Campaign 2020

[Sabin]

[NOTE: in the clear light of day, it’s probably inappropriate That I share this particular detail about my life, especially given my track record on this Board. Because it’s just not entirely my story to tell, I’ll edit. Anyone who is interested can reach out.]



I took a little time away from this thread before responding to Mister Tee's post.

I have no difficulty saying that I don't believe Tara Reade. There's sufficient reason to doubt her. I certainly believe that the media sought to protect Joe Biden from what is probably a false accusation in a way they didn't for Al Franken (or wouldn't for Bernie Sanders) but it all eventually came out and it's been sufficiently covered replete with countless polls have been taken covering what Democrats think about Tara Reade, and we've seen endless hot takes on Joe Biden's response, Tara Reade's credibility, etc. It's been covered.

Anyway...

I’m not comfortable saying I’m angry at Tara Reade as I’m not yet convinced she’s lying. I simply have enough doubt to doubt.

It’s been two weeks, so I’ve largely let go of the frustration I had with the fact that the media declined to promote Tara Reade’s story. Whatever happened at the onset is in the past. According to this week’s Hill poll, 30% of Democrats and 51% of Independent’s believe her so that’s the issue now. Either Biden can overcome it or not. And either way, the MeToo Movement’s response moving forward will have to change which was, I suppose, as much of an inevitability as someone rising up to take advantage of it in the first place.

As for whether or not the Me Too Movement actually stood for believing women (what?), I’m a bit baffled by the responses here. Citing the etymology of the phrase doesn’t do much to convince me about its popularization or usage one way or another. Wes writes about “overreactions.” These were until very recently overreactions that were entirely sanctioned by the Democratic Party, either because they were honestly navigating uncertain waters or it was politically advantageous (certainly it’s somewhere between). To paraphrase Andrew Gillum, the people who believed the Democratic Party believed all women believed all women, a lot of them are hurt, and the Democratic Party bears some responsibility for not seeing this coming. It has the appearance of a double-standard. Even if we’re dealing with someone who isn’t telling the truth and clearly we’re seeing the results of that.

But we’re also in a pandemic.

[OscarGuy]

Something you said in your last paragraph Tee, stirred in me a point that we might not be making. Perhaps the utter shitstorm that was the Franken situation is what ultimately caused everyone to step back and reflect on how they are covering or investigating or over-analyzing these accusations. After Harvey Weinstein and Roger Ailes, folks were bloodthirsty to bring down more "important" people to show how much they were supporting the cause. Now, reflecting back on that, there was a lot of overreaction going round and, as Taki references below, the MeToo movement was never about believe all women. It was about give them credence, let them speak and testify, and dig for the truth.

The folks who were smelling blood in the water started tackling people like Morgan Freeman whose character seems to be above reproach. So, perhaps these two years later (after Franken resigned) everyone has contemplated what the best way to react to each accusation is and while it might have swung a little too far past the appropriate middle ground, I think we're finally realizing that not everyone who comes forward has a story worth telling and some have a story more than worth telling. Finding which cases those are is a very narrow line to walk, but we're getting better at it.

Ultimately, I think this measured approach will strengthen the MeToo movement for one specific reason: Every false accusation that's allowed to fester and destroy good people is another nail in the coffin of a movement that needs credibility and genuine success to thrive.

[Mister Tee]

Well, I think this adds a wrinkle to this story that NO ONE was expecting:

https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/256581177320812544

[taki15]

Anyway, for anyone still in doubt on whether this story deserved any serious attention I will post a link.

https://medium.com/@macarthur.cliff/the ... 7d3ca14978

Here a random guy on the internet does what big name journalists are too lazy to do: some plain old-fashioned research which exposes not only how many holes Reade's story has but that she herself is an incredibly shady character (she even stole money from a charity!).

[Mister Tee]

OK. Sabin, I value your friendship, and could feel through my computer how passionate this issue makes you, so I stayed clear of it. But I feel like I have to step in.

