Here Are Five Reasons Why You Should Be Skeptical of Tara Reade

Spread the love

I still don’t believe Tara Reade.

At first, I wondered if something was wrong with me; I usually believe women who say they have been sexually assaulted, no matter how long ago it was, or who the culprit was. I understand people waiting years to report, I didn’t speak about one of my own attacks for over a decade after it happened. To this day, I find that if I bring it up on Twitter, I am unable to read the comments or discuss the event. Even sympathy hurts. And when I hear stories similar to mine, the stories lead me, in a rather grotesque fashion, to a kindred spirit of sorts, one who knows what lives inside of me just as I know what lives in them.

Tara Reade is not one of us.

We don’t know her.

When Tara Reade came out with her NEW accusations recently, my initial reaction was to try to believe her, until I had a reason not to, even though her story rang false to me. No, it wasn’t just the fake crying she performed for Katie Halper, nor was it the way her eyes searched for the answers, like there was someone with cue cards off to the right behind the camera. It wasn’t merely because she couldn’t remember where and when the assault supposedly happened, I gave that a pass, I suppose it could happen. It was something super simple that made Tara completely unbelievable. Tara Reade was acting; and by acting, I mean lying her ass off and being as unspecific as possible to ensure that her accusations could not be disproved.

There are many more reasons not to take what Reade says at face value. Listed below are five major reasons the allegations made by Reade deserve more scrutiny and  skepticism, and why many survivors of sexual abuse and assault doubt her claims are based on fact.

Reason Number 1– Eva Murry

Eva Murry had 4 to 6 people corroborating a claim she made that Joe Biden said she was well endowed at the Gridiron Dinner in 08. This did not happen.

Had Tara Reade given a date for the assault, she might find out that Joe had not even been there that day to assault her, just like Christine O’Donnell’s niece, Eva Murray, found out when she accused Biden of complementing her boobs at a dinner back in 2008, while he was actually at home recovering from surgery. How stupid is she? Hmm.

Uh oh. Did that woman just lie on Biden about something that happened 12 years ago? Was she simply mistaken about which old dude told her she was “well endowed” that night? Or did she completely make it up in order to reinforce the idea that Biden is a skeevy old lecher who preys upon much younger women and teenage girls? I have no idea, but I do know we haven’t seen Nieceypoo around much since she got caught in her stupid lie. This is not a reason to disbelieve Tara, but I just wanted to get the whole “Women never lie” bullshit taken care of immediately, while also explaining how “corroboration” is in the eye of the beholder. To put it plainly, your corroboration is only as accurate and honest as you are; if fed lies and misinformation, people will corroborate lies and misinformation.

From Law and Crime:

Four of Murry’s friends say that they were told about the incident. One said she was told about it around the time it happened. Two more said they were told about it in 2010. Three of those friends agreed to speak on the record.

Look at all these people corroborating something that never even happened. This is a time frame similar to the time frame we have for Tara Reade telling her friend in DC, and her neighbor, yet somehow it’s clear that they were not told the truth. Sure, it could be that her friends had all decided to lie for her and support her claims, it’s not the likeliest scenario, but it’s definitely possible. Same could be true for Tara’s  friends.

Eva Murry’s older sister, Jenna Murry, also says she was told about the alleged incident “within a week or so of the dinner.”

But, guess what? It STILL didn’t happen. This is a witness told in the immediate aftermath, within a week, yet still, it’s complete bullshit.

`Several additional friends of Murry’s commented on the post noting that they recalled hearing about the incident and said Murry was courageous for speaking out.

How could she possibly be lying when she has 4 friends and her sister on the record corroborating her story? Not only that, she also had another group of friends on Facebook who claimed they also remembered hearing the story. There might have been as many as 8 people or more who were completely willing to back her up on her ridiculous claim that Joe Biden ogled her dirty pillows at the Gridiron dinner in 2008. Of course, the Tara Reade supporting segment of Twitter couldn’t believe their luck. This was a new accuser, and she had FAR BETTER corroboration than Tara Reade did, so this would help bolster Tara’s claims.

