Tara Reade was once a worker on the Joe Biden staff. She was and remains a Democrat and consequently loathes Trump. She claims that back in the early 1990s, Biden accosted her, pushed her against a wall, put his hand under her dress and inserted his finger.

She told quite a few people about this over the years. Her mother knew of it and a recording of her ringing into Larry King to ask advice about how to proceed has now been unearthed.

Yesterday , a neighbour of Reade's has confirmed that a distressed Reade had told her the story at the time. Quite a few others have also come forward although some don't confirm the assault, just the harassment.

This is, of course, a disaster for the Biden campaign and the legacy media that supports all things Democrat. What's to to be done.

Well firstly the media simply ignored it in the hope it'd just go away.

But new evidence kept popping up and the utter hypocrisy of the media in ignoring it in light of #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen was too much. Finally the NYT was moved to cover it - on page 28 on the weekend. After it was published the Biden camp was allowed to make changes to the article to make it even more favourable to Biden. (Imagine if Trump was allowed to edit Fox content!!)

The recording of Reade's mother was in the CNN archive but somehow they didn't find it. Someone else did so. Now it seems Google might be trying to restrict access to it.

Reade hasn't been mentioned on (y)our ABC.

Much has been made about MeToo and the need to believe the victim. When the target was prominent members of the right or even Trump, it was treated as pure blasphemy to not believe the 'survivor'. But now that the alleged assailant is of the left, the victim is being ignored, at best, and treated with disdain, at worst.

Some of those on the left who retain a modicum of integrity are hinting that Biden might have to go.

Interesting times.

regressive women are known for lying. Just look at the constant lies told by the abc about Pell. The problem is they are never held to account. The lying left liberal media will only 'believe all women' if its one of their own no matter if true or not.

Who cares what the Yanks do. Biden can’t even complete a sentence, and was probably away with the fairies already at the time of the ALLEGED offence.

All these ‘historical’ cases of sexual abuse have bored the shoes of most people for a long time now. Only a rampart, raging feminist would take any notice.

And the ALLEGED victim is still “distressed” 30 years later! She need not have tried to queer Biden’s pitch at the Presidency after all this time because his non compis state won’t get him past Donald Trump. And this woman hates both of them. A crazy, mixed up woman. But, that’s the Left for you, no matter where they live.

mhaze,

There's so many other US president's who were caught in
salacious sex scandals even before Trump's Stormy Daniels
saga.

Trump is no stranger to such scandals but neither is
the US Presidency - so I doubt if this recent attempt at
stirring will make any difference to Biden's aim for
the top job.

There have been at least 15 US Presidents who were caught in
salacious sex scandals ranging from the very first president -
George Washington onto Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson,
William H. Harrison, John Tyler, James Garfield, Grover
Cleveland, Warren Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson,
George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton.

It's part
of the "boys will be boys" or "men will be men"
American scenario. Just like the deep belief of
gun ownership being an individual right.

Foxy,

For all that, the Democrats will probably have to junk Biden and ASAP. Ideally, they should be looking for a better candidate, none of those last year were much chop although some will be formidable given a few more years.

Perhaps what they need is a woman, African-American or Hispanic, extremely savvy, not aligned to any particular faction of the Dems, and with immense political experience and personal charm and warmth.

Love,

Joe

"Perhaps what they need is a woman, African-American or Hispanic, extremely savvy, not aligned to any particular faction of the Dems, and with immense political experience and personal charm and warmth."

Candace Owens?

What has been overlooked is the lack of fuss being made by the Left wing strumpets over the Biden allegation compared with the furore over Donald Trump an Brett Kavanaugh.

'Candace Owens?'

come on mHaze, far to classy, honest and intelligent to join the Democrats.

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

Candace Owens?

Interesting choice. But she's not going to run against
Trump.

What about Kamala Harris - California's new Senator?

I think she'd be a better choice to the problems
now facing the party. She's also a leader who inspires
young women of colour. At the same time her rhetoric and
positions are often centrist.

