I really want to see at least one spliced video comparing the responses, Kavanaugh’s crying, Trump’s grab them quote, Biden’s “women deserve to be treated with dignity” offering the records, Trump blocking access to records,
Dems could do so much better at messaging and grabbing the narrative.
Kavanaugh has plenty of nice sounding quotes about respecting women, too. Remember that whole bullshit about only having women as staffers and the rest of his crap? Any head to head comparison of the two would back fire badly.
We always knew Biden was messy and at least some people here had speculated something like this would come out during the election. Shining this up will just get everyone covered in shit.
Every single time this is mentioned in the media (which seems to be all the time), I wish they would also mention the dozens of accusations against Trump.
Trump will turn this into a "both sides are the same, so don't bother" type of campaign, and along with normal GOP voter suppression tactics, turnout will be lower than what we would have anticipated right after the mid-terms.
It is just laughable to me to think that if it were someone else, anyone else, that something similar wouldn’t be concocted. Yes - if it were a woman it probably wouldn’t be sexual assault (although remember katie hill?), but any candidate that goes up against trump was going to have something like this. When he was up against Hillary, trump used her husband’s infidelity against her.
I actually think that he’s weathering this pretty well. He’s open to an investigation, cooperating, not denigrating Reade.
Yeah I gotta say I didnt LOVE the interview but he is exceeding my expectations overall.
Every single time this is mentioned in the media (which seems to be all the time), I wish they would also mention the dozens of accusations against Trump.
The right doesn't care, they've made that very clear. Anyone who is considering voting for Biden knows that Trump is a sexual deviant.
Every single time this is mentioned in the media (which seems to be all the time), I wish they would also mention the dozens of accusations against Trump.
The right doesn't care, they've made that very clear. Anyone who is considering voting for Biden knows that Trump is a sexual deviant.
Of course they don't care, but if the media is going to keep bringing this up about Biden, I would like them to mention Trump at the same time. There are PLENTY of uninformed voters out there who may not realize how many accusations there are against Trump. It's just feeling very much like the whole email thing with Hillary. When the media finds one thing to talk about with the Dem candidate, they won't stop talking about it.
The right doesn't care, they've made that very clear. Anyone who is considering voting for Biden knows that Trump is a sexual deviant.
Of course they don't care, but if the media is going to keep bringing this up about Biden, I would like them to mention Trump at the same time. There are PLENTY of uninformed voters out there who may not realize how many accusations there are against Trump. It's just feeling very much like the whole email thing with Hillary. When the media finds one thing to talk about with the Dem candidate, they won't stop talking about it.
Because, when I just did a search on Bing for "trump sexual assualt accusation book," the second thing that popped up (following Donald Trump's Wikepedia) was a picture of Joe Biden and an article about the accusations about him, followed by Trumps advice on how Biden should respond to the allegations.
I don't want to argue about who is worse morally. Let's just say they are both scuzzy and move on to the differences between them.
The right doesn't care, they've made that very clear. Anyone who is considering voting for Biden knows that Trump is a sexual deviant.
Of course they don't care, but if the media is going to keep bringing this up about Biden, I would like them to mention Trump at the same time. There are PLENTY of uninformed voters out there who may not realize how many accusations there are against Trump. It's just feeling very much like the whole email thing with Hillary. When the media finds one thing to talk about with the Dem candidate, they won't stop talking about it.
The media should do a lot of things but they don’t. They will continue to run with the top story, and for now, it’s this accusation. I guess I’ve given up hoping that the media will do the right thing.
I was on the fence about believing her for a while. But on Saturday I came across a Twitter thread from another Senate staffer who goes into a ton of detail about why it couldn't have happened the way she says, because the location where she says it happened is the hallway between the metro exit and the main lobby area, so super heavily trafficked at all times. And also it's right outside the metro police office that's there. Also the hallway is obstructed from the view of the main lobby by a statue now, but the statue wasn't there back then so it would have been in full view of the entire lobby.
I wish I could find the thread again because it was informative.
I was on the fence about believing her for a while. But on Saturday I came across a Twitter thread from another Senate staffer who goes into a ton of detail about why it couldn't have happened the way she says, because the location where she says it happened is the hallway between the metro exit and the main lobby area, so super heavily trafficked at all times. And also it's right outside the metro police office that's there. Also the hallway is obstructed from the view of the main lobby by a statue now, but the statue wasn't there back then so it would have been in full view of the entire lobby.
I wish I could find the thread again because it was informative.
Get a true crime podcaster on it. (I am ENTIRELY kidding.)
