ACCUSATION MEETS INCOMPETENCE: As Candidate Biden stands accused...

MONDAY, MAY 4, 2020

...should you believe the accuser?
As you may have heard, Joe Biden has been accused of committing an act of sexual assault—presumably, of committing a crime—in a Senate office hallway in 1993.

As you may have noticed, accusations of sexual misconduct have become a standard part of our presidential campaigns. This started in the 1988 and 1992 campaigns with accusations of very bad consensual conduct by Democratic front-runners Gary Hart and Bill Clinton.

(Our interest in consensual conduct continued in 2016. Had Candidate Trump had sex, on one occasion, with Stormy Daniels ten years before? Inquiring minds badly wanted to know. This is who, and what, we are.)

Accusations of sexual misconduct have become a standard part of our White House campaigns. So has the astoundingly incompetent way such accusations are handled by members of our mainstream press corps and by our vast array of highly incompetent pundits.

So who the heck is Emily Bazelon? We thought you'd never ask!

Last Thursday, Bazelon offered the type of skeptical commentary which basically isn't allowed when such accusations are made. She did so in a podcast at Slate, where she spoke with two better-behaved male colleagues.

Bazelon spoke with John Dickerson, the former host of Face the Nation, and with David Plotz, the former editor of Slate.

Judged by prevailing rules of the game, the gentlemen behaved themselves during the meandering 28-minute discussion. Bazelon plainly didn't.

That said, who the heck is Bazelon? The leading authority tells us this:
Emily Bazelon is an American journalist. She is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, a senior research fellow at Yale Law School, and co-host of the Slate podcast Political Gabfest. She is a former senior editor of Slate.

Her work as a writer focuses on law, women, and family issues. She has written two national bestsellers published by Penguin Random House: Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy (2013) and Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration (2019)...
Bazelon graduated from Yale in 1993, from Yale Law School in 2000. Last Friday, in the sadly-named Slate Political Gabfest, she said the sorts of things to which, by the rules of the game, top pundits must never give voice.

Bazelon did the types of things which simply mustn't be done. Even as her male companions kept lamenting liberal hypocrisy, she voiced some doubts, and raised some questions, about the current accuser.

Indeed, she even said this:

She said that, as a matter of basic fairness, the credibility of such accusers has to be explored. Dating back to Gennifer Flowers and then to Kathleen Willey, then moving on to Julie Swetnick and Stormy Daniels, this has long been the sort of thing which simply mustn't be done.

Bazelon isn't real sure about Reade. Early on, she said this:
BAZELON (4/30/20): You know, in some cases, we’ve had people who’ve seemed incredibly durable as witnesses in terms of their credibility coming forward. So I’m thinking of Anita Hill. I’m thinking of Christine Blasey Ford. And I don’t see Tara Reade in that category.

Now, I realize in saying that I’m basically showing my own bias against people who are alleged victims who also have a lot of, like, questionable actions in their past. I mean, reading about Reade’s activities with this horse rescue operation she was involved with, where the owner and employees are saying, like, "You stole stuff from us," and it just looks really like not credible.

And I guess my own basic bias is that, if you are going to bring a really long-ago serious allegation against a public official, and you can line up some pieces of corroboration but not real proof, your reliability is going to be on the line. And we should not err in the direction of deciding to let people destroy the careers of the men they accuse in those settings without some real sense that we are sure, because otherwise we are in a world in which the MeToo movement has turned into a place where we’re perilously close to letting people who, who lie, or who have problems, destroy other people. And like, that cannot be the end result here.
For a truly sad "transcript," click here.

Are pundits allowed to say such things? Bazelon said she doesn't see Reade as someone with super credibility. She even seemed to suggest that Reade might be lying, or that she might "have problems."

It got even worse in that middle paragraph, where Bazelon referred to a matter her male colleagues never broached during the 28-minute discussion.

In that middle paragraph, Bazelon seemed to say that Reade might have "a lot of questionable actions in [her] past." She even seemed to cite an example, referring to Reade’s "activities with this horse rescue operation she was involved with."

Say what? Was Reade once accused of stealing from a horse rescue operation? That's what Bazelon seemed to say. Plotz quickly steered the discussion back to the horrors of liberal hypocrisy.

Make no mistake! Liberal hypocrisy concerning such matters has been a gruesome reality, but it isn't the principal question at hand. That said, Plotz and Dickerson seemed most concerned with showing the world that they themselves could never be accused of any such transgression.

(In pursuit of such absolution, they almost seemed to advocate a growing "liberal" consensus: Because we've been stupid in the past, we have to be stupid again.)

Bazelon wasn't done at this point. Speaking of the cultural "taboo about questioning [alleged] victims," she seemed to say that that such accusers are sometimes lying! She even seemed to say that some such examples exist, and that we all know about them!
BAZELON: I don’t know what to do about the taboo about questioning victims and their credibility in a situation like this, because in the end, that’s what it all comes down to. And I mean, I’m not a real lawyer, but as someone who went to law school and thinks about legal standards, like, I just don’t know how you get away from that. I mean, we have to have some kind of faith that people are telling the truth and that we haven’t created a situation in which, you know, the, quote, idea of "Believe women," which I have never ascribed to, is something that journalists or people determining consequences can, can run with.

Like if your friend comes to you, should you believe her? Sure. But like, the notion that that is going to carry us through all these tricky questions when people’s careers and reputations are at stake. Like, no! I’m sorry! Sometimes people lie, and we have examples of that. It has been very rare. It’s really important not to damage all credibility of sexual assault victims by saying that something occasionally happens. But you also can’t rule it out.
"Sometimes people lie," Bazelon said, "and we have examples of that." She seemed to be saying that some people are known to have lied in cases like this! "We can't rule it out," she said.

Later, Bazelon voiced skepticism about Reade once again, saying she "has red flags about reliability." She even went so far as to complain about one of the pundit corps' favorite games—the game of "having people presumed guilty when there's no way to prove yourself innocent."

Bazelon said she isn't a Biden fan. Despite this fact, she did the improbable. Speaking with major scribes at a major upper-end site, she stated some obvious facts:

She said that accusers of this type are sometimes lying. She stated the world's most obvious fact—we have recent, high-profile examples in which this was the case.

She was also willing to say that Reade may not be the most credible person on earth. In the past, it has been standard press corps practice to disappear embarrassing facts about high-profile sex accusers.

Dickerson and Plotz showed little interest in addressing these claims. Like others around the pundit corps, they adopted a more conventional stance.

Reade's accusation is being widely discussed. If you look closely, you will see that these rules almost always apply:
True or false and who cares: Almost surely, there will never be a way to demonstrate whether Reade's accusations is true. Pundits will routinely show an amazing inability to come to terms with this fact.

Past examples of false accusation: We've had recent examples of high-profile sex accusers who were making false accusations. Pundits will routinely disappear this obvious fact.

Believe the accusers:
Pundits will swear that they don't believe that we should always believe the accuser. As they say this, they'll do what our pundits have done for thirty years—they'll gloss, finesse and disappear the facts which may cast doubts on this accuser's credibility. In this way, they'll steer you toward always believing accusers.

Everything but the matter at hand: Pundits will discuss hypocrisy until they're blue in the face. In this way, they'll adhere to the greatest maxim of their species and their guild—No Distraction Left Behind.
Is Tara Reade telling the truth? Almost surely, there will never be a way to know—and our amazingly weak-minded pundit corps will never come to terms with that fact.

Anthropologically, this is what we humans are like—we self-impressed "rational animals."

Tomorrow: What was Bazelon talking about? Why isn't it being discussed?


  1. So what if she stole a horse?

    1. Maybe it was Biden's horse? We don't know all the facts.

    2. Maybe he fingered the horse as well.

    3. Where can I get a horse?

    4. Hello viewers around the Globe, I was despondent because i had a very small penis, about 2.5 inches soft and 4 inches hard not nice enough to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors for me, but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the INTERNET about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to contact him on his email: so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 3 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my sex and i have got a large penis. Am so happy, thanks to Dr OLU I also learn that Dr OLU also help with Breast Enlargement Hips and Bums Enlargement etc.. If you are in any situation with a little Penis, weak ejaculation, small breast_hips_bums do get to Dr OLU now for help on his email ( or add him on whatsapp line +2348140654426 

  2. "Are pundits allowed to say such things?"

