Joe Biden

Tara Reade's Mother Allegedly Discussed Joe Biden's Abusive Office With Larry King in 1993

Why aren't TV networks grilling Biden about this?


New evidence has emerged that supports—albeit weakly—former Senate staffer Tara Reade's claim that she was mistreated while working for Joe Biden.

In recent weeks, Reade has alleged that Biden—then a senator, now the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee—sexually assaulted her in 1993. That's a different story than she told last year, when The Washington Post interviewed her about an alleged climate of sexual harassment in his office. Back then, Reade said that there was rampant sexism among Biden staffers but that the problem was not Biden himself.

The Post, The New York Times, and other outlets have handled Reade's recent, more serious allegation—that Biden had digitally penetrated her without her permission—with extreme caution. Liberal columnists who emphatically believed Christine Blasey Ford's story of suffering sexual misconduct at the hands of future Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh are nevertheless skeptical of Reade, and it's hard to process this as anything other than hypocrisy. Some more fair-minded commentators, including Reason contributor Cathy Young, agree that there may be a double standard at play but nevertheless have argued that Reade's accusation is less plausible than Ford's.

But there's now somewhat more corroboration of Biden's alleged misconduct than of Kavanaugh's. Reade has claimed that she informed her mother about her broader mistreatment in Biden's offices at the time, and that her mother called in to Larry King's CNN show to talk about the issue. The Intercept has now acquired audio of a call along those lines. While no one can say for absolute certain that the speaker is Reade's mother, the dialogue does fit the description, and Reade confirmed that it was her mother's voice:

KING: San Luis Obispo, California, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.

KING: In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn't tell it?

CALLER: That's true.

The caller is not specific about the nature of her daughter's problems; there is no reference to a physical assault. But the call does represent a small amount of additional evidence in Reade's favor. The Washington Examiner's Tiana Lowe writes that Reade "now has more evidence than Blasey Ford's claim against Kavanaugh," and it's hard to disagree. There was never any contemporaneous evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford were ever actually at the same party, and in fact, one of the alleged eyewitnesses could not recall the episode in question.

This is by no means proof that Reade is telling the truth, and the fact that she changed her story as recently as a year ago continues to be a valid justification for maintaining healthy skepticism. But everyone who took Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez, and (separately) E. Jean Carroll at face value—including the television networks that aired these women's claims immediately—should explain why this time it isn't good enough. And there's no excuse for declining to ask Biden about this. The candidate is famously committed to giving accusers at least an initial presumption of belief, no matter how long ago the allegations occurred or how reticent the victim was to discuss them.

NEXT: Condemned to Death by a Split Jury in Florida

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. CNN ‘Larry King’ episode featuring Biden accuser’s mother disappears from Google Play catalog

    Twitter user J.L. Hamilton shared a screenshot showing the Aug. 11, 1993, broadcast of “Larry King Live” was no longer listed in the season three catalog of the iconic CNN talk show. Mysteriously, though, the Aug. 10 broadcast, which is listed as “Episode 154” is followed by the Aug. 12 broadcast, which is listed as “Episode 155,” suggesting that episode and the ones that follow could be incorrectly listed and off by a number.

    Fox News later verified the Aug. 11 episode is not listed on the streaming service. It is unclear when it was removed from the catalog.

    1. How is thisnot a campaign finance violation?

  2. Daily Show, Jon Stewart, Biden: The Audacity of Grope:

  3. “Liberal columnists who emphatically believed Christine Blasey Ford’s story of suffering sexual misconduct at the hands of future Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh are nevertheless skeptical of Reade, and it’s hard to process this as anything other than hypocrisy.”

    Not really. Ford didn’t shop one version of her story around for a year before changing/escalating that story.

    1. I believe she kinda did.

    2. Good point.

      Furthermore, the timing of the Biden allegation is way more suspicious. Notice how people started talking about this right after the “cognitive decline” attack lost steam? It’s because anti-Biden forces are desperate to make something, anything stick.

