Joe Biden

Joe Biden Denies Sexual Assault Accusation, Fails To Explain Why 'Believe Victims' Doesn't Apply to Tara Reade

"This never happened," Biden told Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski.


Former Vice President Joe Biden explicitly denied the sexual assault accusation against him during an appearance on MSNBC Friday morning. Speaking publicly about the matter for the first time, Biden maintained that he never sexually assaulted Tara Reade and doesn't remember her at all.

"This never happened," said Biden. "It's as simple as that."

Biden was expertly grilled by Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski, who questioned him about the whereabouts of his Senate records, which may contain additional information regarding Reade. But the most important exchange occurred when Brzezinski asked Biden to square his current defense with his previous claims that women should be believed when they come forward as sexual assault victims.

Biden then denied that he had previously advocated such a standard.

"From the very beginning, I've said believing the woman means taking the claim seriously, and then it's vetted, looked into," said Biden. "Women have a right to be heard, and the press should rigorously investigate claims they make. I'll always uphold that principle. But in the end the truth is what matters. And these claims are false."

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate is misrepresenting his past statements. He absolutely did not take the position that "believing women means taking the claim seriously." (And if that's what believe-all-victims means, why not just say that instead?)

Brzezinski wasn't having it. She repeatedly reminded Biden that he had advocated believing Christine Blasey Ford, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. She even read his own words back to him: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time." Brzezinski also called out several of Biden's high profile supports—Stacey Abrams, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.)—for participating in the Kavanaugh double standard.

Caught in an obvious contradiction, Biden then tried to say that victims should be believed until contrary evidence emerges.

"Women are to be believed, given the benefit of the doubt," said Biden. "If they come forward and say something happened to them, they should start with the presumption they are telling the truth. Then you have to look at the facts.

"What I said during the Kavanaugh hearings was she had a right to be heard," Biden continued. "And she came forward, the presumption would be she's telling the truth unless it's proved she wasn't telling the truth, or unless it's clear from the facts surrounding it that it isn't the truth."

But under this standard, Biden would be presumed guilty. If the former vice president is taking the position that women should be believed unless their accusations are disproven, then the burden of evidence is on the accused. No evidence has emerged that explicitly contradicts Reade's story. Does that mean the public should default to believing her?

Biden seems to think the lack of evidence confirming Reade's story is the same thing as evidence disproving it. Indeed, Biden's campaign has circulated the talking point that The New York Times investigated the allegation and found that it wasn't credible. The Times rightly objected to this characterization of its reporting. The newspaper didn't find hard evidence supporting either finding; that is quite different than saying they disproved Reade.

This is why the presumption of innocence matters, in both a criminal and a cultural context. If there's no way to determine what happened, one solution would be to default toward not believing it—or at least, not punishing the accused. An extraordinary claim requires affirmative evidence to be accepted, and if the evidence does not materialize, it is rejected. That seems to be what Biden is saying now. It's definitely not what he said before.

NEXT: Freedom Is a Pandemic Casualty in Authoritarian Regimes and Liberal Democracies

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. …Biden maintained that he never sexually assaulted Tara Reade and doesn’t remember her at all.

    The “doesn’t remember” part checks out.

    1. Ugh, have fun dusting off that obviously false “cognitive decline” attack.


      1. “Sharp as Reagan at Bush’s Inauguration” should be his campaign slogan.

        1. “W” Bush’s inauguration.

      2. Assumes without evidence that he was ever that sharp.

        1. Whitey U. Redd Single mom makes $89844/yr in her spare time on computer without selling or buying any thing. I got inspired and start work now i am making $175 per hour. Its to easy to do this, every one can do this no experience or skill required just join the given link and start earning from very first day. Here is link… More Read Here

      3. #BidenIsAsSharpAsEver

        I believe this, it just doesn’t mean what his supporters think it means.

      4. exactly.

      5. As he was never sharper than a plastic butter knife, that is a low bar to clear.

        1. About as sharp as a basketball.

          1. Bush proved the phrase, “in America anyone can be president.” to be very true…even a total idiot can be president.

            1. And you prove that some fucking idiot with a single-digit IQ can poke at a keyboard.

      6. Well done OBL.
        Really got the ball rolling there!

      7. So, not sharp at all?

      8. #BidenIsAsSharpAsEver

        That’s true. He was always about as sharp as a bowling ball.


    2. Aletta ANderson is a regular mom who lost her job last year, and after an unsuccessful job hunt, she started working online. I interviewed her about her amazing story and she revealed her steps for success. She earns 65 dollars an hour.Go to this site to read more…….. More Details Here

  2. “Joe Biden Denies Sexual Assault Accusation”

    Well that settles it. I’m satisfied. Case closed. This story is over. Let’s move on.


    1. #BelieveHim?

      1. #NuhUh

    2. Believe the accused!

    3. #BelieveAllDemocrats

    4. Biden now identifies as a woman?

    5. Yes, yes, we all know that. But how do you feel about open borders and the Koch fortune?

    6. The p*ssy grabbing certainly puts him in league with the present dillitante in the withe house. In the previous election it was simple…a choice between the worse of two evils. Now we have two p*ssy, grabbing, draft dodging, narcissists…it will be a though choice to make.

      1. This is one of the stupid over-reaches that keep democrat partisans shooting themselves in the foot. I keep seeing that meme everywhere… that the Entertainment Tonight tape contains a confession of serial sexual assault by Trump.

        It was a gross and boorish statement, braggadocio of feigned sexual prowess and an assessment that fame made seduction a perfunctory act. It was quite obviously not a statement confessing sexual assault.

        By over-reaching, DNC partisans give Trump cover. Instead of letting him have his rope and just shutting up and letting him hang himself, they run out in front and say something even more stupid, diverting attention from Trump’s buffoonery.

        1. A gross and boorish statement, it was. Braggadocio of feigned sexual prowess and an assessment that fame made seduction a perfunctory act, it wasn’t. It definitely wasn’t a statement confessing sexual assault.
          What it was, was an indictment of what some women will allow, to get close to rich and powerful men.
          “Feminists” were outraged, because it was the truth.

      2. “Now we have two p*ssy, grabbing, draft dodging, narcissists…it will be a though choice to make.”

        To fucking ignoramuses like you, ALL choices are tough.
        Fuck off and die.

      3. One guy fantasizes about grabbing the pussies of women with their consent.

        The other guy may be actually grabbing the pussies of women against their will and protests.

        I don’t think those two are morally equivalent. If you’re a partisan Democrat, of course, you may see that differently.

      4. Stupid progtard is stupid.

      5. W*at *s th*s st*p*d *st*r*sk b*llsh*t?


        Y** *fr**d y**r w*f* *r h*sb*nd w*ll g*t p*ss*d *t y** f*r t*p*ng PUSSY?

  3. I called this on Wednesday. The plan is to let Biden give an indignant denial in a softball interview and then have the media call it “old news” and write chin scratching thought pieces about how troubling this all is but ultimately there is just no way to know what really happened and everyone just needs to move on and talk about more important things. These idiots are nothing if not predictable.

    1. Hillary uses this all the time when asked about Billy.

      “Those allegations have already been addressed….”

      1. I think the term is “modified limited hangout”. Deny something until it becomes so obvious it can’t be denied anymore, then pretend that everyone always knew it was true and that it is old news that the Republicans just can’t let go of.

        1. Clinton introduced us to this with his draft story. Every other week (literally) there was a different revelation that proved that the Clinton story was a lie. Every single time the answer was the same. “We’ve always known that. That is old news. But it would be a big story if ….”

          With the draft it was “he never got a draft notice”. But if he had… that would be super-bad.

          Then someone produced the draft notice.

          “We’ve always known that. But he never received a second notice!”

          Then someone produced the second notice.

          On and on.. through deferrals that were obtained under false pretense, classes matriculated but not matriculated… trips to England that didn’t happen when they did…

          If I recall there were 6 different “Yeah, but he never did this” stories in a row that all turned out to be false. Every single one was reported to me by the major news anchor… so I got to hear Peter Jennings contradict himself every other week – somehow pretending that he had no recollection of what he had said to me a mere 12 days ago.

          This is where a learned…. nobody cares about the truth. Facts are irrelevant. All that matters is that the story is told by everyone. As long as everyone is singing from the same songbook, there’s nobody around to point out the obvious lies.

          Even knowing this… I found the Kavanaugh coverage astonishing as they took a nothing-burger that probably never even happened at all and turned it into the second OJ Simpson trial. And now, watching those same people bury the Reade story without the tiniest bit of dissent is amazing. Until today, Soave was the only voice calling out the media. Now, perhaps showing the most gall in history, the NYT is taking the high road, calling out everyone else for not covering the story.

          1. Biden is now at the stage Kavanaugh was, before he had his virtual colonoscopy in front of the US Senate, televised to the rest of the country, accompanied by accusations so ridiculous as to have some of the most partisan of his detractors feign ignorance of their existence.
            When do we get to see Biden cross examined as Kavanaugh was and Tara Reade get to expand on her accusations as was the case back then.

      2. To be fair, Mika did ask tough questions with good followups. Watching it right now (and catching some errors in the article’s quotes.)
        I assumed this would be a friendly softball interview, but Mika stayed on him and he looks really bad. Pretty sure his campaign was equally shocked that MSNBC didn’t fellate him and make this go away.
        Robby also ignores that the NYT changed damning verified facts in their article because Biden’s campaign asked them to

        1. Were his answers even coherent?

          1. Are they ever?

        2. This is the media helping the DNC setup a rationale to remove Biden as a nominee. They will claim the high ground, force Biden to step down, out of “resect for women” and the “good of the country” And claim him a “Hero”.
          They will then insert Andrew Cumo as the nominee. Biden will pledge his delegates to Cumo and “Fuck Bernie and the Voters”

          1. Yeah. I don’t see a way out of this mess for Democrats if they don’t remove Biden and replace him with someone viable. Maybe Mika just happens to be in the know and that’s the grand plan.

            1. Unless that “someone viable” is the only other candidate to have pledged delegates, that other candidate’s supporters will be even more pissed off than they were when HiLIARy got the nomination.
              Losing the general election votes of the Bernie bros will be devastating.

        3. Well, while the high powered executives are “Democrat at any costs”, many of the low ranking reporters got into the business because they actively love journalism or believe in the ideals of the profession. Many of those who really do want Trump out are upset at this, and those who have become jaded are hitting lines they won’t cross.

          This is a really big ethical conflict. A potentially provable case with evidence being deliberately concealed by Biden under increasingly tenuous or even false circumstances. A case that could potentially fall into the concealed crime exception of statute of limitations. Not reporting on this is as grade-A violation of ethics as can be. It’s no wonder they are having people crossing lines on this.

      3. Run, Hillary, Run!

    2. Which version of Reade’s story are we supposed to believe?

      1. All of them. You believed Ford’s story that was completely bereft of any details or even evidence she ever knew Kavanaugh. So, you should be expected to believe whatever Reid tells you. You dumb asses spent a year telling the world how women never lie. Your rule, now live with it.

        1. Laughable

          1. Stooopid.

        2. I love seeing lefties being held accountable to their own rules. The way those hypocrites squirm.
          We’re actually borrowing their own tactics in doing this, particularly from Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals:

          Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

          1. A hypocrite only “squirms” if they have a modicum of honor or integrity – neither of which can be associated with the followers of leftist ideology.
            “By any means necessary” is their mantra, also “by fair means, or foul”. Mostly the latter.

      2. Remember, they subscribe to “trauma informed” investigative theory, where getting facts wrong and telling different versions are “consistent with a true claim.”

        1. This might have been the most pathetic part of the whole Ford fiasco. Democrats, with a straight face, claimed that the less she remembered the more likely it was that she was telling the truth.

          1. Their rationalizations were simply pathetic. But Ford’s own story of being traumatized to the point that she could not fly on planes or live in a house with only one front door were fairly ridiculous, and there was not a single voice in the media that dared to say so. I mean, she traveled extensively by plane, and her ex said they lived in a small apartment for 6 years and he never heard anything about any of it, including claustrophobia.

            You had to be working hard at it to support that story.

            And they were working equally hard burying Reade’s story.

            So you have to wonder about motive here. The Biden campaign went to MSNBC and picked a host who was against the way Kavanaugh was treated. They obviously were on friendly ground. Yet he still came off as unprepared and kinda scatterbrained.

            There’s definitely something afoot here. I’m torn between suspecting that this is their strategy for killing the story (it has been thoroughly investigated and it is bunk) and suspecting that this is the first crack in a split that sees the dems pushing a surprise substitute at the last minute – someone unvetted and undamaged like Cuomo or Michelle Obama.

      3. The one where she says Biden raped her.

      4. Which one do you NOT believe, you Patriarchical Bastard?

    3. Haven’t watched the interview, mainly because I don’t care, but the questions that Soave lists above aren’t the kind of questions I would personally included in a ‘softball’ interview.

      Then again, it’s Mika Brzezinski and MSNBC so I dunno.

      1. There was one “tough” moment… when she asked about the Senate papers. He had to be prepped on the topic, but completely fumbled the answer (he basically said they were irrelevant, but they also had embarrassing facts about his prior positions and he had a campaign to run)

        But she didn’t press him on all of the other allegations – the hair sniffing and shoulder rubbing. She didn’t press him on his positions that Kavanaugh should be disqualified due to an allegation that he engaged in horseplay at a highschool party that did not involve any contact with naughty bits. (an allegation that he fairly conclusively disproved, by the way).

        She didn’t press him about why Reade was demoted. Or why she left that August. Or why we should disbelieve her when she made contemporaneous allegations (Ford telling a marriage therapist about an unnamed person doing something to her in high school some 20 years after the event was hailed as proof positive that she wasn’t lying, if you recall).

        There were plenty of clips of an angry Biden denouncing Kavanaugh that she could have played to bolster the “you said something completely incompatible with your current position” line of questioning….

        And she never pressed him on his obvious mental decline. If I was interviewing the guy, I’d ask about that. Has he seen a doctor? Is he suffering from dementia? If not, why the bizarre rants about putting on record players and rambling, pointless answers to simple questions? Why the angry assault on a union worker who asked a question he didn’t like?

        She did a great job – by comparison to a completely feckless propaganda machine. By comparison to an actual journalist who was interested in completely exploring a candidate’s fitness? Meh… she did a bit of the work… that’s all.

    4. NBC news interviewed Biden first and is now claiming Reade won’t come forward to answer the allegations, the allegation being inferred that Biden is truthful and Reade needs to respond. These people are evil to others even when its not needed.

  4. “you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real”

    “However, I do deny them my essence.”

    1. It’s why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure grain alcohol.

      1. ^This man gets it!

    2. “However, I do deny them my essence.”
      That’s why I only fingered them.

  5. If the former vice president is taking the position that women should be believed unless their accusations are disproven, then the burden of evidence is on the accused.

    He’s simply saying that accusers should be presumed innocent of making false accusations until they are proven guilty and Biden surrogates have proven Reade guilty.

  6. So Biden is a lying, conniving, self-serving asshole, and probably at least borderline demented.

    Sounds like a perfect candidate for US president.

    1. And he will also choose a complete lunatic as his running mate. So there is that.

      1. Whitmer?!

        1. Her or Abrams.

          1. If the information about Abrams being $200k in debt, that and her insistence that she won the GA election rather than Kemp should be enough to preclude her as choice.

        2. No, Harris. Whitmer shot herself in the foot, and can no longer guarantee the ticket would carry Michigan. Also, Whitmer can’t bring the guilty white housewife vote the way Harris can.

          1. Bide doesn’t need help in CA. It won’t be her.

            1. I sure hope not. That’s the only thing thta could tempt me to vote for Drumpf.

    2. If not, so what? For a century and a half political party conventions weren’t even called until midsummer of the election year. The 1968 Dem convention was late August, and 60 years earlier conventions were routinely held in June and July. If Ass-Forfeiture Biden misses this opportunity to have government goons shoot kids over plant leaves, a June, July or August convention could choose a different looter like in the old days–before Nixon election subsidies.

  7. Biden is a rapist. Period. Full stop.

    1. Is it too late for Joe to change the spelling of his surname? something more Continental-sounding, more sophisticated? Nobody would dare pick on Joe Bidet for getting too close to some derrière.

  8. Denial is what you would expect from the guilty.

    1. lol

  9. I was wondering why MSDNC was taking up this issue and challenging Biden on it.

    John thinks it’s part of a limited hang-out strategy. Perhaps it is.

    I was wondering if they’re preparing the ground for Biden to be replaced with a different candidate.

    1. That is what everyone seems to think. But I don’t think so. I don’t think they can kick Biden to the curb without the Bernie bros demanding Bernie or someone close to him replace him, which would be even worse than running Biden. I think they are going all the way with Joe.

