Friday, May 8, 2020

Left, right we all laugh at the fake ass corporate media that attacks Tara Reade

The corporate media is a joke.  It's not reality.  That's why they sold the Iraq War.  That's why they ignored Tara Reade and then dismissed her when they finally did 'cover' her.  They certainly didn't do journalism.

We're all laughing at them now.  All of us.  People like me on the left.  People like John Notle (BRIETBART) on the right:

Tara Reade now has seven — seven — pieces of corroboration that back up her claim that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, and the national media are not responsible for uncovering a single one of them.
A kind way to put it would be to say the national media are inept and useless. That would be a lie. To a certain point, there’s no question the corporate media are inept and useless. But in the case of Tara Reade, the media are once again proving just how corrupt and evil they are.
The seven pieces of corroboration come down to the following…
  • Five witnesses who corroborate Reade’s allegation in some way. Independent investigative reporter Rich McHugh uncovered all five.
  • Videotape of Reade’s anguished mother calling into a 1993 edition of CNN’s Larry King Live asking for advice about her daughter’s problems with a “prominent senator.” Although Reade had told interviewers about the existence of this tape, CNN was not the news outlet that found its own video. Instead, someone who listened to a podcast about Reade’s story tracked it down.
  • A 1996 court document where Reade’s then-husband relates her telling him in 1993 about problems in Biden’s Senate office that forced her exit and had a “very traumatic effect on” her “and that she is still sensitive and affected by it today.”
Was this extraordinary legal filing uncovered by way of the limitless resources of the New York Times or the Washington Post? Was it uncovered by way of a dogged determination to find the truth at NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, PBS, NPR, CNN, or MSNBC?
Of course not. Are you drunk?

It was uncovered by local media, by the Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California.
Tara Reade is a lifelong Democrat.
Tara Reade is Joe Biden’s eighth accuser.
Joe Biden is the presumptive Democrat nominee for the presidency.
We are supposed to be in the era of #MeToo, an era where women are supposed to have their allegations treated seriously, an era that is supposed to forever put an end to powerful men who have been credibly accused.
Nevertheless, the very same national media who went on a two-week feeding frenzy to destroy Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and did so based on the testimony of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, a kook who could not prove she ever knew or had even met Kavanaugh, a woman who was caught lying more than once, who had no corroboration, and whose own witnesses refuted her allegation — this very same national media are not only getting repeatedly scooped by local media, independent reporters, and a citizen who listened to a podcast; this very same national media have been dismissing Reade’s allegation or misleading the public in the futile hope of killing the scandal.
The far-left Associated Press (AP) could have broken the Reade story last year. Instead, the AP decided not to run what they had in 2019, including an interview with Reade. The AP only ran what they had a few days ago, when they published a story with the false allegation that Reade had changed her story since 2019.

We're all laughing at the corporate media now.  They've been exposed as liars and hacks.  That's all they are.

No wonder Tara ignored them and went to Megyn Kelly instead.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, May 8, 2020.  Tara Reade's case against Joe Biden only gets stronger.

Walker Bragman Tweets:

With each new piece of evidence providing corroboration for her story—affirmations from people she told over the years, a video of her mother calling Larry King, and now a court document—it becomes harder to brush Tara Reade aside. This is the real test of the Me Too movement.

In the US, Tara Reade has charged that Joe Biden assaulted her in 1993.  More proof emerged yesterday backing up Tara and Megyn Kelly began airing parts of her interview with Tara.  First with the latest proof.  Matt Fountain (SAN LUIS OBISPO TRIBUNE) reports:

A court document from 1996 shows former Senate staffer Tara Reade told her ex-husband she was sexually harassed while working for Joe Biden in 1993.
The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.
Reade’s then-husband Theodore Dronen wrote the court declaration. Dronen at the time was contesting a restraining order Reade filed against him days after he filed for divorce, Superior Court records show.

