April 15, 2020

"How on earth do you pretend that Joe Biden’s character is not instantly newsworthy? He’s the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for president."

"He was the vice president of the United States for eight years. He’s been a front-page news figure since the 1980s. Thought experiment: Imagine that an allegation came forward against Ken Starr. We all know that, because Starr was involved in pursuing the Lewinsky story, any whiff of sexual impropriety would instantly be framed as a hypocrisy story even long after Starr has left public service. Biden chaired the Hill-Thomas hearings in 1991; how is that not the same thing? We were constantly told that the Kavanaugh allegations should be judged by a low bar because the hearings were 'a job interview' and he’d be confirmed to a powerful, life-tenured job. Well, presidents have a lot more power than any individual Supreme Court justice, including the power to appoint lots of life-tenured federal judges and justices. Isn’t this Biden’s job interview?"

Writes Dan McLaughlin in "The New York Times Knows Nobody Believes It about Biden, Kavanaugh, and Sexual Assault" (National Review).

In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility. The obvious difference is which political party supports the accused. If you don't treat them the same, you're showing that you're doing partisan politics. It's what we saw in the 90s with Anita Hill and Paula Jones. I know I've treated like cases alike on a principled basis and I have done it for decades. But I don't see too many other people stepping up to that challenge.

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Qwinn said...

Same level of credibility?!?!

There's not a shred of evidence that Kavanaugh ever even MET Ford. Reade was on Biden's staff.

Two people confirm that Reade told them what happened at the time. None of the 4 people Ford claimed would back her up did so, in fact they actively disputed it.

Reader remembers when and where it happened. Ford claims neither.

How in God's name do those count as equally credible? I'm glad you appreciate the media's double standard but it's amazing you simultaneously fail to perceive your own. Cause it's huge

donald said...

IKR?

Lucid-Ideas said...

The litany of fake accusations - now verifiably fake in the minds of most people - from Krystal Mangum to Blasey Ford has pretty much cemented in the mind of most men (and lots of women too) that an accusation, made publicly against a powerful man, is almost always certainly fake, partially untrue, or agenda driven.

Women have yet again shot themselves in the foot with their unwillingness to inter-condemn sisterhood. This will have lasting repercussions. I can't say I believe Reade. I don't believe any of them.

iowan2 said...

Your the Law Prof, I'll should cede the "equal importance" opinion. But a woman that names time, place, and people. With real time supporting corroboration, to Blaise-Fords, I just can't remember anything but Kavanaugh. And the other people present, who deny the entire story... is a stretch.

Shouting Thomas said...

People, men and women, go into politics and show biz to get rich, famous and laid. That includes the supporting cast.

For God’s sake, everybody please deal with reality.

Every allegation of this sort, no matter the target, should be presumed to be utter bullshit and obvious political back stabbing.

I don’t want to change human nature, like the prof, to make people better. Leave them alone to be their normal greedy, con artist, horny selves. It’s entertaining.

This is an arena of universal lying. The people pretending to be saints are liars. The victims are liars. Everybody’s lying. I guess that’s part of the game, too.

Francisco D said...

Althouse said ... In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility. The obvious difference is which political party supports the accused.

I do not believe the Tara Reade story. However, I do remember how Althouse struggled with the CBF "fantasy" because it was constructed in order to emotionally manipulate moderately liberal women like her.

rhhardin said...

I say it's all crap. If it's a crime, report it to the police at the time.

Otherwise it's always about at best a woman's right to change her mind.

There's a principle.

Freder Frederson said...

I know I've treated like cases alike on a principled basis and I have done it for decades.

Not when it comes to the accusations against Trump, you haven't.

Lucien said...

There might just be a difference between what someone is accused of doing as a drunk high school junior, and what they are accused of doing to their staff as a sober US Senator.

Johnathan Birks said...

We either have presumption of innocence or we don't. NYT long ago abandoned that principle. It's an obvious double standard they're applying and I don't expect that will change.

Lucid-Ideas said...

The following statement is 100% true:

Women have been verifiably caught, multiple times, lying about rape and sexual assault, its circumstances, and its severity if it even occurred. Everyone knows this now. Therefore, one can conclude that women - many women - are willing to lie about sexual impropriety for personal benefit, and in fact do not feel it is morally wrong or hazardous. 100% verifiable and true.

Act accordingly.

Kevin said...

The obvious difference is which political party supports the accused.

You want more hypocrisy and divisiveness? Keep voting for this party.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Lucien said...
There might just be a difference between what someone is accused of doing as a drunk high school junior, and what they are accused of doing to their staff as a sober US Senator.

4/15/20, 8:38 AM


Yes, Lucien. There is a possibility of real consequences for the drunk high school junior.

MadisonMan said...

The obvious difference is which political party supports the accused.

Not voting for Biden's party might send a message.

Dave Begley said...

Trump will call this to the public's attention during the debate. Joe will lose his temper. The Fake News has now run this one story and so its over. It won't be discussed on CNN or MSNBC.

The point is that the American people aren't stupid and know that the Fake News is both dishonest and partisan. Real America hates the Fake News. And Trump knows that. At every 2016 Trump campaign rally I attended, Trump always pointed to the cameras in the back and "lashed" out at the Fake News. Always huge cheers.

Big Mike said...

In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility.

Not in terms of credibility, no. Women who have been genuinely sexually assaulted report that they recall every detail of the event*. Christine Blasey Ford could not remember the address of the party nor the date — not even to the year it happened! Note the contrast with Tara Reade, who like most true assault victims remembers every detail.

Poor Ms. Reade must have imagined that the rules that applied to Bob Packwood in 1994-1995 would apply to Joe Biden in 1997. Deluded woman!

stevew said...

I agree. Serious charges that should be examined and judged for their credibility and truth. Were this to be done and the charges dismissed Biden would emerge stronger. As for the NYT's behavior on this: just today's evidence that they are in the partisan politics business rather than the news business.

JAORE said...

exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility


"seriousness" and "importance" may be debatable.

Credibility?

Perhaps Reade should have said she did not know where the assault happened (not even the general neighborhood).
Or when it happened (not even the month).
Perhaps she should have listed witnesses that could tell us,"Never happened" or "I have no recollection". Perhaps she should hire a lawyer that will tell us she wants an "*" next to Biden's name. Perhaps she should have had a senior Senator announce the accusation in October of 2020.....

C'mon, Ms. Althouse go through your love of a word's definition and history to demonstrate why "credible" applies equally in these two cases.

Spiros said...

First, Republicans don't understand just how hilarious the Kavanaugh hearings were.

Second, stop being hypocrites. The #HimToo hashtag and its associated memes identified Mr. Kavanaugh as a victim and recast the MeToo movement as a widespread feminist witch hunt. But shouldn't you also be lamenting Mr. Biden's treatment? The GOP (people like Candance Owens!!!) insist that, at any time, women can make up stories about men that can neither be proved or disproved and ruin their (political) life. This is "terrifying," right? I mean, Christine Ford does sound nutty...

Sally327 said...

There is a difference in the level of seriousness and importance in that Christine Blasey Ford never claimed she lost a job because of her unwillingness to submit.

Dave Begley said...

If Reade is lying, you've got to admit that "Come on, man. I thought you liked me." part is both clever and funny.

I've seen a picture of the younger Tara and she was hot!

iowan2 said...

There is an ongoing theme here for the last couple of weeks.

The media has shifted from putting their thumb on the scale of objectivity, to outright lies.

The NYT is lying, loud and proud. All know and understand. The fake story about Trumps signature delaying checks? A lie that didn't last 20 comments here. A steady stream of posts from our host documenting the media's collapse.

I still cant get my head around Obama using govt agencies to interfere in the 2016 election. Obama used Brennen, director of the CIA to spy on the Trump campaign, invloving the DoJ, FBI, State Dept, and a slew of foriegn intel agencies. All the media can do lie about President Trump's leadership in dealing with the Chinese lung rot. Not word out of any major media outlet. It's like Catherine Herridge is invisible

Dave Begley said...

Here's my suggestion to resolve this. An FBI investigation. And then a special hearing. And instead of the hearing being conducted by the Senate, let's have Special Masters ask the questions. Two guys who are real lawyers and have been through the exact same thing: Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.

Big ratings!

Todd said...

In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility.

Sorry but didn't one of these women claim to have filed a written statement/complaint with HR? Shouldn't that be locatable? Would that not make one of these to a bit more "credible" if that proves true?

c365 said...

No the difference is one these people is a long time powerful politician, who we naturally assume is sleazy. (By definition he's power hungry) The other was until recently a relatively obscure judge who was having new accusations made against his teenage past.

Any accusation of abuse of power against a personal lifetime of power seeking is more credible.

Sebastian said...

"In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility."

OMFG. Here we go again. The Althousian version of #MeToo.

As I recall, CBF did not even remember the year, or how she got home. She had no corroborating witnesses at all, and all who were supposed to be present not only "did not recall," they said it didn't happen. By contrast, TR has made checkable claims, with more specific detail, and named witnesses-after-the-fact that may or may not check out. Simply, in. terms of the way the accusations have been made TR looks more credible. If you treat them "the same," that is. Which doesn't mean that the accusation is necessarily true.

