Friday, May 01, 2020

Joe Biden just gets creepier - now he's perving on a 14 year old's tits

 If you missed it, a woman's come forward to explain that when she was 14 in 2008, Joe Biden cruised her tits -- and did so after knowing she was 14

He was 65 at the time.  A 65 year old man perving on a 14-year-old girl's tits.

Joe Biden gets creepier every day.

He needs to go.  He needs to drop out.  He is a sick f**k.  That's clear from Tara Reade alone.

Hell, it was clear before that.  It was clear when Lucy Florez was the only woman calling him out.  He's creepy and he's disgusting.  Don't give me crap about his 'Violence Against Women' act.  Most pervs have something to hide behind -- even if it's just an old raincoat.

I'm sure that as the general election gets closer, more women are going to come forward.  Joe is a creep and has a long, long history of being a creep.  It's amazing how much he's gotten away with.  And it's amazing how many liars are willing to whore for him -- Alyssa Milano, Ken Olin, a lot of trash. 

And think about it.  65 and leering and perving over a 14-year-old.  That's Steven D. Green behavior.  That's so sick and disgusting.  That he'd do that makes me wonder if he's not a pedophile on top of everything else.  All those videos -- including the one where he's rubbing the young girl's chest near where her nipple would be?  Joe is a sick f**k.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Friday, May 1, 2020.  Joe Biden speaks . . . unconvincingly.

Starting with this from Alexis McGill Johnson, Acting President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund:


“At Planned Parenthood Action Fund, we believe women. We know how important it is that survivors be supported and listened to – survivors of sexual violence not only seek care at Planned Parenthood health centers every day, they are also dedicated staff members and supporters.
“We believe that survivors should be heard, listened to, taken seriously, and treated with respect and dignity. 
“Saying we believe survivors doesn’t mean only when it’s politically convenient. This isn’t a fringe issue, it’s one that affects all of us. This crosses political party, race, gender, income level, and sexual orientation.
Any person seeking elected office — and especially the highest office in the land — needs to address allegations of sexual assault and harassment seriously, both as a systemic problem and with a sense of personal responsibility. We all have much work to do to make our country a safer place, free of sexual violence. 

“Vice President Biden must address this allegation directly. Our country is hungry for leadership on this issue. Now is the time to give it to them.”  

As GOOGLE notes, that was issued at 8:40 EST last night.  In other words, after the story broke that Joe Biden would be addressing the topic on this morning's MORNING JOE on MSNBC.  In other words, after they know Joe is going to address it in twelve or so hours, they can take a position that Joe should address it.  They can't pressure him before that.  They can't publicly call for him to do anything before that.

If Johnson had issued that call yesterday morning, it might mean something.  As it is, it was already known that Joe planned to address it this morning.  And, as it is, Tara's been trashed for about six weeks now while Planned Parenthood has never said a word.

MSNBC teased out the Joe interview like it was going to be the Gettysburg Declaration [Address] while at the same time trying to make it clear that MORNING JOE was a frat house.  Their on airs are also explaining, ahead of time, that Joe needs to explain (their word) "that it never happened" and say that he doesn't have anything to add and move on.  That's what passes for 'news.'

It's great that MSNBC is so impartial, right?  It's wonderful that this garbage passes for news.

Why did Joe choose MORNING JOE?  What other talk show has a host who had a dead intern turn up in his office and got to pretend like he didn't need to answer questions about it?

If you've assaulted a woman, Joe Scarborough is in your corner.

Leading up to the interview, Joe and Little Willie had to talk football because, well, of course they had to.  It's all one big locker room for those pigs.  They let Mika provide the skirt ("It's just gonna be you and me") to hide behind.

She asked him at the start "would you please go on the record" and he pretended to.  Not since Ronald Reagan hid behind "to the best of my recollection" has anyone repeatedly offered supposedly firm statements repeatedly couched in "that I'm aware of" and similar wording.

At one point, he offered, "No, it is not true.  I am saying unequivocally it never, ever happened and it didn't."  Moments later?  "I don't remember any type of complaint that she may have made, it was 27 years ago. . . . And the fact is that I don't remember."

Which is it?  It unequivocally never happened or to the best of your memory and recall -- your memory and recall -- that you don't believe it happened?  He was so reliant on weasel words that Mika wondered "are you preparing us for a complaint" to emerge?  No he insisted.  And "I-I-I-I'm not worried about it at all."  I-I-I-I?  That speech pattern in that reply would indicate otherwise.

At another point, Mika asked if he had reached out to Tara Reade?  He snapped, "No, I have not reached out to her.  It was 27 years ago, this never happened."

Mika noted the belief that an assault claim Tara may have filed could be in his papers stored at the University of Delaware.  Joe rejected that insisting that the a complaint would only be in the national archives.

Mika falsely claimed NYT had conducted a thorough investigation.  No, they didn't.  It was Rich McHugh who broke the news on two women coming forward who remember Tara telling them of the assault in the 90s.  It was Ryan Grimm who reported on the call Tara's mother made in 1993 to LARRY KING LIVE.  There is so much that NYT did not cover.  Mika brought up Big Stacey Abrams but failed to note that Stacey was using the campaign's written talking points -- which BUZZFEED published earlier this week.  Mika failed to note that Big Stacey also insisted that NYT cleared Joe which even the paper has called a lie.

Joe replied, "To the best of my knowledge, there have been no complaints made against me."

To the best of my knowledge.  That's interesting phrasing.

Mika asked if anyone has signed an NDA?  Joe replied, "There's no NDA signed -- I've never asked anyone to sign an NDA."  He later added, "Period. None."


As he got more short tempered it was hilarious to watch Mika start crouching.  She hunched over to plead with him.   Joe just got more bellicose, "First of all, let's get this straight."


He also insisted he wasn't going to attack Tara and "I'm not going to question this."  He immediately then declared,  "I don't know why after 27 years this is being raised."

He growled, "I'm not suggesting she had no right to come forward" but that's exactly what you're saying.

He insisted, "These claims are not true.  There's no corroborative -- they're not true."

He stopped on corroborative evidence.  He didn't finish that.  And he didn't finish it because there is corroborative evidence.  That's what her brother, her friend she told when it happened, that's what they're offering.  That's what the two women who came forward this week to say Tara told them in the 90s are offering.  That's what the video of the phone call Tara's mother made in 1993 is.

No woman in a he-said/she-said has ever had this much to offer.

"There's so many inconsistencies in what has been said in this case," he insisted.

Yes, but most of those inconsistencies are coming out of the mouth of Big Stacey.


"I'm not aware" was a phrase Joe invoked often along with "to the best of my knowledge."  These are weasel words.

Mika asked about the records at the University of Delaware and he pretended to be confused.  Why can't he call for those records to be released?  Why can't he ask that they be searched for any reference to Tara?

Joe Biden: I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

I loved the long silence during this discussion by the way, as both waited to see who would blink first.

 Joe Biden: Who-who does that search?

Mika: The University of Delaware?

While insisting that nothing at the University would support Tara, Joe refused to release those reports or to allow anyone to search them.

Winding down, Mika asked, "If you could speak directly to Tara Reade about her claims," what would you say?

What would he say to Tara?  "This never happened.  I don't know what's motivating her."

That's what he would say.

It was unconvincing and he came off guilty repeatedly.


Jon Allsop (CJR) offers this on the interview:

This morning, we finally heard from Biden, when he appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. To set him up, Mika Brzezinski, the cohost, outlined Reade’s allegation and addressed critiques that the press had botched coverage of it. She focused on the criticism that the immediate, vociferous coverage of assault claims against Brett Kavanaugh, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, was evidence of a double standard, compared to the recent reporting on Biden. Brzezinski then played a lengthy reel of the show’s hosts insisting, in past episodes, that Kavanaugh was denied due process by the media. “We were strong on this,” she said afterward. “And honestly, very few others were.” Brzezinski also spent several minutes recounting, in detail, the many sexual-misconduct allegations against Trump.
Shortly before coming on, Biden released a statement strongly refuting Reade’s allegation. “This never happened,” he said. He appeared on air shortly after 8am Eastern. “Did you sexually assault Tara Reade?,” Brzezinski asked. Biden reiterated his strong denial. Brzezinski then asked Biden whether any other staffer had ever complained about his behavior, and whether any such complaint had been hidden by a nondisclosure agreement. Biden said no on both counts. Brzezinski also pressed him repeatedly on remarks he made, during the Kavanaugh hearings, that women’s voices should be taken seriously. “Women have a right to be heard, and the press should rigorously investigate,” he replied. “Why is it real for Dr. Ford and not for Tara Reade?” Brzezinski asked, referring to Christine Blasey Ford, a survivor of one of Kavanaugh’s alleged attacks. Biden said that he wouldn’t question an accuser’s motives, but that the facts were on his side. When Brzezinski pushed him on what the facts were—and where they might be found—he spoke over her, then apologized. “The truth matters,” Biden said.
What about Reade’s side of the story? We can now expect to hear from her on TV soon; BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray and Ruby Cramer reported yesterday that she’s been contacted by every major network. As far as Reade is concerned, though, the damage is already done. “I used to think that a Republican talking point was to call the mainstream media biased. So I used to think, Oh, that’s just a talking point for them,” Reade told BuzzFeed. “But now I’m living it [in] real time, and I see it—like, I see it for what it is.”

The appearance comes as many start to find some sort of voice.  There was Planned Parenthood noted above.  Daniel Villarreal (NEWSWEEK) notes:

Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a Wednesday radio interview that he believes Tara Reade's 1993 sexual assault allegation against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden should be "investigated seriously" and that he thinks Biden will have to directly address the matter.
Reade, who was a former aide for Biden when he served as Delaware's senator during the 1990s, claimed that he pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers in 1993. She has also filed a criminal complaint with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department over the matter.
"It's got to be taken seriously because this is a serious allegation raised by a serious individual and needs to be investigated seriously. We've probably got to hear from him [Biden] at some point directly," Jeffries said Wednesday on WNYC when asked about Reade's allegations.

Another latecomer to the party?  The editorial board of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES who offered this yesterday evening:

Unpleasant as it must be, the former vice president must be willing to answer questions about Reade’s accusations posed by reporters or members of the public. (He is expected to speak about the allegations in a television interview on Friday.)
More important, his campaign should commission an independent investigation of Reade’s allegations by a lawyer or law firm without clear partisan leanings. Investigators should be given access to papers from his career that Biden donated to the University of Delaware, a potential source that journalists haven’t been allowed to inspect. And their report should be made public. It’s not guaranteed that such an investigation will resolve the contradictions, but it could dispel suspicions that important documents were being concealed.

The message of the #MeToo movement was that an accusation of sexual impropriety by a powerful man should be taken seriously — including by the subject of the complaint. Even as he protests his innocence, Biden needs to honor that principle.


Related, Chris Hayes is being attacked for covering the Tara Reade Story.  Branko Marcetic (JACOBIAN) reports:

After being studiously ignored for weeks, Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden is finally breaking through in earnest into mainstream news coverage. On cable news, her accusation got one of its most extended and sympathetic airings last night thanks to MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes’s brave decision to cover it.
“There have been moments I think for many of us, all of us, where we have heard about accusations against someone that we find ourselves desperately wanting not to believe,” he said, opening the segment.
But part of the difficult lesson of the MeToo era is not that every accusation is true and everything should be believed on its face, but that you do have to fight yourself when you feel that impulse. You have to do that in order to take seriously what is being alleged and what the evidence is and to evaluate it. And that is the case with the accusation by a woman named Tara Reade against Joe Biden.
Hayes’s treatment wasn’t exhaustive. He left out that two people close to Reade had told reporters who broke her story that they recalled her telling them about it at the time; he didn’t mention the phone call her mother made to Larry King Live at the time about unnamed problems her daughter was having in a senator’s office; and he mentioned that Reade’s official paper complaint can’t be located, but didn’t explain that one potential location — Biden’s senatorial papers — will be locked to the public for years by the University of Delaware. (The Washington Post and others have called on Biden to release them).
Nonetheless, Hayes informed MSNBC viewers about a pivotal new development in the case: that Reade’s former neighbor, a Biden supporter, has come forward to say Reade told her about the allegation in the mid-1990s. 




Hayes invited on journalist Rebecca Traister, the author of an important new piece on what the allegations mean, who affirmed the story’s rising credibility and called on Biden himself to personally address it. And he pushed viewers to move past their own unconscious biases and to take the story seriously. The segment is worth watching — though as MSNBC mystifyingly hasn’t put clips of it up on either its official website or YouTube channel and a transcript isn’t yet available, you’ll have to do so in pieces.

Why was this brave? After all, this is Hayes’s job. And if anything, coverage of Reade is still falling short of the woefully underplayed accusation last year against Trump by columnist E. Jean Carroll, who was quickly personally invited onto MSNBC then CNN in the days after her allegation went public. (At the time, Carroll’s allegation had the same level of corroboration as Reade’s; it now has far less. Reade has only appeared on TV on Hill.TV’s Rising and on Democracy Now!).

We'll note this from DEMOCRACY NOW! today -- this interview aired this morning.

Tara Reade's former neighbor says she clearly remembers Reade telling her about an alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden. "We were talking about violence, because I had experienced violence myself," says Lynda LaCasse. "She started telling me about Joe Biden and what he had done."
Full screen
110 views
1:23 / 1:24


--------------

ADDED:

That video was from the Tweet.  Here's the video clip from YOUTUBE.




Click here for it at the DEMOCRACY NOW! website and here for Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez' interview with Tara Reade.

---------------------

Turning to Iraq, Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) looks at violence in Iraq for the month of April.  Among other things, she notes:


During April, at least 208 people were killed, and 185 were wounded. Last month, 128 people were killed, and 180 were wounded. The number of civilian casualties remained low, probably due to the coronavirus lockdowns. However, casualties among security personnel and militants ticked higher.
At least 20 civilians, 48 security members, and 98 militants were killed. Another 38 civilians, 103 security personnel, and three militants were wounded. At least two protesters were killed, and 34 were wounded despite quarantine orders.

Along the northern border, in the long-running conflict between the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (P.K.K) and Turkey, at least 33 PKK members of the were killed, and four more were wounded. Two Turkish soldiers were killed, and three more were wounded. Three Iraqi civilians and two Iranian civilians were also killed. These casualties all occurred within Iraqi territory. 


But remember, we're all supposed to believe that the war ended long ago.  And that all US troops came home.





The following sites updated:





Thursday, April 30, 2020

Fat Stacey is a hack

On THE JIMMY DORE SHOW right now Fat Stacey Abrams is being called a hack because that's what she is.

She's just a big fat liar -- emphasis on big and fat.  She'll tell any lie in the world to get to be vice president but fatty will weigh Joe Biden down.  She's just a hack.  A fat ass.  A closet case who isn't married and is staring down fifty.  No man in her life ever.  We're supposed to believe she took a vow of celibacy?  Fat chance.  Emphasis on fat.

She has no experience doing anything that would justify her being a candidate for vice president. 

She has no character.  In this moment in time, what's needed is for someone to stand up for Tara Reade.  Instead, Fat Stacey goes all out to defend Joe Biden.  That would be multi-millionaire Joe Biden.  That would be pro-war Joe Biden.  Tara deserves defending and needs it.  But Fat Stacey is all about protecting the criminally powerful.


Pressure is growing from the news media and survivor advocacy groups for former Vice President Joe Biden to address allegations from Tara Reade, a former aide to the then-senator who says he sexually assaulted her in 1993.

The Biden campaign has strenuously denied the allegations, but Biden has not addressed the matter himself.

The issue has been getting closer media scrutiny in recent days after a former neighbor came forward to say that Reade told her about the allegations at the time.

The Washington Post editorial board has called on Biden to address the matter and to release his Senate records, which are being stored at the University of Delaware. Reade says she filed a complaint at the time, but the Biden campaign has said it does not have such a complaint.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, April 30, 2020.  It's all just so disgusting.


March 24th, Tara Reade came forward with allegations that Joe Biden assaulted her in 1993 when she was working in his Senate office.  He made it through March without ever speaking on the topic and it appears he'll make it through April again.

It's disrespect.  It's disrespect and it's insulting to any survivor.  It's Joe Biden saying, "I want the most important job in the land but I don't have to talk about a rape allegation."  Why?  Because it's not a serious topic to him.  It never has been.  Forget the talking points, he's no friend to women.  Friends to women don't tell other senators that Anita Hill was lying.  Friends to women don't refuse to call witnesses who can support Anita Hill.  Friends to women don't refuse to apologize to Anita Hill.  Joe's just another Bob Packwood.  Maybe he got some on the side via consent but Tara's not the only woman he assaulted.  There are now three other women considering coming forward.

Over a month where he refused to address the topic because it's not a 'real' topic to him because he doesn't respect women.


At THE DAILY BEAST, Erin Gloria Ryan offers "I Take Tara Reade's Allegations Against Biden Seriously and I'm Still Voting For Him.  Here's Why."

Stop, Erin, we know why.  You're a whore. You're gutter trash.

If you take allegations of assault seriously, you don't then announce you're voting for the man accused of assault.  What you're saying is, "Every victim who thinks you survived?  You didn't.  Because you don't matter to me.  I will vote for your attacker because you mean nothing.  You think a rapist made you feel bad? I'm going to publicly support your rapist and drive home the point that a man can get away with any crime in the world."

Erin's a whore.

B-b-b-but these are our only choices -- Donald or Joe!!!!!

No they're not the only choices.  First of all, Joseph Kishore and Gloria La Riva have already won their party's presidential nomination.  Second of all, Howie Hawkins and Dario Hunter are vying for the Green Party nomination while Adam Kokesh is seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.

So there are other choices.  Even within the Democratic Party, there are other choices.  Joe Biden does not have enough delegates to win the nomination currently.  He was always a weak candidate.  People who take Tara's allegations seriously, pay attention Whore Erin, should be pressuring the Democratic Party leaders to line up behind another candidate.  We don't need Joe.  We don't want Joe.

At JACOBIAN, Andrew Sernatinger explains:

Days after Bernie Sanders announced that he was suspending his campaign in the 2020 Democratic primary, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) tweeted its position: “We are not endorsing Joe Biden.” Liberal journalists and prominent Democrats weren’t happy. Two full-length articles soon targeted DSA’s decision, including an open letter by members of the original Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and a polemic by Harold Meyerson suggesting that non-endorsement was the path to becoming “a sect of blinkered Trotskyists thrilled by their display of callous, moronic rectitude.”
But the decision was democratically decided by DSA after serious deliberation and debate, and it is the stance all socialists should take. Socialists should not endorse Joe Biden.
I say this as the author of the resolution that was proposed and approved at DSA’s 2019 biennial convention, the highest decision-making body of our organization, with over a thousand delegates representing roughly fifty-five thousand members. Leading up to the convention, members submitted resolutions for consideration. Among those resolutions was my own, R15: “In the Event of a Sanders Loss,” which stated: “Be it therefore resolved, the Democratic Socialists of America will not endorse another Democratic Party presidential candidate should Bernie Sanders not prevail.”
As I explained at the time, it was important to decide proactively what we would do in the likely scenario that Sanders was not the Democratic nominee: “When the pressure of the election season is in full swing, it will be tempting to fall in line with the host of organizations calling for support of the Democrats. There isn’t a win here. As an organization, DSA should make it clear that we will not endorse corporate politicians, especially as this will create divisions among our own membership.” 

Delegates first moved to include this resolution on our agenda in July, then heard the motion at convention, debated, and passed it. The floor overwhelmingly voted in favor of the resolution.
The convention affirmed that this was an important question to consider in 2019, and then democratically decided that the position of Democratic Socialists of America is that we would support Bernie Sanders but no other Democratic nominee. Far from blocking the will of the membership, DSA used the highest decision-making body with the most representatives of the organization to decide on its position.

The process for making this decision was a democratic one. But beyond a question of process, there’s the more basic political question: Why would a socialist organization endorse a neoliberal, warmongering politician like Joe Biden?


The resistance to Joe was always tremendous.  That was before Tara came forward, long before.  He is not a good choice.  He can't speak coherently in an interview.  Despite being 'rested' for weeks now, he still loses it and stumbles and fumbles through friendly interviews.  He's not up for a presidential campaign.  It's time to dump him.  If the party fails to, don't come whining after the election about how Joe lost because of this or that -- Joe's a loser and that's a known right now.




Again, he's a loser.

And when you factor in Tara Reade -- and you do have to factor her in -- there's no reason to stick up for Joe Biden.





Over at NPR, the laughable Asma Khalid tries to act like she's a reporter -- this after her failures (intentional) last week.  This go round, she's 'reporting.'  How?  She interviews one of the women Rich McHugh spoke with last week who was told about the assault by Tara.  That's 'reporting' for Asma.  She also notes -- without crediting Ryan Grim -- the phone call Tara's late mother made to THE LARRY KING SHOW back in 1993.  In other words, she gathers up the work of others and passes it off as her own.

Most laughable moment?  When she declares, "A lot of the women speaking up here defending Joe Biden are echoing the message that we've heard from Biden's campaign. They point to his strong legislative record of supporting women, and they say that women have a right to be heard, but they believe this specific allegation just did not happen."


Are they echoing it, Asma?

As we noted yesterday,   Ruby Cramer and Rosie Gray (BUZZFEED) report:

While Joe Biden has remained publicly silent about a sexual assault allegation made against him, his presidential campaign has sought to coordinate and unify Democratic messaging on the matter, advising surrogates earlier this month to say that the allegation “did not happen.”
The Biden campaign circulated talking points among top Democratic supporters shortly after the New York Times published a story earlier this month about the allegation by Tara Reade, a former staff assistant in Biden’s Senate office who says he assaulted her in 1993.
With good news and bad, talking points are standard fare on presidential campaigns. In substance, the private guidance largely hews to the sole public statement on the matter from Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Kate Bedingfield.
But the messaging shows that while Biden has stayed quiet on the allegations on the eve of his nomination, aides were taking the claims seriously enough behind the scenes to coordinate messaging among other Democrats to try to cast the matter as one that’s been thoroughly vetted and determined to be unfounded.

They're not "echoing" it, Asma, they're reciting the talking points -- written talking points -- coming out of the Biden campaign.  Why is it so hard for Asma to tell the truth?

I know she blames rape on the victims.  I know that.  NPR friends have explained just how ridiculous she is.  She should have been pulled from the story long, long ago.  Hell, she never should have been assigned to it in the first place based on comments she's made about rape victims to her co-workers.


Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is not working for New Yorkers.  She has made that clear.  We're no longer interested in press releases from her office.  She stated yesterday, "I support Vice President Biden."  Thanks for clarifying.  You don't support women.  You don't support victims.  You're seat in the Senate is nothing but a position for you to use to advocate on behalf of Joe Biden.

Thanks for clarifying.  I'm sorry now that I had your back when Claire was going after you.  Trust me, I won't have your back again.  You've made your choice.

It's not a feminist position, let's be clear.  The feminist position for those sympathetic to Joe Biden would be: I'm not supporting anyone at this point because these allegations need to be addressed, vetted and deliberated over in the public square.

Saying, "I'm voting for him anyway"?  That's saying that Tara doesn't matter.  Your sister doesn't matter. Your daughter doesn't matter.  Your mother doesn't matter.  No woman matters.  It's saying that our job, as women, is to support a rapist.

The hideous Alyssa Milano has an interview with DEADLINE.  Why?  To pretend her career isn't over.  Alyssa has been under pressure for her hypocrisy.  After the low, low numbers for her recent podcast, she realized she'd damaged her 'brand.'  So on Monday, she wanted to insist to Tara "I see you, I hear you."  But she's still supporting Biden.

That's the very definition of rape culture.

A man is accused and women rush to prop him up.  They are the zombies who stand by their husbands at press conferences while the men explain why they cheated or raped or did whatever they did.

Alyssa can't maintain this position and pretend to care about women.

We're not going to do a lengthy quote again from my comments regarding Bob Filner.  I considered Bob a friend.  I did not rush out with, "I'm supporting Bob!"  I said the women deserved to be heard and I didn't put my finger on the scales by saying, "I support Bob!"  I made clear that if what was accused happened that there was no excuse for it.

Alyssa's not doing that.

She's making clear the opposite.

There is an excuse for it -- that's her argument.  The excuse is that we 'need' Joe.  No one needs Joe Biden.  And for her to refuse to say, "I'm stepping back"?  That's outrageous.  She's outrageous.

She is not a leader of anything.  She is not a feminist.  She is not a friend to survivors.  She's made it clear that if a woman steps forward, she will lie about them.

Alyssa did lie about Tara.  She smeared Tara.

And her attempt to rescue her 'brand' by saying, "I see you . . . I hear you"?

That's nonsense.  Where's her apology?  Where's her, "I'm sorry I lied to Andy Cohen and told the world that Times Up and I discussed you and we agreed that you were not telling the truth."  That's what she did.

Alyssa's a whore.  After Joe's next assault, Alyssa will probably show up offering to clean Joe's penis of any physical evidence -- knowing Alyssa, to clean it with her mouth.


