Also, if you spend you life not getting caught or the consequences being light, you keep going
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tara Reade appears to have lied under oath about her education, defense lawyers seek to get convictions overturned in cases where she testified
- Thread starter infamous5445
- Start date
20 potential counts of perjury is no laughing matter. She's in big trouble, Biden or no Biden.
They are now officially investigating. Technically, there could still be some weird records sanfu -- but it seems highly unlikely at this point that Antioch representatives would put out statements to the NYT and CNN without quadruple-checking their records.
The final nail would be coming through court records, as defense attorneys subpoena Antioch for her educational records, and she and her lawyers respond.
Either she graduated or didn't. It's a binary result, and we'll find out one way or another once the legal paper starts flying.
It's because there ARE people who dissented and weren't banned.
But there is a way to do that without going down the "you're a rape apologist" road. And there is a way to question things without insulting or being dismissive of an accuser.
I'm a black voter. I know all about having to pick between two non-ideal choices. I don't always need it mentioned at every possible opportunity.
I believe the person Reade cited as brokering the deal with confirmed no such program existed from what others have posted here
10/10 thread, would read again.
There are people STILL banned for things 100% reasoned and logical they said about this woman. Given there are probably a hundred posts in this thread worse than what I got banned 2 weeks for , I'll just assume the mods are all asleep tonight and will catch up with things in the morning. You know what? Perhaps I should report all those posts myself just to make sure they get to them ASAP.
I've never taken a forum victory lap before, but I'm making a special point to here. As an active forum member since day one, I always, ALWAYS went out of my way to be civil and reasoned when I spoke. No bans, not even any warnings, staying away from that post button if I thought I was about to say something I'd later regret. Someone fished my post history, I got banned for saying she had "marginal credibility issues," and got labeled as a rape apologist.
Consequences from this are horrible for millions of women who fight every year to get their stories taken seriously. As a survivor myself, I fucking hate people like Reade, and fuck how this forum has handled the whole situation.
There are people STILL banned for things 100% reasoned and logical they said about this woman. Given there are probably a hundred posts in this thread worse than what I got banned 2 weeks for , I'll just assume the mods are all asleep tonight and will catch up with things in the morning. You know what? Perhaps I should report all those posts myself just to make sure they get to them ASAP.
I've never taken a forum victory lap before, but I'm making a special point to here. As an active forum member since day one, I always, ALWAYS went out of my way to be civil and reasoned when I spoke. No bans, not even any warnings, staying away from that post button if I thought I was about to say something I'd later regret. Someone fished my post history, I got banned for saying she had "marginal credibility issues," and got labeled as a rape apologist.
Consequences from this are horrible for millions of women who fight every year to get their stories taken seriously. As a survivor myself, I fucking hate people like Reade, and fuck how this forum has handled the whole situation.
yep. She should probably get a civil and criminal lawyer cause 20 cases is a lot, and, since it was all in the same county, she can go to jail. She can also be sued in civil court by anyone who may have been innocent.
As others have pointed out, it was determined it was ok to call Biden a rapist. That essentially is definitely picking one side as right. I agree with you though, I wish it was practiced that way
It's wild. I wonder how many of those 20 cases could get a retrial based on this. If even 10 do, that's a major impact on people's lives.
I don't see how it doesn't go further, with the revocation of her law degree and license.
I had the same gut reaction, but it feels like you had to walk on egg shells so I just shut up and waited for more information.
This post is honestly heartbreaking. :(
There is always the possibility an individual is not being truthful. However, with how rare we know that to be (and there have been studies on this to prove it), and how many women do not come forward (there have been studies on this as well, 30% at most) due in part to fear of nobody believing them, I think it's better to cultivate a supportive atmosphere for women who come forward and allow their claims to be taken seriously and at face value until proven otherwise. Doing so will likely ensure more women come forward in the future, representing a net benefit to the cause of eradicating sexual assault, or at least changing the culture.
This is honestly becoming deju vu on era. I've seen this exact discussion play out in multiple threads on various high profile cases involving accusations that turned out to be false. Nothing really changes with the level of discourse or moderation. Very little self reflection, just more doubling down.
yeah, if there's any chance those records exist then it would be some mix up, but considering the statements from both parties it seems more likely it's a lie
Yes that's fair. It's I'm sure tough to approach as a moderator or team, but there has to be a better balance in general.
The whole "secret degree" is such total nonsense I don't think there's anything further to be said about it. That's not a thing that universities do. It kind of defeats the point of going to university, in fact.
I agree we should cultivate a supportive atmosphere -- but that doesn't mean we set up star chambers. You said it yourself -- "allow their claims to be taken seriously and at face value until proven otherwise."
Discussing an accuser's accusations, their potential biases and credability issues, and the larger context of their accusation is still taking their claims seriously.
Yea.... I learned my lesson the hard way with Jussie Smollet and Johnny Depp. I may say, "I think XYZ" but I leave it at that. There's no point getting super heated, when so many pieces are missing from the puzzle.
And now I hear that PoliEra had a mass exodus because they were branded as rape apologists? Fuck, what a blow to this community, that could have been avoided if people only could have been less overzealous in their self righteousness.
This is such a horrible situation. And just like Jussie's case, all this does is set the entire movement back. Pathological liars do so much damage. Fuck.
And now I hear that PoliEra had a mass exodus because they were branded as rape apologists? Fuck, what a blow to this community, that could have been avoided if people only could have been less overzealous in their self righteousness.
This is such a horrible situation. And just like Jussie's case, all this does is set the entire movement back. Pathological liars do so much damage. Fuck.
Unfortunately even that isn't enough to qualify you to some. Several survivors were, frankly, bullied by other survivors because they were critical of Reade.
I was always sceptical of her claims given what had happened previously with the likes of Smollett (hence why I never really commented on these topics), this just entrenches that my scepticism was warranted. And even regardless of whether her claims are true or not, this is bad on many levels, since it means guilty parties either get away, and/or people who didn't do a thing spent years in the clink for nothing.
The site needs a blanket ban on The Hill and The Intercept, to be honest. If people cannot reasonably do all/most of what this asks
then Era needs to take steps to ban shitty media orgs in order to improve discussion.
How often does this happen vs how often is the claim actually just straight forward?
I feel like people are trying to use this to dunk on moderation and it's dishonest. The vast majority of times we have cases involving these types of allegations or sensitive topics the shit is actually what it appears to be. We just remember the ones that aren't because they stand out for that exact reason.
for real, I considered going just to have a chance at a decent job, but I lucked out
they'll still wanna investigate in reade's case to be sure, as this has the potential to set 20+ retrails
Yeah, It's pretty much 100% that she lied about the secret degree nonsense -- but I'm just pointing out that (being fair here) there is still a technical possibility she did graduate, but the records are missing or incorrect or something. That's the last 1% of possibility she has left to not have gotten her law degree under false pretenses and lied under oath.
Nope. Nope. That's her credibility shot for me. I was already leaning away after that article interviewing all those people who used to work with/for Biden came out, the implication that she lied about why she left or got fired, and the fact that the place she cites as the place of assault is apparently somewhere highly impractical/improbable for something like that to have happened. This is the nail in the coffin for me.
Even if her specially conferred degree gets verified, the other embellishments about her role and involvement in legislation, her other jobs, etc., it's too much. Also, never bothering to get your diploma because you were "fast tracked to law school" sounds weeeeeeeird. But that's just my opinion.
Even if her specially conferred degree gets verified, the other embellishments about her role and involvement in legislation, her other jobs, etc., it's too much. Also, never bothering to get your diploma because you were "fast tracked to law school" sounds weeeeeeeird. But that's just my opinion.
Yep, people fled to discord to get away from the bad faith arguments, the trolling, and the accusations of rape apologia.
That community was already getting plagued by the first two pretty hard after the primary but Reade's allegation really put the hostility and bullying on overdrive.
You're talking about the initial stages. I think there's broad agreement there.
The question is, when investigations do uncover new information, when is "casting doubt" appropriate? For instance, Reade's credibility right now is practically nonexistent, whereas the day after she launched her initial accusation, it was intact. Additional facts mean changed context; they also open up new avenues of discussion.
I disagree that pointing the finger at things tertiary to the claims laid out is supporting a victim. How many times have those things been used to discredit someone? Especially when dealing with people in power with the resources to unearth those things to muddy the waters? "She's just crazy", "she's lied in the past", "she has a motivation to say this", and so on. That worries me. Of course, people are going to have those concerns, but I do think they maybe should not be put out into the ether because when they are, that's signaling to other victims they may go through the same thing. The sticking point people seem to have is they were banned on a forum or whatever... well, the forum can't control your mind, none of us can. If people want to have those concerns, we can't stop them. We can stop them from putting that stuff out there here, because it's better to be supportive of victims and they have more to lose as opposed to posting privleges on a forum.
Another lesson to be learned: don't uncritically believe every negative thing you hear about a person just because you already dislike them and "can totally see how they'd be capable of doing that."
The fact of the matter is that progressives fucking hated Joe Biden since the start, and were giddy to use the accusation as a weapon against those who were still willing to support him out of pragmatism.
The fact of the matter is that progressives fucking hated Joe Biden since the start, and were giddy to use the accusation as a weapon against those who were still willing to support him out of pragmatism.
If all 20 cases are thrown out, Jesus, that's a lot of damage done. I'm assuming there will be retrials and the cases won't be dismissed outright, right?
I can't agree. The mods were going overboard and continued to do so well after people found definite issues with the story.
This post was made a mere 10 days ago. It was completely reasonable and the person who made it got a duration pending ban, which was ridiculous even without this new development.
Banning people who called her a Russian agent from the get go is one thing, banning people who expressed the mildest forms of doubt is another. The mods crossed a line. They definitely deserve some blame here, and in the absence of apologies, let alone ban reversals or policy changes, that's probably the most accountability that's going to happen here.
I can't agree. The mods were going overboard and continued to do so well after people found definite issues with the story.
This post was made a mere 10 days ago. It was completely reasonable and the person who made it got a duration pending ban, which was ridiculous even without this new development.
Banning people who called her a Russian agent from the get go is one thing, banning people who expressed the mildest forms of doubt is another. The mods crossed a line. They definitely deserve some blame here, and in the absence of apologies, let alone ban reversals or policy changes, that's probably the most accountability that's going to happen here.
I might do the same tbh. I was also banned for two weeks for responding to bad faith actors.
I'm also a sexual assault survivor like you and we were made to feel shittier during an already shitty situation.
Something has to be done to address this, I feel like.
Has she offered any defense for the part where she claimed she was a "visiting professor at the school, on and off for five years" when all they had records of was a few hours of administrative work? I mean, even if there was some crazy snafu with her transcript, falsely claiming to have been a college professor at sounds like an even more significant lie.
If those things are muddying the waters because they are besides the point, or are logical fallacies -- then call them out for that.
Let's be clear here. We should want to support real victims -- which Tara Reade may very well be. If you disallow critical discussion about an accuser (even if tertiary to the accusation at hand) -- then you set up an environment in which real victims aren't properly supported, because you've lessened the standard of believability to such an extent that it cannot weed out the rare false (or misguided/mistaken) allegation.
I admire the desire to be as supportive as possible to those who have been harmed, but we cannot just throw out all rules of discussion and debate and reason.
In Tara Reade's case, her best evidence was all based on her credibility -- and a lot of victims best evidence is about credibility. You still have to weight that evidence against other evidence, and credibility is 100% something that can and should be discussed, debated, and considered when such claims are made. I'm not saying it should be a major point, but it should not be dismissed.
We've reached the point here that -- absent some crazy paperwork mixup at Antioch -- she has no credibility remaining. And the real victims there are real abuse survivors -- and those people involved in the 20 cases she may have influenced with her lies.
She might offer a "sigh" tweet tomorrow with no counter evidence.
Yeesh.
Generally I think the mods do a good job, but I think the fact that they allowed posters to call Biden a rapist should be a red flag they fucked up on some level.
I agree, but there's sadly not much to say with the current information. I wonder if a journalist will write an article with more information on those particular cases, and what effect her testimony may have had on the result.
What. The. Hell. How in the world was that viewed as a bannable post? Ugh.
That post is not reasonable. What the fuck? I do not understand why anyone would think that post is appropriate to the story and details that the other poster just shared. Like what on earth are you talking about?
The thread is called "we need to be better allies to sexual assault victims era" and that bullshit was the only thing that poster could come up with in response to that entire story.
This is why to an extent all the bitching about moderation here never draws any mind from me. There is no such fucking thing as perfect moderation but some of the shit people quote as bad moderation is the most tone deaf bullshit. Who the fuck says what that post says in response to a sexual assault survivor? You seriously arguing this in good faith?
Last edited:
Not trying to dunk on the mod team, not at all. They are still humans after all. It's a thankless job and I'm glad they do it instead of me. But a statement of some sort acknowledging what had happened once more things have been confirmed by this new development would be enough for me, really.
Part of the challenge is the context it's in, I think. It was a thread about not shaming survivors for who they not support, and that post is shifting the topic away from them and towards people who are doubting accusations.
It's similar to how "all lives matter" is actually a perfectly reasonable and inoffensive statement by itself, but the problem is when it's used to shout down other statements it's not something that you should be interpreting in face value. Probably not anywhere near as malicious but similar in terms of what it is mechanically acting on the conversation.
I don't know where the line is, and even if I did it wouldn't be up to me to enforce it. That said, it would also need to be respected that it's a sensitive issue, and I don't think any of us would or should gripe too much if a victim of sexual assault feels passionately about the subject and wants to tell people they are, in their opinion, trampling on victims or excusing rape/supporting rape culture. I can't see anyone being hurt by that to the degree they would complain about it as opposed to just stepping away and maybe reevaluating or trying to see things from their perspective.
I've been through it, twice. I never took any steps to work through what happened to me because in my case I've been lucky enough to have no lasting trauma, very, very lucky. Most victims don't get that. I don't like what happened to me and try not to think about it, but when I do, of course it hurts. But my hurt is infinitely small compared to most, and to the degree I can understand it it's a deep, pervasive hurt that can manifest strongly especially in discussions like this. Things get heated. They never asked to be assaulted or live in a world that doesn't take them seriously, and sometimes they may be angry or frustrated, and it's understandable.
Kind of rambling a bit but my point is, and this isn't even related to what you said I guess, but for anyone complaining about being called a rape apologist who hasn't been through it (and some people who did likely had that directed at him and maybe we could do better on that to support other victims), maybe chill and understand what you went through in that moment on an internet forum is such small potatoes compared to where a comment like that likely came from, what precipitated that response.
Will there be retrials? If so, would victims have to testify again?
At this point any contentious topic should be avoided for your own safety. I personally think that mods shouldn't be allowed to post in contentious topics hostiley against other posters since it's a conflict of interest. If you argue against them in the same level of hostility you are banned.
Here's an article about fraud expert testimony in California:
www.expertinstitute.com
It appears that expert witnesses can be sued by the lawyers who retained them:
Potentially she could be sued by both the prosecuation and defense.
False Expert Statements: Legal Consequences for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys
Expert witnesses are invaluable for explaining to a jury any complicated medical, technical, or scientific evidence. As professionals who are
www.expertinstitute.com
It appears that expert witnesses can be sued by the lawyers who retained them:
Potentially she could be sued by both the prosecuation and defense.
Some of the attorneys might push for retrials. Others might push for outright overturning the conviction. It'll likely be a factor of how much the defense attorney can convince a judge that Reade's testimony mattered and how much it mattered.
It really did feel like I was speaking into a void. Halper/Taibbi and The Hill? My alarm bells immediately went off and told me to wait for actual journalists to properly and respectfully look into the allegation, because no matter what the truth is, it's the right thing to do.