Yes. Enough of the Non-Witnesses in Sexual Assault Allegations
The most recent development in the Tara Reade vs. Joe Biden saga is a call for Biden to “release his papers.”
According to The Atlantic:
In 2012, Biden delivered 1,875 boxes of “photographs, documents, videotapes, and files” and 415 gigabytes of electronic records to his alma mater, the University of Delaware. They covered his entire 36-year Senate career. At the time, the university said it expected to make the papers “available to the public two years after Biden’s last day in elected public office.” Biden left the vice presidency in January 2017, and January 2019 came and went with no papers released. Then, on April 24, 2019, the day before Biden announced his presidential campaign, the university revised the schedule. The papers would now remain sealed until December 31, 2019, or until two years after Biden “retires from public life,” whichever came later. That means Americans likely won’t learn what’s in his papers before they vote for president this fall.
This was the agenda behind these allegations all along. What are the odds, if Biden did sexually harass or assault Reade, it would be detailed in “his papers?” Zero chance. What do they expect to find? A notation on a specific date that says “Fingered Reade in Hallway?”
What are the chances that, by forcing the university to release them, the GOP and Berner’s will then look aggressively for another “her emails” bunch of gotcha horseshit? 100 percent.
I do not believe Tara Reade.
It has something to do with the fact that way back in the tunnel of time, I didn’t believe Leeann Tweeden was injured in any way by Al Franken getting a fake grope picture for laughs on a USO tour. It has a bit to do with the fact that I don’t believe Amber Heard in her accusations of Johnny Depp. It has something to do with the fact that, while Louis C.K. is a deviant who likes to jerk off in front of people, if he asks if he can and you don’t say no or get up out of the room when he pulls out his dick, the complexity of the moment cannot be reduced to wrong and right.
I do believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I do believe Annebella Sciora. I believe the women who accused Weinstein, Cosby, O’Reilly, Ailes, and Rose. I believe in the #MeToo push for accountability.
I do not believe Tara Reade.
Mostly, I don’t believe Tara Reade because of her history of shady dealings and her timing. In 1993, she claimed Biden’s sexual harassment was limited to complimenting her legs and being a bit touchy. In 2020, she claims he finger-fucked her in a public place. The finger-in-the-twat allegation is the lede and she buried it for 27 years? Bullshit.
On April 28, Slate writer Christina Cauterucci posted an article “The Witness Who Saw Nothing” that criticizes the use of character testimony from people who worked with Biden but had nothing specific to do with any interaction between the then Senator and Reade.
It does no service to the truth to quote people who say their failure to witness abuse is evidence of the absence of abuse, unless the alleged victim claims those specific people witnessed her abuse. Writers might want to show they did due diligence in their reporting, but sources that don’t offer new information go unmentioned in final drafts all the time. (There’s also a big difference between quoting someone who solely speaks to her own experience and someone who makes a broad assumption of innocence based on that limited perspective.) An allegation of a sexual violation that involves two people doesn’t demand clueless character witnesses.
I agree with Cauterucci. The non-witness provides no evidence. This, however, includes every person claiming Reade told them about the harassment but were not there, in the public place, to witness his hand up her skirt. Her mother makes a call and says to Larry King that her daughter was harassed. She makes no mention of Biden sticking his digits in her hole just that her daughter made the claim.
In 1993, the claim was that he complimented her legs and was a bit too touchy for her tastes. Her mother’s phone call in no way sheds any more light on the jump in severity. It’s just another example of hearsay—great for convincing people with an axe to grind of a truth they want to hear, terrible in a court of law where a preponderance of the evidence is required.
The timeline is not complicated:
December 1992 – August 1993— Tara Reade worked as a Senate aide in Joe Biden’s office.
2009— Reade commended Biden for actions he has taken against domestic violence.
2017— Reade repeatedly praised Joe Biden through tweets, retweets and likes on Twitter. On multiple occasions she boosts him for his work on helping end sexual assault.
January 2019— Reade first begins talking about her sexual harassment allegations against Joe Biden on Twitter.
April 2019— Reade comes forward with her original allegations against Biden, but says his actions were not “sexualization,” but rather compared his actions toward her as being demeaning and treating her like a “pretty” lamp that is thrown away when it’s too bright. She also claimed that her story was not “a story about sexual misconduct.”
March 2020— Reade comes forward again, this time claiming that Joe Biden did sexually assault her in 1993.
The thing we don’t want to say about all of this is that those of us still in support of Biden’s presidential bid either do not believe her accusations or do not care if they’re true.
I do care if they’re true. If a non-partisan investigation is made and there is credible evidence presented that indicates Biden fingered Reade, I won’t vote for him despite the fact that not voting for him practically guarantees another four years of Trump. If, on the other hand, it boils down to He Said/She Said, I stand by my initial reaction: that her accusations were specifically timed to harm his bid for the presidency and have no merit to boot. Reade is an unreliable narrator in this case.
I do not believe Tara Reade.