Read more here:
In it, he writes Reade told him about “a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office.”
[. . .]
Dronen, who still lives in San Luis Obispo County, confirmed he wrote the declaration.
“Tara and I ended our relationship over two decades ago under difficult circumstances,” Dronen said in an email to The Tribune on Thursday. “I am not interested in reliving that chapter of my life. I wish Tara well, and I have nothing further to say.”

Read more here:

Read more here:

By any standards past survivors have been held to, Tara's case has been proven.  Sarah Al-Arshani (BUSINESS INSIDER) adds:

Dronen also wrote that Reade told him she left the position after striking a deal with the chief of staff of Biden's office. 
"It was obvious that this event had a very traumatic effect on (Reade), and that she is still sensitive and effected (sic) by it today," Dronen wrote.

At her YOUTUBE channel, Megyn Kelly has posted two sections of her interview with Tara.

Kelly is expected to post the full interview later today.   At THE NATION this morning,  Sarah Nesbitt and Sage Carson note:

If Democrats hope to hold themselves up as principled defenders of survivors’ rights and fair process in the post-Kavanaugh era, they must establish a formal, unbiased investigation into Tara Reade’s allegations against the presumptive Democratic nominee.
So far, they’ve fallen far short of this standard. When asked on April 30 about Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi responded, “There is also due process and the fact that Joe Biden is Joe Biden.” In so doing, Speaker Pelosi joins a long line of powerful individuals who have invoked “due process” and “he’s a good good guy” arguments to ensure that their political allies will avoid accountability and scrutiny.
When politicians and other powerful people strategically call for “due process” to defend their political allies, what they tend to mean is “no process.” This strategy has been wielded by liberals and conservatives alike—in schools, in workplaces, and in the mediato avoid confronting the possibility that someone they know, trust, or believe in may have perpetrated violence. It has also been used by powerful men themselves, like Harvey Weinstein, to try to avoid public criticism. Until Pelosi supports a framework through which Reade’s allegations can be given a fair hearing, it is hard to read her statements as anything but a disingenuous attempt to boost an ally, particularly as the evidence corroborating Reade’s claim mounts.
Pelosi isn’t the first to erroneously invoke the legal right to due process. As Alexandra Brodsky has written, the constitutional guarantee of “due process” is a far cry from the baseless notion that “no one can be mad at you unless a judge has donned robes.” The right arises when the state threatens to take away a right to which the accused person is normally entitled. This includes instances where someone faces jail time for an alleged crime, or the possibility of a court order that limits where they can physically go as the result of an alleged assault. Further, the extent of the process due depends on the gravity of the right at stake. The fact that a fair investigation may expose Joe Biden to public shame and potential repudiation does not implicate his due process rights.
Cynical invocations of “due process” are familiar to survivors. Take, for example, the modern campus sexual assault movement. In the 2010s, survivors of sexual violence organized on campuses across the country to demand action from their schools and the Department of Education after their reports of assault and abuse were routinely swept under the rug. This led to critical but incremental change: In 2011, the department released a Dear Colleague letter, a non-binding piece of federal guidance, that clarified for schools that Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination means institutions must respond fairly and promptly to allegations of sexual misconduct. But even the mere prospect of accountability activated a backlash from men’s rights advocates invoking “due process” to stack the procedural deck in favor of students accused of sexual misconduct. 

As Tara's case grows ever stronger, pig boys panic.  For example, Joe Scarborough found time to Tweet against Tara this morning.  Hey, Joe, how did that dead intern end up your office again?  Also taking a break from sniffing his own ass, Michael Tracey Tweets to the world that he's investigated and he's about to go to town on Tara.  Michael, sniffing your own fingers is not investigation and the whole world already knew you were a sexist pig. 

Expect more of their nonsense in the days to come because so many have given a pass on smears. So much for everyone having a right to be heard.  And if you missed it, Tara's attorneys hare hideous and pure evil.  Why?  One donated to a Trump campaign, one defended Max Blumenthal or . . .

Krystal Ball Tweets:

Another smear. This lawyer regularly represents victims including Weinstein survivors and Fox News employees. His last donation was to Hakeem Jeffries. Why don’t you do some journalism on all the lawyers who turned Tara down bc of the politics?

The media has done a lousy job.  It was C-SPAN who, this week, brought on  RAINN's (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) vice president Heather Drevna to discuss the way survivors can respond to an assault.  THE NEWSHOUR didn't do that, NPR didn't do that, MSNBC didn't do that . . .  Go down the list.  So we get all these outraged statements from fools who don't know the first thing they're talking about -- that would include Senator Dianne Feinstein.  Sarah Jones Tweets of DiFi:

she will be in her 90s when her term is up and maybe that's why she's still talking about sexual assault like it's 1965

Ebony Purks (THE PAISANO) observes:

It seems suspicious that news outlets have been relatively quiet about Reade’s story for weeks because, naturally, it is the news’ responsibility to report facts objectively. Whether the allegations against Biden are true or not, the story deserves attention. For a former staffer to come forward with assault allegations against a front-running presidential candidate is major, and for news outlets to blatantly ignore Reade’s allegations sends a harmful message to women.
By not reporting the story, these media outlets are picking a side, and the side they are picking is against the facts, the facts being the existence of Reade’s accusations. It was frustrating to only see the discourse of Reade’s story from Twitter users rather than reporters. I know liberal news outlets are hesitant to report the story because it is somewhat close to November, and they may feel Reade’s story gives Trump leverage over Biden’s presidential campaign. As we all know, the Trump presidency is perhaps the most controversial and messy presidency America has seen, and liberal news outlets do not want to report anything negative on America’s only chance at beating Donald Trump: Joe Biden.

However, it is not the news outlets’ responsibility to decide how people receive the facts; it is their job to report the facts.

Tara Reade tells Megyn Kelly that Joe Biden should drop out of the race but that she doubts he will.  His dropping out would be the best thing for the party and for the world.  His campaign created no enthusiasm and now he's polling worse than Hillary Clinton did at the same time in 2016.  And his policies are disgusting.  Reese Erlich (PROGRESSIVE) examines Joe's foreign policy record and notes:

By far Biden’s most reprehensible stand was his strong support for the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. As documented by Professor Stephen Zunes in The Progressive, Biden forcefully supported the war, but later claimed he opposed it. (Of course, Trump lied about his support for the war as well.)
When the Iraqi occupation failed in the mid-2000s, Biden infamously called for splitting Iraq into three parts along sectarian lines, so the United States could continue imperial control at least in Kurdistan.
Even today, Biden favors maintaining some troops in the region, using the excuse of fighting ISIS. “I think it’s a mistake to pull out the small number of troops that are there now to deal with ISIS,” he’s said.
Biden hasn’t learned the lessons of the Afghan war either. After nineteen years of failed war and occupation, he still wants to maintain some troops in the country.
“I would bring American combat troops in Afghanistan home during my first term,” Biden tells the Council on Foreign Relations. “Any residual U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would be focused only on counterterrorism operations.”

But whoever wins in November will have to face the new reality: People in Afghanistan and the United States are fed up with the war. All foreign troops will have to withdraw.

In Iraq, as noted yesterday, there's a new prime minister.  Omar Abdulkader  (CBS NEWS) reports

After five months of difficult negotiations, Iraq's parliament approved the intelligence chief Mustafa Al-Kadhimi as the country's new prime minister on Thursday. The long-time spy master, who appears to have U.S. backing, will now lead a government to replace the one forced to resign months ago amid widespread protests.
But his biggest challenge may be convincing a fed-up public that he'll act in their interest before he acts in the interest of the U.S. or any other foreign power.
"This government came as a response to the social, economic and political crises our country is facing," al-Kadhimi told lawmakers Thursday. "It is a government that will provide solutions, not add to the crises." 
Iraq is facing a coronavirus-fueled financial crisis, crumbling infrastructure battered by years of war and scant investment, ongoing political instability and the threat of a resurgent ISIS testing its beleaguered security forces.
While addressing those issues, Kadhimi must also prevent his country becoming a literal battlefield in the for-now-still-rhetorical war between its neighbor and ally Iran, and its more distant but more powerful ally the United States.

