Tara Reade AKA Alexandra Tara McCabe, Tara Reade Moulton, Alexandra Reade among other aliases has a long history. There is a legacy of lies that she tells regarding her past. Then there is the unvarnished truth regarding this woman who cons, scams and steals from people. Tara Reade has been a flimflammer almost her entire adult life.Where to start with this huge volume of information is the dilemna we have to consider. Another consideration was what to put in and what to leave out for the potential well being of people who know her. We have decided to post all of the material we have obtained in what will be a three part account.
So let's begin at the beginning. Tara Reade was born Tara Reade Moulton on February 26, 1964. Her father was Robert Moulton and her stepmother Sally Ann Moulton. Her mother's name is Jeanette Altimus.
Her father's obituary becomes important because it is one of the occurrences where Ms. Reade is not quite truthful. She exaggerates the facts. In a story from Medium which she authored please see the following.
Here she states her father was a powerful defense contractor which is not the truth. He was a journalist. He then did public relations management for Honeywell which is a very powerful defense contractor. Seems like a small point but it is part of what becomes a long pattern of deceptions both small and large. It is important in the greater reflection of Ms. Reade's behavior. This is also the first person she accuses of abuse/harassment that we located.
The next individual she accuses is her ex. This individual whom she referred to as "Tate" worked for 2 elected officials from the Dakotas. He then started a business which has been highly successful and remains so to this day. This is the second person she has accused of abuse. In 1998 Reade was given a new Social Security number in the ruling of a judge from Washington State. That file is sealed so we can tell you a little but more is forthcoming. We have located the individual she accused and contacted them to see if they wish to tell their side of the story. We have received more information since that time.
Some of the details that we do know are that the individual lives not all that far from Ms. Reade and has for a number of years. That person is was married/is divorced, owns a home and operates a highly successful business. What is interesting however is that the individual started his business in 1995 and it became successful very quickly. Right after success was apparent Tara Reade filed abuse charges against this person Here is the article she wrote. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=thelawyer There are also excerpts concerning their relationship.
They resided together at two addresses and possibly a third. One address destroys a declaration that will be included in Part II of this series of articles. As stated they live not far from one another. For years though Reade is not her legal name, she was in a popular radio show, did numerous articles on animal shelters, etc. Some with her picture. What happened to this life of fear and hiding she was supposedly leading? He could easily have heard her, seen her, located her. We are unsure of what the truth is concerning anything she has told a court of law. Part II will hold the rest of the verifying information we have concerning this person and how it affects Reade's story. Why? Because we have evidence that she has lied in at least one legal proceeding.
Tara Reade has accused men and women alike of abuse/harassment. Next we have a document showing that she accused a woman named Krystal Rojas of harassment/workplace violence. There is a court record of the situation. Someone on Twitter said that Krystal Rojas' is a sad story and they are right. How she came to be accused of workplace violence/harassment by Ms. Reade is a question the file gives no answer to. But this is another occurrence of Reade accusing others of violence towards her. This request for a restraining order was vacated.
Next we have a case which some people believe was legitimate and might be so. But it certainly shows Reade's litigious nature. Several woman from the YWCA accused their supervisors of harassment. One of them was Reade. She stated that her African American supervisor engaged in reverse discrimination and called her 'too white'. There were a couple of stories written regarding the matter. Here are two.
This is the case file. https://portal.monterey.courts.ca.gov/case/TTgyNTg2
She has also accused her former partner on the Soul Vibes Show Frankie Knight whose real name is Edward Franklin Walker of abusing her. He had an assault complaint against him during the time they lived together but the plaintiff is not listed. There is quite a long case file. If it should go to the search mechanism instead of the case information just enter the name or the case number from the SS below.
Ms. Reade has set up or had others set up numerous GoFundMe pages seeking money. Most have been unsuccessful fundraising attempts. This is not the most important issue by a long shot but it is part of a pattern.
.
Reade tried to use the excuse that these fundraisers aren't her. But only one might not be. The one that says Tara Reade's legal fees is dubious. Why would her brother ask for money for her horse? Why would Carson Marshall and Gabriela McCabe tell a story that is definitely Reade's? She is the beneficiary on more than one of these fundraisers. This is all the signs of a scammer, someone out to make money off the goodhearted charity of others.
