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