From Portside <[email protected]>
Subject We Should Take Women's Accusations Seriously. But Tara Reade's Fall Short.
Date May 22, 2020 2:16 AM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
[ I would vote for Joe Biden even if I believed Reades account.
Fortunately, I dont have to sacrifice morality to political necessity.
Four more years of Trump will replace what remains of our democracy
with unchecked rule by fascists and fanatics..]
[[link removed]]

WE SHOULD TAKE WOMEN'S ACCUSATIONS SERIOUSLY. BUT TARA READE'S FALL
SHORT.   [[link removed]]

 

Katha Pollitt
May 20, 2020
The Nation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ I would vote for Joe Biden even if I believed Reade's account.
Fortunately, I don't have to sacrifice morality to political
necessity. Four more years of Trump will replace what remains of our
democracy with unchecked rule by fascists and fanatics.. _

Tara Reade in an interview with the Associated Press in Nevada City,
CA., Donald Thompson / AP Photo // The Nation

 

I would vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them. He
wasn’t my candidate, but taking back the White House is that
important. Four more years of Trump will replace what remains of our
democracy with unchecked rule by kleptocrats, fascists, religious
fanatics, gun nuts, and know-nothings. The environment? Education?
Public health? The rights of voters, workers, immigrants, people of
color, and yes, women? Forget them. And not just for the next four
years: A Trump victory will lock down the courts for decades. I cannot
believe that a rational person can grasp the disaster that is Donald
Trump and withhold their support from Biden because of Tara Reade.

I would say this even if I had no problems with Reade’s
account—after all, Biden will be running against Trump, who has been
accused of sexual misconduct by 25 women and has confessed to
“grab[bing] them by the pussy” on tape. (I’ll leave it to others
to explain why the writer E. Jean Carroll’s claim last summer that
Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s
was a one-day story, while Reade has been all over the news for
weeks.)

Fortunately, I may not have to sacrifice morality to political
necessity. When I started writing this piece too many long days ago,
Trumpies, Berners, and many feminists alike supported Reade’s
allegation, first made public on March 25 on Katie Halper’s podcast,
that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 when she was a staffer in
his Senate office. I was on the fence. I wrote, “I’d like to know
more” on Twitter and Facebook and was reviled as a feminist
hypocrite—interestingly enough, mostly by men. It was also mostly
men who demanded that I sign on immediately to #IBelieveTara.

I take women’s accusations very seriously, but there have always
been reasons to be skeptical about this one. To believe Reade, you
have to believe that Biden put her up against a wall and penetrated
her with his fingers on the spur of the moment in a hallway in the
Capitol complex, where she says she was looking for him to give him
his gym bag. This corridor, which she can’t precisely identify, is a
public space. (Her lawyer said he assaulted her in “a semi-private
area like an alcove.”) Indeed, Reade told Megyn Kelly that before
she caught up with Biden, he was talking to another person. It was the
middle of a workday. To believe Reade, you have to believe Biden would
take that risk.

Here are some of the difficulties I have with Reade’s accusation:

SHE HAS CHANGED HER STORY—NOT JUST ADDED TO IT, AS HER DEFENDERS
CLAIM, BUT ALTERED IT OVER AND OVER. She has said she was essentially
forced out, given one month to find a new job, but she has also said
she left to follow her boyfriend to the Midwest, to pursue a career as
an actress, and because she loved Russia and hated imperialism. Her
former colleague in Biden’s office told CNN
[[link removed]] that
she told him at the time her employment was terminated because of a
health issue she had. She tweeted positively about Biden, aka “my
old boss,” and retweeted or liked tweets praising Biden for his work
against sexual violence. Asked about her pro-Biden tweets, she said
they came from an old account that had since been hacked. Her
supporters say it’s not uncommon for women who have been harassed or
assaulted to speak about the perpetrator favorably in public after the
incident. Okay, but do those women also say they were hacked?

In 2018, she wrote absurdly adulatory pieces for _Medium_ about, of
all people, Vladimir Putin (“President Putin’s obvious reverence
for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is
intoxicating to American women”). She later deleted them and now
says that she lost faith in Putin when she learned of Russia’s
decriminalization of domestic violence—but she had retweeted and
liked a tweet from Chelsea Handler about the new Russian law a year
before. She also said that her pieces were part of a novel. (There is
nothing novelistic about them. They are straightforward opinion
pieces.) She told Megyn Kelly her quasi-erotic gushing over Putin’s
irresistibility to women was supposed to be humorous. It is hard to
believe she is a Russian spy, as some have claimed. She’s a terrible
writer, and her pieces were self-published and pretty much invisible.
Surely the Russians can find better uses for their Moscow gold. To me,
the Putin pieces are of interest because they are so bizarre as to
suggest some kind of mental instability.

