Andrei brought it up already, and I want to chime in. Tara Reade’s sexual assault accusation against Joe Biden is credible. She is consistent in her testimony; she told people at the time; and it was taken seriously by her family, to the point that her mother called into the Larry King Show in 1993 to talk about it anonymously.
As is often the case, no one was there when the alleged events happened; and the accuser’s background is … imperfect: Her lavish praise of Vladimir Putin just a few years ago certainly raises eyebrows. That’s eccentric at best. But that doesn’t mean the assault as she tells it didn’t happen. We look at the rest of the evidence we have.
Most people who have voted in the primaries didn’t know this. Probably most still don’t. Biden was known to have made women physically uncomfortable — and we need to appreciate how egregious his known behavior had to be, just for someone to complain about it publicly. But most Dem voters still regarded him as the “safe” choice, and head-to-head poll numbers versus Trump certainly gave them that impression.
What now? Biden and his staff deny the accusation; and maybe there’s nowhere else for this thing to go, especially in the midst of a national crisis. What’s the alternative scenario? If Biden somehow dropped out, it would trigger a procedural free-for-all, leaving the nomination process almost totally in the hands of the delegates, which are no longer being chosen democratically, cf. New York’s cancellation of the D primary. It’s already a mess.
I am generally against celebrity politics. Arguing ad hominem about the personal qualities of politicians, even the President, is overrated compared to the size and structure of that person’s coalition, the basis of their power, the work they do behind the scenes, and the people they choose to do the job of government.
But this isn’t nothing. This puts all of us in a bind. I don’t want to have to defend one sexual assailant versus an even-more-notorious sexual assailant. Here’s the ugly choice, and I detest it: Of course we still have to vote for Biden, because he’s not a fascist. We are on the brink of authoritarianism, in the midst of a pandemic, and — not coincidentally! — facing ecological collapse.
I don’t know how promoting Biden to the Presidency affects the daily experience of sexual assault for women, and whether it enables further bad action. It doesn’t seem good. In any event, as with Bill Clinton, this is not the case I want to have to make. We can argue for Biden as a means of harm reduction — but that doesn’t mean there is no harm.
Christopher says
Is there anything that would make a woman’s allegation not credible on its face? I ask because on our side of the spectrum, as soon as an accusation is made many immediately deem it credible. My understanding is that this particular accusation has evolved quite a bit from a little handsy to outright assault, sounds like the sexual assault equivalent of a “fish story” if you ask me.
SomervilleTom says
I’m profoundly uncomfortable about what the term “credible accusation” means in a society founded on the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”.
I get that we are not necessarily talking about criminal accusations, and so the standard of proof isn’t necessarily “beyond reasonable doubt”. Civil cases that involve more than money (which these accusations certainly are) often rely on “clear and convincing evidence”. The most common civil standard is “preponderance of the evidence” — even that requires evidence.
All these rest on the reality that it is impossible to prove a negative. Yet in too many cases a requirement to prove that the allegation did not happen is exactly the result of our current process. One extreme of this is, of course, the proverbial witch trial. It is very hard for a person to prove that they are not a witch or wizard to those with an inclination to believe to the contrary (for whatever reasons).
For several centuries, American jurisprudence has explicitly favored letting a guilty party go free over convicting an innocent party. Yet our current standard towards sexual harassment and sexual assault seems to be exactly the inverse.
I therefore must take issue with, for example, the following characterization of this particular case:
The difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump has nothing to do with notoriety. We have the “bus tape”, for crying out loud. We have Mr. Trump proudly proclaiming his numerous assaults — against teenage beauty contestants, no less — BROADCAST on the Howard Stern show. There is no doubt that Mr. Trump did these things. None.
There is no comparable evidence in the case of Joe Biden. None. There are no tapes. There are no outright broadcast confessions. The fact that her mother called a talk show means only that her mother believed her. I don’t doubt that she told her mother and brother this. It does not mean that the event took place. We don’t know what, if anything, happened. We don’t know who flirted with whom. We don’t know who initiated what, if any, touching. We know that one person says one thing and the other says another. There’s nothing new about that.
I know this is really REALLY uncool to say, but some women DO lie. As any father who, like me, has been through a contentious and hostile divorce. I shudder to think of what my life would be today if the self-serving lies of my ex-wife had been taken as seriously as those of Ms. Reade.
I think that if we start with the presumption of innocence, then the “bind” goes away entirely. I don’t think the choice is “ugly” at all. I think we have a choice between tyranny and the rule of law. The standard of “innocent until proven guilty” means nothing if we don’t defend it when it comes under assault — and that standard is clearly under assault in this case.
centralmassdad says
The evidence against Biden seems at least as strong (or rather, as weak) as the evidence against Justice Kavanaugh.
It rather seems like the Correct Liberal Ideology is “Believe the Woman!!, unless she accuses someone on our side, in which case she is probably a lying skank.”
SomervilleTom says
Oh come on. Where are the other women stepping forward, with corroborating evidence, against Joe Biden?
The “Correct Liberal Ideology” is also to scourge Bill Clinton, which you know I do not do or subscribe to.
Did YOU believe Paula Jones?
terrymcginty says
Details, details. Why bother with details? No one else here seems interested in the details Somerville Tom.
Charley on the MTA says
I think Juanita Broaddrick is credible.
Christopher says
I had Clinton-allegation fatigue by the time she surfaced. At that point I felt like saying hey, why not? He had been accused of every other major crime in the book including drug running and murder by his enemies. Might as well add rape just to complete the rap sheet.
SomervilleTom says
WAIT a minute — are you saying you don’t believe that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster?
Surely Ambrose Evans-Pritchard didn’t just invent his allegations. Are you really saying he’s a real borderline-personality-disorder person?
After all, if the allegations were good enough for a sitting Supreme Court justice, they ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
SomervilleTom says
Interesting. Ken Starr, who was rabidly pursuing every possible avenue of attack against Mr. Clinton and who had access to essentially unlimited investigatory resources, came to the opposite conclusion.
Yet even if we stipulate that Ms. Broaddrick is credible, Ms. Reade brings no similar evidence.
We do not now and will never know., Here are Ms. Reade’s own words, as recounted in sympathetic pieces like this:
She’s using fancy language to say that she did not and does not have the kind of proof that properly convicted Mr. Weinstein. She is explicitly saying that her goal is character assassination — ending Joe Biden’s campaign is the obvious meaning of “something more existential”.
Your willingness to believe Juanita Broaddrick does not strengthen the case in support of Ms. Reade against Mr. Biden.
jconway says
Kavanaugh had other accusers who went with him to Yale. Dr. Ford risked a whole lot more from a much more accomplished career and life the Tara Reade. Dr. Ford did not praise Kavanaugh multiple times as a defender of women as Tara Reade has with Joe Biden. Dr. Ford did not repeatedly praise Vladimir Putin or make 180 degree changes on her politics to go from praising “the man I used to work for fighting for women” (her words) in 2017 to saying what she’s saying today.
Like all the other infamous bad men from MeToo other accusations against Biden would have come out. This story and similar ones would have come out during the initial wave of women rightly complaining of discomfort at the way Biden touched them. He just does not strike me as a credible sexual predator. Even Franken has multiple credible accusers going up to 2016. We have one women making one complaint that only close family say is true and one clip from Larry King that could be about any Senator. This was the time when Bob Packwood roamed the halls, a Senator infamous for pulling the move Reade is ascribing to Biden.
There could be better evidence and other witnesses to this specific incident or other victims who come forward. It is a very serious problem which like a lot of others Team Biden has encountered, is not going away.
Charley on the MTA says
“could be about any Senator” — Look, CNN checked into that call to Larry King from San Luis Obispo, and it’s Reade’s mother. I’m strongly guessing that they asked someone other than Reade for confirmation that that’s her voice. It wouldn’t be that hard to confirm.
It checks out. Now a neighbor remembers hearing the story from Reade.
SomervilleTom says
Charley, please stop.
Nobody has challenged the authenticity of the Larry King call. It still isn’t evidence. If your ex-wife tells all the neighbors that you beat her and raped your children, that doesn’t make the accusations true — even if the neighbors call talk-show hosts to repeat them.
EVERY mother should believe what her adult child tells her. Ms. Reade’s mother ALSO told Ms. Reade to take it to the police. That didn’t happen.
jconway says
I respect where you are coming from Charley. I think this blog has been at its best when it criticizes the shortcomings on our side of the fence. I supported the resignations of Franken and Conyers precisely to hold our side to a higher standard. I agree-without relitigating it-with your take on the Clinton accusations. I think this one stands out to me for how weak it is compared to the others we have seen during MeToo and compared to the very real and and far more credible testimony of Lucy Flores and others directed against Biden.
It is unfortunate that Harris or Warren did not bring the scrutiny the former brought to Biden over the largely irrelevant issue of busing or the latter brought to Mike Bloomberg over comparatively lesser accusations. This primary process was not flawed, but the candidates made the flaw of leaving Biden largely untouched by criticism. I think that is a concern, because we know how low the Republicans will go.
I think we can try and anticipate their responses without going into the sour grapes of Sanders supporters or taking the Reade accusation as Gospel. It isn’t-yet-and maybe it does not need to be to cause damage. Biden should respond better than he has. I think you are asking the right questions and drawing the wrong (for now) conclusions. I worry if others are doing the same.
John Tehan says
Hey Charley, that neighbor’s story doesn’t look very credible- it turns out that Reade called her and reminded her of that conversation. In a story that already has a lot of holes, this is yet another credibility problem for Reade.
https://twitter.com/WeWillRiseOhio/status/1255186975830794240?s=19
doubleman says
That quote doesn’t say what you think it does.
SomervilleTom says
Don’t you see how absurd the entire thing is?
John Tehan says
Yes it does – she explicitly told the interviewer that she came forward with this story after Reade called her. Read what I said again – in a story with all the holes that this one has, sudden corroboration after talking to the alleged victim is too “on the nose” for me.
Christopher says
Hey – another country heard from – welcome back!
Christopher says
I think what usually makes sense is to investigate without prejudice. The other trap the accused can easily fall into is a denial, especially if even a slight doubt is cast on the reliability of the accuser often gets immediately spun as attacking the victim.
terrymcginty says
Thank you for your extraordinary eloquence, Somerville Tom.
Charley on the MTA says
“Credible”, to me means “worthy of being taken seriously”, plausible, with some supporting evidence. I agree that no accusation should be simply accepted 100%.
And I did mention Reade’s eccentric (and maybe worse) statements of the last few years. But I’m focused on her 1993 allegations, and whether that story adds up. Maybe it doesn’t; maybe Biden hired a real borderline-personality-disorder person. But no victim is required to have lived a perfect life, however we define it after the fact.
Christopher says
My attitude about these things tends to be put up or shut up. If you are serious about your allegations either file a police report or a lawsuit and let the accused have his day in court.
bob-gardner says
Roy Moore thought the same thing.
Christopher says
Your point?
SomervilleTom says
Did you at least inform yourself about the yearbook Mr. Moore signed? The last time you joined this topic you didn’t seem to know anything about it.
You know, the one that the 30-something up-and-coming DA signed for the 16 year old waitress in his favorite restaurant?
SomervilleTom says
I make no accusations about Ms. Reade’s emotional health — “borderline-personality-disorder person” is your characterization, not mine. Nor do I require that she be perfect.
What I’ve said is that it isn’t possible to know. We each read tea-leaves in a cup differently, and that’s why we long ago stopped accepting such beliefs as “evidence” in anything of substance.
doubleman says
Drop him.
There’s so little good about him and too many risks he can’t get the job done.
He ain’t worth it.
Christopher says
You’ve hated him all along and are enjoying this too much. Sanders won’t be the nominee – deal with it!
fredrichlariccia says
” Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.” Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of America’s nuclear Navy
terrymcginty says
This goes over a line. This is totally predictable propaganda being spread, just like 2016. No different.
I have posted hundreds of posts on this blog at the encouragement of Fred Rich LaRiccia.
I will no longer be participating in any way on this blog.
You have decided to spread Russian propaganda on your front page. For me this goes over a line.
I think you need to re-read The. Crucible. Most of you who write routinely on here need to do so, with the notable exception of Somerville Tom, whose comment here is a patient and brilliant dissection and analysis of this matter..
God help this country if the experience of Hillary Clinton and her “damned emails” is going to be so easily repeated by gullible, yes gullible pundits on the left.
Actually, to say you are gullible is far too charitable.
Please read yourself some Malcolm Nance and learn how Russian intelligence works. Fast. I’m outa here.
Christopher says
I’m not completely on board with this particular diary, but I don’t think you need to go after Charley like that. Your presence here makes this blog richer – please reconsider.
terrymcginty says
I appreciate that very much Christopher, but this is really outrageous.
jotaemei says
I agree that it would be helpful that we all re-read The Crucible from time to time – especially when we wind up taking the wrong lesson from it. It’s very lamentable, for instance, if we become unable to see the parallels in the hysteria in conspiracy theories about Vladimir Putin and Russians hiding under our beds, and invading our brains as if by witchcraft, and get to the point of citing discredited serial witch-spotting grifters. like, say Malcolm Nance. 🙁
SomervilleTom says
Heh. One hundred million dollars buys a lot of black magic, don’t you think?
Is this example of just one of many large cash payments from Russia just another example of “hysteria”? Speaking of conspiracies, what happened to the raft of ongoing justice department investigations and indictments of various players funneling Russian money into GOP coffers? Are you joining Mr. Trump in asserting a “deep-state conspiracy” against Mr. Trump?
And what, exactly, does concern about Vladimir Putin have to do with the accusations of Tara Reade?
couves says
In today’s Democratic party you can get called a “Russian Asset” for simply critiquing US foreign policy.
jconway says
When has this ever happened here? I share most of those criticisms but also recognize Putin or Maduro are not on the side of the angels either. The failures of two decades of mission creep in the failed war on terror and the legacy of bad Cold War backed puppet regimes do not outweigh the brazen violation of international law and human rights that Putin regularly engages in. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, so even if Putin is correct to critique American overreach he does so to advance his own agenda of reviving Russian hegemony over the Soviet satellites.
couves says
My comment wasn’t directed at you personally. But are you really disputing that this happens? “Russian Asset” is literally what Senator Clinton had called Tulsi Gabbard. The party was winning elections for being anti-war not so long ago. Today, you can’t criticize CIA war crimes without some insinuation that you love dictators… shades of the GOP “why do you love Saddam so much?” line we got in 2003.
jconway says
I mean there’s a lot of odd behavior in the Tulsi camp, for me it’s less about Putin and her close embrace of Modi’s nationalism and Assad as an anti-ISIS ally. Both odd, and largely in line with the Putin vision. You can support the international liberal order and multilateral institution building while opposing wars of choice. Bernie is largely in that camp. Tulsi was more libertarian or paleocon. Against interventions and promoting human rights via American soft power. Against sanctions and other alternatives to wars that can change the behavior of rogue states. She was more of an Iran hawk as well and voted against the deal. There’s a reason Steve Bannon likes her.
Christopher says
She is, shall we say, an odd duck. I believe she has progressive stances such as supporting single-payer health care, but what most turned me off about her was what seems to be a very isolationist foreign policy. As I recall, HRC did not name her as a Russian asset, but she jumped on it like she had a guilty conscience prompting Hillary to only comment “if the shoe fits.” This prompted Tulsi to let fly a tweet that was so nasty that if her name weren’t on it I would have assumed came from Trump. She so wanted to support Sanders in 2016 that she stepped down as DNC Vice-Chair, a post that required neutrality. She voted present on both impeachment articles against Trump, which I’m not sure what accomplished. The one consistent thing about her seems to be hatred of HRC, for which I do not know the origin.
couves says
It was widely reported that Clinton’s comments were aimed at Gabbard. Clinton’s spokesperson corroborated those reports.
Gabbard served in a war that Clinton had supported. She saw first hand the consequences of her bad judgement and had good reason to support a different candidate. By stepping-down from the DNC, she did the honorable thing. Clinton’s supporters did not do the same — they hardly proved to be neutral actors.
Hillary made this personal, the moment she said Gabbard was compromised by a foreign power. For a Presidential candidate to make such an unsupported accusation against someone who served this country is disgraceful. Clinton deserves to be called-out in the strongest possible terms.
couves says
Tulsi is the rare Hindu-American Congresswoman, so of course she’s going to meet with Modi. Obama did the same as President, which no one really had a problem with. The troubling issue here is the willingness of people on the left to target a religious minority. A Boston NPR host even accused Gabbard of belonging to a cult (to her face, in an interview Gabbard walked-out on).. This sort of character assassination is disgusting, it deserves to be called-out and it only happens because Gabbard dares to question US foreign policy.
Regarding our Syrian intervention, I don’t know how you could consider this an exercise in “soft power” or liberal internationalism. The CIA literally trained an army, with its neocon boosters bragging about their body count. This is illegal in every way imaginable.
Even if we are taking the realist perspective…. CIA forces fought alongside Al-Qaeda more than they fought against it. Our Syrian intervention under Obama was always about defeating an Iranian/Russian proxy (Assad), rather than Al-Qaeda.
Gabbard is right, we should have stepped-back to let Assad and Russia defeat Al-Qaeda. All the CIA accomplished was to increase the duration and bloodshed of the war. Prevailing against Assad would have only been possible by making common-cause with Al-Qaeda (to an even greater extent than we were already). They would have massacred Levantine religious minorities. It would have been a disaster. Gabbard’s position on Syria is the biggest no-brainer since the Iraq war.
But Russia is involved, so we see Democrats disparaging one of the few politicians with a reality-based perspective on Syria.
couves says
I also disagree with your description of Gabbard as a hawk. Her proposed censure of Trump included his withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Treaty, and a number of other crimes far more significant than the actual articles of impeachment. I said this at the time, but I think we could have put far greater pressure on Trump, by highlighting his hawkish middle eastern foreign policy. It’s all there in Gabbard’s resolution. There’s a reason she was endorsed by both Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel (who endorsed both her and Bernie).
couves says
I’m glad no one here is calling Gabbard a “Russian Asset,” but just look at the laundry list of other stuff…this is why there is so little critical thinking in Washington. If you criticize the Washington Consensus on foreign policy or economics, the party and media will blast you with a long list of fake scandals. No one, not even a prominent Representative and Iraq War veteran, will be spared. Just being an honorable and decent person counts for nothing if you dare to think outside the lines drawn by our betters. It’s appalling.
jconway says
I do not think being an Assad or Modi apologist qualifies as foreign policy leadership. The outside the box realism I like is Bernie assembling a successful Senate coalition to get America out of Yemen’s civil war.
Syria would look a lot more like Libya today, a failed state for sure, but one without a major genocide had we used limited air strikes to knock out Assad’s ability to drop barrel bombs and chemical weapons on his people. That is not regime change, but genocide prevention. An opportunity that was lost the second Russian planes and shock troops occupied those bases. I opposed the eventual resolution Obama put forward (expecting it to fail IMHO) since it lacked an exit strategy and a timetable. It came three years too late to make a difference.
Speaking of religious minorities abandoned by America, where was Tulsi when we abandoned the Kurds to the Turks? Was that the kind of realism you endorse?
Modi had not revealed himself to be governing like a Hindu nationalist as PM. Obama cutting trade deals and continuing the nuclear deal he started with Singh made sense. This was before he eliminated Jammu Kashmiri sovereignty and stripped Muslim Indians of their citizenship. Tulsi was a cheerleader endorsed by many of Modi’s American supporters.
She’s like Ron Paul, not Bernie Sanders. Sanders supports diplomacy, engagement, and multilateralism. There’s a difference between realism and isolationism, and she’s a lot closer to Trumps Jacksonian impulses than Paul’s Jeffersonian ones.
jconway says
Anyway we are wasting ink on a washed up Congresswoman who won’t even win re-election and who managed to win a single delegate from Samoa.
couves says
Who is Assad perusing a genocide against? The ethnic minorities are all on his side, because they’re justifiably terrified of Al-Qaeda. Can you appreciate why they don’t share the American vision of a failed state with Al-Qaeda roaming around?
Gabbard mentions the Kurds in her censure resolution .
couves says
And BTW, “Assad apologist” is just a smear used against anyone who questioned Obama’s illegal CIA mission. No one cares about Assad, he just happens to be the guy we were targeting for overthrow.
betsey says
GOOD RIDDANCE!
jconway says
I don’t see how that helps us move forward. I have disagreed largely agreeably with Terry. At the end of the day, more voters selected his candidate over my two preferred candidates and his candidate now has my support. In a democracy, that’s as it should be. It turns out ordinary voters were just as moderate and risk averse as the dreaded superdelegates. Who can blame them seeing this disaster unfold before our eyes.
So until a more credible or corroborated accusation comes forward, I view this issue as a critical political test for the Biden campaign. One they are falling woefully short of heading off. I do not think we have to fall over backward to validate the claim of someone who clearly has schizophrenic political loyalties that compromise her testimony in my view. I do not dismiss Ms. Reade entirely, many women have complained about unwanted touching in the past and I do not doubt something like what happened to Lucy Flores happened to Tara Reade. I do not accept her version of events as scripture either, it’s a jump from harassment to assault.
SomervilleTom says
I welcome pretty much all voices to BMG. We have few enough writers (as opposed to readers) that I don’t like to see any regular contributor leave. I therefore can’t agree with the sentiment of this.
Many of us (including yours truly) have taken a “sabbatical” from BMG for a few weeks or months. I hope that Terry returns to BMG after such a break.
Christopher says
BMG has been slower overall the last couple of years. There were three posts today which is busy these days. I remember when that would be considered a light day.
jconway says
People were really nasty in 2008 too, but they stayed engaged here and fell behind the eventual nominee. At 20 I was a lot less likely to fall behind Hillary, but at 32 Biden is a no brainer. Doubleman and Joetaemi have college emails, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they’ll mature as they see ups and downs in future cycles.
doubleman says
I’m 38.
I’ve seen a lot and I’ve seen where these overtures to “grow up” have led. And I know where I live and how the federal election process works.
Please realize where we are with this candidate.
SomervilleTom says
@Please realize where we are with this candidate:
I don’t like where we are either, although perhaps for different reasons.
My wife and I were just today observing that the very fact that the presumptive nominees for this election will be Donald Trump and Joe Biden is itself clear and compelling evidence of how our political system is failing in its most important purpose.
I think Joe Biden is a terrible candidate. It is a simply terrible situation that he is the only candidate we now have. Bernie Sanders was, in my opinion, even worse.
We rely on primary voters to make this choice, and Joe Biden is the overwhelming choice of those voters. In my view, there are only two ways to get where we are:
1. Primary voters, for whatever reason, ignored better candidates in favor of Joe Biden, or
2. Joe Biden was the only choice that primary voters perceived to be viable
Neither of those alternatives provides any confidence that the nominee, even if elected, will be able to do the job.
I have seen nothing that convinces me that the allegations from Ms. Reade have enough substance to do anything but hurt Mr. Biden in the November election — and so far as I can tell, that is the only motivation of Ms. Reade in making them.
I am gravely concerned about what some observers call “some cognitive decline”. From the same piece:
I think it would be even worse for the party to nominate Mr. Sanders. Even worse would be for the party to attempt to draft Hillary Clinton.
I don’t see many options. They seem to be:
1. Choose a nominee through some non-democratic process involving closed doors and cigars.
2. Repeat the primary season in some ad-hoc and accelerated way — relying on electronic voting because it is the only mechanism that can deliver fast results without exposing anybody to the Coronavirus
3. Proceed with Mr. Biden knowing full well that he may not be capable of governing on January 20, 2021 — never mind January 20, 2025.
Speaking of non-democratic processes, I haven’t seen any commentary yet on the way that our VP choice is completely in the hands of the nominee.
In this cycle, it seems pretty clear that if Joe Biden is the nominee and is elected, there is strong likelihood that his VP will end up becoming president. There’s nothing very “democratic” about that!
In my view, options 1 and 2 are equally unpalatable — yet each is preferable to option 3 for me.
I will vote for Joe Biden if he is the nominee. I don’t see a path for anyone except Joe Biden to be the nominee.
I think Mr. Biden is a terrible candidate and will likely be a terrible president.
Only a completely dysfunctional political system would force this choice upon us.
jconway says
I think Biden will be a fairly good manager of a team response to this unfolding crisis. I do not think he will be the transformative progressive president many people here, myself included, would prefer. I also think most Americans outside the partisan bubbles want normalcy and not transformation. It’s why Baker is so popular. This is a harm reduction election in a harm reduction atmosphere.
We want to stop hundreds of thousands of Americans from immediately dying, we want to end kids in cages, we want to have a president who respects the rule of law and is respected by the international community. Biden meets that test.
SomervilleTom says
@Biden meets that test:
Only if he retains the cognitive skills needed to even pretend to be a “fairly good manager of a team response.”
Ronald Reagan was only marginally capable of this by the end of his second term. Ronald Reagan could not possibly have managed his office, even with George W. Bush and the rest of his cabinet covering for him, in a third term.
I just can’t avoid noticing the striking difference between video clips of Joe Biden in 2010 and Joe Biden in 2020.
I think we need to seriously consider what we do if Mr. Biden continues the decline in his cognitive skills that is already so evident in his increasingly rare public appearances.
While I understand the constraints that restrict every public official during this pandemic, it is nevertheless impossible to avoid noticing how rarely Mr. Biden appears in unscripted live on-the-record exchanges.
Andrew Cuomo, at 62, is not a young man. He is governor of the Coronavirus hotspot of America. And yet he is somehow able to appear live on camera for extended segments every day.
Men who are 77 years old and showing such symptoms do not ever improve, other than in exceptionally rare situations involving undiagnosed disorders,
Time is not on our side in this, and we are talking about changes that happen over a matter of weeks, not years or decades.
Christopher says
Please let’s not remotely diagnose someone. He may be showing his age a bit, but don’t forget much of his speaking stumbles come from a lifelong stutter.
SomervilleTom says
We have no choice but to “remotely diagnose” someone.
Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a public official IS suffering a cognitive decline.
How would we find out in the absence of SOMEBODY doing a remote diagnosis?
I don’t see how anything related to a stutter can cause a person to confuse their wife with their sister.
That’s not stuttering. It just isn’t.
Christopher says
I guess misspeaking doesn’t phase me, and as far as remote diagnosis I was thinking his actual doctor who runs some tests would be much better.
doubleman says
A lifelong stutter that never appeared in thousands of hours of video until the last two years . . .
Christopher says
Well, I for one supported Biden all along precisely because I look for the best President even if s/he is not the best candidate. The curse of democracy is that campaigning and governing are two different skill sets. Technically the convention could nominate and select someone other that the presidential nominee’s preference or VP. I believe in 1956 Adlai Stevenson decided not to name someone and let the convention figure it out.
jconway says
Fair enough. I see him trouncing Trump by much better margins than Hillary Clinton this time in the cycle. Beat Trump first, then pressure Biden to be more progressive, and failing that, I’m fine with a primary challenge in 2024 if he’s really as lousy as you and Tom think he will be. Beating Trump has to happen first for anything better to happen. It is a sad commentary on our politics and I wish the Republicans had done more in 2016 to keep this man from governing.
I would be fighting like hell to stop President Rubio from a second term, but I have confidence he would be managing this crisis more effectively (low bar for sure) and that we would not be turning to a 77 year old two time failed candidate to get rid of the youthful incumbent.
Trump has made everyone on our side risk averse, and I do hope it does not bite us in the end.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/
Christopher says
I wouldn’t even bet that much money on Biden seeking a second term.
Christopher says
Then you should know that we have a vigorous primary and then need to unite behind that result. You don’t have to be a huge cheerleader for the nominee, but there comes a point when if you can’t say something nice…
terrymcginty says
“President Putin scares the power elite in America because he is a compassionate, caring, visionary leader.”
Really? Is he really? I see.
Ms.Reade, Dec.17, 2018
terrymcginty says
And enjoy the entire web post. It’s quite remarkable. And the Metropolitan Police just announced its closing the case. But really, let’s talk about Joe Biden.
No.
Let’s talk about understanding where we have been and what we should have learned in the the past 4 years.
Enjoy:
https://archive.is/Vi7Hf
jconway says
I respect that Charley is trying to keep a middle ground between accepting and trashing the Reade testimony. I think there are a lot more holes in it than Dr. Ford or Anita Hills testimony. In case people think I am being partisan, I do think the multiple women who accused Bill Clinton of misconduct deserved a fairer hearing than his partisan impeachment process and so do the women who accused Franken and Conyers of misconduct.
In all of those cases there were multiple allegations coming from multiple women with some corroboration outside of the victims immediate family. I also think the Biden partisans and his team should be prepared for this contingency and others and it’s obvious they are not, a very problematic place to be in a what will be a very nasty general election. Filming him for soft spots in the basement while Trump self incriminates is a good strategy for right now, but it’s a lousy one for the summer and fall. They need to adapt and figure out a better response. Especially if more damning evidence emerges.
Trickle up says
Subterranean may actually be a good strategy for the summer, too. Too soon to know.
Trickle up says
Barring an unforeseen (and, one hopes, unlikely) event, the party has selected the candidate who will oppose Trump in November. Full stop.
You can even say “the voters” chose him–I would quibble, but it’s not relevant.
Due to the nature of our electoral system, this is a binary choice. The choice is not a difficult one for me.
All that said, the calls to avoid the troubling questions are wrong-headed. Truth is our most powerful weapon, and something that distinguishes us from our foes, or that should. Lies are spiritually disfiguring.
Please do not sugar coat these unfortunate choices with denial or hostility.
SomervilleTom says
I’m trying to understand the implications of this comment.
As you observe, we now know the nominee for each party. And, as you also observe, the choice is binary.
I wonder who the parties are in your penultimate paragraph. Who does “our” refer to? Who does “foes” refer to? Who are the groups that truth distinguishes between? Who is lying? Who is being disfigured? How is it possible to know?
If the choice truly IS binary (and I think it is), and if that choice is not difficult, then what is the value of talking about the “truth” when so far as anybody can tell we have absolutely no means for determining it?
I’m not sure anybody is attempting to sugarcoat anything. It seems to me that the “denial” and “hostility” can and does go in either direction for and against each candidate.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m really not. I’m just not sure what outcome you seek in making this comment.
We already have the “bus tape” for Mr. Trump. We already have his now-infamous Howard Stern broadcasts where he brags about why he bought the Miss Universe pageant and the multiple times he exploited his ownership position to abuse its young contestants. We already have the multitude of court cases and complaints against him.
He is still the President, and there is every indication that he will be the GOP nominee.
We have the Tara Reade accusations. We have the usual media outlets repeating them in the usual way. We have no creepy yearbook autographs. No contemporary hospital or police reports. No similar complaints from other accusers. A long history of prior support for Mr. Biden in a variety of outlets prior to this campaign season. We have a lone accuser who was a passionate supporter of a different candidate this time around.
What on earth does “truth” mean in this context, and from where does it emanate?
The only “truth” I have been able to discern is that there is no “truth” to rely on.
Do we really want to create and live in a culture where “truth” is whatever accusations get the most publicity, with or without evidence or corroboration? Is it “denial” or “hostility” to categorically reject that premise? If that is the case, then count me as a hostile denier.
I want NO PART of this particular travesty. When somebody shows a videotape or radio interview of Mr. Biden doing or bragging about such acts, I’ll reconsider.
fredrichlariccia says
Thank you, SomervilleTom, for your powerful defense of truth and justice against the political hysteria that is about to engulf our country.
fredrichlariccia says
The evidence you need to see regarding Reade and Biden
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/29/1941307/-The-evidence-you-need-to-see-regarding-Reade-and-Biden
Let’s start off with the article Tara Reade herself wrote in 2009 praising her boss Joe Biden for sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act. It’s just one of dozens of postings she made praising Joe Biden prior to 2019:
https://archive.li/6ykxK
Then there is the fact that Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund referred Reade to multiple attorneys at its partner firm, the National Women’s Law Center. They unanimously declined to work with her, because, as they expressed it, she was requesting PR assistance rather than legal representation:
http://www.salon.com/...https://www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-all-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/
Then there are the heaps upon heaps of Reade’s own online postings and documented contradictions in her multiple and ever-changing stories:
medium.com/…https://medium.com/eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460
After extensive interviews with Tara Reade, The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey — all of whom won Pulitzer Prizes for their meticulous coverage of the 2017 Harvey Weinstein investigation — refused to report on her story, because there were too many inconsistencies and claims which could not be substantiated.
Next, there is her former employer, who says she has papers and emails to prove Tara Reade stole from her charity:
medium.com/…https://medium.com/eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b
Next, we have Reade claiming initially that Biden simply made her uncomfortable by touching her shoulders. She later changed her claim, stating he had complimented her legs. Finally, she upped the ante IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIDEN WAS NAMED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, claiming he JAMMED HIS FINGERS INTO HER IN THE SENATE HALLWAY.
Lastly, in 2018, Reade had been writing multiple gushing posts praising Vladimir Putin, some of which were actually written in Russian.
This is a Republican dirty trick. Don’t fall for it.
The evidence you need to see regarding Reade and Biden
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/29/1941307/-The-evidence-you-need-to-see-regarding-Reade-and-Biden
Let’s start off with the article Tara Reade herself wrote in 2009 praising her boss Joe Biden for sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act. It’s just one of dozens of postings she made praising Joe Biden prior to 2019:
https://archive.li/6ykxK
Then there is the fact that Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund referred Reade to multiple attorneys at its partner firm, the National Women’s Law Center. They unanimously declined to work with her, because, as they expressed it, she was requesting PR assistance rather than legal representation:
http://www.salon.com/...https://www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-all-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/
Then there are the heaps upon heaps of Reade’s own online postings and documented contradictions in her multiple and ever-changing stories:
medium.com/…https://medium.com/eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460
After extensive interviews with Tara Reade, The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey — all of whom won Pulitzer Prizes for their meticulous coverage of the 2017 Harvey Weinstein investigation — refused to report on her story, because there were too many inconsistencies and claims which could not be substantiated.
Next, there is her former employer, who says she has papers and emails to prove Tara Reade stole from her charity:
medium.com/…https://medium.com/eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b
Next, we have Reade claiming initially that Biden simply made her uncomfortable by touching her shoulders. She later changed her claim, stating he had complimented her legs. Finally, she upped the ante IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIDEN WAS NAMED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, claiming he JAMMED HIS FINGERS INTO HER IN THE SENATE HALLWAY.
Lastly, in 2018, Reade had been writing multiple gushing posts praising Vladimir Putin, some of which were actually written in Russian.
This is a Republican dirty trick. Don’t fall for it. Pass it on.
bob-gardner says
” For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real.”–Joe Biden
bob-gardner says
We have no creepy yearbook autographs.””
If only Bill Cosby had thought of the “at least I didn’t sign any yearbooks” defense.
” We have a lone accuser who was a passionate supporter of a different candidate this time around.”
Whose story has been corroborated in detail by a Biden supporter.
“When somebody shows a videotape. . . . ”
Try googling “Biden, inappropriate touching”.
Christopher says
Nobody denies Biden has been a bit hands-on, including Biden himself, but it has not been sexual.
SomervilleTom says
So you agree that your reference to Roy Moore (elsewhere on the thread) was and is irrelevant.
One more time. This new witness says that Ms. Reade told her a similar story at the time. That isn’t relevant to the question of whether there is any truth in that story. All of the neighbors of a hapless father in a hostile divorce will truthfully tell reporters thirty years later that indeed the bitter and hostile ex-wife did indeed tell the neighbors that the father beat them and abused their children.
Like her mother, this latest “witness” also says that she told Ms. Reade to go to the police. Ms. Reade chose not to do so. Has it ever occurred to you that neighbors sometimes say something like “you should go to the police” as a polite way of saying “I don’t believe you”?
@Try googling …:
Perhaps you can post a link to a video that shows Mr. Biden bragging to a friend about grabbing a woman by the private parts. Or maybe a counterpart to the Howard Stern tapes, where Mr. Biden brags about how he abuses teenage beauty pageant contestants. I repeated the suggested search (I’ve done it before). What I found was lots of coverage of a handful of questionable accusers.
A video of a woman saying “Joe Biden reached for her face and rubbed noses with her” is not remotely comparable to the Bus Tape. I’m talking about first-hand statements like:
You’re not going to find the kind of video I’m talking about because it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because Joe Biden simply isn’t Donald Trump.
Please stop pretending otherwise.
bob-gardner says
There is plenty of creepy behavior documented from Joe Biden, just as creepy as what Roy Moore wrote in a high school yearbook.
Reade’s allegation is credible, just as the allegation against Kavanaugh was credible.
Your arguments keep changing. First, you attack the accuser, and when
the facts undermine your personal attacks, you switch to attacking the whole idea of someone accusing a candidate of sexual misconduct.
When that doesn’t work, it’s “What about Trump?”
One way to get a little closer to the truth might be to ask the accused.
Reade has passed the credibility test by all the post Harvey Weinstein criterea.. Defeating Trump is too important for the Democrats to try to sweep this stuff under the rug.
Christopher says
Defeating Trump is also too important to be scoring own-goals and playing false equivalence.
SomervilleTom says
If Ms. Reade had “passed the credibility test by all the post Harvey Weinstein criteria” then Mr. Biden would be under indictment. That is not the case.
There have been no facts that change anything about Ms. Reade and her allegations since they became public. If all that is required for guilt is to make an accusation to friends and family, then we wouldn’t need a legal system and just about everyone would be an ex-con.
Your comparison of Ms. Reade to the victims of Harvey Weinstein demonstrates your contempt for the latter.
bob-gardner says
Harvey Weinstein avoided being held accountable for years by hiring people to smear the reputation of anyone who accused him. I’m beginning to wonder if things have changed much.
I think all accusers should be treated fairly, whether they are accusing Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Gerry Studds or Joe Biden. I reserve my contempt for the sycophants who shield predators.
jconway says
Why didn’t this come up the last two times Biden ran for president or when he was announced as VP? The impetus for Ford coming forward was her disgust at seeing her assaulter get a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Why didn’t Reade feel this way prior to Biden wrapping up the nomination? Why didn’t she feel the need to mention the hypocrisy of her assaulter running on the Violence Against Women Act when she praised him in 2017?
I get why the #NeverBiden contingency is latching into this, I’m surprised otherwise smart and even handed folks like CMD and Charley are falling for her gaslighting and the trolls elevating her story. Conveniently at a time when Trump is down in the polls considerably and struggling to keep his campaign afloat. This is a classic dirty trick out of the Stone/Assange/Bannon/Analytica/dark web playbook.
I’ll be the first to eat my crow if more women step forward or Reade produces more credible evidence. I just think there are too many inconsistencies in her story.
bob-gardner says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4keY4YNGTTg
It’s possible to believe this allegation and still support Biden against Trump, as Reade’s former neighbor does. One of Harvey Weinstein’s accusers continued to be friendly with him after being attacked. So I think that an objection based on the timing of Reade’s allegation, or based on how you think she should have acted, is bogus.
Also, note that the reporter worked with Rowan Farrow on the Weinstein articles.. If he’s a Russian in disguise, it’s a good disguise.
Of course, innocent until proven guilty should be the standard. But just as in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, that principle doesn’t mean that the wild attacks on the accuser are justified.
SomervilleTom says
Unless you argue that denying a false accusation is a “wild attack on the accuser”, then I don’t hear Joe Biden or his campaign making any such “wild attacks”.
You’ve offered yet another clip showing yet more hearsay. That clip provides more reporting that Ms. Reade told some associates about this alleged attack. The clip has nothing at all to do with whether the alleged assault actually took place.
Any comparison of Tara Reade to Christina Ford is an insult to Ms. Ford. Within days of Ms. Ford’s allegations, there was objective confirmation that a party did take place as she described. The location and time of the event was confirmed from independent sources. The presence of the involved parties was confirmed from independent sources. Other accusers stepped forward.
NONE of that happened in this case. NONE.
“Working with Ronan Farrow” has no bearing on whether the alleged attack happened. I’m not aware that anybody has described the reported in question as a “Russian in disguise.”
There is no story in this “story”, beyond a collection of gossip sheets hoping to profit from titillating stories accompanied by cheesecake headshots.
bob-gardner says
Was it Terry or Fred who wrote that Rowan Farrow had not written about Tara Reade, and so we shouldn’t take her accusation seriously? One of them did. That’s why I mentioned that the reporter (Rick McHugh) had worked with Farrow. . Terry has already accused Charlie of spreading Russian propaganda on this blog. Fred has accused Reade of writing in Russian..
I can’t keep up with all the garbage that Fred and Terry are writing, so I don’t blame you, Tom, if you missed this. But between them, Fred and Terry have raised both these issues, and I thought that there should be some pushback.
SomervilleTom says
@bob-gardner:
I appreciate the clarification.
jconway says
Defeating Trump is actually important enough to sweep this under the rug. Voters have become anesthetized to sexual impropriety among politicos going back to Clinton. Partisanship trumps everything else among modern day voters. The Access Hollywood tape did not damage Trump sufficiently to prevent his electoral victory. I doubt this will have much of an impact. The butthurt Berners were never going to vote for Biden anyway and a majority independents polled think #MeToo has gone too far.
When this would have been most devastating to Biden was when he was still running in a competitive primary against a field that included some very capable women. If Reade really felt he was too much of a monster to be president, she should have spoken up before he had wrapped up the nomination and when frankly more compelling women were still in the mix. I can imagine Warren taking her 2 x 4 to Biden the way she did to Bloomberg.
One also has to imagine that Bidens primary opponents looked into this issue heavily and found nothing there. This is Trump and his trolls gaslighting the left-just like they did in 2016. It’s sad to see smart people fall for it.
terrymcginty says
With apologies to Betsey, one last comment:
The evidence you need to see regarding Reade and Biden
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/29/1941307/-The-evidence-you-need-to-see-regarding-Reade-and-Biden
Let’s start off with the article Tara Reade herself wrote in 2009 praising her boss Joe Biden for sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act. It’s just one of dozens of postings she made praising Joe Biden prior to 2019:
https://archive.li/6ykxK
Then there is the fact that Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund referred Reade to multiple attorneys at its partner firm, the National Women’s Law Center. They unanimously declined to work with her, because, as they expressed it, she was requesting PR assistance rather than legal representation:
http://www.salon.com/...https://www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-all-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/
Then there are the heaps upon heaps of Reade’s own online postings and documented contradictions in her multiple and ever-changing stories:
medium.com/…https://medium.com/eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460
After extensive interviews with Tara Reade, The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey — all of whom won Pulitzer Prizes for their meticulous coverage of the 2017 Harvey Weinstein investigation — refused to report on her story, because there were too many inconsistencies and claims which could not be substantiated.
Next, there is her former employer, who says she has papers and emails to prove Tara Reade stole from her charity:
medium.com/…https://medium.com/eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b
Next, we have Reade claiming initially that Biden simply made her uncomfortable by touching her shoulders. She later changed her claim, stating he had complimented her legs. Finally, she upped the ante IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIDEN WAS NAMED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, claiming he JAMMED HIS FINGERS INTO HER IN THE SENATE HALLWAY.
Lastly, in 2018, Reade had been writing multiple gushing posts praising Vladimir Putin, some of which were actually written in Russian.
This is a Republican dirty trick. Don’t fall for it. Pass it on.
terrymcginty says
There’s no shame in admitting one is wrong. I’m wrong so often, I do it regularly.
jconway says
I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong if better evidence emerges to damn Biden on this issue. I’ll be the first to call for a new nominee. This evidence is hardly compelling enough to overrule the will of the voters and divide the party right at the moment it’s united and has Trumps back against the wall. Right at the moment this comes out.
doubleman says
It’s a pretty cool trick to have bad intentions now and go back in time to tell people a story in the 90s that they will then confirm in 2020. Tara Reade should run that trick again but go back in time on another mission – maybe kill baby Hitler or something.
Your comment upthread is accurate, and shown clearly in the majority of comments in this thread.
fredrichlariccia says
Joe Biden vehemently denied Tara Reade’s assault allegation on MSNBC this morning.
Reade claims that she filed a HARASSMENT complaint in 1993 but that she doesn’t have a copy of that complaint though pointed out that she kept her pay stubs from that period.
She recently changed her story to a SEXUAL ASSAULT allegation against Biden.
This morning, Biden called for the National Archive to release a copy of ANY alleged complaint made by Reade.
doubleman says
Yup, and was pressed on how this denial is similar to Kavanagh’s, in which he did not perform well in the exchange. His answer on why not to search the UDelaware archive was also very bad.
This, like many things, largely comes down to he said she said. In this case there are witnesses who attest to hearing the story at the time in the 90s. And we have one person with a long history of lying and inappropriate touching and one person with questionable motives and recent bad politics.
It’s awful.
The thing is that it will not go away, and Joe Biden does not seem strong enough to put it to bed. Similarly, we’re about to be in for Hunter rounds 2 through 100 and Biden has yet to be effective on that either.
fredrichlariccia says
UDelaware does not keep Biden’s personnel records — only his public records of his time in office — speeches, policy proposals, meetings with foreign heads of state — and the like.
These public records are not released until after the official has left office but most especially during a campaign for obvious reasons.
fredrichlariccia says
Something smells rotten here and it’s not in Denmark.
I question why Reade CHANGED her story from HARASSMENT in 1993 to ASSAULT in 2020 AFTER Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.
fredrichlariccia says
Biden said every woman should be heard but that the truth mattered and he did not question her motive for lying, if she was lying as he inferred, by denying the assault happened.
jconway says
I’m with you here. His team is doing a lousy job responding to this story and nipping it in the bud. Open up the UD archives and then ask Trump to do the same with his tax returns and the Trump organization. Remember there are 17 credible accusers against Trump for more serious crimes and at least one confirmed misappropriation of campaign funds to silence one of the women (who did consent but her reputation will never recover). Not to mention millions of tax dollars that found there way into the Trump Organization. This is the least ethical administration in history, and while there may be some sensitive stuff Biden doesn’t want people to see, he should make the contrast.
SomervilleTom says
I disagree about opening the UD archives. I think Mr. Biden gave a compelling reason to NOT do that. There is nothing involving this allegation in there (those are public policy documents, nothing about personnel matters), and opening only begs Trumpist opponents to mine it for more lies and baseless attacks.
We’ve already seen how these thugs lie and distort the FBI and DoJ records they’ve had access to.
This is a case where an impenetrable brick wall is exactly the right answer — “This material will be made public two years after I’ve left public life, and not a moment sooner.”
Christopher says
In other words – “BUT HER EMAILS!”:)
Christopher says
We can do better than “If you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.”
fredrichlariccia says
” I’m saying unequivocally it never happened.”
“I am requesting the Secretary of the Senate ask the Archives to identify any record of the complaint she alleges she filed and make available to the press any such document. If there was any such complaint, the record will be there.” JOE BIDEN on MSNBC 5/1/20
Christopher says
Clinton’s alleged actions in this regard range from not proven to none of our business.
SomervilleTom says
This is the dark smelly stuff that destroys civilized society.
The rabid right spent billions of dollars to turn a passel of lies about Bill and Hillary Clinton into ugly and false legend.
After spending a fortune in public funds, the GOP was able to pin exactly one concession on Bill Clinton — he lied, under oath, about having oral sex with a consenting (in fact enthusiastic by her own contemporaneous accounts to friends) adult. That’s it.
Nevertheless, the enormous honeypot created by those billions of dollars from wealthy extremists like Richard Mellon Scaife attracted “accusers” like yellow jackets around a watermelon in a Labor Day picnic.
And now the lies of those yellowjackets and their beekeepers are being repeated as truth.
Bill Cosby was CONVICTED of drugging women and then raping them while they were incapacitated. Not just once, but multiple times to multiple victims. Harvey Weinstein was convicted of coercing young women into performing unwanted sex acts not just once, but multiple times.
It is a flagrant and appalling LIE to talk about Bill Clinton in the same context as those criminals. It is just plain political suicide for anybody who claims to oppose Donald Trump to conflate Joe Biden with Mr. Weinstein or Mr. Cosby.
In a society with a free press, all voices may be heard. That makes it even more imperative that each of us has and exercises the ability to distinguish fact from fiction, truth from lies, and sincere expressions of experience from right-wing propaganda.
Far too many of us are unable or unwilling to fulfill the obligations that come with living in a society with a free press.
SomervilleTom says
I’ve just made myself watch and listen to the full Morning Joe Interview. It epitomizes why I DESPISE mainstream media.
The questioning was repetitive and insulting. There is no inconsistency between what Mr. Biden said about Ms. Ford and what he now says about Ms. Reade. None. There is no issue with his personnel records — the only place a complaint could be is the US Archives, and Mr. Biden has already requested that any such complaint be revealed. The suggestion that his papers be opened or searched while he is an active public official or candidate is preposterous and unprecedented.
When Ms. Ford’s complaints about Mr. Kavanaugh were investigated, those investigations immediately revealed other victims. The situations that she described were verified. The scandal about those allegations is that a GOP hell-bent on putting Mr. Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court FOR LIFE forced the FBI to terminate those investigations. Ms. Ford did not spend the intervening decades supporting Mr. Kavanaugh in his public career.
In contrast, multiple Pulitzer Prize recipients diligently pursued the accusations of Ms. Reade and found either nothing at all or conflicting information. That’s the reason why the New York Times and Washington Post correctly chose to drop the story. In yet another play right out of the typical right-wing smear playbook, several gossip-mongering scandal sheets published the accusations. Then Fox and the right-wing echo chamber repeated the “story”, and now here we are.
That is the reality, and Joe Biden clearly stated it. Mika Brzezinski then proceeded to make the same accusation, disguised as a question, over and over. Mr. Biden’s answer remained the same. The same is true regarding the complaint. Once more, Ms. Brzezinski repeated the same false accusation over and over. Mr. Biden’s answer again remained the same.
This interview should have been over in about two minutes. A more truthful, but less political, answer from Mr. Biden to the third or fourth repetition of each question was “Asked and answered. Let’s move on.” If this were a courtroom, I expect Mr. Biden’s attorney would have raised the same objection — “Objection Your Honor — the question has been asked and answered.” the response would have been “Objection sustained. Ms. Brzezinski, please move on.”
Unless and until something of actual substance is revealed — an actual complaint, for example — this “story” should be dropped.
We have more important things to address.
Christopher says
Today Biden gave what may be the most slam dunk, least hedgy denial of something like this I have ever heard. He’s being so pro-active in encouraging the various holders of relevant documents to search and if appropriate release them that he must know and be very confident about the truth.