The Russians have been using the internet to manipulate the American people for awhile now, long before 2016. I was interning at the State Department when the Georgia War broke and witnessed this cyber propaganda first hand. We did not have a plan to counter it then and we do not have a plan to counter it now.
Look, I voted for Sanders twice and still think Clinton and Biden are mediocre candidates. They are not the devils the right and left make them out to be and not the angels their supporters think they are. We elect human beings, not angels. I think they both would have done a much better job than the asshat we got now, and that’s the decision Americans are stuck making every four years until we make serious structural changes to our electoral system to make it genuinely democratic. It’s definitely not gonna happen right now, so we should focus on reducing harm to vulnerable people and restoring balance to our politics. Electing Biden and defeating Donald Trump accomplishes that.
The Reade story just seems too good to be true. Trump is losing by double digits to suburban women whose defection gave the Democrats the house majority in 2018. Closing their deficit while getting enough Sanders supporters to sit out the election is a key objective of Russian intelligence going back to 2016. The media has an understanding of objectivity that amounts to not picking a side by pointing out the flaws on both sides. This has the affect of actually amplifying questionable Democratic foibles like Burisma or Reade or emails or Benghazi into false equivalencies to the litany of crimes, corruption, and incompetence the Trump administration has engaged in.
We already saw this playbook in 2016. Russian intel uses outside interlocutors like Bannon and Stone on the right and Assange and Greenwald on the left to cast just enough suspicion on the Democratic nominee to depress turnout and encourage third party defections. There’s no accident Justin Amash, another Russia dove, is launching a serious third party campaign the same week Reades allegations meet the press. If he can attract enough Never Trump Republicans, Bernie bros, and independents turned off by Biden, even in just his home state of Michigan, Trump wins the election.
Let me state unequivocally that Reade deserves a full third party investigation into Bidens alleged misconduct and he should cooperate with that effort. If that investigation turns up evidence implicating Biden, he should step down and another nominee should be selected to take his place. Let’s make no mistake though, this has all the hallmarks of another gaslighting campaign from the same Axis of A$$holes that gave us President Trump.
My analysis of an Amash candidacy leads me to the opposite conclusion.
Also, I’d like a study about why Americans are so receptive or vulnerable to misinformation campaigns.
GASLIGHTING : to cause a person to doubt his sanity through psychological manipulation. MALIGN, VILLIFY, REVILE; a malicious, false & defamatory statement.
James Conway nails the fascists by exposing the Russian / Putin / Trump / Puke gaslighting strategy to smear Joe Biden!
Right on the mark, James. Bullseye!
I worry he takes away just enough votes in Michigan to deny Biden the state. I have a good friend from college who lives there and is too pro life to vote for a Democrat and too anti-Trump to vote for the Donald, so I see him going for Amash. A lot of people in that heavily Catholic and Calvinist part of the world will do the same thing.
Anybody who claims to be “pro life” and votes in way that allows Donald Trump and the GOP to retain power is not “pro” anything.
The correlation between Catholic and Calvinist religious beliefs and Trumpism in government is a good example of the toxic influence that religion actually has today, whatever its proponents think it does or does not do.
Long distance ad hominem attack.
It appears that you misunderstand what the phrase “ad hominem” means.
Feel free to explain it, preferably using your schoolyard scenario.
Life is too short.
Congrats, Tom, that you figured that out. Better late than never. Here’s Nathan Robinson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6KqT1c7DvU commenting on the anti-Reade smear campaign. James take note.
Nathan Robinson is a Bernie or Buster. Come back to me when you cite from a Source that can be credibly objective about Biden.
Judging from his foppish three piece suits and lavish publishing arrangement with Harvard Press, he’s a champagne socialist at best. At least Jacobin has a good aesthetic sense, although I no longer look it for the articles.
Robinson is terrible. Here’s his splendiferous take on Warren: “She’s not one of us.”
Based on who is taking up Reade’s case, I’d agree suspicion is warranted. I’m trying to just go on the facts as they’re presented. And I reserve the right to change my mind.
Ad hominem – Latin for “against the man”. An attack on the personality or character of the person making the argument or an irrelevant point about a third party rather than making the case on the merits. Tom did not make a personal attack on anybody in the comment above yours.
What is your problem?
“Judging from his foppish three piece suits . . .”
Would this qualify?
On the other hand, what is “ad hominem” in my comment about Jconway?
@Christopher:
You’re wasting your time, DFTT
After insinuating that Reade is some kind of Russian agent, you nobly state that you will be open to an investigation of her accusations. The tell on your posts, James, is that whenever you allude to your insider’s knowledge at the State Department, we can be sure that the next thing you say will be bogus.
Once more with the ad hominem, Bob.
So long as you’re going there, the tell on your posts, Bob, is that whenever we see your byline we can be sure that your comment will be an ad hominem attack on somebody.
Especially if it’s a Democratic candidate for president who actually has won a nomination or an election.
For the record, there is a difference between amplifying and embellishing allegations that are already in circulation and running an agent.
Marina Butina was, in fact, a bona fide Russian agent. Describing her as such is not an example of inventing an imaginary Russian conspiracy. One of Ms. Butina’s lovers (several were reported) was Paul Erickson, longtime GOP consultant who managed the 1992 campaign of Pat Buchanan. Mr. Erickson was charged with investment fraud in what sources describe as an “unrelated” indictment.
How do YOU describe Dmitri Firtash, Igor Fruman, and Lev Parnas and their activities? They’ve collectively moved several hundred million dollars from Russian hands into the bank accounts of various GOP officials and PACs. What do YOU call that?
Let’s therefore not pretend that Russia has not been and is not now active in US political affairs.