USA Today tells us that:

"Six months before Election Day the coronavirus pandemic
has done what impeachment did not: Cost President Trump
his advantage over Joe Biden in the 2020 campaign."

"A new USA Today/Suffolk University Poll shows the former
Vice-President leading Trump nationwide by 6% points -
44% to 38%. A shift from Trump's 3 point lead in the
survey as he was being impeached by the House in December."

"In a contest without a 3rd party contender, Biden's margin
jumps to 10 points, 50% to 40%."

"Now Trump's standing may be threatened in the face of
questions about the response he and his administration have
made to a disease that has cost (and is costing) so many
American lives..."

Interesting times indeed.

yep Tony Abbott punching the air 45 years ago at uni kept the abc wetting their pants for a couple of weeks. Nothing to see with one of their own allegedly committing sexual assault. What a twisted dishonest mob the regressives are.

Hi Foxy,

This may clarify the suggestion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama

Joe

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

Thanks. I've read Michelle Obama's book
(got given it as a birthday present a while back).
She'd be great - but she wasn't one of the candidates.
Neither was Candace Owens of course.

Kamala Harris was. Hence my suggestion.

Maybe Biden could have Kamala as a running mate and
Michelle could run next time?

A bit of wishful thinking here.

There are a couple of issues here.

1 The media

This episode displays, for even the dullest of minds, that the legacy media are utterly biased toward the left. Organisations who some here have referred to as 'reputable' have displayed complete contempt for any notion of consistency or even-handedness. Places like the NYT, who published any and every accusation against Kavanaugh as though they were indisputable truths have been reluctant to even mention these accusations and have treated them as anything but the truth. Organisations that hid data that showed that accusers were lying, now hide data that supports the accuser. Organisations that deemed #BelieveAllWomen as being the only moral attitude, now publish Biden's denials as though they are the end of the matter.

I'm sure those who don't care for the truth and who just want to be told what to believe will continue to think of these left-wing mouth-pieces as 'reputable'. But perhaps in the back of their minds, in those places where the truth still gets an airing, they'll know that they are lying to themselves.

Defenders of the ABC will often ask for evidence of bias in the reports the ABC makes. But much of the ABC bias is in what it chooses to not tell its brethren.
Search the ABC website and you'll find dozens of stories on Stormy Daniels, pretty much all favouring her and attacking Trump. Search on Blassey Ford and, likewise you'll find dozens of stories attacking Kavanaugh. Search on Tara Reade....crickets.

That's what bias looks like.

mhaze, these allegations were covered on the ABC's Planet America. http://iview.abc.net.au/show/planet-america
15/4/20 episode, eighteen and a half minutes in.
(Hurry, it won't be up there for much longer - but that's not due to bias)

My comment on Candace Owen was a joke!

One thing in favour of Kamala Harris is that, unlike most Democrats, she can lie straight in bed..... http://www.independentsentinel.com/its-confirmed-kamala-harris-slept-her-way-to-the-top/

________________________________________________________________

Its hardly worth my while to go back and dredge up all the comments from Foxy, Paul et al during our discussions on Pell, Kavanaugh and Trump showing them adopting highly moralistic positions, getting the vapours over any inclination to disbelieve the 'survivors'. Even when presented with their utterly different stance on those earlier issues we'd get the standard ' when I said it was red, I meant it was black, and how dare you say I didn't know it was blue' response.

When Trump talked about touching women, it was treated as career-ending revelations.
When Kavanaugh was saddled with entirely unsupported accusations, it was considered enough to disqualify him.
But now we have thoroughly collaborated accusations and they're merely examples of 'boys will be boys'.

Truly it is said that if it wasn't for double standards the left would have no standards at all.

You'd hope that at least this would bring to an end the whole #believeallwomen rubbish. But it won't. The next time a bloke on the right even looks side-ways at a woman, it'll be treated as a civilisation ending event and all this Biden excusing will be quickly forgotten.

Still, again, somewhere in the recesses of their mind, surely these people understand their utter hypocrisy.

mhaze,

Well said.

And totally without bias. (wink).

Mhaze,

If Biden can be shown to have indecently assaulted a staff member, then he should pay the penalty.

If Trump can be shown to have 'grabbed a woman on the pussy' without her consent, i. e. indecent assault, then he should also pay the penalty. But is that likely to happen ? Won't the good ol' boys guffaw and cavort and - if they could - pat him heartily on the back ? A real guy ?

If either Biden or Trump have committed indecent assault on women, then they are both worthless turds. I'm sure you would agree (sarcasm).

Joe

"If Biden can be shown to have indecently assaulted a staff member, then he should pay the penalty."

I'm not talking about what 'can be shown'. None of it will be proven. Not the accusation against Trump or Kavanaugh or Pell or Biden.

That's not the issue. The issue is the different reactions to the accusations. The hypocrites of the left have one reaction when its one of their own accused and a completely different reaction when its not. They clothe themselves in moralistic standards, weeping at their own goodness, in one instance, then adopt the utter opposite stance in another.

That's all very annoying in people like Foxy, but equally just as one would expect. But its much more grave when the media adopt the same standards or lack thereof. Then it becomes a matter of noting it and understanding the very great threat to the good functioning of the democracy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for Biden to be stood down over this. Just as I thought Kavanaugh and Pell and all the others should enjoy the presumption of innocence, so should Biden. But that's not how others think, and that needs to be called out.

But I want Biden to run as the Democrat nominee. Trump will have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner at the debates - although watch out for the DNC to try to cancel the debates to protect Biden from being exposed.

funny how Hilary is now defending Biden just like she did Bill. She did know however that Kanavaugh's accusers were credible. This summarizes the lying liberal left media. Of course her friend Weistein and Bill's friend Epstein were innocent also.

mhaze,

Talking about hypocrisy...

Strange how freedom of speech seems to only apply to
views that agree with your own. You can dish it out
but can't take it.

As for Trump eating Biden for breakfast, lunch and
dinner?

Not sure about that.

Trump loves fast food.

Besides -

Kidney stones have entered the chat.
High blood pressure has entered the chat.
Liver has left the chat.
Diabetes is typing.

Who's freedom of speech am I infringing Foxy?

What am I dishing out that I can't take?

These vague assertions to assuage valid observations don't really work.

mhaze,

Go back and read your post on page 4.

You write:

... the hypocrites on the left have one reaction when
it's one of their own and a completely different one
when it's not...

What about the hypocrites on the right?

You then write... That's very annoying when people like
Foxy, but equally just as one would expect...

That's very annoying when people like mhaze ...

Then you say - it needs to be called out.

Damn straight. Indeed it does.

Your claim these vague assertions don't work -
is spot on.

So Mr mhaze:

- "practice what you preach or
change your speech."

Dear mhaze,

What on earth are you on about now?

This is ludicrous.

I don't see any major figures on the left screaming that the victim was a liar which was something the right reveled in.

No one on this forum has made that claim either.

None of these scandals touched Obama nor were they likely to have touched Bernie. Yet the Republicans fell lockstep behind Trump and the Democrats are falling in behind Biden. Why? Because no matter their distaste of the respective candidates they are the ones the people have selected.

The sexual misbehaviour which they have both seemingly engaged in will cancel out and other issues will then lead voting preferences.

However the right's approach to victim blaming is far more odious than the left's and you are engaging in more of it here.

Dear runner,

You write; “regressive women are known for lying. Just look at the constant lies told by the abc about Pell. The problem is they are never held to account. The lying left liberal media will only 'believe all women' if its one of their own no matter if true or not.”

What an utterly classic case of projection. You have absolutely no moral standing in this matter so really should put a sock in it.

true to your consistent lying narrative Steelie. So predictable. Glad at least some are interested in the truth unlike you.

Foxy accuses me of infringing freedom of speech.

