ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Joe Says It Ain't So

[ Posted Friday, May 1st, 2020 – 18:19 UTC ]

All week long, the pressure increased for Joe Biden to "Say it ain't so, Joe!" So this morning, he did. Biden appeared (remotely) on Morning Joe and flatly denied the accusation made against him that he had sexually assaulted Tara Reade in 1993 while he was a sitting senator and she was on his staff: "No. It is not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened and it didn't."

When asked about his previous position when Republicans had been accused of such behavior ("You've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real"), Biden tried to thread the needle:

Look, from the very beginning, I've said believing women means taking women's claims seriously when she steps forward and then vet it. Look into it. That's true in this case as well.... I'll always uphold that principle. But in the end, in every case, the truth is what matters. In this case, the truth is that the claims are false.

. . .

Look, women are to be believed, given the benefit of the doubt. If they come forward and say something that they said happened to them, they should start off with the presumption they're telling the truth. Then you have to look at the circumstances and the facts. And the facts in this case do not exist -- they never happened. And there are so many inconsistencies in what has been said in this case. So yes, look at the facts. And I can assure you it did not happen, period, period.

Biden did make one unforced error, which he'll hopefully reconsider soon. His senatorial papers were donated to the University of Delaware, but have not been made public yet (and won't until after he leaves "public life"). Biden asserts that even if Reade had made a personnel complaint at the time, it simply wouldn't be in his senatorial papers, therefore there's no reason to allow a search of them. Biden claimed this morning that any such complaint would reside within the National Archives, if it even existed. Reade has said she did file such a complaint with a congressional human resources office -- but not about the actual assault, rather just about other things Biden did that made her feel uncomfortable. She also said she didn't keep a copy of the complaint herself. Later today, however, the National Archives weighed in by passing the buck: "any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate. Accordingly, inquiries related to these records should be directed to the Senate."

This leaves all the political reporters with a paper chase -- who can be the first to hunt the complaint down or provide evidence that it never existed in the first place? This will doubtlessly play out over the next week or so. But Biden, by walling off his senatorial archive, is going to be pressed about what he's hiding, either way. The only way he can get on top of this is to allow some sort of search of his papers which is only limited to finding anything on Reade in there. This won't be easy, however. His archive consists of "1,875 boxes and 415 gigabytes of electronic content, largely uncataloged." But Trump is going to insist that Biden's "hiding something" until Biden allows such a search. The hypocrisy of Trump accusing anyone else of not being transparent is massive, of course, since we're all still waiting for those tax returns Trump repeatedly promised he'd make public four years ago (just to give the most prominent example of Trump covering up things from his own past).

Our guess is that Joe Biden is going to be forced to give some sort of speech on the general subject of violence against women, in the same way that Barack Obama had to give a speech about his pastor and J.F.K. had to give a speech about being Catholic. The only way the issue will be defused is if Biden first lays out his own lengthy record on the subject (passing the Violence Against Women Act, etc.) and then directly addresses the Reade accusation by calling for some independent actor (a former judge, maybe?) to comb through his archives in search of any evidence one way or the other. From this point on, Biden can simply refer to this speech and move on. Politically, that would seem to be the best route forward for Biden. One interview on a morning cable show is probably not going to be enough.

President Trump actually kind of gave Biden the benefit of the doubt this week, by suggesting that it was a false accusation. Trump, of course, has been accused by over a dozen women of similar behavior, and maintains that all of them are lying. One of these accusations was made not during the 2016 campaign, but while he was president, for which Trump has gotten nowhere near the scrutiny Biden is now getting. Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin pointed out this media double standard today:

Regarding claims of sexual harassment and assault, consider that Trump is not asked about the rape allegation made against him by E. Jean Carroll. He denied in 2019 knowing her and recycled a grotesque trope, namely that rape is about sexual attraction. "She's not my type," he declared during an interview with the Hill in 2019. She is currently suing him for defamation. Trump is not asked about this suit, about a similar lawsuit from Summer Zervos (based on his denial of her allegation that he groped her) or any other alleged assault or instance of harassment. He has never answered a bevy of questions (as Biden did Friday) on any, let alone all, of these allegations. What we get looks an awful lot like 2016: The media stops harping on Trump's alleged, egregious wrongdoing but demands details and a full accounting from his opponent for the Democrats' conduct.

The media has adopted the approach that a pattern of sexual harassment claims over decades is not relevant because Trump has denied them, yet they (properly) want investigated the single assault claim against Biden. Biden responded in an interview and in a lengthy written statement; the media insists these things have to be investigated further. They do not ask Trump's campaign why the president does not respond to questions. They do not ask Republicans about Carroll, Zervos or others.

The media regularly deny the accusation that they normalize Trump's conduct and insist they are "balanced," yet they have neglected to hold Trump accountable for his conduct.

Of course, while Joe Biden led the news today, there's a bigger ongoing story out there as well. So let's check in and see how Donald Trump is handling his first real crisis, shall we? Hey, at least we got through a whole week without the president suggesting injecting lethal substances into human bodies just to see what would happen, so things can't be that bad... can they?

The sprawling CARES Act, and its similarly rushed companion bills, has fueled rising angst for lawmakers. They've been bombarded with complaints about breakdowns in the small business lending program, loopholes that have allowed large companies to snatch cash meant for smaller operations and administrative failures that have delayed stimulus checks to struggling American households.

Hospitals, lawmakers say, are competing with each other and the federal government for life-saving equipment for their employees, and coronavirus testing is still hard to access in many parts of the country, despite Congress' efforts.

And it's all occurring without the oversight operations meant to confront these problems as they arise.

"Our constituents have a lot of questions about where the hell this $3 billion is going and why it isn't coming into their pockets," Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) said during a Thursday meeting at the Capitol.

That doesn't sound very good, does it? Well, perhaps some other sector of the economy is doing better. Let's check in with the farmers:

Tens of millions of pounds of American-grown produce is rotting in fields as food banks across the country scramble to meet a massive surge in demand, a two-pronged disaster that has deprived farmers of billions of dollars in revenue while millions of newly jobless Americans struggle to feed their families.

. . .

Just 50 miles from Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida growers, much of whose produce was destined for restaurant chains, faced an immediate crisis: Find customers for surplus crops or plow the fields under to avoid attracting pests.

Images of farmers destroying tomatoes, piling up squash, burying onions and dumping milk shocked many Americans who remain fearful of supply shortages. At the same time, people who recently lost their jobs lined up for miles outside some food banks, raising questions about why there has been no coordinated response at the federal level to get the surplus of perishable food to more people in need, even as commodity groups, state leaders and lawmakers repeatedly urged the Agriculture Department to step in.

Well surely the federal government is taking some sort of action, right? Unfortunately, they have been, but it hasn't exactly been helping. Which is why some governors are taking matters into their own hands:

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said he's been forced to resort to drastic measures to protect nearly 500,000 COVID-19 test kits from the federal government.

The state bought the test kits from South Korea earlier this month, and the state's National Guard is guarding them in a secret location to prevent them from being commandeered by the Trump administration.

On Thursday, Hogan, a Republican, told The Washington Post about the careful steps he's taking to ensure the tests remain in Maryland.

For instance, he had the plane from South Korea land at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport instead of Washington's Dulles International Airport to reduce the chance that the feds would seize the COVID-19 cargo.

In addition, the plane was greeted by what Hogan described as "a large contingent of Maryland National Guard and Maryland State Police."

Wow. A state government forced to hide medical supplies because it doesn't trust that the Trump administration won't steal them. That's pretty jaw-dropping, when you think about it.

But it certainly wasn't the only jaw-dropping news this week. The first quarterly economic data is starting to come in, and things are pretty dismal. Gross domestic product was down 4.8 percent in the first quarter, but that's not even the worst of the bad news. Some economists are predicting that in the second quarter the economy might shrink between 35 and 40 percent. That's stunning.

Here's White House advisor Larry Kudlow, with a much rosier projection from early February (when Team Trump was still insisting that coronavirus was nothing to worry about at all):

The impact on the American economy will be very, very, very small, if any.... We really haven't seen any economic impact. There may be some out there. Our own internal numbers say maybe two-tenths of a percent in the first quarter, but that's not going to end this growth cycle.

The growth cycle begun 11 years ago is now officially over, as Kudlow was proven disastrously wrong.

The Congressional Budget Office just also predicted that this year's deficit will be the worst in all of American history, coming in at 3.7 trillion dollars. And that's before the next round of bailout bills is even factored in.

And finally, the unemployment numbers just keep getting worse as well. Another 3.8 million workers filed for unemployment this week, making the total over six weeks an astounding 30.3 million. And that doesn't even count everybody, since those are only the ones who were even eligible for unemployment payments. Next Friday we'll get a more accurate look at where unemployment truly is, when the monthly figure is announced for April. Spoiler alert: it's not going to be good. In fact, it'll likely be much worse than the depths of the Great Recession.

Or, as Donald Trump famously predicted: "We're going to win so much you'll be sick and tired of winning." Well, at least he got the "sick and tired" part right, at any rate.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This is probably more than a little bit subjective, but we've decided to give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Schumer has seemingly been everywhere this week, popping up in news interviews and even on late-night television. This is all in preparation for the Senate reconvening next week, and Chuck's got a built-in advantage in this regard, since he lives in New York where all the media is centered. But while Nancy Pelosi had a pretty good week in the media last week, Schumer dominated this week on television. Again, this is subjective -- perhaps we just watched the shows Schumer appeared on and missed someone better on other shows. We fully admit the possibility.

But from what we saw, Schumer is doing a great job of setting up the Democratic argument for next week, slamming Mitch McConnell for his partisan nonsense, and laying out exactly how massively Donald Trump is failing in his pandemic response. His PBS NewsHour interview was one good example (as we wrote about earlier this week).

Schumer seems eager to take on the Republicans, so next week could be an interesting one to watch in the Senate. Democrats will be pushing to pass the next coronavirus bailout bill, while McConnell will be hustling through patently unqualified judicial picks. The contrast will be stark, in other words.

Sadly, it's unusual to see a Democratic leader so effectively advance their own narrative in the press before the fighting begins. Often times they are left playing defense, but Schumer seems to have gotten out in front of things rather well.

So for his many good interviews this week, and for exhibiting an impressive amount of feistiness before the fight even starts, Chuck Schumer is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Before we begin, we have some old business to take care of first. Last week, we issued our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to Bill and Hillary Clinton, with a caveat: "The only possible reason they haven't endorsed Biden yet would be that Team Biden is somehow holding them back so they can use their endorsements to maximum value later on."

Well, Hillary Clinton did indeed endorse Biden this week, in what was obviously a preplanned event. Bill Clinton hasn't endorsed Biden, but doing so right now would be problematic in the extreme (due to his philandering), so we can understand why Team Biden might have said: "Thanks, Bill, but no thanks, right now."

So we hereby rescind the MDDOTW awards from last week as being unjustified and unearned, and issue our own apology to the Clintons. Mea culpa.

Because we were premature with last week's award, we're also going to hold off on even considering Joe Biden for an award this week, until we see a little more of the fallout and reaction to his interview this morning. Things could easily go either way for Biden right now, so we're going to wait another week to chime in with any award.

Instead, this week we're going to get a little obscure and award the MDDOTW to the New York State Board of Elections, who just decided to cancel the Democratic presidential primary. They're not canceling the primary election entirely, mind you, just the Democratic presidential part of it. People will still be voting on other offices and issues on the ballot, but they won't be able to cast a vote for Bernie Sanders, even if they would like to do so.