The thread-starter doesn’t insinuate that Ms. Reade “is some kind of Russian agent”. It instead plainly says that her STORY is being exploited by Russian operatives to the benefit of Donald Trump and the GOP.
It makes no difference to me whether we characterize your commentary about Ms. Reade, Mr. Biden, and the ongoing Russian interference in domestic political affairs as “gaslighting”, “lying” or old-fashioned trolling, the result is the same.
The Russians DID interfere in the 2016 election. They DO have deep connections to the GOP and they HAVE been building — and investing heavily in — those connections since at least 2015. In one form or another, Russia has been bankrolling Donald Trump for most of Mr. Trump’s adult life.
That remains true whether you, Mr. Trump, and Mr. Trump’s Collaborators admit it or not.
Joe Biden will be interviewed by Rev. Al Sharpton this afternoon at 5 pm on MSNBC.
This is back at the front of my mind again as I am currently reading The Plot to Betray America by Malcolm Nance. It is rather eye-opening and I recommend it, but fair warning – you may be tempted to throw the book across the room in frustration.
Your analysis about Russia basically boils down to “Putin can do whatever he wants cause of *insert bad American foreign policy here*”. That’s exactly the kind of logic that got Wallace to deny Stalinism in 48’, the anti war left to foolishly wave VC flags in 68’, and the various Che, Castro, Ortega, and Chavez apologists throughout the world to say the US backing our right wing dictators justified their left wing dictators. I think all dictators are bad. I think people who invade other places for no reason are bad, whether it’s BlIr and Bush or Putin. I think people who jail their political opponents are bad whether it’s Sisi or Maduro.
Yes the CIA has bungled intelligence and committed crimes throughout its history. It also got Russian election interference right, and the left that allows itself to be gaslit by Russian intelligence has zero credibility with me.
I have to give Biden & his team full marks for how they are handling this so far.
It would be nice if the ad-hominem attacks stopped so you can go back to calling Charlie a Russian agent, Meanwhile https://www.timesofisrael.com/redacted-fbi-document-hints-at-israeli-efforts-to-help-trump-in-2016-campaign/, here’s something about Roger Stone and foreign interference in 2016.
I do not doubt any of the reporting in the link you provide. There is certainly no dichotomy between working with the Israelis and the Russians simultaneously.
It would be nice if the ad hominem attacks would just stop. Period.
Trump is busy blaming a Chinese lab for the Coronavirus, and we’re busy blaming Russia for Tara Reade. Great thinking!
Imagine a bunch of kids in a school yard. Jimmy says to Johnny “I saw you take Billy’s money out of his locker”. Johnny says to Jimmy “You’re a no-good liar and if you keep saying that I’ll make you wish you hadn’t.” Bobby says to the rest of the kids “Johnny just called Jimmy a liar. Jimmy’s a coward if he doesn’t fight back.” Meanwhile, Billy tells his friends “I’ve still got my money, nobody took anything from me.”
How do you characterize Bobby’s role in this little scenario? Was he helping avoid a fight, or encouraging one? If Suzie said “Jimmy was trying to stir up trouble, but Bobby caused the fight”, would you criticize Suzie for blaming Bobby?
Nobody on this thread is “blaming Russia for Tara Reade”. The thread-starter instead says that Russia, like Bobby in my little scenario, is fanning the conflict for its own purposes.
Russia, Russia, Russia. Who cares about Russia. Let’s solve our problems, and stop looking for foreign bogeymen.
I care about any hostile government — Russia, China, or Israel — that seeks to harm my neighbors, friends and family.
If you think that Dmitri Firtash is a “foreign bogeyman”, then you’re denying reality.
Wait, what country is Suzie supposed to be?
Try to keep up, Bob.
“Don’t Gaslight me….”
We just had an exchange in which you repeated every Tulsi Gabbard smear, for reasons I can’t even remember… Now you’re listing-off supposed Russian agents… Justin Amash? It’s not just you… this stuff gets widely and unironically repeated in Democratic circles today.
A for effort, but a bit lacking in subtlety.
They are not smears when they are her states policy objectives.
-Voting against the Iran Deal
-Teaming up with Assad and Putin to fight ISIS
-Cozying up to Modi and defending his human rights record
-Cozying up to Putin and Assad and defending their human rights record
I’ve been incredibly fair to Tulsi and defended her presence in the primary and at the debates as a necessary one to correct and critique the broken Washington consensus, which I agree with you and bob and other critics is driving the US into a series of unfortunate quagmires after another.
That said, she is the opposite of a realist. A realist would be a Russia and China balancer, a terrorism container, a North Korea container, a climate hawk, and an Iran dove. She is a Russia ally, a terrorism hawk, a North Korea dove, indifferent to climate, and an Iran hawk. Her China policy seems to back Trumps unilateral tariffs. Not the best combo.
Sanders was the more eloquent avatar for the left on foreign policy and more correct to favor multilateral approaches to geopolitical issues paired with a prioritization of our strategy around climate change and global
Challenges such as this pandemic. Tulsi is closer to Rand Paul’s or even Donald Trumps vision of an America acting alone or in concert with authoritarians to counter “radical Islam” which is an ideology that does not presently exist or pose a threat to Americans. She has a record or homophobic and Islamaphobic rhetoric and policies.
So Gabbard was “teaming up” with Putin and Assad? This is on par with saying Obama was “teaming up” with ISIS. These are smears and you know it.
And with this post you’re listing supposed Russian agents, without any proof. You’ve walked-back your Amash accusation. Now how about Greenwald?
We discussed middle east policy at length in comments the other day. You say you are a critic of the Washington foreign policy consensus. I see no evidence of that. What’s more, you repeat the same smears and baseless accusations that defend the Washington consensus.
What’s most remarkable about these posts is how unremarkable they are… this is just expected in Democratic circles today. That ultimately has policy consequences, which is why people spend time repeating these smears.
Her praise of Putin and Assad is well documented. She has proposed the US and Assad work together against ISIS and has supported disarming the Syrian opposition, including the Kurds she latter claimed to defend.
Anyway go vote for her, nobody else outside of American Samoa did.
Obama gave the neocons their dream of a CIA army in Syria . Trump sold hundreds of billions in weaponry to the Saudi government. But you’re worried about Gabbard saying what?
What’s sadly unremarkable is seeing well meaning progressives who rightly critique a hawkish foreign policy duped into supporting Trump either directly or via well documented smear campaigns to discredit Democrats.
You want war with Iran? Vote for Trump. Who almost went to war twice with Iran in the last year. You want to avoid that war? Vote for Biden and restore the deal. End of discussion.
What are you talking about? I specifically called for Trump be impeached for his act of war against Iran (among other middle east crimes). But there was never any chance that was going to happen, because the Democratic party is in the pocket of the foreign policy establishment. Biden may or may not restore the Iran deal, but he has consistently supported the anti-Iranian proxy war in Syria, which is hardly consistent with detente.
You keep saying you agree with me in principle, yet you almost always support the establishment… even to the point of repeating their ridiculous smear campaign against the supposed Russian agents in our midst.
I invite you clarify who you mean by “supposed Russian agents in our midst”.
I invite you to say whether you think each of the following is or is not a Russian asset or agent (I mean “agent” to mean a person whose job is to do the bidding of a foreign government. I use “asset” to mean a person who provides some useful service to a foreign government while doing something else):
– Maria Buttina
– Dimitry Firtash
– Lev Parnas
– Igor Fruman
I’m trying to understand whether you join Mr. Trump in asserting that the entire “Russia thing” is a hoax, or whether you are willing to admit that there are at least SOME Russian agents or assets in our midst.
Seems like you’ve been successfully gas lighted by Trump.
You foolishly suggest “a full third party investigation into Bidens alleged misconduct and he should cooperate with that effort. If that investigation turns up evidence implicating Biden, he should step down and another nominee should be selected to take his place” and then admit that has all the markings of a Trump campaign gaslighting.
How to you call for full transparency for Biden and remain silent on all the stonewalling Trump has engaged with regarding sexual assaults charges against him and his unwillingness to release his tax returns. This just smacks of stupid liberal behavior and we all know how that ends.
Whataboutism in its purest form.
Seriously? In a contest between two people running for President. Both have issues about not being transparent about sexual assault charges and it is WHATABOUTISM to suggest they both be treated equally??? What am I missing here?
It’s not a contest about who is less rapey. It’s an allegation of a sexual assault.
I for one do not want them treated equally when credibility and scope are very much unequal.
I am not falling for anything and second everything you say here. It is the resident Russophiles you have a quarrel with and sadly Charley who has fallen for this gaslighting.
I’ve said this elsewhere that I support the steps Biden has taken having a third party investigate the Senate archives. I’m agnostic on the Delaware papers, but what I have said is he should agree to release them if Trump releases his and responds to allegations against him. We may disagree in other areas, but I agree with you here.
Looking into Amash more… turns out he supports a three month UBI, with the option to renew indefinitely. He proposed this back in March, when Congress was busy opening the Federal Reserve taps to Wall Street. Amash is a reflexively anti-government libertarian… yet he’s WAY ahead of Pelosi on this.
This could have been an opportunity to gently push Pelosi in the right direction…. but no, he’s a Russian hack. Naturally.
He’s right about a lot of things including UBI and impeachment. He’s wrong about a lot of things including the constitutionality of social security, abortion, and Obamacare. He’s also wrong about US Russia policy, although at least he admitted Trump should be impeached over Ukraine unlike Taibbi. I never said he was a hack on the payroll like Manafort, just that he happens to be a useful idiot for their cause. He splits the anti-Biden vote in a key swing state and gives non-interventionist lefties a space to land on.
You clearly suggested Amash was working with Russian intel.
There is absolutely nothing in the paragraph you quoted suggesting Amash is working with Russian intelligence. Personally, I think Amash has a better shot at peeling away Trump voters than Biden voters.
“There’s no accident. . . ” suggests what?
It suggests he is seizing on this timing to drive a wedge between anti-Trump voters and the Biden campaign. It’s no accident that the far right and far left are getting fed information to dupe the public again. It was not an accident in 2016 and is not an accident today.
It’s strongly suggested… this isn’t even remotely debatable. How about Greenwald? Do you have proof he’s working with Russian intelligence, or are you going to walk that back too?
I did not suggest that. Merely that he is a useful idiot for spouting pro-Russian propaganda. Like his hero, Henry Wallace, he is so idealistic he does not realize who his real enemies are. He helped Snowden escape justice, who is now happily residing in Moscow. Gee, I wonder why? Stone, Greenwald, and Assange all willingly and illegally released info hacked from the DNC by Russian intelligence. So whether they are directly coordinating or not is immaterial
to the fact that they have common enemies and are used by Russian intelligence to spread Russian propaganda. Their actions help re-elect Trump which is an overt policy aim of the Putin regime.
If you think, as I do, they Scooter Libby should be in jail for leaking Valerie Plames name so should Stone, Assange, and Snowden for compromising our agents abroad via Wikileaks and hacking into our political process. They did the same things Scooter Libby and G Gordon Libby were guilty of.
You literally said that Greenwald is talking to Russian intel. You have ZERO evidence, so now you’re walking it back…
Now you say Greenwald is being “used by Russian intelligence to spread Russian propaganda” with Snowden provided as evidence. Of course the NSA’s collection of metadata isn’t “Russian propaganda.” It actually happened.
Reality itself is now “Russian propaganda.” Why? Because it threatens the foreign policy establishment.
We SEE what you are doing — don’t you get that?
Where did I say he was talking to Russian intel? I have no idea if he is or isn’t. I do know he is repeating Russian talking points and using their framing on a host of subjects. I do know he shared information obtained through illegal hacking conducted by Russian intelligence. Why is that? Perhaps because his sources and information are compromise or perhaps because Russia sees a useful idiot with an ax to grind against Democrats they can manipulate. I honestly do not care either way, what matters is that he is dealing in false equivalencies and trafficking in illegally obtained information.
We can agree that the NSA was wrong to use metadata and spy on our allies while disagreeing that Snowden leaked this information for altruistic purposes. I do. It think he did. I also do not doubt that whatever information he has has been vetted and examined by Russian intelligence. It would take a brick ton of naïveté to assume he is there because Putin opposes domestic spying and protects whistleblowers. It is highly likely Snowden traded information for protection.
YOUR WORDS…. Greenwald is one of the “outside interlocutors” of Russian intel. But thank you for at least admitting that you have no idea.
I am making an educated guess based on my personal experience and background knowledge. It’s my word against Greenwald, not dissimilar to Ms. Reade. So the only evidence you believe is evidence that supports your conclusions.
You come into these discussions with a strong bias against the US approach to Russia and against the Biden candidacy. A story gets dropped in your lap that confirms your suspicions, right after he wins the nomination. That’s what I see here.
Presumably Ms. Reade and Mr. Biden know what really happened between them. This is in no way similar to your opinion about Greenwald, which you just described as “…an educated guess…”
I have a strong bias for the truth. You are trafficking in smear campaigns. When pressed even a little, you back-peddle or refuse to acknowledge what you actually said. At this point, you’re just playing semantic games.
What story, Reade? I haven’t even commented on it.
What have I refused to acknowledge and where have I back pedaled?
Trump asks Russia to hack into the DNC. Stone says he has it on good authority Wikileaks will be dropping the DNC emails. DNC emails are dropped by Assange and reposted by the Intercept. Stone is now indicted for breaking multiple federal statutes along with Trump’s lawyer and campaign manager. He also was caught on tape blackmailing the Ukrainian prime minister into investigation his political opponent Joe Biden for which he was impeached by the House. Greenwald defended Trump and Putin throughout the entire Russiagate investigation. All of this is on the record.
Now the same actors are going after Biden in a different way since they failed to nail him on Burisma. Is there actual evidence to link them all? No, but there is far more credible circumstantial evidence and timelines than Reade ever evolving story and personal views. I give Greenwald credit. He is consistently toeing the Russian line to bash Democrats and help Trump. Do you care dispute any of that? Where’s your proof Trump is innocent of these things?
At least Greenwalds anti-anti Putin stance and hatred of Democrats has been more consistent since she helped Hillary lose in 2016. Compare him to Reades evolution on Biden. She loved Biden in 2017 and even called him a fighter for women, but by 2019 he was a harasser, and by 2020 he was an assaulter. She went from Biden supporter to Putin supporter to supposed Sanders supporter. Not strong enough to help Bernie by bashing Joe back when primary voters had a choice. Nah, better to wait until he sowed it up. After she hinted Roger Stone style she’ll be dropping something big. Seems like
a pattern to me.
Lol, of course you’re going to refuse to acknowledge your refusal to acknowledge.
Keep going?
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question about the four “supposed” Russian agents.
How do you described them?
Tom, the last time we had a discussion, you resorted to insults And that was after I let you walk-back your main argument without comment.. Why you think I would want to continue engaging with you is beyond me.
This whole discussion is just so bizarre… jconway literally says that Greenwald is talking to Russian Intel. Then claims to have not said it… the thing he just said and we’re all reading, lol. I hope this is on the internet forever.
@insults:
You presented and then dug in on a fallacious assertion about macroeconomics, and apparently got your feelings hurt when I refused to accept it. If you don’t like the way I pushed back, then I invite you to take it up with Paul Krugman — for weeks now he and others have been demolishing the argument you offered.
On this thread, I’m asking you a straightforward question. You spoke of “supposed Russian agents” and you’re apparently advancing the Trump-team assertion that the “Russia thing” is a hoax.
So I’m asking you, point-blank, what you have to say about the four people I named. It’s a simple question, and it follows directly from your own commentary on this thread.
For your convenience, here’s the list again:
– Maria Buttina
– Dimitry Firtash
– Lev Parnas
– Igor Fruman
How do you characterize these four people?
I said that Greenwald used information obtained by Russian intel. That’s a fact, even if he disputes this. Do you dispute this? Assange has done this, so you dispute that?
Putin has been doing this for awhile, and has been using these critics since 2014.
Reade is credible, but me and the national security experts pointing to these ties are not. Biden’s denials cannot be taken at face value, but Greenwald’s and Assange’s can. You guys are inventing your own reality where Russia is part of the global left arranged against the US while Biden is a crypto conservative sex predator no different than Trump. It’s awfully sad to see.
@jconway
You said Greenwald is talking to Russian Intel. Then you denied having said it, admitting that “I have no idea if he is or isn’t.” When I quoted your exact words back to you (Greenwald is one of the “outside interlocutors” of Russian Intel), you defended this as “an educated guess,” characterizing the situation as “my word against Greenwald.” You compared your “guess” to Ms. Reade’s accusation, suggesting that you don’t recognize a distinction between a guess-based accusation and lived reality.
Greenwald has reported on documents the FBI claims were stolen by Russian Intel. That is a fact. But it hardly makes Greenwald a “useful idiot for spouting pro-Russian propaganda.” The documents ARE REAL. Digging for the truth is what reporters do — it’s the exact opposite of spreading propaganda.
What is propaganda? Saying someone is an “outside interlocutor” for Russian intel, based on guesswork.
But hey, your word against Greenwald, right? Hilarious.
Honestly, I probably would take jconway’s word over Greenwald’s in a lot of cases.
Gary Johnson won 9% of the vote in his home state of New Mexico in 2016. If Amash only carries his district, he probably costs Biden the state and maybe the presidency. I’d have no problem with his run if he were running from a red or blue state, but anti-Trump conservatism is quite popular in Western Michigan. Even if he does as well as McMullin did in UT, it could pose a problem. We just do not know.
How did this thread turn into such a sniping contest on mostly irrelevant topics?
I think the thread itself can answer that question, if anyone cares. But back to the main topic.
To paraphrase from Counterpunch, which itself is quoting someone on Twitter,
It’s hard to believe that someone who was arrested visiting Nelson Mandela in jail would ever assault anyone
You’ve been the one dragging down the discourse a lot here. Do you support Biden or Trump for President? If the former start acting like it; if the latter come out and admit it. Those are your only choices.
I believe Reade, because Biden has zero credibility. I don’t believe that he turned against the Iraq war as soon as it started, because there is video proving him to be a liar.
I look at the two sides and go the weight of the evidence. Phony loyalty tests don’t count.
What evidence does she have that’s credible beyond some friends and family validating elements of her story? Balls in her court, she should demand the Senate release the records as Biden has.
It boggles my mind that a prominent Senator and Vice President could hide being a sexual predator through 40+ years of service, three presidential campaigns where he got attacked everywhere else, and the 2008 vetting process that led to his being Vice President. Especially when his sole accuser was accusing him of something different a year ago and praising him two years ago as a beloved former boss.
There would be other accusers like there have been with all the other MeToo figures including Trump. The same right wing sources amplifying Reade dismiss the multitude of women with far more credible allegations against Trump. Equal treatment demands listening to them too.
You can disagree with Biden all you want on the issues he got wrong and vote for someone else in the primary because of it. That’s what I did. I also think he’s shown he’s learned from those mistakes and is willing to listen to new evidence, listen to his primary opponents, and and go in a new direction. This is part of why Sanders and Warren enthusiastically endorsed him. The alternative is Trump. That’s the choice.
She has a story which matches the available timeline. She told other people about the assault back when it happened. Those are the standards that have been used repeatedly when vetting sexual assault allegations.
Why are we only hearing about it now when he has already irretrievably become the nominee of his party and the only viable alternative to re-electing Trump? Why now? Why not in 2004 when he flirted with a run or 2008 when he last ran and why not when he was announced as VP? Why sit on this? Why publicly praise your assaulter just two years before going public about what he did? It does not add up. If more women come forward or Reade allows us to access the report, I am open to changing my view.
@”Why are we only hearing about it now . . . .”
For the same reason Anita Hill came forward only when Clarence Thomas had been nominated to the Supreme Court..
Why now???? There was an article about this from April 3, 2019, before Biden had officially entered the race.
https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/
That is an entirely different allegation than the one she is talking about and you know it. No one doubts that Reade, along with several other women, were made uncomfortable by Biden’s touching in the past. He has apologized for that and has become very sensitive to touching women without asking first. There have been no further complaints since he vowed to change.
We are talking about a far more serious allegation of sexual assault. I think the burden of proof is higher for that and has not been adequately met by Ms. Reid.
That analogy doesn’t work though since there were two previous opportunities to derail a Presidential bid and derail him from being a heartbeat away from the presidency as a Vice President. This would be like Hill coming forward after he won the Judiciary Committee vote, but before a full vote of the Senate.
Reade, especially as a Sanders supporter, should have come forward when Sanders, not to mention several women, were still viable alternatives in the race. Did Hill write a glowing defense of Thomas empowering women two years before the hearing like Reade did for Biden in 2017? I do not think she did. Analogy does not hold.
Meanwhile Forde had multiple witnesses sign affidavits and be willing to testify under oath and there was an FBI investigation. There were additional women who came forward. Reade has done nothing similar to help her cause. This isn’t about damaging Biden or preventing a predator from becoming President, it’s about damaging the Democrats chances of beating Trump in the fall. The timing is suspect along with the outlets that first broke the story, the same far right and far left groups attacking Hillary over a Benghazi and emails.
Senator Alan Simpson attacked Anita Hill for the precise same reason. He asked why Hill did not immediately quit and go to the authorities. Simpson’s conduct was one of the most notorious aspect of the hearings. We shouldn’t repeat that behavior here.
The difference is Anita Hill swore under oath that what she went through was true and she did have the courage to testify publicly, under oath, before the committee and the public. Simpson and frankly Bidens behavior during that episode is repugnant, but there was a reporting process Hill had the courage to follow that is absent here.
Reade has contradicted herself and said in one interview she did make a formal report and in another that she was too scared to. It cannot be both. Biden had the courage to ask the Senate to release all the relevant records, it cannot without her permission. She has yet to give that permission. Hill and Ford testified under oath and had their supporting witnesses sign affidavits. Ford agreed to an FBI investigation. Reade has failed to do any of that.
Additionally you forget our vetting mechanism for the presidency is in the hands of voters and not Senators. There were no viable alternatives to Thomas the committee could have voted on instead, unlike our just concluded primary. Reade, if her story is true, had an obligation to let primary voters know before the nomination was sown up so voters could have made an educated decision. Or you know, the last time Biden ran in the 2008 and when he was offered the VP slot.
