The Saga Continues, Those Who Demand That Women Who Have Been Sexually Assaulted Should be Heard are Amazingly Silent

[MrsGorilla]

View attachment 81542

Most of these stories show they were just posted in the last day or two, yet this has been going on a while. I'm hard-pressed to find any older stories about this on CNN, hence their lack of respect in the media. *And*, the obvious media bias.

 

[Jon]

Corroborated her story? All they are corroborating is that she told them something too, at the time. Ultimately unless there was an eyewitness, there is zero evidence. Just a woman said something was done to her ... these things will never be solved, there is no evidence. People should be innocent until proven guilty, and treated that way too. It is fine to investigate her claims, but I don't necessarily think that the fact that she told multiple individuals of her frustrations or troubles at the moment, really means much. The only thing that matters is did those things actually occur, and were they without her consent, which is kind of a "only God knows" sort of thing, without eyewitnesses.

Is that your position about Kavanaugh too? There was no evidence there?

The thing is, it is evidence. It corroborates that she made an allegation against Biden back in 1993, and naming the person too. I agree that it is unlikely to be solved. They will bury the evidence that she was fired after making a sexual assault allegation, probably.

 

[Jon]

That all women should be given the opportunity to be heard and that all allegations should be investigated.
Seems pretty ridiculous to think that anyone making any allegation should just be believed period.


She never made sexual assault allegations until late march. She previously made "creepy joe" allegations like the other women. She has made several different reasons for leaving her senate job over the years. At the time I believe she made some allegation of being bullied on the job and being sidelined. The Larry king show was a discussion on the cut throat nature of politics in washington not anything to do with harrasment or sexual assault. The mother, if it was her, only alludes to her daughter having a problem.
As far as political motivations I believe she was a bernie supporter and made the allegation on a podcast of another bernie supporter. Bernie was still in the game at the time and behind biden. Who's to say she wasn't trying to derail biden on bernies behalf. Not all bernie bros are male.

One major difference I see in Blasey fords case is she was willing to say so under oath. Reade wont face any type sworn testimony and reportedly didn't name biden in the police report she just filed. She can say anything she wants with no legal repercussions.

Whats with the infatuation with CNN?

It is ridiculous to think anyone making an allegation should just be believed. But Hilliary did say that. She didn't say they should be taken seriously, she specifically said believed. You can pretend she didn't mean what she says if you want.

How do you know she never made allegations until late March? According to her, she was sacked because she made them. She also made allegations to her 4 witnesses back in 1993. I get it. The mothers call is a big inconvenience. Why do you think she called in? For a chit chat? Her daughter had a problem, she was seeking help.

She could be a Bernie supporter, but sexual assault and being a Bernie supporter are not mutually exclusive. If it was all about getting Bernie in power, why did she tell these 4 witnesses back in 1993? Planning ahead? To say its about supporting Bernie, rather than anything happening in 1993, is to say her 4 witnesses are lying, she is lying and that her mother phoning in to Larry King with problems is just coincidence. Anything is possible, but it does reek.

Ford was prepped with free lawyers, having contacted the Democrat party beforehand. She still made statements that contradicted what her own therapist said she said. All of her own witnesses have no recollection of the party. Accusers rarely get any comeback. Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, only a tiny percentage get any comeback.

 

[Isaac]

Is that your position about Kavanaugh too? There was no evidence there?

The thing is, it is evidence. It corroborates that she made an allegation against Biden back in 1993, and naming the person too. I agree that it is unlikely to be solved. They will bury the evidence that she was fired after making a sexual assault allegation, probably.

My honest answer there is, I wasn't too up on the details of the Kavanaugh thing- I mean I wasn't one of those people following it tooth and nail so I don't actually know what evidence there was or wasn't on his case.

If I want to make a claim that you punched me in the face, and as "evidence" I tout the fact that on the same day, I told 3 other people that you had punched me in the face: No, to me that is not evidence, practically speaking. It makes me a little more credible and believeable, but it's no additional actual evidence that the act was committed. I can point to the fact that "Hey, on the same day in question, I published my story to a million people" - but me having told additional people has nothing to do with evidence that the act was or wasnt' committed.

 

[Isaac]

And unrelated to that, me personally? I mean in all honesty when it comes to dating, sex, romance, and relationships, having told someone that you were having "trouble" with someone of the opposite gender could mean a million things, and most often just means you are involved in something that is complicated to you. In fact, "I have a problem with so-and-so" would be a VERY odd way to describe a sexual assault..

 

[Jon]

Essentially, in summary, all of the Democrat party believed her. None of the Republicans. She had I think 4 witnesses she said were at the party where the event allegedly happened. Yet none of these 4 witnesses had any recollection of being there. When I say there, she doesn't actually know where either. During an allegedly traumatic event in her life, where she was supposed to have suffered attempted ra**, she can't remember. Oh, and she told nobody about it. And it was 35 years ago. She told her therapist that 4 men were in the room, but she told Congress that 2 men were. She never named Kavanaugh to her therapist. Her lawyer says part of her motivation is Roe vs Wayde. That's my quick summary for you.

I understand your point. So what about when someone is murdered. There is a witness. They said person X did it. There is DNA evidence that person X was at the scene. But person X denies it. Is that evidence or no evidence? You can always say, well, the witness is lying. You can say I just happened to be in the same place at a similar time to the murder. Now, it may not be enough to convict, but it is still evidence. Christine Ford saying that her 4 witnesses were at the party, but who all deny any knowledge of it? Well, that is not evidence to me. It is just her making a claim.

I am no lawyer though and so do not actually know what constitutes sufficient evidence. To me, it would be on a continuum of probability. Does it rise to a 95% chance of being true, which is the benchmark for "beyond reasonable double", which is a bit shocking really, because that means 1 in 20 prosecutions are of innocent people.

 

[Isaac]

thanks for the Kavanaugh update … sounds pretty cr@ppy then, to me.
as for witnesses...but these Tara Reade people aren't witnesses. They're just people that she "told". if someone was identifying themselves as an eyewitness, that would be totally different.
this may come across too cavalier or uncaring, but I don't mean it to: these old guys, the last of their generation, they probably did some stuff that wasn't considered a crime then and is considered a crime now and unless there are major solid eyewitnesses, it's all a waste of time. plus we all know the definition of ra** itself has changed DRASTICALLY in the last few years, nowadays it seems to apply if there was pretty much any persuasion or the least bit of influence involved. which is funny, if you ask any married man about that subject - the persuading, LOL- but truly, that should give people pause.
I agree in both cases it's very political, and obviously there are going to be most people on both sides who probably feel like listen, we have a shot at power and our agenda and we're going to be very selective about what we let cast it aside. Which isn't a crazy perspective by any means. I mean the person I'm hoping wins....he has any number of failings as a human being, but I still want him to win, because many of the issues that I care about, his winning will help advance. I guess that officially makes me a calculating politician of sorts, but aren't we ALL that … of sorts?

 

[Isaac]

And we certainly agree about Christine forde. I am just not sure tara reade is much different. There are real victims, and then there are myriad people who want to remember past intrigue with former bosses and start convincing themselves they were ra**ed - especially nowadays in the current climate where that is very strongly encouraged. Who knows.

I just hope covid 19 does not kill us all! Ahhh!

 

[Jon]

I actually agree with much of what you have said there, @pisorsisaac@gmail.co. Different era, different set of standards and norms. Although I would say that if Biden did what Tara claimed he did, then he was still breaking the norms back then, and by a large margin. The hand on the knee stuff was just commonplace I think back in those days. But this is altogether a much more serious claim.

We can differ in opinion on the witnesses thing. To me, they add to the body of evidence, strengthening her claim that something went on. I know you want an eyewitness. But you could then claim they are just saying it to get Bernie in!

I understand your perspective about wanting Biden in, because he aligns with your cause. I respect your honesty on that and I wish others would be so honest too. But what if he was found to be a rapist? Would you want to willingly elect a rapist?

 

[Jon]

And we certainly agree about Christine forde. I am just not sure tara reade is much different. There are real victims, and then there are myriad people who want to remember past intrigue with former bosses and start convincing themselves they were ra**ed - especially nowadays in the current climate where that is very strongly encouraged. Who knows.

I just hope covid 19 does not kill us all! Ahhh!

I agree with that too, except the point of Tara being like Christine. For me, there are 4 witnesses to none that a claim was made way back. I am sure there will be more evidence that comes out later too. Maybe there will be evidence that goes against Tara too. Only time will tell.

 

[Jon]

I think the problem that Biden has is multi-factored:

1. He has a serious sexual assault claim against him, with some corroborating evidence (yes, we can dispute that).
2. He is seen on tape bragging about a quid-pro-quo situation with Ukraine.
3. His son, Hunter Biden, has multiple questions to answer, having earned millions from a Ukrainian company despite zero experience in that field. This was at the same time Joe Biden was dealing with Ukraine. But thats not all. The quid-pro-quo situation is where Joe Biden says he will not give Ukraine the aid they desperately needed unless they fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company his son worked for. Think of that, thousands of companies in Ukraine, so this is a rather improbable coincidence.
4. To me, Joe Biden has the early signs of dementia. I say this sadly, through bitter family experience. You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy.

 

[moke123]

jon, the only quote I found from HRC on me too

"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault," Clinton said. "Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you."

"There is a big divide between survivors who do not want to seek the criminal justice system for different reasons and those who want to but are not sure that it would be responsive," Clinton said today. "So we need to do a much better job on the fairness of the response so that people feel like whichever route they go on campus or off they're going to be taken seriously, that doesn't mean that, you know, that there's no process. There has to be one."

Clinton said women should immediately be believed, starting a process to "determination as to what if anything should be done about the claim that was made."

