Joe Biden

The New York Times Is Extremely Skeptical of Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden. Imagine That.

"We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

|

The mainstream media's silence regarding a former staffer's sexual assault accusation against Joe Biden is finally broken: The New York Times covered the allegations on Sunday in an extensively reported piece, "Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden."

It's an excruciatingly matter-of-fact article, bereft of the emotion and rhetorical flourishes that have often characterized the Times' past reporting on #MeToo stories. The Times' investigative piece on Deborah Ramirez, Brett Kavanaugh's Yale accuser, was headlined, "Brett Kavanaugh Fit in With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not." The paper also ran ostensibly objective pieces with headlines like "For Christine Blasey Ford, a Drastic Turn From a Quiet Life in Academia" and "With Caffeine and Determination, Christine Blasey Ford Relives Her Trauma." These were news articles, but it was not hard to detect an agenda: portray the accuser as so likable and sympathetic that readers would want to believe her.

There is no such agenda in the Reade article; the reporters come across as extremely skeptical of her (not without some justification). The paragraph containing the news hook for this story—that Reade finally, on Thursday, filed a police report about the incident—contains this oddly placed reminder: "Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment."

The New York Times' Lisa Lerer and Sydney Ember spoke with dozens of people—including many who worked alongside Reade and Biden in 1993, the year that she alleges Biden digitally penetrated her without her permission while they were alone together—but the only supportive evidence came from secondhand accounts of friends and family.

"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," wrote Lerer and Ember. "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." Given how ridiculous this passage sounded to many readers, editors swiftly removed—without acknowledgment—everything after Biden. The Twitter version endured for longer.

The New York Times subsequently deleted the tweet from the thread about the story.

While the Times' dismissal of the existence of a pattern has attracted most of the derision, an earlier point is more obviously flawed. As Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson points out, it is false to say that none of Biden's staff corroborated any part of her allegation. Reade has alleged that after she complained about sexual harassment, Biden's people punished her by taking away most of her duties, which included supervising the interns. The New York Times' story confirmed with two former interns that Reade "abruptly stopped supervising them in April, before the end of their internships."

This does not at all prove that Reade is telling the truth—she could have lost her intern management duties for a thousand different reasons—but it contradicts the claim elsewhere that there was zero corroboration from Biden staff. It may be a small thing, but it's something.

It's fine to be skeptical of Reade. (The suspicious timing of her allegations is just one reason. Reason contributor Cathy Young notes several others.) And it's more than fine—commendable, even—for journalists to seek the facts and then refrain from making sweeping judgments when there just isn't compelling evidence to establish that a decades-old story holds enough water for a reasonable person to consider the subject disqualified from higher office. But the Times and other outlets are proceeding with a level of caution that's inconsistent with how they treated the Kavanaugh allegations, even though the evidence was similarly weak (and the underlying incidents less serious) in that case. One cannot help but indulge the suspicion that the inconvenience of the allegation against Biden—it could work to the advantage of President Donald Trump's re-election—might have given the media (and some erstwhile "believe all women" activists) pause.

Tellingly, the Times story also includes three full paragraphs about the sexual misconduct accusations against Trump, including his alleged consensual affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels and his hot mic comments to Access Hollywood's Billy Bush. "Even so, Mr. Trump has at times attacked opponents over their treatment of women," wrote the Times' reporters. "The president has not mentioned Ms. Reade's allegation, which has circulated on social media and in liberal and conservative news outlets."

NEXT: Student Loans Aren't Working

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If only presumption of innocence applied to everyone.

    1. At least they’re remembering that it exists. Now that they’ve acknowledged this principle, it’s time to compare this as the standard for how they should judge every other accusation they find.

      1. That only works if others hold them accountable. The editors at The Times have shown they put partisanship before everything else. Why would this be any different?

        The ironic thing if by utilizing an incorrect premise, they arrived at the correct response.

        1. Well yes. The next time a conservative is faced with some really questionable allegations, it’s up to others to ask the Times why Biden received a presumption of innocence if others do not.