Having this drop the same week Amash is preparing a third party run and Trump is enduring his worst approval ratings as President is certainly a fortuitous coincidence for Trump supporters at home and abroad. Too fortuitous to be just a coincidence in my book. It’s a hunch. Just like your hunch that Reade is right and Joe Biden is full of it. The difference is my hunch is backed up by multiple intelligence agencies, investigations, Senate and Congressional investigations, and an impeachment hearing resulting in an impeachment. Yours is backed up by a random episode of Larry King Live from the 90’s and a woman who praised her assaulter as recently as two years ago for being a strong advocate for women.
@”The difference is Anita Hill swore under oath that what she went through was true and she did have the courage to testify publicly, ”
Baloney, Reade filed a police complaint. As was reported at the time, filing a false police report is equivalent to lying under oath.
And again., the attack on Reade for praising her assaulter is exactly the one Alan Simpson made to attack Anita Hill. And exactly the criticism made by Harvey Weinstein’s defense attorneys. And exactly the line of attack threatened by Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys to get him a lighter sentence.
If you are under the illusion that everything in the world is a Russian plot, then you can go on like you do forever. You can call Gabbard’s candidacy a Russian plot, like Clinton did. You can call Sanders’ early success a Russian plot, like Carville did, or you can call fluoridation a Russian plot, like General Ripper did in Dr Strangelove..
I have not called any of those things Russian plots, thank you. Respond to what I actually alleged.
The bigger question is do you oppose Trump’s impeachment on the Ukraine question and agree with Gabbard, Greenwald, and the Republicans that it was a nothing burger? Are you not bothered by Trump giving classified information to the Russian foreign minister in front of cameras? Are you not bothered by his calls to back Clinton which Russian intelligence obliged the next day! Along with Wikileaks and the Intercept spreading that illegally obtained information?
“But what America illegally obtained information too” you’ll say, but two wrongs do not make a right. American wrongs can be corrected through checks and balances as the NSA program and Trumps shakedown of Ukraine was. As Watergate proved. As the Church committee proved. There are no equivalent checks and balances in Russia. So even there the false equivalencies fall.
You did nothing to address the holes I poked in your comparisons to Hill and Ford. The had affidavits and witnesses, Reade has none. Ford had an FBI investigation, Reade has none. Their stories did not change, hers has.
You can make fun of me all you want, that does not change the fact that your options are Trump or Biden in the fall. That does not change the fact that Putin and his fellow travelers want Trump to get re-elected. They did snot change the fact that the “Deep State” looks more like a Veep episode than anything else, or that we are desperately playing catch up with the Russians who did back into a major political party to sway swing voters and will do so again.
My facts have not changed. Reade’s have.
James. you mean you don’t think everything is a Russian conspiracy? How do you account for Tom’s list of Russian agents?
@Bob Gardner:
How do YOU describe the behavior of the four persons? After all, Ms. Butina was already convicted, imprisoned, and returned to Russia because both the US and the Russians agreed that she was a Russian agent.
Where’s the police complaint? This is the first I’m hearing of that. She has said she did not file a complaint with the Senate, at least for her most serious allegation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html
“On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him. Ms. Reade said she filed the report to give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats. Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.”
OK, so why report without naming if you know who your assailant is? Also, I saw nothing about following up. Did the police not find it credible at the time? (I’m actually not sure MPD has jurisdiction over the Capitol grounds, but they should have either turned the report over to Capitol Police or advised Reade to take her report to them.)
She also claims she filed with the Senate, which especially in those days surely would have prompted an investigation. The Senate says there are no records. Plus I agree with those who point out this would have been found in the 2008 VP vetting and disqualified him. I’m sorry, but there are just way too many holes in this one.
@Christopher: I just want to be sure you understand the timeline here. This police report in question was filed a few weeks ago, in April of this year. There was no report in 1993 for the police to follow up on.
This newly-filed “police report” is nothing more than another transparent ploy to keep the story alive. Shame on the New York Times for bothering to report it, at least as anything other than yet another attempt to manufacture publicity.
I did somehow pass over that particular detail. I guess I generally think of police reports as something one files shortly after the alleged incident. I allowed that assumption to substitute for reading carefully.
The decision of Ms. Reade to file a police report in 2020 describing an alleged incident claimed to occurred TWENTY SEVEN YEARS earlier is the essence of grandstanding.
This entire sad chain is a case study in the original meaning of “fake news” (when the term meant something, before Donald Trump hijacked it).
Ah Fred, you just downrated the New York Times.
@you just downrated the NYTimes:
I’m pretty sure he downrated your use of it here in an apparent attempt to buttress your support of Ms. Reade.
Many of us read the very same article as an illustration of just how absurd this case is becoming. Filing a police report TWENTY SEVEN YEARS after the alleged incident?
Right.
@”Many of us” ??
I feel like I am doing card tricks in front of a dog trying to explain things you, Tom and Fred. But here goes–J Conway made a phony distinction between Anita Hill and Tara Reade, that Hill had been willing to testify under oath. As the New York Times, noted, the police complaint that Reade recently filed is also under oath..
I’ll take Fred’s “Screw the New York Times and their cheap smear job, ” as a baseline for what Fred thinks about facts.
In the race to the bottom Fred still leads, although I haven’t given up on either Tom or James.
I never developed a strong opinion on the veracity of Hill’s story either way, but I don’t recall her changing her story when it was convenient either.
Do you recall the attacks on Anita Hill, Christopher?
Yes, but not all accusations are created equal and neither are all criticisms of the accuser. Not sure why you are twisting yourself into such a pretzel over this. We have two different women making two different allegations against two different men with two different levels of credibility. Are you seriously suggesting that our only options are believe both or believe neither?
I’m asking only that the same standards for credibility be used for all accusers. I’m not, and haven’t asked anyone to believe either accuser.
When an accusation is for something that happened a long time ago one of the standards that have been used repeatedly is whether the accuser told anyone else about the alleged attack at the time.
