All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[TheDarman]

A possible victim shouldn't have to come forward in a prescribed fashion in order to be taken seriously.

It isn’t the way she came forward (other than the fact that she was tweeting “Tick Tock” for weeks before the allegation and begging for Bernie to stay in), it is what surrounds her allegations. I just don’t even know what the FBI could investigate. And we’ve seen appointees like Comey often take it upon themselves to hold spontaneous press conferences to hurt the subject of a review even if they are innocent of the charge. That being said, I would like to see how well the corroborators hold up under oath.

[TheDarman]

All of Biden's records are at the University of Delaware. He probably needed time to retrieve them since they are still being processed and catalogued.

I know that they probably had to send people in as well. These would’ve had to be trusted campaign aides and/or Democratic operatives.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That is true. Perhaps I should’ve been clearer. Biden is not a charismatic individual. Neither was Hillary. Both were elevated by their relationship with Obama. Hillary Clinton made the mistake of picking someone like her—quieter and non-charismatic. Biden needs to pick someone who a) he has a strong, friendly relationship with, b) can look like a coordinated team on policy and execution of the office with him, and c) makes the ticket demographically diverse.

If he didn’t pigeonhole himself, Castro.

[TheDarman]

If he didn’t pigeonhole himself, Castro.

Biden has decent relationships with a number of the women in the race. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar especially are the two that come to mind. But we don’t know how well he would interact with Abrams and Whitmer yet.

[Gray Lensman]

If he didn’t pigeonhole himself, Castro.

I have heard that one of Nevada's Senators is on his shortlist - Catherine Cortez Masto. Although despite her being from my state, I can't really say much about her.

[numberthirty]

It isn’t the way she came forward (other than the fact that she was tweeting “Tick Tock” for weeks before the allegation and begging for Bernie to stay in), it is what surrounds her allegations. I just don’t even know what the FBI could investigate. And we’ve seen appointees like Comey often take it upon themselves to hold spontaneous press conferences to hurt the subject of a review even if they are innocent of the charge. That being said, I would like to see how well the corroborators hold up under oath.

Anyone could say that they don't know there is anything to investigate.

That's why the body doing the investigations should be deciding what needs to be investigated.

As for Comey? He ain't exactly business as usual. Never mind that investigators would no doubt have what he did in mind during their investigation.

[numberthirty]

As for the accusation against Biden, I feel like it's sort of sketchy at best.

That said, what I think should have right around "Nothing..." to do with if it gets investigated or not. "Accusation" should lead right to "Investigation".

[TheDarman]

As for the accusation against Biden, I feel like it's sort of sketchy at best.

That said, what I think should have right around "Nothing..." to do with if it gets investigated or not. "Accusation" should lead right to "Investigation".

Hmm...I'm inclined to agree especially since Reade is avoiding doing anything that would legally have her in front of an investigator, judge, or jury under oath.

My concern is a Kenneth Starr like situation where an FBI, whose director is now a Trump appointee, investigation will lead to complete oversight over Biden's records. They investigate Reade's claims, find nothing to them, and find something merely embarrassing and try to find some way to get Biden to lie about it to create an "obstruction of justice" charge or, at best, do what Comey did and divulge the information to hand Trump the election.

[numberthirty]

Hmm...I'm inclined to agree especially since Reade is avoiding doing anything that would legally have her in front of an investigator, judge, or jury under oath.

My concern is a Kenneth Starr like situation where an FBI, whose director is now a Trump appointee, investigation will lead to complete oversight over Biden's records. They investigate Reade's claims, find nothing to them, and find something merely embarrassing and try to find some way to get Biden to lie about it to create an "obstruction of justice" charge or, at best, do what Comey did and divulge the information to hand Trump the election.

Personally, I am a guy who would, allowed to have my way, have a watchdog looking over the shoulder of every single person in government.

The idea that a guy/gal's past as a politician winds up being more "In The Light..." is something that I cannot see as a bad thing. Going by the logic you seem to be going on, there should have been seriously strict limits into looking into some of the stuff Trump was on in the run up to his being elected.

I don't think that would have been such a great idea.

"More..." investigation is something I don't think should be avoided.

[Mister Mets]

Hmm...I'm inclined to agree especially since Reade is avoiding doing anything that would legally have her in front of an investigator, judge, or jury under oath.

My concern is a Kenneth Starr like situation where an FBI, whose director is now a Trump appointee, investigation will lead to complete oversight over Biden's records. They investigate Reade's claims, find nothing to them, and find something merely embarrassing and try to find some way to get Biden to lie about it to create an "obstruction of justice" charge or, at best, do what Comey did and divulge the information to hand Trump the election.

