I find it somewhat strange that this article makes absolutely no mention of the latest bit of evidence that seems to potentially support Reade's allegation:...
I find it somewhat strange that this article makes absolutely no mention of the latest bit of evidence that seems to potentially support Reade's allegation:
A new piece of evidence has emerged buttressing the credibility of Tara Reade’s claim that she told her mother about allegations of sexual harassment and assault related to her former boss, then-Sen. Joe Biden. Biden, through a spokesperson, has denied the allegations. Reade has claimed to various media outlets, including The Intercept, that she told her mother, a close friend, and her brother about both the harassment and, to varying degrees of detail, the assault at the time. Her brother, Collin Moulton, and her friend, who has asked to remain anonymous, both confirmed that they heard about the allegations from Reade at the time. Reade’s mother died in 2016, but both her brother and friend also confirmed Reade had told her mother, and that her mother, a longtime feminist and activist, urged her to go to the police.
In interviews with The Intercept, Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to “Larry King Live” on CNN, during which she made reference to her daughter’s experience on Capitol Hill. Reade told The Intercept that her mother called in asking for advice after Reade, then in her 20s, left Biden’s office. “I remember it being an anonymous call and her saying my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired, where can she go for help? I was mortified,” Reade told me.
Reade couldn’t remember the date or the year of the phone call, and King didn’t include the names of callers on his show. I was unable to find the call, but mentioned it in an interview with Katie Halper, the podcast host who first aired Reade’s allegation. After the podcast aired, a listener managed to find the call and sent it to The Intercept.
On August 11, 1993, King aired a program titled, “Washington: The Cruelest City on Earth?” Toward the end of the program, he introduces a caller dialing in from San Luis Obispo, California. Congressional records list August 1993 as Reade’s last month of employment with Biden’s Senate office, and, according to property records, Reade’s mother, Jeanette Altimus, was living in San Luis Obispo County. Here is the transcript of the beginning of the call:
KING: San Luis Obispo, California, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, 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.
KING: In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?
CALLER: That’s true.
King’s panel of guests offered no suggestions, and instead the conversation veered into a discussion of whether any of the men on set would leak damaging personal information about a rival to the press.
Reade, after being read the transcript of the call, said that it gelled with her memory of it, and, after the video was surfaced, confirmed it is her mother’s voice on the call. “Aww, I have not heard my mom’s voice in awhile,” she said.
There are several notable things about the emergence of the call. On the one hand, the caller does not specifically mention “sexual harassment” or retaliation, as Reade had recalled. On the other hand, the reference to being unable to “get through with her problems” aligns with Reade’s claim that she complained to superiors in Biden’s office and got nowhere, and the reference to going to the press makes clear that the caller is talking about more than just generic problems at the office. The problems, she makes clear, would damage the senator if exposed.
Reade’s inability to remember the exact date of the alleged assault, or its precise location, or the precise location of the office where she picked up the form needed to file a complaint, has been used by skeptics to suggest the allegation is fabricated. What the emergence of the call shows is that even if Reade’s memory is off on timing or details, the substance of her claims — in this case, that her mother called Larry King and discussed her situation — can still be true.
The Larry King call certainly adds credibility to her story (supposing it can be safely assumed that is in fact her mother on the line, but I don't see any reason to doubt it really). I'm overall...
The Larry King call certainly adds credibility to her story (supposing it can be safely assumed that is in fact her mother on the line, but I don't see any reason to doubt it really). I'm overall conflicted on what I think right now. At first I was very adamant that Ms. Reade should be heard out and an investigation (either formal through law enforcement authorities, or informal through investigative journalism) should happen. We've seen some of that now and I don't think much of it has helped her case (with obvious exceptions like the above call, and other contemporaneous people who said they heard about it then).
I think it will be very important to see what personnel files from the time say about Ms. Reade's departure. She herself has said she voiced these complaints in formal meetings where notes were taken, and she believes those notes are in files housed at the National Archives. I think pretty much any file mentioning her by name or mentioning similar complaints from the time period should be released. At the same time, I can completely understand why Biden is wary of a fishing expedition through his personal papers housed at the University of Delaware (hell, Hillary had a risotto recipe get morphed into a pedophilia conspiracy, so there's good reason to not want to give access even if there's nothing to hide). I'm also not convinced papers regarding a low level staffer would be housed there, and I'm inclined to think the focus on that collection is a red herring.
Whatever happens, an investigation would be good for all parties I think. Biden has signaled he's willing to go along with that. But the nature of these types of allegations usually mean that even if it happened, there's likely little hard evidence to prove it. At the end of the day, the question for voters will boil down to: What do you think of Joe Biden?
I completely understand not remembering details, and even not telling the full story the first time you go public. This is unfortunately not the first time something like this has happened with...
I completely understand not remembering details, and even not telling the full story the first time you go public. This is unfortunately not the first time something like this has happened with this story, which is way I am increasingly finding it difficult to believe. If she did file a complaint with the Senate personnel office, those papers would not be in Biden's personal papers housed at the University of Delaware. I'm afraid that "1,875 boxes" is going to become the new "30,000 missing" emails.
I just read all of the links you posted and I don't see any problem there. What do you object to exactly? Sure it sounds bad if you consider advice to be "coaching" and you replace "clarify" with...
I just read all of the links you posted and I don't see any problem there. What do you object to exactly?
Sure it sounds bad if you consider advice to be "coaching" and you replace "clarify" with "change" but that's telling me more about your point of view than about what Robinson actually did wrong.
Such a forceful and public denial from Biden basically means it didn't happen, or it did and he doesn't think it can be proven. If more convincing evidence comes out such that it's hard to escape...
Such a forceful and public denial from Biden basically means it didn't happen, or it did and he doesn't think it can be proven. If more convincing evidence comes out such that it's hard to escape the conclusion that it did happen, then it's difficult to see Biden recovering.
I'm curious what the DNC's options are if something like this were 100% proved. Can they just hand it to the runner-up (Sanders)? Would they just be shit out of luck? Is there any precedent for...
I'm curious what the DNC's options are if something like this were 100% proved. Can they just hand it to the runner-up (Sanders)? Would they just be shit out of luck? Is there any precedent for this kind of thing?
I think the point is that yes, the party has decided to allocate delegates based on the outcomes of primaries and caucuses. But legally and historically there is no reason this must be the case....
I think the point is that yes, the party has decided to allocate delegates based on the outcomes of primaries and caucuses. But legally and historically there is no reason this must be the case. Therefore, in the event of Biden cratering, the party would be fully capable of selecting someone to be the nominee without having to re-hold primaries or anything like that. Primaries are only democratic by choice, and until like the 20s the norm was to just have party insiders pick the nominee.
I don't think @Loire is somehow implying that the primary system as it is currently implemented is undemocratic. Only that in theory it need not be, and in the event of a Biden-pocalypse the party would likely hand select someone without throwing it back to the voters.
No there is no precedent. It would go to a contested convention where delegates would nominate and choose freely. But the majority of delegates at the convention, by a long shot, will have been...
Can they just hand it to the runner-up (Sanders)?
No there is no precedent. It would go to a contested convention where delegates would nominate and choose freely. But the majority of delegates at the convention, by a long shot, will have been pledged Biden delegates so it's very unlikely to go to Sanders.
Not really. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by making his public denial as forceful as possible. If the truth eventually comes spilling out he's not really going to be that much...
Such a forceful and public denial from Biden basically means it didn't happen, or it did and he doesn't think it can be proven.
Not really. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by making his public denial as forceful as possible.
If the truth eventually comes spilling out he's not really going to be that much worse off having forcefully denied it. The initial denial would barely even be part of the story.
Her story prior to now was that she was "made to feel uncomfortable" and that he touched her on the shoulder. Behavior that basically would have been in line with what Lucy Flores brought up...
Her story prior to now was that she was "made to feel uncomfortable" and that he touched her on the shoulder. Behavior that basically would have been in line with what Lucy Flores brought up previously.
It very recently evolved to the much more graphic version where he digitally penetrated her. It's not uncommon for eye-witnesses to talk about an event in the past over and over and have the story get more and more dramatic each time. And they will "remember" it that way as it evolves. Memory is imperfect that way unless you're having the sort of trauma trigger that causes it to freeze in your brain, which it doesn't sound like she has.