That didn’t turn out as expected, because home-chick fucked around and provided the date and the specific name of the event Biden supposedly eyeballed her boobage at. It is quite possible that the exact same thing would happen if Tara provided a date, and with the way this thing turned out with poor lying ass Eva, I am leaning towards the idea that the corroboration is only as good as the person relaying the information to the corroborator. Maybe someone else ogled her bombas, and Eva Murray really believes it was Joe Biden talking to her that evening, maybe Joe has a Bad Twin or Doppelganger running around sex crimeing, or maybe, just maybe, Eva is a Goddamn Lie. When you’re a Goddamn Lie, it legit doesn’t matter what corroborating witnesses say,  it will never be the truth, because they’ll have been lied to. Eva stands by her “truth” and doesn’t believe the evidence showing Biden wasn’t there is accurate. She is wrong.

Reason 2– The Corroboration of The Attack Is Tainted

Speaking of bullshit corroboration, Tara’s corroboration is not even as good as Eva’s, and Eva was entirely full of shit.

Joe Biden strenuously denied any attacks on Tara Reade recently and called for any documents pertaining to Tara and any claims she made of harassment to be released.

You read that Tweet right. I keep hearing about how Tara has a friend who was in DC with her at the time and can corroborate her claims fully, and that she is the best “witness” of sorts because she remembers being told about the attack. Hopefully the friend is not the same friend who spoke with Halper on her podcast, because that friend said something quite a bit different on Halper’s podcast. I had to download the audio and cut some segments out for y’all once I listened carefully to her “memory” of being told about the assault, and what I heard is that she actually doesn’t remember it at all. Why? Because she repressed it, silly! Doesn’t everyone repress memories of shit that happened to other people because they’re just so gross and icky?

Also? She hadn’t made a point to remember yet….

Note how she says, “It’s not like I met her last week and she said this happened once upon a time..” In my opinion, this is why she believes Tara, yet you hear her describe how she often initially has skepticism when someone comes forward. Interesting.

Here is the rest where she describes how Tara “walked her through things” when she called her up.

“When you have a couple of friends in the world and one of them calls you and walks you through things…” Pretty sure we call this “Witness Tampering” in some places, you know, like courtrooms? Seems to me, you either remember it or you don’t; there should be no need to rely on the length of time you’ve known someone to lend credibility to the situation, or any need to be “walked through things” to recall that your bosom friend was sexually assaulted by a Senator she worked for if you had actually been told that.

This is not the only witness she contacted before they spoke to the media, Tara seems to have spoken to them all before anyone else was able to contact them, and each “corroborator” that confirms the penetrative assault portion of the story has the exact same story as she does. No variations based on interpretation or shifting perception of their memories of what they heard; oddly enough everyone remembers it the same way, almost like its a brand new memory for each of them.

Reason 3–Cancelled Media Appearances After Complaining She Was Being Ignored

Tara Reade has been complaining and complaining that the media is completely ignoring her.

She has also been whining about how she was not going to remain silent to the masses on Twitter who are not trying to silence her. I would post a Tweet of hers to back up my claims, but she blocked me when I caught her in a lie about the Pregnant Mare Rescue and a debt she owes. (I have since gotten the tweet via incognito mode) She also allegedly told someone she was having me investigated (along with MANY others), and if I was found to be working for the Joe Biden Campaign, then somehow I would have to do prison time (again, along with MANY others, it’s mass incarceration). Because, apparently it’s either illegal to work for Joe while gathering information about her, or it’s illegal to work for Joe period, I am not sure which.

Suffice to say, I’m in luck! I neither give a shit about her dumb ass Karening, nor am I worried about my local police arresting me for out White Womaning a White Woman by getting her ex-amigas to snitch her out for her frauds.

Nobody can out White Woman me when I’m in rare form, Tara, so you might as well give up. I was investigating you first, stoopid. It’s a K-Hive tradition now.