Jean Shaoul (WSWS) offers:

Al-Khadimi, who spent 25 years in exile in the UK and US, is on good terms with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and is viewed as a US spy. He appeared initially to have the support of some of the Shia parties after Iran, which in practice controls parliament and can therefore neuter him, gave the nod.
However, Kataeb Hezbollah, one of militias within the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) close to Iran and part of Iraq’s armed forces, accused him of complicity in the January 3 assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Suleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a prominent member of the Iraqi government and PMU leader, aimed at undermining Iran’s political influence in Iraq. Their killings have spawned major disagreements among the various Shia factions, with four PMU units loyal to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani breaking from the PMU, which Washington is seeking to exploit.

Al-Khadimi has still to fill several posts in his cabinet after parliament refused to endorse some of his nominees, including the key oil and foreign affairs ministries. But his line is clear: he said he will uphold the political sectarian system known as muhasasa and work with Washington in the “strategic dialogue” over relations between the two countries scheduled for June.

Amnesty International issued the following today:

The newly-formed government in Iraq must ensure human rights are placed at the heart of its agenda, and reverse course from decades of impunity, Amnesty International said in a new open letter.
Writing to new Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhim after the government was sworn in yesterday (7 May), the organization highlighted continuing concerns relating to the lack accountability for the authorities’ violent response to protests last year and early this year; in the aftermath of the conflict against the armed group calling itself ‘Islamic State’ (IS); and also concerns relating to COVID-19 and domestic violence.
“This new government has an opportunity to ensure that the promotion and protection of human rights in Iraq is prioritized after years of appalling violations,” said Razaw Salihy, Amnesty International’s Iraq Research.
“The Iraqi people have paid too high a price for decades of impunity and what have so far been repeatedly hollow promises by the authorities. We welcome the government’s stated commitment to hold those responsible for protesters’ killings accountable, and to prioritize addressing the needs of the internally displaced people.
“It must now translate these promises into immediate and meaningful action, including addressing the Iraqi people’s longstanding socio-economic grievances.”
COVID-19 and domestic violence
In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Iraq has been placed into partial lockdown which has led to a rise in cases of domestic violence.
The letter adds: “The uptick in cases of domestic violence reported by media and civil society organizations, in some instances leading to the death of women and the severe injuring of a young girl, demands immediate action by the government to ensure that women and girls can access essential services and protection.”
Response to protests
Protests in the country late last year and early this year were met with a brutal response by authorities, leading to the unlawful killing of hundreds of people and leaving thousands more injured.
According to research carried out by Amnesty International, security forces - including members of the Popular Mobilization Units, as well as unknown gunmen - met the largely peaceful protesters with live ammunition, hunting rifles, live fire consistent with sniper fire, tear gas and water cannons.
Amnesty International is calling on the government to urgently rein in security forces, and initiate thorough and independent investigations into the killings. The letter adds: “The authorities have had months to change course away from violent repression. They must reassure protesters that they have a right to expect that the security forces will protect them and not arbitrarily kill and maim them and that their government will address their grievances, particularly their demands for their social and economic rights to be met.”
Aftermath of ‘Islamic State’ conflict
The letter also addresses several issues relating to the conflict against IS, including the collective punishment of internally displaced Iraqis with perceived affiliation to IS, the fate of thousands of men and boys who were forcibly disappeared by security forces during the conflict, impunity for human rights abuses committed by all parties to the conflict, and crimes committed against ethnic and religious minorities in northern Iraq.

The full text of the open letter can be read here.

The following sites updated:

  • No comments: