Two more women have accused former Vice President Joe Biden of touching them inappropriately
at events, bringing the total number of women who have complained
publicly about the prospective 2020 Democratic candidate to four.
The latest accusations were reported by The New York Times. One of the claims dated from 2012, while the other encounter was said to have taken place a few years later.
"Only he knows his intent,” Hill told the Times, before adding, "If something makes you feel uncomfortable, you have to feel able to say it."
In the second incident, former college student Caitlyn Caruso told the paper that Biden "rested his hand on her thigh — even as she squirmed in her seat to show her discomfort — and hugged her 'just a little bit too long' at an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas." Caruso, now 22, told the paper that she was 19 at the time and had just recounted her own story of sexual assault.
Sorry, Joe, we needed you in 2016. After that? Not at all. Your day passed. You chose not to run. Now it's too damn late because you bring too much baggage.
Four women have complained now about the way Joe groped them and how it made them feel. This is not appropriate.
Joe needs to go.
Joe needs to go.
There's the chant right there.
He's an embarrassment and he can't win, not with his groping.
I am supporting Tulsi. I could also vote for Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson easily. I am looking closely at Beto and at Kirsten.
I have no interest in Joe. He should have run in 2016. I said there here back then over and over. He's had a few years not being vice president and he's done nothing to make himself a better candidate. He just finished his fake apology tour for how he treated Anita Hill back in the day (and Jamie Lee Curtis is right, that 'apology' means nothing unless he takes it to Anita's face). Now we're having to deal with all his groping nonsense.
Joe needs to go.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, April 2, 2019. Oh, Joe. Another day of "Oh, Joe." Can we
really endure 19 months of "Oh, Joe" and still see Dems take back the
White House?
Yesterday, Neil Vigdor (HARTFORD COURANT) reported a second woman had come forward to state that former US Vice President Joe Biden had creeped her out with inappropriate behavior as well:
Lappos posted about the alleged incident on the Facebook page of Connecticut Women in Politics
Sunday in response to a similar account by former Nevada legislator
Lucy Flores, which comes as Biden is considering a 2020 run for
president. Flores accused Biden of kissing her on the back of her head
in 2014, when she was a candidate for lieutenant governor.
The response to Lucy Flores and Amy Lappos has been very telling.
Meghan Weight Gain McCain wants you to know that Joe is wonderful, wonderful and nothing bad ever happened to her. She reminds me a lot of Chastity Bono -- I'm talking the pre-Chaz days. Chastity never did a damn thing but ride the family name -- just like Weight Gain McCain. And Chastity also felt the need to weigh in, remember? Mel Gibson was not homophobic, Chastity insisted even though everone knew Mel was homophobic. How did Chastity know he wasn't? Because he was never that way around her.
In other words, while around the gay daughter of the legendary Cher, Mel Gibson was appropriate. That proved only that he acknowledged some boundaries, not that he wasn't homophobic.
Alyssa Milano, the ultimate fake ass, rushed forward to insist Joe never did anything to her. Hey, Alyssa, Joe never did anything to me either. Bob Filner never did anything inappropriate to me (though many other women can't say the same). John Grabby Hands Edwards is the only one I can think of who did anything inappropriate to me -- politician wise, the most recent after him would be a TV star at the height of his TV fame who seemed to think he owned the world and anything -- or anyone -- in it.
I've also seen some, no offense (well maybe a little offense intended), butt ugly women on Twitter -- especially a nurse -- who insist that Joe never did anything to him. Joe's pattern, please remember, is attractive women. If you're butt ugly, he didn't feel the need to nuzzle against you.
Two women are sharing their truths.
And the response?
Well, there's Mika who flirted and f**ked her way to cohosting MORNING JOE who wants to know if she can discuss that one of the women supported Bernie Sanders in 2016? Of course you can discuss that Mika and we can all discuss how you cheated on your husband to sleep with your equally married co-host and how trashy that was and remains. We can also continue to discuss the betting pool on when you two split and how many other women Joe sleeps with in the meantime.
I've seen some people on Twitter -- who I'm sure are well meaning (that's meant sincerely) -- who have wondered recently if Elizabeth Warren, as she pursues the party's presidential nomination will end up getting "the Hillary treatment."
I'm sure they don't mean gushing press and Andrea Mitchell attempting to police her peers on the campaign. That's 2016.
I think the mean 2008.
You can like Hillary Clinton personally or not but hopefully you can agree that what happened in 2008 should never have happened and never needs to happen to a woman again. "Iron my shirts!" She was heckled with that and people -- pundits and hosts on TV, especially MSNBC -- found that funny. Nothing was too far for them to go. They giggled over Hillary "nutcrackers." They smeared her in every way possible. They lied about her -- Bill Moyers, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Dr, Kathleen Hall Jamieson -- on PBS. Click here for a 2008 look back at some of the sexism. Grasp that while this took place, FAIR and its radio program COUNTERSPIN -- supposed media watchdogs -- ignored everything until Hillary was called a "bitch" on TV (on CNN) and then they quickly rushed over it not even identifying the person who had called her a bitch on air (here for Ava and I in real time).
Again, you can like her or not, but hopefully you grasp that what was done to a woman in 2008 was unacceptable. Some of us called it out in real time and that's why we always look puzzled when the 'brave' girls (girls, not women) emerged in 2016 to scream 'sexism!' at things that really weren't sexism and marveled over the fact that these middle-aged girls (Debra Messing, Patty Arquette, Alyssa, etc) didn't say s**t in 2008.
Now two women are speaking and someone like Alyssa has the chance to make up for her hideous silence in 2008. But she can't because she is hideous. Remember, I supported Illeana Douglas when she told her story about Leslie Moonves. Did you not notice that Alyssa never gave Illeana so much as a Tweet of support? She never gave her any support. Because Alyssa was trying to sell a show to a CBS property (THE CW) and she didn't think Leslie Moonves would be toppled so she was going to keep her mouth shut. That passes for 'bravery' among the cowards.
What's interesting is that the 'bros' -- men and women -- are back. They're part of the laughable 'resistance.' And they're trashing these two women who have come forward. They were part of the trashing of Hillary in 2008. They giggled over the attacks on Hillary and now they launch their own attacks.
Two women say they were made uncomfortable by behavior that was clearly inappropriate.
So they rush -- and Alyssa does this too -- to tell us that Joe meant no harm.
I love Bob Filner. When women came forward to talk about what he had done to them? I didn't say, "Oh, he meant no harm!" I didn't shove my nose into their conversation. They had things they needed to air and they needed to discuss and they had every right to do so.
Instead of letting the two women (and I think there will be a few more) discuss what happened to them and all of us addressing it on those terms, you've got the 'resistance' attacking them, laughing at them, mocking them. I'm really bothered, for example, by a comedian who thinks he's sexy (he's really not) and thinks he can have an audience on the left while he mocks these women and makes light of what was done to them.
No, it is not acceptable to go behind a woman, grab her and smell her hair.
That's not professional and it's not acceptable.
And women that Joe has done this too have every right to speak their truth and we long ago should have been addressing this. Joe's intent doesn't matter. And he did this as a high ranking US Senator and as the Vice President so, instead of mocking women, we should be discussing the power issues and how Joe's actions were seen publicly and ignored or made into jokes.
It's inappropriate.
One idiotic 'resistance' member hissed on Twitter that "no candidate will be perfect.''
Joe's actions border on assault. That's not an extreme read on it. Women with less access to power were made uncomfortable by his refusal to honor accepted boundaries, by his invasion of their space and by his hands on their body. That's assault, I'm sorry if the law wasn't taught at your community college. For those of us who studied the law, however, it's very clear that what Joe did was assault.
And wanting a candidate who didn't assault someone is very different from wanting someone who is "perfect."
And if you're a Joe supporter, you should especially close your mouth right now. You need to see if he has the strength to address this in such a way to silence it because, if he doesn't, it is going to be an issue later in any campaign.
'Well Trump's a pig so it will be a battle between two pigs!'
Well 2015 was The Year of the Ass and, in 2016, when voters were forced to choose between two asses, they went with Trump.
Joe Biden needs to address his actions.
He was perfectly comfortable doing what he did in public. He should be able to talk about it. And when one of his sons was publicly humiliated, I weighed in here (I know Joe and, yes, I like Joe) noting that we all fall down but the test is how we dust ourselves off and get back on our feet. Joe later echoed that (which is fine, I'd said to him personally and not just posted it here). Okay, Joe, put those words into practice. Do what you said your son needed to. And if you can't, you should not be running.
I'm bothered by so much of the way this dialogue is taking place. That includes trying to reduce this to a 'woman's issue.' Oh, he groped but he did this for women so it's okay -- that seems to be a talking point. No, it's not okay. More to the point, this is a conversation about power. And women often do not have the power so it's very easy to make this a gendered conversation.
However, on two campuses yesterday discussing Iraq, this issue kept coming up. It's not a gendered issue. Not by the comments I heard. It's an issue about the abuse of power and there are women and men who have experienced and/or observed that type of issue.
Joe voted for the Iraq War. He was also over Iraq for the administration when ISIS rose in that country. Barack couldn't put Hillary in charge because she'd rightly called Nouri al-Maliki a "thug" in a public Senate hearing in April of 2008. Nouri was a thug. He was also prime minister of Iraq. So, once he was elected, Barack couldn't put Hillary in charge of Iraq and instead went with Joe. Joe's actions as vice president including selling the overthrow of the 2010 election (Nouri lost but Joe advocated for him to remain prime minister). Joe supported the corrupt regime of Nouri al-Maliki, someone who terrorized the people of Iraq while stealing their money. Corruption is epidemic in Iraq.
Ammar Karim (AFP) explains:
Yesterday, Neil Vigdor (HARTFORD COURANT) reported a second woman had come forward to state that former US Vice President Joe Biden had creeped her out with inappropriate behavior as well:
A
Connecticut woman says Joe Biden touched her inappropriately and rubbed
noses with her during a 2009 political fundraiser in Greenwich when he
was vice president, drawing further scrutiny to the Democrat and his
history of unwanted contact with women as he ponders a presidential run
"It
wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head," Amy Lappos told The
Courant Monday. "He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub
noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss
me on the mouth."
The response to Lucy Flores and Amy Lappos has been very telling.
Meghan Weight Gain McCain wants you to know that Joe is wonderful, wonderful and nothing bad ever happened to her. She reminds me a lot of Chastity Bono -- I'm talking the pre-Chaz days. Chastity never did a damn thing but ride the family name -- just like Weight Gain McCain. And Chastity also felt the need to weigh in, remember? Mel Gibson was not homophobic, Chastity insisted even though everone knew Mel was homophobic. How did Chastity know he wasn't? Because he was never that way around her.
In other words, while around the gay daughter of the legendary Cher, Mel Gibson was appropriate. That proved only that he acknowledged some boundaries, not that he wasn't homophobic.
Alyssa Milano, the ultimate fake ass, rushed forward to insist Joe never did anything to her. Hey, Alyssa, Joe never did anything to me either. Bob Filner never did anything inappropriate to me (though many other women can't say the same). John Grabby Hands Edwards is the only one I can think of who did anything inappropriate to me -- politician wise, the most recent after him would be a TV star at the height of his TV fame who seemed to think he owned the world and anything -- or anyone -- in it.
I've also seen some, no offense (well maybe a little offense intended), butt ugly women on Twitter -- especially a nurse -- who insist that Joe never did anything to him. Joe's pattern, please remember, is attractive women. If you're butt ugly, he didn't feel the need to nuzzle against you.
Two women are sharing their truths.
And the response?
Well, there's Mika who flirted and f**ked her way to cohosting MORNING JOE who wants to know if she can discuss that one of the women supported Bernie Sanders in 2016? Of course you can discuss that Mika and we can all discuss how you cheated on your husband to sleep with your equally married co-host and how trashy that was and remains. We can also continue to discuss the betting pool on when you two split and how many other women Joe sleeps with in the meantime.
I've seen some people on Twitter -- who I'm sure are well meaning (that's meant sincerely) -- who have wondered recently if Elizabeth Warren, as she pursues the party's presidential nomination will end up getting "the Hillary treatment."
I'm sure they don't mean gushing press and Andrea Mitchell attempting to police her peers on the campaign. That's 2016.
I think the mean 2008.
You can like Hillary Clinton personally or not but hopefully you can agree that what happened in 2008 should never have happened and never needs to happen to a woman again. "Iron my shirts!" She was heckled with that and people -- pundits and hosts on TV, especially MSNBC -- found that funny. Nothing was too far for them to go. They giggled over Hillary "nutcrackers." They smeared her in every way possible. They lied about her -- Bill Moyers, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Dr, Kathleen Hall Jamieson -- on PBS. Click here for a 2008 look back at some of the sexism. Grasp that while this took place, FAIR and its radio program COUNTERSPIN -- supposed media watchdogs -- ignored everything until Hillary was called a "bitch" on TV (on CNN) and then they quickly rushed over it not even identifying the person who had called her a bitch on air (here for Ava and I in real time).
Again, you can like her or not, but hopefully you grasp that what was done to a woman in 2008 was unacceptable. Some of us called it out in real time and that's why we always look puzzled when the 'brave' girls (girls, not women) emerged in 2016 to scream 'sexism!' at things that really weren't sexism and marveled over the fact that these middle-aged girls (Debra Messing, Patty Arquette, Alyssa, etc) didn't say s**t in 2008.
Now two women are speaking and someone like Alyssa has the chance to make up for her hideous silence in 2008. But she can't because she is hideous. Remember, I supported Illeana Douglas when she told her story about Leslie Moonves. Did you not notice that Alyssa never gave Illeana so much as a Tweet of support? She never gave her any support. Because Alyssa was trying to sell a show to a CBS property (THE CW) and she didn't think Leslie Moonves would be toppled so she was going to keep her mouth shut. That passes for 'bravery' among the cowards.
What's interesting is that the 'bros' -- men and women -- are back. They're part of the laughable 'resistance.' And they're trashing these two women who have come forward. They were part of the trashing of Hillary in 2008. They giggled over the attacks on Hillary and now they launch their own attacks.
Two women say they were made uncomfortable by behavior that was clearly inappropriate.
So they rush -- and Alyssa does this too -- to tell us that Joe meant no harm.
I love Bob Filner. When women came forward to talk about what he had done to them? I didn't say, "Oh, he meant no harm!" I didn't shove my nose into their conversation. They had things they needed to air and they needed to discuss and they had every right to do so.
Instead of letting the two women (and I think there will be a few more) discuss what happened to them and all of us addressing it on those terms, you've got the 'resistance' attacking them, laughing at them, mocking them. I'm really bothered, for example, by a comedian who thinks he's sexy (he's really not) and thinks he can have an audience on the left while he mocks these women and makes light of what was done to them.
No, it is not acceptable to go behind a woman, grab her and smell her hair.
That's not professional and it's not acceptable.
And women that Joe has done this too have every right to speak their truth and we long ago should have been addressing this. Joe's intent doesn't matter. And he did this as a high ranking US Senator and as the Vice President so, instead of mocking women, we should be discussing the power issues and how Joe's actions were seen publicly and ignored or made into jokes.
It's inappropriate.
One idiotic 'resistance' member hissed on Twitter that "no candidate will be perfect.''
Joe's actions border on assault. That's not an extreme read on it. Women with less access to power were made uncomfortable by his refusal to honor accepted boundaries, by his invasion of their space and by his hands on their body. That's assault, I'm sorry if the law wasn't taught at your community college. For those of us who studied the law, however, it's very clear that what Joe did was assault.
And wanting a candidate who didn't assault someone is very different from wanting someone who is "perfect."
And if you're a Joe supporter, you should especially close your mouth right now. You need to see if he has the strength to address this in such a way to silence it because, if he doesn't, it is going to be an issue later in any campaign.
'Well Trump's a pig so it will be a battle between two pigs!'
Well 2015 was The Year of the Ass and, in 2016, when voters were forced to choose between two asses, they went with Trump.
Joe Biden needs to address his actions.
He was perfectly comfortable doing what he did in public. He should be able to talk about it. And when one of his sons was publicly humiliated, I weighed in here (I know Joe and, yes, I like Joe) noting that we all fall down but the test is how we dust ourselves off and get back on our feet. Joe later echoed that (which is fine, I'd said to him personally and not just posted it here). Okay, Joe, put those words into practice. Do what you said your son needed to. And if you can't, you should not be running.
I'm bothered by so much of the way this dialogue is taking place. That includes trying to reduce this to a 'woman's issue.' Oh, he groped but he did this for women so it's okay -- that seems to be a talking point. No, it's not okay. More to the point, this is a conversation about power. And women often do not have the power so it's very easy to make this a gendered conversation.
However, on two campuses yesterday discussing Iraq, this issue kept coming up. It's not a gendered issue. Not by the comments I heard. It's an issue about the abuse of power and there are women and men who have experienced and/or observed that type of issue.
Joe voted for the Iraq War. He was also over Iraq for the administration when ISIS rose in that country. Barack couldn't put Hillary in charge because she'd rightly called Nouri al-Maliki a "thug" in a public Senate hearing in April of 2008. Nouri was a thug. He was also prime minister of Iraq. So, once he was elected, Barack couldn't put Hillary in charge of Iraq and instead went with Joe. Joe's actions as vice president including selling the overthrow of the 2010 election (Nouri lost but Joe advocated for him to remain prime minister). Joe supported the corrupt regime of Nouri al-Maliki, someone who terrorized the people of Iraq while stealing their money. Corruption is epidemic in Iraq.
Ammar Karim (AFP) explains:
Nationwide horror over the March
21 capsizing of the overloaded riverboat in the northern city of Mosul,
which claimed 100 lives, mostly of women and children, has given way to a
clamour for provincial officials to be put on trial.
Graft is endemic across Iraq, not
only in the city the Islamic State group controlled for three years
before their expulsion in July 2017.
The country ranks among the world's worst offenders in Transparency International's annual Corruption Perceptions Index.
Since 2004, a year after the
US-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, a total of $218 billion has
vanished into the pockets of shady politicians and businessmen,
according to parliament.
That is more than Iraq's GDP.
Few officials have been brought
to account, and amnesties have allowed many to evade justice, only
partially repaying the stolen funds.
For the past week, the cry of "corruption is killing us" has been ringing across Mosul.
@sinanantoon & I seem 2 agree on many things re#Iraq.In his latest article on #Mosul ferry, he writes in Arabic what may roughly translate to, "removing 1 or more officials frm power will yield zero change in the wider corruption network involving both militias and politicians"
Fear of corruption disrupts the reconstruction of liberated cities, and influential investors take advantage of the opportunity, by @Mustafa_Habib33
#Iraq
Quotations : The occupation of Iraq produced a distorted political process, marked by corruption and sectarianism.
ISIS is not gone in Iraq. They have morphed and will continue to morph. Saturday, NPR's MORNING EDITION featured a conversation about Iraq:
KORVA COLEMAN, HOST:
Last week, President Trump and
Syrian democratic forces claimed victory over Islamic State in Syria.
But what exactly does that mean? Syria's neighbor, Iraq, may provide
some answers. Victory over ISIS was declared there in 2017 after
U.S.-backed forces regained control of Mosul. Mara Redlich Revkin, a
fellow at Yale Law School's Center for Global Legal Challenges, has
spent a lot of time there. She says life after ISIS involves a lot of
criminal trials against people suspected of joining or aiding the group.
She's witnessed some trials.
Revkin told me about a man named
Khaled. He worked at a slaughterhouse that ISIS took control of, leaving
him with a choice - stay at the job and work for ISIS or leave and face
retaliation.
MARA REDLICH REVKIN: Khaled, like
many residents of Mosul, decided that cooperation was the only way to
survive. So he continued working in the slaughterhouse. He claimed that
he was never trained. He never received combat training or used a weapon
or participated in any military operations on behalf of the group. But
nonetheless, three years later, when Iraqi security forces, supported by
the international coalition, recaptured Mosul, he was 1 of more than
90,000 people who have been detained on suspicion of association with
the group. And he was arrested solely on the basis of testimony from a
secret informant who had apparently witnessed him pledging allegiance,
even though Khaled insisted that this pledge was involuntary and
coerced.
So, you know, during the trial, I
saw him explain that his work consisted only of feeding and caring for
animals at the slaughterhouse. But nonetheless, he was sentenced to 15
years in prison after a trial that lasted less than 30 minutes. And the
judges actually told him that he was lucky to receive such a lenient
sentence because the crime for which he was convicted, which was
membership in a terrorist group, generally brings capital punishment.
COLEMAN: A lot of post-ISIS life
is figuring out who was or who was not involved in ISIS and bringing the
appropriate perpetrators to justice. This is done mostly through
courts?
REVKIN: Yes, it is. And it's
happening both in federal Iraq and in the Kurdish region. The primary
legal instrument for a prosecution is the 2005 anti-terrorism law which
is very harsh and also very quite vaguely worded. So Article 4 requires
the death penalty for anyone who has, quote, "committed, incited,
planned, financed or assisted a terror act" - and a life sentence for
anyone who covers up such an act or harbors those who perpetrated it.
And the harboring language is particularly important because this has
been used as justification to prosecute a lot of family members of
alleged Islamic State affiliates.
So if you are the wife or child
or a mother or father of an Islamic State fighter and living in the same
house as that person, does that mean harboring? I think a lot of courts
and Iraqi judges I've talked to would say yes. Another element of this
law is the definition of a terrorist under Article 2 as anyone who has
organized, chaired or participated in an armed terrorist gang.
And a word like participation is
just so incredibly broad. And when you think about what that means in
the context of a place like Mosul, where the Islamic State controlled
the entire economy, had a monopoly on violence and then was also
controlling borders and entry and exit, does it mean that anyone paying
taxes there was participating? Or if you sold food to an Islamic State
fighter, did that make you a participant and therefore a terrorist?
Corruption and ISIS are linked. It's one of the issues, corruption, that gave rise to ISIS in Iraq. An unresponsive government attacks its own citizens and ISIS rises in Iraq.
Barack may think his refusing to take Nouri's post-2012 election congratulatory phone call (he fobbed the call of on Joe Biden, refusing to speak to Nouri himself) was some sort of punishment but it wasn't. His embrace of Nouri in 2010 set the stage for the rise of ISIS. And that's something a candidate Joe Biden will have to answer for.
New
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: The forever war and the forever increas...
- TV: AMAZON and the corporate media work to tarnish...
- Jussie was never 'cleared'
- Tweets that matter
- The slow death of out of shape America (Dona)
- From The TESR Test Kitchen
- Tweet of the week
- This edition's playlist
- Iraq: Women Plant Trees for Peace | IWPR
- How Trillions of Our Tax Dollars Are Stolen
- Justice For Abu Ghraib
- Highlights
The following sites updated:
Back in town-ow-own
Elizabeth Warren