It is beyond doubt that Reade did tell several people about being harassed by Biden.
Can we agree that she did tell other people?
Accusers such as Anita Hill have been viciously attacked for not doing something immediately about harassment.
But the truth is, it is not easy to go public with this kind of accusation. It’s especially difficult to be the first accuser.
Roy Moore’s accusers did not go public for many years, Kavanaugh’s accuser also did not. Some of Trump’s accusers did not go public until after he was elected. There were new accusations against Gerry Studds just last year.
All the above accusations would be most credible if they were made ten minutes after the event. But they weren’t,. But a lot of them are true.
They can’t be dismissed even if they were ,made about something that happened a long time ago..
That is what is so pernicious about Jconway’s initial post. and some of the comments on this thread. They reverse engineer an ever changing standard solely to disqualify Reade. And they attach this attack to a crackpot theory about the Russians being behind all this stuff. Just what the Russians are supposed have done are suggested, walked back, hinted again, and then repeated as truth. Classic gaslighting from Jconway.
Christopher, I urge you to go back to the records of the Thomas confirmation, and see if you don’t see a parallel.
I’m fine with an initial presumption of same standards, but once they are looked at Hill’s stands up to scrutiny better than Reade’s.
I agree that they are two different cases, and that Thomas was not accused of anything quite so bad as what Biden was accused of.
But I disagree that any of Reade’s attackers on this blog made their claims once they looked at Reade’s accusations. They made up their minds to discredit her and then grabbed onto any straw to “support” their conclusion.
Just off the top of my head, here are a few examples. They are all on this thread:
One of the reporters tangentially involved in bringing out this story has a funny name. (Krystal Ball is apparently her given name.). –Tom
An internet commentator who defended Reade wears foppish 3 piece suits. (Jconway)
There are four Russians who have been working for Putin. (Tom). I would go back and look up their names, but hey, life is too short.
I’m a troll (Tom) or a fascist (Fred) who is dragging this blog down (that’s you Christopher).
Between Reade and Biden, Reade certainly has more credibility. Reade’s credibility is still to be determined, Biden has none.
I really don’t think I have dragged down the discourse on this blog.. I think most of the self righteous posing, venom, and whining have come from the people I have challenged.. (Well, maybe I did a little of the whining, if you count this comment).. Maybe if this quarantine goes on for another 50 years or so, there will be someone with so much time on their hands that they will read this thread and see if I am right.
@Just off the top of my head…:
This is called the “Gish Gallop”. It is a technique used by Creationists to derail any serious discussion of evolution. It was adopted by Climate Deniers as a way of derailing any serious discussion of Climate Change — and used with devastating success.
It appears to me all parties at BMG agreed that Ms. Reade told some friends and neighbors some version of this story. In the cases of Ms. Hill, Ms. Forde, and the other credible accusers (such as the accusers of Mr. Moore), the fact pattern of those initial stories was investigated and confirmed. Those cases were pursued because as more evidence was revealed, the substance of the accused was confirmed and in some cases elaborated. This was also the case with the Ukraine whistleblower. That’s also why mainstream and legitimate media published those other stories.
In the case of Tara Reade, those same initial investigations revealed either nothingness or inconsistencies. Ms. Reade told different stories to different people. Ms. Reade told the different stores to the same neighbor — and went so far as to contact that neighbor in the current circus in what the AP concluded was an attempt to change the neighbor’s account of what Ms. Reade said in 1993.
I’ll be happy to offer a summary of quotes from your own comments on this thread if you’d like further clarification of commentary that I characterize as trolling.
So far as I can tell, your memory is long and you seem to relish dredging as many remnants of past “slights” as possible about each participant in order to make each of your comments as insulting and hurtful as possible.
I don’t care whether “Krystal Ball” is somebody’s given name or not. She is a one-time Democrat, a failed Democratic candidate, a former Fox News commentator, She has been a fervent supporter of charter schools, She has been an outspoken supporter of Richard Ojeda, who says that he voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and that he’s “never voted for a Democrat for president”. Ms. Ball supported the 2020 campaign of Bernie Sanders and is on record as saying that Democrats used the Senate impeachment trial to keep Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders off the campaign trail.
Ms. Ball epitomizes the credibility of Ms. Reade and the outlets that are hyping her story.
I stand by my characterizations of Ms. Reade, Ms. Ball, and you (bob-gardner).
What, no Russians in this comment? Did you check under your bed before your posted?
@bob-gardner: Another post, another insult.
What do you make of Mr. Barr’s decision to drop all charges against Mr. Flynn? It sounds like you agree with Mr. Trump that this “Russia thing” was a hoax from the get go.
There is no evidence connecting the Russians with Reade. Barr is a crook. The sound of me agreeing with Trump is a call that is coming from inside your head.
The sound of anyone claiming that Ms. Reade is a Russian asset or agent is coming from inside your head. The assertion regarding Ms. Reade has always been that the Russian propaganda machine is hyping the coverage of Ms. Reade’s story to hurt Mr. Biden. The cooperation — either explicit or implicit — between the Russian propaganda machine and the GOP propaganda machine is striking.
Meanwhile, a major component of your commentary on this thread has been to dismiss and distort every mention of the role of Russia in this (again, I’ll be happy to post quotes if that helps clarify what I mean). In that dismissal and distortion, you say the same things that Mr. Trump and the Trumpists say.
Screw the New York Times and their cheap smear job.
Now you’re conflating Tara Reade and Anita Hill?
Have you no decency?
Do you have something to contribute besides ad hominem attacks, Tom?
ASK ME, ASK, ME, ASK MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!
I DO.
To all you Trumpty Dumpty Cultists I offer…………………..