I ask who, how.

She changes the subject while still expressing outrage that I did....something.

I guess she's embarrassed by the stance she's forced to take re Biden but, rather than admit it or (worse) stop being hypocritical, she just lashes out.

SR similarly lashes out with a series of assertions. Just to be clear I never said anyone called Reade a liar. Nor did I raise Obama or Sanders.

But when you're trying to change the subject...needs must.

To restate it, the issue is the MSM response to this as compared to, for example, Kavanaugh. It demonstrates, if demonstration were necessary, the bias of the legacy press toward the left, the DNC and Biden. The NYT basically asked team Biden what they were allowed to write.
Equally, it is reported that major women's group who have pushed the #BelieveAllWomen malarkey for years, are going quiet on this in order to give Biden a chance to work out how to play it.

This is the real issue. Antics like those of Foxy who cloak themselves in moralistic garb when convenient and ditch it when not, is merely of interest for future reference.

There are rumbling that Biden will be pushed aside. But if he is, it'll be more because his cognitive decline is becoming more evident daily, rather than what he did or didn't do to an intern 30 years ago.

Runner,

I was appalled at the bias against Pell, even though I most certainly don't like him, so bloody sanctimonious, I suppose that goes with the territory. But I didn't think there was remotely enough evidence against him even to bring charges. Maybe other incidences might be uncovered with much more evidence to back up other charges.

But I didn't know that it was women in particular who were attacking Pell:

“ ..... regressive women are known for lying. Just look at the constant lies told by the abc about Pell. The problem is they are never held to account. The lying left liberal media will only 'believe all women' if it's one of their own no matter if true or not.”

A bit non sequitur ? What has one aspect, women asserting assault, and Pell, got to do with each other ? Franky, I would be far more inclined to believe this woman, in her accusations against Biden and the corroborations of her charges by others, than the assertions against Pell that got him more than a year in jail.

Clearly, you believe differently :). What, are you some kind of (feh !) Democrat ?!

Joe

Hi Joe

No doubt you saw the appalling lies made up against Kavanaugh which Hilary described as 'credible'. With no evidence the lying left media ran weeks of lies and slurs. It is true they picked up on Trump acting like a pig which many men and some women have done in their past. Here with Biden their is evidence of sexual assault but the lying left media ignore it while the likes of Foxy just brush it off as trivial. Their outrage on fake crimes and mantra of believe all women is shown up for what it is. Hypocrisy. The same mob that howled for Pells blood (28 charges and still no credible evidence) are silent largely due to TRS with Biden.

Dear runner,

Name a single lie in my post.

Dear mhaze,

My mentions of Bernie and Obama were completely in line with the discussion we were having and for you to make an issue of it really is another one of your childish diversions. Grow up.

mhaze,

You protest too much, methinks.

I did not change the subject. I did not lash out.
I gave specific examples out of your own post in answer
to your questions - who, how.

I did not take a particular stance on Biden specifically,
I merely pointed out that salacious scandals were part
and parcel of American presidencies.

As Steele says - grow up!

Foxy,

"I gave specific examples..."

Well you actually didn't. You adopted a policy you've used before which is to vaguely point at some past post and assert it makes your point without ever showing how it does. You probably think it works. You're wrong.

Put the exact quote here as to where I infringed "freedom of speech".

SR,

You addressed the post to me and raised Obama as a deflection. You also claimed I was blaming the victim, which is patently untrue....unless you think Biden's the victim!

I've noticed SR, that whenever you put up something that's long on vitriol and short on facts, you throw in a departing ad hom. Its a dead give-away. But I won't reciprocate...one of us has to be mature.

More on the MSM bias:

Biden has been interviewed 16 times since the story broke. Always by friendly media. Not one question on Reade.
All 5 purported VP candidates were interviewed on the weekend. Not one question on Reade.

Foxy's stance explained in one picture....

http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c88c6730bd9294a7616b590b760161a2a67cb5ec1765c1a752ef0cedb1f3c96.jpg

mhaze,

I quoted from your own post on page 4.