As many cases as Tara Reade has brought against other people, many have also been brought against her. Mostly creditors seeking the money she owes them.
First is her one of her college loans for Southwestern Law School.
Then come two banks cases from the same financial institution Synchrony Bank.
Next is one which leads into what could potentially be bankruptcy fraud. She sent the following emails to her landlord Lasjon Marie Blacksher.
There are several points here from the letter which are important. 1.The email portion from Reade states clearly that there is no debt but medical and educational. 2. She is seeking money from a program (Community Action Board) to pay her rent and that in order to receive those funds she CAN NOT have received an eviction action from Blacksher. The latter is the opposite of the truth and she lied to Blacksher. You need to have an eviction notice to receive the funds. Reade just wanted the eviction action dropped. This landlord was included in Reade's bankruptcy filing a short time later. Along with 7 pages of liabilities that she told Blacksher she did not have. If she received CAB money to pay rent exactly what did she do with it? There are questions that require answers.
Now we arrive at Tara Reade's bankruptcy filing which was heard in 2012.
Reade told Blacksher just a few months before her case was heard that she had no debts such as these. So again where did they all come from? How many are real? How many are fake? Numerous cell phone companies, veterinarians who helped her pets, Grove Market, the car loan from the vehicle she asked someone to hide for her. Lasjon Blacksher whom she lied to. Pizza restaurants, food markets the list is very long of the people she cheated.
The worst we know of at present is her friend from the Pregnant Mare Rescue named Lynn. We are very sorry for what happened to her at the hands of a scammer and a con artist like Reade. It happens far more than people realize. We hope we understand this story correctly. This is what she did to her friend. Reade adopted a horse named Charm from the Pregnant Mare Rescue. She also volunteered there for a time. When Charm needed medical care for it's teeth Reade contacted the Steinbeck County Equine Clinic Inc. to treat the horse at the place it was being boarded. She then had Charm's medical bills sent to the Pregnant Mare Rescue. To the friend who had helped her when she needed it. She stole from them. See the email she sent to Betty Johnson below where she admits to it in a rage.
Alexandra McCabe AKA Tara Reade always has an excuse to mitigate her lies, scams, cons and rackets she plays daily. Here is her excuse for said actions.
Tara Reade (Alexandra McCabe) uses that she is poor, a survivor of domestic violence and a single mother who put herself through college as an excuse for everything she's done. It appears to us she didn't put herself through school, banks did and she did not pay them. She owned pets but did not care for them herself she manipulated a friend into doing so. Then for the rest of the vets on her bankruptcy pages she did not pay them. She was a single mother caring for a young daughter who owed restaurants, housing, food markets and she did not pay them. We all know single mothers. Do they all lie, cheat and steal? Con people? We think not. Most in fact are honest, hardworking women looking to do the best that they can in life. To rise above their circumstances with honor and dignity. Not by swindling, defrauding and grifting money from their friends, neighbors, landlords, local pizza places and food stores.
But Tara Reade is not those women. She is a con artist whose accounts concerning any subject can not be believed. Ms. Reade should be given no credence in anything she claims. What is revealed here is a life long pattern of dishonest, potentially illegal activity. Still, there is some left out and more yet to come, This is only the beginning of Tara Reade's story. Next we will directly address her false accusations against VP Joe Biden. There are many revelations yet to divulge. To be continued.....
**This will be a three part series of articles. This first one is background, The second part will directly address the false accusations against VP Biden with all inconsistencies and documents posted. Part Three will be an expose on the reporters involved in pushing this story and the truth concerning their motivations.
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260Good article
What information did you find out about her divorce allegations her husband Theodore Dronen,stated when trying to get the restraining order off off of him. The one where his wife then Tara, stated her issues were due to being sexualy harrarssed in Bidens office.
Does it really matter what the outdoor temperature would have been at the time of the alleged incident? When working indoors one dresses for the temperature inside the building. I’ve worked in an office in Florida when the outside temperature was in the 90’s, but inside it was so cold I kept a space heater under the desk. I would guess that in a building full of people in business suits and jackets and shirts buttoned to the collar that it would be kept at a cooler temperature.