Comey didn't intend to divulge information that helped out Trump.

He was caught in a bind when he learned that some confidential documents were on Anthony Weiner's laptop (it turned out the documents had already been "logged" and that it was mainly because Weiner was married to a top Hillary aide and shared a home network.)

I doubt Biden would have affairs to lie about, as Bill Clinton did, but there is always the potential for an innocent mistake (IE- If someone else contradicts Biden because they're lying or wrong.)

There's a lot of space between "not enough experience" and "too old." I think both Amy Klobuchar and Gretchen Whitmer fit into that space.

Klobuchar's been in the Senate since 2006.

Whitmer might have some problems, because she's under fifty and has been Governor for less than two years. However, Michigan is a relatively big state and she has been Governor during a major crisis, so maybe that'll be seen as making up for the inexperience.

That is true. Perhaps I should’ve been clearer. Biden is not a charismatic individual. Neither was Hillary. Both were elevated by their relationship with Obama. Hillary Clinton made the mistake of picking someone like her—quieter and non-charismatic. Biden needs to pick someone who a) he has a strong, friendly relationship with, b) can look like a coordinated team on policy and execution of the office with him, and c) makes the ticket demographically diverse.

Any thoughts on who fits best?

As if it needs an explanation: Kavanaugh was not a public figure for half a century prior to his ascendancy to the highest Court. No one knew who he was until he was nominated. Ford sent a letter when he was merely a name on a list to her senator, Dianne Feinstein. Ford’s allegation was not addressed until it was leaked and she was forced to turn her life upside down, get lawyers, take a polygraph, and submit her therapist’s notes. She was missing corroboration, certainly. But Kavanaugh’s pattern of behavior while intoxicated was corroborated by many folks willing to talk to the FBI when they conducted their brief investigation. They were never contacted.

This allegation, meanwhile, is something else. It comes from a woman who was hinting at future allegations for a month with “Tick Tock Biden” tweets. She had previously praised Biden in 2017 for his work on sexual assault of all things. Then, she goes on a pro-Russia tirade that culminates in February of 2020 before abruptly stopping. She went on to say she didn’t care much for Russia after learning their history of domestic violence. (This obviously isn’t true. She was well aware of it and discussing it on her old Twitter account in 2017.) On top of not remembering when she was assaulted (which, in fairness, happened with Ford), she refused to name Biden or any of his supervisors in her police report—shielding her from legal action while still stirring up a fuss. She claims that she wasn’t wearing appropriate attire to work and, apparently, wasn’t called out for it (I know my friends who worked on the Hill as late as 2016 were told they would be sent home without proper work attire). She changed the location of the assault from a semi-public hallway to the basement. She says Biden said “C’mon man, I heard you liked me”, which isn’t something Biden said regularly until after campaigning with Obama, who himself said it regularly. Her story is right out of a fictional book her father wrote in 2010. There was no report of harassment found in the Senate office she claimed she filed it with. She does not have the report. This office is outside the Biden office and was responsible for many senators losing their jobs, like Bob Packwood. She has refused to release her therapist’s notes. Her brother was coached on what to say by a Bernie Sanders supporter. Her neighbor had to be coached by Reade herself. Reade is editing posts to remove statements like how none of the actions ever amounted to “sexual misconduct”. I could go on—the problems are so numerous.

You claim that both needed investigation. Reade’s claims have been. You can look above at what has just been uncovered so far. Do we need an FBI investigation? Perhaps. But Reade ensured that no investigation could come out of her filed police report by not naming herself, Biden, or those who were in his office. If Reade has done everything possible to avoid an investigation, why would it be necessary to call for one?

The point is: these allegations are not the same. And the insinuation is harmful.

Kavanaugh had been a major figure for some time.

He was talked about as a potential Supreme Court pick for Mitt Romney. As a member of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, he had been one of the most important judges in the country since 2006.

Prior to that, he has succeeded Harriet Miers in her positions as White House staff secretary.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Comey is a hypocrite who decided he needed to risk the country over a Democrat winning the presidency. He knew how compromised Trump was and still did this.

[TheDarman]

Personally, I am a guy who would, allowed to have my way, have a watchdog looking over the shoulder of every single person in government.

Sure. But who would this be? Is there a single disinterested third party in America?

The idea that a guy/gal's past as a politician winds up being more "In The Light..." is something that I cannot see as a bad thing. Going by the logic you seem to be going on, there should have been seriously strict limits into looking into some of the stuff Trump was on in the run up to his being elected.

I don't think that would have been such a great idea.

"More..." investigation is something I don't think should be avoided.

I think the issue is that sifting through documentation that goes back to 1973, when Biden first came to the Senate, is it allows for a lot of things to be taken out of context or applied under what would be said today. For example, when Hillary Clinton made her infamous “superpredators” comment in support of the crime bill, it was an active term employed by magazines and newspapers to describe gang members. It became politically toxic in her primary.

And that was just in the ‘90s. How many other things did people say out of ignorance and misunderstanding that have been corrected since? Would it become a scandal if Biden, at one time, referred to black Americans as merely “blacks”? This in spite of the fact that many white folks often moved from negroes to that, could be construed as Biden being a “racist”.

These are just some of any of a number of things that could be used to hurt Biden because he is the nominee of a more progressive party. Things like this wouldn’t hurt Trump.

If you’re Biden and you want to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton campaign, you would want to make sure that you limit these misunderstandings as much as possible. No matter how much you can explain it (and actually do a fairly decent job of that), it will still be ding against you with some voters. Biden doesn’t want depressed turnout from his voting bloc.

[TheDarman]

Comey didn't intend to divulge information that helped out Trump.

He was caught in a bind when he learned that some confidential documents were on Anthony Weiner's laptop (it turned out the documents had already been "logged" and that it was mainly because Weiner was married to a top Hillary aide and shared a home network.)

Sure. I can understand why he did it. (Though I disagree with him doing it prior to ensuring whether or not these emails were duplicates or something else entirely.) And a large portion of that responsibility falls on the media for covering it non-stop before November 8th—taking away any time that had previously been devoted to Trump’s outrageous comments or his own scandalous behavior. I do think Biden is wise to want to avoid any potential of something like this happening to him.

I doubt Biden would have affairs to lie about, as Bill Clinton did, but there is always the potential for an innocent mistake (IE- If someone else contradicts Biden because they're lying or wrong.)

I agree that particular thing probably wouldn’t be an issue. But what about any number of other things that you can’t be sure the media won’t turn around to hurt you, even if it wasn’t ever intended that way? I mentioned them in my post above.

Any thoughts on who fits best?

I think it is Kamala Harris, but that’s just me.

Kavanaugh had been a major figure for some time.

He was talked about as a potential Supreme Court pick for Mitt Romney. As a member of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, he had been one of the most important judges in the country since 2006.

Prior to that, he has succeeded Harriet Miers in her positions as White House staff secretary.

Was he involved in public life? Sure. But a Supreme Court lifetime appointment is almost as big a deal as being president. That comes with a new level of scrutiny and, if you suffered assault at his hands, with additional pressure to do what is right. In other positions, he had other powers that could supersede him. Now, he is one of nine justices that can determine the constitutionality of laws.

[numberthirty]

...

I think the issue is that sifting through documentation that goes back to 1973, when Biden first came to the Senate, is it allows for a lot of things to be taken out of context or applied under what would be said today. For example, when Hillary Clinton made her infamous “superpredators” comment in support of the crime bill, it was an active term employed by magazines and newspapers to describe gang members. It became politically toxic in her primary.

And that was just in the ‘90s. How many other things did people say out of ignorance and misunderstanding that have been corrected since? Would it become a scandal if Biden, at one time, referred to black Americans as merely “blacks”? This in spite of the fact that many white folks often moved from negroes to that, could be construed as Biden being a “racist”.

These are just some of any of a number of things that could be used to hurt Biden because he is the nominee of a more progressive party. Things like this wouldn’t hurt Trump.

If you’re Biden and you want to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton campaign, you would want to make sure that you limit these misunderstandings as much as possible. No matter how much you can explain it (and actually do a fairly decent job of that), it will still be ding against you with some voters. Biden doesn’t want depressed turnout from his voting bloc.

If you're making these sorts of calculations, you have to realize that you have thrown away being viewed as "The Good Guys..." as soon as you seriously entertained doing so.

The idea that the solution is to avoid dealing with the past instead of facing it and trying to get right with folks seems sort of poorly thought through. Americans aren't so hard emotionally that they won't give folks who are actually trying to move towards doing the right thing a chance.

Look at Warren. Was anyone really saying "Nope. That "Native American..." business and that you used to be a Republican are an issue!..."?

[numberthirty]

...

Was he involved in public life? Sure. But a Supreme Court lifetime appointment is almost as big a deal as being president. That comes with a new level of scrutiny and, if you suffered assault at his hands, with additional pressure to do what is right. In other positions, he had other powers that could supersede him. Now, he is one of nine justices that can determine the constitutionality of laws.

This sure sounds like you are making the argument for that they should go over the allegation against Biden with a pretty big magnifying glass.