Go back and read it.

Perhaps you shall have a light bulb moment.

And see things from another's point of view.

One can only hope.

BTW:

I loved the link. Seen it earlier.

It could have read - "Was it the current President
or a past President?

Ör a wannabe President?

Dear mhaze,

Your response to Kavanaugh's accuser was;

“The whole thing was designed to destroy a good man's life and that of his family for crass political advantage.”

Here you aren't in any way empathetic to what the victim may have gone through, your only beef is that the 'left' aren't falling to your depths.

That fits with blaming the victim in my book.

As to Obama and Sanders the point I was making is that these men were not accused of anything. Clinton, Trump, Biden, have had multiple accusers. This evidently isn't a default thing with leadership and generally there will have been substantial rumours before anything becomes public since newspapers will need to be sure they are substantive enough to commit to publishing.

I have little doubt that the three of them are likely guilty, as was Kavanaugh.

So would you apply your same sentiment ““The whole thing was designed to destroy a good man's life and that of his family for crass political advantage.” to Biden's situation or not.

SR,

Either way, some evidence would be necessary. In relation to Biden's case, if the accuser reported the alleged offence very soon after it was alleged to happen, confided in someone, had a medical examination, or if there were other pieces of material evidence, that would all boost her case. But without evidence, no matter how believable her story, she may not have much chance of success.

The same would go for Trumpf. I'm sure that, as a repulsive turd of a human being, he has committed multiple offences of every sort, but even so, evidence would have to be produced to convict him. The fact that he has paid off numerous women, and his remarks about 'grabbing pussy', suggest that he has indeed committed such offences. His sense of entitlement, as a rich bully from birth, add to the likelihood that he thought he was above the law in these sorts of crimes.

Joe

SR,

Mhaze's point is valid, the left whingers on OLO and everywhere believe the victim when the accused is a target of the left and are silent when the accused is a left whinger.

Cases in point Bill Shorten and George Pell, Kavanaugh and Biden etc. There is a stronger case against Biden than there ever was against Kavanaugh, similarly there was no more evidence against Pell than there was against Shorten, yet all the left whingers conveniently "believed" the accusers that were convenient to their narrative and ignored the others.

Shadow Minister,

The arguments about Cardinal Pell were long and lengthy -
with the ultimate decision as to his guilt and
innocence being inconclusive.

Mr Shorten was never charged - the police dropped the case.
They decided there was no case.

Biden's guilt has yet to be proven - and so it goes.

You once again tend to finger-point at people and accuse
them of the type of behaviour that you are exhibiting.

It seems that your own political inclinations also influence
your rational and views on this forum - so you're really
in no position to judge others.

Neither are any of us - if we're honest.

Shadow Minister,

You seem to have an obsession with the "Left."

What about taking a look at the problems within
your own party.

These days most people's views are not set in concrete
and their views do change. You seem to be the only one
firmly stuck in a one-eyed view.

Foxy,

We may not like it but the question of Pell's innocence or guilt was proven, i.e. tested, pretty conclusively by the unanimous verdict of the highest court in the land, with no recourse to appeal. In law, he is innocent. Let's move on.

Of course there may be other charges, relating to earlier days. We live in hope.

But justice is supposed to be blind, giving due consideration to the contending arguments in both Pell's and Biden's cases. Pell has been tried and found not guilty. Biden has yet to be tried on Ms Reade's charges. In fact, I think she is yet to bring them, so there is a very long way to go.

Love always,

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“There is a stronger case against Biden than there ever was against Kavanaugh, similarly there was no more evidence against Pell than there was against Shorten, yet all the left whingers conveniently "believed" the accusers that were convenient to their narrative and ignored the others.”

What? Well you have a cheek. More evidence for Shorten? How on earth do you figure that?

The incident described by the person in Shorten's case was 32 years ago when Shorted was 19. The one against Pell was 18 years ago.