Reade’s claim of supposed “retaliation” by Biden’s office
exists in so many versions I got a headache trying to keep them
straight. In 2019, she was interviewed by _The Union_
[[link removed]],
her local Nevada County, Ca., newspaper, as one of a group of women,
including former Nevada state assemblywoman Lucy Flores, who came
forward to complain about unwanted touching by Biden. Reade told _The
Union_ that she was deprived of certain duties, placed in a
windowless office, and ultimately pushed out of her job because she
complained about Biden’s handsiness and refused to serve drinks at a
fundraiser after a staffer told her Biden “liked her legs.”

Reade said she spoke to U.S. Senate personnel about her concerns. Word
got back to Biden’s office.

“My life was hell,” Reade said. “This was about power and
control.”

“I couldn’t get a job on the Hill,” she added.

Who was responsible for her problems in the office? The title of
her _Medium_ essay, “Powerful Men and the Women They Choose to
Destroy
[[link removed]],”
certainly seems to blame Biden, although the narrative itself is
confusing. But she has also blamed his staff and said that Biden may
not have known about her office troubles and may not even have known
when she left her job. She told Megyn Kelly that when she encountered
him in the Senate hallway just before the alleged assault, “he
remembered my name.” That sounds as if she didn’t expect him to
know who she was.

Her account of filing a sexual harassment complaint is similarly
bewildering. Granted, the alleged harassment and assault took place 27
years ago, but much of her story sounds as if she is revising and
improvising as objections come up. She first called it a sexual
harassment complaint, and then said she never used the term sexual
harassment (“I chickened out”) and may only have filled out an
“intake form.” Where is that document? Biden asked the National
Archives and the Senate Secretary’s office to release whatever they
had; the National Archives said the document would be held by the
Senate, and the Senate said releasing documents would violate
confidentiality. Reade has called on Biden to open his papers at the
University of Delaware, which are closed until two years after he
leaves public life. He has declined to do so, saying the document
would not be there and a search would set off a fishing expedition.
But even if the complaint were found, it would tell us nothing about
the alleged assault, because she has said she didn’t include it in
whatever paperwork she filed, or didn’t file.

THE BEST REASON TO BELIEVE READE IS HER CORROBORATORS. BUT IF YOU
EXAMINE THEIR ACCOUNTS CLOSELY, EACH OF THEM FALLS SHORT. Reade said
she told her mother, now deceased, about the assault and her mother
urged her to go to the police. She said her mother called in
anonymously to Larry King, and a video of that call has indeed come to
light—but her mother mentioned only that her daughter had been
working for a “prominent senator” and had “problems” that she
couldn’t get help for (“out of respect” for her boss, the mother
said, she didn’t want to go to the press). Reade’s brother, when
first interviewed by _The Washington Post_, said nothing about
assault; having spoken to the left-wing journalist Nathan Robinson, a
fervent Reade partisan, he texted the _Post_ a few days later and
said he now remembered Biden putting “his hands under her
clothes.” Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Tara Reade from 1994 to
1996, said Reade told her about sexual harassment but not assault. An
anonymous friend says Reade told her she was harassed in 2006 or 2007.
No mention of assault. A 1996 affidavit has recently surfaced in which
Reade’s ex-husband says Reade told him she had been sexually
harassed when she worked in Biden’s office. No mention of assault.

Two friends come closest to corroborating the assault. One is an
anonymous woman who met Reade when they both worked on the Hill. Last
year she corroborated Reade’s claim that Biden had touched her neck
and shoulders but, said the friend, there was nothing sexual in it,
which is what Reade also said at the time. When Reade claimed assault
this March, the friend corroborated that, too, and said she had kept
Reade’s confidences because “it just wasn’t my place.” In
other words, she lied for her friend.

The second corroborator is Lynda LaCasse, Reade’s neighbor in the
mid-’90s. In an interview with Rich McHugh of _Business Insider_,
LaCasse says Reade told her about the assault in 1995 or ’96,
but admits she had forgotten
[[link removed]] about
it until Reade reminded her:

MCHUGH: When did this come on your radar again?

LACASSE: Just recently. Tara called me and said, “Oh my gosh, this
Joe Biden thing is coming up again.” I said, “Oh my God, that.”
I had forgotten about it.

When interviewed by Amy Goodman on _Democracy Now!_
[[link removed]],
LaCasse seemed to say she always remembered it (Tara “told me about
the allegations. And I said, “Oh, yes, I remember that.”). But
when asked about her own support for Biden, she said something a
little strange: “It’s a difficult thing. I’ve always supported
him. And I just have to keep supporting him now. And it’s a little
bit harder now, after this allegation.” That certainly sounds as if
the allegation was new information, not something she always
remembered, or about which she just needed to have her memory jogged.

Are these friends telling the truth? It’s hard to say. Memory is a
funny thing, and these conversations would have happened more than 20
years ago. However, the anonymous friend says she didn’t just
withhold part of the story but confirmed something that she knew was
false. And it does seem odd that the thing LaCasse says she had
forgotten is the most shocking piece of the story, the piece that was
added just this year and the only reason we are talking about Reade
now.

Why did Reade come forward when she did? Why not when she accused him
of handsiness in 2019? She has blamed the media—the sharp remark of
a journalist at the _The Union_ shut her down. She has also said she
reached out to the campaigns of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren,
but no one responded. Reade is a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders,
and it may be relevant that her story came out in the pro-Sanders
media—_The Katie Halper Show_, _The Intercept_, _Current
Affairs_, _Democracy Now!_—just as Biden was emerging as the
presumptive nominee. On Super Tuesday she responded to a tweet
from _The Intercept_’s Ryan Grim. Grim tweeted, “A head-to-head
Biden v Sanders contest will force voters to take a close look at
Biden again. That went very badly for him last time.” Reade
responded, “Yup. Timing… wait for it….tic toc.”

That certainly sounds as if Reade was being strategic about how and
when she released her accusation. (Reade told Kelly she was referring
to the survivors’ advocacy organization Time’s Up, which she hoped
would find her a lawyer. But why would she allude to that in response
to a tweet about Super Tuesday?) In any case, it is hard to ignore the
political usefulness of Reade to the Sanders camp. In fact, Reade has
been useful to a lot of people: Bernie supporters, Trump supporters,
people who want revenge for Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony
against Brett Kavanaugh, people who think #MeToo is a pack of crazy
women, people who think feminists are hypocrites in the pocket of the
Democratic Party.

Do plenty of famous, powerful men molest less-powerful women? Of
course. #MeToo has made us all aware of that. Many studies show that
most women who say they have been sexually assaulted are telling the
truth. However, when you’re dealing with actual individuals, it
isn’t good enough to go with generalities. (As Susan Faludi clearly
established
[[link removed]],
#BelieveAllWomen is a right-wing canard.) Otherwise, you
get arguments like those of the feminist philosopher Kate Manne
[[link removed]],
who writes in _The Nation_ that Biden is “the type” of man who
would sexually assault Reade, because he has “a demonstrated history
of handsiness.” That’s like saying a man accused of armed robbery
is “the type” because he was in the habit of shoplifting. Touching
women, invading their space, commenting on their bodies, looking them
up and down are all regrettably common, especially among men of
Biden’s generation; impulsively assaulting a staffer in a public
hallway, not so much. Both behaviors may spring from “the same sense
of privileged male entitlement,” but they are different in kind.

Manne takes my colleague Joan Walsh to task for writing in a recent
opinion piece
[[link removed]] that
there is “no evidence” that Biden sexually assaulted Reade.
Reade’s accusation is itself evidence, Manne writes, “though there
remains room to disagree on its strength or probative value.” I’m
sorry, I don’t understand that at all. Allegations should lead to
further investigation, but they are not evidence on their own. If I
allege that my business partner cheated me or my doctor committed
malpractice, that is not evidence that they did so. It is just my
claim. Evidence is what I bring to support my allegation, not the
allegation itself. To say otherwise is to argue that everyone accused
rightly starts out with one strike against them. After all, someone
accused them. Smoke, meet fire.

If every piece of evidence for an accusation is a brick, and there’s
something the matter with each of them, do you have a wall or just a
pile of bricks? I think you have a pile of bricks. It is possible that
Reade endured some form of sexual harassment while working for Biden:
the handsiness mentioned by many women, for example. The assault? The
retaliation? Little evidence, and no proof. Her supporters compare her
favorably to Christine Blasey Ford, who waited even longer to come
forward with her accusation that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her at a
party when they were both in high school. Democrats believed Ford,
they say, and doubt Reade for political reasons. There may be some
truth to the claim that Democrats were eager to believe Ford and are
reluctant to believe Reade, and it may even be true that some find
Ford more credible because, unlike Reade, she has led a solidly
middle-class life of professional accomplishment and respectability.
But it’s also true that Ford did not change her story, testified
under oath, took a polygraph test, and had four sworn affidavits from
people she told about the incident plus her therapist’s notes.

As I write, Reade’s story seems to be falling apart. _PBS
NewsHour_ has posted an article based on interviews with 74 Biden
staffers
[[link removed]],
who spoke highly of their boss and his respectful and enlightened
behavior toward women. One staffer, who had worked with Reade, said
her office problems had to do with her poor performance at the task
they shared, answering mail from constituents. Another said the drinks
request would never have happened because Biden, in a move that seems
unusual for that era, did not want women to do such menial tasks. More
than 50 said that as staffers they had never attended fundraisers and
some mentioned an office policy barring most staffers from campaign
work. (“‘Never would have happened,’ said Melissa Lefko, who was
a staff assistant in Biden’s office during the time Reade was there.
‘We all knew there was a very hard line
there.’”) _NewsHour_ reporters investigated the hallway where
the assault is alleged to have happened and determined that there was
no “semi-private area like an alcove,” as her lawyer claimed,
where Biden could have assaulted Reade unseen.

An article in _Politico_
[[link removed]] portrays
Reade as a manipulative, dishonest user who exploited acquaintances
and kind people who tried to help her over the years, and who always
spoke proudly of her time working for Biden. Of course, liars can be
raped, users can be raped, people who skip out on the rent can be
raped. But it is an intentional misreading to say, as some have
claimed, that the article slams Reade for being poor. Very few poor
people trick veterinarians into billing others for medical care for
their pet horse.

We may never get to the bottom of this to everyone’s satisfaction. I
certainly won’t be holding my breath waiting for the journalists who
ran with this story on very little evidence to climb down, let alone
apologize. On Twitter, Biden is still a rapist, and perhaps always
will be. Meanwhile, Reade and her supporters have made it harder for
the next woman who claims to have been sexually harassed, assaulted or
raped. False claims are rare, as I mentioned earlier, but they loom
large in the public imagination. People still remember Tawana Brawley,
who was not, as she claimed, raped by a gang of white men, including
police officers, over four days in the woods in upstate New York—and
that was 33 years ago.

Here’s what I do know: Whether or not you believe Tara Reade—and
I’m betting that the case for believing her is going to get weaker
rather than stronger as the weeks go by—you should vote for Joe
Biden if he is the nominee. And he is almost sure to be the nominee,
despite the best efforts of some Sanders supporters to use Reade to
force Biden to step aside. Moreover, there is nothing hypocritical
about feminists supporting Biden. We have a perfect right to support
the candidate who will be better for women and their rights than the
one who will send us back to the 1950s. It is the only intelligent
thing to do. Not only is Tara Reade’s claim far from proven,
weighing the personal against the political is what voters do all the
time. Black Virginians stuck with Governor Ralph Northam despite his
blackface scandal. Were they hypocrites? I doubt that was the only
time Americans have had to swallow their pride and support a
politician who, whatever his faults, served their interests.

I realize Democrats and those to their left care deeply about their
principles. Al Franken was hustled out of the Senate, after all, on
the basis of far less serious—but better attested—allegations than
Reade’s. But this time we need to take a leaf from the evangelicals,
who enthusiastically support Donald Trump and don’t give a hoot that
25 women have accused him of various kinds of misconduct or that he
paid hush money to a porn star. They don’t care about his dishonest
finances, either, or his still-unrevealed income taxes or indeed
anything detrimental about him. What they care about is what Donald
Trump will do for their issues: install Supreme Court justices who
will overturn _Roe v. Wade_, for starters.

Whether or not you feel in your bones that Tara Reade is telling the
truth, the evidence is just not there. We do not have the luxury of
sitting out the election to feel morally pure or send a message about
sexual assault and #BelieveWomen. That will not help women at all. Or
anyone else.

_[Katha Pollitt is a columnist for The Nation.]_

_Copyright c 2020The Nation. Reprinted with permission. May not be
reprinted without__ __permission_
[[link removed]]_.
Distributed by__ _PARS International Corp
[[link removed]]. 

Please support  progressive journalism. Get a digital subscription
[[link removed]]
to _The Nation_ for just $9.50!

*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis