All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[jetengine]

So a reporter basically wasted a big question and made himself look dumb as hell asking Trump moments ago if he'd pardon Tiger King. Which has a big audience saying his press pass deserves to be yanked for this silliness.

Yes. Joe Exotic still killed a ton of tigers which is still prety damn bad. Not everytime a celebrity talks should the medua listen.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yes. Joe Exotic still killed a ton of tigers which is still prety damn bad. Not everytime a celebrity talks should the medua listen.

No idea who the reporter is who asked it. I even have to wonder if it wasn't some sketch deal if someone got in and decided as a joke to do it.

[TheDarman]

Twitter is ugly as hell now with people saying "I'm not choosing between two rapists" as if Tara Reades claim isnt clearly horseshit. And I'm not saying that because I'm anti bernie/pro Biden etc etc. I'm saying because the facts dont add up in any way shape or form.

*********** lays it out very neatly and its pretty clear.

This article is a pretty decent deep dive into the allegations and whether or not they are validated by the evidence. Here are some key takeaways:

On the public nature of where the assault allegedly took place:

Morality aside, for a senator to sexually assault a staffer in a location with a nontrivial risk of discovery would require a credulity-stretching degree of recklessness. Keep in mind, too, that this was a moment of high awareness of sexual harassment and politicians were very much under the microscope. In March 1992, a little over a year before Biden’s alleged assault on Reade, Sen. Brock Adams, a liberal Democrat from Washington, dropped his bid for re-election after The Seattle Times published accounts by eight anonymous women accusing him of sexual assault. A few months later, in November of that year, a major scandal broke out when the Washington Post published a front-page story detailing allegations of sexual harassment by ten women — mostly former staffers but also lobbyists — against Sen. Robert Packwood, the five-term Republican Senator from Oregon who, like Biden, was known as a champion of women’s rights. Thirteen more women came forward in February 1993, about three months before Biden’s alleged assault on Reade. (By the way, none of the accusations against Packwood, which ranged from lewd jokes to aggressive sexual advances including forcible kissing, were as grave as Reade’s allegation against Biden). While Packwood hung on until 1995, the effect on his career was immediately devastating.

Reade alleges she did complain within the formal process, not about the assault, but about harassment:

That’s another startling detail that emerges from the Katie Halper interview. At one point, Reade says, “I actually did come forward in 1993 but not to the press. But I went through protocol and complained.” She then clarifies that her complaint was not about sexual assault but about sexual harassment, both toward herself — the unwanted touching and the incident with being asked to serve drinks because of Biden’s appreciation for her legs — and as a general part of the office atmosphere. She says that she informally complained to her female supervisor at first, then went to Biden’s then-chief of staff Denis Toner, and finally to top Biden advisor Ted Kaufman (who served out the remainder of Biden’s Senate term in 2009–2010 after Biden became vice president). She also says that as a result, she experienced retaliation from the higher-ups: she was told to dress more conservatively, and “they were finding fault with my work all the time, like every little thing.”

Context for the scandal:

Especially considering that the Bob Packwood scandal was still unfolding at that point, it seems likely that if this happened, a senior staffer would have informed Biden of this situation and cautioned him to stay away from Reade. At this point, “stupid and reckless” crosses over into “crazy.” Once again, that doesn’t prove Biden didn’t do it. But it counts against the probability that he did.

On attempts made to report sexual harassment:

While the sexual assault allegedly occurred with no witnesses, there are important details of Reade’s account that could be corroborated — namely, her other alleged mistreatment at Biden’s hands. Were any attempts made to reach Toner, Kaufman, or Reade’s female supervisor (whose name is bleeped out in the Halper interview but whom Salon has identified as Marianne Baker) for information on her complaint? Or to reach the female legislative aide who Reade says argued with other staffers on her behalf, saying that she shouldn’t be “objectified” as a cocktail server at Biden’s event?

The Intercept only got verification from those two sources close to Reade:

The Intercept’s Grim confirmed only that Reade’s brother and friend said she had told them contemporaneously about the sexual assault. “Beyond that, I’d rather not get into reporting process,” he wrote.

Biden’s former staff assert no compliant was made:

According to Salon’s Amanda Marcotte, both Toner and Baker deny that Reade ever complained to them about Biden wanting her to serve drinks because he liked her legs. Baker, who was Biden’s executive assistant from 1982 to 2000, has also released a statement asserting that she “never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone.” She described Reade’s story as “false allegations … in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades.”

On not being able to get sources to back up her account (which Reade says she has):

Newsweek, which reported on the accusation on March 27, apparently did not interview either of them; Marcotte writes that the brother did not respond to her query and Reade would not put her in touch with the friend.

On why she [Reade] didn’t come forward back then:

In the Halper interview, explaining why she didn’t report Biden’s behavior, Reade says: “It’s just, there was no framework back then and to be fully clear, my mom educated me after it happened that it was sexual assault. I felt, I felt like it was my fault, that I did bring it on.” Earlier, in a Medium essay, she wrote: “This was a time in the 1990’s when discretion was still on the side of the young princes who held office and allowed them to pillage as they saw fit without the nasty consequences.” And in her March 31 interview with Amy Goodman on the Democracy Now! broadcast, Reade said, “We didn’t use the term ‘sexual harassment’ a lot back then.”

1993 wasn’t a dystopian hellscape; women were more empowered than ever to share their story:

This will probably seem plausible to young ones for whom the 1990s are basically the Dark Ages. But some of us boomers still recall that 1992 was “The Year of the Woman,” a moment of feminist upheaval set off by Anita Hill’s testimony at Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The Hill-Thomas drama also sparked a “national conversation” on sexual harassment and sexual violence — basically, the #MeToo of the 1990s. As mentioned above, two U.S. Senators were among the casualties. The climate was such that, in August 1993, a New York Times Magazine article about the accusations against Packwood noted: “At a time when sexual harassment is such a highly charged issue, it can be dangerous to attempt to make distinctions between greater and lesser offenses.”

On having Reade’s image of Biden shattered by the alleged sexual assault despite allegations from her about sexual harassment:

I get that human emotions are complicated and often irrational. Perhaps Reade is saying that some part of her still believed Biden was a progressive champion of women’s rights and still looked up to him, and the sexual assault took away her last illusions. It doesn’t, by itself, invalidate her account. But it’s only one of many things that don’t quite add up.

Reade seems to be supportive of Biden and his comments as recently as 2017, nearly a quarter century after the alleged assault:

In 2016–2017, Reade “liked” or retweeted several tweets in praise of Biden on her “Tara McCabe” Twitter account which she stopped using in May 2017. Two are particularly notable.

One might, perhaps, construe these as bitter sarcasm. But Reade also “liked” tweets from the official Obama White House account about Biden receiving the Medal of Freedom in January 2017.
And in March of that year, she tweeted a comment referring to Biden — in a positive context — as her “old boss.”

There is before getting into the well-documented Russian discussion.

It’s not clearly false. But it certainly seems like there isn’t a whole lot to back this particular accusation up. Especially without other accusations of even a married Senator, as Biden was, having so much as a consensual affair outside his marriage (which surely would accompany, at the very least, a man willing to commit sexual assault to have an affair).

[jetengine]

Essentially theres no real evidence beyond her word and a whole mountain of stuff that makes it look dubious or politically motivated.

[Tami]

So how do we get the numbers down?

Aside from kicking Trump out of the WH ASAP?

In an ideal world, a real President would have locked the country down in January or February, issued a Nation-wide stay-at-home order, got every Governor on board, provided every state with the medical supplies they needed, and funneled money into medical research, testing, and all services needed to get through this.

In the world we have now? Pray.

[XPac]

Barack Obama endorses Elizabeth Warren’s plan for tackling COVID-19.

I’m starting to get the feeling Biden is gonna pick her as his VP candidate. She is smart, resourceful, and well-liked among Sanders supporters (their reaction to her online notwithstanding). And Obama broke his silence on virtually all the candidates in the primary by endorsing a plan of hers.

Maybe because I'm online a little too much, but I think Warren lost a lot of the progressive support.

Still, she arguably might be the most progressive option at least among the more realistically viable candidates Biden might choose.

[XPac]

Essentially theres no real evidence beyond her word and a whole mountain of stuff that makes it look dubious or politically motivated.

That's the problem with incidents like this... in most cases there's no actual evidence apart from one person's word vs another. Most guys aren't dumb enough to do this sort of thing in front of witnesses or a video camera.

Which isn't me saying it necessarily is or isn't true... and in a void you are innocent until proven guilty. But there's a reason people get away with this all the time.

[TheDarman]

That's the problem with incidents like this... in most cases there's no actual evidence apart from one person's word vs another. Most guys aren't dumb enough to do this sort of thing in front of witnesses or a video camera.

Which isn't me saying it necessarily is or isn't true... and in a void you are innocent until proven guilty. But there's a reason people get away with this all the time.

Except usually there isn’t this level of contradictory statements on her behalf and in support of someone who supposedly raped her on a Twitter account that she used prior. It doesn’t explain the inconsistency of Biden’s behavior relative to what we’d expect of a guy willing to cheat on his wife—so much to even commit sexual assault on someone else. This isn’t just a usual accusation. Her own behavior doesn’t support what she is saying and people looking for verification of the account can’t get in touch with those she supposedly told contemporaneously.

This isn’t the case with most sexual assault cases. Most victims act more consistent and the folks responsible often demonstrate more clear patterns of like behavior. That’s why there is real strength in numbers when accusations come out about a particular candidate or nominee. Not to say any of the above is complete proof that it didn’t happen. It just means that it is that much more unlikely to have happened.

[zinderel]

Re: Joe Biden being Last Man Standing:

I do not ‘like’ Biden.

I think he is DEEPLY problematic on more than a few points.

I am not happy he was foisted on us by the Democratic Party leadership.

I think - no, I KNOW - they could have done better for themselves and the rest of us.

I will not donate money or time to his campaign.

However, despite being deeply problematic, he is not NEARLY as problematic as the man currently in power.

Democrats are NOT ‘just as bad as’/‘the same thing as’ Republicans just because Biden is the last man standing. They aren’t great, I’m not gonna lie...but it takes deliberately manipulative skewing of facts, a disconnect with reality, and/or shameful naivety to say they are ‘the same’.

I will vote for him this year, because no matter what else he is, he isn’t Trump, he isn’t a Republican, he isn’t a far right Christian zealot, and those points alone make him a better choice than another 4 years of the nonsense we’ve put up with over the thousand year reign of madness that has been the last 4...

That is all.

[Joker]

What they understand is that it isn't a game.

Which, considering that folks are already gearing up to "Save Tweets So We Can Throw It Back In Their Faces Later...", I ain't so sure that other folks do.

I saw your reply, but I'm not bothering with it.

[worstblogever]

Never to early to blame the the probable lose of Biden on Bernie, eh?

Can't blame it on Bernie, now.

If his followers don't STFU and stop acting like children by spreading as much negativity about the almost certain Democratic nominee for daring to win and not be Bernie, I'd blame them.

Because it would be exactly what they did four years ago that's put us in the darkest timeline, and it would mean they haven't learned a f***ing thing.

[Kirby101]

I am trying to understand how the DNC made more people vote for Biden than Sanders. Because I am told they are behind it.

[MacrossPlus]

My sentiments exactly

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I am trying to understand how the DNC made more people vote for Biden than Sanders. Because I am told they are behind it.

I don’t think this time you Sanders supporters can claim the DNC was acting improperly. However it’s one of those situation last where their rep is already tarnished so anything that doesn’t go his way isn’t going to give them the benefit of the doubt (like a lot of the delays and inconsistencies in Iowa where many of his supporters felt he had a big victory taken away). But no I don’t find anything improper with the DNC.

I could however see them having a grievance with the lead up to Super Tuesday and how that situation played out but that’s about it

[TheDarman]

I could however see them having a grievance with the lead up to Super Tuesday and how that situation played out but that’s about it

Sure. But it was the same thing as if Warren had dropped out and endorsed Sanders. That didn’t happen, but, if it had, it isn’t like they would’ve said it was “dirty politics”. It sucks when the wing fighting against you coalesces to defeat you. I get that, but it just turned out this way this time when a progressive ran against the former Vice President of the most popular recent president and politician in the party. It was also an uphill battle to defeat Biden, just as it was to defeat H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 1988. But I think that it will be a more wide open field without a clear establishment favorite in 2024. And that will make for an interesting contest.