          1. The Times would simply point to this article as evidence that Biden didn’t receive a presumption of innocence. See? No double-standard at all…

            1. To her credit, at least she didn’t post fake confessions of inappropriate touching in Biden’s name. If she had done that and then claimed it was just a “parody,” the presumption of innocence would appropriately have been reversed, and the burden would have fallen on her to prove that her intent was indeed to engage in innocent mimicry, rather than in rank criminal conduct aimed at damaging the former American vice president’s reputation. See the documentation of our great nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

              https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
          Find out how HERE……
          More here

    2. Hah!

    3. Lisa ??Looking for hook up with a stranger! ?? Ready for any experiments… Details Here

  2. The Times carrying water and providing cover for Team (D)?

    Color me shocked.

    1. Color them yellow.

      1. NYT journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow… until they stop moving.

  3. Obviously, yes, this is an indictment of the Times treatment of the Kavanaugh accusation, not of the Biden case. One wonders if the staff at the paper have any shame at all.

    1. Who could that one be who wonders if the staff at the paper have any shame at all? The only people it might be would not even be aware of the imbroglio; everyone else knows the answer even if they won’t admit it publicly.

    2. You only have shame for doing things you know are wrong.
      NYT does not know that a false, biased, lying editorial disguised as a news story is wrong.

    3. Get woke! Shame is only for straight, white males, especially if they have positive cash flow.

    4. It starts from the top. Dean Bacquet is a lying piece of shit.

  4. Sorry, the timing of this allegation is extremely suspicious. Mere weeks ago people were spreading totally unfounded rumors of Biden’s so-called “cognitive decline.” That didn’t work, though, because anyone who’s been paying attention can see #BidenIsAsSharpAsEver.

    Now in desperate need of a new tactic, anti-Biden forces are reduced to weaponizing the #BelieveWomen standard. It’s a shameless and cynical game they’re playing. Don’t fall for it.

    #LibertariansForBiden
    #VoteBidenToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. And the timing of the Kavanaugh allegation was not extremely suspicious? There is an established procedure that senators are supposed to follow with allegations like this, but instead Feinstein held onto her evidence until the very end and then released it to the press.

      But the point of this article is just to call out those people and organizations who, in the Kavanaugh case said “believe all women” but now are not doing that. Nor were they doing that with respect to any of Bill Clinton’s accusers. The true target of this piece is the hypocritical tendency some people have to judge men of their own political persuasion by less rigorous rules, and to judge their accusers more severely.

      1. Psssss! He’s a well-known parody troll, whose height of delight is answers like yours.

        1. I think he is a featured journalist at the Onion.

          1. Babylon Bee. The onion doesn’t poke fun at the left to often.

    2. Weren’t you here about 7 months ago minimizing the accusations against Kavanaugh? Honestly, do you bring anything to the table here other than sucking GOP cock and being a racist twat? I’d like to know.

      1. This response makes no sense.

        1. No no no, let it happen. Its beautiful to watch.

          1. Does being a libertarian mean you support a President who is running up a deficit twice the size of Obama’s— at his worst— in order to hand out welfare checks to poor people who can’t hack a little upper respiratory infection?

            1. Joe? Is that you? You should try to focus on your campaign right now buddy.

            2. “No, no, don’t look at the raped woman in Joe’s closet. Look over there at a different topic… the deficit, yeah… you libertarians hate the deficit right? Let’s talk about that.”

              You’re shitty at distraction, AmSoc.

              1. Geesch, I ask for advice on which dirty old man to vote for and people get all bitchy. Should I vote for the weirdo grouper or the child raper? Simple question

                1. Here’s a simpler question, why are you always trying to change the topic?

                2. I’d say vote for the socialist, but he’s not even nominated, racist.

                3. Vote for Jacob Horberger https://jacobforliberty.com/ that’s an easy one. If you are on a site that is very much libertarian why not vote for a libertarian instead of the other 2 creepy dudes. you can at least have a clear conscience. #my2cents

            3. Irony, someone who chooses Socialist as their user name crying about debt. What is the debt to GDP ratio of European Social Democracies (I believe Italy’s is > 100%) and full blown socialist countries?

      2. Lets look at everything this accusation has that Kavanaugh’s accusations lacked.

        -Date
        -Place
        -Other witnesses confirming that this was a contemporary complaint (the Ford accusation named people, all of whom said they had no memory of the event).
        -Supporting evidence (direct or indirect, the Ford accusation had nothing. Here, at least we can say definitively that she was demoted, even if we cannot prove precisely why)
        -Proof beyond reasonable doubt that the two people had ever met

        You can’t compare these two accusations. For Ford, it was her incomplete story which was contradicted by all available potential evidence. On Reade’s, it’s not only a complete story, but matches the facts as far as we can confirm.

        1. Silly Ben! Don’t you know these rules never apply to democrats? Bill Clinton was a serial rapist for crying out loud.

    3. “#BidenIsAsSharpAsEver”

      Good one.

      “#VoteBidenToHelpCharlesKoch”

      Over the top. Observe a proper balance.

      1. But I’m inclined for once to agree that Biden *is* as sharp as ever. Yes, that was an insult.

        1. instantrimshot.com

        2. As sharp as a basketball.

    4. #BidenIsAsSharpAsEver????????

      While multiple psychiatrists were writing articles about potential psych diagnoses in Trump (many may be well deserved, but doing it via interaction filtered by media is very bad), I have yet to see any geriatrician or neurologist quoted regarding Biden’s obvious demented statements and actions. My neurologist friend says it’s pretty obvious and the incident where he almost struck the factory worker in Ohio looked like the demented nursing home residents who would formerly been placed in chemical restraints with antipsychotic medications.

    5. No matter how hard you people try, you cannot run from the blatant hypocrisy on this one. Just admit it. You don’t care if men rape women. You just want to politicize it. Lieutenant governor of Virginia beats his girlfriend, nobody says anything. Joe Biden has multiple accusations of sexual assault, nobody says anything. Bill Clinton is accuse the forcible rape? Nobody says anything. Stop pretending you care about women. Just stop. You sound ridiculous. Lieutenant governor of Virginia beats his girlfriend, nobody says anything. Joe Biden has multiple accusations of sexual assault, nobody says anything. Bill Clinton is accused a forcible rape? Nobody says anything. Stop pretending you care about women. Just stop. You sound ridiculous.

  5. Honestly, this is progress. They investigated a claim they thought was bogus and found no evidence to support and actually published, “Yeah, we think this woman is full of shit.” It’s the right step to take away from #AlwaysBelieveAllWomen.

    But of course they couldn’t help but remind people “By the way, there’s plenty of allegations against Trump!”

    1. Every charge against Biden has been debunked! Debunked I tell you! Now move along.

    2. Except let’s look at the evidence.

      1: Family and friends supported that she had told this story many years ago.
      2: They say there were no firsthand accounts. OF COURSE there weren’t any witnesses. He didn’t molest his secretaries in the middle of a crowded conference room. He did it when they were alone.
      3: They did confirm that she was demoted. This conforms to her story.

      This is far from beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt it even meets the preponderance of evidence standard. However, there is no refutation or counterpoint. It still remains definitely possible. We have a time, date, place, contemporaneous knowledge of the story by others, corroborating evidence of some punishment happening that fits with the known Congressional culture of shutting down these sorts of reports.

      I can see you saying “we cannot convict this man”. However, I reply with “there is sufficient evidence that it actually did happen that I do not want him anywhere near the White House”.

  6. And good ‘ol Joe gets a pass from the gimlet eyed journalists of the stalwart NYT.

    Joe Stalin, that is.

    Memory-holing Biden’s difficulties is small potatoes for these lefty propagandists.

    1. Duranty is rolling in his grave that they would even think of an article like this, admitting any kind of problem.

    2. As we all know, the purpose of journalism is to protect members of the Democratic Party. The more strenuously you defend them, the better you are at journalism and the more awards you get.

      These guys want Duranty’s Pulitzer.

  7. The New York Times — All The News Fit To Pee Upon

    1. Yellow is as yellow does.

  8. I hope Trump seats Ms. Reade in Joe Biden’s line of sight at the first debate. Not that Biden would remember a thing given his full on dementia and lack of interest in anything.

    Personally I hope Joe follows through with his threat to punch a sitting president. That threat would be enough to get anyone else thrown in jail, except of course the left’s poster child of stupidity.

    1. Don’t forget Trump, too, has his accusers. That’s the state of our country: we’ve got 300 million people, but the best our two major parties can come up with is two mentally and morally challenged dudes, both with sexual harassment accusations against them, both in the demographic most likely to die from COVID-19.

      1. Make running for public office contingent on military service and these clowns go away. Obozo and Hilldawg would also be excluded.

        Would you like to know more?

        1. To build on this idea, I do believe that Buttigieg and Gabbard comported themselves with more dignity than the rest of those dipshits during the primary.

          1. Except when they took the offer and bailed out so Joe could win.

            1. Did either of them ever really have a chance? Tulsi especially could not launch even after eviscerating Kamala Harris. Endorsement is just part of the ritual.

              1. Yeah, remember when Ted Cruz eventually endorsed Trump even after Trump said Ted Cruz’s dad helped kill JFK?

                Ritual indeed.

          2. Agree about Tulsi. Mayor Butthead, not so much.

        2. “Make running for public office contingent on military service and these clowns go away. Obozo and Hilldawg would also be excluded.

          “Would you like to know more?”

          Nice Heinlein reference – but seriously, that rule would have ruled out first-term Cleveland, and first-term Cleveland was one of our best Presidents.

          1. Also, it sort of hands over who is President to the military which has a history of going very wrong very quickly. I took Starship Troopers as a warning, personally.

            1. Meh, a little corny maybe (book not the garbage that wa the movie) but service didn’t have to be military either. The point was sound: you have to put something in before you get a vote. That’s how you avoid ppl voting themselves money, which is something this country desperately needs.

      2. trumpelstiltskin 1789
        April.12.2020 at 3:18 pm
        “Don’t forget Trump, too, has his accusers…”

        And don’t forget you’re a lying, partisan piece of shit.

      3. It’s interesting that with all of these credible accusations against President Trump, the only two this article mentions by name are his consensual affair with Stormy Daniels and the ‘Access Hollywood’ comments which while definitely uncouth, expressly define that Trump had consent for his ‘pussy grabbing’ (i.e. “When you’re famous, they let you do it.”)

        The accusations against Kavanaugh were so thin that anyone who looked at them objectively considered them a joke, and the mainstream media made national headlines out of them for weeks. The fact that the media won’t bring up any of Trump’s other accusers leads me to conclude they’re claiming Trump anally probed them after he picked them up in his UFO.

  9. They admit to unwanted touching. Seems they admit he sexually harassed women to me.

    1. He has committed sexual harassment, by today’s standards, on national TV.

      1. “There’s no evidence of any sexual harassment at all, except for some women claiming he was hugging, touching, and kissing them in ways that made them uncomfortable.”

        Huh.

        1. There you have it: according to the New York Times, “hugging, touching, and kissing women in ways that make them uncomfortable” doesn’t constitute sexual harassment.

          Tomorrow is going to be a fun day at the office.

    2. After Al Franken was hoisted on the Democrats’ own petard, they have “evolved” on the issue… when it comes to fellow Democrats.

  10. What are the rules when violating due process?

    1. Blame it on the joooze, bigot.

  11. The staff can’t actually corroborate the allegation unless they witnessed the incident. They can can confirm that Reade made the complaint.

    Thanks to lockdown, the NYT probably can’t send reporters or obtain physical document, correspondence, etc. It seems to me that they essentially ran a survey and found “no other allegation” which has no relevance to Reade’s allegation.

    If the staff received a formal complain through proper channel, then Biden might be in a bit of a jam.

    1. “No other allegation,” except for the allegations of women claiming he touched them in uncomfortable ways. But that doesn’t count, c’mon.

    2. Except part of her complaint was that her formal complaint was rejected and torn up. Now, if someone did document it despite it being swept under the rug, that would be amazing.

      However, part of the Me-Too movement’s (the original, real movement, not the “guilt by accusation of anyone we dislike”) main purposes was that powerful executives could just ignore or eliminate complaints.

  12. I am extremely skeptical of anything published in the NYT.

  13. Happy Easter Robby.

  14. Ye Olde Media is working diligently ensure Trump is re-elected. The best part is that they are too deaf, dumb and blind to realize it.

    Trump is a buffoon. The establishment was given a layup in ’16 and ’20 and they will fail yet again. It’s amazing to see.

    The inept failure of progressives is damned hilarious.

    1. By Establishment you mean the guy who is the overwhelming favorite of the elite capitalist 0.1% and the guy who can launch nuclear weapons that can kill a billion people in half an hour. Or did you mean someone else. Define your terms, please!

      1. “you mean the guy who is the overwhelming favorite of the elite capitalist 0.1%”

        You need to pay more attention to Palin’s Buttplug. If you did you’d know all the top capitalists vote Democrat these days. Consider this from 2016: Hillary Clinton Is Outraising Trump 20-to-1 Among Billionaires.

        Expect Biden to perform just as well as Clinton among billionaires, considering how disastrous the Drumpf economy has been for people like Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch.

        #BillionairesKnowBest
        #VoteDemocratToHelpBillionaires

        1. The best parody has a bitter kernel of truth to it. You’re killing it today.

        2. Wait… aren’t the 1%’ers the bad guys?

      2. You really don’t know what he means by “establishment “?

        1. Nope. He’s a scumbag adolescent who didn’t pay his mortgage, attempting to be humorous.

          1. Blow it out your arse, GOP scum.

            1. Fuck off, swampy.

        2. Let me guess… women’s studies professors on college campuses?

          1. Lol. No dumbass, that’s a stupid guess. But not unexpected from someone that has no idea what’s going on.

            1. Jews?

            2. Lord SNORZOS?

            3. Contrails?

            4. Aliens?

            5. Keep going. You’re making quite the ass of yourself and giving everyone a reason to laugh at you.

  15. Which sexual predator are you guys voting for? Weird groper or Guy who Raped 14 Year Old Girl at an Epstein Party? Can you differentiate the two and, if so, how?

    1. Biden isn’t a sexual predator. But even if he was, I’d vote for him because I know he’d never be part of an administration that literally put kids in cages.

      #DemocratsDontCageKids
      #DemocratsDontRunConcentrationCamps

      1. Listen, I’m a socialist so I’m at least partly sympathetic to lumpenproletariat who are so insecure in their economic and social position that they worry about being replaced [your words, not mine] by Hector and Paco from Tijuana. I get it… you have a lot of stress.

          1. Nah, Kirkland is way too proud of his “Reverend” alias.

        1. Didn’t you recently claim to be a libertarian?

          Not only are you unprincipled but you’re confused as well!

        2. Actually, being a socialist means you’re pretty OK with putting people in cages. Concentrating them in cages, you might say.

      2. Assuming that is satire, since he was VP when they first built and used the cages.

    2. Guy who Raped 14 Year Old Girl at an Epstein Party?
      Bill Clinton can’t serve again, 22A.

    3. American Socialist
      April.12.2020 at 6:23 pm
      “Which sexual predator are you guys voting for?”

      Even if you decided to run, no one here would vote for such a pathetic piece of shit.

    4. “or Guy who Raped 14 Year Old Girl at an Epstein Party?”

      Clinton? Alexander Acosta? Dershowitz? Weinstein? Charlie Rose? Leon Wieseltier? Ryan Lizza? Morgan Spurlock? Daylin Leach? Alexander Jones? Daniel Zwerdling? Alec Klein? Jim Walsh? Justin Parish? Cristina Garcia?

      Progs like them young.

    5. “ Guy who Raped 14 Year Old Girl at an Epstein Party? ”

      For the thousandth time, Bill Clinton cannot be elected to the office of President again.

      I know, I know. You’re just bitter and reeling that your preferred sexual predator -the Stalinist rape camp-loving Vermont richy who writes essays about how all women fantasize about being raped by him- took your money and ran. Again.

  16. “…These were news articles,..”

    No, they weren’t. They were editorials jammed in the ‘news’ section. The Chron does it for probably 3/4 of their content.

  17. “The suspicious timing of the her allegations is just one reason…”

    As opposed to the years of public accusations against Justice Kavanaugh by Ms. Ford?

  18. In 2004 when Silky Pony John Edwards was caught banging a campaign aide the NYT
    refused to acknowledge the story until after Edwards acknowledged his love child.

    When brave speaking truth to Republicans McCain transitioned from maverick to literally Hitler in 2008 the NYT ran allegations of him banging a lobbyist.

    “All the News That’s Fit to Print” is an apt slogan for them, as they can add or remove whatever fits well.

  19. “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”

    Imagine the lack of shame it takes for a journalist to write and an editor to approve publication of such a sentence in a news story. It is only removed when the public points out its fundamental absurdity. The New York Times is a former newspaper.

    1. The Onion article writes itself at this point.
      Or babylon bee, etc.

    2. Seriously.

      Debbie Ramirez must be knee-deep in awe-shucks I’m smart smugness.

      I would love to know what she thought of other allegations.

  20. “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”

    Lol, it sounds like something out of a Monty Python skit.

    “The Finance Minister denies any improprieties with his secretary, aside from regular fondling, caressing, and an occasional shag in the closet.”

    1. Nailed it! With some of the best satire ever!

  21. How am I not surprised?

    Enemies of the people.

  22. Except for the other allegations of sexual misconduct, there were no other allegations of sexual misconduct.

  23. “The paragraph containing the news hook for this story—that Reade finally, on Thursday, filed a police report about the incident—contains this oddly placed reminder: ‘Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.'”

    Does anybody recall seeing a similar reminder about false testimony before Congress in any of the Ford coverage?

  24. There may not be anything to this allegation. I say again, maybe this will be the much-needed death of “believe all women”. When an 11th hour allegation pops up at an incredibly convenient time and there’s literally no evidence beyond “trust me, this happened”, we won’t immediately move to destroy a man’s career.

    1. Are you taking up parody posts?

  25. But the Times and other outlets are proceeding with a level of caution that’s inconsistent with how they treated the Kavanaugh allegations, even though the evidence was similarly weak (and the underlying incidents less serious) in that case.

    That’s why this will be useful in the future.

    1. I thought you were old enough to know better.

      You see, in the 90s they were running Republicans out of town for simply saying things that women found offensive in the workplace. That was what you called sexual harassment.

      Then Clinton came along. And there were allegations of attempted rape in the Oval Office. And an admission of an affair with a young intern.

      Then suddenly, that was A Private Matter for a married couple.

      But then that switched around again as soon as Bush took office. This, even though they didn’t make anything stick. They did try mightily to accuse him of having affairs.

      Then we went through eight years of don’t dare ask a tough question. And then they tried really hard to go back to the politics of sexual destruction, but Trump proved to be immunized against such tactics. It was as if they were accusing Pigpen of failing to wash his hands properly.

      Then we got Kavanaugh. At least a fair number of people found that to be so grotesque that they got their hackles up. But it certainly did not stop the left or there political operatives in the Press Corps.

      So now their presumptive nominee has been accused. And they are in full on defense mode.

      If you think the pattern is that they have learned something and will be more circumspect in the future, I have a bridge to sell you.

  26. I have no sympathy for any woman who waits 20 years to make an allegation. And that includes Kavanaugh’s tormenter.

    1. What of a woman who makes a contemporaneous complaint, but is ignored?

      Because that is her story. And her friends corroborate the contemporary remarks.

      Prior to this, the standard of the NYT was that telling a marriage therapist of a nameless assault 23 years after the fact counted as rock solid proof.

      Today? Apparently telling family and friends contemporaneously does not count as corroboration.

      Put me in the “I seriously doubt that any woman would stand there while you non consensually finger bang her in the workplace” side of the story. But the NYT has already gone on record as saying that lesser allegations with less credibility are disqualifying for lower office. So they really have no excuse.

      1. When the accused (at that point, a 20-year veteran senator) has the power to fire and blacklist everyone in the office, things change. She was demoted even for making the accusation. Even if it had been caught on security video, it is very likely that the tape would be deleted or some other excuse would have been made.

      2. “Put me in the “I seriously doubt that any woman would stand there while you non consensually finger bang her in the workplace” side of the story.”
        I read her side of it. He jammed her up against a wall and shoved his hand up her skirt before she could even grok what was happening to her. She didn’t “stand there”, she shoved him off as soon as she could. He literally physically overwhelmed her and raped her with his digit in split seconds. Don’t talk like a jackass about it.

  27. I’m skeptical about anything I read in The New York Times.

  28. Biden didn’t do anything wrong. Except kissing, touching, and hugging. Oh, and finger banging.

  29. #Believealwomen really should be amended to #believeallwomenwhoaccuseaprominetrepublicanorsomeoneelsewedontlikeforsomereasonofmisconduct

    As for the NYT being skeptical of Reade, as opposed to Ford, Anita Hill, etc. I’m SHOCKED. BTW, in other breaking news water is wet and Elton John is gay.

  30. File this under “The Least Surprising Story of 2020”

  31. Couldn’t agree more. Some of the things they left out/ dodged that the artcile missed:
    1. Joe’s prior tweets about believing women. Whihc would certainly have been in any other article.
    2. The sneaky little dodge that Anita Dunn Biden’s strategist did not deny knowing about the allegations or being involved in the string her along and then shut her down srategy that “Time’s Up” pulled on her. They said “she was not told according to officials at the fund”. Why not get her word on it? Either they didn’t bother to seek comment whihc would be a huge violation of their ethics, only possible if they were worried about the answer, or she refused comment, and they ommited a very telling detail.
    Of course the artcile did expose many other ridiculous parts of the NYT piece, like their little “crime to file a false report”. Why didn’t they link to the polcie report? Or to the tweets they claimed supported Joe?
    This was about as dishonest as it gets will cleverly attempting to “check the boxes”.
    They even made it so no one could comment on the article.

  32. As if there were a doubt that Joe Biden is a creeper?

  33. the NYT has and is a den of bolsheviks central and eastern european types…they were apologists for Troysky and Stalin when millions were killed in the Ukraine. Applauded the worst organizaed lynching in American (hint it occurred to Italian Americans..the kind of Catholic folks hated by the Times owners) and banged the war drums in Iraq (gosh I wonder why). The consistently attack traditional American values, push statist, socialism, secularism, and cultural marxism. I just finished a book on the Bavarian Soviet and honestly the NYT editorial board sounds like those communists..what do you expect?

  34. On Biden..read Sebastian Coe’s 2012 biography “Running my life”, he has a nice little tidbit on Biden at the Vancouver 2010 winter olympics..you can almost read between the lines how much of a scum bag he is

  35. We’re in trouble when Reason engages in “Whataboutism”, attacks the media for being cautious, and presents the Kavanaugh hearing as something other than Republican kabuki. May as well go to Fox News. Really, you should be better than this.

  36. Elizehab T Gregg want to have some fun and to play dirtу ==>> Details Here

  37. Psychiatrists can interview Reade and determine from her behavior, if she is telling the truth and, if Reade is telling the truth, Biden can spend the rest of his life in prison just like Harvey Weinstein.

  38. Joe Biden is creepy. Ask any woman in America. But what makes him any different from all the other Congress men and women that the taxpayers have paid millions to cover up their sexual harassment of interns and staff workers. They all live by different laws than the rest of us or they would all for the most part be in jail.

  39. There is a big difference between this accusation against Biden and those against Kavanaugh. Credibility of the accuser actually does make a difference. This is why Project Veritas failed in trying to plant a false accusation against Roy Moore, in an attempt to undercut the valid accusations against him. Holes in the story matter. Changing accounts matter. Thinking Putin is the savior of the world until January 2020 matters. Being an established professor at a good college and a graduate of Stanford matters. Being a shiftless weirdo for decades matters.

    There is no comparison at all to the multiple accusations against Trump.

    It is good we are getting to some middle ground. The accusations against Franken were valid, but not serious enough to ruin him, IMO. Maybe if it was used to defeat him in a valid election, I’d buy that. The accusations against NdGT were not credible for the serious one, and not serious enough on the credible one, and he kept his jobs.

    Now if we could clear Joss Whedon, I’d really like more movies and TV shows from him.

    1. “There is no comparison at all to the multiple accusations against Trump.”
      That is not the point of this article. It’s about the hypocrisy of the Dems regarding which man gets the benefit of the doubt .

      1. Of course it’s the point. Major news outlets have been vetting the claims against public figures for a while. My example of the Washington Post not blindly going with an accusation agains Roy Moore, due to lack of credibility and evidence that led to it being false claim, is exactly pertinent.

        One aspect of vetting is that abusers tend to be serial abusers. This is the only rape claim against Biden, and it comes from an unreliable source, a source so unreliable that if you do report, you report on the unreliability. And you note the uniqueness of the accusation.

        This compares to Trump, who has several dozen accusations from credible women, and who is on record bragging about assaulting women as a lifelong habit.

  40. Lol it’s become extremely obvious to anyone without the blinders on that #metoo is just a weapon, and it’s a selective one. For Biden, the media deflects, for Bloomberg or Trump, the media directs.

  41. Will Biden being latex gloves to protect against the coronavirus when he vets Governor Whitmer?

  42. What ever happened to “Believe the woman?”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.