      1. Yeah, his replacement will be whoever they select for his vice president.

        1. To clarify, I think they plan to have Biden do the election, and after a year or so he’ll resign due to poor health and whatever unelectable zealot the party bosses have picked for VP will assume office.

          Biden is the DNC’s teaser stallion to get them there, not the one who will actually dick the proletariat after the election.

          1. That is an excellent analogy. I am sad to say.

          2. Biden do the election, and after a year or so he’ll resign…

            Won’t get to the inauguration, and may not even be on the ballot. Election law allows (the Duopoly or all parties?) to replace candidates on the ballot right up to the General Election.

            He’ll be given the nomination and will be provided with a running mate who is assured of being 25th’d into the seat. I suspect that his Veep will be either HRC or Michelle now that Covid-19 has ruled out the possibility of Trump being re-elected.

    2. It’s also possible that MSNBC is so far to the left that they really do believe all women without question. I mean, it would be something new and different for the far left to be intellectually consistent but I suppose I can’t entirely discount the possibility.

      1. first joe has his own problems, so it his show and he had to consent. Mika being consistent grilled the VP. i think he answered the question in the absence of any proof. Biden may not recall but his staff would remember any report or rumor.

        And BTW could you imagine she groped him, was rebuffed and now harbors a collosal grudge.

        i call this inoculation, Mika provided the syringe. Morning Joe , in its side by side comparison of the Groper’s- in-Chief 22 victims, was the band aid. “move on her like a bitch’ is priceless. I know lots of MAGA women who don’t give a dam. Ask them if its okay if the oragantang -in-chief moved on her daughter like a bitch.

        if he did try to mash on a staffer in 93 i give him a pass. If it was rape as suggested then she should have called the cops.

        1. He is accused of pinning her to the wall and finger banging her.
          Don’t fucking play the “We’re not entirely sure what is being claimed” card here, you disingenuous weasel.

        2. if he did try to mash on a staffer in 93 i give him a pass.

          So, if he actually did do it, you give him a pass because Trump has allegations against him too.

          The irony is strong with you.

          And BTW could you imagine she groped him, was rebuffed and now harbors a collosal grudge.

          LOL. No.

          If Biden was worth more than just a few million dollars, maybe. Turns out political power isn’t nearly as sexy as the ability to buy someone a yacht for their birthday.

    3. If they expose him early, he’ll have “Her” immunity.

      1. If he gets any more senile, he’ll be exposing himself…

    4. Progs hate Biden more than republicans and libertarians do

  10. If he doesn’t remember his staffers, how does he know he didn’t rape her?

    Case. Closed: rapist.

  11. “This is why the presumption of innocence matters, in both a criminal and a cultural context. If there’s no way to determine what happened, one solution would be to default toward not believing it—or at least, not punishing the accused. An extraordinary claim requires affirmative evidence to be accepted, and if the evidence does not materialize, it is rejected. That seems to be what Biden is saying now. It’s definitely not what he said before.”

    Testimony regarding events from 25 years ago should not be given serious consideration as evidence–regardless of whether such affirmative “evidence” materializes.

    If you want to disqualify someone from consideration for the Supreme Court, disqualify someone from public office, disqualify an average person from a management position, send an average person to jail, or make a jury force someone to pay damages–on the basis of testimony about an event from 25 years ago–then you are both advocating injustice and trying to normalize injustice.

    There are people who want to change social norms by making examples of public figures this way. They’re called, “social justice warriors”. They successfully changed social norms in the wake of Anita Hill, they’re tried to change social norms in the wake of Harvey Weinstein and Brett Kavanaugh, too. If enough people like Robby uphold the social norms of social justice warriors, instead of challenging their faulty logic in cases like this, the social justice warriors will succeed in changing social norms again.

    No. the standard is not that “an extraordinary claim requires affirmative evidence to be accepted, and if the evidence does not materialize, it is rejected”. The standard is that testimony from 25 years ago isn’t credible evidence that should be given serious consideration.

    It’s like trying to have it both ways. You think women’s accusations should be given serious consideration even when they’re only made public 25 years after the fact, but the truth is that 25 year old testimony shouldn’t be given serious consideration. You’re trying to take the middle road, but by lending serious consideration to testimony that doesn’t deserve serious consideration by the standards of reason and justice, you’re basically selling reason and justice short in the name of “social justice”.

    You think you’ve found a way to carry water for the social justice warriors and maintain a pretense of reason and the principles of justice, but you haven’t. You’ve sold reason and the principles justice short–just like all the other social justice warriors.

    1. You have skills Ken plain as day.

    2. Someone explain to me why the rationale behind the statute of limitations (which have been around since before Demosthenes) are no longer reasonable or valid.

      Is it no longer true that the memory of witnesses who might exonerate the accused is such that over a 25 year period, they no longer misremember key aspects of events–or no longer forget the event entirely?

      Is it no longer true that the memories of accusers can change key facts and contexts over a period of 25 years?

      Other than the assertion that “women should be believed”, why should we give serious consideration to testimony about events from 25 years ago–or is “because women should be believed” the only reason?

      Help me understand.

      1. Well we have to do something to make sure the wrong people don’t end up in political office, Ken. Since winning on ideals is hard, it’s much easier to just make vague accusations that all of your opponents are rapists.

        Even if you manage to win on your ideals, now your voters expect you to actually follow through on them, that requires work and that is not why people get into politics. If you win on “the other guy is a rapist” your only obligation is to not rape anyone, which seems like a pretty low bar but our politicians still manage to fuck it up.

      2. “statute of limitations (which have been around since before Demosthenes) ”

        Love those old Greek statues.