 

[Jon]

Moke, after reading your clip and watching the video again, I don't actually disagree with what she said, from a technical perspective. If you read carefully, she is stating a message to every *survivor* of sexual assault, not accuser. They are not necessarily the same thing. The problem I have with her statement is that how do you know if they are a survivor or just falsely accusing until after a trial? She is advocating being believed from the outset, and by believing the accuser carte blanche, you are assuming guilt of the accused, before any trial. Yet this goes against the presumption of innocence principle. Otherwise, why even bother with a trial if the accused is presumed guilty? Just send them straight to prison.

Just to add, she only wants to believe accusers who are accusing those nasty Republicans. If the finger is pointing to a Democrat, or her husband, she turns a blind eye. "We look after our own, aye!"

 

[moke123]

That's my quick summary for you.

heres a link to her Fords opening statement https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

and by believing the accuser carte blanche,

I dont think she's saying believe them carte blanche, shes saying take them seriously and start the process to get at the truth.
The issue being that victims dont come forward because they fear not being believed.

Clinton said women should immediately be believed, starting a process to "determination as to what if anything should be done about the claim that was made."

 

[Jon]

I dont think she's saying believe them carte blanche, shes saying take them seriously and start the process to get at the truth.
The issue being that victims dont come forward because they fear not being believed.

There is nothing ambiguous about what she said. She said "survivors" of sexual abuse should be believed. Of course a survivor of sexual abuse should be believed, because they were attacked. Why would you not believe a survivor carte blanche? And that is the problem. You don't know if the accuser really is a survivor or someone who is a criminal themselves, making a false accusation. She is then conflating survivors with accusers.

I know you say when she says they should be believed, what she really means is not what she said but something else, that they shouldn't necessarily be believed. But then why shouldn't you necessarily believe the survivor of an attack? They were attacked! You can't have it both ways!

If she said accusers of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, to establish the truth of the situation through due process, then I would be in complete alignment. But that is not what she is saying.

We could debate this forever, but lets be frank about it. She doesn't believe her own words. Her silence over the Biden accusation says it all. Her denials over her husbands accusers before any due process flies in the face of what she claims she herself believes. She says one thing, does another. Sorry Hillary, you are exposed for the piece of work that you are.

My position? Any person should have the right to due process for any crime. None should have the right to be believed. Legal guilt comes *after* the trial, not before. Suspicion, now that is another thing...

With Alex Salmond, you would think its a dead cert with 9 women accusing him. Yet he was innocent. I was suspicious, casting doubts about his character. And I think that is the problem with the #metoo movement: believing without any due process. People have lost their jobs, reputations, huge financial loss, before any evidence has come to light. The weaponisation of the sexual assault allegation is a very dangerous precedent. I believe that those being accused should be afforded anonymity until after a trial is over, because the damage to someones reputation can last a lifetime, even if they are innocent.

 

[Isaac]

I actually agree with much of what you have said there, @pisorsisaac@gmail.co. Different era, different set of standards and norms. Although I would say that if Biden did what Tara claimed he did, then he was still breaking the norms back then, and by a large margin. The hand on the knee stuff was just commonplace I think back in those days. But this is altogether a much more serious claim.

We can differ in opinion on the witnesses thing. To me, they add to the body of evidence, strengthening her claim that something went on. I know you want an eyewitness. But you could then claim they are just saying it to get Bernie in!

I understand your perspective about wanting Biden in, because he aligns with your cause. I respect your honesty on that and I wish others would be so honest too. But what if he was found to be a rapist? Would you want to willingly elect a rapist?

If he really did exactly what she said he did, I wouldn't want to elect him. But I am not 100% sure I'd make the choice to vote against him if the only choice was him vs. Trump even then. It's crazy, I know...but if he did what they said, I'd have to consider Trump may have done so too, and I'd have to weigh this against all of what Trump is, says, encourages, and stands for.....and so any vote would be a thorny one at that point, you got me.

 

[Isaac]

Alyssa Milano said it the best way just , I think, yesterday/today(?): something along the lines of: the point of the metoo movement was never that all women should just be believed in everything they say, but rather, the default of never believing the woman should be changed.

Ok, now that's something I think most people can get on board with.

 

[AccessBlaster]

If he really did exactly what she said he did, I wouldn't want to elect him. But I am not 100% sure I'd make the choice to vote against him if the only choice was him vs. Trump even then. It's crazy, I know...but if he did what they said, I'd have to consider Trump may have done so too, and I'd have to weigh this against all of what Trump is, says, encourages, and stands for.....and so any vote would be a thorny one at that point, you got me.

I will probably use my wallet to decide this one, since it's the only truth I can see thru the fog of war.

 

[Isaac]

I can see your point on that!

 

[AccessBlaster]

You may hate him but Wall Street loves him, at-least so far! I am in need of some serious investment repair, I am thinking the Democrats are not up to the challenge.