Can you get us the full court file and documents for the San Luis Obispo Superior Court case for the Reade vs. Dronen restraining order. The Tribune won't release it.
FWIW this Reade allegation reminded me of a run in I had years ago with a married businessman who was interested in me. He strongly came onto me in our office building‘s public lobby, and I ended up against the wall.
There was a segment of the lobby that was hard to see from several angles but I was shocked that he did something so brazen during business hours even though we were relatively hidden from casual sight.
This large, former athlete was cajoling while looming over me, pretending that he wasn’t intimidating me. I wasn’t wearing crotchless panties that day and was wearing pantyhose. I managed to get my knee high enough up to do a bit of damage. I know it happened in less than a minute and he never put his hands under my clothes. He was looking for consent from me, checking to see if I was interested in him. But nope, not interested! Somehow the knee so close to his groin got the message across. I can’t imagine enduring his looming/cajoling for 1-3 minutes.
Hi all - keep checking your website for Part 2. Will it still be released today? Will it have a separate web address?
Thank you!
Can you please explain all the names she has used?
If she was born Tara Reade Moulton, where did Alexandra come from?
Was McCabe a spouse? How many times has she been married? Was "Tate" a reference to husband Theodore Dronen? Someone else? I can understand not using an ex's real name in a post.
Thanks for your work.
>>> If Reade is unreliable due to a flawed memory, surely Biden can equally be seen as unreliable when his own memory is called into question. <<<
Are you that obtuse, or are you merely pretending? You seriously can't tell the difference between a lapse of memory that is unrelated to an event and the inability to maintain a consistent story about the event itself? Do you remember what you had for breakfast every morning, thirty years ago? No? Then you must be a rapist!
>>> This opens a whole can of worms. First, Reade said that she was wearing the “lingerie” because she was going to meet her boyfriend later that day/evening. That conflicts with her earlier reason for not wearing pantyhose. <<<
She, her enablers and her lawyers all read these threads. She knows that she was about to be caught in a lie about the hot weather so she changed her story. How would Biden have magically known that her stockings, now being worn, were crotchless? He couldn't have known, so the new lie is ridiculous -- but unlike her lie about the hot weather, nobody can disprove it.
>>> If her firing was about the check fraud, what would be the mechanism for that information to get back to Biden's office in such a timely manner? <<<
We can't possibly know how, but there are a variety of ways that the information could have reached her employer.
If she was regularly bouncing checks around town, or writing checks locally on a closed account, then that may have become known to her co-workers and supervisors, more so if she ever wrote a bad check to them leading to their being contacted by the prosecutor's office.
If she was subjected to any sort of background check, quite possible if she was applying for other positions on the Hill, it might have been picked up. (And if she wasn't seeking other positions, her claim to have been blackballed is yet another lie because she would have no basis to believe that other offices wouldn't hire her.)
If she applied for a job that required a background check or credit screening, it could have been picked up that way.
You have done your part to save the world. It would be wonderful if you could pair up with an editor and PR person to get this information out in a major way. Have you at least forwarded it to Rachel Maddow? But, it really should be in print in a major publication. Or at least Medium.
There is even much to be found online about Tara to be explored in her online tweets, career, and her strange relationship to Russia.
A few articles which pull some of this material together, and which lead me to believe that Tara Reade's story is not credible are:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/
https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460
https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b
https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/tara-reades-possible-russian-connections-outlined-f70ed9e43dfa
The first article is written by a retired federal prosecutor. The others are written by a well known, but controversial journalist.
A few observations stand out:
1. Tara's experience as a political operator for several high power politicians, actress, teacher of creative writing, domestic violence advocate, poet, and law school graduate, not to mention victim of abuse, would make her skilled at fabricating a story of abuse.
2. As an experienced political operative, she was acutely aware of the political implications of the timing of her accusations. She was active in supporting Bernie. And now she has come out and asked Biden to resign.
3. Tara in financially insecure.
4. Tara's story has changed over time and has a lot of holes.
5. Tara's accusation of Biden's sexual abuse is Trump's and Russia's dream come true. Trump's modus operandi is to accuse his opposition of exactly what he has been accused of, according to one of his biographers.
Tara, has written extensively of her love for Russia and Putin, in English and Russian. And she has other intriguing ties to Russia as detailed in the Krassenstein article, including her Quora account is followed by three Russians who are involved with propaganda and politics.
JasKing said on May 9, 2020 at 5:05 PM
Observations on MK Interview
"Another important detail is that MK was very specific when asking how Biden was able to penetrate Reade through her panties. Tara Reade said that she was wearing 'lingerie' that allowed Biden to easily insert his finger(s) into her. The insinuation was that the panties were 'crotchless.' Reade later confirms this by saying that she was embarrassed to mention the lingerie to her mother."
What a stupid question from MK leading to stupid new lies from Reade. The lack of pantyhose is a valid issue. Reade's explanation that she just decided not to wear them because it was so hot doesn't comport with either 1993 recorded temperatures in the spring in DC, or the dress code for women staffers in 1993.
But if you're willing to ignore the missing pantyhose problem, panties don't present any issue at all. Most women wear panties with lightly elasticized leg openings that could easily be pulled away from the crotch. There's no need to get into an absurd explanation that she put on "crotchless" panties first thing in the morning in anticipation of a date that would start twelve hours later. But it does "sex up" the story and allow her to embroider the call to her mother with a relatable moment of "Gee, it was embarrassing to let my mother know I'm not a virgin. We've all been there, right?"
Reade does not speak or write with the intention of clearly describing a real experience. She's always introducing new literary details like the ones writers are told to put in their stories to make their fiction believable. Reade's accounts keep changing because she's always trying to improve the impact of the story and tailor it to her audience. There is no reason to think that her various accounts given to friends and relations over the years were any different. With her, it is impossible to separate fact from fiction. If there ever was a real incident to begin with, it has been completely obscured by her shape-shifting narratives.
Sorry. I'm lost on the summer '93 timeline. First, there's no way that back in 1993, charges would have been made on August 2nd in California, communicated to DC, with action taken by Biden's office August 6th. Let's be serious....in 1993, you could still kite checks. So that timeline doesn't work for me.
Second point, Tara was evidently dropping bad checks in California, enough so that she got charged, which is a rare thing in the 90's for bad checks. How did she drop those bad checks in CA if she was in DC?
I've seen somewhere, here or otherwise, that maybe she left DC prior to August. That would make some sense.
But in the grand scheme of things, I think the idea that her check bouncing charge led to her dismissal from Biden's office is a red herring.
Sorry. I'm lost on the summer '93 timeline. First, there's no way that back in 1993, charges would have been made on August 2nd in California, communicated to DC, with action taken by Biden's office August 6th. Let's be serious....in 1993, you could still kite checks. So that timeline doesn't work for me.
Second point, Tara was evidently dropping bad checks in California, enough so that she got charged, which is a rare thing in the 90's for bad checks. How did she drop those bad checks in CA if she was in DC?
I've seen somewhere, here or otherwise, that maybe she left DC prior to August. That would make some sense.
But in the grand scheme of things, I think the idea that her check bouncing charge led to her dismissal from Biden's office is a red herring.
Re: Anonymous - the Krystal Rojas story is indeed quite sad, from what I've seen with a fairly rudimentary Google search. Perhaps she's on a better track now.
Does anyone else find it strange that while Tara kept (and has shared on social media) several documents related to her time in DC (an official job summary with start/stop dates, etc, and a form letter from Ethel Kennedy), that she didn't keep the single most document from that era? Namely the complaint that she supposedly filed?
>>> If Reade is unreliable due to a flawed memory, surely Biden can equally be seen as unreliable when his own memory is called into question. <<<
This is a false equivalence. In the absence of physical evidence, Reade's grift is to make it about Joe's memory vs her memory. Then it's pure he said / she said, Joe's undeniable history of bad memory factors in, and Democrats default to "believe the woman." That's the only reason Reade's story has any oxygen at all.
But these accusations are rarely, if ever, pure he said / she said. There's always some degree of corroborating evidence. The staffers in Joe's office while Reade was there factor in. The people Reade told her story to, and what that story was, factor in. While their sexual histories per se don't factor in (and that's a good thing), their personal characters factor in and a broad outline of their relationship histories (minus the gory details) certainly do. Then we see that it's not merely a question of Tara's memory vs Joe's memory. We see that it's a question of a completely consistent story vs a remarkably, nay risibly, inconsistent one.
When was Tara fired? Why was she fired? Was she barelegged because it was hot? Was she wearing crotchless lingerie (as she hinted to Megyn Kelly) because she was going to see her boyfriend afterward? Why didn't she tell her boyfriend of the assault? Are these inconsistencies the result of a "bad memory," or are they shifting stories that Tara has to adjust on the fly to account for the facts as they come to light?
Would Joe's staffers scramble to get their stories straight years later to protect the Democratic nominee? It's possible; Bill Clinton had Betsey Wright to keep the "bimbo eruptions" under control. But these stories always leak out at the time (rumors of sexual indiscretions dogged Bill Clinton's whole career), and it seems indeed hard to imagine they wouldn't when the staffers in Joe's office working on the Violence Against Women Act in the shadow of the Bob Packwood fiasco would have more loyalty to defending a woman against sexual assault by a powerful man who employed her than to any particular senator, including the one they worked for.
So no, Joe's lifetime of brainfarts (most of which he immediately corrects for the record) don't need to factor into this at all. Tara Reade's inconsistencies, OTOH, appear unequivocally damning.
>>> "I am not in a position to psychoanalyze her"
Correct but it doesn't stop you, does it? <<<
Since I appear to be the first one in comments to bring up Borderline Personality Disorder, I'll take this on.
No, you can't "psychoanalyze" anyone without being an accredited psychiatrist who has done extensive therapeutic / diagnostic work with them. Though I've done a ton of reading on the subject, I certainly have no credentials to do so. But you hardly need to be a shrink to observe people's behavior. You don't need to be a Duty To Warn psychiatrist or psychologist to note, for instance, that Donald Trump is a rather extreme narcissist with a disordered personality. Duty To Warn violated the profession's "Goldwater Rule" against diagnosing political figures from afar because they felt they had -- rightly, in many people's judgment -- a duty to warn the American people of a president who appears certifiably mentally ill.
I couldn't begin to say whether "Tara Reade" is certifiably BPD, which is a rather extreme personality disorder; "borderline" means borderline psychotic. She may only exhibit facets of it. I don't know if she's ever been suicidally depressed or had substance abuse / self-harm issues. She may only be a garden-variety small-time grifter with a poor conscience about bilking people (which seems to be this blog's take). But you can note some things. She appears perpetually aggrieved, angry and revenge seeking, and not just against Joe Biden. Her exchanges with Lynn Hummer, who runs the horse rescue charity she tried to bilk, are deeply manipulative, alternately effusive and threatening. She had no problem lying to her landlord to get an eviction proceeding quashed and then took the relief money anyway, which she was entitled to only if there was an eviction proceeding. She's left a trail of unpaid bills in her bankruptcy filing, which again, speaks of a grandiose sense of entitlement. And her intimate relationship history is troubled, to say the least.
All these things are markers, but what veritably *shrieked* Borderline Personality Disorder to me is her Medium piece on Vladimir Putin. This is such a bizarre document that it led people to believe she wasn't just a Bernie (or Trump)-grade useful idiot, but that she was actually in Putin's employ. I never believed that; I think it speaks less to her politics than it does to her mental state. She starts out to answer the question of why a Democrat would be sympathetic to Putin. Okay, fair enough. She alludes to her putative deep knowledge of American foreign policy and then immediately launches into a hardcore leftist Blame America First critique that she certainly never got in Biden's office. A devaluation of the Democratic foreign policy establishment and by extension Joe Biden. Then she talks about Putin, not in anything like hard-eyed geostrategic terms or through the lens of Putin's own career, but in subjective, romanticized terms. I think she used the Ernest Hemingway expression "grace under pressure." Not content with this, she then asserts that this is why American women love Putin "shirt on or shirt off". Goodness, where did *that* come from?
Continued next post.
Continued from previous post; Tara's Medium piece on Putin:
In my view (take to taste), it comes from the BPD mechanism known as splitting. BPDs spend an enormous amount of psychic energy and social capital on getting the people who surround them to hate who they hate and idolize who they idolize; this is all over the clinical literature. They'll make their cases for who the good guys and the bad guys are, demand validation for it (their inner selves are too damaged not to require it) and then force their validators to choose sides. If their validators choose the wrong side or attempt to disagree with them, they become enemies. It's like that teenage classmate who hates you for liking the wrong band.
My theory: Tara Reade in that Medium piece was attempting to split America from Joe Biden.
Further point on Tara's Putin piece:
This needs emphasis. Tara Reade can find Vlad as sexy as she wants; It's a Medium piece, knock yourself out. She can write Vladimir Putin fanfic all day long and nobody'd consider her anything more than an eccentric. But she has to insist that "American women" find him just as attractive. Did I miss a public opinion poll somewhere? The West roundly mocks Putin's macho posturing (which, honestly, is a deeply Russian thing that we don't understand very well) and certainly no woman I know of thinks Vlad is particularly hot stuff.
This trait, which is characteristic of BPDs with fragile senses of self who cannot function without validation but also of narcissists with colossally defended egos, to carry on as if people agree with you without needing any evidence for it, is also boffo for scam artists. It's how you can bluff your way through with a perpetual head of righteous grievance. In its purest form it's Donald Trump on a shameless Twitter rampage. But it's also Tara Reade flipping her story on the fly to Megyn Kelly about wearing crotchless lingerie. WTF?
She just shot her own story in the foot; she had previously said her legs were bare because it was hot. It's not a question of misremembering because she has developed rationales for both these situations. How does she brazenly contradict herself in her biggest public forum without knowing the fact checkers would be all over it? A mere sociopath would be able to calculate that this wouldn't fly and defend the first story. How do you even go on TV to say you wore crotchless lingerie to work in a Senate office to begin with?
A bottomless and kind of deeply sad faith that most people will share your own self-delusions.
Hi guys. Sunday has come and gone. Do we have a new ETA for part 2?
Where is Part Two?
Guys, there comes a point where you have to stop researching and start writing. The magic of the Internet is that you can always add stuff later.
Her student loans are all out of proportion to the cost of tuition and books. She borrowed an enormous amount of money.
Where is part two? I am obsessively checking this site.
C'mon, guys.... you're leaving us hanging out here. We get it if you're working on some immediate stuff or any other reason there's a delay, but you told us Sunday. Obviously not, so please give us an idea when.... PLEASE
Please let us know where you are with your research. No worries if Part 2 needs more time. I know we would all appreciate an update. Thank you.
I hate to bug you all - but have you rescheduled Part 2?
Have i missed the 2nd installment? If so, can you link it here? Where will you post it, if not?
Is part 2 available yet?
Is the the correct page for part two?
If not can a link be provided when it is published.
Please give us a hint..... When can we look for part 2???
Link to part 2, please?
It's May 12. Where is part 2? I don't see it.
Hi guys... Any update on Part 2? What's the holdup? A less-then-complete update followed by later additions is better for your credibility than a long unexplained delay.
This is very enlightening. This paints a picture of a seriously disturbed woman.
Court Case info. on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/WasOnceLou/status/1259934456405688321
and
https://twitter.com/WasOnceLou/status/1259990713934254082
To all those asking about Lucy Moore - she is not a real person posting. This Twitter thread explains it pretty well. https://twitter.com/FliedGaff/status/1256397188839510016
You're overstating your case. You characterize her as saying "there is no debt but medical and educational," but what she actually said was she had no credit card debt, just medical and educational. Which her bankruptcy filing bears out: medical and student debt, a car loan, a few hundred dollars of unpaid bills--and no credit card debt. Not mentioning the car loan is trivial, because it wouldn't have been relevant to her letter and might have been in her husband's name anyway. Reade may be a liar, but not that time.
Just a few things:
Twenty-seven years ago, I told a neighbor of mine that I had Bigfoot over for drinks. He, Bigfoot that is, popped by sometime during the workday. I thought he was cool, but I guess not. He said something rude to me, so not 2 minutes into our little soirée I asked him to leave.
Well the damn thing is, I didn't really have Bigfoot over for drinks 27 years ago. I feel really bad that I never admitted to my neighbor that I lied about that whole thing.
------
Second, and please pay attention, it's important.
Each incident of sexual assault is different. It may be just a bit different from another given incident, or very different indeed. But there is no such thing as "the same thing."
One of many conclusions from this is to have the humility to admit that you're not sure about something. Or perhaps you're withholding judgement until you've had more time to look into it.
------
Last, remember to think for yourself. Now here I'm going to be quite frank; We're all grown-ups, don't be alarmed. I'm sure most of us have been through the mill a couple times, so let's do save the pearl-clutching, indignation, and all that for Thanksgiving when we can put it to good use.
If you believe, or disbelieve something, it's best to ask yourself why. In other words, why do I know, or think I know xyz to be true?
Now, I'm no Immanuel Kant or Descartes or anything, but I am skeptical; up to and including about myself. Allow me to explain.
Think of your mind as a coffee machine. There are hundreds on the market, all kinds, so just pick one. Right, so let's take three random people, one of whom is you. You're, say, one of those drip coffee machines with the conical filter. Person 2 is an old-fashioned percolator type. You know, with the glass window thingee on top that shows the coffee bubbling inside. Has a flat, metal cylindrical filter. Person 3 is a home espresso maker; uses high pressure steam, sounds like an old locomotive pulling into the station, very dramatic.
Got all that? Alright, now put exactly the same amount of exactly the same kind of coffee in all three machines, along with exactly the same amount of water from your tap. We'll call that part, "information."
Now turn on all three machines. All three will obviously take a different amount of time to brew. Let's call brewing "contemplating."
After some time, coffee will begin to fill each pot, yes? The pots having been completely filled we'll call, "a conclusion."
Recall we put the same coffee and water in all three. Will all the coffee be the same? Taste the same? Even provide the same amount as the others? No, of course it won't. I feel silly just posing such a question.
But here's another question: Why do they result in 3 different tastes, amounts, temperatures, etc? Well, you know the answer; they have all been processed a bit differently than one another! Especially when it comes to the filters, by the way.
In other words, sticking strictly to the substance going through the coffee makers - not their advertisements, other's advice, what's fashionable now, all that - it makes sense for us to remember how the way in which our filter, the one in our "machine," works influences our conclusions. Further, as each of us gets only one machine in life, these conclusions tend to be pretty consistent. We have already explained why.
But consistent doesn't mean correct, nor does it mean superior. All of us would do well to keep other's brewing and filtering in mind - we can start by acknowledging that it exists - rather than over-focusing on whether or not we like how someone else's coffee tastes.
When is part two being released?
Ah-HEM! Could you please give us some acknowledgement that you are still on this and that there is more coming? Or if not, that would be nice to know, too. PLEASE??????
Are there any records or can there get any records of why she was let go from her employment from Biden's office? I don't remember seeing anything in the massive amount of documentation in the article. It seems more than coincidence that she was "let go" only a few days after she had a check fraud charge against her. Comment?
Hi peeps, it's been a couple of weeks since this was first posted. Some comments said the other installments/parts would be coming shortly (last Sunday). Any updates?
where's part 2, I cant find it.
Now come on - we all know the very first thing one does to be comfortable in hot weather is to wear crotchless underwear and no pantyhose. To the office.
Now come on - we all know the very first thing one does in hot weather is to wear underwear without a crotch. And no pantyhose. To the office.
Now come on - we all know the very first thing one does in hot weather is to wear no pantyhose. And underwear without a crotch. To the office.
I think Lawrence O'Donnell pretty much summed up the so-called location Reade picked. Anything but secluded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQWppNw5Kbg
Yeah he was going to risk his wife, family and entire career for this insane made up 1 minute crap out in the open. There is a special kind of hell for the Tara Reade's of this world.
This sad individual never had a man that really loved or wanted her the way Jill had. Too damn bad, don't take it out on somebody else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEG-t9Sd2Ac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXo_Olpj6GE
Joe Biden 2020
Can't come soon enough.
When will the update be posted?
When is the second installment coming out?
If you're still working on this, and I hope that you are,
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations
Hi Aaron, when the Politico article and the PBS Newshour report came out, I wanted to come back here and say THANK YOU. You did such a thorough investigation-- you worked so hard and came up with irrefutable evidence.. Bless you and the others on this blog who brought the truth to light and exonerated an innocent man.
I just found this today.
https://politizoom.com/2020/05/16/tara-reade-is-a-liar/
Please: If there won't be a Part Two after all, let us know, okay? Thanks.
Thanks for unleashing the comments, Aaron. Good to know you're not dead ;) No doubt a lot of work and careful fact checking are involved so slack is hereby cut. Get it out when you can; no "sorry, guys" acknowledgment will stop us from obsessively clicking on the link until you do.
This PBS deep dive into Biden's staff and Capitol Hill culture is essential:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations
>>> More broadly, Wigdor said, it was “not surprising” that former staffers would say they did not believe the allegation against Biden. Wigdor argued that former aides have an incentive to stand with Biden because they could benefit personally if he becomes president, do not want to have “their lives turned upside down if they come out against him,” or are simply motivated by a desire to protect Biden to help bolster his chances of beating President Donald Trump in the general election. <<<
Uh-huh. Well, Tara's lawyer is paid to say stuff like that (who pays him, anyway?), but what a weak argument. As if 74 of them all got on an email chain to get their stories straight. What it doesn't account for is the 15 years between Tara's tenure there and Joe's second run for president, where there's no career incentive to cover up for a horny old Senate fossil and failed presidential candidate of either party. DC is a fishbowl; stories of outrageous pol behavior circulate freely. That there have been exactly none about Joe in that time hardly signals some Betsey Wright-grade office discipline at keeping the bimbo eruptions at bay.
Meanwhile over at Tara Reade Corroborator Land:
>>> Reade’s story has been corroborated publicly by three people who spoke with other news organizations, saying she told them in the past about the alleged assault. Despite numerous attempts to contact them via phone, email and through a lawyer, none of them responded or could be reached for comment on this story. <<<
Gee, I wonder why?
Someone in comments mentioned Tara's career as actress, poet and creative writing teacher. Yes exactly, the perfect background to be a good storyteller. Add little colorful but unverifiable bits of detail here and there (crotchless panties), some plausible sounding motivations and there you go.
Except that pesky narcissism gets in the way. The crotchless panties story at face value kind of shreds her credibility. It needs to be explained and justified and the American public has little patience for that.
Looking forward to Part 2. Thank you for Part 1.
When will part 2 and part 3 be posted?
For further fact-finding:
Who is the boyfriend for whom Tara Reade was wearing an enticing undergarment when she was allegedly assaulted by Joe Biden, in anticipation of a date with the fellow later in the day, as mentioned in her interview with Megyn Kelly? Did she share the alleged assault experience with the boyfriend at the time? If so, has he confirmed? If not, why not?
@jaaayyyzzzeee, the boyfriend mentioned by Tara Reade is her ex-husband who has declined to answer any questions from journalists. According to a court document, Tara Reade told the then-boyfriend about allegations of sexual harassment. No mention of a sexual assault.
Has anyone identified the legislative assistant who allegedly was there when Tara Reade was asked to serve drinks at the fundraiser. This person, if still alive, could provide corroboration about the meeting that seemed to be the beginning of what Reade perceived to be “retaliation”.
Also, Dronen mentions a “roommate” when Reade was allowed to stay at Dronen's apartment. Has this roommate been identified?
Ted Dronen's roommate.
Hey guys, great work! I am curious. CNN just revealed that Alexandra did not graduate from Antioch Univ's BA program as she claimed. Also, there was no "protected program" as she claimed.
She has worked as an expert witness and helped put people in jail. Did she have her false Antioch BA degree on her resume for her court work? And... What are the legal ramifications for putting people in jail based on false resume information?
@Anonymous May 20, 2020 at 10:26PM You make an extremely good point and we are going to look into it because it is true. Does that sully all of the cases she was involved in? We will contact the California AG's office with that exact question. One case has already been overturned that she was involved in. Not due to her testimony however but to other legal factors. Great comment.
Post a Comment