Wednesday, May 06, 2020

Bang The Drum Slowly...but bang it


Try to follow this argument:

Joe Biden was already talking about the past. “April was Sexual Assault Awareness Month,” the former vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee wrote on Friday, May 1. That was how he opened his first direct public statement about his former staffer Tara Reade’s claim that he had sexually assaulted her in 1993. It took him nearly 400 words to get to the allegation itself, and to deny that it ever happened—nearly 400 words in which he framed himself as an ally, as a crusader even, for women, based on his work on the Violence Against Women Act as a senator, on the “It’s On Us” campaign as vice president, and on his diligence, apparently, each April, to think about victims of sexual assault.

He went on Morning Joe that same day, to have a conversation with Mika Brzezinski where he offered his first spoken remarks on the now-month-old allegation. Brzezinski started with the obvious question—did this happen? Biden denied it unequivocally. His most repeated phrase during the interview was “it never happened,” but they also spent a good amount of time talking about access to files that seem extraordinarily unlikely to prove anything about whether Joe Biden put his fingers up Tara Reade’s skirt and penetrated her in a Senate hallway in 1993.

And then, far more than 400 words later:

These arguments have no relationship to the claims they are meant to disprove—claims that are notoriously resistant to proof either way. We are stuck, once again, in a battle between what he said and what she said (never mind that she has reliable corroborating witnesses and he continues to prop up witnesses who weren’t there). We are now engaged in a hunt for documents that will not confirm whether Joe Biden put his fingers inside of Tara Reade. They might confirm that Tara Reade filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Joe Biden. Somehow the outcome of finding even that seems like it will make her less credible rather than more—if she was complaining about harassment, why didn’t she complain about the assault, we will ask. In America, victims need to present perfectly coherent story lines, complaining in the right ways and at the right times. Any understanding of why this might be difficult still seems lost on us.

There is simply no good way to vet this claim. A presidential candidate is voted on by the people, not confirmed by a body of senators with the powers to compel testimony on matters of fact. Still, the Democratic National Committee could convene to figure out some way to investigate this allegation—as the New York Times’ editorial board suggested they do, an indication that even the paper of record recognizes that journalism faces severe limitations when asked to serve as an investigative body in this sense. It seems unlikely this will happen, though. Nancy Pelosi thinks the case is closed, and no one else seems to be taking charge, save one heartfelt statement from Rep. Ayanna Pressley. Kirsten Gillibrand has decided to sit this one out, because she trusts Joe Biden.

It is only May. There is time to figure this out, were there any will to do so. But there is not, not by most of the Democratic leadership, and certainly not by Biden, who could do the right thing and step out of the race—not even because this absolutely happened, but because it is extraordinarily complicated and not everyone gets to run for president. But there is no way Joe Biden will do that. He was already willing to run for president in a very less-than-ideal state. He has surrounded himself with a team that is willing to enable him to do so. One in 4 Democrats may see this as a reason to replace him instead of letting him lead the top of the ticket, but the majority of voters don’t want to. The imperative for Democrats has long been beating Trump, and somehow they’ve decided Joe Biden is the guy to do it.
So, to begin with, the burden of proof is on Joe Biden.  He is guilty until he proves himself innocent.  Had he simply said "No, it didn't happen" (which was the soundbite from the Mika interview), he would have been too dismissive?  Since he took 400 words to refute the claims, he's too wordy?  He tried to couch it in terms of respect for the accuser, but denial of the accusation, so we can't trust him?  But if he just brushed it off with a flat "Never happened," he'd be guilty of indifference and insensivitivy and clearly trying to stop an "investigation" before it started?  No wonder he's not persuasive.

And what investigation?  There's a foregone conclusion built into this argument: "(never mind that she has reliable corroborating witnesses and he continues to prop up witnesses who weren't there)." Would the DNC have to do it in less than 400 words in order to be "persuasive"?

1) Is Reade herself a reliable witness?

Even so, it is reasonable to consider a 27-year reporting delay when assessing the believability of any criminal allegation. More significant perhaps, is Reade’s decision to sit down with a newspaper last year and accuse Biden of touching her in a sexual way that made her uncomfortable — but neglect to mention her claim that he forcibly penetrated her with his fingers.
....
When Reade went public with her sexual assault allegation in March, she said she wanted to do it in an interview with The Union newspaper in California last April. She said the reporter’s tone made her feel uncomfortable and "I just really got shut down” and didn't tell the whole story.

It is hard to believe a reporter would discourage this kind of scoop. Regardless, it's also hard to accept that it took Reade 12 months to find another reporter eager to break that bombshell story. This unlikely explanation damages her credibility.
2) Are Reade's witnesses reliable?

After the alleged assault, Reade said she complained about Biden's harassment to Marianne Baker, Biden’s executive assistant, as well as to top aides Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman. All three Biden staffers recently told The New York Times that she made no complaint to them.

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,” Kaufman said. Toner made a similar statement. And from 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.”
Here is some of what that New York Times article reported:

Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable. Ms. Reade told The Times then that Mr. Biden had publicly stroked her neck, wrapped his fingers in her hair and touched her in ways that made her uncomfortable.

Soon after Ms. Reade made the new allegation, in a podcast interview released on March 25, The Times began reporting on her account and seeking corroboration through interviews, documents and other sources. The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him.

No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.

On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him. Ms. Reade said she filed the report to give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats. Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.

Ms. Reade, who worked as a staff assistant helping manage the office interns, said she also filed a complaint with the Senate in 1993 about Mr. Biden; she said she did not have a copy of it, and such paperwork has not been located. The Biden campaign said it did not have a complaint. The Times reviewed an official copy of her employment history from the Senate that she provided showing she was hired in December 1992 and paid by Mr. Biden’s office until August 1993. 

The complaint she says she filed with the Senate she now says didn't allege assault in any form.  Which, again, undermines her credibility.  And she kept a copy of her employment records from the Senate, but not of this complaint?  Is that why it hasn't been found?

3)  Other credible witnesses?

Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, told The Post recently that he remembers Reade telling him Biden inappropriately touched her neck and shoulders. He said nothing about a sexual assault until a few days later, when he texted The Post that he remembered Reade saying Biden put his hand "under her clothes.”

That Reade’s brother neglected to remember the most important part of her allegation initially could lead people to believe he recounted his Post interview to Reade, was told he left out the most important part, and texted it to The Post to avoid a discussion about why he failed to mention it in the first place.

In interviews with The Times, one friend of Reade’s said Reade told her she was sexually assaulted by Biden. Another friend said Reade told her that Biden touched her inappropriately. Both friends insisted that The Times maintain their anonymity.  

The bad part here is the digital penetration.  Why did Reade's brother forget that part?

On Monday, Business Insider published an interview with a friend of Reade’s who said that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she was assaulted by Biden. Insider called this friend, Lynda LaCasse, the “first person to independently corroborate, in detail and on the record, that Reade had told others about her assault allegations contemporaneously.”

But Reade alleged she was assaulted in 1993. Telling a friend two or three years later is not contemporaneous. Legal references to a contemporaneous recounting typically refer to hours or days — the point being that facts are still fresh in a person's mind and the statement is more likely to be accurate.

The Insider also quoted a colleague of Reade’s in the mid-1990s, Lorraine Sanchez, who said Reade told her she had been sexually harassed by a former boss. Reade did not mention Biden by name and did not provide details of the alleged harassment.

In prior interviews, Reade gave what appeared be an exhaustive list of people she told of the alleged assault. Neither of the women who talked to Business Insider were on that list.

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.  
And the call-in to Larry King in 1993?

Last week, new "evidence" surfaced: a recorded call by an anonymous woman to CNN's "Larry King Live" show in 1993. Reade says the caller was her mother, who's now deceased. Assuming Reade is correct, her mother said: "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."

As a prosecutor, this would not make me happy. Given that the call was anonymous, Reade’s mother should have felt comfortable relaying the worst version of events. When trying to obtain someone’s assistance, people typically do not downplay the seriousness of an incident. They exaggerate it. That Reade’s mother said nothing about her daughter being sexually assaulted would lead many reasonable people to conclude that sexual assault was not the problem that prompted the call to King.

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.”
Which, of course, raises another question of Ms. Reade's credibility:  when did it stop being about "the people around him"?  And why?

4) "There is simply no good way to vet this claim."  Aye, there's the rub; even if it does directly contradict the claim that "...she has reliable corroborating witnesses and he continues to prop up witnesses who weren't there."

There are no third-party eyewitnesses or videos to support Tara Reade’s allegation that she was assaulted by Joe Biden. No one but Reade and Biden know whether an assault occurred. This is typical of sexual assault allegations. Jurors, in this case the voting public, have to consider the facts and circumstances to assess whether Reade’s allegation is credible. To do that, they have to determine whether Reade herself is believable.  
The question is not:  is Biden persuasive?  The question is:  is Tara Reade believable?
at

No comments:

Post a Comment