To frame any issue where a woman makes an accusation as "You either assume she's telling the truth, or you betray MeToo" is a false dichotomy. The premise of MeToo isn't that every woman has to be believed (that would make Emmett Till guilty); it's that women's accusations aren't to be dismissed out of hand, but to be treated as any other accusation: subject to the rules of evidence, and prosecuted if found valid. (There's an incorrect meme going around the Internet that #MeToo folk initially said "Believe all women". They did not. The first -- and first several -- usages of that phrase were by Bari Weiss, a sometime NY Times columnist whose whole shtik is that the left goes too far. Caveat emptor.) I don't see why we'd be obligated to take every accusation, no matter the source or level of credibility, on an equal level. My thinking some particular African-American was railroaded for murder doesn't mean I have to believe OJ is innocent.

There are so many holes in Tara Reade's story, but, for me, the big one is this: she may have made some vague sort of claim that Biden "made her uncomfortable" over the years (though the people vouching for her say she had to remind them about it, suggesting it wasn't such a big deal in the initial telling). But now, in the past year, she suddenly remembers that he inserted his fingers into her privates. This is either the longest recorded case of burying the lead in American history, or, far easier to believe, someone who found her story wasn't getting traction so she added a salacious detail sure to get tabloid attention. My instant reaction was that her story was bullshit, and the many actual journalists who did seriously look into this apparently came to the same conclusion -- their refusal to push the story forward wasn't favoritism or insufficient metoo-ism; it was plain old journalistic ethics. (And, OK, these are somewhat side issues, and can be seen as piling on, but 1) the fact that this new pornographic detail exactly matches a paragraph her father wrote in a novel and 2) multiple women who worked in Capitol Hill jobs in the period in question say that pantyhose was a uniform requirement and would have made the described action physically impossible -- these both cast further doubt on her shaky story.)

There are one or two reporters at The Intercept who are legit journalists, but, for the most part, the site follows the ethos of Glenn Greenwald, which is that Democrats are the true enemy of society -- Greenwald has hated Obama, Hillary, and now Biden. So, yeah: the fact that they've been pushing this story so hard (having tried and failed with their Biden-has-dementia campaign) further calls the veracity into question. And Katie Halper! The other day she posted that all of Biden's files need to be searched -- but that, if nothing is found to verify Reade's story, it will only mean that the files have been scrubbed. This is almost a perfect match for the parody-conspiracy-theory "The fact there's no evidence only proves how deep the corruption goes". You say we can't use "this is a bunch of Sanders dead-enders" as defense here -- but the fact is, that's who's been pushing it from the start, and they're not even being subtle about it: they seem to feel if they can disqualify Biden, Bernie will ascend to the throne. (Which shows how little some of them know of politics -- if Biden were to decompose this afternoon, the delegates would move to Andrew Cuomo in a heartbeat -- and Sanders folk would have a lot better reason to dislike him than Biden.)

The only thing I can get from your posts is that, despite all the clear doubt surrounding Reade's story (including the fact she's again changed her story about filing a complaint, and has backed out of planned TV interviews), you feel the media should have put Biden through the mill to be somehow consistent with previous pile-ons. I'd argue first of all that doing things wrong the first time is not justification for repeating the offense. (And I was fully against Franken being forced out in real time.) But I'd further add that Reade is doing none of the things that others -- notably Blasey-Ford -- did: coming forward reluctantly (rather than with a "tick-tock" tweet), and putting herself under oath (something Reade has stayed clear of doing -- even her police report pointedly doesn't name Biden, which seems a way of avoiding culpability for perjury). The media is not obliged to trash someone based on flimsy evidence, especially in a situation where the motivations look this political.

Sorry...I'm just not with you on this one.

[Sabin]

taki15 wrote
Nobody ever said Believe ALL Women. That's a malicious generalization by right-wingers and sexist assholes which intended to trivialize and ridicule the #MeToo movement. What everyone said was that women should be respected and their claims should receive a thorough and fair investigation instead of being dismissed out of hand.

