Reade v. Ford

2020_05 05 biden v kavanaugh

As of right now, Tara Reade has far more evidence backing her sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden than Christine Blasey Ford ever had against Brett Kavanaugh.

Reade alleges that Biden assaulted her in the summer of 1993.

  1. A clip from Larry King Live from August 1993, the last month Reade worked for Biden’s Senate office, features a mother expressing concern about her daughter’s insurmountable “problems” working for a prominent senator’s office. Reade had mentioned that she told her mother and that her mother had called the show anonymously before the clip resurfaced.
  2. Absolutely no one contests that Reade worked for and knew Biden.
  3. On-the-record corroboration from Reade’s former neighbor Lynda LaCasse says Reade gave her a detailed account of the assault just two or three years after it happened.
  4. Reade’s brother and a close friend have both confirmed that Reade told them about the assault at the time it occurred.
  5. A woman who worked with Reade in the mid-1990s said Reade told her “she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in D.C., and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.”

Ford didn’t remember when in high school Kavanaugh had allegedly assaulted her.

  1. There is not a shred of evidence that Ford ever told anyone about the alleged assault before 2012, at least THIRTY YEARS after the incident.
  2. There is no evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford ever met.
  3. Three witnesses signed sworn affidavits saying Ford told them about the allegation in 2013, 2016, and 2017.
  4. Every single person who was supposedly at the party where the assault allegedly occurred said they had no recollection of such a party even happening.


Filed under Loose Pollen

3 responses to “Reade v. Ford

  1. chrissythehyphenated

    IMO, Kavanaugh’s spotless record, the very late date of Ford’s disclosure, and the fact that she passed a polygraph point toward Ford having False Memory Syndrome.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There are tricks, so I’ve heard, to pass a polygraph, which his why they’re never admissible in court. Blase Furd just seemed like a coached diabolical sociopathic liar to me. And a very bad one at that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • My psych professor set up an experiment to demonstrate why polygraphs are not admissible in court. He chose one student to be the criminal and another to be innocent/falsely accused; no one else in the class had any idea which was which. The professor set up the crime scene, involving both suspects, and afterwards the class questioned each suspect while he was hooked up to a polygraph. The guilty guy passed with flying colors, while the innocent one failed miserably. One hundred percent of the class voted to convict the innocent guy.

        Liked by 2 people