While we might worry about participating in politics at a higher moral level, this is just the "perfect as the enemy of the good" framing of Biden's candidacy.

I never buy the "perfect as the enemy of the good" standard for Democrats, whether it's from our own DU members or the right wing.

This 'report' keeps making digital media rounds and is becoming filler for their news. Pandemic poppycock posting. Salon can go suck it.

I'll worry about fingers on a neck and shoulder touching when Disaster Donnie dares bring it up.

Which will be never.

It is a very well balanced article that explains why good reporters aren't blasting the Intercept piece.

for 8 years. Where was she then?

Times have changed, and lots of people have come forward recently about allegations from long ago (see Harvey Weinstein). I would not want to dismiss a woman's claim because she didn't make it sooner or didn't make it at the time. So yeah, this seems bogus, but "where was she then" is not a response I'd go with.

candidates dead on the ground; it's stupid clay pigeon shooting.

Obama and others warned us Democrats about this bullshit at least six months ago. And don't think this is the first time a jury has seen it.

"BUTBUTBUTBUT...!" BUT NOTHING. Virtue signaling must feed the bored egos out there.

Again, Salon can go suck it.

about him putting his hand on her neck.

Sorry, she doesn't get to extend and elaborate on her story now. She had her chance a year ago, and then again when he announced his run, and then again when the primaries began.

She doesn't suddenly get more credible after her fav, Bernie, does badly in the primaries.

Especially with her Tic tock tweet on March 3.

specifically when Biden was VP.

the assault, if it really happened. And she didn't.

In light of the whole situation, I don't believe her. More information could change my mind, but the Salon writer says she couldn't get the brother to talk to her, or Tara to name the friend she supposedly talked to.

It's rare, but a certain number of women do lie about these things. I haven't seen enough evidence that Tara is telling the truth, and there are some major red flags.

...that "if it's true, why didn't she report it back then" is a bad reason to not believe a woman. In this case, there are other less problematic reasons to doubt her story.

She seems about as credible as Larry Sinclair....

though they are both good. They just look at the story from different angles.

The Salon piece the OP posted explains why the MSM hasn't been echoing the Intercept's story -- there are major red flags.

now I will.

of the Krassensteins report on the Timeline and various more details.

in other places before I read theirs. It did a good job of putting everything together, though.

But Marcotte added some key new info, including the fact that she couldn't get the confirmation Halper claimed to have gotten. Tara's brother wouldn't speak to Marcotte; and Tara refused to name her friend.

not being able to get confirmation from TR's brother. because he wouldn't even speak to her. Since Tara claims to have told them at the time she would need them to back her up. Not just from Halper.

I hadn't read that much of what Krassensteins' reported.. so it was really enlightening.. especially when they put it all in perspective with the Timeline.

And, that detail about TR praising Assange.

It explains there are a number of red flags to Tara's claims in the Intercept story, which is why other outlets are proceeding with caution

performance in 2016. They were, after all, the home of HA Goodman and Walker Bragman.

and she's written a solid, measured piece here.

at Salon. She is their one bright spot.

I think she meant to put the name Donald Trump there!! He is the one that supposedly raped someone, and not just a someone a 13 year old girl!!!

anyone...ignore also.

that I haven't seen anywhere else.

For example, this reporter couldn't get Tara's brother to speak to her. And Tara wouldn't tell the reporter the name of the girlfriend she supposedly spoke with at the time, so the reporter couldn't confirm the Intercept story.

I don't know why a story that explains why the Intercept story is NOT being echoed by the MSM, and lists some red flags about her claims, should be trashed.

It explains the red flags that have been keeping the MSM from jumping on the Intercept story, including this -- which I've seen nowhere else:

Marcotte, the reporter, tried to get a confirmation out of the supposed witnesses to Reade's story -- her brother and her friend. The brother refused to speak with the reporter and Tara refused to give the name of her friend to Marcotte.

So there is nothing to this story except for Tara's constantly changing claims.

article is full of red flags about TR.

Saying she was in love with Putin.

Is that true?

of Reade compared to the woman in the video. Her teeth, her facial structure, her eyes -- all different.

And the reporter here confirmed it, after talking to the adult children of the mentally ill woman.

Where it says: