Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

Well it brings up a curious point.  This allegation has been out there for a year,  shopped to various outlets and lawyers.  There's no doubt that Sanders team has researched it in full.  Yet they never brought it up and he suspended his campaign.  That strikes me as they see it lacks merit.  Sanders will have had oppo research look into this for sure. 

Here's Bernie's Press Secretary calling the allegations credible

https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1249374132275499009?s=19

Burisma isn’t close to being a credible issue.  It damages the integrity of her post.

Yeah, agree totally on Burisma but that's not the point. We're talking about the sexual assault allegations. We don't have to speculate on what the Bernie campaign thought of them. She's telling us.

I don’t know that she speaks for the campaign.  She’s listed as “former”.  The fact that she thinks Burisma is credible calls into question her general judgment on the issue.  

She doesn’t say Burisma (or anything other than the sexual assault allegations, for that matter) is credible.

Right, so Team Sanders showed remarkable restraint by not bringing up smears that lacked credibility.  That's impressive integrity on their part, then.
That really doesn't make the tweet by her any better. 

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch

You don't have to believe her.  You can read the two documents she sources for yourself.  They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband.  She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".  

I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.

Why not read Reade's actual words?

Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyer
https://archive.li/6ykxK

There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her.  Read the two primary documents yourself. 

I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.

The point is:
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.  
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register.  In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party. 
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted.  Nor did she say that's why she quit.

Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened?  No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.  

There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.

No she never mentioned the assault in 19. It just came up in the past week or two. That's what is unusual. I think the point of the alumni post is to give further credence that she consistently wrote about abuse but never mentioned getting raped at work.  
None of this is smoking gun.  How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't rape someone in 1992??  That's not a reasonable bar. I guess if you find a payment to her from the Trump campaign, then that's a smoking gun.  But outside of that, it will be her word vs his.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

Weep for those with nonfunctional bullshit detectors who allow their minds to be poisoned by grifters like Louise Mensch because life is nothing but Trump rage

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/menschs-list

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/twitter-verification-problem

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch

You don't have to believe her.  You can read the two documents she sources for yourself.  They are still up and available. All of her stories are about an abusive husband.  She even touts Joe Biden as "sponsor of Violence against Women Act".  

I wouldn't spend a second of my day reading a word she wrote. If it's credible and gets picked up by a reputable news outlet, by all means post a link.

Why not read Reade's actual words?

Or anything Louise Mensch is linking to. Again, if someone credible wants to report on whatever all that is, I'm all ears.

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyer
https://archive.li/6ykxK

There you go.. why let any news source tell you, let alone her.  Read the two primary documents yourself. 

I caved and read the links then even read the tweets. Can you summarize the point? I'm not getting it.

The point is:
1. She clearly and in a detailed way pointed out how she was abused by a husband during this time period.
2. She never mentioned sexual assault by anyone else
3. She traded (I'm not saying that's bad) on her time in the Biden office
4. She indicated in there that she left the Biden office based on her domestic abuse situation.  
5. This is the opening paragraph of the second piece "I should know what an abuser looks like. After all, I was working for then Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. But domestic violence is an equal opportunity offender."
6. In 2019 she gave an interview to, I believe, the Nevada Register.  In that interview, she said she left Biden's office because she was asked (not by Biden, but by her manager) to serve drinks at a party. 
7. In the same interview, she said he touched her neck inappropriately, never mentioning being assaulted.  Nor did she say that's why she quit.

Does all of this mean that it's impossible that the event happened?  No, not at all, but there's a lot of curious circumstantial counter evidence.  

There's a lot of extraneous stuff there. 1,2,3,5,7 don't really give me a smoking gun. Are you saying the blog link claims she left Biden to go with the Tate dude to the midwest? And in another article from 2019 she says she left Biden because of the assault? And that's her story changing? I still don't understand what the alumni magazine point is.

No she never mentioned the assault in 19. It just came up in the past week or two. That's what is unusual. I think the point of the alumni post is to give further credence that she consistently wrote about abuse but never mentioned getting raped at work.  
None of this is smoking gun.  How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't rape someone in 1992??  That's not a reasonable bar. I guess if you find a payment to her from the Trump campaign, then that's a smoking gun.  But outside of that, it will be her word vs his.  

Yeah, this is all whatever. Certainly not eye-opening enough to be hitching oneself to Louise Mensch.

For the record, I have no clue whether she's telling the truth. Absent some bombshell, I don't think we'll ever know much more than we do now. Like we were saying before, there doesn't really seem to be a forum unless she presses charges.

The thing that is disappointing/illuminating to me is the way it's being handled by the media and partisans, especially when you compare it to Kavanaugh. Scarce few are interested in accountability when it means going after their political allies. Unless it's so egregious a la Weinstein/Epstein.

I thought Kavanaugh was over the top, that's for sure.  However... to me he clearly lied on the stand.  There were some terms that were in the yearbook that he said meant something innocuous that we know meant something else.  It calls into question his entire narrative.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows. 

Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?

Why are you on about Louise Mensch?  You're making this about her.  She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.