Reade, who has been desperate to get on TV and tell “her story” began cancelling interviews she had scheduled to talk about her Sexual Assault claim.

Weird. Why would Tara cancel her interview with Chris Wallace right after Joe Biden had his interview with Morning Mika?

WEIRD. WHY WOULD TARA ALSO CANCEL HER INTERVIEW WITH DON LEMON AFTER JOE BIDEN GOT ASSAULTED BY MORNING MIKA?

It’s really strange that Joe Biden coming out and giving a statement completely denying assaulting her in any way caused Reade to cancel her scheduled media appearances. What did she think he was going to say? “Out of respect for the Me Too movement, even though I cannot remember this woman, I agree that I committed this crime against her person, if she says so.”? Another thing strikes me as funny, why the hell did she disappear off the face of social media?

Um, what? Am I drunk? Did Tara not force her way into the public eye and demand to be heard? The interviews were on Skype or something like that, it’s not like she had to fly to NYC, or meet in person. Just when people began to scrutinize her claim and demand answers for the multitude of lies, misinformation, and inconsistencies she has tossed out, she runs and hides. Tara has not Tweeted since May 4th.

Reason 4–Weaponization and Amplification

Isn’t it weird as fuck that Trump has 20 or more accusers, yet all we ever hear about is Biden? This is because the Tara situation is being amplified, and as always, our own media plays the useful idiot when it comes to anything that may damage Democrats.

In Slate, some woman named Susan Matthews took to counting the number of words it took Biden to get to the topic of Tara Reade’s claims. For Joe, it took 400 words, (oh no!), which amounts to roughly 3 minutes or less, which actually isn’t even that long. But, to her, is seemed sinister somehow, and the fact the he brought up his work on legislation fighting sex crimes and domestic violence, along with his years of advocacy? He way crossed the line. Apparently, Joe was supposed to say, “even though this never happened, I defer to this strange woman I vaguely remember, but who was rarely anywhere near me because she was lower level staff.”

From Susan Matthews at Slate:

And, more relevantly, the 25-year window does not reach back to 1993, when Biden’s then-interns recall Tara Reade being abruptly removed from her duties as their supervisor, and when Reade’s mother phoned in to Larry King Live to say her daughter had been mistreated by a prominent senator.

Here, Susan is doing a bad thing and should feel bad. The way she weaves the various fragments of Reade’s story together is seamless enough to fool a reader who is not deeply involved with this tale, but, it’s not good enough to fool me. We have no idea if Biden had anything to do with Tara being removed from her position, we just know that she has said she refused to serve drinks, and sometime afterwards was demoted. I’ve heard her bring this up a number of times, as if the serving of drinks is nefariously sexual, or beneath her in some way. Perhaps her time as a model taught her to look down on the cocktail waitstaff? I have clearly served drinks in my life, I usually wore jeans, or even yoga pants, and I survived. Regardless, the idea that Biden would be angry she did not consent to serving drinks is laughable, Biden notably does not drink.

Perhaps this is a fact Tara never knew because she wasn’t high enough up the chain to have regular contact with Biden, but his tee-totaling ways have been known for decades. This makes it very strange for Tara Reade to believe that Joe Biden would be emotionally invested in ensuring she was there serving drinks, and showing leg, when it’s more likely that, as lower staff, she was expected to do some of the crappy jobs, or service jobs when they came up.

People may have strong reasons to want to believe Biden’s flat declaration that “it didn’t happen,” but if Biden didn’t reach his fingers up her skirt, what did happen then?

We have reached peak “When did you stop beating your wife?” territory, Susan. This is unanswerable and highly inappropriate of her to do. Highly negative and loaded rhetorical questions may make you feel edgy and cool, like some Neo-Fem-Nazi who glories in kicking an old man in the balls because “Fuck the Patriarchy, bitches!” Oh, I’m sure you felt just great, Karen Susan, but, what if he’s telling the truth? We don’t have a date or location from Reade, we have no polygraph like we had with Dr. Ford, and we also don’t have anyone with access to her therapist’s notes from the time of the alleged attack. We don’t have anyone who recalls seeing them together alone at any time and we don’t have confirmation that she was ever handed a gym bag, or that Biden was even using a gym bag, rather than using his locker like everyone else. That link shows the Congressional locker room, but the Senate is said to have slightly better shit, so, seems like there would be no need to carry a gym bag ever.

The Tara Reade op—and whatever she may believe about what happened to her, the weaponization of her allegation by Russian bots, Bernie diehards, and the GOP is absolutely, positively an op—is particularly noxious because it must, by its very nature, be refuted by women. By survivors. By victims of rape and sexual assault. Joe Biden can deny the allegations all he wants (and he did so, effectively and plausibly). Men like Michael J. Stern can cast objective doubt upon the story. But only women have the real moral authority to call bullshit.

And we ARE calling bullshit.

Reason 5– Changes to Her Story Led To Edits of Her Blog Post

On March 3rd, Tara was still linking to her Medium post that contained the original story she told to The Union, a newspaper in California. At the time, she was not mentioning any sexual assault, she only discussed him being inappropriate.

We keep hearing from all the usual suspects that Tara Reade did not change her story, she merely ADDED to it, so people who are skeptical because of the evolution of her tale are just rape apologists who don’t understand how trauma affects the mind. This is barbecued catshit. Even Tucker Carlson, from Fox News of all places, noticed inconsistencies.

Tara Reade literally changed her story in the past year or so, and she also changed her blog post describing the alleged happenings between her and Joe Biden on the very day she accused him of sexual assault. If she was just adding to her story, why do the edits show that she completely changed her story?

From Roman Research:

List of Edits

Original: https://www.theunion.com/opinion/columns/alexandra-tara-reade-a-girl-walks-into-the-senate/
Updated: https://medium.com/@AlexandraTaraReade/a-girl-walks-into-the-senate-dd9ebdfce31b

Below I have listed the segments of the article that were materially altered, roughly in order of importance (from most to least impactful).

Wording removed in the update will be red, italicized, and struck through
Wording added in the update will be red and bolded

  • “But this is not only a story about sexual misconduct”

This first change is major; the edit completely changes the meaning of the sentence and provides a foundation for all of the other changes.

  • “I am upset now and feel defensive. Again, somehow me talking about what happened, what Joe Biden did to me, is my fault. And I did not even tell the whole story…The small portion that did come out of what Joe Biden did to me resulted in me being bullied and threatened to silence.

She keeps saying she was bullied into silence. There is no evidence she ever stopped Tweeting about her story during the year since she first spoke to The Union about inappropriate touching.

  • “Maybe as women, we can speak up at the time and not lose our jobs or reputations if our boundaries are violated. Maybe these men can modify their behavior or at least let them be held accountable. There needs to be restorative justice for victims who lose their jobs due to sexual harassment and assault. Maybe we can start from there.”

Have we even gotten confirmation of the stated reason for the end of her employment? I haven’t come across any paperwork from her time at the Senate.

  • “Then, I went to Senate Personnel for help. No one helped me. I was moved into a solitary, windowless office and told to leave. I resigned or I would say,I was fired, or should I say, I was forced to resign. I was told to look for another job.No one would interview me on the Hill for any position.

Have we gotten any sort of confirmation that she was blacklisted in any way?

  • “What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me. I was sad and lost and moved on. My career on the Hill was over.

We don’t know if Joe Biden ever said he liked her legs, we just know Tara said she was told he liked her legs, no one who worked there at the time recalls any of the conversations she mentions, or any of the complaints she now says she had.

  • “I believe these gestures were not so much about “connection” but establishing dominance in the room and power over others.”

Hmmm.

  • “I was told that Senator Biden wanted me to “serve drinks at an event with some donors (all men) because he “liked my legs” and thought I was “pretty.” These “events” were often all older, wealthy males.

Who was telling her these things? And is she talking about fundraisers? What fundraisers would a Senate Staffer be participating in?

What this all means is up to you. But this much is clear: In the same day she accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, Tara Reade edited her previous statements to better match her new allegations.

The same day? To me, this is a very important detail. Reade was so concerned with her story on her blog matching the story she just told Halper, that she retroactively edited her own post rather than just writing a new one. Why? Perhaps the stories were just too different for people to not see the red flag, because these weren’t just minor changes, she fundamentally changed the meaning of her post with her edits.

Also? Is she saying Biden was trying to force her to do campaign work from her position as a Staff Assistant?

 Staff may not be required to do campaign work as a condition of Senate employment. 

You know what? I don’t believe that either, so, I’ll drop it for now.

If you want to hear me discuss my point of view, just listen to the most recent episode of Brave and the K-Hive where I break some of this down.

Last year, Tara Reade told us a story about Joe Biden and her time working in his Senate office. When her story came out, I found it completely credible; it sounded just like the stories of the other women who said Joe Biden entered their personal space, touched them inappropriately, and made them uncomfortable. Being a fan of not being touched myself, I completely agreed that Joe Biden needed to change how he interacted with people and stay out of their personal space. I stand by that to this day. What I don’t agree with is the idea that I am under an obligation to believe anyone on earth just because they make a claim. In cases where we are dealing with events from nearly 30 years ago, what it comes down to is credibility, and right now, Tara Reade is a bit light on essentials.

 

Law and Crime

Roman Research

Slate

Alaska sucks and we are cut off from Civilization!! Everyone donate to my survival fund and I’ll try to survive the wilderness!

5 Replies to “Here Are Five Reasons Why You Should Be Skeptical of Tara Reade”

  1. “What did she think he was going to say? “Out of respect for the Me Too movement, even though I cannot remember this woman, I agree that I committed this crime against her person, if she says so.”?”

    To be fair, there are a lot of people (including alleged liberals) who think that’s more or less what happened with Al Franken: he resigned rather than be investigated and have his reputation restored, because … well they’re not clear on why. But doing so only reinforced “BASELESS LIES AND SMEARS” against him, so apparently he was just being nice to all the lying women. Arguably TOO nice!

    About Reade adding digital penetration to her account later. I am a guy so I should be very careful what I say, but I am also a white guy so I don’t always practice good sense. So, let’s say someone beat me unconscious, stole my wallet, and keyed my car. Now let’s say I decided it was time for justice, and it’s time I turned the guy in. I can’t imagine filing a police report for keying my car and nothing else. If there’s anything I’d want justice for, it’d be the beating, followed by the theft of my wallet; keying the car doesn’t really matter. Anyway, with Tara Reade, we are to believe that her first round of allegations, she wanted justice for feeling vaguely uncomfortable, but she had no particular objection to digital penetration? What? That’s what Tara’s supporters would have you believe.

    But her supporters are Bernie Bros of course, who have never demonstrated even the tiniest particle of interest in the well-being of women, or in basic honest or the common good for that matter. So to them, baseless allegations are just as good as real ones, because it doesn’t matter whether there was a woman whose situation demands justice. All they know is, they think they can make hay out of this story. Remember, they are the moral center of the Democratic Party; they’ll be the first to tell you so.

  2. What I want to know is, why aren’t all of the skeezy, neckbeard Bern Victims on YouTube attacking Bernie for endorsing Joe? They are very eager to go in on Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and, most recently, Stacy Abrams, for supporting Joe, but Bernie gets a fucking pass? Also, it’s so blatantly obvious that Tara Reade is being financed by Bernie to make these false claims; the timing, the embellishment of the original story, Tara telling Joe to “step down” during her interview with Megyn Kelly (and now all of the Bernie Bots are regurgitating it as a hashtag). Bernie may smile at Joe’s face and support him on camera, but you can trust & believe that he’s working hard behind the scenes to stab him in the back.

  3. Oh, and Bernie Bros only “believe” women when it’s politically advantageous.

    Great blog, btw.

Comments are closed.