      3. Yes, old evidence may not be appropriate in a criminal trial but elections aren’t criminal trials (though most politicians are crooks).
        And, I would think it would depend on what the 25 year old evidence was. Saying “so and so raped me” is not evidence. Turning up, say, a 25 year old videotape of said rape is evidence.
        Where did Biden say his Senate records were? Probably the same place where Obama’s college applications and transcripts are?
        Probably next to the mortal remains of Jimmy Hoffa?

        1. People should be free to vote on whatever issues they like, but this isn’t just about Joe Biden or Kavanaugh.

          Before Anita Hill, sexual harassment was not a thing. Maybe the world is a better place because women are proactively protected in the workplace now for fear of sexual harassment lawsuits and the juries that will find in their favor.

          The world would not be a better place if allegations of things we did and said 25 years ago could be brought to bear against us now.

          Premise 1) Plenty of people think that homophobes, racists, xenosphobes, and misogynists shouldn’t be allowed to hold management positions in or out of the public sector.

          Premise 2) Plenty of people already equate opposition to gay marriage with homophobia, opposition to affirmative action with racism, support for President Trump’s wall with xenophobia, and opposition to abortion with misogyny.

          Conclusion: 25 years from now, being accused of having opposed gay marriage, opposition to affirmative action, support for Trump’s border wall, or opposition to abortion may be more than enough to exclude you from management positions.

          If the things we’re alleged to have said and done 25 years ago are open to serious consideration, the impact will not be confined to Joe Biden. If you have ever said or done anything that could be misconstrued as unacceptable to the social justice warriors of the future, then you are at risk–if you want to be in a management position anywhere in the public or private sector.

          We’re looking at future where Red Scare questions like, “Are you now or have you ever been a communist” look like child’s play.

          Well, you have to understand that 25 years ago, that was before World War II and being a communist meant something different than it does today!

          Answer the question, are you now or have you ever been a homophobe, a racist, a xenophobe, or a misogynist? And please remember, we have people here who remember what you did and what you said back then!

          1. “Conclusion: 25 years from now, being accused of having opposed gay marriage, opposition to affirmative action, support for Trump’s border wall, or opposition to abortion may be more than enough to exclude you from management positions.”

            …and a credit card, bank account, health services, unemployment insurance and a universal basic income.

            For the last 150 years Western society has always run 20-30 years behind the universities. What we see on campus today is a vision of our future. Stupid, credulous, perverse and authoritarian.

            1. Not so sure about that. There’s a 50-50 chance that the SJWs will be crushed by their own ridiculousness. Maybe we’ll start seeing people as individuals rather than dividing them up into groups of victims and villains.

              That would be true progress. The progs will fight it every step of the way. Their virtue signaling addiction demands it.

              1. “There’s a 50-50 chance that the SJWs will be crushed by their own ridiculousness. ”

                Seeing dribs and drabs of this, e.g.,

                [2017] “A parade in Chicago celebrating the lesbian community barred three Jewish women for carrying Jewish Pride flags. Organizers of the 21st annual Chicago Dyke March told the women that the rainbow flags with a white Star of David in the center would be a “trigger,” or traumatic stimulus, for people who found them offensive. A Dyke March collective member told the Windy City Times that the women were told to leave because the flags “made people feel unsafe,”

                And similar episode 2 years later

                [2019] “The D.C. Dyke March barred the Jewish pride flag. This LGBTQ space no longer feels safe. The ban tells me I should be ashamed of my nationality and my faith rather than be accepted for whom I am. As a queer Israeli Jew and the son of an Iraqi mother and North African father, I have consistently struggled with my intersecting identities. My Iraqi family tried to understand when I came out but urged me not to be outspoken in case others weren’t accepting. Meanwhile, the Tunisian side of my family made it clear that I shouldn’t bring up the subject ever again. Yet I remain proud of both my Tunisian-Berber Jewish heritage as well as my Iraqi Jewish heritage, and I will not be compelled to favor only one identity. Just as I did not choose to be gay, I did not choose my ethnicity. But now, the organizers of a queer march held in Washington on Friday are telling me that I should be ashamed of where I was born, my nationality and that I am Jewish. In solidarity with the Palestinians and to create a safe space for them, the D.C. Dyke March banned “nationalist symbols” from countries with “oppressive tendencies,” in particular Israeli flags. This included the Star of David superimposed on a rainbow pride flag, which the organizers considered evocative of the Israeli flag, though Palestinian flags were allowed.

                Nah, maybe it’s just that the left or at least the Dyke March organizers are ACTUALLY anti-Semetic.

                1. Maybe modern identity is all about opposition.

                2. The left has been maggoty with Judenhass ever since Marx itself. It’s funny that anyone who purports to uphold gay rights can be a leftard at all, given how the Soviets treated homosexuals.


                3. As a queer Israeli Jew and the son of an Iraqi mother and North African father…

                  This guy got possibly the worst hand when it came to luck with his birth circumstances.

          2. You got me thinking; given my current state of health and access to competent physicians, I will very likely still be around to see those awful things come to fruition 25 years from now.

      4. Statute or no, ‘the other guy is a rapist’ or no, the information is important 25 years on. Particularly in the case of national leadership. Are you advocating for not knowing information of illegal or unethical activity simply because the statute of limitations has run out? Or because for some it will simplify the choice to ‘rapist/not rapist?’ Or, ‘both rapists, but I hate that guy?’

      5. They are working hard to eliminate and statute of limitations for allegations of sexual assault – as a direct result of the Kavanaugh debacle.

        Think of that. He-said, she-said is almost undefendable as it is, given allegations brought forth withing days or months. Our college experience has shown that even waiting a year makes it almost impossible to mount a defense.

        And they want to go with he-said, she-said from decades ago, that was never mentioned to anyone on the planet until decades later.

