Evidence surfaces that allegations against Biden weren't "just made up"

[bripat9643]

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

I think you should start with the story the victim is telling. Is it believeable, and I'm having a hard time believing this one.

I don't think you can attach a presumption of guilt with just a story. You need some evidence. Otherwise - both parties are equally deserving of belief.

That's not true either. For example, Blasey Ford was not the slightest bit deserving of belief.

 

[Norman]

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

The comments about president Trump grabbing ***** left and right are likely true. That's exactly why he doesn't need to take women the Biden way - sniffing from behind.

 

[Coyote]

;'ll

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

The comments about president Trump grabbing ***** left and right are likely true. That's exactly why he doesn't need to take women the Biden way - sniffing from behind.

He just assaults them by grabbing them - is that what you are saying?

 

[Coyote]

Hopeful Biden, the first rapist presidential candidate of the democrat party.

And if he wins, he will be following the Republican rapist in office.

And Bill Clinton and JFK

Yup.

 

[Norman]

;'ll

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

The comments about president Trump grabbing ***** left and right are likely true. That's exactly why he doesn't need to take women the Biden way - sniffing from behind.

He just assaults them by grabbing them - is that what you are saying?

So when alpha man grabs your *****, it's an assault?

I mean maybe 40 years later you can claim that, but we all know what happened then and there.

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

You may not have said anything lately, but I can't imagine you not defending that walking lying douchebag, Blasey Ford. Every TDS moron did. You're still defending her. You still refuse to acknowledge that people are innocent until proven guilty. Her accusations deserved no investigation. Her accusations certainly were not in any way on the same level as Reade's . She would have been thrown in prison.
There is no reason for believing Blasey Ford. None. Her own witnessed said they didn't observe any of the things she claimed. There isn't a shred of evidence to support her even being at the scene of the supposed crime.

 

[Coyote]

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

But somehow you know Biden is innocent, sans any evidence to support your belief. And you, just as you presuppose Biden's innocence, presuppose Trump's guilt by referring to him as a "rapist". Where is the evidence of that?

I don't "know" anything. I can speculate and opine - but if you want to be fair and adhere to our justice system, he has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

And yes, I refer to Trump as a rapist because I get sick and tired of hearing Biden referred to as a rapist (in fact, if you are about fairness here - look at what I responded to and be equal in your condemnation).

I am trying to exercise my objectivity here. I don't like Biden. I don't like Trump, but at least I am willing to give them both a fair shot at clearing their names.

The problem with Trump is he has a long record of accusations, statements like grabbing women by the *****, walking into model's dressing rooms unannounced, lawsuits claiming assault and paying off women.

Biden - a history that includes recent complaints of inappropriate touching and invading personal space. No history of womanizing that I'm aware of until now when Tara Reade suddenly made this accusation after 30 years.

They both deserve a fair shot at clearing their names and a legal presumption of innocence but they don't deserve the same degree of believability imo.

I

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

I think you should start with the story the victim is telling. Is it believeable, and I'm having a hard time believing this one.

I don't think you can attach a presumption of guilt with just a story. You need some evidence. Otherwise - both parties are equally deserving of belief.

Wrong. The presumption of guilt is never justified in any legal proceeding.

 

[Coyote]

;'ll

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

The comments about president Trump grabbing ***** left and right are likely true. That's exactly why he doesn't need to take women the Biden way - sniffing from behind.

He just assaults them by grabbing them - is that what you are saying?

So when alpha man grabs your *****, it's an assault?

What's this deal with the so called "alpha male" thing? (you should start a thread on that and I'll happily jump in). I'm envisioning a grunting semi-coherent gorilla here. Are you saying that grabbing pussies is their right?

I mean maybe 40 years later you can claim that, but we all know what happened then and there.

Hard to say but I agree - when you are waiting decades to make a claim - credibility can be thin - like Tara Reade.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Clip of Biden sex accuser's mother phoning into Larry King emerges

A 1993 clip has emerged alleging to show former Joe Biden staffer Tara Reade's mother Jeanette Altimus calling into Larry King about the former Vice President's alleged sexual assault of her daughter.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And low and behold CNN has removed THIS EPISODE from the play store online so wtf. Is CNN literally trying to hide evidence that this woman is telling the truth? All other episodes are for sale but this one is missing.....

Up until this point I have said that I didn't believe this woman because who waits 30 years to make an accusation right? Well here is corroboration of the incident from 27 years ago. Evidence that CNN was apparently trying to scrub.

We have only Reade's word that the lady who called the Larry King Show was her mother. Furthermore, if you look at the transcript of the lady's call, you'll see that she said nothing about sexual assault.

Reade's story still strikes me as flimsy and unbelievable, not to mention belated.

Just because liberals uncritically peddled Christine Blasey-Ford's specious allegation against Brett Kavanaugh does not mean conservatives should uncritically peddle Reade's equally implausible story against Joe Biden.

 

[Coyote]

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

I think you should start with the story the victim is telling. Is it believeable, and I'm having a hard time believing this one.

I don't think you can attach a presumption of guilt with just a story. You need some evidence. Otherwise - both parties are equally deserving of belief.