I don't know where to start...

JOE BIDEN: “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time.”

My concerns aren't shared. This has become a dumpster fire. Clearly, this was the wrong place to vent my concerns.

[taki15]

taki15 wrote
The rest of your post is frankly BS. Nobody is silencing Reade. She tried to shop her story to everyone and they simply refused to bite. Today she herself cancelled an interview with Fox and when MSNBC asked her for an interview she similarly declined.

And how does that square with believing women?

That said, in the past two hours she cancelled her interview and she stated that she didn’t explicitly accuse Joe Biden of sexual assault in her report. Looks weird. Maybe she’s full of shit.

It has been pretty astonishing to read that nobody on this board shares any of my concerns at all. Even if the veracity is her story is doubted.

Nobody ever said Believe ALL Women. That's a malicious generalization by right-wingers and sexist assholes which intended to trivialize and ridicule the #MeToo movement. What everyone said was that women should be respected and their claims should receive a thorough and fair investigation instead of being dismissed out of hand.
There have been many cases where women lied and bad-faith actors like Jacob Wohl tried to smear people like Chuck Schumer and Bob Mueller with false accusations of sexual harassment.

[Sabin]

taki15 wrote
The rest of your post is frankly BS. Nobody is silencing Reade. She tried to shop her story to everyone and they simply refused to bite. Today she herself cancelled an interview with Fox and when MSNBC asked her for an interview she similarly declined.

And how does that square with believing women?

That said, in the past two hours she cancelled her interview and she stated that she didn’t explicitly accuse Joe Biden of sexual assault in her report. Looks weird. Maybe she’s full of shit.

It has been pretty astonishing to read that nobody on this board shares any of my concerns at all. Even if the veracity is her story is doubted.

[taki15]

OscarGuy wrote
Anyway, I think you just want to be angry about a disparity that doesn't really exist, all things considered. I doubt that any of us are going to convince you at this point. Taki's post holds an even better defense regarding Ronan Farrow, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and AOC's lack of interest or follow-up. At this juncture, my defense will end. You have a right to your feelings and I'm not going to try to convince you that you shouldn't have them. If evidence submitted cannot convince you that this is all much ado about nothing, then your feelings are never going to be assuaged no matter how much we try.

Both Wes and Taki mentioned Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, yesterday, she retweeted Jessica Valenti saying "Believing women means doing so whether it's convenient or not."

And at a virtual town hall meeting, one of her constituents spoke about Tara Reade saying she opposed President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."

AOC responded by saying, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting... I think it's legitimate to talk about these things. And if we want, if we again want to have integrity, you can't say, you know — both believe women, support all of this, until it inconveniences you, until it inconveniences us."

So, this is how I feel. I feel gaslit by the Democratic Party. Even if Tara Reade is entirely full of shit, her story was effectively silenced for at least two weeks. The timeline of how Tara Reade was covered vs. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is so remarkably unbalanced in the era of the Me Too Movement that it's inexcusable. And please, before you point out the differences between Ford and Reade, think about what you're really doing.

This has gotten out of hand. I am going to make a better effort to restrict my comments to the source of my frustrations so my intentions are not to be misconstrued. Instead of responding to Wes' comment, I should have simply said "I am just talking about what this means for The Me Too Movement."

I am disappointed by how Tara Reade was covered. I am disappointed by how the Democrats responded. Very much so. That's it.

At least Magilla is honest. He's also chalking it all up to a "delusional Bernie Bro scheme." But at least he's open about saying that the Me Too Movement had the wrong idea, that we shouldn't have said "Believe all women" but instead "Take these allegations more seriously." It may be tribal in mentality (but, hey! that's our world, right?) but at least he's willing to say that, yes, we were wrong about the Me Too Movement. We shouldn't believe all women when they come forward. We should just take allegations more seriously. Great! I certainly am not holding out hope that any Democrats admit it but with Nancy Pelosi's statement about Joe Biden, they already did.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had the chance to make Reade's story public when she came to her office. She didn't, despite the fact that she was supporting Biden's main opponent for the nomination. So I don't really care what she says now. If she believed her then she had the chance to do something about it when it mattered. Everything else is irrelevant.
The rest of your post is frankly BS. Nobody is silencing Reade. She tried to shop her story to everyone and they simply refused to bite. Today she herself cancelled an interview with Fox and when MSNBC asked her for an interview she similarly declined.

[Sabin]

OscarGuy wrote
Anyway, I think you just want to be angry about a disparity that doesn't really exist, all things considered. I doubt that any of us are going to convince you at this point. Taki's post holds an even better defense regarding Ronan Farrow, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and AOC's lack of interest or follow-up. At this juncture, my defense will end. You have a right to your feelings and I'm not going to try to convince you that you shouldn't have them. If evidence submitted cannot convince you that this is all much ado about nothing, then your feelings are never going to be assuaged no matter how much we try.

Both Wes and Taki mentioned Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, yesterday, she retweeted Jessica Valenti saying "Believing women means doing so whether it's convenient or not."

And at a virtual town hall meeting, one of her constituents spoke about Tara Reade saying she opposed President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."

AOC responded by saying, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting... I think it's legitimate to talk about these things. And if we want, if we again want to have integrity, you can't say, you know — both believe women, support all of this, until it inconveniences you, until it inconveniences us."

So, this is how I feel. I feel gaslit by the Democratic Party. Even if Tara Reade is entirely full of shit, her story was effectively silenced for at least two weeks. The timeline of how Tara Reade was covered vs. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is so remarkably unbalanced in the era of the Me Too Movement that it's inexcusable. And please, before you point out the differences between Ford and Reade, think about what you're really doing.

This has gotten out of hand. I am going to make a better effort to restrict my comments to the source of my frustrations so my intentions are not to be misconstrued. Instead of responding to Wes' comment, I should have simply said "I am just talking about what this means for The Me Too Movement."

I am disappointed by how Tara Reade was covered. I am disappointed by how the Democrats responded. Very much so. That's it.

At least Magilla is honest. He's also chalking it all up to a "delusional Bernie Bro scheme." But at least he's open about saying that the Me Too Movement had the wrong idea, that we shouldn't have said "Believe all women" but instead "Take these allegations more seriously." It may be tribal in mentality (but, hey! that's our world, right?) but at least he's willing to say that, yes, we were wrong about the Me Too Movement. We shouldn't believe all women when they come forward. We should just take allegations more seriously. Great! I certainly am not holding out hope that any Democrats admit it but with Nancy Pelosi's statement about Joe Biden, they already did.

[OscarGuy]

What takes air out of your arguments, Sabin is this. Yes, I'm quoting Wikipedia, but as you can see, this three-sentence segment of the page has four citations alone.

"In January 2020, Reade contacted Time's Up Legal Defense Fund and requested financial assistance to make her sexual assault allegation public.[15] Time's Up said it "informed Ms. Reade of [its] inability to fund legal and PR fees for her due to [its] 501(c)(3) status"[16] which restricts "how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election".[14] Time's Up provided Reade with a list of attorneys that she could reach out to. Reade said she contacted all of them but none agreed to take the case.[17]"

You really think that every attorney would turn her down if her case had merit and they couldn't make a name for themselves representing a woman who could take down a presidential candidate?

The last thing I'll do is share this article from Washington Post's Ruth Marcus who has written extensively on political figures and sexual assault allegations. If this doesn't put your mind at ease, nothing will. You want to hate the Democratic Party for an uneven response and this attempts to compare the responses between two very recent examples: Christine Blaisey Ford and Tara Reade. We'll take Franken out of the situation (though your own response below suggests that the disparity is fueling your feeling of ickiness about the situation, so whether you intended to or not, it bore more impact than you are now suggesting it did, which is why I framed the response in relation to Franken.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... legations/

Anyway, I think you just want to be angry about a disparity that doesn't really exist, all things considered. I doubt that any of us are going to convince you at this point. Taki's post holds an even better defense regarding Ronan Farrow, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and AOC's lack of interest or follow-up. At this juncture, my defense will end. You have a right to your feelings and I'm not going to try to convince you that you shouldn't have them. If evidence submitted cannot convince you that this is all much ado about nothing, then your feelings are never going to be assuaged no matter how much we try.

[Big Magilla]

The full story is here:

https://thebanter.substack.com/p/tara-r ... allegation

[Big Magilla]

All my Mother does is watch CNN and MSNBC and she hadn't heard the name Tara Reade until last Friday.

Methinks you should follow your mother's example.

I never heard of Ryan Grim and Katie Halper until you mentioned them. I looked them up. I don't think I missed much not knowing who either one was.

I don't know much about Tara Reade but I do know who her friend Krystal Ball is, which explains a lot. This whole thing is a delusional Bernie bro scheme to discredit Biden to the point where the country will rebel and Sanders will win the nomination by default.

As to the "believe all women" mantra, that was always a bridge too far. "Take all complaints seriously" was always what the mantra should have been. This was taken seriously until it fell apart. There is no there, there.

[taki15]

Reade herself said that she contacted about her story the New York Times, Washington Post, Ronan Farrow, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris's campaigns, and ALexandria Ocasio-Cortez's congressional office. Now, if you think that all these entities passed up on the scoop of the decade and the chance to knock out their most formidable rival for the Democratic nomination, then I doubt that anything Biden does or says can convince you for his innocence.
Not to mention that if Reade had indeed filed a formal complaint at the senate personnel office there is no way that Obama's vetting team and Republican oppo-researchers in 2008 could have missed such a huge red flag.

There is also the little fact that Reade was speaking glowingly of Biden as late as 2017, praising him for his work on behalf of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault(!!!). Then suddenly last year she announces that she is a Bernie Sanders supporter and that Biden had touched her inappropriately. And now in 2020 she accuses him of rape but refuses to give the specific time, day, and place where this happened so that Biden himself is unable to present a possible alibi.
Maybe I am missing something here but if you don't think that this case stinks to high heaven then perhaps the problem is yours, not Biden's.

[Sabin]

I'm sorry. I certainly overwrote my responses.

OscarGuy wrote
I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I don't think you're entirely right. If NYT can investigate and come up with little credible evidence, then should we still believe her? That was my entire point. When she came forward, she was believed and an investigation was conducted, sure it was the news, but it was the investigative reporting division. They aren't exactly incompetent at that.

Tara Reade's story was deprived oxygen for an amount of time that wouldn't be given to an accuser of any other candidate. Ryan Grim's report for The Intercept came out March 24th. Tara Reade spoke about the account on a podcast with Katie Halper on March 25th. She filed a police report on April 9th. Where is Tara Reade in the news? Nowhere. She wasn't believed or not believed. She didn't exist. All my Mother does is watch CNN and MSNBC and she hadn't heard the name Tara Reade until last Friday.

Again: I am not commenting on Joe Biden's guilt. What I am saying is that after three years of being told that women are to be believed when they come forward, the moment that it wasn't politically expedient for the party to uphold that banner, we became the party of due process and investigation. Joe Biden was afforded privilege in the hopes that this story would go away if it was denied oxygen.

Fine, I'll say it: IMAGINE if Bernie Sanders was accused by Tara Reade. How quickly would that be 24/7 coverage? Would CNN or MSNBC wait to cover before a New York Times thorough investigation? Would there be one candidate running who wouldn't publicly comment the day of that she should be believed instead of waiting for the New York Times investigation to be completed?

