“Further doubts about Reade’s credibility are raised by her bizarre posts about Vladimir Putin, hailing not only his leadership but his “sensuous image,” “combination of strength with gentleness” and “reverence for women.” The issue is not that Reade is a Russian agent; it’s that she seems to be, to put it politely, an oddball.”
As much as I appreciate the pushback against the reflexive impulse to assign ‘credibility’ to one side of the story against a powerful figurehead without hearing the other side, this is not a point against Tara.
A lot of women find Putin attractive ; what is ‘odd’ about that? A lot of women found Bill Clinton hot, while knowing about his proclivities. This is silly, and doesn’t contribute to Cathy’s points.
My main issues with Tara isn’t really in the details. Except for the irrelevant Putin reference, Cathy covers the details better the counterfeit Columbos out there.
My issues are
These accusations suddenly popup during a presidential campaign. As they ALWAYS do. And yes, I know about the initial complaint in the 90s, and about the Larry King video. Cathy addresses all of these. It’s just weird that people lose the big picture, and don’t consider it suspicious, that this is suddenly important to warrant out attention, in the context of supporting the leader of our choice.
2.
Multiple accusations that make very similar claims, should themselves raise a red flag. There is a realphenomenon of Copycat Accusations. Diana Davison’s research seems to be totally ignored, here ; and she has actually been in courtrooms and talked to lawyers. She has investigative experience — unlike all of the armchair ‘sleuths’ who have determined that Tara’s account is ‘credible’, and Biden is therefore guilty without a trial.
3.
We’re hearing only one side of the story. In fact, even if any of the assault allegations go to trial, it’s very possible that Biden isn’t capable of defending himself. It’s possible we’ll never know the truth. As with most things in life, I think we should admit that “we don’t know”, and to withhold judgment until actual evidence arrives.
4.
This is Trial by Social Media, outside of a court where evidence is presented by both sides. Why isn’t Glenn Greenwald seeing the dangers of this? I just don’t get it.
5.
But more than anything, why waste time disqualifying Biden on alleged rape allegegations, when there are far more serious character & behavior deficiencies? Biden was part of the War Machine, with Obama. He supported & promoted the deaths of thousands. And I’m sorry if women take this personally — but the death of Women, Children AND Men are more serious than the alleged rape of a dozen women, and certainly more serious than harrassment.
If we’re defending Tara as the victim of a rape, or even the prevalence of rape in general, that’s fine. It’s a noble effort. But it’s an insane arrangement of priorities to focus on this issue, if your intent is to disqualify Biden as a leader ; he’s already disqualified, for actions more serious than rape, whether alleged or actual.
If Tara was indeed raped, and if she remains traumatized by the act 30 years later, then I hope she gets proper restitution after a proper trial, in a proper venue — a Court.