Further there were an extraordinary number of similar allegations against Pell with the magistrate hearing from over 50 witnesses. There were many cases that weren't proceeded with, one where the complainant had passed away and another where they were deemed unfit to give evidence. Many others the judge felt did not have enough evidence to secure a prosecution. Two were proceeded with.

There was no such pattern of behaviour shown by Shorten. Might he have committed the offence? Quite possibly, but there is no way you can compare the likelihood of him having done so with that of Pell.

In my opinion was Pell among the worst of the abusers he rubbed shoulders with? Possibly not but for anyone to ever say with absolute certainty he is squeaky clean would be to deny the record.

LOUDmouth,

On Pell (of the Pells Angels fame) you just said:

"Of course there may be other charges, relating to earlier days. We live in hope."

What are you living in hope of? That he will be found guilty?

OK Foxy, if you're determined to straight out avoid the issue, I can't really do any more.

I note that even Alyssa Milano has come and and sorta, kinda supported Reade.
Foxy, when you have less integrity that Milano, you know you have a problem.

Interestingly, as regards the media, the dam wall they built to try to protect Biden is starting to break-down. Even CNN has now mentioned the story...wonder of wonders. And the NYT has scolded the Biden camp for claiming that they'd exonerated Biden, saying they'd done no such thing.

Its a sign of the times that the media is no longer able to control the agenda or bury stories unfavourable to the left. It partially explains the Trump phenomenon and the unhinged fury the left feels at not being able to get him. Ten years ago Biden would have been safe behind the left-media wall and Kavanaugh would have been retired in ignominy.

But the democratisation of the media in the US has changed all that. Hell, even the FBI is struggling to hide their illegal persecution of Flynn

mhaze,

How am I avoiding the issue?

You're the one doing that.

And wanting to argue.

I'm simply not buying into it.

As for Biden? The American people will deal
with him as they're done in the past with
other leaders and wannabe leaders. I mean
they've elected salacious scandalmongers
previously and currently. Nothing new there.

Foxy,

It is the left that are making such a noise about Metoo when Kavanagh was accused, the case was referred to the FBI and the accuser was headlined in the media in spite of not being able to remember where or when the event happened or anyone else that went to the "party" that might corroborate her story. Yet with Biden's accuser the telling of the story is by an intern who reported it years ago and the same people that made such a howling noise about Kavanagh are now silent.

With a second complainant coming forward, the left whingers are having their soap box knocked out from below them either they do believe women or they don't.

SR,

Given Pell's high profile, the high profile of the RC, and the Victorian police advertising for potential victims of Pell, the history of offending appears largely manufactured as none of them could provide any credible evidence.

As for Shorten, the victim was a labor supporter with no apparent motive. Do you believe her?

Shadow Minister,

Kavanagh lost it in court which worried so many people.
He was not credible - and should not have received
his judicial position. His testimony was full of holes.
Utterly unbelievable. Do some research and get the facts.
The man was a drunk and partied all the time. His accuser
was credible.

As for Biden? Well his goose will be cooked once the report
that the woman claims she's filed is found.

So what's your problem?

Shadow Minister,

That people like Foxy et al are utterly hypocritical on the Biden issue as compared to their attitude to Kavanaugh and Pell is hardly surprising and pretty much as expected. That they are so blase about displaying it is the only surprise here.

What I'm more interested here is the media's attempts at covering up for Biden. We even now have attempts at having a left leaning journalist fired because he was the first to break ranks and merely raise the issue on mainstream TV (see #FireChrisHayes). The media is treating the revelation about Biden completely differently to how they treated the far less convincing claims against Kavanaugh.

What I find most interesting is the way the MSM has lost its power to cover-up these Democrat scandals, with the power of the online media overwhelming the attempted cover-up.

As to Shorten, again we see the entirely different way the media and, sadly, the police handled accusation against Pell and Shorten. In the case of the later, there was a general decision to keep the accusations quiet while the police set about 'investigating'. That they would find in his favour was never really in doubt. There were a few murmurings in some right-ish blogs about the accusations but largely the public remained ignorant of the issue until Shorten was cleared. Contrast that with Pell where the media (read ABC) were so convinced of his guilt and so anxious to paint every story against him in the blackest of lights that it was basically impossible to find an unbiased jury by the time the case got to court. Equally, while the police were essentially advertising for complainants against Pell to step forward, they treated Shorten with kid gloves.

Understanding these ingrained biases in the various media is integral to understanding what's going on around us these days. The media is no longer the reporter of the news but instead the maker and manipulator of the news. You need to pick your trusted sources carefully or at least understand their bias.

mhaze,

Give it a rest.

I frankly don't give a hoot about Biden.

He'll be taken care of in due course.

As for media bias - don't even get me started on
the Murdoch press and Cardinal Pell.

Foxy,

1 The police never declared that there was no case against Shorten, only that there was insufficient evidence. Pretty much along the lines of Pell's final verdict.

2 Kavanagh was not in court, he was being questioned by highly partisan Democrat senators and acquitted himself perfectly well. That he used to drink as a student is irrelevant. Secondly his accuser could not name the place or date or anyone else that went to this "party" where this event was purported to have taken place, to claim that her testimony was credible can't be claimed with a straight face.

3 If Biden is dumped who will be the democratic nominee? Sanders?

Hi SM,

Innocent until proven guilty.

So both Shorten and Pell are innocent: neither was proven guilty by any process of law.

Can we move on ?

Whether Biden will be found guilty of sexual assault will depend on charges being brought against him and a trial finding him guilty. Until then, he is as technically innocent as Shorten and Pell.

Given that it's material evidence that matters, it must be a terrible situation for a woman to be in, to be assaulted with no witnesses, no physical marks, no lasting signs of assault, etc. Certainly, if she reports soon afterwards to a relation or friend or the police, that would count for something, but most likely not enough.

But maybe the lesson is that situations which put vulnerable people, women and children, in danger, have to be minimised, in schools, offices, private places, etc. This unfortunately puts the onus back on the potential victims to be vigilant and not to put themselves, as much as possible, in such situations. And of course, for institutions to minimise the opportunities for such crimes.

Joe

Shadow Minister,

I don't have the time nor the inclination to continue
to respond to your mantra.

Foxy,

You are confusing your opinion with facts.

Shadow Minister,

No. I never do that. I firstly get the facts
then I form my opinion. It's an occupational habit.

Foxy,

Then explain to me how Kavanagh's accuser, a staunch democrat, can make a claim yet not remember a single salient detail about where it happened, when it happened or a single other person that went to the "party", yet you claim that she was a credible witness?

Perhaps you have a different definition of credible or you are so biased you walk in circles?

Foxy wrote:"Kavanagh lost it in court which worried so many people.
He was not credible - and should not have received
his judicial position. His testimony was full of holes.
Utterly unbelievable. Do some research and get the facts.
The man was a drunk and partied all the time. His accuser
was credible."

That's quite possibly the wrongest paragraph ever written on this site.

I'll do you a favour and tell you how to reconcile your hypocritical stances. This is from Gloria Steinem, who when confronted with the same ethical dilemma as you (ie lack of ethics) said she believes Reade, thinks Biden is a rapist but will vote for him anyway because OrangeManBad. So not ethical, dripping with hypocrisy, but at least honest. (As Meatloaf almost said, One out of three ain't bad).







As to Biden, the moves to push the silly old duffer aside are growing daily. Its difficult to think that the DNC are so clueless as to allow him to go up against Trump. But they're running out of options. That they are now reconsidering letting Hillary have another go shows just how bare the cupboard is.

mhaze,

I'm not as fixated about this topic as you appear
to be.

Have you run out of topics to discuss?

BTW: Gloria Steinem never impressed me.

Neither did Germaine Greer.(early days - maybe).

Find a more interesting female to quote if you
want to impress.