And by the way, I believe TR alleges digital penetration; as I recall, CBF never did. The former seems "more serious," no?

"If you don't treat them the same, you're showing that you're doing partisan politics."

If by "the same" you mean giving different accusations equal credence, that is the partisan move.

Owen said...

Althouse said "... In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility."

Agree that both charges are at about the same level of seriousness/importance, in the sense that they are directed at Big Political People At An Important Decision Point.

But credibility? Not sure what you mean. Do you mean "Even a cursory examination of the accusations --specifics of the alleged assault, claimed corroboration, physical evidence, timeliness of complaint to witnesses, official records or action prior to this public airing of the accusation-- shows them to be roughly similar"? Or do you just mean "presumption of innocence is in effect until we see the parties present their case and their defense against it"?

If the latter, it's kinda trivial. If the former, it's kinda incredible. As other commenters have said, CBF had no case at all. Here? It's not nothing, although 27 years is a long time to wait to go after Joey Fingers like this.

Ann Althouse said...

The reason I equate them in credibility is that the actual penetration with the hand that Reade describes and the statement "You're nothing to me" — done by a Senator and her employer, when she is an adult and in the government, operating as a lucid, intelligent aide — is so severe that the failure to report to the police at the time has much more significance than the failure of a teenager who found herself overcome by another teenager when both of them are drunk. The latter is a very common experience, I think, and the decision not to report it to the police is understandable.

chuck said...

I think both accusations are about events too long ago to unravel. OTOH, there is a ton of evidence that Biden is an ass with women, Kavanaugh had no such reputation. Based on the details of the accusations, or lack thereof, I consider Reade far more credible than Ford.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Blasey Ford concocted a BS scenario that happened in High School. That even if true, (but likely not) she more than likely fudged the details to make it sound more nefarious than it was. But most of us see her as a liar because of all the other lies that were found out to be true.
"Fear of flying" - and manipulated lie detector tests to name a few.

Tara Reade -> 2 full grown adults.

Lucid-Ideas said...

I am one man willing to go on record that and sexual assault claim made by a woman that took longer than 5 years to be formally filed as criminal conduct with the police should be immediately disregarded.

There is absolutely no forensic reason, even among the emotional and uneducated, to wait this long to bring an accusation. To me it is instantaneously a lie, and any shred of credibility that may exist is most certainly not the whole story.

Reade is lying. Just like Ford.

Shouting Thomas said...

Really, Althouse, give up on improving the character of hustlers in politics and show biz.

Abandon all hope ye who enter here!

I don't even understand why you think it would be a good idea to improve the character of hustlers in politics and show biz.

This is one of the more amusing and baffling parts of your feminist plan to create the New Man and the New Woman.

At least, I can take solace in the reality that you are doomed to failure. It will be the same old story long after you and I are gone.

chuck said...

the failure to report to the police at the time

I had a girl friend who was finger penetrated by a doctor during an examination for other things. She didn't report it. That sort of thing is pretty common out in the real world.

BarrySanders20 said...

Brave Fighter for Women's Rights Lizzy Warren Endorses Joe "Monkey Finger" Bidden:

Interviewer: "Congress — like many other institutions — is grappling with its history of sexual harassment, and I’m curious about the ways that you believe that this government can and is already taking action on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, including in the workplace of Capitol Hill."

Lizzy: "Well, Congress has not taken leadership on the issue of sexual harassment, but it is at least showing a little followership. The #MeToo movement is grassroots at its most powerful. It’s the reminder that we are stronger when we stand up for each other. The first women who spoke up in the #MeToo movement inspired a wave of women who spoke up, and they in turn inspired another wave and another wave and another wave until the world no longer looks the same.

That doesn’t mean we’ve made enough change. But it was our supporting each other that got the change started in the first place. Now the job of Congress is to change the rules around here so that we live our values every day, and we hold each other accountable. To pass rules to support people who’ve been sexually harassed all across this country."

https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/elizabeth-warren-interview.html

Live those values, Lizzy! Hold each other accountable!

Owen said...

David Begley @ 8:48: "Here's my suggestion..." You devil!

If this is done on pay-per-view, a true gold mine.

Ann Althouse said...

Actually, what Biden is accused of doing is more serious than what Kavanaugh is accused of doing.

And what Biden is accused of doing is more important — because it's about how he behaved as an adult and in his official governmental position. It was specifically an abuse of power. (Assuming it happened.)

Why aren't you getting after me on importance and seriousness!

Owen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

Irrelevant, I suppose, but the fact that the prof is veering away from the COVID-19 media generated panic is good news.

We're back to the good old days of trying to morally improve political hustlers.

Michael K said...

Well, at least Freder and Althouse finally agree on something.

Hilarious.

Dave Begley said...

Althouse, "is so severe that the failure to report to the police at the time has much more significance...."

Tara didn't want to ruin her life and job prospects. Very risky to rat out a sitting Dem Senator and future Vice President. Everyone likes Lunchbucket Joe. She saw what happened to Monica. Unlike Anita Hill, she couldn't get a job at Brandeis University.

tim in vermont said...

We have other incidents involving Biden. None involving Kavanaugh., whose name still doesn’t spell check, BTW. Bitter, bitter, bitter!

I bet that the harpy who refuses to approve Kavanaugh’s name for spell check will vote for Biden without a second thought.

Gusty Winds said...

The entire effort is harmed by the "believe all liberal women" mantra. Sexual assault is serious. But we are asked to believe that only men engage in bearing false witness and lying for personal gain.

Biden will bury his own campaign via his dementia. His convention acceptance speech will (if given) will be a disaster. Any handler that would put him in a one on one debate with Trump is an idiot.

Dave Begley said...

If the Fake News wasn't the Fake News, this Tara-Joe thing would be big news.

Shouting Thomas said...

My mantra is “don’t believe anybody.”

Big Mike said...

@Althouse (8:54), Washington operates under different rules. Go research Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, and “waitress sandwich.”

@Althouse (8:59), patience my dear lady, patience.

Rory said...

"has pretty much cemented in the mind of most men (and lots of women too) that an accusation, made publicly against a powerful man, is almost always certainly fake, partially untrue, or agenda driven."

I don't think so. My presumption, after so many cases both sexual and racial in nature, is that if the charge as initially reported doesn't add up, then whatever new information comes out will tend to refute the claim. If the initial charge does add up, it may or may not be true.

chickelit said...

Doesn't the NYT masthead say something about news "fit to print"? They don't care about digital penetration in the marketplace of ideas.

Wince said...

It's been all down hill for Tara Reid since American Pie and Sharknado, especially after the liposuction.

Martha said...

“The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”

Come on, man!

We are talking about roving fingers sniffin Uncle Joe here who likes kids sitting on his lap and running their fingers up and down his big hairy legs. The VP who hugged, kissed, fondled and sniffed multitudes of children as their parents were being sworn in as Senators and Congressmen. It is ALL on tape recorded for posterity.

On the other hand we have Justice Kavanaugh, a Jesuit educated family man known for mentoring female clerks and coaching his daughters basketball teams. NOT ONE WHIFF OF SCANDAL. No videos of inappropriate hugs, kisses, touching.

There is no equivalency.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ST:

Every allegation of this sort, no matter the target, should be presumed to be utter bullshit and obvious political back stabbing.

Yes, probably a good idea. Particularly 30-year old allegations and no police report filed.

Problem - asymmetrical warfare in the culture/political wars.

Sexual allegations against Republicans -- must be believed! (Exhibit A - Kavanaugh)

Sexual allegations against Democrats -- Where's the evidence? (Exhibit B - Biden).

There's gotta be one reasonably predictable standard. The Left, regrettably, has chosen the lowest common denominator.

If the Dems, NYTimes and major media outlets can dredge up stupid stuff from high school to wreck a man's reputation, then we're all fucked. But, at least, we can hammer back at these assholes.

I believe you, Tara!

MayBee said...

If the NYT wants to pretend the Biden story isn't important, fine. Same for the "Time's Up" group.

But they at least need to admit they don't Believe All Women, they don't believe women don't lie about sexual assault, and they don't believe in the importance of "Credible accusations".

h said...

(reposted from last night's cafe item). The NYTimes media reporter interviewed the NYTimes editor in chief about NYTimes coverage of the Biden accuser Reade. Here's one small part of that interview:

Q: Why was Kavanaugh treated differently?

A: Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way. Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation. And when I say in a public way, I don’t mean in the public way of Tara Reade’s. If you ask the average person in America, they didn’t know about the Tara Reade case. So I thought in that case, if The New York Times was going to introduce this to readers, we needed to introduce it with some reporting and perspective. Kavanaugh was in a very different situation. It was a live, ongoing story that had become the biggest political story in the country. It was just a different news judgment moment.

Gahrie said...

In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility.

Are you fucking kidding me?

iowan2 said...

Why aren't you getting after me on importance and seriousness!

I almost never attempt to take issue with your perspective.

Today seems a little different, like you're stirring the pot for entertainment. Or, are you playing us, like President Trump plays the media? Using the commetariats mass and momentum against ourselves?
Waiting for the reveal

GingerBeer said...

C'mon man. Women don't lie, ever. The extra X chromosome renders them incapable of deceit.

Owen said...

Althouse @ 8:59: "...Why aren't you getting after me on importance and seriousness!"

Fair point. I was too hasty in attacking only your claim to have judged the two cases' credibility as pretty much same-same.

As you and others have shown, Biden seeking Presidency, a much bigger thing than Kavanaugh seeking Supreme Court seat. So, more important. And Biden-Reade involved adults and allegedly worse behavior. So, more serious.

How did you mess up so badly?

*thinks*

...were you trolling us?

Francisco D said...

Ann Althouse said...Actually, what Biden is accused of doing is more serious than what Kavanaugh is accused of doing.

I am curious about these accusations and how they were constructed.

CBF used Democrat lawyers to fabricate her story. It was created in such a way to deny Kavanaugh the ability to contradict it with evidence. That is to say there was no date or location, just a memory that no one else would or could support.

Is there any evidence that Tara Reade had help in making up her story?

Automatic_Wing said...

The thing I find most interesting about all this is that the NYT acknowledges it at all. I don't think they would do that if the Democratic Party was excited about nominating Joe Biden.

The party can use this to dump Creepy Joe if they want to. I suppose they are discussing it now - would it be a good idea to replace him and if so, who with?

Ken B said...

I disagree about credibility. Ford underwent psychiatric treatments which she will not share the details of, and the accusations first arose after that. A well known source of false memory. Ford was contradicted by her own witnesses. Ford lied about flying. Ford tried to make the charge anonymously. I agree this current charge looks implausible, but not that implausible. Not yet anyway.

Gahrie said...

the failure to report to the police at the time has much more significance than the failure of a teenager

You are attacking Reade and defending CBF!?! Fucking incredible.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Spiros - you're an idiot.

MayBee said...

Oh! And they don't actually support affirmative consent laws that they've foisted on California college students (and Joe might foist on more of us should he win)

Bob Boyd said...

How on earth do you pretend...

I've noticed Dems feel entitled to their pretenses and insist upon them.

Gahrie said...

Why aren't you getting after me on importance and seriousness!

Because those are open to debate. The credibility isn't.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

But but but - concocted unverifiable High School.

Now the left are laughing. Look! We leftist fascists hold so much power - we can destroy you with LIES, and ignore actual abuse and corruption by any democrat.

No one seems to care that Biden used his power - ala Hillary - to enrich his family with Chi-Com money and Corrupt Ukrainian energy company money.

LOL -the collective left laugh in your face.

gilbar said...

Qwinn and Johnathan Both incorrectly assert that some sort of "double standard" is at work.

NOTHING could be further from the truth. There Is, Was, and Will be, ONLY the Single Standard
The Single Standard is: ANYTHING THAT CAN HELP DEMOCRATS

see? Once you see the Single Standard; the media makes Much More Sense

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Blasey Ford and her lawyer are both lying D- party hacks.

Lurker21 said...

If somebody had been advising Reade, the first thing they would have told her is to delete her social media footprint. It looks like she didn't do that, so it's unlikely that she had anything that could seriously be called help in coming up with her allegation.

It's easy to believe that Joe was fondling people, but Reade may have punched up her story with the talk of "fingering." If more women come forward with stories, she will become more believable. But Because Biden's a Democrat, the women who come forward with stories - often made up - about Republicans won't be volunteering this time.

Bay Area Guy said...

Facts:

1. Biden swims naked in the pool, pissing off female secret service agents. Source 1

2. Biden sniffed the hair and kissed the head of Lucy Flores, Nevada politician. Source 2

3. Biden is handsy and creepy with women -- of all ages -- as seen in numerous photos/videos. Source 3 .

So, now he is accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade. Why can't we get Ms. Reade on 60 Minutes to get to the bottom of the allegations? Hah - fat chance.

Ken B said...

I see the question above about importance and seriousness.
I see these charges as more serious as there is no room for ambiguity in the charge against Biden. I think you agree because of your comment about not reporting to the police. More important too since Biden was an adult in a position of power.

More credible, more serious, more important. However, I still rate the credibility close to negligible.

MayBee said...

Now the left are laughing. Look! We leftist fascists hold so much power - we can destroy you with LIES, and ignore actual abuse and corruption by any democrat.

One thing that really bothers me is how they can get normal people spun up about things they have no idea about. Regular, every day women were really upset with Kavanaugh because you must believe women and by the way I know someone who was assaulted and women don't lie. If you were a women in a group of women that believed Ford, you could not voice the idea that you could maybe doubt her story.

Michael K said...

The party can use this to dump Creepy Joe if they want to. I suppose they are discussing it now - would it be a good idea to replace him and if so, who with?

Yes, this might be the opening shot. "Run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes." That's from an old novel about advertising, I think.

They might be grooming Newsom although he is far from ready. Besides, the Democrats know there is no chance to beat Trump and why waste a future candidate ?

Joe is expendable.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

You don't realize that YOU work for Biden, and his son needs a new Porsche.

Bay Area Guy said...

Where's Hunter? He knocked up an Arkansas stripper.

That's poor form.

Nonapod said...

I try my best to keep an open mind about these sorts of accusations (the "He said, She said" sort). I don't assume an accusation is either true or false without evidence. People lie. And people lie for all sorts of reasons.

So lets just look at what we know to be true.

In the Christine Blasey Ford versus Brett Kavanaugh case:

- They both went to the same school at the same time
- They were both around the same age and social demographic (both teenage students) so there was no clear social power differential between them
- Ford's accusation lacks any specifics. No specific time. No specific place. She can't even name a year.
- Ford has no contemporary hearsay corroboration. AFAIK, she didn't tell anyone at the time.

In the Tara Reade versus Joe Biden case:

- She has a much more specific time and place.
- There was a very clear power differential between them. He was her boss. He was a well known, powerful politician. She was just a young woman.
- There is contemporary hearsay corroboration. She told people at the time who have confirmed that they were told.
- She generally has far more specific detail about everything around the accusation. And there is confirmation of certain events around it (like the fact that she was indeed removed from managing interns)

Again, ultimately it still boils down to ones person's word against another's. Tara Reade could still technically be making the whole thing up. But overall she seems to have much more confirmable circumstantial evidence. So, gun to my head, which story is more "credible" is obvious.


rcocean said...

Paula Jones and Anita hill were the same. Jones was harassed in 1991, and filed suit in 1994 and swore out a declaration under threat of perjury. She went to trial, and was prepared to testify in open court when Clinton settled.

Anita Hill, at first, refused to testify and only did so when pressured by the D's when her name was made public. She was 'harassed' in the early 80s but continued personal contact with Thomas until she brought her concerns up in 1991.

Clinton propositioned Jones and exposed his penis. Thomas merely "talked dirty" to Hill without any pushback from Hill. Despite claiming she was made ill by the harassment, she took no contemporaneous notes, didn't talk about it with other female staffers, and followed Thomas to another Agency.

The two cases are completely different. Clinton Settled for $850,000 despite having a left-wing Democrat Judge who took his side every chance she could. Thomas has never stopped denying Hill's charges.

Bilwick said...

"Same level of credibility" . . . and with that I lost all respect for our hostess' reasoning ability.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The GOP are too spinless to open investigations into Joe and Hunter.

We live in a banana republic.

narciso said...

it's not only the times, the bezos post, gannett handown, the journal, abc, cbs, nbc, MSNBC, its the full pillow,

rcocean said...

The cases against Biden and Clinton sound like true sexual harrassment. The claims against Kavanaugh and Thomas were politics.

This was especially true of blowsey-ford. She couldn't remember what year or where the assault supposedly took place. She couldnt' remember how she got to the house, who's house it was, or how she got home. She didn't tell her parents, or any of her friends when it supposedly took place. She kept her secret for 30 years, until she decided -with her left-wing buddies - to derail Kavanaugh. She did however, remember exactly how much she had to drink, and how loud the music was. LOL!

gilbar said...

It was created in such a way to deny Kavanaugh the ability to contradict it with evidence
CBF said: back in high school, as a freshman (or sophomore (or, maybe i was a junior?))...
I was at a party, well, not really a party; just some kids drinking
i don't remember Where it was, or WHO was there; or What happened (i was PRETTY wasted at the time)
BUT! i'm Pretty sure, that Kavanaugh tried to kiss me! And when i told him to stop: he DID
I never told Anyone, for years and years; BUT! i did once have a house with two front doors!

Reade said: The man i was working for, WHILE i was on the clock; pushed me up against the wall
and RAPED me. I told people on the Job about it then; they told me to SHUT THE FUCK UP
and demoted me. I didn't say anything after that; until i heard that OTHER women were also accusing Biden

rcocean said...

BTW, it was never proven that Kavanaugh and Blowsey-ford even knew each other!

Lurker21 said...

"Credible" is a weasel word that can mean just about everything from "proven to be true," to "the person saying it seems to believe it" or "it's not completely impossible given the laws of physics." The problem with comparing cases like this is that there are so many angles to be considered. I question whether either incident happened as described, but it's more likely that something happened in Reade's case than in Ford's case, and if something did happen, that it was more serious.

rcocean said...

Blowsey Ford REFUSED to name a place or a date, for a reason. If she made up one, then someone could talk to the owners of the house and check her story. If she made up a date, then Kavanaugh could've proved he was somewhere else. So, the date and place had to be kept vague and fuzzy. It was in a house somewhere within 5 miles of the Country club. It was in her sophmore or freshman year, in the Spring or Fall. LOL!

RigelDog said...

Althouse says: In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility. }}}

I, too, hold myself to treat accusations with the same impartial standards. I'm objective. I don't credit the allegation against Biden because it's not going to be corroborated by sufficient evidence absent a confession. But I completely disagree with Althouse's conclusions. How can anyone say that some kind of brief wrestling match that had sexual overtones, occurring in high school, is the same level of seriousness and importance as a middle aged adult pushing his campaign worker up against a wall and sticking his finger into her vagina? Then afterwards, kicking her out of his campaign and derailing her political career? As to credibility, I abhor these 30-years-later kinds of accusations. I frankly don't want to see them at all in any context. If we must engage in a "best guess" evaluation of credibility, then apply the standard instructions given to criminal jurors. Bias (Ford is a Dem and anti-Trump; Reade is on the same political side as Biden), prompt reporting (no one remembers Ford telling them about the assault but two people recall Reade telling them), pattern of behavior (nothing outside of the distant allegations besmirches Kavanaugh; we have endless video of Biden being handsy/saying creepy things/female Secret Service complaining the Biden swam in the nude while they were guarding him),and corroboration (no details of the party or any acquaintance between Kavanaugh and Ford were established by any kind of evidence; Reade did know Biden, worked the campaign, and was abruptly dismissed from supervising interns in the relevant time frame).

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

It's illegal to talk to any Russian - unless you are a democrat.


Imagine if Trump's son knocked-up a stripper.

Can you imagine the skits on SNL? or all the non-stop hand wringing on the nightly news.. and all the non-stop CNN Chyron ribbon shaming and outrage...

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Todd said...
Sorry but didn't one of these women claim to have filed a written statement/complaint with HR? Shouldn't that be locatable? Would that not make one of these to a bit more "credible" if that proves true?

4/15/20, 8:49 AM


I doubt that written statement survived the Clinton years.

Sebastian said...

""Same level of credibility" . . . and with that I lost all respect for our hostess' reasoning ability."

There's always a chance that Althouse is trolling us.

But in this case, I don't think so. Women's issues, abortion, homosexuality--they trigger her in an odd way.

It's particularly striking here: the differences in cases is entirely obvious to everyone, so "the same" is nuts.

You'd think: unpossible for someone like Althouse. But here we are.

But here's the thing: if even Althouse can't think straight about the obvious, what does that tell us about more biased women of lesser ability?

gilbar said...

Where's Hunter? He knocked up an Arkansas stripper.
That's poor form.


SERIOUSLY!
Dad's out there? haven't you ALL Told your sons:
Son, if you're going to Fuck a Stripper; That is THE TIME to wrap that rascal!
Do we REALLY WANT a President, that didn't even teach his son THAT?

I mean, sure; We've ALL Fucked our share of Coked out Strippers (and, we've Usually been Pretty Coked out too!) BUT Barebacking? A STRIPPER?
That is THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIAL DISTANCING !!!!

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

C'mon people. Althouse loves trolling her readers. Don't fall for it.

No one, not even an "intellectual', is stupid enough to believe the two allegations are "exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility."

R C Belaire said...

I doubt very much that Trump will bring this up at any point. However, his supporters (PACs and so on) will do it and Trump will of course deny any influence. Trump has his own issues in this arena and will at least appear to be hands-off (no pun).

chuck said...

This sort of behavior isn't uncommon, the man/woman thing has "high court" rules, and "common" rules and I think Biden is more confused about rules than most. I would think that Reade didn't go to the police because of the hassle and inevitable backlash. The claim that her career was ruined as a result of her refusal is the serious charge.

LA_Bob said...

"Why aren't you getting after me on importance and seriousness!"

Well, the Senate Democrats seemed to think an alleged and unproven high school "frolic" was important and serious enough as to how Kavanaugh could be expected to behave "as an adult and in his official governmental position." Never mind his anticipated legal opinions on issues of importance to women.

So, on importance and seriousness, the two situations could reasonably be considered commensurate.

On credibility?

"The reason I equate them in credibility is that the actual penetration with the hand that Reade describes and the statement "You're nothing to me" — done by a Senator and her employer, when she is an adult and in the government, operating as a lucid, intelligent aide — is so severe that the failure to report to the police at the time has much more significance..."

Okay, here I need help. In a case of rape, isn't there forensic evidence (like DNA evidence inside the victim) to support the charge? What sort of forensic evidence does digital penetration leave?

wendybar said...

#Metoo is dead. If it weren't for double standards, the Democrats wouldn't have any standards at all.

J. Farmer said...

This is absurd. We're never going to be able to determine the veracity of her claim about an event that occurred 27 years ago. It's just another case of he said/she said. The timing is obviously suspect. I don't think it should be held against Biden, but the Democrats have backed themselves in a corner by going all in on #MeToo movement. Biden himself made the ridiculous claim that you must start with the presumption that a woman claiming sexual assault is telling the truth.

Leland said...

I understand the credibility in that the adult staffer should have felt more comfortable reporting the incident. Except, she claims she did to 5 people, which is something Blasey-Ford wouldn't do for 30 years. Still, Reade's 5 people is now 3, 2 have died and 2 of which claim never to have heard of the incident. And none are the police, until 25 years later.

At the end of the day, credibility is whether or not their story holds up to examination, and I think neither have such a story. Reade's is certainly more serious as it involves penetration by an adult in power, but the aggravations are mostly irrelevant if they story isn't true. The seriousness is simply embellishment. Further, when Reade first came forward in 2019, her allegations weren't all that serious with vague claims of inappropriate touching. Reade herself was less serious a year ago.

Having been falsely accused of far less yet with equal stakes (potential loss of my job); I tend not to believe all women. I've also been on a jury that convicted a man for sexually assaulting a woman, so it is not like I don't believe all women either. I don't believe Blasey Ford, because she never provided any substantive evidence including failing to identify a time and place. I was skeptical of Blasey Ford due to her refrain in reporting the incident earlier. I'm equally skeptical of Reade for the same reason, and leaning towards disbelief unless other supporting evidence comes forward very soon.

bagoh20 said...

If you had a company and were hiring an executive, would you hire one well known for touching and smelling women without their consent? And that's assuming you could understand anything he was saying in the interview. What if during the interview he told you that story about his leg hairs and kids, becuase that's exactly what he did.

Amadeus 48 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken B said...

I agree with J. Farmer.

Sorry Farmer, now you'll probably have covidiots like Achilles after you.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

"Same level of credibility" . . . and with that I lost all respect for our hostess' reasoning ability.

You must be new here.

Skeptical Voter said...

Old Slow Joe frequently doesn't know just where he is. When he met Ms. Reade in the hallway he thought he was at one of those fictional Kavanaugh high school parties. The usual activity at such parties (if you believe the New York Times crowd) was find 'em, feel 'em, finger 'em, and forget 'em. Joe wanted to be with the in crowd.

Frankly it would have been better if that athletic bag had a ten pound barbell plate in it, and if Ms. Reade had applied the weighted bag vigorously to various parts of the randy old goat. Not only vigorously but repeatedly.

Amadeus 48 said...

Althouse treated Blasey Ford much more seriously than I did, so I guess Joe Biden is going to get her Kavanaugh treatment. As I recall she suggested that Kavanaugh make a full confession and throw himself on the mercy of the public--or the Senate--or something. She never gave full consideration to the idea that he was innocent and wrongly accused, for some reason.

I can't remember, Althouse, is it your sense of taste or your sense of smell that you lost?

I didn't take Blasey Ford seriously, I don't take Tara Read seriously, I didn't take Anita Hill seriously, I didn't take Paula Jones seriously, and I don't know what to think about Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, except that Bill Clinton is certainly goatish--and maybe Donald Trump is, too. Stormy Daniels (ugh) and Karen McDougal (va-va-voom!) certainly say so.

But so what? This flap is really about how in-the-tank the quality press is for Place-holder Biden and whoever the Dems actually run in November.

Yawn.

Ken B said...

“ Stormy Daniels (ugh)”

Yes that was my reaction. Really a turn off.

RigelDog said...

I don't understand how anyone could believe Christine Blasey Ford after she said that she didn't know how she got home after she quietly left the gathering. Just that fact alone. She lived miles and miles away, it was late at night, and she got to the gathering as a passenger in her friend Leland's car. I think most people--especially women--have found themselves in that situation, where you really want to leave a party but you don't have a ready ride. You don't just leave, not knowing where you even are, and walk the 8 miles home in the dark. And if you did, you would f'ing remember it! It would a hundred times more traumatic than the 60-second grope.

Clayton Hennesey said...

What to wear around Joe Biden:

https://www.aleksandreia.com/2020/04/15/ladies-what-to-wear-around-joe-biden/

evil_engineer said...

Also...the Ford accusations were delayed until the last minute, forcing everything to stop until they were vetted. There's lots of time to look at these allegations

Tom said...

Reade has also made claims that are, in some ways, verifiable. She said she spoke to people contemporaneously about the sexual assault. She also said it was reported to the Senate personnel office. That’s all something reporter can investigate.

I think at minimum, Joe Biden needs to release anyone with whom he has an NDA with from coming forward. Congress paid out 17m in harassment settlements and it’s time we know why.

Peter said...

@Qwinn 8:28am
THAT

Jason said...

Weird how the people Reade told at the time who WERE NOT and ARE NOT paid Biden staffers remember being told at the time, but the people who WERE NOT and ARE NOT paid Biden staffers "don't recall."

Jason said...

Qwinn hits it out of the park, right out of the gate.

bagoh20 said...

"In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility."

You might wanna keep that to yourself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't think it through.

Francisco D said...

Amadeus 48 said...Althouse treated Blasey Ford much more seriously than I did, so I guess Joe Biden is going to get her Kavanaugh treatment. As I recall she suggested that Kavanaugh make a full confession and throw himself on the mercy of the public--or the Senate--or something. She never gave full consideration to the idea that he was innocent and wrongly accused, for some reason.

I have a much different recollection.

Althouse was the target audience for Democrats seeking to emotionally manipulate women who had been harassed in the past. She was initially credulous about CBF, but never made a firm decision as to the credibility of her lawyerly constructed story.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, regarding your challenge at 8:59, I agree with you that the allegation against Biden is both more serious and more important than the allegation against Kavanaugh. More important because (1) Biden was an adult dealing with subordinate staff, and as an adult male in the 1990s he should have known better, and (2) a President must deal professionally with female advisors, and not merely male staffers, which this episode suggests he cannot do. By contrast the allegation against Kavanaugh was from when he was a teenager and nothing in his CV suggested that he was continuing such behavior. Quite the contrary! And that’s if Blasey Ford wasn’t lying. Which she was.

And note that searching YouTube with the search string “Creepy Joe Biden” or “Joe Biden Pervert“ finds plenty of visual support for the notion that Biden continues to disrespect women. Did you see the little girl in the red dress? The one where Biden puts his on the front Of her dress.

As to seriousness, penetrating a woman with one’s finger or penis or big toe or elbow or whatever, is so much more serious than what Blasey Ford alleged that a teenaged Brett Kavanaugh is alleged to have fone that they’re barely in the same solar system.

But your assertion that Reade’s allegation is comparable to Blasey Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh in crefibility is still the most dumbfounding. It’s not that you are displaying cruel neutrality while I, a Republican, am not. It is that you disrespect the experiences of women who have genuinely been assaulted. Except for the case where they have been drugged, such women precisely recall every single detail — which Blasey Ford could not do.

doctrev said...

Bilwick said...
"Same level of credibility" . . . and with that I lost all respect for our hostess' reasoning ability.

4/15/20, 9:32 AM

In general, reason and feminism are generally antithetical. For instance, only the most cloistered and privileged of white women could insist on trusting the DC police when your abuser is a long-standing Senator. Young women who don't want to be "raped" three times before turning 30 generally have this knowledge. By the same token, such women also know that they cannot pretend to have eidetic memory about your sexual assault- at least while simultaneously claiming that they cannot recall basic elements like how they got home or even when it occurred. Anyone else who tried such clumsy blackmail would be walking Cell Block D in fishnets- yet we give a pass to feminists accusing Republicans.

The Kavanaugh hearings, and the inevitable re-litigation of claims against Donald Trump, are going to convince a great many white men that not only are such allegations generally nonsensical, but are inevitably a partisan tool of the fifth column columnists. Especially when compared to the kid-gloves treatment given to Bill Clinton and Joe Biden.

Krumhorn said...

I distinctly recall a moment during the Anita Hill hearings when Biden, the chairman of the committee, in the nastiest and most venomous tone, threaten to cut off Arlen Spector’s microphone as Spector was protesting their treatment of Thomas. Biden was pure snake.

- Krumhorn

J. Farmer said...

Even if both claims were true, Reade's is obviously much more damning. Biden was an adult, a senator, and her boss. Kavanaugh was 17 and drunk at a party. Even granting Ford's claim, I don't think it should have disqualified Kavanaugh. Your allowed some leeway for stupid behavior as a kid.

Bill Peschel said...

"Why aren't you getting after me on importance and seriousness!"

Do you like commenters asking why you don't write about something?

Bill Peschel said...

That said (see my previous comment), I don't particularly care about this story. Biden is a poisonous weasel who has plenty of anchors attached to him that, if the media reported it all fairly, wouldn't have come close to the nomination.

Francisco D said...

J. Farmer said...
Kavanaugh was 17 and drunk at a party.

That statement assumes facts clearly not in evidence.

Actually, there was absolutely no evidence nor a time or place for the alleged behavior.

Francisco D said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paminwi said...

This is joke, right? “In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility.”
There is no comparison between the two.
I have not read a single comment from any prior commenter on this thread before I write my comment. I hope they have skewered this comment with a tsunami force!
For someone who professes to read so much it is obvious you haven’t really read, in depth, the specifics of both cases.
There’s a great book you could take the time to read, since you have so much time these days by Mollie Hemingway & Carrie Severino called “Justice on Trial, the Kavanaugh Confirmation & the Future of the Supreme Court”. And maybe, just maybe, stop using the WaPo and NYT as your definitive sources. There are other sources that will tell the story without leaving facts out or as the NYT did by removing language because the Biden camp asked it to!

Static Ping said...

Well, since Ann threw down the gauntlet, let me discuss my thoughts on the matter.

Ford's accusations were very suspect from the beginning. If you remember the particulars, there were no particulars. What day did it happen? She didn't know. What year did it happen? She didn't know. Where did it happen? She wasn't sure. There's nothing to work with here at all. No one would go to a grand jury with this sort of accusation, and I'm not sure there would be any investigation beyond cursory unless something interesting popped up immediately. It did not help that Ford came across as someone who was mentally unstable. It did not help that Kavanaugh did not have a hint of being capable of this sort of thing, and so they manufactured a couple of ridiculous ("ride the train" anyone?) accusations to try to create a pattern. The fact that the accusation was known prior to its reveal and was only brought forth as a last minute political "Hail Mary" to derail the nomination made it pretty clear that even the Democrats did not buy it, but it's all they had.

(As an aside, it says something about our media that they went all in on this story. I am going to say it again: why do you trust someone who lies to you repeatedly for obvious reasons?)

For Reade, she provides particulars and second-hand witnesses. Biden has a long and documented history of inappropriate behavior, though nothing to this level. Reade is an order of magnitude more credible that Ford. Do I believe her? Frankly, I am dubious. This is the sort of thing that should have come out long ago. That said, it would be the sort of thing you would investigate, even if only to find there was nothing there.

To be plain, if Ford is the standard of "believe all women" then Reade qualifies for "believe all women" and should receive at least the same treatment. The fact that they are being treated extremely differently tells you all you need to know about the corruption of the mainstream media.

J. Farmer said...

@Francisco D:

That statement assumes facts clearly not in evidence.

Actually, there was absolutely no evidence nor a time or place for the alleged behavior.


"Even granting Ford's claim..."

doctrev said...

Static Ping said...
The fact that the accusation was known prior to its reveal and was only brought forth as a last minute political "Hail Mary" to derail the nomination made it pretty clear that even the Democrats did not buy it, but it's all they had.

4/15/20, 10:43 AM

The Democrats put some pretty heavy names on the legal team for Blasey Ford, almost like they knew they could push even the flimsiest fraud with no risk of criminal charges or being disbarred. The fact obvious fraudster Julie Swetnick and lawyer Michael Avenatti aren't being brought up on charges just illustrates the fecklessness of the congressional GOP, and gives more fuel to nationalists who claim the government and judiciary have only one Uniparty.

Sam L. said...

"Writes Dan McLaughlin in "The New York Times Knows Nobody Believes It about Biden, Kavanaugh, and Sexual Assault" (National Review)." I don't believe anything in the NYT. I despise, detest, and distrust it.

bagoh20 said...

I want to be helping:
If I say Trump raped my Pit Bull, that's a pretty serious and important subject, but why is my claim not serious or important?

Yancey Ward said...

For the record, I don't believe either story.

However, Reade's allegation is more credible than Blasey-Ford's was, and more serious.

Meade said...

You've got the so-called "Biden Rule" and then you've got the so-called "Pence Rule." Personally, I recommend the Pence Rule. I never eat alone with a woman other than my wife, daughter or mother, And I never attend events featuring alcohol without my wife by my side.

Hey Skipper said...

Aside from the seeming veracity of Dr. Moral Cretin Ford and Tara Reade, isn't the bigger take away here the fact that all of the legacy media should be nuked from orbit?

Dean Bacquet is going to put The BabylonBee out of business.

Bob Boyd said...

I never eat alone with a woman other than my wife, daughter or mother, And I never attend events featuring alcohol without my wife by my side.

Good rules.
Another good rule is, never plunge your fingers into a subordinate's Gene Attells at work.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Sounds like Joe needs to address this issue in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I would even consider appointing a special prosecutor to investigate.

William said...

Give Althouse some credit. She believes the accusations are equally credible. That's better than the New York Times and the msm which certainly gave more coverage and credibility to Ford's accusations....The media (and enlightened feminists) don't seem to realize that this is playing out in real time and that their coverage and reaction to this issue makes them look really, really bad.

Francisco D said...

J. Farmer

Allow me to nitpick your comment rather than you nitpicking mine or anyone else's, as is common here.

Your attempted qualifier "even granting Ford's claim" was part of a separate sentence. You clearly stated "Kavanaugh was 17 and drunk at a party."

Note that the party had no time or date and no one else remembered the fantasy in CBF's mind. You simply repeated (unintentionally I am sure) a fabrication created by CBF and her lawyers.

Francisco D said...

J. Farmer

Allow me to nitpick your comment rather than you nitpicking mine or anyone else's, as is common here.

Your attempted qualifier "even granting Ford's claim" was part of a separate sentence. You clearly stated "Kavanaugh was 17 and drunk at a party."

Note that the party had no time or date and no one else remembered the fantasy in CBF's mind. You simply repeated (unintentionally I am sure) a fabrication created by CBF and her lawyers.

Yancey Ward said...

Poor Meade- no stag party!

doctrev said...

Bob Boyd said...

Another good rule is, never plunge your fingers into a subordinate's Gene Attells at work.

4/15/20, 11:03 AM

Hah! Now that's continuity of commenting.

Rick said...

Focusing on the relative accusations is a red herring from the true outrage which is the NYT and the rest of the media convincing themselves reporting on Kavanaugh but not Biden is reasonable.

The NYT Managing Editor asserted that appointing a Supreme Court Justice makes the story newsworthy while electing a President does not even though Presidential elections dominate news pretty much full time. Literally no one could arrive at this conclusion legitimately, it's absurd. This absurdity shows how deeply partisanship controls everything they do even when they specifically deny and try to conceal it.

Dave Begley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick said...

In the Christine Blasey Ford versus Brett Kavanaugh case:

- They both went to the same school at the same time


I don't think they did. As I recall they were both at single sex schools in the same area with the same draw / brand so there was some cross-socializing. But they would not have been in common classes or school events.

dreams said...

"In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility"

Tara Reade told her friends about her incident with Biden at the time it happened so they don't have the same credibility.

iowan2 said...

Co chair of the Democrat Party has charges filed against him for beating his wife.
Joe finger raped a staffer
Ted Kennedy????
Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton
Senator Robert Byrd, Grand Wizard of the KKK

This just took 30 seconds from memory.

Not whataboutism. Equality. It is the double standard of the Democrat Party that proves their corruption. How can anybody vote for this level rot?

William said...

The saturation coverage and mockery that Kavanaugh was subjected to amounted to an extra judicial form of punishment. His life and reputation was materially damaged....This light, tactful coverage of the Biden accusation is an extra judicial form of exoneration. How long before they start mentioning the accusation with a "debunked" prefix....I don't think the media understand how loathsome their behavior is.

dreams said...

"I never eat alone with a woman other than my wife, daughter or mother, And I never attend events featuring alcohol without my wife by my side."

When good looking women start hitting on me, I just tell them to back off, it works.

Meade said...

"Another good rule is, never plunge your fingers into a subordinate's Gene Attells at work."

Or into the electrical socket when Gene Attells is the name of your subordinate chandelier.

Bob Boyd said...

Which accusation did the media treat correctly?

Kavanaugh

Biden

Neither

Both

rcocean said...

"They both went to the same school at the same time"

Wrong! Blowsey-Ford went to a girls school. Blowsey claimed she had never met Kavanaugh before the night of the attack. She knew him as the friend of Kavanaugh's best buddy. She saw K's buddy at Safeway later on, but never saw Kavanaugh again.

rcocean said...

Kavanaugh really fucked up. He appeared in Blowsey-Ford's fantasies. Big mistake.

J. Farmer said...

@Francisco D:

Note that the party had no time or date and no one else remembered the fantasy in CBF's mind. You simply repeated (unintentionally I am sure) a fabrication created by CBF and her lawyers.

This really is a nitpick. I began my comment with "Even if both claims were true." For what it's worth, I have no opinion on the validity of either. During the hearings, my position was even if they were true, I don't think they should disqualify him.

Gahrie said...

Not whataboutism. Equality. It is the double standard of the Democrat Party that proves their corruption. How can anybody vote for this level rot?

The need to protect the "right" to kill your baby before birth.

J. Farmer said...

Remember when everyone mocked Mike Pence for his rule about not being alone with women who weren't his wife?

Gahrie said...

"Same level of credibility" . . . and with that I lost all respect for our hostess' reasoning ability.

In general, reason and feminism are generally antithetical


Our hostess openly rejects reasoning in favor of emotionalism. She actually has spent some time trying to justify this position, she certainly doesn't deny it.

Gahrie said...

As I recall she suggested that Kavanaugh make a full confession and throw himself on the mercy of the public--or the Senate--or something. She never gave full consideration to the idea that he was innocent and wrongly accused, for some reason.

I have a much different recollection.


I don't.

Drago said...

J. Farmer: "Remember when everyone mocked Mike Pence for his rule about not being alone with women who weren't his wife?"

"everyone"?

No one supported his position?

Really?

gilbar said...

Sandy Donkey Chompers says: Crucify Him! Crucify Him!!!
AOC says Biden assault claim 'legitimate to talk about'

Gahrie said...

But in this case, I don't think so. Women's issues, abortion, homosexuality--they trigger her in an odd way...

But here's the thing: if even Althouse can't think straight about the obvious, what does that tell us about more biased women of lesser ability?


Repeal the 19th.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

has this been debunked yet?

Former Joe Biden Secret Service Agent:
We Had to Protect Women From Him, ‘Weinstein Level Stuff’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/flashback-former-joe-biden-secret-service-agent-we-had-to-protect-women-from-him-weinstein-level-stuff/

Greg the class traitor said...

In my view, the Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility.


1: Seriousness:
CBF claimed that, as a drunken teenaged boy, Kavanaugh scared her and acted in a way that might have led to a sexual assault

TR: claims that Senator Joe Biden digitally raped her while she was on his staff.

Score: If both claims are taken to be true, TR's claim is far more serious that CBF's

2: Importance:
CBF's claim is about the actions of a high school boy, with whom she had no other relationship
TR's claims are about the actions of an adult male US Senator, who was her boss. She further claims that she had filed previous complaints about sexual activity that had been ignored, and that she had been subject to limited retaliation (her job of mentoring interns was taken away right after the incident took place (this has been confirmed by interviewing some of the people who were Biden interns at the time. She abruptly stopped being their mentor, and no reason was given for the change)) because of the incident, as a warning that she would be further harmed if she tried to do anything. This shows a modern willingness on Joe Biden's part to abuse his power

Score: If both claims are taken to be true, TR's claim is far more important

3: Credibility:
CBF lied (simple example: her claim that she couldn't travel). CBF shared her psych notes about her story with a WaPo reporter, but refused to share them with the Senate investigators. Her story's timeline changed, because the initial timeline had the event happening after Kavanaugh had graduated. Her claimed witnesses all denied her story, including one who was a lifelong friend of CBF, and had no reason to lie against her. Every checkable detail CBF gave that was not a matter of public record, turned out to be false

TR told multiple people about the event contemporaneously. Other than some current employees of Biden, they've backed up her story. The previous complete failure of complaints about Biden to go anywhere gives a strong justification for why she didn't file a complaint about this.

Biden has a history of fondling women and girls in public.

And all the other things people above have pointed out about TR's credibility.

TR claim is far more credible than CBF's


So, when it comes to seriousness, importance, and credibility, none of CBF's charges are even close to the same level as TR's

Big Mike said...

It is the double standard of the Democrat Party that proves their corruption.

@iowan2, the real issue is with Democrat women. Whether we are talking about batshit crazy Nina Burleigh, willing to get on her knees in front of Bill Clinton in exchange his support for abortion rights, or someone like Althouse who merely leans in, if they stood up and told the men of their party to knock it off or get beaten in the next election, do you think they’d continue, or do think they’d square around? Maybe they’d just start being more discrete, but even that would be a step forward, would it not?

gilbar said...

Krumhorn said...
I distinctly recall a moment during the Anita Hill hearings when Biden, the chairman of the committee, in the nastiest and most venomous tone, threaten to cut off Arlen Spector’s microphone as Spector was protesting their treatment of Thomas. Biden was pure snake.


Once I wasreading this book; it had a saying in it
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind

It was a pretty good book! Full of all sorts of helpful advice; but, most of it was written in old cliches

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

"everyone"?

No one supported his position?

Really?