Again, if the Democratic presidential race were the only thing on the ballot, this would be entirely understandable. It would save a bunch of money, and it would avoid needless risk in the middle of a pandemic. But that's not the case, so that excuse doesn't really exist.

Bernie could have racked up some more delegates for the convention in New York, but now he won't have this opportunity. For denying the voters this choice, we have to award the Democratic members of the New York elections board the Most Disappointing Democrats Of The Week award.

[Contact the New York State Board of Elections on their official contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 572 (5/1/20)

OK, another mixed bunch this week.

Also, something funny that didn't seem to fit anywhere else, just as an appetizer. Last week, Trump tried to explain away his lethal suggestion that people be injected with bleach or ultraviolet light to cure the coronavirus as "sarcasm," which was pretty outrageous for many reasons (first, he was being serious and not sarcastic at all; second, he was asking the questions to the doctors, not the media; and third, why would any sane leader joke in any way during a deadly pandemic which has killed tens of thousands of Americans?!?).

But the best response to his laughable claim that he was somehow being "sarcastic" came from an unexpected source. Among many others, Jeopardy! champion Ken Jennings tweeted out his reaction, which was hilarious: "I would like to announce that when I gave wrong answers on Jeopardy, I was being sarcastic."

Heh. See now, Mister President, that is how sarcasm works!

 

1
   Maybe you might want to check with your governor, Mitch...

The irony is strong here. So point it out!

"Mitch McConnell recently suggested that states should just go bankrupt rather than getting any aid from the federal government, and even used the term 'blue-state bailout' to try to pin all the blame on places like New York and New Jersey. Donald Trump jumped in to denigrate Illinois and other 'Democrat run' [sic] and 'poorly run states.' Both of them might want to check the facts, however. In the first place, there are some states that consistently get more federal money each year than send in to the Treasury. The third-worst in this category is none other than Kentucky, who in 2018 took in a whopping $147 billion more than they sent in. As for those 'poorly-run' blue states? Well, let's see -- it seems like all of them send more money to the feds that they get each year. New York sent $116 billion more than they got; New Jersey $72 billion more; California $26 billion more; and Illinois sent $22 billion more than they got. This means all these states are bailing out Kentucky and all the other red 'taker' states each and every year. So which states are really better run? And as for Kentucky, Mitch might want to check with his home state's governor, because Kentucky is looking at a shortfall this year of at least $318 million -- which could even rise to $500 million. The word used in the report to describe Kentucky's economic outlook was 'bleak.' And the governor plainly stated: 'It will cripple out efforts to rebuild if we don't see a relief package' from the federal government. Might want to think about that before saying state bankruptcy would be such a dandy idea, Mitch."

 

2
   It's all Obama's fault!

In the "more idiotic attempts to blame Democrats for everything bad that's happening" category, we have our Dear Leader.

"Donald Trump is trying to blame Barack Obama for, quote, broken tests, unquote, for the coronavirus. He also called them 'obsolete' and said that they 'didn't take care of people.' This is laughable in many different ways. In the first place, it is yet another example of Trump dodging any blame for anything, even things that are quite obviously his own fault. Trump is over three years in to his term as president. So even if what he was saying were remotely true -- which it isn't -- he would still be admitting that he himself dropped the ball for three whole years. But even that's laughable because of the clear fact that COVID-19 did not even exist until the year 2019 -- it's right there in the name, as a matter of fact, no matter whether Kellyanne Conway understands that or not. Obama could not possibly be to blame for any COVID-19 tests because he did not possess a time machine while in office. Also, when he left office, President Obama left Trump with a White House pandemic team and a pandemic playbook to use in a crisis. Trump disbanded the team and has completely ignored the playbook for the past five months. And yet he still thinks there are people out there as stupid as he is who will believe that somehow, this all must be Obama's fault. Somehow. This is nothing short of pathetic!"

 

3
   Trump's website was going to be better than Obama's

Remember the website that was going to make coronavirus testing smooth and seamless for everyone?

"In one of the earliest briefings from Donald Trump -- after he had wasted six weeks denying that the problem existed, of course -- he announced his wonderful plan that was going to help everyone immediately. He promised that a website would roll out that very weekend that would allow everyone to get instructions on how to get themselves tested for the virus. Here's what he said at the time:

Google is helping to develop a website. It's going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past, to determine whether a test is warranted and to facilitate testing at a nearby, convenient location.

That 'unlike websites of the past' was, of course, a gratuitous dig at the Obamacare signup website. So let's check back in and see how things are going, a full seven weeks later, shall we? It seems that Verily (the Google subsidiary) has only now facilitated 30,000 out of the six million tests performed in the United States. They only got a program up and running last week with Rite Aid, in only eight states. So maybe Trump's right -- maybe people will wind up comparing it to the Obamacare website rollout. Just not in the way he had hoped."

 

4
   Jared declares mission accomplished

Because of course he did.

"Let's see, we've got tens of millions of pounds of fresh food being plowed under by farmers while food banks have a shortage of food to hand out. We've got a Republican governor protecting his coronavirus test kits by storing them in a secret location and using his own National Guard troops because he's afraid the feds will steal them. We've got millions of small businesses who haven't seen a dime of bailout money while the big corporations are once again making out like bandits. We've got hospitals and states in a Lord Of The Flies world of competing against each other for supplies (which is why those tests in Maryland are under guard, by the way) and the federal government only stepping in to provide the leadership they should when Trump's cheeseburger supply is threatened. We don't have anywhere near the tests we need to reopen safely, and yet multiple states are going to do so anyway and just hope for the best. And we've got no oversight of any of these catastrophes whatsoever. We've got over 1.1 million American infected and over 65,000 deaths -- more Americans dead than in all of the Vietnam War -- and we're still seeing 30,000 new cases a day and 2,000 new deaths a day. Meanwhile, South Korea -- who had their first case on the very same day America did -- just reported a day with no new cases at all. So how's everything going? Well, according to Jared Kushner: 'I think that we've achieved all the different milestones that are needed. So, the government, federal government rose to the challenge and this is a great success story and I think that that's really what needs to be told.' Great success story? Wow. Unbelievable. If this is a success, I'd hate to see what a failure looks like."

 

5
   Trump throws a hissy fit

Trump got some bad news this week that he actually paid attention to.

"It was reported this week that Trump threw a tantrum when his own re-election team told him he was losing to Joe Biden not only in national polls, but across all the battleground states as well. He apparently insisted 'I'm not losing to Joe Biden,' although some reports also added an obscene gerund beginning with 'F' to that quote, just before Biden's name. Trump also reportedly threatened to sue his pollster for bringing him bad polling. Trump is down by 3-to-8 points in: Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Ohio. His advisors were desperately trying to get him to stop appearing at the daily pandemic briefings, because this is the singlemost reason why the voters are turning so sour on him. It seems that the more people see of Trump on television, failing to exhibit any leadership and incapable of normal human empathy for the sick and the dead, the less they like him. Trump, however, is still reportedly convinced that he's doing a great job at the briefings. So Democrats everywhere should really hope for as many Trump briefings as possible, because the more of them there are the lower Trump's re-election chances get."

 

6
   Kimmel calls it right

Maskgate!

"Vice President Mike Pence went to tour the Mayo Clinic this week. He was informed by the clinic beforehand of their policy of requiring everyone who enters to wear a mask. Pence's team even put out a memo to reporters pointing out that they would have to wear a mask on the visit. But then Pence refused to do so and was allowed to tour the clinic anyway, which didn't exactly go over very well. Videos of Pence being the only person in the room without a mask were jarring in the extreme. When confronted, Pence had a rather bizarre explanation: 'I thought it'd be a good opportunity for me to be here, to be able to speak to these researchers, these incredible health-care personnel, and look them in the eye and say thank you.' Except that masks don't cover the eyes, of course. Pence later lied that he hadn't been informed, and then his wife doubled down and repeated the lie, even though the Mayo Clinic stated clearly that he had been informed. Also, Pence threatened a reporter who verified that the press corps had been informed ahead of the visit with banishment from Air Force Two. But late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel had the final word, because he called it exactly right: 'You know the only reason he didn't wear a mask is because Trump won't wear one, right?'"

 

7
   Noble laureates?

From the "Our president is an idiot" files, entry 42,872:

"Donald Trump got two things massively wrong while rage-tweeting about how unfairly the media has been to him (as they point out his failures and repeat his own empty promises back to him). He complained that reporters should all have to give back their 'Noble Prizes,' or even give them to the 'REAL REPORTERS & JOURNALISTS who got it right,' and wondered: 'When will the Noble Committee DEMAND the Prizes back?' As with many things Trump, there is more than one level of idiocy in play here. First, there is no such thing as a 'Noble Prize' or a 'Noble Committee.' Second, Nobel Prizes do not, in fact, exist in the field of journalism. There are, instead, Pulitzer Prizes. But I shudder to think how Trump would mangle the spelling of 'Pulitzer' when he obviously can't even spell 'Nobel'."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

208 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Joe Says It Ain't So”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But Biden, by walling off his senatorial archive, is going to be pressed about what he's hiding, either way. The only way he can get on top of this is to allow some sort of search of his papers which is only limited to finding anything on Reade in there. This won't be easy, however. His archive consists of "1,875 boxes and 415 gigabytes of electronic content, largely uncataloged." But Trump is going to insist that Biden's "hiding something" until Biden allows such a search.

    I agree. And, if I know anything about Biden, he will find a way to make this happen.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This new coronavirus, the first coronavirus to cause a pandemic, will successfully exploit any cracks in national and sub-national unity as well as in global solidarity.

    If this virus is to be stopped, we need solidarity at all levels - from the global to community front lines. Otherwise, this virus will not be defeated.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    "The only possible reason they haven't endorsed Biden yet would be that Team Biden is somehow holding them back so they can use their endorsements to maximum value later on."

    What possible value would be in a Clinton endorsement?

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because we were premature with last week's award, we're also going to hold off on even considering Joe Biden for an award this week, until we see a little more of the fallout and reaction to his interview this morning.

    That's a surprise. I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to be facetious here. :)

    Thank God for small miracles, in other words.

  5. [5] 
    dsws wrote:

    I've seen two things from Biden: a written item on Medium, and some video on CNN. The written one seemed good. The video included a statement that I disagree with. He said that "what matters is the truth.". No. What matters is the available evidence, and the precedents we set. We don't have the truth. We have he said, she said, so-and-so corroborated, so-and-so didn't, these documents apparently don't exist, those documents do. We must respond correctly to that evidence.

    I am not committed to an outcome. I'm committed to the integrity of the process. If Biden remains the nominee by a sound process, fine. If he's pressured into stepping down by a sound process, that's fine too. If he remains the nominee by a process that sets bad precedents, that's not ok. If he steps down following a process that sets bad precedents, that's not ok either.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Bernie could have racked up some more delegates for the convention in New York, but now he won't have this opportunity.

    What do you think Bernie's plans are for the convention in New York, regardless of what stage the US epidemic is in?

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He apparently insisted 'I'm not losing to Joe Biden,' although some reports also added an obscene gerund beginning with 'F' to that quote, just before Biden's name.

    Actually, because the situation is disastrous, that would have been an appropriate use of the word for him.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Over and out.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sounds a lot like you want your cake and eat it, too, Dan.

  10. [10] 
    John M wrote:

    I think this is WORTH Repeating, since it was referenced by C.W. above:

    Michale wrote:

    "The accusations against President Trump have all been investigated..