Rose McGowan is a truth teller.  Alyssa is not.  From Rose McGowan:

I’m really sad, and I’m really tired. I normally share thoughts, but tonight it’s emotion.




I agree with Rose.  This is an awful time.  Women are being devalued yet again and by other women.  We are told that the Democratic Party is the party of women -- and certainly women make up a significant number of voters in the party -- but it's time to shut up and support a rapist?

I don't think so.

The Democratic Party needs me, not the other way around.  I am not a servant nor a slave to a political party.  And I'm certainly not going to take orders from politicians -- people, who please remember, are our servants and work for us.


At POLITICO, an adviser to a woman being considered as Joe Biden's running mate states, "The #MeToo movement was an over-correction to decades of ignoring women and not believing them. And what we’re seeing now is a result of that over-correction."

It's the death of #MeToo.  What a proud moment for Alyssa Milano and the other hacktresses who tried to hop that train.  They didn't help real victims.  They tried to spin it around and make it about money -- why, oh, why can't I get millions for a movie even though no one ever pays to see me in any movies and I'm older and uglier and had to flee to TV?

The real women in the real world got no help because the Mira Sorvinos aren't about helping women.  They're about justifying their bad choices.  As Ava and I observed in 2018's "MEDIA: Male norms, Russia hate and lots of excuses -- it's the 90th Academy Awards:"

But we couldn't ponder that too long because Mira Sorvino was insisting that "everyone is getting a voice to express something that's been happening forever -- not only in Hollywood, but everywhere."

Really?

Everyone?

Because the victims without money and fame still have to struggle, Mira, you know, the way you struggled after winning an Academy Award for comedy, struggled to become a dramatic actress and were soundly rejected because you didn't have the chops for it or the smarts to stick to comedy?

Harvey destroyed Mira's career?

We kind of think THE REPLACEMENT KILLERS, SUMMER OF SAM, MIMIC and WISEGIRLS beat him to the punch.



So the already famous and well off got to ride the #MeToo train to further attention and now that a person with an actual assault comes forward, Tara Reade, it's time for Alyssa and others to shut the movement down.

Rose had skin in the game, Alyssa never had anything.  She tried to ride it and anything else to give her failed career some traction.  When a woman really needs MeToo, when she needs actual support, it's time to say, "I hear you but I'm still voting for Joe."

Which says it doesn't matter.  Rape doesn't matter.  Assault doesn't matter.  None of it matters.  It's a hideous message to send to women.  It's appalling and outrageous.  It's shameful.

You do that to pimp Joe Biden all you want, but don't you dare tell me or any other survivor that because you're whoring that we have to too.  No, I don't have to whore.  And I'm not going to.  I understand Rose's frustrations and I share them.




The MeToo movement should mean that we do not have to stake our political salvation on silencing survivors. That's a lousy bargain for everyone — and survivors should not be shamed into accepting it. I am not at all convinced we sacrifice the greater good of maintaining Biden’s candidacy by sacrificing a willingness to hear Tara Reade. That is a feel-good untruth — a lie based in a political calculation that we are stronger when survivors are silent about the harm men do. This bad faith is far worse than bad timing.
Many have questioned Reade’s motivations, including those who don’t want to push her allegations back into the shadows that MeToo has done so much to illuminate. After all, the allegations are not new. So why are we hearing about them now? If her claims were investigated when Biden was vetted as Obama's VP pick, why were they not disqualifying?
Reade's allegations recall the belated airing of Christine Blasey Ford's claims about Brett Kavanaugh and why FBI background checks failed to follow up on the whispers around the Supreme Court justice's youthful drunken behavior. And Blasey Ford came forward, as did Anita Hill, when the timing was both political and urgent.
Does anyone believe such allegations are unlikely to come forward in the future? How will we deal with them then? Will it be any better if we don’t figure out how to hear Reade now?


No, it won't.

Jeffrey St. Clair Tweets about Stacey Abrams ridiculous repeating of the Biden campaign's talking points:


Stacey has passed the first phase of her audition. For her next challenge, she will explain why Biden's vote for the Iraq War was actually a vote against the Iraq War.


American women don't matter to Joe Biden supporters, why should we be surprised that they don't care about the Iraqi people who have seen their country destroyed?


The following sites updated: