Tuesday, May 5, 2020

With Reade's credibility issues, we may have to be "satisfied" with "we just don't know"


I saw this graffiti along the “canal” that connects  Lake Union with Lake Washington:


Four months into the year and there is certainly “plenty” of “danger”: the COVID-19, in just a matter of weeks the unemployment rate souring into double-digits, China taking its cues from Trump’s history of lies and concealment, Trump nominating another unqualified far-right radical Federalist to a federal bench, and even William Barr failing to convince Trump officials that it is a bad idea to support killing Obamacare during a pandemic and an election year.  Given all of that you would think that after three+ years of Trump that the Democrats would have their act together and coalesce around a candidate who inspires the popular imagination, like Barack Obama. With all that is going on now, you’d think it would be a wipe-out, yet despite the iffy Joe Biden being ahead of Trump in most polls, a majority of voters still somehow think that Trump is going to win anyways. So here we are, stuck with who a plurality of Democratic primary voters decided was the “safe” candidate. 

Oh, yes, the “safe’ candidate—meaning he isn’t named Bernie Sanders, and black voters think Biden “appreciates” them more. But Biden isn’t the completely “safe” candidate anymore if you listen to the New York Times or the Washington Post—or if you listen to Liz Peek of Fox News, who claims that Hillary Clinton is waiting in the wings to be a three-peat loser. The editors of the Times—who irresponsibly endorsed not one, but two failed female candidates, who supposedly had entirely opposite ideologies and policy programs, for the Democratic presidential nomination—is now calling for the DNC to investigate Tara Reade’s allegations against Biden. Well, fine, but don’t be afraid to get the “whole” story, instead of being forced to resign like New Hampshire state representative Richard Komi, who was merely repeating an accusation by a friend of Reade, who said she was an active “attention-seeker.” 

The “whole story” includes the concerns of former prosecutor Michael Stern, who in USA Today wondered about the self-serving nature of Reade’s excuses about why even up to year ago she couldn’t find one reporter “eager” to break her “bombshell” story, until a year after accusing Biden of “inappropriate” touching along with some others. All of the former Biden staffers at the time she claimed to have spoken to about the alleged assault strenuously deny this. “And they did not offer the standard, noncommittal ‘I don’t remember any such complaint.’ The denials were firm. ‘She did not come to me. If she had, I would have remembered her,’ Ted Kaufman said. Dennis Toner made a similar statement. And from Marianne Baker: ‘I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct (by Biden), period.’ Baker said such a complaint, had Reade made it, ‘would have left a searing impression on me as a woman professional, and as a manager.’” 

Stern noted that Reade’s “amnesia” about details such as day, time and location would make it difficult for Biden to defend himself as being at or doing something else, allowing the accusation “to be perceived as bulletproofing a false allegation.”  Reade had her employment records at the time handy, but not a copy of the written complaint that she claimed to have made; perhaps she couldn’t “find” it because it didn’t support her current accusation. Reade also gave multiple reasons for having left Biden’s employ, either feeling “sidelined” for refusing to serve drinks at a party and subsequently quitting, to being “fired” for filing a complaint about her alleged treatment. Despite all of this, as others also noted, Reade (under multiple name changes) praised Biden on social media for his support of certain pet causes. But her stance changed when she decided to support Bernie Sanders and then take a pro-Russia and Vladimir Putin stance while denouncing the U.S. and its policies toward Russia. Her anti-Biden stance and subsequent accusations could be construed as her unhappiness that Biden has de facto beaten Sanders for the Democratic nomination (contrary to what I thought previously). Reade—after gushing that Putin was “intoxicating” to women—has since strenuously denied her own words in support of Russia’s dictatorship, further eroding her credibility.

Stern also questioned the call to the Larry King show that was allegedly from Reade’s mother: “Reade’s mother also said her daughter did not go to the press with her problem ‘out of respect’ for the senator. I’ve never met a woman who stayed silent out of ‘respect’ for the man who sexually assaulted her. And it is inconceivable that a mother would learn of her daughter’s sexual assault and suggest that respect for the assailant is what stands between a life of painful silence and justice. The ‘out of respect’ explanation sounds more like an office squabble with staff that resulted in leaving the job. Indeed, in last year's interview with The Washington Post, Reade laid the blame on Biden’s staff for ‘bullying’ her. She also said, ‘I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him.’” 

The questions go on and on. Reade’s brother days later suddenly “remembers” that his sister did tell him something about Biden putting his hands under her clothes, probably after a pow-wow with his sister to correct his original “recollection”?  Stern also pointed out that “The problem with statements from friends is that the information they recount is only as good as the information given to them. Let’s say Reade left her job because she was angry about being asked to serve drinks or because she was fired for a legitimate reason. If she tried to save face by telling friends that she left because she was sexually assaulted, that’s all her friends would know and all they could repeat. Prior statements made by a sexual assault victim can carry some weight, but only if the accuser is credible. In Reade’s case, the statements coming from her friends are only of value if people believe Reade can be relied on to tell the truth, regardless of the light in which it paints her.” To date, no “third-party” has corroborated Reade’s claims.

Over a month ago, Bernie and Eddie Krassenstein in The Medium also noted Reade’s apparent “liking” of Biden well after the alleged assault until in the past year. They also note some bizarre story changes, such as one where she arrived in Washington DC to work for Biden driving cross-country 3,000 miles with her cat; but more recently she claimed instead to have made that very same first trip by plane with her cat.  There is also a quote from one of her pro-Russia posts: “President Putin is beloved by Russia and he not going anywhere. Instead of being ensnared in the recent political intrigues (and America is trying hard to set that trap). President Putin is keeping a calm focus on his own country’s development and future, without America. To President Putin, I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to see Russia as I do, with eyes of love. To all my Russian friends, happy holiday and Happy New Year.”

The Krassensteins end their piece by noting that “We were able to contact a longtime friend of Reade’s who wished to remain anonymous, but they said they ‘do not believe her allegations,’ claiming she has always been one to seek attention (see above). We have (also) been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization.”  

Nancy LeTourneau of the Washington Monthly also noted Reade’s seeming “talent” for storytelling, while observing that the Associated Press found that all 21 Biden staffers at the time that they contacted could not recollect a single complaint made by Reade. And none of the other women who claimed to be “inappropriately” touched by Biden said that he had “crossed the line” into sexual assault. 

LeTourneau admits that this all sounds like “blaming the victim,” but with Reade’s credibility and motivations in question, the best that can be said “is we just don’t know” and “we’ll have to live with that.”

No comments:

Post a Comment