        As Kavanaugh has shown, even having a well-maintained calendar from the period in question that is reasonably conclusive that you never attended the gathering in question, multiple alleged witnesses not only failing to corroborate the allegation, but actively rebutting the allegation and a lifetime of character evidence to the contrary will not shake some people’s belief in your guilt, even when your accuser has some fanciful embellishments to her story that do not stand up to scrutiny. I’d certainly hate to have to take that burden of proof into court with my freedom on the line.

        1. I think what saved Kavanaugh is the fact that none of the people that Ford claimed were present, including her best friend at the time, corroborated her story, so it became blatantly obvious that she pulled the story out of her ass.


          1. A shame that it wasn’t justice that saved him.

      6. First of all, statutes of limitation aren’t universal, and they only apply to criminal trials and convictions, which this case is not about.
        Some of the statutes of limitation have been changed due to suppression of the memory of traumatic events that happen to the very young, but surface at a later date.
        But, in this case, it isn’t just the 25 year-old recollection of the victim, but the corroborating 25 year-old recollections of those she told about the incident, when it had recently happened – including the video of a woman, calling in to Larry King, at about the same time, with an accusation of an event sounding very much like what Reade’s recollections were.
        25 year-old murder convictions, for which there is no statute of limitations, have been successfully prosecuted on less.

        1. Unsubstantiated allegations from 25 years ago should never be given enough serious consideration to be considered evidence.

          At that point, you’re not even talking about reason. You’re just talking about your feelings. You feel like something may have happened, and you feel like she may be telling the truth–but feelings are not worthy of serious consideration and should never be confused with evidence.

          It isn’t just the 25 year-old recollection of the victim, but the corroborating 25 year-old recollections of those she told about the incident

          Because an allegation about an incident that occurred 25 years ago can be confirmed to have also been made 23 years ago substantiates nothing but that an allegation was made. It does nothing to suggest whether the allegation is true.

          Here’s a woman who wrote a book about why she falsely accused her father of sexually abusing her–at one point, she apparently believed the allegation to be true.

          “My Lie, published in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, is a memoir that recounts the fallout from Maran’s false accusation that her father sexually abused her as a child. Throughout the memoir, Maran touches on themes such as false memory, the sex-abuse panic spread across the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, and coming to terms with taking responsibility for her actions.”

          Because someone could confirm that she made the false accusation a few years after it supposedly happened would have done nothing to substantiate the allegation. Again, we should never confuse accusations or feelings with evidence that is worthy of serious consideration.

          I was talking with a guy I know, his brother, and his mom about when we were kids, recently. He was trying to remember the name of a kid in our class who used to wear orthopedic shoes. He hated them because they were like dress shoes, so at recess, he would take the shoes, throw them over the fence, and run around in his socks. He’d tell the teachers and his mom that he had no idea what had happened to his shoes.

          He just couldn’t remember that kid’s name . . .

          His brother, his mom, and I all confirmed that it wasn’t some other kid that did that. It was him! He wore orthopedic shoes and he used to do exactly that with them at recess.

          Our memories change constantly, and the more we think about an event, the more our memory changes.

          Meanwhile, the memory of people who could provide exculpatory testimony has changed over 25 years, too. What about all the people who might have offered exculpatory evidence but have completely forgotten the event in question 25 years later?

          Suffice it to say, allegations from 25 years ago may be true or false, but they are not self-substantiating on basis of the allegations themselves. If you want to believe them on the basis of your feelings, feel free. Irrationality isn’t a crime. Try to change the standards of justice and reason on the basis of your feelings, on the other hand, and don’t be surprise if those of us who care about such things call your feeling out for what they are.

          1. The issue with Biden isn’t his sexual assault, whether or not it happened. The issue is his former advocacy of finding others guilty with no evidence while refusing to apply the same standards to himself.

      7. The issue isn’t whether Biden is guilty, the issue is that he has rejected the statute of limitations for others but not himself.

      8. I am sure All Good Donks agree with you on this particular case.

        On THIS case only.

    3. If your neighbor raped a person, even 25 years ago wouldn’t you want to know that. There is a difference between knowledge of an action and seeking justice for that action years after an imaginary timeline. If there is no evidence then it should be discounted but since there was a refusal to look in the past due to a persons status, does not mean we should refuse to look today. Let us see if there is evidence if not then let it go. right now few are looking for evidence again because of the person being accused

      1. Yes, but having someone say that my neighbor raped someone 25 years is not the same as my neighbor having actually raped someone 25 years ago.

        1. And stepping forward 25 years ago and making a claim is not the same as stepping forward 25 years later and making the claim for the first time.

        2. +1

      2. What magical outcome do you expect from looking into it? A video zoomed on Tara’s crotch, mysteriously hidden in the Senate archives?

        We can’t tell what happened back then.

        Women should either go through the legal process right when something happens or stfu. Anything else is destructive of the rule of law.

        As for Biden, his problem is that he advocated overthrowing the rule is law when it applied to political opponents but demands sensible rules for himself. The man is a hypocrite.

  12. Biden was expertly grilled by Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski

    And I expertly grilled my spaghetti last night. I can’t even. This is the same woman who wants the FDA to regulate sugar like a controlled substance (yes. she’s actually said that).

  13. He said that reports should be respected and taken seriously, and women should be given the benefit of the doubt. “Believe all women” never meant that the accused have no right to deny or rebut accusations.
    “Believe all women” is an unfortunate example of hashtag activism, trying to hard to be pithy which only sets advocates up for dumb arguments. Like “Black lives matter.”
    People who demand that “believe all women” be taken with absolute, extreme literality are like those who demand that “Pro-lifers” must oppose capital punishment, any wars, and economic systems that “allow” hunger to exist.