    Puh-leeze, dear Bob. Everyone knows that when your zombie cult VIP is accused, such things aren't just allowed, they are required.

    The first rule of dembottery is simple:

    If one of the Others is accused, destroy the accused.
    If a zombie cult VIP is accused, destroy the accuser.

    Don't pretend you didn't know, dear Bob.

    1. I didn't realize Al Franken was a Republican. When did he switch parties?

    2. Mao, I know it's useless to try to reason with you - but TDH's whole point is that the Libs will be tied up in knots because of their dogma that you have to believe the woman accuser. Just like with Trump in the 2016 election, (who in an unguarded moment admitted he grabbed pussies), most dems will vote for Biden in spite of this, but there might be enough, after all the BS plays out, for the accusation to make a difference. I know you are perpetually aggrieved about how unfair Orange man, and your side, gets treated, so that seems to be your constant perspective, as if it's not worse from your side.

    3. 'My side', dembot? For you zombies anyone who's not in your cult is 'the other side'. But of course we already know it.

      Other than that, why did you type all that word-salad?

      There are no 'dogmas' in your cult, just bullshit and standard orwellian doublethink for the faithful.

      Otherwise how would you zombies manage switching to mccarthyism, xenophobia, worshiping the security apparatus, war-mongering, and god knows what else without skipping a beat?

    4. Mao, you prove my point that that it is useless to reason with you. I don't know who you are describing as "you zombies' but it ain't me. I'm not in any cult. You seem to be a self-righteous dogmatic zealot, mostly name calling and little rational argument in support of your position.

    5. "Mao, you prove my point that that it is useless to reason with you."

      Some "point" you have, dembot. Obsessively replying to an anonymous commenter with the "point" that your obsessive replying is useless.

      Go get your head examined.

    6. Your probably right, about me getting my head examined; wouldn't hurt. You should talk though - obsessively posting on this site, multiple times a day, about dembots, cults, zombies, the psycho-witch - and constantly responding to other posters. Look in the mirror.

  3. Maureen Dowd (via Political Wire) said:

    "“To suggest that every woman who alleges a sexual assault is as credible as the next is absurd. The idea that no woman can ever be wrong just hurts women. Half the human race is female. Who has never been lied to by people of both genders? Who has never seen the mesmerizing female psychopaths of film noir?”"

    This mistakes the liberal position on accusations. No one is saying that woman is always telling the truth. Liberals say that accusations should be investigated, not swept under the rug because they are politically inconvenient or made against men in power.

    Somerby never talks about investigation. It is only by investigation that we know that women have lied in the recent past. Once the facts are known, many cases are not at all ambiguous, although they may be past the statue of limitations or difficult to prove in court. In Cosby's case, he admitting drugging women -- he said it was consensual. In Weinstein's case, there were witnesses and he too said the sex was consensual. There wasn't any denial of the sex, just the coercion. Those cases are very different than Biden's. First, there are not multiple accusations. Second, there is no corroboration. Third, Biden doesn't say anything consensual happened, much less non-consensual. The "credibility" issues are important too.

    Somerby never talks about investigation. He pretends it is always he-said, she-said with the truth unknowable. Somerby never mentions that Trump has been accused of dozens of assaults and that there is tape of him admitting that he does such things (with Billy Bush and Howard Stern). This puts Trump more in the Weinstein category than the Biden category, in my opinion. But Somerby wants to pretend that Stormy Daniels is a grifter, as are all women at heart, so we must treat all woman as liars until proven otherwise.

    There are men who think about women this way, with automatic distrust. There are men who are paranoid about women, who resent them for their sexuality while fearing they will take their stuff. Such men are called misogynists and their attitude toward women's habitual truthfulness (or lack of it) is called sexism. Women should be taken seriously and their claims INVESTIGATED, not believed but treated as potentially believable pending more evidence. Men who treat women automatically as if they are lying are sexist assholes.

  4. The problem in the Kavanaugh hearing was that Republicans refused to do any investigation at all of the multiple people who claimed to have been assaulted during his college years. Only Blasey Ford got scrutiny (and she held up to it and was not shown to be lying). It would have helped to have investigated the other potential accusers too.

    This is exactly Biden's failure with Anita Hill. There were a large number of women with similar complaints against Clarence Thomas but Biden would not allow them to testify as planned, instead railroading Thomas's confirmation. Just as occurred with Kavanaugh. I understand why the Republicans would have done that with their pick, but I do not understand why Biden did it with Thomas, nor do many women who watched Hill be thrown under the bus during those hearings. It is a key mobilizing event of the women's movement and women remember it today. If Trump were not such a worse evil, Biden would not have as much support. This is partly why he had no chance of being nominated against Hillary Clinton. Now we are placed in the position of having to vote for someone of dubious character because his opponent (Trump) is so clearly lacking in fitness for office.

  5. Notice how Somerby is furthering Republican talking points by making sure we all hear that Biden has been accused. If he were really against publicizing such accusations (as he pretends), why would he give them visibility here?

    Somerby is pretending to approve of a woman who is attacking Biden's accuser, but looking at his essays over a longer timespan, he is (1) in favor of attacking women who accuse, because he thinks female grifters do that on a regular basis, (2) not in favor of the liberal call to take accusations seriously by investigating them (he has turned this into "always believe women", as has the woman he lauds today, Bazelon, (3) he pretends he is attacking the press on this, but the press doesn't behave monolithically.

    Somerby would have called Roy Moore's accusers grifters too, if he thought he could get away with maligning 14 year old girls that way.

    1. Yes, but for TDH's post we wouldn't have been aware of it. Are you crazy? Your response makes no sense. TDH is "pretending" to approve of what Bazelon says? You make no sense, and don't appear capable to apply reason or logic.

    2. @AC/MA
      Ahem “but for TDH’s post we wouldn’t have been aware of it.”

      Please speak for yourself,AC, and not the rest of us.

    3. mh, it was meant as sarcasm

  6. It’s good that Somerby approves of and mentions Bazelon in his post.

    It might be instructive to note that Reade’s recent resurgence came via an interview with Katie Halper, who, like Bazelon, also hosts a podcast. No mention of Halper here.

    And Reade has gotten sympathetic coverage in The Intercept.

    A year ago, the AP and the Washington Post both declined to run a story about her accusations because they couldn’t determine its credibility. Her story has since changed, and because she found Halper willing to publicize it, it is now out there. Who are Halper and The Intercept?

    This is not meant to excuse poorly reasoned or unfair msm punditry, but it is important to examine how allegations like Reade’s make it into the public sphere in the first place.

    Somerby has been more than willing to criticize Slate, as he did recently, but he never mentions The Intercept, which is at least as influential as Slate, and is also considered liberal, although they represent the anti-Democratic Party wing of progressivism.

    The liberal blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money has been on this story since March. The bloggers there were almost universally anti-Biden during the campaign, but care enough about both the viability of the Dem nominee and the importance of MeToo that they have been looking critically at Reade’s story, via facts that are being uncovered by the news media, while looking critically at specific instances of pundit/editorial stupidity.

  7. Let's talk about the lies men tell. Yesterday Trump said that Biden had sent him a letter apologizing for the way the Corona virus was handled. Of course, there is no such letter and Trump is lying. Nevertheless, Republicans want Biden to turn over his entire Senate Archive so they can paw through it to find something to attack him with, ostensibly to find evidence to support Biden's accuser, Reade. So, this is more than a he-said, she-said situation. It is a political attack by Republicans on the Democratic nominee.

    When you yourself tell lies, you believe that the whole world behaves the same way, that everyone is a liar. It is the way we maintain our belief that we are a good person, despite knowing that it is wrong to lie.

    Somerby has argued here numerous times that women accusing men are grifters (Stormy of course, Chanel, the girls who accused Moore (assisted by the press), the stripper who accused those nice young athletes, Gennifer, Juanita (yes, some of these women were lying, but Somerby behaves as if one woman lying impugns the entire gender). It makes me wonder how Somerby treats women, how truthful he is in his dealings with them.

    Meanwhile, Biden's experience running for office increasingly looks like it will be a trip down a rabbit hole.

    1. Is that you, professor, @12:53? Have you figured out how to scurry behind your Anonymous Ignoramus mask.?

      TDH has called one woman a grifter — Stormy Daniels, and she never made an accusation that Trump did anything wrong in their encounter.

      Of the girls (now women) who accused Ray Moore of sexual assault, TDH said that one accusation of rape was entirely credible and that the media was ignoring it.

      Chanel [Miller], she of the Stanford rape case, may have been blackout drunk at the time she was assaulted by Brock Turner, but she never tried to hold up Turner, and TDH has never accused her of doing so.

      The stripper who accused those nice young athletes was lying.

      You should stop doing the same about TDH.

  8. “True or false and who cares: Almost surely, there will never be a way to demonstrate whether Reade's accusations is true. Pundits will routinely show an amazing inability to come to terms with this fact.”

    This is a somewhat troubling stance.

    Yes, it is sometimes quite difficult to know the absolute truth about sexual harassment/sexual misconduct allegations where physical evidence is scanty or non-existent. But that is no reason to throw up our hands and say “we will never know, so let’s just drop it.” Our legal system has to deal with these kinds of things every day. And this willingness to be dismissive about so-called “he said/she said” claims is one of the things that MeToo was criticizing.

    That said, there are many facts that have come to light regarding Reade and her changing story that call her credibility into question. It is reasonable and crucial, now that her accusations are public, for the media to examine her claims and provide fact-based reporting.

    Of course that won’t stop a number of pundits, left and right, from denouncing Biden anyway.

    Nor will it stop the NY Times from calling for a release of every Biden document, so that they can go on another fishing expedition as they did with Hillary’s emails.

    But “there will never be a way to demonstrate whether Reade's accusations is true” doesn’t change the fact that she made an allegation, which will be left hanging to provide fodder for the GOP and the anti-Biden left unless a proper investigation of her claims is made. And perhaps during the course of that investigation, a way will be found to determine the truth of Reade’s allegations.

  9. Sex abuse accusations stared with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Reade's accusation is stronger than Hill's or Chistine Blasey Ford's, because several people remember her telling them about the incident at the time it happened. However, I don't think a candidate should be invalidated because of an accusation of sexual misbehavior from decades ago. That's why I was willing to vote for Trump. Biden should certainly be treated no worse than Trump was.

    1. The women corroborating Anita Hill were not permitted to testify, just as those with similar accusations to Blasey-Ford were not investigated or permitted to testify either. Blasey-Ford told people at the time too. Reade's details keep changing.

      If you voted for Trump because there were no recent allegations, you are a fool. His last publicly revealed philandering was during Melania's pregnancy. That wasn't "decades ago" but 10 years as of 2016. There is no evidence he has stopped playing around.

      I think it is a really bad precedent to say that because Trump does something, everyone can do it. If Trump lies, cheats, steals, is it OK for everyone else?

    2. You're ignoring one crucial piece of data, david, you fucking fascist prick.

      Beer Bong Brett lied numerous times under oath at his hearing.

      In order to secure his lifetime appointment to the Court, and facing specific, multiple and credible allegations of sexual assault, Kavanaugh lied about witnesses; he lied about corroboration; he lied about friendships; he lied about parties. He also lied about Maryland's drinking age, vomiting, his yearbook, his accusers, Yale, and drinking — he lied about that a lot. (Separately during his confirmation hearing Kavanaugh lied about his childhood, federal judges, warrantless wiretaps, his nomination selection, and stolen emails.) "Republicans know Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath," Armanda Marcotte wrote at Salon. "They just don't care."

      There is no evidence Biden lied about anything.

    3. I don't know what exactly "sexual misbehavior" might connote, dear David, but Rapist Joe has been credibly accused of rape.

    4. @1:56 The 3 or 4 women who claimed to have experienced things similar to what Anita Hill alleged were flakes. The Democrats decided not to let them testify because their testimony would have been counter-productive. They would have been exposed. Their obviously false stories would have weakened the impact of Hill's plausible story. Note that the Democrats did what they could to support Hill. A large number of women who had worked with Thomas wanted to testify that Thomas was always a perfect gentleman. The Democrats allowed only 4 of them to testify and scheduled them for the middle of the night, when hardly anyone was watching.

      Flaky accusations helped Kavenaugh IMHO. The nutcase accusers weakened the impact of Blasey Ford's plausible accusation. It made it east to say, "They're all flaky."

    5. We didn't get the chance to hear what they said, so you have no basis for saying they were flakes. The Democrats didn't let them testify for political reasons. They were all lined up and waiting (which suggests they were NOT flakes).

      A woman who will testify that Thomas was a gentleman has no evidence to give, except that Thomas didn't harass every woman in his workplace.

      Avenatti came forward with one "nutcase" but there were several other credible witnesses that were never investigated or allowed to testify. That is railroading.

    6. Mao - I don't care what Biden was accused of many decades ago. I would apply a kind of statute of limitations. If I thought he was the best President, I'd vote for him.

      An interesting question is whether the Democrats will try to use this accusation as an excuse to dump Biden and replace him with someone other than Sanders. That's what I would do if I were a Democrat.

    7. No, David, you fascist prick, what helped Beer Bong Brett was the decision by republicans and the trump doj not to do a real investigation, contrary to their promise.

    8. Dear David, you can vote for whomever you want. That's perfectly fine.

      My only point is that equating rape - the highest degree felony - with clumsy attempts at flirting ("sexual harassment") which is not crime at all, by describing both as "sexual misbehavior" - sorry, but that strikes me as demagoguery.

    9. I agree it would be smart for them to dump Biden and find a candidate who is not 80.

    10. David said: "If I thought he was the best President, I'd vote for him."

      A man cannot be the best president, by definition, if he abuses women. Women are half of the population. The president is elected to serve all of the people (not just the ones who voted for him, as Trump does) and those people are women as well as men. A candidate who abuses women is disqualified because he cannot serve people he doesn't respect.

      Obviously, this is why Trump is a disaster as president.

      How many here are aware that people in Puerto Rico were not sent stimulus checks?

    11. “My only point is that equating rape - the highest degree felony - with clumsy attempts at flirting ("sexual harassment") which is not crime at all, by describing both as "sexual misbehavior" - sorry, but that strikes me as demagoguery.”

      E Jean Carroll has accused Trump of rape, and not just “harrassment.” Her story is at least as credible as Reade’s.

    12. Mao keeps wanting to establish an equality between sexual harassment and what he calls clumsy flirting. The difference between the two is that sexual harassment is behavior that continues after a man has been told to stop. There are some laws that cover some types of harassment in some states, such as stalking laws. Sexual harassment is a firing offense in companies because it interferes with productivity and infringes on the rights of the victim. It becomes criminal when it causes a woman to fear for her safety.

      Some men become angry when rejected and continue to pursue a woman vindictively, to punish or control her. That's when a word such as "flirting" is grossly inappropriate.

    13. JFK was a rapist. People love him.

    14. Very few great leaders were not rapists or homosexuals. Napoleon was one of the good ones.

    15. Who let the trolls in?

    16. JFK raped his intern. Repeatedly.

      He raped her again and again and again and she was just a child.

      Somerby haswritten about it.

    17. Just Google "jfk raped his intern repeatedly"

    18. The man is dead and he cannot defend himself. So what you are doing is low.

    19. A man cannot be the best president, by definition, if he abuses women.

      I meant the best of the two available. I have encountered many people in business and in universities who would superior to current nominees and superior to many recent elected Presidents. IMHO we tended to get better nominees in the past, when there were only a few primaries, and political insiders chose the candidate.

    20. Bitch just Google it.

  10. “Was Reade once accused of stealing from a horse rescue operation?”

    This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing for Somerby to put forward as some sort of reason to doubt Reade’s story or her credibility. It has very little bearing on either of them.

    There are a number of far more compelling reasons to doubt her story that have recently come to light, thanks to the news media.

    It is reprehensible for Somerby to offer only this one item from Reade’s past as a way of (ostensibly) criticizing her story. Women who are assaulted may also have troubles later in life. That doesn’t disprove the assault, and it doesn’t necessarily mean she is lying about the assault.

    It almost seems as if Somerby is making a mockery of what it means to investigate claims like this.

  11. Here is a good summary of what many liberals believe and feel about Reade and Biden:

    Somerby is sometimes given kudos for his "critical thinking" but I find certain other blogs, including Rude Pundit and Lawyers, Guns & Money, to be better at analyzing the media and making good sense on topics like these.

  12. From Rawstory: "‘You’re not well’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe calls on Trump to let Mike Pence act as president until his sanity improves"

    Maybe Somerby is watching the wrong pundits. Here is someone willing to talk about Trump's sanity.

  13. This is all you need to know, to vote Trump out:

  14. I haven't been following the Biden thing minutely, but it has been noted that Reade a few months ago made a very different claim about Biden; nothing about reaching under her dress and "penetrating" her - it was something about stroking her shoulders. That apparent fact shreds her credibility. What motivates her to come out with this after Biden has locked up the nomination? Is she aware that she could give Trump the win coming out with this now? She is supposedly a liberal democrat. Why wouldn't she come out with this earlier when the nomination was up for grabs. Removing Biden now would create chaos. If it really happened as she said, that's unfortunate, but she seems to be acting selfishly even if it did happen - and it's much worse, as seems probable, if she isn't being truthful. As Maureen Dowd notes, women don't always tell the truth on this matters. People in general tend to embellish about past events. No doubt it should be 'investigated' but just leveling the charge causes harm.

    1. Maybe she thinks Bernie will have a shot if she can knock out Biden? Or maybe she is getting paid by someone to do this.

  15. If anything comes of Reade and her claim I hope that it is a stake in the heart of the notion that the burden of proof with such claims lies with the man who has been accused. Whether in politics or on college campuses.

    The NYT just claimed such accuser vs accused scenarios to be so problematic as to be beyond the capacities of little ole investigative journalism. They’ve asked that the DNC pick out an objective panel to look into the charges against Biden, lest they risk having to look into the matter and perhaps find something that might hurt Trump’s rival or have tweeters scrounging up all their 2018 denunciations of due process if they ever have to lay a glove on her.

    We can’t have anyone just doing their damn jobs and letting the chips fall where they may.

  16. Couple of counterpoints for the Reade naysayers. Both written by victims of assault.

    1. Shorter If everything Reade says is true, then there's an explanation for everything that people say in calling her account into question.

      Shorter Biden is a creep who likes to swim nude and sniff women's hair. And people are being mean to Reade.

  17. If John F Kennedy were to run for president at the same age Joe Biden is running for president now it would be the election of 1996.

  18. To paraphrase from Counterpunch, which itself is quoting someone on Twitter,
    It's hard to believe that someone who was arrested visiting Nelson Mandela in jail would ever assault anyone.

  19. Is Bob really horrified that Trump having unprotected sex with a porn star the week after his son was born might be deemed relevant? OK, but please don’t complain about his sanity, or the nut jobs in what’s left of your following who defend him.

  20. Very good, I think I found the knowledge I needed. I will see and refer some information in your post. thank you

  21. تطبيق خدمي يقوم العميل من خلاله بإختيار منتج من مجموعة من المنتجات المتاحة أمامه ليصل الى المكان الذى يحدده مصر جميلة - مصر جميلة - Misr Gamila - Misr Gamila

  22. God bless Dr. USELU for his marvelous work in my life, I was diagnosed of HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS since 2018 and I was taking my medications, I wasn't satisfied i needed to get the HERPES out of my system, I searched about some possible cure for HERPES i saw a comment about Dr. USELU , how he cured HERPES with his herbal medicine, I contacted him and he guided me. I asked for solutions, he started the remedy for my health, he sent me the medicine within 3 days. I took the medicine as prescribed by him and 2weeks later i was cured from HERPES contact him via email ( once again thanks to you Dr. USELU cure the flowing virus, contact his email or add him on whatsapp (+2349019328641) cancer cure
    diabetes cure
    ringing ear
    herpes cure
    warts cure
    HPV cure
    HIV cure
    get your ex back
    pregnancy herbal medicine

  23. I have the same thoughts on much of this material. I am glad I'm not the only person who thinks this way. You have really written an excellent quality article here. Thank you very much.

    SEO services in kolkata
    Best SEO services in kolkata
    SEO company in kolkata
    Best SEO company in kolkata
    Top SEO company in kolkata
    Top SEO services in kolkata
    SEO services in India
    SEO copmany in India