Oh, sorry, I forgot hyperbole wasn't allowed. Remember when a lot of people were mocking Pence for his rule about not being alone with women who weren't his wife?

I certainly supported his position. And I bet a lot of people here did, too. And this is precisely one of the situations the rule is meant to protect against. During my days in the trenches, I would never evaluate a female client in a room alone.

J. Farmer said...

I am guessing James Carville's, "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find" defense isn't going to work in this case. There's still some confusion over whether he was referring to Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers. So hard to keep them all straight.

Gk1 said...

Its been clear for some time that the democrats/media operate from two different standards than the rest of us. The larger problem not addressed is what is the corrosive effect to society as they continue to hurl groundless accusations for political gain against republicans only?

The whole Kavanagh spectacle was so disgusting we will probably never recover from that culturally. Many liberals who should know better went along with that witch hunt and are now in the uncomfortable position of abandoning all of their previous positions to protect Gropey Joe. It's not surprising but still very sad to see.

Tina Trent said...

Greg’s completely right. Further, what would TR have done? Remember, Biden owned the federal Violence Against Women movement. He was literally worshiped by feminists in DC, in organizations, and in the states. In terms of power differential, it’s a much more shocking alleged assault. But you had Kennedy and lots of others on Capitol Hill getting away with ugly garbage like that every day. She was surrounded by predatory, mostly Democratic men who got away with such behavior with impunity. Law enforcement itself was tasked with protecting the powerful, not the staff.

It’s common knowledge that in political circles, being a Democrat has always been a get out of jail free card for sexism. That’s doubly true when it comes to civil rights politics.

When I was a democrat lobbyist, I knew not to dare to complain about any democrat politician, especially a minority male. There are dirtbag Republicans as well, of course, but the difference in justifications is night and day.

Michael K said...

"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find"

Personal experience,.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I think Reade is being used to try to force the replacement of Biden as the nominee. The accusation may be true. Biden was a powerful man and the 90s were a different time. It may not be. But the reason the accusation is being made, at this time, is to try to justify his replacement.

Known Unknown said...

"A: Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way."

So Biden is basically irrelevant. Good to know.

Josephbleau said...

The swimming nude in front of female Secret Service Agents is well documented and it is about the type example of sexual harassment. Judges use prior displayed character to evaluate defendants all the time. Guilty until proven is a legal standard. Society has the right to judge people's character and reputation outside of that framework.

I would ask the NYT, of course with no expectation of honesty, if swimming nude in front of a female security employee is an example of sexual abuse or harassment. The Times exonerated him of all sexual charges, not just Reade's.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

sexual impropriety isnt the only one aspect of Joe's flawed character

...but it's a good place to start

Vance said...

I'm curious... where are Inga, Chuck, Ritmo and the rest on their fine, moral, upstanding Joe Biden, who is pure as the driven snow in comparison to that evil lecher Donald Trump whom no true Christian could ever, ever vote for (Why, Trump said "Grab them by the p*ssy!" while never doing it How much more evidence do you need?) and we must all instead vote for Joe Biden, the Saint of all Saints, the very epitome of moral, courageous behavior who is only behind Jesus Himself in terms of moral character?

Anyone seen them?

J. Farmer said...

Assuming Trump defeats Biden this year, will that be the death knell of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party? That will be twice in a row that the DNC put up a centrist, Establishment-approved candidate who lost to Donald Trump. And given that, is there anyone on the horizon poised to be the successor to Trump?

Josephbleau said...

Wearing a swimsuit is a reasonable accommodation to allow a woman to have a job, to everyone but Biden.

Shouting Thomas said...

@J. Farmer

Same problem GOP faced after Reagan, and the answer is a resounding “No!”

rcocean said...

"That will be twice in a row that the DNC put up a centrist, Establishment-approved candidate who lost to Donald Trump."

Both Biden and Hillary are hard left. They were 100 liberal senators. They both support a form of single payers, more Ginsbergs on the SCOTUS, spending $500 Billion on climate change, open borders, amnesty, etc. etc. etc.

The ARE NOT "centrists". They are establishment, since unlike Bernie they love wall street firms like Goldman Sachs, globalism, and wars in the middle east. Both are Chi-com assets.

J. Farmer said...

@Shouting Thomas:

@J. Farmer

Same problem GOP faced after Reagan, and the answer is a resounding “No!”


Yeah, that's a concern. I was hoping Trump's victory would trigger a realignment within the GOP away from it's old coalition, but so far the prospects are not encouraging. Trump has some good instincts, but he does not have the skill set to build a movement. Stephen Miller should be part of that movement, but the guy has the likability of a herpes sore. Steve Bannon has said some sensible things but also some crazy things and is a bit all over the map. A lot of hawkish foreign policy ideas still predominate. The immigration reform plan Jared Kushner was tasked with formulating has yet to materialize. There is a huge question mark hanging over the US-China relationship. The "phase one" deal was pretty disappointing. And Trump still seems to rely on standard econometric measures.

J. Farmer said...

@rcocean:

Both Biden and Hillary are hard left

I think calling Biden or Clinton "hard left" makes about as much sense as calling Trump "far right." The hard left most certainly does not like Wall Street or American interventionism. The term more accurately described the Green Party than the DNC. Hard left describes people like Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, John Pilger, Amy Goodman, or the Cockburn clan. It's the editorial stance of publications like Jacobin or Z Magazine.

The ARE NOT "centrists".

"Centrist" is obviously a relative term. What was centrist 20 years ago is not necessarily centrist now. It's pretty clear that the Democratic base has moved to the left, and Biden has had to adopt positions he wouldn't have advocated a decade ago. A sizable chunk of the base is clearly unenthusiastic and crestfallen over Biden's nomination. It was pretty clear that the Democratic establishment were panic-stricken over Sanders' moments and were willing to do just about anything to scuttle his nomination, to the point of welcoming in a technocratic Republican billionaire into the fold with open arms.

Gahrie said...

And given that, is there anyone on the horizon poised to be the successor to Trump?

Nikki Haley

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Nikki Haley

Oh god no. She was a Trump critic during the primary, supported Rubio and then Cruz, and then half-heatedly endorses Trump, which was clearly opportunistic. She was on the shortlist for Romney's VP pick. She advocates the same dumb neocon foreign policy that has poisoned the GOP. The last thing we need as a successor to Trump is a third George W. Bush term.

Gahrie said...

Oh god no.

You don't like her because she supports Israel.

Rick said...

Assuming Trump defeats Biden this year, will that be the death knell of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party?

Much like Mongol conquest was the death knell for unicorn cavalry.

RobinGoodfellow said...

4/15/20, 8:44 AM
Blogger JAORE said...
exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility


"seriousness" and "importance" may be debatable.

Credibility?

Perhaps Reade should have said she did not know where the assault happened (not even the general neighborhood).


Perhaps she should claim she has a fear of flying.

Josephbleau said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
StephenFearby said...

Dan McLaughlin:

"Well, presidents have a lot more power than any individual Supreme Court justice, including the power to appoint lots of life-tenured federal judges and justices."

Muy estúpido.

The president can only NOMINATE (for confirmation by the Senate) not APPOINT life-tenured federal judges and justices.

The president may appoint judges when the Senate is in recess, but only as temporary, not life-tenured appointments.

Greg the class traitor said...

I've always wanted Biden to be the Dem nominee for 2020, because I expect him losing to cause the hard left (you know, the people who claim that the Green New Deal is reasonable) to freak out even more, and start a civil war within the Democrat Party.

One that will lead to significant Democrat losses in 2022 and 2024.

After which, I expect the less lunatic members of the DP to drive out the more lunatic members (I'm grading on a curve here). Although, with luck, it could take losing in 2026 and 2028 as well before the Dems decide to rid themselves of the toxic SJWs

Francisco D said...

And given that, is there anyone on the horizon poised to be the successor to Trump?

Plenty are poised, but I can't think of one who will fight against the Media propaganda arm of the DNC like Trump has.

Rory said...

"After which, I expect the less lunatic members of the DP to drive out the more lunatic members"

I don't think that the Left works that way. Their ideology comes from the far left, so it's not so much differing beliefs as just different tactics and pacing. A moderate leftist doesn't have any intellectual defenses against radical positions.

Rick said...

I expect the less lunatic members of the DP to drive out the more lunatic members

This will never happen.

Besides there's little difference among public Dems on substance, their disagreement is on tactics. The Bernie/AOC/Warren wing believes the state can dictate without constitutional restrictions or wide public support and should do so openly and often with their own preferences being the only necessary justification. The Biden/Obama wing also believe the state can dictate whatever it wants but believes doing so surreptitiously via the bureaucracy and courts generates less opposition and therefore results in achieving more of their goals.

Birkel said...

Why is Smug concerned about what comes after Trump when according to Smug:
1) Trump is failing on the Wall,
B- The US of A is doomed, and
Zed - There are not enough wypipo.

Weird!?!

Gk1 said...

I would think the democrats might question how effective their media protection strategy is these days. Every once in a while a "tell all" Election 2016 book written by the media will mention how helpless they felt as Hillary's "server problem" ate away at her credibility no matter how much misdirection and little air time they gave it.

Gropey Joe is in the same boat if not worse. They can try to ignore it but also know that Trump will step on this ingrown toenail at every opportunity. They know they need a new playbook but what?

It's as sad as watching college coach legend Bud Wilkinson come out of retirement as head coach of the St.Louis Cardinals and then trying to run an I formation in the late 1970's

Bruce Hayden said...

“I still cant get my head around Obama using govt agencies to interfere in the 2016 election. Obama used Brennen, director of the CIA to spy on the Trump campaign, invloving the DoJ, FBI, State Dept, and a slew of foriegn intel agencies. All the media can do lie about President Trump's leadership in dealing with the Chinese lung rot. Not word out of any major media outlet. It's like Catherine Herridge is invisible”

It appears to go back to 2012, when the Holder DOJ attempted to get millions of records from the IRS. IT was, in the end, just too blatant. So, the Obama Administration apparently shifted its political spying efforts to using FISA 702(14)(15) NSA database accesses. During a six month period, ending in March 2016, 85% of between 10,000 and 99,999 accesses to the database were illegally made by FBI contractors. And that rate was apparently fairly stable over the previous several years. Let me reiterate that. 85% of all NSA database searches using the FBI FISA interface were illegal, done by contractors who had no legal business making a single one. Tens of thousands of searches. Probably well over 100,000 over those 4 years, maybe as high as half a million. And we know that the searches were being done to track political opponents of the Obama Administration.

Wonder why Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and DOD Sec Ashe tried to get NSA Director Flynn fired (and why McCabe was so intent on taking him out after the election)? Because he had just blown open what should have been the biggest political scandal of at least the previous century - the Obama Administration using the powers that were given to our national security agencies to sweep up petabytes of personal information in order to protect us against another 9/11, for their own personal political purposes, thereby violating the 4th Amdt rights of thousands, if not millions, of Americans. The Obama Administration politically weaponized those NSA databases for selfish, political, uses, using them to spy on their political opponents, tracking them, with no oversight or accountability, using their cell records, credit card accounts, Immigration records, etc. Flynn had to go as NSA, to keep all of the perps, including those up the line maybe as high as Obama, from being held accountable.

How does that tie into the Russia collusion hoax, Crossfire Hurricane, FISA warrants on Carter Page, the Mueller investigation? Very likely all cover for the illegal FISA 702 searching having been done so massively and egregiously by FBI contractors? Very likely the purpose of the Title I FISA warrants on Carter Page were to whitewash the illegal Title VII searching that came to an abrupt end in Early March of 2016. The key here is that a Title I FISA warrant allows access to the exact same databases, using the exact same interface, but can be projected back in time. With a two hop rule, that meant that the illegal tracking of Trump and his campaign prior to maybe May 2016, could now be attributed to the four FISA warrants on Carter Page, instead of the illegal 702(14)(15) searches by FBI contractors. That was also why they were willing to use FISA warrants on Page, when their original target had been George Popadopolis. It didn’t matter exactly whom they got the Title I warrants on, but rather just that they were within two hops of Trump and his inner circle.

Mr. T. said...

Academics are the worst hypocrites when it comes to sexual harassment and assault cases. Remember: how did feminist members of the professtocracy respond to the revelations that academic fraud, Avital Ronnel, was a sex predator? And the left media was bo better.

Earnest Prole said...

The New York Times: In-Depth Investigation of the Allegations Against Biden Reveals That He’s a Democrat

Yancey Ward said...

Bruce, I think you mean Admiral Mike Rogers, not Flynn. The knives were out for Flynn on other issues.

HistoryDoc said...

I also love how the WaPo sat on the story for 19 days, then as soon as the NY Times put ot their story, WaPo immediately published their story on it.

No co-ordination there.

Or even worse, WaPo waits for approval from the Times (read: is their bitch).

Gk1 said...

Bruce Hayden I have to ask you. If this is all true, with this outrageous FISA abuse on steroids, why hasn't it leaked from within? How could you have kept this secret this long into a new administration? And this is coming from someone predisposed to agree with your theory.

After wanting to believe, following Conservative Treehouse, waiting for John Huber's "secret indictments" now the Durham investigations. Shouldn't the dam have broken on this years ago? Surely there is some legitimate whistleblower who has watched this perversion with alarm and disgust? Like Enrico Fermi's question about other intelligent planets & UFO's "Where are the aliens"? Where are the leakers?

Bunkypotatohead said...

So did Biden sniff his fingers afterward? That could be an important detail.

Lem said...

The proper airing of the story is up to what Eric Weinstein calls the DISK.

"DISC stands for “Distributed Idea Suppression Complex.” It is an abstract entity that permeates our major institutions, primarily in academia, the mainstream media, and politics. Its function is to gatekeep ideas that may challenge or undermine a prevailing elite, even if such a challenge is not the intent."

Weinstein goes into detail about what the DISK is and what what it does in a video...LINK

stan said...

Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade accusations are at just about exactly the same level in seriousness, importance, and credibility."

This is bizarre in the extreme. I'm stunned. I hope you never tried a case.

MARY MARSHAL said...

I am so Happy to be writing this article in here, i am here to explore blogs forum about the wonderful and most safe cure for HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS . I was positive to the deadly Virus called HERPES and i lost hope completely because i was rejected even by my closet friends. i searched online to know and inquire about cure for HERPES and i saw Dr EDES testimony online on how he was cured so many persons from Herpes Disease. so i decided to contact the great herbalist because i know that nature has the power to heal everything. i contacted him to know how he can help me and he told me never to worry that he will help me with the natural herbs from God! after 2 days of contacting him, he told me that the cure has been ready and he sent it to me via FEDEX or DHL and it got to me after 4 days! i used the medicine as he instructed me (MORNING and EVENING) and i was cured! its really like a dream but i'm so happy! that's the reason i decided to also add more comment of Him so that more people can be saved just like me! and if you need his help,contact his Email: (dredeshome@gmail.com) you can contact him on whatsapp +2348151937428 BLOG https://dredesherbal.webs.com
He also cure the below listed sickness;
(1) HERPES,
(2) DIABETES,
(3) HIV&AIDS,
(4) URINARY TRACT INFECTION,
(5) HEPATITIS B,
(6) IMPOTENCE,
(7) BARENESS/INFERTILITY
(8) DIARRHEA
(9) ASTHMA...

Bruce Hayden said...

“ Bruce, I think you mean Admiral Mike Rogers, not Flynn. The knives were out for Flynn on other issues.”

Yep. Should be able to keep them straight. Rogers in the black uniform, and Flynn in green. Think that it was a brain hiccup.

My guess is that they hated Rogers, and feared Flynn.

Bruce Hayden said...

@GK1 - I frankly don’t know. CTH reports from more credible sources than the NYT, WaPo, etc do. The numbers and percentages of illegal database searches by contractors comes from redacted FISC opinions, and other stuff from other very credible sources, like the WH visitors log showing Mary Jacoby, wife of Glen Simpson, principals of Fusion GPS, visiting there the day after Adm Rogers pulled the plug. Somewhere there has been a lot of crowd sourcing, pulling in stuff from all over the place, and trying to put it together. Likely, I think, some from Q’s Anons.

Something that has bothered me for some time is that the Deep State was so insistent on getting those Title I FISA warrants on someone, anyone, associated with the Trump campaign. They tried to get one on George Popadopolis. After all, he is the one who was setup by Misfyp and Downer. When they couldn’t get a FISA warrant on him, they immediately pivoted to Carter Page, whom the FBI almost certainly knew was not a Russian spy. Not only did the CIA claim him as one of theirs, the FBI themselves had as recently as earlier in the year (2016) used him as a witness in court.

And what did they get out of those four FISA warrants on Carter Page? Very little directly, because, apparently, Adm Rogers told Trump that his transition was being electronically surveiled, and they immediately were moved to a location controlled by Trump, and not the government. Yet, the FBI and DOJ persisted, renewing the warrant three times after Trump and his inner circle were well aware of the FISA warrants. Logically, that means to me (and I think Sundance at CTH) that the key is that Crossfire Hurricane, and then the Mueller investigation, were looking at the past, and not present.

And the goldmine, from the past, were the results of the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, of queries illegally run by those contractors, many almost assuredly run against Trump and his inner circle. My theory is that they wanted to get the information gleaned from these NSA database searches legitimately to the Dem politicians (such as Schifty and his HPSCI). What they had lacked provenance. It had been illegally obtained, and using it against Trump would further expose the illegality, and discredit the Obama Administration that had intentionally orchestrated the illegal surveillance.

Why has it been so well hidden? The MSM is running cover, working hard to keep it quiet, because they are loyal Dem party operatives, and the players have stubbornly kept critical parts classified. I am pretty sure that Rep Nunes knows most of it, but is too law abiding to disclose anything that still classified. And the Deep State, esp in the DOJ and FBI, led by Obama holdovers, has worked overtime to keep it secret, because they were mostly complicit. In other words, I think that the reason that it has been so well hidden, is because it is so big, and too many careers and reputations would be ruined if and when it came out.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»