2020 Democratic Primary

[Anya Ristow]

Yep, nothing left to see at the Delaware library archive.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yep, nothing left to see at the Delaware library archive.

Paywalled, at least for me.

 

[Monica Dream]

I'm able to read it; probably because I use ublock origin with trackers etc disabled.

Or maybe because I don't regularly read Business Insider, so I haven't hit my "quota" for the month -I'm not sure. /shrug

 

[Essence Lumin]

The article is here (for now)

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The article is problematic, largely in that it does not know what the fuck they are talking about. Personal papers are not the same as official records like personnel files. Those stay with the Senate until they go to the National Archives. It uses inflammatory langue (Biden has sent "operatives" to "rifle through" boxes) without noting that it is entirely routine for people to check for material in closed archival collections (I worked for the Oregon Historical Society when Packwood as in the spotlight, and we had a number of sealed collections that were routinely accessed for fact-checking by the staff of the subjects).

To repeat, these ARE NOT official records, despite the authors repeatedly muddying the waters by referring to them as official or senatorial records, which they are not. Those are in the Senate and National Archives. There are laws that govern what material must be retained and how it is cataloged and accessed. Biden requested that the Senate examine their records for any complaint, which it would have to have retained by law if one was filed.

 

[Eunoli]

The ability of the Democratic party to self-sabotage and do literally everything possible to try to lose an election never fails to shock me, especially at a time when the future of humanity is quite literally in the balance.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The article is problematic, largely in that it does not know what the fuck they are talking about. Personal papers are not the same as official records like personnel files. Those stay with the Senate until they go to the National Archives. It uses inflammatory langue (Biden has sent "operatives" to "rifle through" boxes) without noting that it is entirely routine for people to check for material in closed archival collections (I worked for the Oregon Historical Society when Packwood as in the spotlight, and we had a number of sealed collections that were routinely accessed for fact-checking by the staff of the subjects).

To repeat, these ARE NOT official records, despite the authors repeatedly muddying the waters by referring to them as official or senatorial records, which they are not. Those are in the Senate and National Archives. There are laws that govern what material must be retained and how it is cataloged and accessed. Biden requested that the Senate examine their records for any complaint, which it would have to have retained by law if one was filed.

The article explains the problem thus:

Biden is refusing to allow public access to his senatorial archives, even though it may contain records that could shed light on Reade's accusations — and even as his own campaign operatives have themselves accessed the papers in the past year.

That is, the demand is for public access, which presumably means journalists want to inspect the entire archive themselves, and somehow I rather doubt they'd confine their search for newsworthy items to papers relating to Ms Reade.

If someone's prepared to pay for an independent report on the archives, conducted by a major reputable law firm, strictly on matters relating to Ms Reade, that would be one thing, but asking for public access to the entire archive before the election (and in the middle of a pandemic with social distancing, too) is an impossible demand, either made in bad faith or by people who have no idea what they're asking for.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The ability of the Democratic party to self-sabotage and do literally everything possible to try to lose an election never fails to shock me, especially at a time when the future of humanity is quite literally in the balance.

I suspect it's more to do with the desire of the media to appear non-partisan by attacking Biden about something rather than only Trump -- their problem being, of course, is that it's a great deal easier to find stuff for which to criticise Trump than it is his opponent, so they have to do their best (or worst) with what little they have.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Yes, it would be about the same as asking for access to all of the records of the Trump Organization.

 

[Salome]

That is, the demand is for public access, which presumably means journalists want to inspect the entire archive themselves, and somehow I rather doubt they'd confine their search for newsworthy items to papers relating to Ms Reade.

This, exactly. The types of documents in such an archive are not intended to be public during the contemporaneous career of politicians, but preserved for the historical record. They will include position papers and communications with other high profile figures. The press is wetting themselves to get unprecedented access to them, even though it just doesn’t happen.

If someone's prepared to pay for an independent report on the archives, conducted by a major reputable law firm, strictly on matters relating to Ms Reade, that would be one thing, but asking for public access to the entire archive before the election (and in the middle of a pandemic with social distancing, too) is an impossible demand, either made in bad faith or by people who have no idea what they're asking for.

In the case of the press it’s either made in ignorance or deliberate bad faith. And it tells you all you need to know about those making the demands.

I suspect it's more to do with the desire of the media to appear non-partisan by attacking Biden about something rather than only Trump -- their problem being, of course, is that it's a great deal easier to find stuff for which to criticise Trump than it is his opponent, so they have to do their best (or worst) with what little they have.

The major media outlets made millions off of horse-race bothsidesism in 2016. Trump’s election cost them nothing. They are going to do whatever they can to follow that previous model.

Also, this line you quoted is an abject lie:

“Biden is refusing to allow public access to his senatorial archives, even though it may contain records that could shed light on Reade's accusations — and even as his own campaign operatives have themselves accessed the papers in the past year.”

As others have pointed out, his senatorial archives will not contain those records. It is the least logical place to look for anything of this nature. He has been directing people to the place where he’d be unable to interfere with the records and where they would be if they’d occurred. Anyone in the press acting like that’s suspect is telling you exactly what kind of a journalist they are.

 

[Salome]

So, now, Reade has cancelled her scheduled interview with FOX and is changing her story (again) about what kind of complaint she filed.

 

[Eunoli]

Just to add on to Salome 's post, here's the newly changed (AGAIN) claim from Reade:

 

[Salome]

Just to add on to Salome 's post, here's the newly changed (AGAIN) claim from Reade:

It’s not so much newly changed as pointing out she’s told different reporters different stories which were also different from her own writings (which themselves were heavily edited before she escalated her claims to the new allegations). The AP is also specifying that they held back on publishing previously due to the many discrepancies and un-verifiable accounts that came up in Reade’s interviews. In other words the professional journalists who had vetted her as a source were hesitant to thrust her story into the spotlight given her inconsistency. Halper, et all had no such ethical considerations to hold them back.

 

[Eunoli]

And here's her interview with the AP on Friday. Whole different story from the last we heard. This time the harassment consisted of him telling her he wanted to serve her drinks. Should we have a pool on what the account changes to by the end of next week?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tara Reade, the former Senate staffer who alleges Joe Biden sexually assaulted her 27 years ago, says she filed a limited report with a congressional personnel office that did not explicitly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment.

“I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable,” Reade said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press. “I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault.”

Reade said she described her issues with Biden but “the main word I used — and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”

AP Exclusive: Harassment, assault absent in Biden complaint

 

[Eunoli]

It’s not so much newly changed as pointing out she’s told different reporters different stories which were also different from her own writings (which themselves were heavily edited before she escalated her claims to the new allegations). The AP is also specifying that they held back on publishing previously due to the many discrepancies and un-verifiable accounts that came up in Reade’s interviews. In other words the professional journalists who had vetted her as a source were hesitant to thrust her story into the spotlight given her inconsistency. Halper, et all had no such ethical considerations to hold them back.

This is just terrible journalism on the part of the venues that did publish various claims. There was obviously zero fact checking involved. When I think of what Dr. Ford - who was very credible and whose story never changed - was subjected to, this makes me really angry.

 

[Salome]

And here's her interview with the AP on Friday. Whole different story from the last we heard. This time the harassment consisted of him telling her he wanted to serve her drinks. Should we have a pool on what the account changes to by the end of next week?

The drinks story, like many others are bizarre because it would be easy to believe if she hadn’t exaggerated it so much. In the 90’s I could easily see a male supervisor telling a low level woman employee that they wanted her to serve drinks because she had nice legs. But in her version, the supervisor tells her specifically that Biden wanted her to do it because he liked her legs and that everyone was yelling about it in the office and one woman was insisting she didn’t have to if she didn’t want to. None of the people she names remember this happening and none of the dozens and dozens of office staff different outlets have tracked down remember incidents like this being the atmosphere in Biden’s office. So in order for this one incident to be true, everyone else has to be lying but her. And it’s just one of the many strange elements she brings up that no one else remembers.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

if we have a second wave of this virus worse than the first and the economy is in shatters I wouldn't count on it. I'm sure the Republicans will back him up.

If? The election is November 3, right in the thick of fall. I would not put it past Trump or his team to attempt such a thing, however, our system should still hold. Of course, we've been saying that about each and every system he has brought to the breaking point.

 

[Salome]

One of the things I have been waiting for when/if Reade ever sits to interview with actual reporters is where this alleged assault took place. It’s foggy at best in her descriptions and there’s very little space where it would even be possible. it’s one of the biggest elements of her story that needs clarification.

This thread is a good example of why the location where this is supposed to have happened doesn’t make sense:

 

[Anya Ristow]

And here's her interview with the AP on Friday. Whole different story from the last we heard. This time the harassment consisted of him telling her he wanted to serve her drinks

...because her legs were pretty.

. Should we have a pool on what the account changes to by the end of next week?

Is google really so hard?

Mar 25:

Joe Biden's Sexual Assault Accuser Breaks Silence With Graphic Allegations

Tara Reade shares her story with podcaster Katie Halper.

newsone.com

When Reade initially came out about her experience with Biden, she told The Union that he did uncomfortable things like “put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck.” Reade also said that she cut ties with Biden’s office over an early 1993 staff argument. According to Reade, Biden wanted her to serve drinks because he liked her legs. Reade says she didn’t hear this directly from Biden but she learned of it during her argument with staff. Reade refused to serve the drinks, which she believes was a move that affected her career.

Apr 19:

On The Record: A Former Biden Staffer's Sexual Assault Allegation

Tara Reade, who worked in Joe Biden's Senate office, has accused the presumptive Democratic nominee of a 1993 sexual assault. His campaign said it "absolutely did not happen."

www.npr.org

Reade said Biden would run his hands through her hair at meetings and said she was asked to serve drinks at a fundraiser because the senator apparently liked her legs. Moulton said in his text message that Reade told him about such incidents.

Mar 31:

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/31/tara_reade_joe_biden_sexual_assault

And I don’t remember exactly where I went after. I think I went to the restroom to clean up, but I don’t remember precisely. The next memory I have is sitting on the cold stairs, on the Russell Building back stairs, where the big windows are. And I remember just my whole body shaking. And I remember knowing that — knowing that I had made him angry and that my career was probably over. And I didn’t comply. And I didn’t comply when I was asked to serve drinks at a cocktail party for donors, because, apparently, Joe Biden said, according to a legislative staffer, that I had pretty legs, and he thought I was pretty, and I should serve the drinks. And my supervisor had encouraged me to do so, and I did not. So, sitting on those stairs, the reality hit me.

Mar 26:

Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?

When it comes to #MeToo sexual misconduct issues, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party's presumptive 2020 presidential nominee,…

reason.com

 

[Anya Ristow]

Biden Just Picked a Guy With #MeToo Issues of His Own For a Key Campaign Slot

Sen. Chris Dodd was well known as Sen. Ted Kennedy’s wingman during the 1980s. The Almanac of American Politics described his “reputation as a party boy and a partner-in-nightlife-crime” of the former senator.

www.vice.com

And he's got Larry Summers as an economic adviser