Joe Biden was afforded the kind of privilege that the Democratic Party has spent three years claiming to be against. We all saw it. This is a remarkable kick in the ass to the Me Too movement by the Democratic Party.

OscarGuy wrote
That said, I think the problem is you're looking back at the Franken incident perhaps with a bit of blinders because you've convinced yourself that the Dems have betrayed you personally. Sure, the Roger Stone friend was the person who brought allegations to light, but it wasn't until the photo came out that things started getting serious. It was pictorial evidence of inappropriate behavior, whether a joke or not. He issued a full-throated apology even, a short one and then a longer one.

Wes, I didn't bring up Al Franken. Sonic just asked me "What about the Al Franken episode?" And I responded.

OscarGuy wrote
The element of that situation that I don't think you're remembering (and I had to look up the exact numbers here, but I remember the general details) was that it wasn't until seven additional women came forward alleging inappropriate behavior followed later by another two. That's where the two situations ultimately diverge. If it had been the one individual making the accusations, but every other woman he worked with came out and said that he was a prince of a man, then we could accept that he had acknowledge the mistakes he made in the past and strove to do better since then. Yes, he needs to pay a price for the behavior, but atonement can often take a lifetime (see Byrd, Robert) and still not always be enough for some people.

Okay, how about this:

Nine women accused Al Franken of inappropriate touching. Tara Reade is the eighth woman to accuse Joe Biden of inappropriate touching. And now we have an allegation of sexual assault.

Both Al Franken and Joe Biden have had their camps swear on their personal, moral standing. And both Al Franken and Joe Biden have admitted inappropriate behavior in the past.

And before you say anything, forget about Tara Reade's account. The allegations against Al Franken and Joe Biden are absolutely in the same ballpark. They both pretty much fall under ignoring of personal boundaries. Smelling hair. Grabbing. Things like that. I'm going to dismiss about Al Franken's first accuser because it was within the context of a stage production. How is there any meaningful difference between the two? Honestly.

Go ahead and nit-pick differences. I mean, meaningful differences. After years of seeing videos of Joe Biden, and hearing Joe Biden himself say that he's evolved and didn't understand that his touching could make a woman uncomfortable, how can any say "No, Joe Biden could never do that."

OscarGuy wrote
The worst that Joe Biden has been accused of (prior to Reade's altering of her story) was women who said he was a little overly touchy-feely. Not appropriate, but the guy was raised in an entirely different generation, so it can be understood, not accepted. The problem is that since Reade has come forward, there has been silence from other sexual assault accusers. The details she provides don't match the details of anyone else who's made an accusation and Biden has had plenty of colleagues attest to his gentlemanly behavior.

I've already commented on the top part.

I'll just ask, "Is that the problem?" I'm just trying to understand our new system. If someone comes forward, we believe them if: 1) the description matches previous instances, 2) no other accusers speak up, and 3) colleagues attest to gentlemanly behavior.

To be clear, those are the rules we are going by from here on out? Great, glad we've decided to settle on it.

OscarGuy wrote
So, I think you're just a little too hung up on a hindsight view of the Franken situation that doesn't entirely mirror the Biden one and thus you're struggling to rationalize that they aren't the same thing. I think if you set everything aside, consider what is known so far about each situation, some of that malaise you're feeling is probably an overreaction. If more people come forward about Biden, I think you'll see the conversation shift very quickly, especially for the women who've defended him to date.

No, it's not an overreaction. I'm allowed to be grossed out by my political party. And It's not a hindsight view of the Franken situation. Every single person who has come forward over the past three years and spoken about supporting the Me Too movement, instead of Joe Biden, has not put their money where their mouth is. I feel like I'm still not being heard. I am annoyed that the Democratic Party has been serving up shit about how all women are to be believed and the minute it's not politically expedient to treat all accusations as fact (or to quote Joe Biden: "the essence of it is real.") we need an investigation.

But that last part? Well, you're certainly right. It would be nice if one sexual assault claim was all it took. I thought that what we stood for.