Here is the maxim that will stop metoo from eating itself: Believe women, unless there is evidence that they are liars and crooks, and have a strong motivation to lie because they want to keep Putin's puppet in the White House. This article has testimony and evidence that Reade is unreliable for all these reasons, and it has received no coverage in the mainstream media. At they very least it should be replied to, for it is far more reliable than Reade's own testimony.
“Look, this isn’t about protecting women. This isn’t about the #metoo movement. This isn’t about Joe Biden. This is about truth. Tara Reade stole from me. She lied to me. She stole from my organization. She manipulated me and she duped me. I want that to be shared because it’s important information. And I have documentation, images and emails to prove it.” — Lynn Hummer, Founder/President of Pregnant Mare Rescue and self-proclaimed ‘feminist’
https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b
********
I made some detailed responses below that I think should be more visible. These versions have been slightly rewritten from the original posts.
Glenn the plumber writes: “your linked source actually had their house confiscated by the DOJ for running online ponzi scams...and was later banned by twitter for manipulating the system.”
My response:
Thanks for these links. I've seen a few references to those charges, but this is the first time I've had a chance to read about them in detail. After careful reading, I've concluded that there is nothing in them to cause me to doubt the Krassensteins’ credibility, although that was clearly the goal of the author of the articles. One has to read the article carefully to see that it is not accusing them of RUNNING online Ponzi scams. They sold advertising space to companies, some of which were later found to be scams. Not surprising, really, as it would be very difficult for any business to fully vet every customer. (I believe Facebook has been accused of similar negligence). There is ZERO evidence in the article that they ever profited from these scams, or even knew that they were scams. This article says that when the Krassensteins realized that they were hosting scams they actively sought to root them out. The Feds eventually decided not to prosecute any of these charges, let alone convict on them. Were they attacking the Krassensteins because of the K’s attacks on Trump? Trump had just started his presidency, so it’s possible.
As for the Twitter issue, I think that the linked article misreads Twitter’s official statement ““Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.” The Ks admit they operated multiple accounts, and deny that they purchased account interactions. If EITHER of these actions were sufficient to ban them there is no reason to believe they did the second.
To dismiss the charges in this article, we would have to believe that they either fabricated the Identity of Ms. Hummer, including her website, or persuaded her to lie for them. Then they would have to have forge several documents, including posts on Reade’s own twitter account where she acknowledged the existence of the debt. . The fact that they were once duped by some crooked advertising clients gives me no reason to believe they would ever do such a thing.
Appalachiacat writes: “ Your article’s purpose is not to help shed light on the Reade/Biden situation but simply to attack the character of Tara Reade. . . Here’s a record of a few lies told by Biden: www.politifact.com/ ,”
My Response:
I agree with you that accusations of drunk driving or adultery, for example, would be irrelevant ad hominem attacks. Accusations of lying are relevant, however, because they reflect not just on her character, but on her credibility. You want to ban all talk about credibility of the witnesses and just focus on the evidence? Fine, let's do that. Tara makes an accusation, and Joe denies it. No one else was there, so her other “witnesses” just know what she said, not what actually happened. Thus it's her word against Joe, and there's no reason to believe either one over the other. Case closed, and Joe walks.
Sexual harassment and assault cases used to work that way, and this was a terrible injustice because it insured that the accused was almost never declared guilty. This is probably why you want to substitute an alternative criterion: the accused is always guilty, by virtue of being accused. To be accused is to be guilty, no other argument or evidence is necessary. That’s not an exaggeration. Regardless of how innocent someone is, your avalanche of pseudo-woke rhetoric {See Appalaciacat’s complete post below} leaves no possible defense once that person is accused. That’s why we must come up with some other criteria for determining guilt.
These days, the courts and/or public opinion have come to acknowledge two main reasons for favoring the testimony of the alleged victims. 1) The accuser usually gets no benefits from testifying and 2) The accuser usually has no significant history of lying about anything else. Most of the other recent accusers (Anita Hill, Blassey Ford etc.) pass those tests decisively, despite the attempts of some people to smear them. These articles provide strong evidence that Reade fails both these tests. Her enthusiastic support for Putin gives her a motive for toppling Biden’s candidacy, and her history of scamming her past employer shows that she has no scruples about lying. Reade has also claimed on Twitter that Ms. Hummer has been accused of animal cruelty. If this turns out to be false, we will have one more piece of evidence that Reade is an habitual liar. If she has a motivation for lying, and habitually lies about other things, it’s her word against his and he should be presumed innocent. When you consider the numerous other inconsistencies and dubious evidence that are described in other posts on this page, her testimony becomes even less plausible.
Anyone who clicks on your links can see that your final comment about Biden’s “lies” is a ludicrously false equivalence. Disagreements about the meaning of the word “cage” or “support”, or saying “no bills” instead of “no major bills”, or misremembering the number of people who die of alcohol poisoning, is not equivalent to defrauding a charity raffle or scamming your employer to pay over a thousand dollars of your private debt.