that would put her in legal trouble with god-knows how many firms
-
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
A duration pending ban so it could be a perm.
A person tried to derail this very thread and dismissing this finding and only got a week.
This is definitely a disturbing turn of events. I still believe her for now but I am starting to question her character.
I think it wasn't the post itself but the history of trolling/acting in bad faith that finally warranted the ban. There's been this not so secret rivalry between the leftists and centrists on this site. Based on some of the rhetoric in the past, it probably didn't give them the benefit of the doubt in the mods' eyes when they started doubting someone accusing a powerful figure of rape. The same could be said about the DNC conspiracy theories from the leftists.
I think it wasn't the post itself but the history of trolling/acting in bad faith that finally warranted the ban. There's been this not so secret rivalry between the leftists and centrists on this site. Based on some of the rhetoric in the past, it probably didn't give them the benefit of the doubt in the mods' eyes when they started doubting someone accusing a powerful figure of rape. The same could be said about the DNC conspiracy theories from the leftists.
I'm not a lawyer -- and I'm still reading the article -- but this case from 2004 in California seems on-point:
caselaw.findlaw.com
CHEIN v. SHUMSKY LA (2004) | FindLaw
Case opinion for US 9th Circuit CHEIN v. SHUMSKY LA. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
caselaw.findlaw.com
It sickens me that people compared Christine Blasey Ford to her. That was never earned and does a massive disservice to Dr. Ford.
If she lied about her qualifications, that's pretty much game over. The verdict will get overturned, unless for some reason her testimony can be shown to have been immaterial (such as, for example, if she only gave testimony relating to a charge that the defendant was not convicted of).
No, there has been a not so secret rivalry between leftists and people who want Democrats to win even if their preferred candidate isn't the nominee. The vast majority of the people labeled as centrists around here and PoliERA were Warren supporters
This is such a monumental lie if true, and when you also take into account some of the other small but glaring inaccuracies(or lies) you have to wonder if she is a pathological liar. I'm not even sure she would even be considered a pathological liar as this all seems to be a tier above it.
I believed her, and then the events of last week happened and it moved me to the fence. If all of this isn't some huge misunderstanding, I'll be firmly in the 'I dont believe a word she says' camp. I suddenly dont feel dread anymore over having to vote for Biden.
Thank you for sharing this. I'll try to reply in kind. I do think there's a line; I think that people draw the line differently, and that's where the tension lies. For instance, I'm going to postulate that the line's shifted towards the "Reade has no credibility and her claims are suspect" camp pretty conclusively. For others, that shift occurred with the Vox article, the PBS article, the "tik tok" tweet, or affiliation with The Intercept -- just a host of data points that, when aggregated, do create a line. Somewhere.
To your concrete points, I don't think anyone would or should gripe if a victim of sexual assault feels passionately about the subject.
"I 100% believe Tara" is something that I sympathize with as a legitimate viewpoint, even now. I'd disagree with the data points that underpin that person's conclusion, and we'd have civil discussion; but it's a belief.
Where you lose me is when that passion is directed externally towards others rather than a commentary on the situation at hand. I understand, to the degree that I personally experienced assault and from listening to you and others sincerely advance your feelings on this matter, that it's fueled by anger: at the system, at the situation, and at others' reactions. A snide mark also isn't abuse.
But I firmly believe the context changes as more facts are revealed. For instance, I think it would be completely inappropriate and hopefully actionable for someone to say "Voting for Biden is supporting rape" now, because the conversation has shifted so much. 2 months ago, or maybe in the initial stages? I'm more inclined to understand that's a comment borne from passion, but... we're definitely in the "analysis" stage now, discussing news updates. Just my thoughts.
Personally I think a lack of liberal arts degree in political science in relation to what she was an expert witness on is not enough to throw out the cases, but obviously they'd need to be reviewed if the bachelor's degree. Then you have the mess of law school requiring a bachelor's and her getting in. So that's confusing.
I do think we can remember this isn't a detective agency, it's just a niche gaming forum, so considering that I don't even know if we are capable of having the kinds of discussions you're talking about without creating an atmosphere hostile to assault survivors. It seems like a big ask for what this forum is. What I mean is, it's a shaky road to go down, and there are examples of where it leads on other forums who would take a less strict approach in the discussions and what they can turn into.