I was on the fence about believing her for a while. But on Saturday I came across a Twitter thread from another Senate staffer who goes into a ton of detail about why it couldn't have happened the way she says, because the location where she says it happened is the hallway between the metro exit and the main lobby area, so super heavily trafficked at all times. And also it's right outside the metro police office that's there. Also the hallway is obstructed from the view of the main lobby by a statue now, but the statue wasn't there back then so it would have been in full view of the entire lobby.
I wish I could find the thread again because it was informative.
I haven't seen anywhere exactly where she said this happened, but I don't understand the above. There are no Metro exits directly into any of the Senate office buildings or the Capitol. Unless this person meant the people mover? I don't think there are Metro police either, the Capitol Police cover the Capitol.
I still think it sounds unlikely that this could go unseen in most of the public corridors around the Capitol, but IDK what location this person was describing.
I was on the fence about believing her for a while. But on Saturday I came across a Twitter thread from another Senate staffer who goes into a ton of detail about why it couldn't have happened the way she says, because the location where she says it happened is the hallway between the metro exit and the main lobby area, so super heavily trafficked at all times. And also it's right outside the metro police office that's there. Also the hallway is obstructed from the view of the main lobby by a statue now, but the statue wasn't there back then so it would have been in full view of the entire lobby.
I wish I could find the thread again because it was informative.
Was it this one? I don't know this person or their credibility, but I did skim through this.
Putting it behind a spoiler tag so that it doesn't screw up page loads on mobile.
I was on the fence about believing her for a while. But on Saturday I came across a Twitter thread from another Senate staffer who goes into a ton of detail about why it couldn't have happened the way she says, because the location where she says it happened is the hallway between the metro exit and the main lobby area, so super heavily trafficked at all times. And also it's right outside the metro police office that's there. Also the hallway is obstructed from the view of the main lobby by a statue now, but the statue wasn't there back then so it would have been in full view of the entire lobby.
I wish I could find the thread again because it was informative.
I haven't seen anywhere exactly where she said this happened, but I don't understand the above. There are no Metro exits directly into any of the Senate office buildings or the Capitol. Unless this person meant the people mover? I don't think there are Metro police either, the Capitol Police cover the Capitol.
I still think it sounds unlikely that this could go unseen in most of the public corridors around the Capitol, but IDK what location this person was describing.
You beat me to it. I had the exact same thought. Really not sure what location is being described here.
I was on the fence about believing her for a while. But on Saturday I came across a Twitter thread from another Senate staffer who goes into a ton of detail about why it couldn't have happened the way she says, because the location where she says it happened is the hallway between the metro exit and the main lobby area, so super heavily trafficked at all times. And also it's right outside the metro police office that's there. Also the hallway is obstructed from the view of the main lobby by a statue now, but the statue wasn't there back then so it would have been in full view of the entire lobby.
I wish I could find the thread again because it was informative.
Was it this one? I don't know this person or their credibility, but I did skim through this.
Putting it behind a spoiler tag so that it doesn't screw up page loads on mobile.
Ok, this makes a lot more sense. I think it's really important that we don't try to recall details of things like this without the source (even if the "source" is a twitter thread) because that is where a lot of the "whaaaat" reactions from me and rupertpenny originated from. It's one thing to try to suss out the accuracy of details, but when it turns into a game of telephone I think that becomes really unhelpful and potentially unfair to victims (putting Reade specifically aside.)
Ok, this makes a lot more sense. I think it's really important that we don't try to recall details of things like this without the source (even if the "source" is a twitter thread) because that is where a lot of the "whaaaat" reactions from me and rupertpenny originated from. It's one thing to try to suss out the accuracy of details, but when it turns into a game of telephone I think that becomes really unhelpful and potentially unfair to victims (putting Reade specifically aside.)
Yeah, this makes MUCH more sense. I still think he's being a bit heavy handed by saying there is no way it could have happened, but that is a highly trafficked area when Senate is in session.
Ok, this makes a lot more sense. I think it's really important that we don't try to recall details of things like this without the source (even if the "source" is a twitter thread) because that is where a lot of the "whaaaat" reactions from me and rupertpenny originated from. It's one thing to try to suss out the accuracy of details, but when it turns into a game of telephone I think that becomes really unhelpful and potentially unfair to victims (putting Reade specifically aside.)
Yeah, this makes MUCH more sense. I still think he's being a bit heavy handed by saying there is no way it could have happened, but that is a highly trafficked area when Senate is in session.
Yup. And also for the record, while I definitely am suspect of Reade I miiiiight be just a little bit over the many cis male bro-splanations about how it couldn't have possibly happened because xyz thing that I agree is random/strange/inconsistent, but probably not as *definitive* as they make it sound.
Yeah, this makes MUCH more sense. I still think he's being a bit heavy handed by saying there is no way it could have happened, but that is a highly trafficked area when Senate is in session.
Yup. And also for the record, while I definitely am suspect of Reade I miiiiight be just a little bit over the many cis male bro-splanations about how it couldn't have possibly happened because xyz thing that I agree is random/strange/inconsistent, but probably not as *definitive* as they make it sound.
Okay, but any woman who was familiar with that space could have posted a thread like this for the many of us who have never been in this space. Her statements have been out for awhile now. We are relying on reporters and people who have been there to help understand the plausibility - in either direction! I find threads like this and the ones about how he wasn't present in some of the locations she's mentioned very helpful, as without them it's purely he-said-she-said.
Yup. And also for the record, while I definitely am suspect of Reade I miiiiight be just a little bit over the many cis male bro-splanations about how it couldn't have possibly happened because xyz thing that I agree is random/strange/inconsistent, but probably not as *definitive* as they make it sound.
Okay, but any woman who was familiar with that space could have posted a thread like this for the many of us who have never been in this space. Her statements have been out for awhile now. We are relying on reporters and people who have been there to help understand the plausibility - in either direction! I find threads like this and the ones about how he wasn't present in some of the locations she's mentioned very helpful, as without them it's purely he-said-she-said.
Sure. I do think it's interesting that out of hundreds or thousands of women who could have made a similar post, this dude was the one who did (or the one who got traction for it.) I actually don't think Biden did it, but per my other posts in this thread I think dragging Reade and arguing about the details don't do any of us any favors.
Trump will turn this into a "both sides are the same, so don't bother" type of campaign, and along with normal GOP voter suppression tactics, turnout will be lower than what we would have anticipated right after the mid-terms.
It is just laughable to me to think that if it were someone else, anyone else, that something similar wouldn’t be concocted. Yes - if it were a woman it probably wouldn’t be sexual assault (although remember katie hill?), but any candidate that goes up against trump was going to have something like this. When he was up against Hillary, trump used her husband’s infidelity against her.
I actually think that he’s weathering this pretty well. He’s open to an investigation, cooperating, not denigrating Reade.
The story about Christine Blasey Ford actually began as an attack against Feinstein, because the story was not about what Kavanaugh did, but it was a report on the rumors that Feinstein was protecting Kavanaugh by not releasing the details of the alleged assault.
One detail that isn't talked about enough is how both Ford and Reade's stories came up through the same journalist, Ryan Grim of the Intercept, the paper headed by Glenn Greenwald, who appears to have Russian ties. Regardless of what you think of Reade (or Kavanaugh for that matter), you can still be fucking furious at Grim for how he threw both of these unvetted stories out as weapons, subjecting both women to a public vetting of their allegations in a way that isn't done when thoughtful journalists like Farrow, Mayer, or the people at the WaPost who did the Roy Moore story fully investigate claims before publishing them.
So I guarentee you Grim, another Bro journalist, or one of those shit right wing outlets like Red State that smeared Katie Hill would have found something on the women - a victim that Harris didn't believe while working as a prosecutor, a sexual assualt claim that Harvard didn't do something right on where Warren was involved - and they'd make it a huge but her emails story.
It is just laughable to me to think that if it were someone else, anyone else, that something similar wouldn’t be concocted. Yes - if it were a woman it probably wouldn’t be sexual assault (although remember katie hill?), but any candidate that goes up against trump was going to have something like this. When he was up against Hillary, trump used her husband’s infidelity against her.
I actually think that he’s weathering this pretty well. He’s open to an investigation, cooperating, not denigrating Reade.
The story about Christine Blasey Ford actually began as an attack against Feinstein, because the story was not about what Kavanaugh did, but it was a report on the rumors that Feinstein was protecting Kavanaugh by not releasing the details of the alleged assault.
One detail that isn't talked about enough is how both Ford and Reade's stories came up through the same journalist, Ryan Grim of the Intercept, the paper headed by Glenn Greenwald, who appears to have Russian ties. Regardless of what you think of Reade (or Kavanaugh for that matter), you can still be fucking furious at Grim for how he threw both of these unvetted stories out as weapons, subjecting both women to a public vetting of their allegations in a way that isn't done when thoughtful journalists like Farrow, Mayer, or the people at the WaPost who did the Roy Moore story fully investigate claims before publishing them.
So I guarentee you Grim, another Bro journalist, or one of those shit right wing outlets like Red State that smeared Katie Hill would have found something on the women - a victim that Harris didn't believe while working as a prosecutor, a sexual assualt claim that Harvard didn't do something right on where Warren was involved - and they'd make it a huge but her emails story.
They nailed HRC for an email server - which had been used by at least 2 of her predecessors - and her husband's infidelity. That stone was fairly squeezed, and yet...