Tara Reade had her chance to tell her story in 2019 - she told a completely different one instead

[Drunken Irishman]

You can view her article for The Union, a newspaper out of Nevada County here:

https://www.theunion.com/opinion/columns/alexandra-tara-reade-a-girl-walks-into-the-senate/

This article coincided with other accusations that Biden made people feel uncomfortable with his touching. This is something Biden has since apologized for. In the article, she mentions his inappropriate touching, which, absolutely, is uncalled for. But it's also not remotely close to raping, or sexually assaulting someone.

But it casts a great deal of doubt on Tara's overall story.

Why?

Because she's claimed over the last couple months that she's tried to tell her story to anyone who would listen.

So, why is it, just one year ago, when given the medium to air out her story, she didn't even come close to hinting Biden raped her? In fact. she explicitly says what Biden did was not sexual. She was intimidated by him - but not raped. You'd think, for someone who was that traumatized by this, and wanting to get this story out to anyone who'd listen, she would have, you know, mentioned back then that Biden raped her.

But yet, she didn't. Instead, she went on to say some not so flattering things about Biden, and then concluded she wasn't even sure he knew she had been 'fired'.

Ultimately, this article is raw and I feel for Tara. I'm sure Biden feels for her.

But it's not anywhere near the type of accusation she's lobbing now.

So, what changed in a year?

We're told to believe Tara. Fair. But believe what story? The one she gave a year ago - or the one she is giving now?

And that brings up another question: if she's lying now - how do we know she wasn't lying in 2019 about this, as well?

Women deserve to be heard. But let's drop all pretenses that this is about letting Tara tell her story. She told her story. In 2019. It didn't gain traction, and now she's telling another story, a darker story, and hoping that gains more traction than the story she told in 2019.

But those who, without reservation, believe Tara are exploiting her story, and the idea we should believe women, for political gain.

And that's disgusting.

[Grokenstein]

1. The instant fools said that every accusation had to be "believed"

...rather than "investigated and judged impartially," the scumbags started setting up their attacks. I've deleted bookmarks to lefty sites that invite--even encourage--the Biden-is-a-rapist bullshit or push the "oh, I guess it's 'believe all women' unless it's a Democrat" meme. In addition to wanting to avenge Bernie, they want Trump to stay in office because that brings clicks.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. It's the same 'gotchya' bullshit that makes guys like Jacob Wohl linger...

They're quick to bring up Christine Blasey Ford but Ford had something Tara doesn't have: and that's credibility.

Tara's credibility was shot when her story changed and her history became inconsistent.

I outlined how she completely altered what happened with Biden from 2019 to 2020.

But that also doesn't get into her openly admitting to leaving Washington on her own accord years ago because she became disenchanted with American politics and fell in love with Russia. That led to her being a pro-Putin propagandist, who railed against Mueller and the idea of Russian interference in the 2016 elections (which she now denies ever saying). Of course, then there's her pro-Biden tweets in 2017 that have been scrubbed.

They complain the media isn't pushing this story. They're not pushing it because it lacks total credibility.

Ford was credible for many reasons:

1) she passed a polygraph (though, I don't trust those ... still)
2) She went to the FBI
3) She mentioned another person, Mark Judge (even now, Tara says no one saw her accusation)
4) Therapy notes from years before corroborate her story about being attacked (though don't name Kavanaugh)

But the biggest thing that makes Ford credible is that there wasn't overwhelming inconsistencies, specifically an entirely different telling of the story a year prior to the initial accusation.

[spooky3]

3. And Ford had no apparent motive to lie. She had no agenda. nt

[nolawarlock]

4. Comments on this issue ...

This post came out of some comments I made on Twitter to someone replying to me on Alyssa Milano's twitter that, because Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was considered automatically believable, so too, should Tara Reade's.

I'm largely pretty left with an exception here and there and I'm blue no matter who even if it's Bernie, but I said from the beginning that aspects of the #metoo movement were leading down a dark path where even innocence is not a defense—and we saw that with the European and Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism.

Ford's story was actually credible Reade's is filled with so many holes that it's ludicrous. That said, I simply do not agree with those like Alyssa Milano (who I greatly respect overall) on their use of the word ”believe." Alyssa is in this mess because she set the stage of a logical box that was always going to lead to tales like Tara Reade's. They should have known this but the rhetorical meme of #BelieveAllWomen became more politically expedient that the actual evaluation of fact.

Belief belongs to religion and colloquial conversation as a substitution for the word, “think.” I THINK that we should listen to alleged victims with compassion not belief. People lie. Period. And the 5% to 10% of false accusations in court probably jump to 40% in the court of public opinion. As Hugh Laurie's fabulous character, Doctor Gregory House, points out. #EverybodyLies. However, since the greater percentage are telling the truth, we should also not #DisbelieveWomen, or anyone else, unless the story is so ridiculous as it is impossible to be believed.

I think the left has rhetorically boxed themselves into a logical corner with #metoo. If you #believeallwomen no matter what they say, and a woman today is anyone who declares themselves as such, because #transrightsarehumanrights (which I do … believe, colloquially speaking, of course), then, all I have to do is declare myself a woman for you to believe any story I tell, or at least anything regarding assault. Well, let's follow the logical bouncing ball. If Johnny Depp were suddenly to declare himself a transwoman, and both he and Amber Heard said that the other abused them, how can we #believebothwomen if both women's stories contradict themselves. And what about abusive lesbian relationships? If we must #believewomen without question, and both lesbians in the relationship say the other is abusive, what do we do?

Also, if we #believeallwomen, then why did so many on the left not trust Hillary? How can you distrust a woman if you believe her simply because she is one? If we assume a woman can't lie about sexual assault, can that argument not be made about anything? If a woman cannot lie, then we must believe her and trust her. How can the word #belief be granted the benefit of the doubt and not #trust?

I think that #metoo has truly been a net positive and a good thing for the world in that it has exposed predators, but it has also created a logical prison of political expediency where folks like Joe Biden and others are politically forced to say "we must believe women" only to be caught in a net when such accusations are fired at them.

What will happen if someone falsely accuses Bernie? Will the Berners suddenly turn their back on him? I highly doubt it and, frankly, I'm hoping some woman out there takes that bait so we can all see that particular hypocrisy come to light.

As a rule, I don't #believe or #disbelieve anyone nor do I automatically #trust or #distrust someone. I scrutinize everything that comes into my sphere of existence and if that offends people because I would even do so in emotionally sensitive situations, well, as the late Lady Chablis used to say, two tears in a bucket, motherfuck it.

[SunshineState70]

5. I Believe the TRUTH

NOT THE SLEEZE... This is a SLEEZE Story.

[videohead5]

6. Read this

She is a nut.

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460