Again, you're operating from a place of zero skepticism of Reade.
I've said repeatedly that her changing story hurts her credibility, but I'm the one who has zero skepticism. Where's your skepticism of Biden?
That corroboration only goes as far as we trust Reade's credibility and what she told them. Her reassignment in no way corroborates sexual assault.
But it does match her story that she was removed, whereas the Biden campaign has repeatedly said nothing at all happened. The interns says something happened. That doesn't prove what exactly happened, but it's evidence in support of Reade's claim and against Biden's claim.
At some point, the decisions people make matters. As in if someone chooses to appear on RT I'm less likely to care about what they have to say because I don't think people should legitimize RT. This damages Halpert's credibility for me. That's what this entire discussion is about.
Fair point, and I agree that going on RT hurts her credibility. But does Halper's credibility matter much when judging the interview she had with Reade? Unless you've got specific points about the interview, then it seems like a tiny footnote to this whole thing.
Would you give this same deference to BIden if he, say, called any number of people just before they went on record defending him? Or would you be a lot more skeptical? Republicans know how this works - remember that tarmac meeting between Slicky Willy and Loretta Lynch?
If it was Biden's neighbor who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, then absolutely I'd give Biden the same deference. But the meeting on the tarmac was COMPLETELY different. Lynch was overseeing the investigation into Slicky Willy's wife.
Been covered. I just find the nature of Robinson's involvement and subsequent deletion of relevant tweets odd.
I can see calling it odd, but it's a huge leap to definitely coaching the witness. And maybe put "allegedly" or something to make clear you're not stating facts but conspiracies.
It does, if Reade told her neighbor the truth back in the 90s.
No! The point I'm making is that it doesn't depend on the truthfulness of Reade's claim. The claim is that Reade only came up with the sexual assault claim AFTER Biden was leading the nomination. That claim is clearly false unless either Reade can time travel or the neighbor is lying/misremembering. Even if Reade lied back in 1996, it still shows that the sexual assault story predates Biden leading or even running.
Fair enough. But the substance of the changes serves to undermine her credibility for some of us.
I agree, but it's a matter of degrees. There's a big difference between being skeptical of her stories and something like making the claim that no prosecutor would ever take her case because of it. I'm not arguing that Reade is entirely credible or that her shifting accounts should be ignored, but rather that it doesn't completely invalidate her claims or give some type of certainty that she's lying.
That's fine. You're welcome to think what you want about me. But put your critical thinking hat on here. Believe all women means giving women a platform to feel safe to tell their story and then doing the hard work of critically analyzing it. Which means applying skepticism when appropriate.
We completely agree on this point. No where have I expressed certainty about the issue or said that others should be certain. I find Reade's account more credible than others do mostly because of the contemporaneous confirmations. And I'm applying skepticism to Biden and not just Reade.
