden already of sexual misconduct .

If this backfires on the Dems again and Trump is reelected,  Bernie Bros would say I told you so, again

Nobody has accused Biden of sexual misconduct other than Reade.  The anti-Biden people love to dishonestly conflate all these claims about Biden into "eight women in addition to Reade" or whatever.  But those other women only complained about Biden touching their shoulders or foreheads or hair.  Completely different thing.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

snip

Just because he's not in court doesn't mean we need to lower standards. Accusations like this are serious and should not be declared as automatically true. Especially with the issues listed in the article, there are more than serious doubts this actually happened. Accusations should be listened to, obviously, and be investigated. In this case, we're supposed to take her word without any serious evidence while she's on record of lying multiple times. It just doesn't add up.

Fox news is investigating this and Fox arm isnt gonna give Biden a free pass,  but multi females have accused Biden already of sexual misconduct .

If this backfires on the Dems again and Trump is reelected,  Bernie Bros would say I told you so, again

Nobody has accused Biden of sexual misconduct other than Reade.  The anti-Biden people love to dishonestly conflate all these claims about Biden into "eight women in addition to Reade" or whatever.  But those other women only complained about Biden touching their shoulders or foreheads or hair.  Completely different thing.

Yes, that's why he is denying the story and the archives doesnt have record of the sexual allegations.

But, it fits a pattern of Biden being coy about Anita Hill and allowing Clarence Thomas to pass over a Dem lead Committee to stop his Judicial nomination. Along with Arlen Specter and Fritz Hollings and Dixon, the Thomas hearings were disgracefull.

That's why Harris doesn't want to be Veep, it's a travel abroad job and you break ties in Senate. She criticized Biden over Anita Hill, that's why Carol Mosley-Braun defended Biden

We arent anti Biden people, we are Dems that support Bernie

[Catalyst138]

Why do people say “the media” is pushing this story?

The big news outlets are pretty late to covering it and even then, it clearly isn’t taking center stage with everything else going on. And they don’t seem to be explicitly pro-Reade, more like “This is a thing that is controversial and it may or may not be true”

If you mean SOCIAL media, that’s a different story, but that doesn’t seem to be what we’re talking about here.

I’m not trying to bring down Biden (I’m voting for him) and I certainly don’t like the MSM, but there seems to be this idea that the media suddenly wants to destroy Biden with lies.

EDIT: Leaving out Fox News, since they always want to attack the Dems. I’m talking more about the “moderate” or left-leaning outlets.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why do people say “the media” is pushing this story?

The big news outlets are pretty late to covering it and even then, it clearly isn’t taking center stage with everything else going on. And they don’t seem to be explicitly pro-Reade, more like “This is a thing that is controversial and it may or may not be true”

If you mean SOCIAL media, that’s a different story, but that doesn’t seem to be what we’re talking about here.

I’m not trying to bring down Biden (I’m voting for him) and I certainly don’t like the MSM, but there seems to be this idea that the media suddenly wants to destroy Biden with lies.

Even a neutral stance is unacceptable and journalistic malpractice when it is so obvious not only that Reade is a shady character but also that her story doesn't hold up even under cursory scrutiny.
And there is also the galling crusade underway for Biden to release his personal documents which gives off strong "HER E-MAILS" vibes.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why do people say “the media” is pushing this story?

The big news outlets are pretty late to covering it and even then, it clearly isn’t taking center stage with everything else going on. And they don’t seem to be explicitly pro-Reade, more like “This is a thing that is controversial and it may or may not be true”

If you mean SOCIAL media, that’s a different story, but that doesn’t seem to be what we’re talking about here.

I’m not trying to bring down Biden (I’m voting for him) and I certainly don’t like the MSM, but there seems to be this idea that the media suddenly wants to destroy Biden with lies.

EDIT: Leaving out Fox News, since they always want to attack the Dems. I’m talking more about the “moderate” or left-leaning outlets.

Because the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. keep running segments where they talk about the "allegations against Biden" and then instead of digging into whether they're true, they just repeat her allegation uncritically and verbatim, then ask "what does it all mean?"

They're perfectly capable of digging into the story itself and finding out that it's BS.  Instead they choose to treat it as not-BS and keep running these thinkpieces about the consequences of a non-story.

Same thing they did with Clinton's e-mails.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Why do people say “the media” is pushing this story?

The big news outlets are pretty late to covering it and even then, it clearly isn’t taking center stage with everything else going on. And they don’t seem to be explicitly pro-Reade, more like “This is a thing that is controversial and it may or may not be true”

If you mean SOCIAL media, that’s a different story, but that doesn’t seem to be what we’re talking about here.

I’m not trying to bring down Biden (I’m voting for him) and I certainly don’t like the MSM, but there seems to be this idea that the media suddenly wants to destroy Biden with lies.

EDIT: Leaving out Fox News, since they always want to attack the Dems. I’m talking more about the “moderate” or left-leaning outlets.

Because the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. keep running segments where they talk about the "allegations against Biden" and then instead of digging into whether they're true, they just repeat her allegation uncritically and verbatim, then ask "what does it all mean?"

They're perfectly capable of digging into the story itself and finding out that it's BS.  Instead they choose to treat it as not-BS and keep running these thinkpieces about the consequences of a non-story.

Same thing they did with Clinton's e-mails.

Glad to see people are starting to wake up to the fake news in our country. Profits, sensationalism, and entertainment over journalism.

[Storr]

Why do people say “the media” is pushing this story?

The big news outlets are pretty late to covering it and even then, it clearly isn’t taking center stage with everything else going on. And they don’t seem to be explicitly pro-Reade, more like “This is a thing that is controversial and it may or may not be true”

If you mean SOCIAL media, that’s a different story, but that doesn’t seem to be what we’re talking about here.

I’m not trying to bring down Biden (I’m voting for him) and I certainly don’t like the MSM, but there seems to be this idea that the media suddenly wants to destroy Biden with lies.

EDIT: Leaving out Fox News, since they always want to attack the Dems. I’m talking more about the “moderate” or left-leaning outlets.

Because the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. keep running segments where they talk about the "allegations against Biden" and then instead of digging into whether they're true, they just repeat her allegation uncritically and verbatim, then ask "what does it all mean?"

They're perfectly capable of digging into the story itself and finding out that it's BS.  Instead they choose to treat it as not-BS and keep running these thinkpieces about the consequences of a non-story.

Same thing they did with Clinton's e-mails.

Glad to see people are starting to wake up to the fake news in our country. Profits, sensationalism, and entertainment over journalism.

In my opinion CNN is the worst actor when it comes to sensationalism. (Remember their never ending coverage on Malaysia Airlines Flight 340?) That's why I've always found Trump's attacks on CNN hilarious, because CNN loves the attention and it simply gives them something to cover for the rest of the day.

[GeneralMacArthur]

CNN is really bad but MSNBC hosts like Chris Hayes can do more damage because the left trusts them more.

[Crumpets]

Thank you for giving it a title with the exact appropriate level of click-baityness. It's just enough to get people to click on it thinking it'll be shaming the media for defending Biden only to be hit with the BOOM of a MacArthurian onslaught.

[AGA]

Already got a comment.

TIL, I’m a russian bot.