Wrong. The presumption of guilt is never justified in any legal proceeding.

God learn to READ dude!

That is what I have been saying over multiple posts! Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence in our court system. Even OJ Simpson.


This is what I said - above:
Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Haha... bripat9643 all over this thread spending half his time doing what he is accusing everyone else of doing, and the other half of his time accusing them of doing it...good stuff, very entertaining...

 

[Coyote]

Clip of Biden sex accuser's mother phoning into Larry King emerges

A 1993 clip has emerged alleging to show former Joe Biden staffer Tara Reade's mother Jeanette Altimus calling into Larry King about the former Vice President's alleged sexual assault of her daughter.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And low and behold CNN has removed THIS EPISODE from the play store online so wtf. Is CNN literally trying to hide evidence that this woman is telling the truth? All other episodes are for sale but this one is missing.....

Up until this point I have said that I didn't believe this woman because who waits 30 years to make an accusation right? Well here is corroboration of the incident from 27 years ago. Evidence that CNN was apparently trying to scrub.

We have only Reade's word that the lady who called the Larry King Show was her mother. Furthermore, if you look at the transcript of the lady's call, you'll see that she said nothing about sexual assault.

Reade's story still strikes me as flimsy and unbelievable, not to mention belated.

Just because liberals uncritically peddled Christine Blasey-Ford's specious allegation against Brett Kavanaugh does not mean conservatives should uncritically peddle Reade's equally implausible story.

I think SOMETHING happened to Ford, she did not make it all up. Her life was clearly messed up drastically by something and her therapist confirmed it. But it was a group of teens, all constantly drunk, and she can not recall details - there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh, someone else, or exactly what.

By the same token - I believe Reade's account of inappropriate touching - that is echoed by several other women, and Biden's own known habits (and it's not necessarily a crime).

 

[Norman]

;'ll

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

The comments about president Trump grabbing ***** left and right are likely true. That's exactly why he doesn't need to take women the Biden way - sniffing from behind.

He just assaults them by grabbing them - is that what you are saying?

So when alpha man grabs your *****, it's an assault?

What's this deal with the so called "alpha male" thing? (you should start a thread on that and I'll happily jump in). I'm envisioning a grunting semi-coherent gorilla here. Are you saying that grabbing pussies is their right?

I mean maybe 40 years later you can claim that, but we all know what happened then and there.

Hard to say but I agree - when you are waiting decades to make a claim - credibility can be thin - like Tara Reade.

Women would never let a tall, rich, charismatic boss have a grab. They always prefer the guy who comes from behind and starts sniffing his way in.

And so, of course the Trump accusations are fake, made up after the fact, because skanks want some of that CNN attention. Now Biden on the other hand, he has a long history of creeping up on women.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

;'ll

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

The comments about president Trump grabbing ***** left and right are likely true. That's exactly why he doesn't need to take women the Biden way - sniffing from behind.

He just assaults them by grabbing them - is that what you are saying?

So when alpha man grabs your *****, it's an assault?

What's this deal with the so called "alpha male" thing? (you should start a thread on that and I'll happily jump in). I'm envisioning a grunting semi-coherent gorilla here. Are you saying that grabbing pussies is their right?

I mean maybe 40 years later you can claim that, but we all know what happened then and there.

Hard to say but I agree - when you are waiting decades to make a claim - credibility can be thin - like Tara Reade.

Women would never let a tall, rich, charismatic boss have a grab. They always prefer the guy who comes from behind and starts sniffing his way in.

And so, of course the Trump accusations are fake, made up after the fact, because skanks want some of that CNN attention. Now Biden on the other hand, he has a long history of creeping up on women.

Neato!

But, in what the rest of us call "reality", Biden is accused of doing exactly what Trump bragged about doing. Oh the irony...

 

[Norman]

;'ll

The idea that “all women must be believed” removes it from that, and presupposes guilt and innocence.

And you are presupposing innocence before any evidence is laid to bear. I myself don't think one phone call to Larry King is enough evidence, and the rightists on this board are presupposing guilt. Both you and they are doing the exact same thing and for the same reason. Presupposition spits in the face of actual justice.

None of you are blameless. None. Of. You.

You have to presuppose innocence. It is the way our justice system works: innocent until proven guilty. Not all countries are like that. I think it is a very important distinction.

And I disagree it spits in the face of justice. Justice is taking the evidence and determining guilt or innocence through a jury system.

But you have to start from a base, either one is innocent and must prove guilt or one is guilty and must prove innocence.

What other base is there?

You mean like with Kavanaugh and Trump?

How can you post this shit?

In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you don't understand that shows why you should be ridiculed and laughed at.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Here's a start: what have I said about Kavanaugh?

Second - Trump has kind of a bad record behind him, he is known to have made comments about being able to grab women by the *****, he has walked through the model's dressing room while they are dressing, and a he has a number of suits against him - some credible some not. The trouble is with some rich and/or powerful, there are always other possible motives for the accusations but some of these have legs. He has also paid off women.