I dunno, I don't think we have to stay moored to them either necessarily, but it would depend on the rules you're talking about. If we used civility politics as an example, there is one instance where following the rules out of obligation or blind precedent can be harmful. Sometimes commonly understood rules can be a detriment if they are rules for the sake of them or the sake of precedent or to put all sides on a notion of equal footing.
If that's the case it's absolutely awful for sure. I think we can all agree on that!
It's not a misunderstanding. The university doubled down on their claim she never graduated, and Reade showed the NYT a clearly BS transcript that doesn't proved she graduated. Oh and she claims she has a "secret" degree (which the university denies).
well, the bigger thing that made her an expert was a lie. She claimed she was a legislative assistant who helped draft the violence against women act. She was a poorly performing staff assistant who frequently lost constituent mail.
Yeah, the focus absolutely should be on this. Reade's actions are going to have devastating consequences and may result in justice being overturned (horrible) or injustice being overturned (good but it would be even more infuriating if innocent people were jailed because of her).
Yeah, that's definitely not a good look.
But I try imagining myself as a mod in a situation like that. You have a thread about how sexual assault survivors are not being treated well on this website. Someone posts something that some people apparently take as a dismissive comment. What do you do?
If you ignore it, the sexual assault survivors who reported that person feel unsupported, which to them will reinforce the thesis of that very thread. The entire moderation team and the website itself then develops a reputation as being filled with cruel, stupid, misogynist pieces of shit. And we don't need to be a website like that because NeoGAF exists.
So they ban.
If I had my druthers, every flagged comment in a sensitive topic (that isn't an obvious troll comment) would be responded to in the thread by a mod asking for clarification regarding the questionable post. Like with the post you linked to, I think it would've diffused things and saved a ban if a mod quoted that post and said: "Some other members have expressed concerns that you're being dismissive of sexual assault victims in a thread about showing more respect to sexual assault victims. How do you respond to that?"
If he responds with, "Fuck them" or "They can think whatever they like," or something equally dismissive or combative, he's gone. Otherwise, he gets a chance to explain himself. Maybe he didn't realize how he was coming off.
This would take time and patience, and would likely require increasing the size of the mod team. However, I think it would go a long way toward fostering an open and honest dialog, and would maybe get people to be a bit more cautious in how they express themselves in sensitive topics (rather than just avoiding those topics altogether, for fear of a ban).
Just my two cents.
Yeah, for some reason my brain is finding it hard to believe something this unbelievable actually happened. But you're right, her university calling bullshit on this pretty much is the final nail in her coffin.
Yeah I really hope the Mods don't fold to the people trying to take victory laps about this stuff. This was a extremely sensitive, unprecedented topic in a very heated time in our country's history. If it turns out that the people banned were vindicated and there you go there's your W. Considering the reason there was such a mass exodus to this site in the first place… Can't you be a little forgiving if certain moderation practices were a bit stricter when it came to this? No one in the world could've predicted This amount of craziness after the allegations came out.
And I will 100% back mods for "erring" on the side of supporting victims versus oh no they're going to drive members away from the politics sub form? OK… And
The PBS story that shined a light on some of her other lies/misrepresentations.
PBS article where other coworkers said "Biden had an official policy prohibiting senate staff from attending fundraisers. Biden had a policy of only men serving him drinks. The area where the assault occurs is super public." Then, there's this article which shows she doesn't have problem with lying under oath by over-embellishing or outright fabricating.
I think they are referring to the articles about past Biden employees and also the reports of people who were landlords and friends to Tara in the past. The latter painted a bad picture of her, while the former raised some questions about her credibility when some details didn't match up. Especially regarding her firing.
If you've been watching these threads you'd know that's not even a remote possibility.
I'm not a lawyer -- and I'm still reading the article -- but this case from 2004 in California seems on-point:
CHEIN v. SHUMSKY LA (2004) | FindLaw
Case opinion for US 9th Circuit CHEIN v. SHUMSKY LA. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
Here's an article written about the case that is more understandable: http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000240.php
And a follow-up: http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000252.php
As a layman, my reading is that Chien had his perjury convictions reversed based on hair-splitting -- his statements about his education were not as 100% false as in this case -- he misstated his university and whether he had a medical specialty vs an area he studied in.
That's not the same as claiming a degree you just don't have... but those 'misstatements' were enough to piss of the trial judge and the State of California, so I can only imagine the kerflufle this sort of thing would cause.
well her own senate paper work shows she received two pay reductions due to performance so she's not above lying even when her own direct evidence contradicts her statement.
I am finding it very hard to trust her story after everything that has come out and transpired.
Again, ganging up on the moderation team that tries their best to facilitate the needs/desires of the Era climate of any given instance is the wrong take-away.
Stop blaming moderation. The stringent moderation is indicative of the hostile environment of this site. If the mod team didn't clamp down on rationally skeptical posts in the past weeks, they get blasted for "siding with rape apologists" and creating an "unsafe environment for survivors." There was literally no course of action, where they win, with how ridiculously fractured Era is over these cases. Just take a second to think before unironically jumping into another premature blame game.
This site's discourse around allegations needs to change on a fundamental level, if we want to make Era a better place for all participants. I feel like pointing fingers at the moderation team is by far the worst course of action.
Stop blaming moderation. The stringent moderation is indicative of the hostile environment of this site. If the mod team didn't clamp down on rationally skeptical posts in the past weeks, they get blasted for "siding with rape apologists" and creating an "unsafe environment for survivors." There was literally no course of action, where they win, with how ridiculously fractured Era is over these cases. Just take a second to think before unironically jumping into another premature blame game.
This site's discourse around allegations needs to change on a fundamental level, if we want to make Era a better place for all participants. I feel like pointing fingers at the moderation team is by far the worst course of action.
I don't question women's allegations. They must be proven or disproven in a court of law.
What's interesting to me is all the Bernie/Obama/Warren fans who just have it out for Biden. All of which who've endorsed Biden. Do they not realize that each of these individuals have teams...TEAMS that do background checks on those who they might endorse, before they endorse? Especially in this climate?
What's interesting to me is all the Bernie/Obama/Warren fans who just have it out for Biden. All of which who've endorsed Biden. Do they not realize that each of these individuals have teams...TEAMS that do background checks on those who they might endorse, before they endorse? Especially in this climate?
For one, to clear this whole situation up with some hard evidence one way or another. If Reade has a transcript here has to be a record of her attending which would prove if she graduated or not. Otherwise how the hell did she get into law school?
There's a lot of shit that doesn't make any sense overall and it's interesting how someone who stepped forward and made a huge accusation all of a sudden has such a checkered history. What motivation does she have when she should have known all this would come to light once the press dug into it? We're missing something here and the ramifications have now expanded to 20 possible conviction overturns.
That's why I still believe, but want more verification. There's still no evidence proving her accusations as false.
Right? It doesn't make any sense.
It should be noted Tara Reade worked in administration briefly for Antioch giving her the opportunity to fabricate paperwork with official letterheads.
I think Seattle University needs to be contacted to find out what evidence was provided of her undergrad degree.
The issue was we said "hey let's wait and vet before we burn the witch" and we were met with bad faith and dishonesty.
Yeah...Reade is going to land in some massive trouble. I can't imagine a single prosecutor that used her being happy. They'll be out for blood.
This is some James Bond level forgery. I don't know how Antioch's departments go, but in my university the administration and registrar were in separate buildings.
Fully agreed. This is a complete mess.
ERA is the only site I've ever been on where people constantly shame moderators into banning people.
They typically do. We don't accept any transcript unless it comes directly from the school. We also can access the Nationa Student Clearinghouse to verify any school a student attended but didn't report on their application.
But yeah maybe not all schools are super strict about that. Especially years and years ago. Also, if the possibility existed that records were tampered with, we wouldn't likely immediately catch that if a credential was shown as earned on an official record. We'd have no reason to question it.
You're saying they chose to be partial to one group of posters instead of being fair and impartial. That's actually worse.
