We don’t need to see an article from the Washington Post to know the main differences between Tara Reade and Christine Blasey-Ford, but thanks Donna Brazile.
The biggest difference, of course, is that Tara Reade has witnesses who can corroborate her story and other evidence.
Christine Blasey-Ford didn’t have anything but a memory she proved wasn’t all that great.
The other big difference is that Blasey-Ford accused a Republican, and Reade dared to accuse a Democrat.
But you do you, Donna.
There is a huge difference between Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade https://t.co/R4YjEl6DWy
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) May 17, 2020
From the Washington Post:
In sum, Reade’s story is riddled with inconsistencies. There are plenty of contemporaneous witnesses (including those who would have received a complaint and say they did not) to dispute her allegations. Questions about her credibility abound.
“Believe women” does not mean we must be blind to facts or engage in willful blindness. Sexual assault is a crime. In our system of justice and in the court of public opinion, facts still matter, and not all allegations are equally meritorious. Some are downright false. With regard to Reade, it’s long past time the media stopped indulging in the notion that if you believe Ford, you must believe Reade.
Hurr DURR.
What did she think would happen when she shared this? Did she really think people would be like, ‘WHOA, the Washington Post is so right! Biden is totes innocent and it’s super different because he’s a Democrat and stuff.’
Because she is,accusing your guy. If you believed Ford you have to believe Reade.
— Kellylayne (@Kellylayne10) May 18, 2020
Yeah…Reade has people that can corroborate her account. Ford didn't. #BelieveAllWomen pic.twitter.com/jSDFhmF0fo
— Kevin Barnard (@KevyB1990) May 17, 2020
Even you can’t be this mind-numbingly, headache-inducing, blindly stoopid… pic.twitter.com/Kjlfi3kKra
— ? At Liberty (@tahoebearrr) May 18, 2020
There is. One can remember when and where and has people to corroborate her. The other’s own named friend denied that the gathering even took place. But we get it. The difference is in who is accused. When it’s your guy, there is no such thing as “credibly accused”. #Hypocrites
— Holly Thornton (@beachmamax2) May 17, 2020
Yes the difference is Reade remembers specifics unlike the discredited Christine Blasey Ford who was ultimately looking to ruin a man
— Dr Florida Redneck Elf Unleashed™ (@TheRogue_Elf) May 18, 2020
Yes Reade is more credible. 1000 times.
— steve wolf ?? (@brisque) May 17, 2020
Weird. Headline right on but article is idiocy. Usually it’s the other way around. The key difference is Ms. Ford had ZERO facts. Where. When. Who. How she got there. Or home. And ZERO collaboration, real time or historic. Ms. Reade has both, facts and collaboration.
— Doug E Fresh (@dgerstner33) May 17, 2020
Maybe that was the point Donna was trying to make?
JUST KIDDING.
Aces, Donna.
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member