Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Ryan Grim DISMANTLES Media Smears Of Tara Reade" video.

Good move! There are too many great things to do with your time instead.
10
What it did was keep Tara Reade very, very busy, and afraid, and in legal and financial jeopardy. So the smears did their job.
7
@springbloom5940 It goes to credibility, not character. Character is not relevant. Men often target women with "reputations" for less than perfect character. We all know why. That was one of Clinton's favorite moves. That's how to get away with anything the big, important man may want.
5
@tinturtle9168 "Peter Stafford" shows up EVERYWHERE where Tara Reade is the subject. I don't think he is "low information."
4
@sabinereynaudsf It's not a matter of "buying" Tara Reade's story. It was never fully investigated. Instead, Reade was investigated. Reports about Biden were circulating for years, long before he ran on Obama's ticket. Biden made some strange moves around women and girls in public, and you can find authenticated photos. These are not reasons to credit Reade; they are reasons to treat all her claims seriously. You dismiss them instead.
3
Biden covered for Clarence Thomas. Why?
3
@thedeal9526 Except that the investigation found no perjury charges to pursue. You must think no one watched this video to the end, or read Grim's article.
3
@tinturtle9168 I don't know. But seeing him show up again in a couple of days with identical talking points, on the same subject, acting like no one has effectively challenged him, and ignoring the very same facts, is peculiar.
3
@sabinereynaudsf Brown was instrumental in advancing Harris's career, and was separated but still legally married at the time.
2
"But look, Trump!!" Trump was a gift to the DNC.
2
@thedeal9526 Why did Biden cover for Clarence Thomas? Why did he call no witnesses to corroborate Anita Hill's testimony?
2
@thedeal9526 THAT is precisely what is NOT true. She did NOT lie about having a degree from Antioch. Explain why Antioch lied, falsely claiming that they didn't hire her as an adjunct, to be part of a committee that evaluates alternative degree program proposals. She has the records to prove it. Explain how she got into a law school that requires a Bachelor's degree for admission. Two FACTS that corroborate her assertion that she had a ("nontraditional") degree from Antioch.
2
@tinturtle9168 I know DNC has paid for them, too. But you'd be surprised by the number of independent PACs that run them. Deniability. :D
2
The most important thing was not to investigate Reade's claims, but to make it look like they did.
2
Antioch is, um, not telling the truth. 3:55 4:22
1
Nothing new.
1
@nuclearwessels2078 Sure. Look it up.
1
@thedeal9526 Your spelling does you no favors.
1
@fortusvictus8297 The Hill invited the investigative reporter who had broken similar stories, and then interviewed Reade, to speak about it. He said Reade's discrepancies were nothing remarkable for someone in her position. I believe Katie Halper was interviewed here as well.
1
@fortusvictus8297 Just found a ton of stories on The Hill Rising, favorable to Reade, over a period of many, many weeks. A cinch to find. Links might be shadowed.
1
@jonathancarrillo7739 Rising is The Hill's premiere show. They were planning to sell it, but as far I as know, they didn't.
1
It is a shame that a woman who has to protect her identity and privacy due to fear has to go through this to prove her innocence. If she gets traumatized, beaten, or killed, then she won't need her degree, huh?
1
@davidsheriff9274 Excerpt from NYTimes: "[Anita Hill stated] she cannot support Mr. Biden for president until he takes full responsibility for his conduct, including his failure to call as corroborating witnesses other women who were willing to testify before the Judiciary Committee [concerning Clarence Thomas's conduct]. By leaving them out, she said, he created a 'he said, she said' situation that did not have to exist." This is about the kindest spin you can find.
1
@davidsheriff9274 Not at all. Biden was chairing the hearings, and he could have but didn't prevent Hill from becoming the focus of really dirty innuendo by the Republicans, while preventing FOUR corroborating witness waiting outside the chamber from being heard. It has everything to do with how Biden views sexual harassment and women in general, and how he deals with credible allegations of harassment. All of these people (Biden, Clinton, Thomas, and Trump, for that matter) swam in these waters. Any woman who worked for any of them during this period was taking a grave risk. Someone like Hill could have had a breakdown and become disabled after such an ordeal. (Which is convenient, for perpetrators, isn't it? "See! She's nutty!!")
1
@davidsheriff9274 No, of course it doesn't make Reade credible. She stands or falls on her own merits. The harassment that was routine during that time tells you a lot about mentalities, however. I think the real question is why the Democrats didn't get to work in November 2016, right after the most surprising defeat ever, to find a candidate who was competent, and had an unimpeachable character. And was under 70 years old.
1
@davidsheriff9274 No, there weren't. It was almost an entirely uninspiring field of id-pol apparatchiks, scarcely better than the one who lost in 2016. They were only better than Trump, which is a lower bar than anyone ever expected to see. I'm sure we disagree about a lot. My goal is to emigrate by 2025.
1
@thedeal9526 Ha! What were her credentials for the job at the time she was hired? For one of the most sought after jobs on Capitol Hill? And she only had a dubious Bachelor's degree, or maybe not even that? Well, then she must have been a person of exceptional character and discretion, well-suited to working for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Only explanation.
1
@havable Exactly. The Weinstein accusers contradicted themselves even more, and praised him to their closest friends, in emails and such, around the time he assaulted them. He was convicted anyway.
1
@xyzsame4081 That is the part that bothers me the most. It strikes me as sinister. Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski, etc., . . . I hate to say they are not particularly likeable, it seems so mean and I am sympathetic to what happened to them, but women with certain social profiles are what certain men consider a cost-free target. There's a reason for it. :/
1
@tinturtle9168 A lot of troll farms are financed by independent PACs. Hillary Clinton's were. LA Times did an expose before the 2016 selection. Neither DNC nor Clinton were connected to her biggest trolls.
1
@tinturtle9168 Links are very often automatically removed, on most YT channels. They are too hard to monitor for TOS compliance, or even possible copyright issues. Oh well. :/
1