But I have since seen today's interview, and have read more in-depth on Ms. Reade's allegations, and have come to a personal conclusion. This is just my conclusion, and I get that this is a touchy subject, so I also know I don't have to share this, but as this is about to become, at least for a few weeks (and possibly for the remainder of the campaign), a campaign issue, and I write a lot about electoral politics on this blog, and so I wanted to share my two cents on what is happening right now. I will note this is the only article I plan on writing on this subject unless substantive evidence comes forward that might change my below opinions.
Based on what I have seen, I leave skeptical to the point of not believing Tara Reade, a decision I have not come to lightly. The first problem has been Reade's story has changed consistently since she first came public with her allegations against Biden last year. This isn't just about her claims against Biden-one could have sympathy for understanding that, if true, these claims might be difficult to discuss at all, particularly publicly. But then why did she also tell conflicting stories about why she left the then-senator's employ, telling The Union that she refused to serve drinks at an event, while later telling the New York Times that she was let go due to retaliation for filing a sexual harassment claim? These are very different stories to the point where at least one of them was a lie. Considering she was already telling The Union a story about feeling harassed, it feels strange that she would also contradict the reason why she left Biden's employment. This is a red flag, and a major inconsistency, in Reade's story.
There are other problems with Reade's story that strike me as unusual. No one else in Biden's office remembers her filing a complaint, and there is indeed no proof of a complaint in Reade's records, and none of the many newspapers covering this story have found any proof of the formal complaint. Biden has asked the Secretary of the Senate formally to produce proof of the complaint, as it should certainly exist in their records if such a document exists. But until it does exist, that's another red flag in Reade's story.
Finally, there is the fact that Reade cannot remember key details about the event, particularly when it happened or where the exact location was. I find this hard to believe. Maybe the date could be forgotten, but there should have been some idea of where this happened if it can be remembered with detail in the New York Times article. That Reade doesn't, combined with the fact that she didn't put Biden's name in a police report that she filed (which would be a felony if she lied in a police report), feels like Reade is trying to protect herself from slander or from being disproven. Joe Biden is, after all, a very public figure, even in 1993-there would almost certainly be a record of where he was the day of the alleged attack. If Reade were able to produce a form or some more tangible detail, Biden would be able to counter (presuming he's innocent) that he was not there on the day of the alleged attack.
The strongest evidence of something happening to Reade is pretty circumstantial. Most often pointed to is an interview with Larry King where a woman from Reade's home county called in on a program about the competitive nature of DC politics, and she said (I'm quoting exactly) "My daughter has just left there (DC) after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him." This is an anonymous call, one of that gives no indication of sexual assault, or indeed any form of sexual harassment, from a woman that there's no proof was even Reade's mother. The only evidence of people who have claimed to have spoken to Reade at the time (not years later) of the event are from people who either said she claimed to have been harassed (not assaulted, as was alleged in the Times article), or who have changed their initial story in a similar fashion to Reade.
I feel gross recounting this. It feels icky to not gut check believe someone's claims of sexual violence. I don't want to get into potential motives for Reade if she is indeed lying (they're there, though, considering her public statements in support for Bernie Sanders & Vladimir Putin), but honestly, I want to believe her. I don't want to think that someone would lie about something so unspeakable, particularly considering so many victims of sexual violence wait their whole lives to be ready to tell their stories. I pride myself on not giving in even if it's someone I have supported in the past. I believed the women who accused Al Franken, John Conyers, and Ruben Kihuen, all Democrats, because there felt like enough evidence and enough accusations that this was the reasonable stance to take. I believe Juanita Broaddrick's allegations against Bill Clinton. "Believe survivors" is something I ardently feel.
But the evidence here is too flimsy for me. It doesn't help that the people who are pushing the hardest for Reade's story to be heard are people who stand to benefit from it (this is not, for the record, any fault of Reade's). Go on Twitter, and almost every mention of #IBelieveTara comes with a "we should have gone with Warren" or "let's nominate Bernie before it's too late" as if the truth doesn't seem to be as paramount as removing Biden from the ticket. The fact that the University of Delaware records are now going to "be a thing" also makes me suspicious. There is no real reason to assume that the formal complaint Reade allegedly made would be in Biden's University of Delaware records (the Secretary of the Senate should have it), and yet this seems to be a big Republican talking point this morning. This makes it feel like the GOP is trying to profit off of Biden's vulnerability by going for a fishing expedition through Biden's private letters. That Biden has been in public life for fifty years, given thousands of speeches and interviews in that time, and somehow they still need a fishing expedition speaks more to Biden's character than anything else, but it also makes me worry if the only reason we're hearing about claims that might otherwise be dismissed for not having much substance is because people are comfortable taking hits on an innocent man if it means that they might advance their agenda.
That last comment is about as damning as I'm willing to get tonight, and again, I want to specify it is made at people who are trying to add a political agenda onto Reade's claims rather than on Reade herself. I might be wrong here-if the Secretary of the Senate is able to produce the actual complaint, while that would not necessarily indicate everything else Reade is saying is true, it would certainly give more credence and put more of the burden-of-proof back on Biden to explain his actions (and particularly his staff's actions). But unless that happens, this feels like it stretches credulity to assume that Reade, after repeatedly changing multiple aspects of her story, is telling the truth compared to Biden.
Biden has been in public life for a half century, has made it through a rigorous vice presidential vetting, and never been accused of anything like what Reade is alleging. He has consistently told the same story and been forthright in a way that many men (particularly Donald Trump) in his situation have not. He has given an opportunity for the one provable aspect of the story to be confirmed through the Secretary of the Senate. But unless she finds evidence of this, I find no reason not to trust Biden's assertion that these allegations are false.
No comments:
Post a Comment