The phone call is helpful insofar as that call alone provides far more evidence to support Reade's story than there ever was for Dr Blasey Ford's story, yet many of the people backing Biden now...
The phone call is helpful insofar as that call alone provides far more evidence to support Reade's story than there ever was for Dr Blasey Ford's story, yet many of the people backing Biden now jumped down Kavanaugh's throat for it 2 years ago.
I'm not sure the Kavanaugh comparisons are really that useful. For one, the Blasey Ford story broke like what, 20 days before he was confirmed? Second, that was literally the last time he was...
I'm not sure the Kavanaugh comparisons are really that useful. For one, the Blasey Ford story broke like what, 20 days before he was confirmed? Second, that was literally the last time he was going to face public scrutiny before being appointed to a lifetime position. The political dynamics alone in that situation change things. I think I'm a little sick of the Kavanaugh comparisons because they seem to imply that it is impossible to have found Blasey Ford credible while not finding Reade as credible, which simply isn't the case. Reade has already updated her story multiple times, the key fact witnesses she says she talked in Biden's office all deny ever having talked to her about this, and she has gone back and forth with whether she filed a complaint, with who, and where that might be stored. Finally, the police report she filed didn't mention Biden by name, despite her having gone public with the story already. I don't think it's unreasonable to have found Blasey Ford more credible than Reade for these reasons.
As for evidence, I'm not really sure what a phone call from someone who we are all assuming to be Ms. Reade's mother that doesn't mention anything other than a "problem" with a "senator" firmly proves.
Same argument Republicans used to try to discredit Blasey Ford. I don't give a lot of credibility on the matter to people on Biden's payroll. I give more credibility to my own eyes, with which...
Reade has already updated her story multiple times
the key fact witnesses she says she talked in Biden's office all deny ever having talked to her about this,
I don't give a lot of credibility on the matter to people on Biden's payroll. I give more credibility to my own eyes, with which I've seen countless clips of the level of creepy touching Biden feels comfortable enough doing on camera.
she has gone back and forth with whether she filed a complaint, with who, and where that might be stored.
Those sound like minor implementation details that are easy to believe would be foggy memory nearly 30 years later. I don't know why anyone would expect her to know where it would be stored.
Republicans were famously up in arms about Blasey Ford's story changing, and Democrats jumped to her defense to say it's common in these abuse cases for the story to seem to change as it comes out.
I find it somewhat strange that this article makes absolutely no mention of the latest bit of evidence that seems to potentially support Reade's allegation:
https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/
The Larry King call certainly adds credibility to her story (supposing it can be safely assumed that is in fact her mother on the line, but I don't see any reason to doubt it really). I'm overall conflicted on what I think right now. At first I was very adamant that Ms. Reade should be heard out and an investigation (either formal through law enforcement authorities, or informal through investigative journalism) should happen. We've seen some of that now and I don't think much of it has helped her case (with obvious exceptions like the above call, and other contemporaneous people who said they heard about it then).
I think it will be very important to see what personnel files from the time say about Ms. Reade's departure. She herself has said she voiced these complaints in formal meetings where notes were taken, and she believes those notes are in files housed at the National Archives. I think pretty much any file mentioning her by name or mentioning similar complaints from the time period should be released. At the same time, I can completely understand why Biden is wary of a fishing expedition through his personal papers housed at the University of Delaware (hell, Hillary had a risotto recipe get morphed into a pedophilia conspiracy, so there's good reason to not want to give access even if there's nothing to hide). I'm also not convinced papers regarding a low level staffer would be housed there, and I'm inclined to think the focus on that collection is a red herring.
Whatever happens, an investigation would be good for all parties I think. Biden has signaled he's willing to go along with that. But the nature of these types of allegations usually mean that even if it happened, there's likely little hard evidence to prove it. At the end of the day, the question for voters will boil down to: What do you think of Joe Biden?
I completely understand not remembering details, and even not telling the full story the first time you go public. This is unfortunately not the first time something like this has happened with this story, which is way I am increasingly finding it difficult to believe. If she did file a complaint with the Senate personnel office, those papers would not be in Biden's personal papers housed at the University of Delaware. I'm afraid that "1,875 boxes" is going to become the new "30,000 missing" emails.
I just read all of the links you posted and I don't see any problem there. What do you object to exactly?
Sure it sounds bad if you consider advice to be "coaching" and you replace "clarify" with "change" but that's telling me more about your point of view than about what Robinson actually did wrong.
Such a forceful and public denial from Biden basically means it didn't happen, or it did and he doesn't think it can be proven. If more convincing evidence comes out such that it's hard to escape the conclusion that it did happen, then it's difficult to see Biden recovering.
I'm curious what the DNC's options are if something like this were 100% proved. Can they just hand it to the runner-up (Sanders)? Would they just be shit out of luck? Is there any precedent for this kind of thing?
The party "chooses" by having its party members vote for delegates to represent them. How much more democratic do we expect it to be?
I think the point is that yes, the party has decided to allocate delegates based on the outcomes of primaries and caucuses. But legally and historically there is no reason this must be the case. Therefore, in the event of Biden cratering, the party would be fully capable of selecting someone to be the nominee without having to re-hold primaries or anything like that. Primaries are only democratic by choice, and until like the 20s the norm was to just have party insiders pick the nominee.
I don't think @Loire is somehow implying that the primary system as it is currently implemented is undemocratic. Only that in theory it need not be, and in the event of a Biden-pocalypse the party would likely hand select someone without throwing it back to the voters.
They're a private entity and as much as people would complain, the Democrats can nominate whoever they want and the Delegates are a formality.
No there is no precedent. It would go to a contested convention where delegates would nominate and choose freely. But the majority of delegates at the convention, by a long shot, will have been pledged Biden delegates so it's very unlikely to go to Sanders.
Not really. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by making his public denial as forceful as possible.
If the truth eventually comes spilling out he's not really going to be that much worse off having forcefully denied it. The initial denial would barely even be part of the story.
Her story prior to now was that she was "made to feel uncomfortable" and that he touched her on the shoulder. Behavior that basically would have been in line with what Lucy Flores brought up previously.
It very recently evolved to the much more graphic version where he digitally penetrated her. It's not uncommon for eye-witnesses to talk about an event in the past over and over and have the story get more and more dramatic each time. And they will "remember" it that way as it evolves. Memory is imperfect that way unless you're having the sort of trauma trigger that causes it to freeze in your brain, which it doesn't sound like she has.
The phone call is helpful insofar as that call alone provides far more evidence to support Reade's story than there ever was for Dr Blasey Ford's story, yet many of the people backing Biden now jumped down Kavanaugh's throat for it 2 years ago.
I'm not sure the Kavanaugh comparisons are really that useful. For one, the Blasey Ford story broke like what, 20 days before he was confirmed? Second, that was literally the last time he was going to face public scrutiny before being appointed to a lifetime position. The political dynamics alone in that situation change things. I think I'm a little sick of the Kavanaugh comparisons because they seem to imply that it is impossible to have found Blasey Ford credible while not finding Reade as credible, which simply isn't the case. Reade has already updated her story multiple times, the key fact witnesses she says she talked in Biden's office all deny ever having talked to her about this, and she has gone back and forth with whether she filed a complaint, with who, and where that might be stored. Finally, the police report she filed didn't mention Biden by name, despite her having gone public with the story already. I don't think it's unreasonable to have found Blasey Ford more credible than Reade for these reasons.
As for evidence, I'm not really sure what a phone call from someone who we are all assuming to be Ms. Reade's mother that doesn't mention anything other than a "problem" with a "senator" firmly proves.
Same argument Republicans used to try to discredit Blasey Ford.
I don't give a lot of credibility on the matter to people on Biden's payroll. I give more credibility to my own eyes, with which I've seen countless clips of the level of creepy touching Biden feels comfortable enough doing on camera.
Those sound like minor implementation details that are easy to believe would be foggy memory nearly 30 years later. I don't know why anyone would expect her to know where it would be stored.
Republicans were famously up in arms about Blasey Ford's story changing, and Democrats jumped to her defense to say it's common in these abuse cases for the story to seem to change as it comes out.