    Funny how they all disappeared once President Trump won the election.. :D"

    NOT TRUE ON BOTH COUNTS

    1) The lawsuit by former campaign staffer, Alva Johnson, who claims that Trump forcibly kissed her at a rally in Florida in August 2016, is still pending and going forward.

    2) The defamation lawsuit raised by Summer Zervos which arose from Trump's statement that she lied about sexual assault allegations against him is still pending and moving forward. Zervos was a former contestant on "The Apprentice" and cell phone records of Trump's telephone call to Zervos were just released in December of 2019.

    3) The defamation lawsuit raised by E. Jean Carroll which arose from Trump's denials of her accusation that he sexually assaulted her more than 20 years ago damaged her reputation is still active also. This is the assault that happened in a dressing room in a department store in NYC. This is also the suit involving a request for a sample of Trump's DNA.

    Criminal charges in ALL cases are on HOLD ONLY WHILE Trump holds the Office of President.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dan,

    If Biden remains the nominee by a sound process, fine.

    What does that mean?

  12. [12] 
    andygaus wrote:

    The latest new low, for me, was Trump literally ordering the workers at meat-packing plants into harm's way, forcing them to return under conditions where safety standards are suggested but not mandatory, the owners are shielded from liability, and the workers lose their unemployment compensation if they don't return. It was bad enough that he has encouraged people to open themselves to danger by re-opening businesses too soon, but forcing people to expose themselves to danger is a new level of authoritarianism.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    andygaus,

    This is an important reason why it is so important that communities and people are educated and empowered as part of an overall comprehensive response to this virus. This virus knows all to well how to exploit situations where this is not the case.

    Unfortunately, the US has become a prime example of how not to mount a successful blow to this virus.

  14. [14] 
    dsws wrote:

    Confidential materials in sealed archives should remain confidential and sealed until the criteria specified in advance for their release are met. If that means he has to step down when he could have exonerated himself, so be it. If it means he gets into office despite the existence of incriminating evidence, again, so be it. We don't have the option of being omniscient. We have the options of compiling confidential records that are still incomplete but less so than without confidentiality, or compiling non-confidential records that are more incomplete than we could have had. Whichever we do, we must maintain the integrity of the process.

    I don't know what terms the records at U of Delaware were collected under. Whatever they were, they should be respected.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Confidential materials in sealed archives should remain confidential and sealed until the criteria specified in advance for their release are met. If that means he has to step down when he could have exonerated himself, so be it.

    What would that mean for the future of governance in America?

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dan,

    I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that Biden does not have control over the release of his senate papers? If so, do you know who does? Is it the university? Is there a process that exists today for this?

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @dan,

    i know i phrased the question poorly, but your answer didn't really get at my meaning. at the risk of repeating my previous comment, i'm asking you to gauge the likelihood that reade's memory is a real one but about someone else.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/30/program-note-80/#comment-158527

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've thought about that possibility, Joshua. It makes a certain degree of sense, I suppose, in some circumstances.

    But, in the circumstances described by Reade, herself, I have concluded that that possibility does not exist in this case.

  19. [19] 
    dsws wrote:

    [5] Me:

    I want this to be handled right, even if that doesn't lead to the outcome I would prefer. (Paraphrased.)

    [9] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sounds a lot like you want your cake and eat it, too, Dan.

    Huh? Is 'even if that doesn't lead to the outcome I would prefer' the eating, or the having?

  20. [20] 
    dsws wrote:

    [16]

    Are you saying that Biden does not have control over the release of his senate papers?

    I don't know whether he's supposed to have control over the release of that information. I don't know what promises were made in order to get that material into the archives.

    He's not the only one about whom there may be sensitive information there. A record of a conversation tells something about everyone who participated in it.

    But even if he is, someone who has discretion to destroy records or archive them can reasonably anticipate that they may later be pressured into releasing stuff they don't want released. If they know they'll get to decide later, then they have an incentive to destroy anything embarrassing.

    I assume that he does have the ability to convince U of D to release the material. I think he should honor whatever terms were stated when it was archived.

  21. [21] 
    dsws wrote:

    i'm asking you to gauge the likelihood that reade's memory is a real one but about someone else.

    I guess I was unclear. I said that it's about as likely as waking up to find that the last four years were all just a bad dream. In other words, no, that didn't happen.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/30/program-note-80/#comment-158495

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I knew that. :)

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Please, please, please can we have a rational discussion about the allegations against Biden without your usual rantings and ravings and posting what other people think?

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dan,

    Huh? Is 'even if that doesn't lead to the outcome I would prefer' the eating, or the having?

    Neither, I guess. But, I was referring to the totality of your posts on this subject in the last 24 hours not just one line out of it.

  25. [25] 
    dsws wrote:

    [11]
    If Biden remains the nominee by a sound process, fine.

    What does that mean?

    I didn't miss this one. It's just a rather big question.

    To be sound, a process must satisfy several criteria.

    It must not disqualify too many potential candidates, so just automatically believing any accuser is a non-starter. In a country with many millions of people who might be persuaded to make an accusation, if we let anyone disqualify a candidate just by making something up, there will be someone, somewhere, willing to do so. Hence my comment that the number of employees is small enough, and the rate of false accusations low enough, to avoid this issue.

    It must not involve too much hypocrisy. A process that rejected Brett Kavanaugh but left Al Franken in office would have been suspect.

    It must not present too strong an incentive for victims to remain silent.

    It must require a large majority of potential candidates to have recognized some reasonable notion of consent. Sure, we can't be infallible about this; unless we blindly condemn everyone, there will always be some chance that someone will get away with something. But we should expect a vetting that actually justifies some reasonable degree of confidence. If a candidate brags that he could get away with assaulting women because he was the star, and everyone on his side just cheers for him, that's not acceptable.

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Have to say, congrats on having a PM strong enough to just outright ban military assault weapons. Well done! Very impressive indeed...

    [3] -

    There are plenty of people out there who still love Hillary in the Dem ranks. And this election, we're going to need everyone on deck, if you know what I mean. Party unity!

    :-)

    [4] -

    Once bitten, twice shy...

    dsws [5] -

    That's very well put. Although I did think Biden did a pretty good job of being "unequivocal" in his statement. No weasel words, no waffling, no "the meaning of is is" nonsense, in other words. We'll see how it plays in Peoria, but I thought it was a pretty good start.

    Unless another shoe drops. Then all bets are off, of course.

    LizM [6] -

    I wasn't quite fair (or complete), because later in the week Bernie and Biden agreed to some sort of deal which will boost his prominence at the convention and in setting the platform -- which was kind of an acceptable outcome after the NY thing happened. But I was slamming the NYCBOE more than addressing Bernie, so I left it out.

    LizM [7] -

    I hope you're not making the Biden joke I think you may be making....

    Heh.

    I mean, I tried to be as genteel as I could be with that "gerund" reference...

    :-)

    John M [10] -

    Excellent points, all. Thanks for posting such a succinct list!

    andygaus [12] -

    And all because his cheeseburger supply was at risk...

    dsws [14] -

    The UofD records weren't collected, they were donated by Biden himself. Which means he had an enormous amount of say over when and how they'd be released.

    LizM [16] -

    Dunno who has ultimate say right now, him or the Univ. of Delaware, but either way he's got a pretty big vote in the process, that's probably a given.

    OK, gonna go watch Colbert now... more tomorrow, maybe...

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    That should be "NYSBOE" sorry...

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I meant it to be a rather big question and I didn't think you'd miss it.

    Not being a political analyst or anything of the sort, I don't know what Biden should do.

    I read your post above - twice. And I still don't know what this means: It must require a large majority of potential candidates to have recognized some reasonable notion of consent.

    In fact, I don't really understand that last paragraph.

    Don't reply - get some sleep. And, I'll try to do the same. :)

    Don

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have no idea where that 'Don' came from????????

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Another shoe isn't going to drop unless it's another false accusation. At which point the FBI should get involved.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for taking the time, by the way. :)

  32. [32] 
    dsws wrote:

    From the column:
    that's laughable because of the clear fact that COVID-19 did not even exist until the year 2019 -- it's right there in the name

    That's not why it's laughable. We should have had the institutional structure in place beforehand to be ready to respond to a pandemic. *cough*Ziemer*cough

  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just a random question for everyone:

    Has anyone else become fascinated by the antics of Lisa Desjardins' cat on PBS?

    I am almost convinced to follow the cat on Twitter (yes, it suddenly got its own account a few weeks ago). And I've NEVER followed ANYONE before!

    Heh.

    So I'm just saying... don't be surprised if I suddenly follow "Kitty Of The Gardens" on Twitter....

    -CW

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From the Business Insider article on the people who have come forward claiming that Reade told them about the assault years ago:

    LaCasse acknowledged that coming forward to support an allegation against the Democratic presidential nominee "may have repercussions for me." But she said she has no political ax to grind and intends to vote for Biden.

    "I personally am a Democrat, a very strong Democrat," she said. "And I'm for Biden, regardless. But still I have to come out and say this."

    I have a hard time rbelieving this woman’s claims...because she’s too “perfect” of a witness. She strongly supports the Democratic Party, is anti-Trump, yet despite her supposed belief that her friend was sexually assaulted by Biden, she has no problem supporting his campaign?!?! I realize that they had to find someone to play this part that would not be found out to have been a big time Trump fanatic, but “hardcore Democrats” do not tend to turn a blind eye to someone they believe has sexually assaulted a friend of theirs! Her back story does not make sense! They should have made the character someone who was more apolitical than a party supporter.

    This is a Republican hit job...plain and simple. The timing of it was just too perfectly convenient to believe otherwise. I’m guessing that this was planned around the same time as the Ukraine scam was...a “one - two” punch of bad press meant to wipe out Biden’s campaign. The press will need to look back a couple of years if there is a money trail to be found. They wouldn’t be dumb enough to pay them off right before the story broke...Trump got burned by doing that with Stormy Daniels.

    Plus, do you think it is just coincidence that we hear how frantic Trump’s response was to his campaign telling him that he’s losing to Biden in the polls right as the story of Reade’s accusation has started taking off?

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I guess I've been spending an inordinate amount of time on CNN to have noticed anything about the cat.

    I'll try to do better.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That reminds of something I've been meaning to send you. I'll let you know when. :)

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I always thought that when the President uses the Defense Production Act, the products that result from this executive order were to be used as our government sees fit... not being sold for profit on the open market as if the DPA did not order them?

    How does this happen?

    Rachel Maddow pointed out the other night how the CDC’s studies and reports on what needs to happen to correct the dangers they were investigating have changed under Trump.

    For decades, when medical emergencies broke out in our country, the CDC sent in medical investigators to figure out how the problem came to be, what needed to be done to stop it, and what must be done to prevent it from happening again. Their findings were very direct and provided OSHA with a road map to determine if companies were keeping their employees and the public safe... “Do this”..”Do not Do this!”... “This shall be done with 3 days”, etc.

    Under Trump, and specifically in its report to one of the meat packing plants that had been shut down by the volume of employees becoming infected by the virus, the CDC’s tone has changed:

    “If possible, employees might want to wear facial masks.” “Testing of workers who have been in contact with someone infected its the virus is recommended, if FEASIBLE!”

    NO DIRECTIONS...ONLY SUGGESTIONS!!!

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The CDC in the US has lost a great deal of credibility.

    It is very unfortunate. CDCs across the globe have sprung up, over the decades, using the US CDC as a model.

    It's hardly a model today. :(

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The scientists around Trump today are in danger of losing the same.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope you're not making the Biden joke I think you may be making....Heh.

    No, I was just trying to explain why I used it. Or, didn't that email get through to you ...

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Something is not working here ...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    That's very well put. Although I did think Biden did a pretty good job of being "unequivocal" in his statement. No weasel words, no waffling, no "the meaning of is is" nonsense, in other words. We'll see how it plays in Peoria, but I thought it was a pretty good start.

    Apparently, you didn't watch the Mika Brezenski interview...

    Watch it.. You'll CRINGE at Joe Biden's response..

    He does the PERFECT impression of a deer in the headlights..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    The CDC in the US has lost a great deal of credibility.

    Yes it has..

    It did that when it tried to re-make itself as the CGDC

    Center for Gun and Disease control..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another shoe isn't going to drop unless it's another false accusation.

    Another shoe ALWAYS drops... And I am constrained to point out you were ALL IN for false accusations during the Blasey-Ford bullshit.. Hell, you even believed Julie Swetnick, which is a HUGE blemish on an otherwise sterling record... :^/

    At which point the FBI should get involved.

    I am going to hold you to that...

    You can bet that there are more women waiting in the wings... I am sure Team Trump has a dozen or so.. Just waiting for Biden to be the official Dem nominee because Team Trump releases the floodgates...

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, I so want the FBI to be all over this.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You know, I don't know why all of a sudden 27 years 'this' gets raised."
    -Joe Biden

    What's is this "this" you are talking about, Joe???

    Your rape of Tara Reade?? Is that what "this" is???

    Are you upset that Tara Reade came forward about your rape of her??

    I can understand why yer upset.. I mean, you were told she liked you, right!??

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, I so want the FBI to be all over this.

    I do to..

    Funny how the rest of the Weigantians (NEN) and the rest of the Democrats don't...

    Don't you find that funny?? I find that very funny...

  48. [48] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, good column this week. And I'm glad to see some meaty talking points again.

    I agree with andygaus [12] and it must definitely be a talking point for every Democratic candidate. Trump used the 'Defense Production Act' NOT to compel American businesses to manufacture medical supplies but to keep corporate sweatshops open.
    For weeks now, Smithfield, Tyson, and Cargill have been forced to close down plants in various states. To my knowledge, never once did Trump dedicate a single minute or tweet to 'command' that the corporations provide their workers a safe workplace.
    We can be certain that the CEO and corporate staff will NOT roll up their sleeves to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with their workers.

    Oh, and BTW, it is an 'open secret' that many of these meat-processing plants hire undocumented workers with no consequences.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/02/meat-plant-workers-us-coronavirus-war

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I stayed up, just for you.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, not you.

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I couldn't care less, Michale.

  52. [52] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Trump attacks the FBI, the military, and elected leaders, but calls the Michigan vigilantes 'very good people'.
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/trump-calls-michigan-protesters-armed-good-people-200501181644301.html

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Have to say, congrats on having a PM strong enough to just outright ban military assault weapons. Well done! Very impressive indeed...

    If you address guns, you MIGHT address 80% of the problem.. If you address the PERSON... the mental health aspect... You address 100% of the problem...

    Why isn't Trudeau interested in addressing 100% of the problem??

    Because he is taking the easy way out.. The politically advantageous way out.. He really doesn't care about dead Canadians.. If he did, he would address 100% of the problem...

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He would if he could, Michale … we have our very own equivalent of the Republican party up here, you know ...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Criminal charges in ALL cases are on HOLD ONLY WHILE Trump holds the Office of President.

    Yea, and of course, Dumbocrats are willing to abide by President Trump's rules?? Nice try..

    Dumbocrats aren't pushing those cases, because there is nothing to push...

    You say "lawsuits" are going forward?? Big deal..

    We're talking CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, not lawsuits.

    Once again, you have to change the subject because I got you by the short and curlies...

    Have a nice day... :D I know I will..

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's your favourite song, Michale?

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I stayed up, just for you.

    Awwww, that's sweet.. : D

    He would if he could, Michale … we have our very own equivalent of the Republican party up here, you know ..

    Has Trudeau made ANY effort to address the mental health aspect of mass murder events??

    Nope.... He wants to play politics and just do the popular thing and ban non-existent entities like boogeyman "assault rifles"...

    Please, please, please can we have a rational discussion about the allegations against Biden without your usual rantings and ravings and posting what other people think?

    I have never NOT been rational..

    But to be honest, you and I are on the same page.. We both feel that the credibility and seriousness of the accusation of rape warrant a federal investigation..

    So, we really don't have anything left to disagree on..

    Except maybe the future of the Joe Biden campaign..

    If one or two more people come forward with similar rape accusations, it's all over for Biden..

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope Biden is the next president. And, I think you hope for the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden Is Cooked

    Apart from the accumulated limitations of the former vice president’s performance as a functioning candidate, there are other problems already clawing at him or waiting to pounce.

    Despite polls showing that he leads President Trump in key states and in the country overall, there remains something seriously missing and not credible in the putative presidential nomination of Joe Biden.

    The polls are never accurate with Trump, and there is both a reticence by his supporters to identify themselves and some sampling errors by the main polling organizations because of the unusually high numbers of people this president draws to the polls in his support who are not otherwise frequent voters.

    The real test of these matters is how the people vote, and the country saw Joe Biden come in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, and descend to 11 percent in that state’s Democratic primary. Generally, no candidate in either party is nominated who loses badly in New Hampshire.

    It did not require a resurrected Alexis de Tocqueville to observe that Biden’s sudden emergence from punch-drunk Palooka on the ropes to the anointed nominee in two weeks was not entirely spontaneous. In a formidable display of professionalism, the Democratic Party elders carried him to the finish line on March 3, knocking Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren out of the race and obtaining endorsements of Biden from three of them.
    https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-is-cooked/

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn.

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn, Michale.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's your favourite song, Michale?

    That's a tough question..

    I have so many... Probably at this current time..

    BETTER DIG TWO by The Band Perry

    YOU LOOK GOOD by Lady Antebellum is also awesome..

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What does 'Lady Antebellum' mean?

    I like 'I need you'.

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Or is it, Need you now?

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Damn, Michale.

    It's real simple, Liz..

    These questions, these issues *ARE* going to come out.. The rape, Hunter, Ukraine etc etc etc.. ALL of these are going to come out in gusto after July, after Biden is the official nominee.. If he makes it that far..

    Don't you think it's better to get ahead of them... Not be caught flat-footed with just a blanket "Uh... It didn't happen"...

    I am doing you people a service here...

    AVAIL yerselves of it..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have the results of John Durham's investigation into the criminal malfeasance of the Obama administration coming out in a month or two..

    Don't you think it wise to be PREPARED for that??

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What do you want us to do?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or is it, Need you now?

    Actually, NEED YOU NOW is another Lady Antebellum song..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM213aMKTHg

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:
  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Really nice videos, Michale.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the media and Democrats thought that they could get away with their despicable behavior with Kavanaugh and then turn around and attempt to bury a sexual assault allegation against Biden, they were sorely mistaken.

    Since the media and Democrats don’t have consistent standards for how they deal with accusations of sexual assault, they are facing consequences. It’s an incredibly low bar, but there is no question that Tara Reade’s claim against Biden is significantly stronger than Blasey Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh.

    For instance, Reade has evidence she met Biden. No one disputes she worked for him in 1993. Further, she has incredibly strong evidence that she told multiple people that Biden assaulted her at the time she claimed it happened. Her own mother called into CNN’s Larry King show to discuss the matter in 1993! Blasey Ford’s story changed in the recent years she began telling it, but was not told for several decades and not before Kavanaugh had become a nationally known figure.

    None of this is to say that Biden is guilty, but the media and Democrats sure as hell are. They were willing to destroy a man’s life over far weaker claims, so they in no way can excuse ignoring Reade’s claim. Whether or not the media and Democrats want to acknowledge the growing anger over their despicable double standards, the anger is not going away.

    I know this is painful for some of you to hear..

    But my sympathy is VERY tempered by the memory of how ya'all reacted and played the Blasey-Ford and the Julie Swetnick bullshit accusations..

    Ya'all made this bed and now ya'all want to complain you have to lie in it???

    You'll forgive me if I don't go along...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really nice videos, Michale.

    Yea, they are...

    Here's bit darker of one..

    BETTER DIG TWO
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIdCo_QAz_E

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen noted the consequences of Biden’s crusade in The New Yorker last year. “In recent years,” she wrote, “it has become commonplace to deny accused students access to the complaint, the evidence, the identities of witnesses, or the investigative report, and to forbid them from questioning complainants or witnesses … According to K.C. Johnson, a professor at Brooklyn College and an expert on Title IX lawsuits, more than four hundred students accused of sexual misconduct since 2011 have sued their schools under federal or state laws — in many cases, for sex discrimination under Title IX. While many of the lawsuits are still ongoing, nearly half of the students who have sued have won favorable court rulings or have settled with the schools.”

    Get unlimited access to Intelligencer and everything else New York
    LEARN MORE »
    On Friday’s Morning Joe, Biden laid out a simple process for judging him: Listen respectfully to Tara Reade, and then check for facts that prove or disprove her specific claim. The objective truth, Biden argued, is what matters. I agree with him. But this was emphatically not the standard Biden favored when judging men in college. If Biden were a student, under Biden rules, Reade could file a claim of assault, and Biden would have no right to know the specifics, the evidence provided, who was charging him, who was a witness, and no right to question the accuser. Apply the Biden standard for Biden, have woke college administrators decide the issue in private, and he’s toast.

    Under Biden, Title IX actually became a force for sex discrimination — as long as it was against men. Emily Yoffe has done extraordinary work exposing the injustices of the Obama-Biden sexual-harassment regime on campus, which have mercifully been pared back since. But she has also highlighted Biden’s own zeal in the cause. He brushed aside most legal defenses against sexual harassment. In a speech at the University of Pittsburgh in 2016, for example, Biden righteously claimed that it was an outrage that any woman claiming sexual assault should have to answer questions like “Were you drinking?” or “What did you say?” “These are questions that angered me then and anger me now.” He went on: “No one, particularly a court of law, has a right to ask any of those questions.”

    It's a good thing Tara Reade and Joe Biden weren't on a college campus...

    Biden would be sunk...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whitmer, possible Biden VP pick and a rape survivor, says ‘women should be able to tell their stories’
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/whitmer-possible-biden-vp-pick-and-rape-survivor-says-women-should-be-able-to-tell-their-stories

    Once again, dumbshit Dumbocrats try to change the issue because they KNOW that their bullshit ALL WOMEN ARE TO BE BELIEVED is untenable...

    It's like Dumbocrats think the American people are stoopid and don't realize how utterly ridiculous Dumbocrats sound for changing their stories...

    Americans will remember come November..

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I see you, I hear you, I believe you.. I carry you in my heart every day, and I’ll never stop fighting for you.
    Except for Tara Reade.. I don't believe her..”

    -Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

    The blatant hypocrisy from the Democrat Party is as blatant as it is nauseating..

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW_
    What the FUDGE is wrong with you?

    Schumer is the MIDOTW because he started spewing the Dem bullPOOP and seems willing to take on the Republicans earlier than usual?

    That may be the best the Dems have got- but it is not impressive at all.

    Let me know when Schumer changes the narrative from the same old bullPOOP and takes on the big money interests by advocating for Emergency Political Contribution Vouchers. Then I might be impressed.

    You are clearly much more disappointing than the Clintons (Quite a feat!). Wasting time with nonsense distraction issues like Tara Reade while ignoring that both CMPs are responsible for our current situation due to their reliance on big money is dissappointing and a disservice to people that depend on the media to provide honest efforts to address reality and inform citizens.

    Once again it must be asked:

    How is inappropriately "screwing" with one person at time more important than inappropriately screwing millions of people for decades with the lies of the Dem narrative?

    Wake up. Wise up Rise up.
    Get Real.

  78. [78] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    How can you keep ignoring that when people say "You're killing me with your bullPOOP big money two party narrative" they are now being LITERAL?

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    How can you keep ignoring that when people say "You're killing me with your bullPOOP big money two party narrative"

    The Weigantian official term is "MOOSE POOP"...

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Whitmer, possible Biden VP pick ...

    Please, say THAT ain't so!

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Weigantian official term is "MOOSE POOP"...

    Indeed.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale [74],

    Do you have a link for that 2016 Biden speech?

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Another shoe ALWAYS drops... And I am constrained to point out you were ALL IN for false accusations during the Blasey-Ford bullshit.. Hell, you even believed Julie Swetnick, which is a HUGE blemish on an otherwise sterling record... :^/

    I don't think so ...

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    i'd wager don doesn't care about adhering to the norms of our community, except to the extent that he faces the possibility of being banned from it.

    this problem would all be resolved if only don would stop demanding some namby pamby campaign finance voucher and start demanding pie.

    JL

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i agree with michale that another shoe always drops, irrespective of whether it is an actual shoe or an astroturf shoe. do you really think the lack of real evidence would prevent donald from hiring somebody to "create" some?

    JL

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, Joshua, you are right about that. Which is why I am so very worried about it.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The 'I don't think so' remark was about something else. :)

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Besides, I understand that there are many 'shoes to drop' when it comes to Biden. It's just that they are virtually all without a lot of merit. Which is why the idea of all of his senate papers being made public is more than worrisome.

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, yes ... what Trump & Co are capable of terrifies me.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    }}}}Another shoe ALWAYS drops... And I am constrained to }}}}point out you were ALL IN for false accusations during }}}}the Blasey-Ford bullshit.. Hell, you even believed }}}}Julie Swetnick, which is a HUGE blemish on an otherwise }}}}sterling record... :^/

    I don't think so ...

    I know so..

    It was ya'all's support of Swetnick that caused me to leave the forum for 6 months out of disgust for how low ya'all stooped in the name of Party slavery and bigotry..

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's water under the bridge so I won't even bother quoting ya'all from that disgraceful time period..

    :D

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because you don't have any quotes like that of me.

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I suspect you won't find any from Joshua, either.

    But, have fun trying, Michale.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because you don't have any quotes like that of me.

    I do... But proving it serves no useful purpose..

    I suspect you won't find any from Joshua, either.

    Actually, it was the quotes from you AND Joshua re: your support of Swetnick that cut the deepest..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't some libtard moron Democrat from here say Kim Un was dead??? :D

    North Korea releases pictures showing Kim Jong Un's first public appearance in weeks
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/north-korea-pictures-kim-jong-un-alive

    WRONG again.. :D

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're full of shit, Michale.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did I tell ya I've been binging on Homeland? Heh.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're full of shit, Michale.

    Nope.. I am abso-tively not.. :D

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The phrase is 'absolutely, positively, unequivocally'. Get used to it!

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    sheesh. michale, i think you must have gotten my comments and liz's confused with somebody else's. here's what i said about it at the time:

    as yet, the facts are inconclusive. a short delay to seek out enough information to conclusively incriminate or exculpate is not exactly a tragedy.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/09/25/president-laughingstock/#comment-128345

    was there something else?

    JL

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In fact, Joshua, I can remember that you and I were trying to give Kavanagh an 'out' of sorts ...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that you gave Swetnick's bullshit accusations even THAT much credit was bad...

    I mean, com'on! Kavanaugh was the head of a child rape ring.. And the accusation comes from a college WOMAN who attended at least TEN of those child rape parties???

    "facts are inconclusive", my ass...

    Obama raped Milia... The facts that say this are "inconclusive"...

    Has the same sick ring to it... :^/

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    And that wasn't your sole Swetnick support comment either..

    But why relive it??

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    There were absolutely ***NO FACTS*** to support Swetnick's bullshit accusation.

    NONE....

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your silence acknowledges this FACT...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York Times calls for DNC investigation into Biden sexual assault claims
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ny-times-dnc-investigation-biden

    Anyone disagree with this call???

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    “As is so often the case in such situations, it is all but impossible to be certain of the truth. But the stakes are too high to let the matter fester — or leave it to be investigated by and adjudicated in the media. Mr. Biden is seeking the nation’s highest office,”

    Hmmmmm Something I was saying over a week ago... :D

    Once again, my prediction turns out to be fact.. :D

  108. [108] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    swetnick's accusation turned out to be on the weaker side, and her lawyer avenatti's fabrication of corroborating evidence did her no favors. however, blasey-ford's testimony came first, and is still credible. she said NOTHING about a "child rape ring" - nor did any of kavanaugh's other accusers.

    what blasey-ford said was that kavanaugh was so drunk off his arse that he attempted to rape her and seemed to think it was funny, but his friend accidentally rescued her by jumping on them both. she stood by that story, and never said anything else happened to her, only that there were rumors that it had happened to others at the time. although she was technically a minor at the time, so was kavanaugh, and both were at least around the age of consent. this was the most credible of the accusations against him, but even if true it wasn't legally actionable.

    deborah ramirez said kavanaugh went up to her at a college party and smacked her in the face with his penis, and seemed to think it was funny. she recanted that testimony because she said she couldn't be certain it was him.

    julie swetnick said that kavanaugh and the same friend conspired to get college girls such as herself stone drunk and then rape them, one after the other. this is the closest thing to what you're saying, but there were no children alleged to have been involved, except perhaps accidentally if they attended the college and appeared to be college-age. swetnick also recanted her testimony that she directly observed kavanaugh "spiking the punch," or participating in the assaults such as the one she said she experienced, but she maintained that she saw him present at the time she had that experience, for which a police report was filed right away.

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet (84)-
    It depends on how you define the norms.

    The norms seem to be as long as you agree with the crowd anything you say or do is okay. Anyone not agreeing with the crowd is violating the norms when they do the same thing.

    So FUDGE the norms here.

    As for the part about the problem being solved, it depends on how you define the problem.

    Many here seem to think the problem is me posting my opinion and exposing the bullPOOP of the big money two party deception.

    I think the problem is that the big money two party deception that has been quietly killing people and democracy for decades has now been exposed with too many visible deaths and destruction and people still keep buying the bullPOOP.

    You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    Take responsibility for your failure to admit you have been mistaken in supporting the big money politicians and demand better.

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I admire your patience, Joshua.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    swetnick's accusation turned out to be on the weaker side, and her lawyer avenatti's fabrication of corroborating evidence did her no favors. however, blasey-ford's testimony came first, and is still credible. she said NOTHING about a "child rape ring" - nor did any of kavanaugh's other accusers.

    At the time, we were talking SOLELY about Swetnick's accusation...

    Now, if you want to concede here and now that it was an UTTERLY ridiculous accusation with it's SOLE function to serve as a Shock Value accusation (much as my Obama Raped Malia claim) and had NO BASIS in fact at ANY time in ANY way, shape or form...

    We can lay the matter to rest..

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that, at the time, ya'all found Avanetti credible as well... :D

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    julie swetnick said that kavanaugh and the same friend conspired to get college girls such as herself stone drunk and then rape them, one after the other.

    Not factually accurate..

    Swetnick's claim was that she SAW Kavanaugh organize child rape gangs...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    deborah ramirez said kavanaugh went up to her at a college party and smacked her in the face with his penis, and seemed to think it was funny. she recanted that testimony because she said she couldn't be certain it was him.

    Which has nothing to do with what we were discussing..

    Then or now...

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    julie swetnick said that kavanaugh and the same friend conspired to get college girls such as herself stone drunk and then rape them, one after the other.

    New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped
    The lawyer Michael Avenatti on Wednesday identified another accuser of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, Washington resident Julie Swetnick.
    Swetnick, in an affidavit posted online by Avenatti, claims that Kavanaugh, as a high school student in the early 1980s, with others spiked the drinks of girls at house parties with grain alcohol and/or drugs to "cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.' "
    Swetnick said these efforts by Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were done so the girls "could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."

    That is what Swetnick said..

    Nothing like what you claimed Swetnick said..

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny.. Ya'all are denying that, back then, you said Swetnick and Avanetti had any credibility..

    But you refuse to acknowledge in the here and now, that the DIDN'T have any credibility..

    Ya'all can't have it both ways...

    It's against the rules.. :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Last year, this board advocated strongly for a vigorous inquiry into accusations of sexual misconduct raised against Brett Kavanaugh when he was nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court. Mr. Biden’s pursuit of the presidency requires no less,” the board said. “His campaign, and his party, have a duty to assure the public that the accusations are being taken seriously. The Democratic National Committee should move to investigate the matter swiftly and thoroughly, with the full cooperation of the Biden campaign.”

    The Times argued that for the probe to be a “serious inquiry,” it must include a search through the records in the University of Delaware: “No relevant memo should be left unexamined.”

    What say ya'all???

    Full disclosure of all the Biden Delaware records???

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all agree to that and we really have nothing to debate re: the Tara Reade rape criminal complaint..

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Post says: #MeToo hypocrisy of Joe Biden, Democrats exposed

    The #MeToo hypocrites who've gone silent for Joe Biden
    Remember “Believe All Women”? The rallying cry for Democrats and their allies in their bid to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is out the window now, not two years later. They insist that Tara Reade’s charge that her then-boss sexually assaulted her is not to be believed because — in Nancy Pelosi’s phrase — “Joe Biden is Joe Biden.”

    In other words, they were never actually committed to the principle they used to try to destroy a man’s career and reputation. To them, it all depends on the man in question, not the woman.

    Biden finally made his first statement about the allegation Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” It had been a month since Reade accused Biden of violating her when she worked for him in the Senate in 1993, but not one interviewer had asked the de facto Democratic nominee about it until Mika Brzezinski stepped up.

    “Unequivocally it never, never happened,” Biden said, calling on the National Archives to release any complaint Reade might have made that it has on file.

    But he won’t release papers from his tenure in the Senate (held by the University of Delaware) and refused to answer Brzezinski when she repeatedly asked if he’d allow a search of Reade’s name to be done on them.

    And he offered this bizarre defensive statement: “I don’t know why after 27 years all of a sudden this gets raised. I don’t understand it.”

    Really? Reade came forward when it became clear Biden would be the Democratic nominee for the highest land in the office — and no Democrat seemed puzzled that Christine Blasey Ford came forward in 2018, as Kavanaugh was headed to the highest court in the land, with an even older claim about something she said happened when they were in high school.
    https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/post-says-metoo-hypocrisy-of-joe-biden-democrats-exposed/

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    When the judge was confirmed, Pelosi declared, “Senate Republicans chose to send a clear message to all women: Do not speak out, and if you do — do not expect to be heard, believed or respected.” Now she says Reade shouldn’t be believed because Biden is a man of “great integrity.”

    We don’t know what happened in that Senate office in 1993. Some Reade friends recall her telling them years ago about the incident, and her mom called into “Larry King Live” that year talking about a staffer having “problems” with “a prominent senator.” Eight women, including Reade, a year ago said Biden had a pattern of touching females in a way that made them uncomfortable.

    Still, the #MeToo group Times Up Now has reiterated its support for Biden, as have a litany of top Democratic women.

    Biden sighed when Brzezinski asked him, “Are women to be believed unless it pertains to you?” But everyone in his party needs to answer that very question.

    Joe Biden did more than "sigh".. He also froze for almost 10 seconds when Brezenski asked him if he would authorize U of Delaware to release his Senate records..

    That proves right there that Joe Biden is lying..

    But hay.. I could be wrong.. Let's have a FULL investigation including a full transparent release of the UofD records..

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, do you know why Biden froze when asked about releasing his senate records?

    Because he has been burned by the media so many times that it's a wonder he's still around, much less on the verge of becoming POTUS.

    I think it's safe to say that the media is chomping at the bit at the prospects of getting his records in the middle of a presidential campaign - for all the wrong reasons.

    I would have thought that you, of all people, would understand that. But you are so hell bent on seeing his campaign ruined that you are blinded to everything else.

    That's what I hate most about your comments these days.

    Why do you think he should release all of his senate papers. Why not just have them searched for anything related to Reade? Wouldn't the be the reasonable approach to this?

    You like to think of yourself as being reasonable. But, you are not.

  122. [122] 
    dsws wrote:

    Michale, why are you going on endlessly insisting on the police report being a "criminal complaint" instead of a police report?

    "Like a civil complaint, this is a written document filed by a state or federal prosecutor"
    https://dictionary.thelaw.com/criminal-complaint/

    You've proven that you can annoy me enough to get me to respond. But why?

  123. [123] 
    dsws wrote:

    “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time,” Biden said.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-brett-kavanaugh-anita-hill_n_5ba0714de4b046313fbe8f84

    Start from the presumption. That doesn't mean ignoring evidence to the contrary. When there are people who should be able to corroborate an allegation, and they don't, that gets weighed along with other evidence. When there should be records that can be found, and they can't be, that gets weighed along with the rest of the evidence.

    I'm sure there are people who said unreasonably absolute things about believing accusers. But this quote isn't one of them.

  124. [124] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 [108],

    Great recap of the allegations made against Kavanaugh!

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wouldn't mind if the comments sections were closed down everyday between the hours of, say, 1am and 6am. Heh.

  126. [126] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m/r

    of the 3 main kavanaugh accusers, swetnick is actually the most similar to tara reade.

    JL

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Is this thing going to get out of control?

  128. [128] 
    dsws wrote:

    I think Biden has an opportunity.

    He could make a big speech, and focus on the option of his removal as nominee. The important thing about any politician's response to any question is not how it addresses that question, but how it addresses the other issues behind it. If Biden makes it clear that he is willing to do the right thing now, that addresses the issue of whether he acted properly in other situations. If he quotes his own statement, and shows that he is willing to abide by its implications, he addresses the question of Democratic hypocrisy on #MeToo. He should emphasize that the presumption of innocence, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, apply to criminal prosecution. He should work with the other campaigns (which are suspended, not ended), primarily the Bernie Sanders campaign, to ensure that his running mate is acceptable to all delegates as a backup nominee, so that the convention won't be contested if he steps down. He should explain the difference between factual innocence, and having overcome the presumption of honesty that all accusers are entitled to. He should tell us that he knows he's innocent, that's not enough. To accept the nomination in good conscience, he needs to have evidence that justifies the rest of us being confident that he's innocent. He doesn't need to go into detail about actually presenting the evidence. Surrogates and the media will do that.

    If the narrative is that he's a good guy who's doing the right thing by being ready and willing to step down if the evidence of his innocence isn't strong enough, that makes it a lot easier for the public to decide that the evidence is strong enough.

    He still wouldn't be my first-choice nominee. But I would be able to really vote for him instead of casting an identical ballot as a vote against Trump.

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He should explain the difference between factual innocence, and having overcome the presumption of honesty that all accusers are entitled to.

    All accusers are entitled to the presumption of honesty!?

    Why?

  130. [130] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Liz-

    No. Tara Reade is folding like a deck of cards. I think she is up to her 6th version of the her story. She has been caught trying to update old blog posts to make them match her current version of the story, back peddling on what paperwork might back her up. I guess she didn't plan on Biden's call for transparency. Or didn't plan at all.

    Another of Biden's accusers, turns out Biden was not even at the event it was said to have happened at, as reported in the press at the time.

    This swiftboating is sinking fast...

    And I think Michale knows it, that's why he has been steering the conversation here to Kavanaugh.

  131. [131] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But let's not forget:

    Ivana Trump (1989), Jill Harth (1992), E. Jean Carroll (1995 or 1996), Summer Zervos (2007), Alva Johnson (2019), Jessica Leeds (1980s), Kristin Anderson (1990s), Lisa Boyne (1996), Cathy Heller (1997), Temple Taggart McDowell (1997), Karena Virginia (1998), Mindy McGillivray (2003), Jennifer Murphy (2005), Rachel Crooks (2005), Natasha Stoynoff (2005), Juliet Huddy (2005 or 2006), Jessica Drake (2006), Ninni Laaksonen (2006), Cassandra Searles (2013), Mariah Billado, Victoria Hughes, and three other Miss Teen USA contestants (1997), Bridget Sullivan (2000), Tasha Dixon (2001), Samantha Holvey (2006)

    +43 others…

    Or the total incompetency of the Trump Administration in the coronavirus response.

    67,300 Americans dead due to Coronavirus and counting...

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    because most sex offenses happen in private, and because there tends to be large negative consequences for coming forward, it makes sense, at least initially, to take allegations of sex crimes at face value. although in most cases it's VERY hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the alleged victim should at least be entitled to all the same rights afforded the alleged perpetrator.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    OMG!! Been having withdrawals all morning!! :D

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dan,

    Michale, why are you going on endlessly insisting on the police report being a "criminal complaint" instead of a police report?

    Semantics... A police report filed by a citizen is a criminal complaint..

    You can split hairs all you want.. But facts are facts..

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    of the 3 main kavanaugh accusers, swetnick is actually the most similar to tara reade.

    So, you are saying she is credible.. OK.. :D

    Regardless, of the 4, Reade is the most credible as she has people who backed her up that she told people about the rape..

    None of the other 3 Kavanaugh accusers had that..

    By that factor alone, Reade is more credible..

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of you are ignoring the Mika Brezenski interview...

    Why??

    Because it TOTALLY decimates Joe Biden's credibility...

  137. [137] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @dan,

    i think you never really liked biden as a nominee and are engaged in a bit of wishful thinking. however, you're right that a "big speech" on the subject, like the one obama gave in response to the controversy over reverend wright, would definitely be a good thing.

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90040477

  138. [138] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    i didn't ignore it, i watched it, and i didn't agree with your take.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/30/program-note-80/#comment-158476

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Semantics... A police report filed by a citizen is a criminal complaint..

    You can split hairs all you want.. But facts are facts..

    At the time, it was stated that the reason Blasey-Ford et al did NOT file a police report/criminal complaint was because they didn't want to get caught up with a perjury rap...

    For all intents and purposes, a police report is a criminal complaint.. But a criminal complaint is not always a police report...

    I am surprised I have to explain this to someone of your demonstrated intelligence..

    But you have no LEO experience so I guess it's not that surprising..

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    My apologies, JL.. I did miss that one..

    i watched it, without sound and then with. it honestly didn't look like a blank stare to me. what i saw was him looking into the camera, frowning and slightly shaking his head. what about his body language looked deer-in-headlights to you?

    The fact that he blank-stared for almost 10 seconds.. Time it.. You'll see...

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    OMG!! Been having withdrawals all morning!! :D

    I understand you're going to have to find another time to comment. :)

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    That goes without saying.

    I just think that we cannot start from the premise that all accusers are entitled to be believed because that is an asinine notion.

    In this case, I trust Biden completely. I can say that because I know him well enough to know that this didn't happen.

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    Why do you think she's doing it? Did she think Biden is like every other politician she may have run into? I just don't understand what is motivating her or what is behind her allegation and if there is something behind it why can't it be uncovered????

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm guessing that there are many Democrats, perhaps even a majority, who would like to use these false allegations as a ruse to demand a convention fight and a new nominee.

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I just think that we cannot start from the premise that all accusers are entitled to be believed because that is an asinine notion.

    And yet, I said nearly the ***EXACT*** same thing during the Kavanaugh lynching and EACH and EVERY ONE of ya'all argued with me and said I was full of shit..

    I just don't understand what is motivating her or what is behind her allegation and if there is something behind it why can't it be uncovered????

    Biden can put this ***ALL*** to rest....

    Release the UofD records...

    WHY won't he??

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    I had a whole litany of comments lined up..

    But then I got tied up with other things..

    So, frack it.. I might catch up the morning..

    I might not.. We'll see how it goes.. :D

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's try it this way..

    Is there anyone here who DOESN'T think Joe Biden should be committed to FULL transparency and release the University of Delaware records???

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, I said nearly the ***EXACT*** same thing during the Kavanaugh lynching and EACH and EVERY ONE of ya'all argued with me and said I was full of shit..

    In other words, ***NO ONE*** sans yours truly said that ALL WOMEN ARE TO BE BELIEVE was anything but a factual and valid statement..

    It's only an issue *NOW* because it's a Democrat nominee for POTUS is the one being accused..

  149. [149] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Quit playing Michale’s game! He is playing you like a fiddle right now by getting you upset with his bogus take on this story!

    Biden does not need to “prove his innocence”, he has denied doing it and there is no actual evidence that contradicts that claim. He shouldn’t release his papers because there is no reason to do her job for her in finding evidence that could be twisted and damage his candidacy.

    You have people like Michale who believe a sigh is evidence of Biden’s guilt, yet listened to Trump brag about committing sexual assault on multiple women and refuse to accept that he is guilty... which should be reason enough not to listen to anything he says! Fact is, he knows Biden is innocent and that Trump is a pathetic, lying bag of dicks who creates these false news stories to hurt those he opposes. This is what the National Enquirer did for him for decades; why would anyone think Trump would suddenly stop doing this just because he is president?

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    President George W. Bush has released a wonderful message to Americans about unity of purpose in the fight against this virus.

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1256607729151619073

    I just love it when people channel Dr. Tedros/

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can't help it if I'm worried, Russ.

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Quit playing Michale’s game! He is playing you like a fiddle right now by getting you upset with his bogus take on this story!

    Thanks for that.

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Biden does not need to “prove his innocence”,

    Why not??

    According to you, Kavanaugh had to prove his..

    Funny how you sing the EXACT opposite tune when it's a guy with a -D after his name being accused of rape..

    yet listened to Trump brag about committing sexual assault on multiple women and refuse to accept that he is guilty...

    Actually, President Trump said nothing of the sort..

    Buy why let FACTS ruin your perfectly good hysterical rant..

    he has denied doing it and there is no actual evidence that contradicts that claim.

    Factually not accurate..

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Here, sadly, is who's playing Michale's game:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/28/tara-reade-accusation-puts-democratic-voters-in-a-tough-spot/

    And, that is what has been upsetting, to say the least.

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Russ, the comments that are worrisome to me are not here.

    I have found that whenever I make a comment on an opinion piece at the NYTimes in support of Biden, one percent or less of the commenters agree. Most are still hoping Bernie or Cuomo will eventually be the Democratic nominee when all is said and done.

  156. [156] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Is there anyone here who DOESN'T think Joe Biden should be committed to FULL transparency and release the University of Delaware records???

    Lets see Trump's full tax records first. If the GOP wants a fishing expedition they have to provide one of their own...

    67,958 Americans dead due to Coronavirus and counting...

  157. [157] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Liz-

    Never comment in the comments section of a major media outlets. They are cesspools of hate and propaganda from every political direction you can think of and a few you have never considered. Plus they usually get so many replies that anything you post disappears in the flood.

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here, sadly, is who's playing Michale's game:

    He get's it right now and again.. :D

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides.. You've agreed that full transparency is warranted..

    What's there left to debate, Liz???

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Here, sadly, is who's playing Michale's game:

    He get's it right now and again.. :D

    Don't feel too bad..

    I have always said, if yer getting slapped from BOTH sides, ya must be doing something right.. :D

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justin Haskins: Joe Biden's poll numbers — he's in trouble with this key voting bloc

    Following his disastrous showings in the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Joe Biden’s campaign appeared to be on the verge of collapse.

    But then, something remarkable happened: The Democratic Party’s establishment wing decided that despite Biden’s generally poor debate performances, incoherent ramblings and a troubling sexual assault allegation, his allegedly “moderate” policy proposals would be far more palatable to voters in key swing states than the radical policies offered by self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — who, at the time, seemed poised to capture the party’s nomination.

    In the blink of an eye, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race and as a result, Biden enjoyed a truly remarkable turnaround on Super Tuesday, winning far more delegates than Sanders. Comrade Bernie was never able to make up the ground he lost on Super Tuesday and eventually dropped out of the race as a result, effectively handing the nomination to Biden.

    Make no mistake about it: Biden was and is a terrible candidate. He is a gaffe-machine, a longtime establishment politician with his fair share of controversies and scandals and despite moving extremely far to the left over the course of the 2020 election cycle, he has yet to be adopted by the progressive or socialist wings of the party. Biden was ultimately chosen for one reason and one reason only: He was considered by many within the party to be the most electable candidate remaining.

    Unfortunately for Democrats, new evidence seems to suggest the Biden electability argument might be severely flawed. Not only is Biden facing immense pressure from an army of angry Bernie acolytes over a sexual assault claim made by former Senate aide Tara Reade, but recent polling also suggests support for Biden among young voters – a key demographic for Democrats – might be much weaker than anyone realized, even in head-to-head matchups with Donald Trump.

    According to an extensive survey by the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government released in late April, only 34 percent of Americans aged 18 to 29 say they have a favorable view of the former vice president, with just 8 percent saying they have a “very favorable” opinion of Biden. In the same survey, 47 percent of young people said they have an unfavorable view of Biden.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/justin-haskins-joe-bidens-poll-numbers-hes-in-trouble-with-this-key-voting-bloc

    Since ya'all love polls so much.. :D

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tara Reade is not going away..

    As long as Joe Biden continues to dodge transparency and continues to bullshit his way past the accusations...

    He will continue to falter...

    All it's going to take is for one more accusation... And he is toast..

    As an aside, JL...

    If Biden is the nominee but gets replaced (or dies) during the general, we call our bet a push and we both are free to vote how we wish..???

    Deal???

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Are you a spoiler?': why critics fear Amash's Libertarian bid may ensure a Trump win
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/03/justin-amash-libertarian-2020-election-trump-win-critics

    ANY 3rd Party run.. By ANYONE...

    Will ensure a President Trump re-election....

    It's just one of the many things that guarantees a President Trump re-election..

    It's gonna be a LOT of fun around here starting 4 Nov... :D

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    San Francisco police chief nixes officers' 'Thin Blue Line' coronavirus masks, reports say
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/sf-police-chief-thin-blue-line-coronavirus-masks-rejected

    Why are Democrats such cop-hating morons..

    Russ, you should be ashamed of yourself for being a Democrat...

  165. [165] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Let us review: All of Trump's alleged sexual misconduct. Don't forget to read Trump's responses...

    68,049 Americans dead due to Coronavirus and counting...

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    Never comment in the comments section of a major media outlets.

    I've had great luck with the NYTimes and my experience on the whole has been good. Mostly because I know who and what to avoid.

  167. [167] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    San Francisco police chief nixes officers' 'Thin Blue Line' coronavirus masks, reports say

    Dear GOD, you are such a lying POS! What does this have to do with Democrats? Did you not bother to read this article or any other articles online that reported on this before spewing your ignorant comments?

    The chief acknowledged that while the flag was originally meant as a tribute to fallen officers, Blue Lives Matters has tainted it by adopting it as their symbol — turning it into a political statement. The department’s policies restrict on-duty officers from wearing items that endorse any political movement.

    But you just had to twist the truth to fit your hateful views... Karma would be you sneezing and coughing every time you misrepresent the truth on here!

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hear fiddle music.

  169. [169] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ahem.

  170. [170] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump bragging how he just does what he wants to women without bothering to first get consent:

    Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."

    Bush: "Whatever you want."

    Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Say, am I the only one around here who seems to be doing dishes all the time ever since this pandemic took off??

  172. [172] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I hear fiddle music.

    Good one....Only Michale isn’t upsetting me, I find him laughable and I have quoted many of his arguments when debating friends and family on how destructive the Republicans truly have become.

    Michale views are to many Republicans what Westboro Baptist Church is to how Christians view homosexuals — they are so toxic that no one wants to be compared to or associated with them!

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're on the same page, Russ. :)

  174. [174] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[162]

    agreed.

    JL

  175. [175] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    but if some similar act of god happens to donald at any time between now and november 3, our wager continues as originally planned, right? biden is nominated, you vote for him; biden withdraws prior to the nomination, i vote for pence or whomever else the GOP puts forth. gosh, it really doesn't sound too far-fetched at all now that it's sitting there on my screen.

    JL

  176. [176] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz [171]

    nope. our dishwasher is broken and our building stopped allowing appliance installations since covid.

    JL

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    it's nice to have company, even if you did have a dishwasher

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    And when you're a star they let you do it.

    What part of "LET" (IE permission) do you not understand???

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    gosh, it really doesn't sound too far-fetched at all now that it's sitting there on my screen.

    Joe Biden vapor-locking is a lot less far-fetched..

    President Trump THRIVES on the stress...

    For Biden, it will likely kill him..

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that when the NY GRIME, **THE** water carrier for the Democrat Party, starts calling on Biden to confess his sins...

    Ya'all just HAVE to know it's over for Joe Biden...

    What part of THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY do ya'all simply refuse to understand???

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dan Gainor: Even anti-Trump NY Times wants Biden sexual assault allegation investigated – Bad news for Dems
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-gainor-even-anti-trump-ny-times-wants-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-investigated-bad-news-for-dems

    Bad news for Biden... Bad news for the Democrat Party

    Great news for President Trump...

    We should have a contest here.. EVERY Weigantian loves contests...

    We should all predict the date of the next Joe Biden rape accusation...

    And maybe a bonus pick of what state she (or he) will hail from...

    I'll start us off...

    First off, it will be a woman... She'll be from Delaware... And it will be around 1 Jun that she comes forward with a new rape incident against Joe Biden...

    Those are my predictions. What are yours? :D

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Vice President Joe Biden’s disastrous interview Friday on “Morning Joe” on MSNBC has caused more problems for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee than it solved. Biden’s denial of an allegation by a former member of his Senate staff that he sexually assaulted her in 1993 was followed Saturday by a call from The New York Times for a further investigation.

    When the paper dedicated to seeing Donald Trump become a one-term president turns on his challenger, you know the Democrats are facing a serious problem

    This is the same New York Times that earlier published an article saying it “found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden” after examining the assault allegation made by former Biden staffer Tara Reade. She alleges that 27 years ago then-Sen. Biden pushed her against a wall in the empty hallway of a Senate office building, reached under her skirt and penetrated her with his fingers.

    The Times Editorial Board said in its editorial that “the stakes are too high to let the matter fester – or leave it to be investigated by and adjudicated in the media.” This from the newspaper that attempted to do just that only a few weeks earlier.

    Biden’s MSNBC interview didn’t silence his critics – it emboldened them.

    “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski hit Biden on his hypocrisy, pointedly noting to him that “you said that women should be believed.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-gainor-even-anti-trump-ny-times-wants-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-investigated-bad-news-for-dems

    The Morning Joe interview was everything that President Trump wanted.. It had stammering and faltering.. It had Joe Biden going pale with every question..It had Joe Biden stare off into space for like 10 seconds..

    Every second of that interview is going to make an AWESOME President Trump Re-election campaign ad... :D

    Biden hoped the interview would put things to rest.. It did just the opposite.. It actually galvanized the most Democrat of Democrat media sources to call for full transparency...

    And, amazingly enough, it actually brought all those Weigantians with more than 2 brain cells to rub together under one single thought.

    Joe Biden must be totally and completely transparent and release his UofD records untouched and in their entirety..

    That's quite a feat of interviewee prowess... :D

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden’s answers about the alleged sexual assault against Reade were filled with enough stammers to make nice opposition commercials. What he might have assumed would be a softball interview by an anti-Trump cable news channel turned into hardball. And since we don’t have any sports to watch, a lot of people noticed.

    The very next day Biden got hit with criticism from The New York Times. The liberal newspaper went from covering up the allegations against Biden to suddenly wanting more detail.

    The Times editorial even called for an investigation into “the trove of records from Mr. Biden’s Senate career that he donated to the University of Delaware in 2012.” Biden rejected that idea during his ill-fated TV interview.

    The Times editorial was specific about the type of inquiry it wanted – but it’s not one voters could trust.

    “The Democratic National Committee should move to investigate the matter swiftly and thoroughly, with the full cooperation of the Biden campaign,” the Times editorial said.

    So the political party that is dominating the candidate it wants to defeat President Trump in November is also investigating the presumptive candidate? This is hardly convincing. In fact, it’s about as big a conflict of interest as anyone can imagine.

    Funny how the Times never called for the Republican National Committee to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election, but instead supported an inquiry by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Times also supported the House impeachment inquiry against Trump, rather than an RNC inquiry.

    Of course, the NY GRIME asking the DNC to investigate Biden's rape of Tara Reade is ridiculous... You don't get the criminals to investigate the rapist...

    But the NY GRIME is at least on the right track by telling Biden he needs full transparency of his UofD records...

    This is not going away people.. I said the same thing more than a week ago and I turned out to be dead on balls accurate..

    I believe it was Russ or Victoria who said this was going to fade away into nothing... :D

    Once again, they were wrong.. :D

    This is going to go on until President Trump wupps Biden's ass or until the rape accusations (both current and new ones) up and causes Joe Biden a fatal heart attack...

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    Finley: #MeToo movement loses its religion

    The movement that set the boundaries of what appropriate male/female interactions look like and finally held men accountable for crossing that line lost its righteousness this week.

    Few social crusades have been as impactful as the #MeToo movement. Powerful men in all sectors were brought down by accusations of sexual impropriety, many without a semblance of due process.

    But this past week some of the leading feminist figures in the nation lined up to endorse Joe Biden for president or to defend him against charges nearly identical to those used to crucify other men, most notably Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/05/03/finley-metoo-movement-loses-its-religion/3066605001/

    Who would have thought that the #METOO movement was nothing but a political mafia organization masquerading as a pro-woman group...

    Oh... wait... :D

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    On MSNBC Friday morning, host Mika Brzezinski gave Biden the toughest grilling he’s received on Reade’s allegations, noting his past profession that all women must be believed.

    Biden lied, saying what he really said was that all women must be heard. Where are the fact checkers who’ve honed their skills so fine on Trump?

    Any movement that lets in hypocrisy and inconsistency loses its credibility. And that’s what just happened to #MeToo.

    Again... Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this would happen.. :D

    Aren't ya'all glad ya'all have such an awesome prognosticator here :D

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    McDaniel: Media And Democrats Went From "Me Too, Me Too, Me Too," To "Move On, Move On, Move On"

    Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel accused Democrats and the mainstream media of hypocrisy for "ignoring" allegations of sexual assault against Joe Biden by Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer.

    "It went from MeToo, MeToo, MeToo, to Move on, Move on, Move on in a nanosecond because he’s a Democrat and the hypocrisy is appalling," she said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "And it’s not just from the Democrats, it’s from the media, and I’ll tell you, I think any outlet that conducted those 19 interviews and didn’t ask a single question should be disqualified from conducting any part of a presidential debate."
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/03/mcdaniel_media_and_democrats_went_from_me_too_me_too_me_too_to_move_on_move_on_move_on.html

    What so hilarious about all this is that ya'all actually believed that groups like #MeToo and #TimesUp were sincere pro-woman groups whose purpose was to hold men accountable..

    The FACTS clearly prove beyond any doubt that the groups exist just to hold REPUBLICAN men accountable and support Democrats who are rapists and serial sexual assaulters..

    Oh sure, the groups will throw out a lowly Dem foot soldier now and again to feign credibility...

    But the groups sole reason for existence is to rubber stamp powerful Democrat rapists like Joe Biden...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the plus side, #MeToo has a new slogan

    #MeToo busy to cover the allegations against Biden

    :eyeroll:

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lucy Flores
    Amy Lappos
    D.J. Hill
    Caitlyn Caruso
    Ally Coll
    Vail Kohnert-Yount
    Sofie Karasek
    Alexandra Tara Reade

    All of Joe Biden's sexual assault and rape victims..

    Anyone who doesn't see a pattern is willfully and maliciously blind..

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    J. Peder Zane: The mainstream media’s double standard shields Biden from the Kavanaugh treatment

    Most Americans are just learning that Joe Biden has been accused of sexual assault.

    When a former Senate staffer, Tara Reade, alleged on March 26 that Biden had forcibly “penetrated me with his fingers” in 1993, most media outlets decided to ignore her charge. The TV networks and prestige newspapers that devoted blanket coverage to similar charges lodged against Brett Kavanaugh and before him Donald Trump practiced an extreme form of social distancing toward Biden’s former aide. The New York Times and Washington Post waited three weeks before publishing highly skeptical articles about her charge. Then they dropped the matter.

    Biden was not asked about the allegation during April interviews on ABC, NBC, CNN and MSNBC.

    The mainstream media finally lifted its brownout late last month as corroboration of Reade’s story mounted: more friends and associates (almost all Democrats) say she had told them about the incident in mid-1990s and a tape emerged of what sounds like Reade’s mother calling into Larry King Live in August of 1993 alleging that “a prominent senator” had acted inappropriately toward her daughter.

    Once his media protectors dropped their shields, Biden was forced to officially deny the claim on May 1 issuing a statement that included the canard that Reade has changed her story. She has always said he touched her inappropriately, her recent statements identify the most extreme instance.

    Decades old charges of sexual assault are almost impossible to prove; we may never know what, if anything, happened between Biden and Reade. But there is no doubt the media has treated her far differently than Kavanaugh’s accusers.

    Unlike Reade, Kavanaugh’s main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, told no one for decades about the alleged attack. While Reade certainly worked for Biden, Blasey Ford had no evidence that she even knew Kavanaugh.

    But, reciting the mantra of the #MeToo movement, the press declared that no woman would make up such a story, so she must be believed.

    Reade has not been afforded such trust at Biden’s expense – and nor should she.

    Still, the reason the cases are receiving such different coverage is obvious: Biden is a Democrat and Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump.
    https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article242430041.html

    No one with more than 2 brain cells together can deny the media's and the Democrats' blatant hypocrisy and double standards..

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats and Covid

    http://sjfm.us/pics/DemocratsCovid.jpg

    It's amazing that Democrats actually THINK they have any kind of chance in Nov.. :D

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    But you just had to twist the truth to fit your hateful views... Karma would be you sneezing and coughing every time you misrepresent the truth on here!

    Says the moron who swore up and down that President Trump would be removed by the Democrats' faux impeachment coup..

    As always, you were full of shit..

    Just like you are full of shit..

    What does this cop-hate have to do with Democrats?? Because you and your bigoted Democrats are ALL ABOUT COP HATE...

    You denigrate and attack cops at every juncture..

    Cops no more co-opted the Blue Thin Line flag for political purposes any more than gay morons co-opted the rainbow for political purposes...

    You just hate cops like a good little Democrat slave...

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    And a Happy Star Wars day to all.. :D

    Except cop-hating bigots.. So that leaves most of ya'all out...

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Axelrod says Reade allegation never came up during 2008 Biden vetting
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/axelrod-says-reade-allegation-never-came-up-during-2008-biden-vetting

    And town drunk/slut Blasey-Ford's allegation never came up in Kavanaugh's vetting..

    What's the point???

    Like I said.. Tara Reade is NOT going away...

    Her rape criminal complaint is here to stay and WILL be part of the General Election..

    This is FACT...

  194. [194] 
    John M wrote:

    [55] Michale wrote:

    "JM,

    Criminal charges in ALL cases are on HOLD ONLY WHILE Trump holds the Office of President.

    Yea, and of course, Dumbocrats are willing to abide by President Trump's rules?? Nice try..

    Dumbocrats aren't pushing those cases, because there is nothing to push...

    You say "lawsuits" are going forward?? Big deal..

    We're talking CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, not lawsuits."

    In OTHER WORDS, ONCE AGAIN I have PROVEN you WRONG, and once again, you MOVE the GOALPOSTS after the fact. But then that has ALWAYS been your M.O. Michale.

    "Once again, you have to change the subject because I got you by the short and curlies..."

    NICE TRY. IF that day EVER comes, I will let you know!

    "Have a nice day... :D I know I will.."

    Thank you. I know I WILL TOO. :-D

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    So your response is to concede that you were full of shit.. The same full of shit when you claimed Hillary was going to be POTUS..

    And every full of shit President Trump prediction you have made since..

    I accept your concession..

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Go ahead... Give me a President Donald Trump prediction you made that actually came to pass...

    Just one..

    You can't do that because you have been WRONG ***EVERY*** time you made one...

    ***EVERY*** ***TIME***

  197. [197] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What part of "LET" (IE permission) do you not understand???

    that's getting consent after the fact (i.e. donald presumes consent because sometimes women don't say no after he grabs them).

  198. [198] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it being less difficult to obtain forgiveness for it after it was done, than permission for doing it.
    ~agnes strickland, 1846

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's getting consent after the fact (i.e. donald presumes consent because sometimes women don't say no after he grabs them).

    Semantics..

    It's still not a confession to sexual assault as Russ and Victoria like to claim it is..

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    At worst, it's boorish sexist locker room talk.. Nothing more...

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden did make one unforced error, which he'll hopefully reconsider soon. His senatorial papers were donated to the University of Delaware, but have not been made public yet (and won't until after he leaves "public life"). Biden asserts that even if Reade had made a personnel complaint at the time, it simply wouldn't be in his senatorial papers, therefore there's no reason to allow a search of them. Biden claimed this morning that any such complaint would reside within the National Archives, if it even existed. Reade has said she did file such a complaint with a congressional human resources office -- but not about the actual assault, rather just about other things Biden did that made her feel uncomfortable. She also said she didn't keep a copy of the complaint herself. Later today, however, the National Archives weighed in by passing the buck: "any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate. Accordingly, inquiries related to these records should be directed to the Senate."

    Joe Biden claims he supports 100% transparency when it comes to rape criminal complaints..

    Let's see him practice what he preaches...

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I am just playing a "tune".....

    New York Times opinion writer: Democrats need to ponder Biden alternatives

    The New York Times published an opinion piece on Sunday declaring Democrats should consider possible alternatives to Joe Biden if the party wants to defeat President Trump in November.

    The column, written by Times opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig, was bluntly headlined, “Democrats, It’s Time to Consider a Plan B,” with the subhead, “Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden demand action.”

    Reade has accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993, which he denies.

    DEBRA MESSING SLAMMED FOR SHARING ANTI-TARA READE BLOG POST, DELETES TWEET

    “Reade contends that, sometime in the spring of that year, Mr. Biden forced her against a wall, shoved his hand up her skirt, and forced his fingers into her vagina. Mr. Biden has unequivocally denied Ms. Reade’s allegations,” Bruenig wrote before citing recent developments, such as a former neighbor saying she’s heard about the accusations for years.

    “I have my own impressions regarding Ms. Reade’s allegations, but no one – save Ms. Reade and Mr. Biden – knows with certainty whether her claims are true. What I can assert with firm conviction is that Democrats ought to start considering a backup plan for 2020,” Bruenig wrote.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-opinion-democrats-biden-alternatives

    It sure looks like a LOT of people are "dancing" to it.. :D

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Times opinion writer concluded her column: “To preserve the strides made on behalf of victims of sexual assault in the era of #MeToo, and to maximize their chances in November, Democrats need to begin formulating an alternative strategy for 2020 — one that does not include Mr. Biden.”

    #DumpJoe

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, a lot of people are..

    "Dance like no one is watching."
    -God AKA Chuck, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face reality here..

    Just like with the Russia Collusion delusion...

    Just like with the Faux Impeachment Coup...

    With Tara Reade, I have been dead on ballz accurate..

    And ya'all have been totally and completely wrong..

    It's a very recognizable pattern... :D

  206. [206] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    that's getting consent after the fact (i.e. donald presumes consent because sometimes women don't say no after he grabs them).

    Semantics..

    It's still not a confession to sexual assault as Russ and Victoria like to claim it is..

    Trump talked about taking action so quickly that women didn’t have a chance to protest! You are arguing that because the woman did not say “no” prior to Trump grabbing them by the pussy, they were essentially “letting” Trump do it! Some claim that they were so stunned by his actions that they weren’t able to respond.

    So if someone walks up to you and cracks you across the face with a baseball bat before you can say stop, you “let” them do that to you.

    Trump’s recorded comments was a confession as many women came forward to state that was exactly what Trump had done to them.

    Reade’s past comments do not jive with her accusations today. She needs to explain these contradictions.

    There are no other accounts of women accusing Biden of sexual assault. The Senate has no records of anyone filing complaints against him for sexual harassment or sexual assault for all of his time in Congress. Biden was thoroughly vetted before becoming Obama’s pick to be his VP. Even Republican investigators looking for any dirt on him have said they could not find any records of misconduct against Biden. So Reade better have copies of responses to her filed complaints if she is to be taken seriously.

  207. [207] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well it's certainly not the sort of confession that would hold up in criminal court. civil court, possibly... but in the court of public opinion, they never seem to want to convict the jester who plays a king on TV.

    while the king was looking down
    the jester stole his thorny crown
    the courtroom was adjourned
    no verdict was returned
    ~don mclean, american [well, you know]

  208. [208] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Instead, this week we're going to get a little obscure and award the MDDOTW to the New York State Board of Elections, who just decided to cancel the Democratic presidential primary. They're not canceling the primary election entirely, mind you, just the Democratic presidential part of it. People will still be voting on other offices and issues on the ballot, but they won't be able to cast a vote for Bernie Sanders, even if they would like to do so.

    I know, right!? This is so dumb when anybody does it. Let the people vote; let them all vote. Do not cancel voting!

Comments for this article are closed.