By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 19 May 2020
Edit Thread
coolbeans said:
Machiavellian said:

I absolutely do not care what Biden or anyone else believed during Kavanaugh trial since my stance was the same on that situation as well.  I am not looking at the situation based on political affiliation.  You do not gather any evidence until you are going to court.  What good is gathering all evidence when there is nothing to present to.  Since Biden is the defendant in this situation, its up to Reade to go to court to get everything out.

My problem with this whole thing is that in the beginning, Reade did not mention nothing about Rape nor did the neighbor she told.  There story was totally different and then only months later did it change.  A consistent story is always relevant in cases like this because it gives the appearance that you either do not remember what happen or you are making things up.  Either way, I am done with Reade allegations until she get serious and take it to court.  As I stated before, its a waste of time doing this out of court because we cannot see witnesses cross examined or the evidence all in one place for review.  Right now there isn't anything that collaborate Reade rape allegations.

But "political affiliation" isn't the real baseline I'm looking at either, although it's part of equation here.  The principle comes back to something much simpler: reciprocity.  If Joe Biden is willing to take a moral stance in regards to #BelieveWomen against someone else, I don't see why it's wrong applying those same standards when accusations come his way.  And since this is in the venue of public opinion & winning a person's vote--versus a criminal court case, I'm not really sure how you expect this to proceed.

I'm really lost by what you mean here.  Do cold case files and investigative journalism come to mind?  There's never been this weird bubble you seem to be implying whereby "evidence" of suspected wrongdoing only starts when you go to court.  And that's especially tougher given the digital revolution we're in today.  You also seem to have an odd second sentence too.  The evidence gathered is literally being presented to the public given that Biden is trying to secure the highest public office in the US.  Granted, there are dangers TO this approach; but given the statue of limitations Wash DC seems to have regarding sexual assault her options are limited.

And that's fine too.  I--personally--have no quarrels sussing out all available evidence and testing their weight.  It's just a shame so much has been tied to smearing her character about liked tweets & blog posts instead.  As for the rape inconsistency there's actually a pretty easy 'cultural alibi' I can sympathize with women in previous decades: dealing with a stacked deck.  Whether it's in respect to the rigorous sifting through your personal life or the near-certainty that this may poison future employment prospects on Capitol Hill, arguing down to a lesser charge of 'sexual misconduct' with the hopes of him avoiding you is an understandable move.

I have no problem with Biden getting hammered for his position since I really do not care about Biden.  I am looking at the situation on how I view a case of this sort if I was a juror.  I have read multiple articles on the evidence and there really isn't anything there on Reade side that actually point to rape or even assault. Even by her own account she said she only made an official complaint that Biden made her uncomfortable.  Nothing on assault  so how are we to jump from being uncomfortable to sexual assault is really tough.  In the beginning when people where interviewed their story was totally different then next they change it to the current story.  This happen from the neighbor and her brother.  Its not that her story changed but also people who collaborated her story later also changed.  Also her praising Biden not to long ago just seemed odd since she has such detailed description of the incident.  I do not understand how you go from praising someone to saying they rape you.

I am saying the defendant doesn't need to gather any evidence if they are not going to court.  What exactly can the defendant do.  Someone says you rape them, how do you defend that especially in a case like this where there is no physical evidence to be obtained.

To your last paragraph, I totally agree that it was much tougher to bring out charges against someone in power like a Boss compared to now.  This is why I have said when such incidents happen today, sitting on it and waiting is the problem.