OBSTAFUCION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pot, meet kettle.
@She has a story which matches the available timeline:
Of COURSE it “matches the available timeline” — her story changes to match the timeline of the day.
@Those are the standards that have been used repeatedly when vetting sexual assault allegations:
Those are not “standards”. Those are starting points that investigators use to seek corroborating or contradicting evidence. A publication reported that a niece of Christine O’Donnell claimed that Mr. Biden commented on her breasts at a 2008 Grid Iron Club dinner, when she was 14. Then it turned out that Mr. Biden wasn’t at the dinner. Then Ms. O’Donnell said it “might have been” in 2007 — except Mr. Biden didn’t attend that event either. Women sometimes lie. Sources sometimes lie.
When the whistleblower began the Ukraine fiasco, the GOP rushed to claim that it was “hearsay” and shouldn’t be trusted. Same with the now-infamous “Steele dossier”. Except that neither was relied on for anything except leads. Investigators use such material to INVESTIGATE further.
Numerous sources have investigated the many and changing claims of Tara Reade, and found either nothing or in some cases (such as the AP reporting a year ago) conflicting evidence.
Those beating the Tara Reade drum today demonstrate confirmation bias in action.
My understanding is that she has literally changed her story by going back and editing a blog post from 2019 to conform better to her current claims.
There is also reporting that she contacted her neighbor to “refresh her memory” before that neighbor went to the press to “confirm” what Ms. Reade allegedly said in 1993. Except that the two accounts differ. It appears that in her recent followup, Ms. Reade forget to update her neighbor on the aspects of the account that have changed.
This post is not about Ukraine. Nor is it about any other allegation. Nor is it about my supposed” ad hominem” attacks..
It is about the actual accusation that Reade has made, and the continued smears posted by you, Fred, and Jconway..
If Reade had changed her story as much in 27 years as much as Jconway has on this thread, I would say that there would be grounds to challenge her credibility.
But she hasn’t. Nor has she said anything demonstrably, provably false such as what Biden has said about his support for the war in Iraq..
Nor is there the slightest evidence that her accusation is a foreign plot.. Pointing this out does not make me a fascist.
Where have I changed my story as much as she has? If anything it is the rest of you who are grasping at straws to discredit the Democratic nominee and assist his opponent.
The Ukraine reference is in response to your incorrect view of how sources are treated. You assert a “standard” that is wildly different from what actually happens. The actual standard is that the assertions of the sources are investigated — in particular, they are compared against available objective evidence and compared with accounts from other witnesses. That is the same standard used by investigators in the Ukraine investigation,
You put the topic of some “standard” on the table. If you don’t want to talk about standards then don’t introduce them to the discussion. The fact that you assert something does not make it so.
What reliable investigators do NOT do is accept every allegation as gospel truth and then destroy lives and careers based on those unconfirmed allegations.
The “smears” I post are the same as most other responsible journalists have found — Ms. Reade’s story has changed constantly. Her story today is different from the story she told her associates in 1993 — that’s why the AP didn’t go any further. The Washington Post and New York Times came to the same conclusion after their respective investigations. The travesty is that the gossip-mongering tabloids that thrive on people like Tara Reade — especially when there is tawdry sex and cheesecake headshots to publish — are still able to dominate our media culture even after they’ve done so much damage.
Do you also take seriously the accounts of “Human Head Transplants” that have been featured on the front page of tabloids for decades? Do you also believe that aliens from outer space abduct women, have their way with them, and then bring them back to talk about it?
It is not the burden of Mr. Biden, anyone here, or anyone else to show that anything Ms. Reade says is “demonstrably, provably false”. It is instead the burden of any investigator to somehow show that her story is true. The logical fallacy of demanding that some allegation be proven false is taught to most of us in high school — did you miss that lesson?
Every effort at demonstrating any TRUTH in Ms. Reade’s accusations has failed. There is no semen-stained dress. There are no secretly recorded audio tapes. There are no security-cam videos. There are no police reports. Ms. Reade now says, herself, that she “chickened out” while making the alleged “harassment claim” — now that Mr. Biden has asked that it be published if it exists.
Nobody has suggested here that Ms. Reade is a foreign agent or that her story is a foreign plot. What commentators HAVE said is that Russian propaganda mills have seized on her story as fodder to use against Democrats and to sow discord and chaos.
I’m not aware of anyone calling you a fascist. The closest I’ve come (I don’t know about anyone else) is describing your commentary as that of a troll.
Based on your participation in this thread, I stand by that characterization.
It’s also not blind loyalty anyone is asking for. I have been vocally critical of Biden on this blog, and was against nominating him. I continue to criticize his campaign and platform on its shortcomings.
Being reality based means recognizing he won fair and square and it’s time to move on and defeat Donald Trump. Barring compelling evidence from Reade or additional accusers, this accusation just isn’t strong enough to risk re-electing Trump over.
Her credibility has completely collapsed over the last few days.
Cause it’s on BMG lol.
In all seriousness I’m done talking about Reade. If you’re that gullible, then go vote for Trump either directly or through attacking Democrats. I’m done.
Biden did everything he could to unseal the records and he can’t without her lawyers requesting it. Ball is in her court. I won’t hold my breadth waiting for her to act, neither should the American public. Not when 3,000 Americans are dying every day because of Trumps incompetence and corruption.
It’s one thing to talk about Reade whose allegation is current news. What I really didn’t get was the long detour at the insistence of a couple of commenters to defend to the hilt a lame duck Congresswoman from HI with a rather “interesting” public record who was never going to get close to being our nominee.
Yeah and I’m the sucker that took their bait. She’ll get a nice “Fox News liberal” gig like Dennis Kucinich did to trash Democrats until they tire of her like they tired of him. Her future in the party is done.