Kavanaugh has no such record - he (and Ford) were known to have been part of a group of privileged teens that parties and drank heavily in high school when this was claimed to have occurred. Lots of alcohol equals poor memories. I believe Ford in that something occurred but there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh it could have been anyone. And they were minors. Kavanaugh may have rotten political views but his adult life has by all accounts been totally responsible. It should never have been used in his confirmation hearing without first being investigated (it deserved the same thorough investigation as Reade's)

You can't compare Kavanaugh with Trump.

The comments about president Trump grabbing ***** left and right are likely true. That's exactly why he doesn't need to take women the Biden way - sniffing from behind.

He just assaults them by grabbing them - is that what you are saying?

So when alpha man grabs your *****, it's an assault?

What's this deal with the so called "alpha male" thing? (you should start a thread on that and I'll happily jump in). I'm envisioning a grunting semi-coherent gorilla here. Are you saying that grabbing pussies is their right?

I mean maybe 40 years later you can claim that, but we all know what happened then and there.

Hard to say but I agree - when you are waiting decades to make a claim - credibility can be thin - like Tara Reade.

Women would never let a tall, rich, charismatic boss have a grab. They always prefer the guy who comes from behind and starts sniffing his way in.

And so, of course the Trump accusations are fake, made up after the fact, because skanks want some of that CNN attention. Now Biden on the other hand, he has a long history of creeping up on women.

Neato!

But, in what the rest of us call "reality", Biden is accused of doing exactly what Trump bragged about doing. Oh the irony...

Nope, Biden is not accused of having endless amount of women like Trump.

He is accused of harassing women from behind.

 

[bripat9643]

Clip of Biden sex accuser's mother phoning into Larry King emerges

A 1993 clip has emerged alleging to show former Joe Biden staffer Tara Reade's mother Jeanette Altimus calling into Larry King about the former Vice President's alleged sexual assault of her daughter.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And low and behold CNN has removed THIS EPISODE from the play store online so wtf. Is CNN literally trying to hide evidence that this woman is telling the truth? All other episodes are for sale but this one is missing.....

Up until this point I have said that I didn't believe this woman because who waits 30 years to make an accusation right? Well here is corroboration of the incident from 27 years ago. Evidence that CNN was apparently trying to scrub.

We have only Reade's word that the lady who called the Larry King Show was her mother. Furthermore, if you look at the transcript of the lady's call, you'll see that she said nothing about sexual assault.

Reade's story still strikes me as flimsy and unbelievable, not to mention belated.

Just because liberals uncritically peddled Christine Blasey-Ford's specious allegation against Brett Kavanaugh does not mean conservatives should uncritically peddle Reade's equally implausible story.

I think SOMETHING happened to Ford, she did not make it all up. Her life was clearly messed up drastically by something and her therapist confirmed it. But it was a group of teens, all constantly drunk, and she can not recall details - there is no way to say it was Kavanaugh, someone else, or exactly what.

By the same token - I believe Reade's account of inappropriate touching - that is echoed by several other women, and Biden's own known habits (and it's not necessarily a crime).

Her father molested her. Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it. That story was entirely made up.

 

[bodecea]

Clip of Biden sex accuser's mother phoning into Larry King emerges

A 1993 clip has emerged alleging to show former Joe Biden staffer Tara Reade's mother Jeanette Altimus calling into Larry King about the former Vice President's alleged sexual assault of her daughter.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And low and behold CNN has removed THIS EPISODE from the play store online so wtf. Is CNN literally trying to hide evidence that this woman is telling the truth? All other episodes are for sale but this one is missing.....

Up until this point I have said that I didn't believe this woman because who waits 30 years to make an accusation right? Well here is corroboration of the incident from 27 years ago. Evidence that CNN was apparently trying to scrub.

Tara Reade complained of inappropriate touching initially. That phone call says nothing specific at all. I dont see any more evidence than there was for Kavanaugh and I find it hard to believe she would “respect” a man who did what she later claimed, but more easily believe it of inappropriate touching. what exactly is this corroborating?

So you are good with unwanted groping.

You mean like "grabbing them by the *****"?

 

[Norman]

Clip of Biden sex accuser's mother phoning into Larry King emerges

A 1993 clip has emerged alleging to show former Joe Biden staffer Tara Reade's mother Jeanette Altimus calling into Larry King about the former Vice President's alleged sexual assault of her daughter.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And low and behold CNN has removed THIS EPISODE from the play store online so wtf. Is CNN literally trying to hide evidence that this woman is telling the truth? All other episodes are for sale but this one is missing.....

Up until this point I have said that I didn't believe this woman because who waits 30 years to make an accusation right? Well here is corroboration of the incident from 27 years ago. Evidence that CNN was apparently trying to scrub.

Tara Reade complained of inappropriate touching initially. That phone call says nothing specific at all. I dont see any more evidence than there was for Kavanaugh and I find it hard to believe she would “respect” a man who did what she later claimed, but more easily believe it of inappropriate touching. what exactly is this corroborating?

So you are good with unwanted groping.

You mean like "grabbing them by the *****"?

Yes, he has been grabbing pussies. Last time in 2016 when he grabbed the election victory from countless of pussies. That was great... what was the crime again?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope

Yes. Accused of doing exactly what trump bragged about. And the cult screeches and cackles....