    3. Reade can name a place and a date where the alleged sexual assault happened. There is now a record of a sort that she told someone of what she claimed happened at the time of the alleged assault.
      Blasey-Ford told no one for over twenty years. She could not say even which year the assault took place, and had no idea of where it happened. There were no witnesses to the alleged assaults in either case, although Blasey-Ford claimed there were in her case. Those named as witnesses had no recollection.
      The media placed the burden of proof on Kavanaugh, who had to show he was somewhere else over a period of years, the place where he wasn’t being undefined.

      1. It’s also been corroborated that she was demoted from managing interns in ’93, around the same time that she said that she went to her boss about the issue.

        1. Yes. It could mean she was demoted because she was telling this story. (Bad for Biden) Or it could mean that she made up the story because she was demoted and wanted to get back at him. (Bad for her credibility) Both are perfectly plausible.

        2. Is that boss still alive?



    1. #StillWithHim

  5. Because none of this ever mattered beyond politics? I don’t think the Reade story holds water and it still is more plausible for a number of reasons in comparison to Kavanaugh. The media is compromised of shameless ideologues. I think a better question is why anyone would expect different from them at this point, that’s kind of the definition of insanity.

    1. s/compromised/comprised

      except I like your version.

      1. Yeah, I had a double-take too, and then thought “No, it’s accurate”.

    2. I would understand this point if not for Biden’s repeated, on-air groping of women and the contemporaneous documentation (both in Reade’s demotion and this phone call). What I find most disturbing is how this is being actively covered-up. Deleting episode of Larry King from the archive? One of the very few episodes missing? I’m sorry, but if this is a coincidence, that is stretching credulity a bit too far.

      Does it pass reasonable doubt? Not at the moment. However, we have more than sufficient evidence to begin an actual investigation. There is actually something to investigate. We could see if a complaint actually was filed, get the HR department under oath and find out why she was actually demoted. There are proper avenues to research (unlike Kavanaugh, where there was no way to prove a negative given the vague starting conditions. It was an impossible question in the first place).

      Finally, since Biden had actual authority to quash the complaint and punished her for the report, this might count as a concealed crime, which meant the statute of limitations started in March. We could be looking at actual criminal charges.

      1. question, if we can prove she was sexually assaulted, could we potentially bring criminal charges against CNN for covering up an assault? Reade mentioned that she did try to talk about this earlier to the media but they didn’t touch it.

        Not necessarily related, but we know from 2016 that members of the media are working with the DNC, and we appear to be close to proving the same with the FBI via Flynn, sounds like the Democratic party would be a good fit for a RICO case to me…

        1. Idiotic point. But the answer is: OF COURSE NOT. When Fox News (or the Enquirer, or MSNBC, et al) sits on a story, there is **nothing** preventing the alleged victim from going forward to the cops. Or to other media for that matter. [Note: Maybe a bit different re the Enquirer, who pays for the info and legally bars the alleged victim from going to alternate media. But even this “catch and kill” strategy by the pro-Trump media would not stop any alleged victim from going to the cops.]

          1. Ahahah you are running scared lib aahahahaah

        2. The only way would be if they hid evidence from police upon request.
          For example, if they did just recently remove the Larry King episode in question as part of a conspiracy and deliberately hid it when requested.

          Failing to publicize something isn’t a crime.

    3. True. Biden is 77, the age The Don would be if he makes it to 2024. Pussy-grabbing days of both are less relevant than which looter party is likeliest to re-wreck the Economy. It is wrecked on The Don’s watch, was wrecked before by Bush, Bush-Reagan and Hoover. The Dems idolize Venezuela and God’s Own Prohibitionists copy Indonesia: death for drugs coupled with death by bleeding or sepsis for birth control. The LP has a real opportunity here.

  6. I can’t for the life of me figure out why mainstream news organizations would treat the two claims differently.

    1. Helping/hurting democrats, that’s why. Same reason Clinton will never be asked about this:

      Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender’s jet much more than previously known

      Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by

      Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.

      1. Remember when the entire media had a panic attack over Trump’s comments on the Access Hollywood tape?
        At the exact moment that was going on, those very same people knew that Epstein was raping children… and then decided to cover it up.

        1. It’s very simple really, There exists two types of citizen, the ruling class and their protectors and promoters, and the rabble, Within in the ruling class there is a hierarchy. If you align with the “D” team you can act with impunity. Everything you say, do or fail to do will be protected and promoted by the mass media handlers.

          1. Cuomo ended his own anti-corruption committee after it nailed someone in his inner circle. The dems love him!

        2. Remember when Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women on the Access Hollywood tapes and getting away with it? And you think the media should NOT have gone into a panic over this bombshell info??!!!??? Wow, you have a very interesting threshold regarding what qualifies as revelatory news.

          1. Remember when you lied in a Reason thread that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women on the Access Hollywood tapes?

            Trump said women let you grab them by the pussy; “they let you do it”. That’s consent you lying DNC shill.

            Now fuck off.

            1. It’s the left. Even consent isn’t good enough,

    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.

      1. Brief, accurate, and explains why the Dems have never once complained of the Nixon Anti-Libertarian Law of 1971. It’s effect, as revealed by time, has been to add power to a communist cathode opposite the mystical altruist anode in the brine. We have become more like 1933 Germany than at any earlier time in U.S. history. Congratulations!

  7. So this is actually the thing that convinced me she was telling the truth. When I heard that she was actually claiming her mother called Larry King live about the incident. I immediately thought that this was sadly evidence she was lying (sad, because it would give Dems an excuse not to address the issues with Believe stupidity). It had the raped on a broken glass table but not needing a hospital air of bullshit too it. A fantastic claim that many pathological liars seem to need to add to their stories when they want more attention.

    Then I found out that it was actually true. She actually had nationally aired evidence that she told her mother about something awful that happened to her while working for Biden, that got her pushed out of the job, but she wasn’t willing to come forward to the media about it at the time. I wouldn’t convict in a court of law with this evidence, but I actually genuinely believe her now. Her fantastic claim was true, and that lends credibility to everything else she’s said about the incident.

    1. same here. I was skeptical at first too, but still willing to give Biden the same “investigation” that he and his friends have sicced on Thomas, Kavanaugh, and others. Biden’s history, the general sliminess of the democrats, and this though all make me think she’s telling the truth.

    2. Does it not bother you that her mother called in but gave zero evidence of what she is now saying? (I gather that you are not bothered by the fact that she lied about the incident as recently as last year, right?) The fact that her mother did not give details is not proof that the alleged assault did not happen, of course. But it’s not evidence of *anything* other than that her daughter had a difficult time working for Biden…a fact that is not disputed by either side.

      I just feel that if the 22 women who have accused Trump of sexual assault or rape were increased to 23, and that extra woman had a friend/mother call into a TV or radio show decades ago but give no details, conservatives’ heads would explode, and there would be long posts here about how unfair it is to treat poor misunderstood Trump based on a person calling in, refusing to–or failing to–give any details, and assuming that the absence of details somehow proves those details.

      Talk about a double standard.

      1. Fuck off Jeff.

      2. No jeff I’m not a leftist shill like you so no.

      3. You honestly believe she told her mother any of the details? I’m pretty sure I can imagine how the precipitating conversation with her mother went, and it would have been pretty vague about what actually happened. If it hadn’t been, I don’t think her mother would have called Larry King.

  8. Iowahawk explained this-it’s the job of the media to cover important stories, with a pillow, until they stop moving.

  9. If there is any point in bringing this story up at all, of course, it isn’t to disqualify Biden from office because of allegations made against him 25 years ago. It’s to pull the fangs out of social justice warriors and destroy their credibility with the general public.

    To whatever extent those on the left are dismissing this story because they say it’s just an attempt to discredit the accusations of social justice warriors rather than to deliver true justice, they’re basically right. While it’s wrong to suggest that one can’t be both against the bullying tactics of social justice warriors and in favor of true justice, the fact is that discrediting the unsubstantiated accusations of social justice warriors by exposing their hypocrisy is and should be the end-goal here.

    Incidentally, this is how Christopher Hitchens brought himself to the attention of average Americans–by exposing the left’s hypocrisy in regards to feminists and Bill Clinton when he was clearly on the left.

    The fact is that there can be no real justice without both taking the individual situations of the accuser and the accused into account and respecting the rights of everyone involved including the accused. Anything less can’t help but eventually degrade into legitimate displays of hypocrisy, which is where we are now.

    1. The fact is that there can be no real justice without both taking the individual situations of the accuser and the accused into account and respecting the rights of everyone involved including the accused.

      This has long been obvious to anyone with half a brain who isn’t a fascist. Unfortunately, that excludes the media, the political class, and the social justice types.

      1. To the enlightened statist, fascism is only bad if the other side is in charge.

      2. Weird that I made my response to Tommy above before I saw that you had posted.

      3. The fact is that there can be no real justice without both taking the individual situations of the accuser and the accused into account and respecting the rights of everyone involved including the accused.
        It depends. Is the accused guilty, or at least a member of a disfavored group (which is also proof of guilt). If so, the accused has no rights.

  10. Why aren’t TV networks grilling Biden about this?

    Mark it down as another unsolvable mystery, i guess….

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

  11. That phone call is consistent with her amended complaint of harrassment by office staff.

  12. “and it’s hard to process this as anything other than hypocrisy.”

    well, you could process it as blatant political partisanship – – – – – –

    It may have something to do with the real full name of the accused; Joe Biden (D). If you include the suffix, it all becomes clear.

    1. It is a race between pussy-grabbers. Much more to the point is Biden’s pushing of Senate Bill 1762 pushing since 1984 calls for more asset forfeiture over pseudoscientific sumptuary laws. Prohibitionist Asset forfeiture is what caused the Crashes of 1929, 1970, 1987, 2001 and 2008, all with recessions. With two economy-destroying looter parties in the running, folks need to know the LP platform calls for eliminating THE thing that has wrecked the economy repeatedly for over a century. Prohibition and The Crash is Cause and Effect!

  13. Jackie Mittoo is the only mittoo worthy of a listen.

  14. “supports—albeit weakly—”

    Oh, Robby. You just can’t let it go can you?

    1. Yeah, I don’t remember any “albeit weakly” caveat during the Kavanaugh bs. I could be wrong though.

  15. Clingers such as Mr. Soave seem much more excited (and ostensibly disturbed) by this claim, and less skeptical, than they were with respect to allegations that conflicted with their right-wing preferences. I therefore am inclined to disregard their contributions to the discussion.

    Poor Mr. Soave . . . nothing to look forward to other than a half-century or so of being on the losing side in the culture war.

    1. See it’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if Kirkland is a parody account too.

      1. Kirkland is a parody account.

      2. Possibly parody, but don’t count out stoooopid.

      3. Of course he is.

    2. I’m surprised you don’t accuse us “right wing clingers” of being overjoyed that Biden grabbed women by the pussy; after all, you believe that’s just our thing!

    3. You’re almost as funny as Hihn. Congrats.

  16. It is because this types of accusations were always meant to be a political weapon deployed against those the Left disapproves of. And this has happened before with Justice Thomas and Bill Clinton. The allegations against Thomas were evidence of unacceptable mentality fo someone holding high office, the allegations against Clinton was his private sex life and nobody’s business. The hypocrisy has always been there.

    1. Since when does private sex life include sexual abuse and rape?

      1. Since Democrats did it, I’m guessing.

      2. Since always, as far as I can tell.

        1. That says more about you than anything else.

  17. The subtitle is a rhetorical question, right?

    If not, maybe ask your colleague ENB, who has turned the roundup into a summary of news covered by the same sources that refuse to cover this issue.

    1. “who has turned the roundup into a summary of what she saw in her Twitter feed last night”

      Fixed that for you.

  18. Lest put this into perspective. The other far left contenders were:
    1 Bernie sandars – a leech who has never earned money in his life and thinks it’s good to have political prisons.
    2 Elizabeth Warren – an evil cunt who has argued for nationalism combined with socialism (yes the left put up an actual nazi)

    Whits these 2 as your alternatives a rapist that uses political power to keep his family rich and not paying child support looks pretty good (granted I’m from Chicago and bidens stuff is business as usual there)

    1. You forgot the tepid gay guy who would have pissed off the Dem’s homophobic black base.

      1. And the gun grabbing fake Mexican with an Irish surname who admitted that he would “take your AR-15s” if elected.

        1. Biden one-upped him. He said he’s gonna take AR-16s.

          1. (In an auctioneer’s voice) Can I get an AR-17?

      2. The tepid gay guy who talked like a corporate buzzword generator.

    2. Bernie Sanders didn’t earn his money? Do you know how much effort goes into running a successful grift?

    3. (yes the left put up an actual nazi)

      Warren was all about racial purity.

  19. Whether Kavanaugh should have been subjected to examination under oath is one thing but he was and in that examination that mfer lied his ass off and certainty was nowhere near telling the full truth.

    1. Based on what? The outcome?

        1. It’s better presented (not to mention researched) here:

          Justice on Trial

          Now tell me how your partisan article is the truth and this partisan book is merely agitprop.

        2. Lol, oh wow.
          Aren’t you embarrassed for posting that? Did you think we wouldn’t actually read it?

          In Axeblood’s link, media rep Uyehara calls Kavenaugh’s biographical statements “lies” because she believes they’re subjective or exaggerations (or at least wants readers to believe that).

          Check out her list of Kavanaugh’s horrific and devious “lies”. For example:
          “I grew up in a city plagued by gun violence and gang violence and drug violence.”

          “I went to an all-boys Catholic high school, a Jesuit high school, where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship, friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools.”

          “If such as thing had a happened, it would’ve been the talk of campus. The women I knew in college and the men I knew in college said that it’s inconceivable that I could’ve done such a thing.”

          Really you should all read Axeblood’s (edgy nick btw) article. It’s a perfect example of the demagoguery these disgusting sociopaths will sink to in order to slime the Other. In fact Uyehara’s own lies number greater in that article than those in her purported Kavanaugh list.

          Seriously read it. It’s insane.

          1. I read the article. It’s one of those “force the evidence to fit the desired outcome” kind of things.

    2. I agree that questioning then Judge Kavanaugh was a mistake and that his response was bad and very much showed a bad temperament. The Republican did him no favor when then pull back their prosecutor doing the questioning and questioned him themselves. Rather than settling the matter they left questions.

      1. I am most sympathetic to the argument that Kavanaugh should never have had to account for the allegations because they were old and people change and they weren’t super crazy allegations.

        1. You




      2. “showed a bad temperament”

        Fuck off.
        They lied and smeared him as a rapist in front of the entire planet for political reasons. He’ll never be able to go anywhere now without some pearl-clutching Karen hiding her kids when he walks by.
        In a just world he should be legally entitled to drive a front end loader through DNC headquarters.

        The fact that you’re pretending to be “concerned” that he got huffy in the face of that malevolence, shows just how much of a far-left extremist you really are.

      3. Well, I can’t blame him for losing his temper.
        Think about it. The man has dedicated his life to the rules of courts, evidence, and justice. He was then put in an impossible situation that no judge in any court (civil or criminal) would allows, being demanded to prove a negative, having absurd and irrelevant evidence being dragged up, and then having millions declare him guilty.

        All from an interaction that he claimed never happened with a woman he never met at a time that wasn’t specified in a place that was somewhere over thatways.

        It was a deliberately and complete mockery of his life’s work by people who DEFINITELY knew better and did it anyway. If it had been written in a work of fiction, everyone in the country would have rejected the entire scenario as utterly preposterous.

  20. “Why aren’t TV networks grilling Biden about this?”

    Perhaps they conducted some research?

    1. UPDATE 4/2/20: We were able to contact a longtime friend of Reade’s who wished to remain anonymous, but they said they “do not believe her allegations,” claiming she has always been one to seek attention. Note: We reached out to Ms. Reade for comment but she refused.

      UPDATE 4/25/20: We have been in contact with a former boss of Reade’s who claims Reade stole from her non-profit animal rescue while she was a volunteer at the organization. “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);”>Full details here.

      1. So we have one anonymous statement and one irrelevant one?
        Boy, got some real ammo there, you pathetic pieces of lefty shit.

        1. They don’t realize how dumb they look when they post such drivel.

          1. They don’t care.
            The point is to throw it out there and let it fester. It doesn’t matter if it’s a lie or sounds retarded. People eventually forget what was said and whether it was true, and just remember that something negative was said about Reade and she may not be truthful.

            To overwhelm through inanity is their strategy.

        2. Isn’t #1 the thing that drives liberals crazy with the right says it?

          Don’t believer her, she seeks attention.

  21. Why aren’t TV networks grilling Biden about this?

    I didn’t care what Clinton or Trump did with women. I didn’t care about Obama’s sex life. I assume all of them have committed major felonies at some point in their lives. That’s just the reality of what it takes to become president.

    Furthermore, I don’t believe women should have a vagina veto, where they can torpedo candidates for political office or judges by making unprovable claims of sexual misconduct decades earlier. Either you go to the police at the time the crime happened and prove it or you should STFU and not drag the country through hell with your personal problems.

    Biden’s evident corruption and nepotism are relevant to his candidacy; whether Biden was grabbing women by the pussy a decade ago is not.

    1. I don’t care about it other than the extreme hypocrisy from the media.

      1. That’s what bothers me too.
        It illustrates that almost the entire establishment media of a Western country has become a political party. The Dems used to control much of the media but now they have become it.

    2. Yes. I would happily have a libertarian pussy grabber for president. And I would not think better of a socialist candidate because he always treats everyone properly.

    3. If allegations of sexual assault by a teenager could derail his subsequent SCOTUS nomination allegations of sexual assault by a Senator surely matters.

      Not my rules either, but they art the rules.

  22. Apparently that single screenshot is the only picture of her that’s ever been taken.

  23. Given his recent history, I’m pretty sure Biden did it. But reaching back to 1993 for evidence? That’s a bit of a stretch.

    1. The Kavanaugh allegations preceded hers by a decade. The Left sure felt they were not a stretch.

      1. Guilt is/was predetermined by the left. It’s not their fault the evidence was exculpatory!

  24. Cathy Young…argued that Reade’s accusation is less plausible than Ford’s.

    Reade “now has more evidence than Ballsy-Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh,” and it’s hard to disagree.

    Apparently Cathy Young finds it easy to disagree.

    I don’t think Biden assaulted Reade. It is not something he would do only once and in spite of a press corps fully equipped with Democrat brand knee pads, I don’t think it could be successfully hidden for that long. What I am beginning to suspect happened is someone on Biden’s staff assaulted her and she is conflating the two men. The wording of Reade’s mother’s complaint she chose not to do it out of respect for [a prominent senator] is consistent with that theory.

    1. There’s an idea. And it would tie in with her being a Bernie supporter, why she brought it up now of all times as well.

    2. Except, this is the sort of situation that the Me-Too movement was built around. This sort of situation is discussed in every single HR class in every business school around the planet.

      It is well known how high powered executives routinely got into trouble for molesting or sleeping with secretaries regardless of consent. Then, the complaints are stifled or paid out.

      If your complaint was ripped up and you were demoted, would you keep pressing official channels? Why? so you could be outright fired? Blacklisted? Biden was a senior senator. He could ensure she never got work in Washington again, or at least wield enough power to make such a threat not an idle one.


    1. Those government COVID checks aren’t going to last forever, guy.

  26. “Why aren’t TV networks grilling Biden about this?”

    Got to be rhetorical…

  27. Mr. Soave admits in the article that the allegations are weak and yet wonders why they are not getting the media attention. This is a story looking for facts and there is not enough to take it farther. This has been a recurring theme to project Trump’s faults on his opponents. Remember these;
    Candidate Trump has a quack sign off on his good health, but accuses Hillary of being in poor health.
    Trump’s guy Giuliani is dealing with Ukrainian oligarchs and yet it is Hunter Biden accused of corruption.
    Trump doesn’t know the difference between orange and origin and yet Biden is getting senile.
    Why isn’t Biden grilled on a sexual assault when Trump’s own ex-wife accuses him of rape.

    1. “This is a story looking for facts”
      Please ignore the evidence. There was no Larry King call in.

      “Remember these”
      Now let’s change the subject while I regurgitate some old discredited lies, and hope you won’t remember that they were discredited.

  28. It seems to be a case of partisanship, although there could be other explanations. I’m more interested in why the media is shying away from the murder/suicide/escape of Jeffrey Epstein, a much juicier story, and bipartisan, too.

    1. Because of the Clintons involvement there too. Epstein indicated he helped president Clinton devise the Clinton Global Initiative.
      Lolita Island seemed to be an International badger game operation.

      1. Attraction to badgers is even worse than pedophilia. I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Epstein claims. He’s part of some intelligence operation, I suppose, and lies and deception are their bread and butter. As I understand, Clinton and Republicans had dealings with him, including Trump, who is himself bipartisan. You’d think journalists would kill for a story like this where they get to prove their lack of bias.

  29. because it’s a non-starter?

  30. I’m not sure, I think you will see MSM picking up this story more and more and a push to get him out of the race and then they will run the person they wanted all along…Michelle Obama. Saw this coming months ago when she did an interview where she touted how much she liked and got along with the Bush’s…an attempt to ingratiate her with the fence sitting Republicans???

    1. If they were smart, this is what the DNC would do. Biden cannot win. His health is failing him. And a late substitution could ride a wave of optimistic enthusiasm to victory before anyone has a chance to really examine yhe choices.

      1. Hate to say I told you so, but just read a story from the New Yorker on this subject, like I said this is going to keep growing until he withdraws from the race, and who do you think they will pick to take his place?

  31. The media did explain why this time is different. The NYT was transparent about it, writing an article to explain themselves.

    When Ford accused Kavanaugh, they put all of their investigative muscle behind finding any evidence to corroborate her claims. So they found a book by one of his friends that talked about then partying and drinking. They interviewed every one of his classmates in college and at law school, and found two or three who had a story about how he was maybe inappropriate in making jokes in party situations at one point.

    So they worked hard to corroborate her story, and ignored any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Compare and contrast with the news story. The New York Times said they went out and work hard to debunk Reade’s story. Sure, they had three contemporaneous Witnesses who were told about the incident at the time. But one of them was not available for comment, being dead. Meanwhile, they talked to everyone else they could find who worked in the office and none of them said they saw any such incident.

    Now, they were able to corroborate that she had been demoted at the time she said she was. And they were able to corroborate that she left the job at that time. But they were not able to find anyone who would admit to burying her complaints. So clearly those complaints never happened.

    Finally, they looked through Biden’s history and other than the complaints from women who said he made them uncomfortable by touching them and getting too close to them, they were not able to find any pattern of behavior that suggested he might be inappropriate with women.

    So it is really disingenuous to claim that they have not explained themselves. They’ve been very clear, their motivation is to debunk this story. Similarly, no motivation in the Kavanaugh story was to confirm the story at all costs.


    NEW: A former neighbor of Joe Biden’s accuser Tara Reade has come forward, on the record, to corroborate her sexual assault account, saying Reade discussed the allegations in detail in the mid-1990s.

    1. But did anyone else in the neighborhood come forward? No?

      Yeah, I thought not.

      So other than a handful of contemporaneous accounts, a recording of her mother on national TV mentioning her trouble getting her complaints about a prominent senator taken seriously, records of her demotion at work in the Senate, all the women who have said that Biden made them uncomfortable the way he touched them…. what evidence does she really have???

      Yeah…. That’s what I thought….

  33. Um… cui bono? Nixon paid the press to ignore the LP as of 1971; nobody mentions that. Nearly 32,000 degreed scientists signed the Petition Project successfully preventing the Senate from imposing ecological national socialist strangulation on U.S. energy trade and production. Reason subscribers with at least a B.S. degree are invited to sign. Unlike the hidden clique of econazi scientists, signers are listed by name, specialty, etc. Nowhere in the looter media is there any mention of this. It would embarrass red China, CPUSA, Greens and Dems.

  34. Hey Rico, how about you grill some of your own co-workers. Find out where they stand right now.

    Do they find these allegations credible?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.

    1. Should read as “some more of your coworkers”

    2. “Do they find these allegations credible?”

      Their credibility is not the issue. One alleged victim does not a story make. The story only has wings if multiple victims come forth, the greater their number, the bigger the story. It’s too easy for the NYT, say, to get burned if the case comes to one person’s word against another.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.