    1. No, it was clear what the meant at the time. Biden. Harris. Feinstein, Klobuchar, Durbin…. they all had the same standard. The woman was emotional as she told her story. Case closed. You must believe her. And it doesn’t matter that the story is a nothing-burger even if true. She said it was traumatic for her. That’s all you need. Case closed. It was the exact same thing as attempted rape. Anyone saying otherwise is a misogynist.

      It was a freaking mantra at the time.

    2. “He said that reports should be respected and taken seriously, and women should be given the benefit of the doubt. “Believe all women” never meant that the accused have no right to deny or rebut accusations.”

      So when you’re called on your bullshit, you were just joking?
      Fuck off; lame excuse.

  14. B.S. “Believe” means to “accept something as true.” It doesn’t mean “let’s look into it.”

    1. How dare you accept the longstanding definition of words!

      1. It’s positively racist!

  15. Mr. Soave…Do Readership a solid and publish the transcript of the interview. We want to see if the man could put three consecutive, grammatically coherent sentences together. Help us.

  16. dumbest article ever. She says he did, offers no proof. He says he didn’t , offering a first hand witness account. Basically the plot is for Biden to prove nothing happened.

    If she filed a complaint then it should be in the archives which he gave Senate permission to scour, as if Moscow ‘let em eat shit’ McConnel likely already to have done.

    My brother ran over my foot with his bike in 93. prove you didn’t bro.

    1. Oh fuck off. Others have backed up her story. Nobody has backed up Biden’s except that they “believe him”. Don’t be fucking retarded democrat.

      Seriously eat shit and die.

    2. “offering a first hand witness account”

      Lol, what?

    3. you do realize that his “senate archives” is a red herring, right? The legislative isn’t beholden to the same rules as the executive with regards to record keeping, it’s because both sides have too much to lose if they do it, the same reason neither side pushes term limits. The only record would be in the records held by Delaware University. It was funny watching Biden explain why the Senate “records” should be looked at, but not the University records, not even a search for anything only related to Tara Reid’s name

    4. The issue is not whether Biden did this, the issue is his hypocrisy and inconsistency in dealing with it, relative to the standards he applies to others.

  17. LOL…Just saw the replay of the interview. Holy Moly….the man was useless after his first few rehearsed lines.

    He was rumblin’, bumblin’ and stumblin’ through the whole thing. The debates are going to break him. The country will see this plagiarizing jackass should come nowhere near the oval office.

    1. There won’t be any debates.

      I’d say it’s about 50-50 now that the House will try to impeach Trump again between now and the election (probably over coronavirus), and Biden and the Democrats will claim that they refuse to ‘normalize’ twice-impeached Trump by appearing on a debate stage with him.

  18. With Ken. Ship sailed.

  19. Wow, just wow. If sleepy/demented Joe wanted to get interest away from the subject of Tara Reade’s allegations, he just blew it big time. Watching him stutter and shuffle should be an instructional video on how to spot a liar. It really piques my interest in what is in the U of D records. Mika did a surprisingly good job on what I expected would be the ultimate softball interview.

  20. Handsy ole uncle Joe. All those years sniffer hair spray on women’s hairs are finally taking a toll. Add to that Dementia and Senility.

  21. Lying piece of shit!

  22. Remember how Ford was treated with Kid gloves in the Senate. She was a fragile flower who was traumatized by the whole thing. It enhanced her “credibility” in the eyes of the public, because she was sympathetic.

    That’s probably why the DNC machine is changing their story and they want Reade to do the TV circuit now. They want her on TV defending herself, over and over. That way, she won’t seem credible. She won’t cry every time. She will get upset as they attempt to debunk her story over and over. Unlike Senate Republicans, DNC press operatives will be able to ask her humiliating questions. They’ll be able to put her on trial.

    Don’t believe it? Just look at how this story broke. Nobody would touch it. The NYT spent two weeks looking for anyone to debunk the story. The best they could do was getting “I don’t recall any such allegations” from Biden’s staff. She’s been unable to get anyone in the press to interview her – only Fox has tried.

    Now, the NYT is calling on the TV media to put her on TV. Why? What has changed?

    Well, she’s getting bolstered by corroborating witnesses. And nobody is able to lay a glove on her because she’s not on TV. They aim to change that by burning her on TV. They’ll push her on Russia. They’ll push her on Bernie. They’ll push her on being a prude, or a flirt, or a get-around. Whatever it is, they’ll just keep pushing until she’s no longer sympathetic to the average voter.

    I’m sure they are calculating that this will take no more than a couple of weeks. They have until the convention to get this into the “old news” bucket. These days, things are “old news” by the end of the same day, so I’d say they have a good chance of succeeding.

    1. Any former Biden staffer who recalled such a story would be in deep trouble: they still work for Democrats after all.

  23. What I think the politicos have failed to understand about this story is that it is not about Biden, Reade, Kavanaugh and Ford.

    This story is about the press. Specifically, it is about what it reveals about their coverage. It reveals that they are not merely biased, or operating from a left of center point of view. No, those positions are debunked by this story. An ideologically left of center press would take this story seriously, sympathizing with feminist goals. And “bias” in reporting is subtle and would not play out with this unbelievably stark contrast between two similar cases.

    This story exposes the major press organizations as a propaganda machine for the DNC. That is what is driving the passion behind this story. The drive to destroy Kavanaugh was insane and offensive to anyone with a sense of decency. And now, the same people are ignoring a far more credible story of a far more serious assault and a credible story of retaliation on the job. This story has everything the profess as bedrock principles. Their silence or dismissal of the story leaves them stripped bare.


    … seems to be the Democrat’s new campaign slogan.

  25. Democrat: Not guilty, because Joe is a Democrat and so am I, and we never do anything bad.
    Republican: Let’s assemble all the facts.
    Independent: Who cares?

  26. Oh, come on! Biden has explained that over and over again! Biden meant that women should be believed until their claims have been thoroughly investigated! The NYT investigated Kavanaugh and found him guilty, and they also investigated Biden and found him not guilty! Anybody who still persists on bringing up this old and debunked claim is obviously a rich Trump donor who is peddling conspiracy theories! The plumbers, construction companies, and accountants that donate to Trump are so powerful that even the large number of billionaire hedge fund managers, media corporations, publicly funded academics, and lawyers that make up the bulk of prominent Democrats are powerless to stop their skullduggery!

    1. “The plumbers, construction companies, and accountants that donate to Trump are so powerful that even the large number of billionaire hedge fund managers, media corporations, publicly funded academics, and lawyers that make up the bulk of prominent Democrats are powerless to stop their skullduggery!”

      Trump hates actual billionaires. Unless they are from Saudi Arabia and have access to mysterious glowing orbs or are dictatorial rulers of nations that are historically American adversaries.

  27. And all this time we’ve been wasting billions on investigations and courts for crimes. Who knew all you had to do was simply ask the accused if they did it or not. If they say No, end of story. Used to be more subtle hypocrisy but now its straight in your face they don’t give a fuck hypocrisy. Pelosi actually told someone not to lecture her on hypocrisy, after all she has a PhD in it! Dems are carefully as usual trying to craft the optics of Joe and everyone see their blatant lies and wagon circle. Every woman he ran against or wants to be VP all parroted the same fucking thing before he came out of his basement. They all are fools and look the part even more so now. With Trump he just doesn’t give a fuck.

    1. Your crocodile tears over Mr. Biden while you support Mr. Trump, who was caught on tape bragging about assaulting women, is not exactly convincing.

  28. Payback is a bitch.

  29. Robby – you offered sloppy, misleading journalism. Yes, a few years ago Biden did not say those EXACT verbs and nouns concerning Kavanaugh as he did now but, his meaning was the same, that is to listen to the woman and offer her the right to speak. You are blatantly lying when you try to convince your readers that he is somehow saying something different now.

    1. #BelieveEverySockpuppet

  30. Biden apparently sent his aides to scan the sealed senatorial record, which barely got mention in the media.

    The left is twisting like pretzel to pretend that there has been no #metoo double standard and that Flynn was not a victim of a FBI hit job. “Oh, but they do that to black drug dealers all the time. The FBI always charges black people for breaking 200 year old unconstitutional law that resulted in zero conviction, and then moves onto charge them even after agents who conducted the interview determine no law was broken. Why you so mad”

  31. “ You sowed the wind. For decades to come, I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.” Brett Kavanaugh

    Reades mother called in to the Larry King show in 1993 to discuss the assault.

  32. Sarah H. James Single mom makes $89844/yr in her spare time on computer without selling or buying any thing. I got inspired and start work now i am making $175 per hour. Its to easy to do this, every one can do this no experience or skill required just join the given link and start earning from very first day. Here is link… More Read Here

  33. The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, an offshoot of the #MeToo campaign, turned down Reade’s request for funding in January on the questionable grounds that Biden “was a candidate for federal office, and assisting a case against him could jeopardize the organization’s nonprofit status,” according to the Intercept.

    The CEO of Time’s Up is Tina Tchen, a prominent Chicago lawyer and one of the biggest fundraisers for Barack Obama and Biden, Obama’s running mate in the 2008 presidential campaign. Tchen subsequently served as the Obama-Biden administration’s director of the White House Office of Public Engagement from 2009 to 2011, and later as Obama’s assistant, chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama and executive director of the White House Council on Women and Girls.

    1. Egads! the person running a nonprofit organization that supports women previously worked on the White House Council on Women and Girls? With obvious divided loyalty like that. it’s a scandal that this person hasn’t jumped on board your bandwagon!

  34. Its obvious that Biden is lying!. Time is up for this guy. he had his run

    1. This is another one of these things that are obvious to people who already believe it. Like all the illegals voting for Democrats, and the deep state conspiracy in the national intelligence community that just won’t let go of the idea that Russians helped get Trump elected, even though it’s true.

  35. There’s a saying in D.C.: “Nobody believes a rumor here until it’s officially denied.”

  36. He explained it, he said Believe Women didn’t literally mean just accept every accusation as fact. It means to listen, take their accusations seriously and investigate.

    1. #BelieveWomen was always going to come back to bite some butts, because the full meaning of the term (“listen to women and assume they’re telling the truth; assume the accused is innocent; and investigate”) is too complicated for the 21st century brain.
      But given the public’s need for a catchy hashtag, it should have been #ListenToWomen from the start.

  37. “Joe Biden […] Fails To Explain Why ‘Believe Victims’ Doesn’t Apply to Tara Reade”

    He says it never happened, which means there is not a victim to believe.
    This wasn’t hard to work out. Still works out to “he said, she said” and you get to pick the side you choose to believe, just like before he said anything on the subject. Now if you have open-mike audio of him bragging about it, the nation wants to hear about it. If not they really don’t: roughly one-third already thinks he’s unfit to be President by virtue of being a Democrat, and roughly one-third think he’s their guy by virtue of being a Democrat, and the other one-third would prefer not to hear about it because it isn’t November yet.

  38. #BelieveWomen was always going to come back to bite some butts, because the full meaning of the term (“listen to woman and assume they’re telling the truth; assume the accused is innocent; and investigate”) is too complicated for the 21st century brain.
    But given the public’s need for a catchy hashtag, it should have been #ListenToWomen from the start.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.