2020 Democratic Primary

[Anya Ristow]

Biden weighs naming cabinet officials before election, including Republicans

 

[NyteWytch]

OK..this is really baffling for myself. It makes me feel conflicted. As a progressive liberal it thoroughly pisses me off but as someone who wants trump gone I kinda feel it is genius to pull more repub voters from the incumbent.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Did Biden directly deny the allegation? Everything I've seen says that the campaign, as in people working for it, and/or people who worked for Biden back in 1993, have denied it, but that Biden himself hasn't addressed the allegation directly.

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but here's a timeline of the allegations: A Timeline Of Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden

Two things I lift from the article:


and the part I saw in the first article I read about the allegation a month ago - the brother's story changed. Which caused a 'need to be cautious here with this story' flag to raise in me.


The article mentioned the phone call from Reade's mother to Larry King, but another article had this quote from the mother: "I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington?" the woman asks King. "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."

Joe Biden just missed a golden opportunity to address the Tara Reade allegations | CNN Politics

When Joe Biden's campaign announced Monday that the former vice president would hold a virtual town hall on Tuesday focused on how Covid-19 is impacting women, it seemed like the perfect opportunity -- whether naturally arising or created by the candidate or his staff -- for the de facto 2020...

www.cnn.com

I take it that, when his campaign repudiate (not refute -- that can be done only in a court of law, to my mind) the allegations, I assume they are speaking with Biden's full agreement and authority -- if they're not, it's easy enough for him to announce he's guilty, after all.

He and his campaign presumably take the view -- which I think I would share -- that nothing is to be gained by trying to litigate the matter via the media, and there is no point in his giving any additional credibility to the story by denying it in person.

I take no position on whether whether or not I believe the complaint, though the evidence for it looks pretty thin, but unfortunately for all concerned it's now far too late for it to be investigated by law enforcement and the courts, so I just don't see the point of pursuing it, unless for the ulterior motive of trying to affect the election results.

 

[bubblesort]

Well, Ohio voted yesterday 72-16% for Biden over Sanders (with 86% of the vote tallied), so it appears not.

My personal view is Biden may be flawed as a person, but he's a hell of a lot better than Trump. He will also assemble an administration that knows what its doing, rather than all campaign contributors, toadies, and idiots. The US government is way too big and complicated for one person to run it.

16 percent is actually really good for somebody who suspended their campaign. A few months ago, Warren would have given her left arm to be at 16%.

I'm not saying Bernie is going to beat Biden. I just think this is another thing that shows that Biden is not doing the work to reach out to Bernie supporters, at all. Well, he's not really reaching out to anybody, so it's not like Bernie supporters are being singled out. IDK what Biden is doing, but he's not campaigning.

 

[bubblesort]

Yes, indeed so. Because of my job in the UK's criminal justice system before I retired, I've attended very many trials of rape and sexual assault concerning allegations about events said not to have been reported at the time, and each time I've heard the direction to the jury that judges are required to give in cases of delayed complaint, essentially telling the jury that they should set aside their preconceptions about why people don't complain at the time, since everyone is different and experience has taught us that victims don't always complain, perhaps because they're frightened, or embarrassed, or fear they won't be believed, and that a delayed complaint no more means the allegation is false than an immediate complaint means the allegation is true.

Nevertheless, the simple fact remains that Biden denies the allegation, the evidence, such as it is, is hardly persuasive, and there's no way of properly investigating the matter and testing the allegations in a criminal court.

Unless something else happens, or comes to light, I don't see what more there is to discuss.

I get what you are saying, but this is an election, not a court of law. We can decide to condemn or exonerate anybody for any reason we like. You can choose who to vote for based on which end of the soft boiled egg they place upwards if you like.

I think all this hand waiving about Reade just looks really bad. If Biden people want to court the left, they are going to have to find a way to look less hypocritical, somehow. The only argument I can think of for Biden here is to break it down to a Trump-Biden dichotomy, and then bring up how Trump sent a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels and her child in a parking lot. It's not perfect, but it might do the job better than stealing the Republican platform from the Kavenaugh confirmation hearings.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I get what you are saying, but this is an election, not a court of law. We can decide to condemn or exonerate anybody for any reason we like. You can choose who to vote for based on which end of the soft boiled egg they place upwards if you like.

I think all this hand waiving about Reade just looks really bad. If Biden people want to court the left, they are going to have to find a way to look less hypocritical, somehow. The only argument I can think of for Biden here is to break it down to a Trump-Biden dichotomy, and then bring up how Trump sent a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels and her child in a parking lot. It's not perfect, but it might do the job better than stealing the Republican platform from the Kavenaugh confirmation hearings.

But Biden's case, as I understand it, is that it never happened, so there's nothing more for him to say.

There's certainly no benefit to him, and none that I can see to the general public, in his discussing the matter any further, though obviously there's a considerable benefit to his political opponents if they can find another "but her emails..." line.

He and his campaign presumably take the view that there's no point in giving the media anything more to report about Ms Reade's allegations, so they'll simply concentrate on matters of more general concern, like how to start of pick up the pieces of the wreckage left by Trump after Covid-19, and let the media get quietly bored with the allegations unless some other evidence comes to light.

 

[Anya Ristow]

OK..this is really baffling for myself. It makes me feel conflicted. As a progressive liberal it thoroughly pisses me off but as someone who wants trump gone I kinda feel it is genius to pull more repub voters from the incumbent.

If you're talking about the article I linked about Biden putting Republicans in his cabinet, the context should be that Obama kept some Bush staffers, too, and his cabinet, all but one person, was on a list that Citibank asked for.

The confusing part is that Biden, even in these days of no compromise partisan division, still fetishizes working with Republicans enough to mention it. On VVO it's pointless to point out Biden's conservative credentials, or to mention that he was chosen to make it okay for conservatives to vote for a black guy. It's probably also pointless to point out that Clinton's unsuccessful strategy was to appeal to suburban moderate Republicans rather than going after blue collar voters, a policy described explicitly by Chuck Schumer.

But you have to admit that it's still baffling that he considers any of this a benefit to his campaign. Enough that he's talking about it before he even does it.

I told you he'd consider picking a Republican VP, words from his own mouth, and y'all rolled your eyes and laughed.

No, his cabinet picks will not pull Trump voters. Nobody votes for the cabinet. They barely consider the VP. His fetishizing working with Republicans portends the shit policy he will pursue, to no benefit to getting elected.

 

[Lexxi]

But Biden's case, as I understand it, is that it never happened, so there's nothing more for him to say.

There's certainly no benefit to him, and none that I can see to the general public, in his discussing the matter any further, though obviously there's a considerable benefit to his political opponents if they can find another "but her emails..." line.

He and his campaign presumably take the view that there's no point in giving the media anything more to report about Ms Reade's allegations, so they'll simply concentrate on matters of more general concern, like how to start of pick up the pieces of the wreckage left by Trump after Covid-19, and let the media get quietly bored with the allegations unless some other evidence comes to light.

Actually, there's been a bunch of news stories because of Biden's campaign's 'giving the media anything more to report'. Specifically referring to how the campaign's talking points on the matter have been allegedly leaked. Talking points sent to Democrats. Talking points that mention that an April 12th NY Times article is proof that the allegation 'did not happen' (which others point out isn't exactly what or how the article concluded on the matter - the conclusion was more that there did not appear to be any other evidence of any other allegation like Reade's. Not that Reade's allegation itself had been found by the NY Times to be a false allegation). The talking points could, of course, be fake, though when asked about them the campaign pointed to the comments by Kate Bedingfield, which correspond to the talking points (for the most part).

So the Biden campaign hasn't been silent on the matter.

The talking points are at the end of this article:

Democrats Will Have To Answer Questions About Tara Reade. The Biden Campaign Is Advising Them To Say Her Story “Did Not Happen.”

Joe Biden has yet to personally address Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation, but his campaign has circulated talking points.

www.buzzfeednews.com

In terms of the law - as of June 2013, there is no statute of limitations for sexual abuse, though I didn't look closely to see if anything alleged would fall under D.C. Official Code §§ 22-3002, 22-3003, 22-3004, or 22-3005. The statute of limitations would be found in D.C. Official Code § 23–113, which has the wording '(1) A prosecution for the following crimes may be commenced at any time:'

I say 'as of June 2013' because there was a time limitation in the prior code. Also, what I just noted doesn't actually apply as the alleged action occurred in 1993. And the new code is limited to events after June 2013 (with exceptions). So, unless there's another charge to be found somewhere, the alleged action has passed the point wherein it could be prosecuted, barred by statute of limitations. I didn't mention it above, but the prior code had a statute of limitations, depending on the code section being used to charge someone, of 3 years, 10 years, or 15 years.

 

[Anya Ristow]

Actually, there's been a bunch of news stories because of Biden's campaign's 'giving the media anything more to report'. Specifically referring to how the campaign's talking points on the matter have been allegedly leaked. Talking points sent to Democrats. Talking points that mention that an April 12th NY Times article is proof that the allegation 'did not happen' (which others point out isn't exactly what or how the article concluded on the matter - the conclusion was more that there did not appear to be any other evidence of any other allegation like Reade's. Not that Reade's allegation itself had been found by the NY Times to be a false allegation). The talking points could, of course, be fake, though when asked about them the campaign pointed to the comments by Kate Bedingfield, which correspond to the talking points (for the most part).

Because Biden surrogates have tried to use it as exoneration, the NYT was forced to clarify that their article did not conclude one way or the other the event did or did not happen. And they've also admitted that it was Biden staffers who pressured them into editing out the "...except for the hugging and inappropriate touching" part, a change they did not even note.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Actually, there's been a bunch of news stories because of Biden's campaign's 'giving the media anything more to report'. Specifically referring to how the campaign's talking points on the matter have been allegedly leaked. Talking points sent to Democrats. Talking points that mention that an April 12th NY Times article is proof that the allegation 'did not happen' (which others point out isn't exactly what or how the article concluded on the matter - the conclusion was more that there did not appear to be any other evidence of any other allegation like Reade's. Not that Reade's allegation itself had been found by the NY Times to be a false allegation). The talking points could, of course, be fake, though when asked about them the campaign pointed to the comments by Kate Bedingfield, which correspond to the talking points (for the most part).

So the Biden campaign hasn't been silent on the matter.

According to the article, the campaign issued, on Biden's behalf, talking points not in response to the allegations themselves but to an NYT article -- that is, the NYT had given the story weight by choosing to report it, and this was Biden's response to the particular article in the NYT.

The statement was,

The New York Times did weeks of extensive investigative research, talking to nearly two dozen former Biden staff from the 1990s, including those who worked directly with Ms. Reade. Here is what they found: “No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.”

● All four of the people Mrs. Reade says were notified of an official complaint told the New York Times on the record that they have absolutely no recollection of any such conversation -- and that they certainly would have remembered it, especially because this alleged conduct would have been so wildly out of character for Joe Biden.

● Biden has been a fierce advocate for women, authoring and fighting to pass the Violence Against Women Act and launching a campaign to end sexual assault on college campuses. He has spent his life fighting to end abuses of power against women and using his voice to advocate for women across the country and around the world.

● Here’s the bottom line: Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him – ever.

● Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed. In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.

That is, it comments on the NYT article and draws attention to Biden's record, and I don't see how else they could have responded to the NYT article, about which they had to comment since it was obviously reasonable for reporters to ask them to respond to allegations reported in a major newspaper, and I don't see why that gets Buzzfeed so excited -- were the campaign supposed to leave it up to individual spox and surrogates to decide for themselves to answer the questions?

That seems to be all there is for them to say.

In terms of the law - as of June 2013, there is no statute of limitations for sexual abuse, though I didn't look closely to see if anything alleged would fall under D.C. Official Code §§ 22-3002, 22-3003, 22-3004, or 22-3005. The statute of limitations would be found in D.C. Official Code § 23–113, which has the wording '(1) A prosecution for the following crimes may be commenced at any time:'

I say 'as of June 2013' because there was a time limitation in the prior code. Also, what I just noted doesn't actually apply as the alleged action occurred in 1993. And the new code is limited to events after June 2013 (with exceptions). So, unless there's another charge to be found somewhere, the alleged action has passed the point wherein it could be prosecuted, barred by statute of limitations. I didn't mention it above, but the prior code had a statute of limitations, depending on the code section being used to charge someone, of 3 years, 10 years, or 15 years.

If the case is not covered by a statue of limitations, then I assume that Ms Reade will by now have taken her allegations to the appropriate police department and, if they think she's a reliable witness with a credible complaint, they're investigating it.

If, however, the complaints are barred by a statute of limitations, I'm afraid I don't see what else there is to be done, unless some additional evidence comes to light.

 

[Pamela]

The echo chamber.

 

[Lexxi]

According to the article, the campaign issued, on Biden's behalf, talking points not in response to the allegations themselves but to an NYT article -- that is, the NYT had given the story weight by choosing to report it, and this was Biden's response to the particular article in the NYT.

The statement was,



That is, it comments on the NYT article and draws attention to Biden's record, and I don't see how else they could have responded to the NYT article, about which they had to comment since it was obviously reasonable for reporters to ask them to respond to allegations reported in a major newspaper, and I don't see why that gets Buzzfeed so excited -- were the campaign supposed to leave it up to individual spox and surrogates to decide for themselves to answer the questions?

That seems to be all there is for them to say.
If the case is not covered by a statue of limitations, then I assume that Ms Reade will by now have taken her allegations to the appropriate police department and, if they think she's a reliable witness with a credible complaint, they're investigating it.

If, however, the complaints are barred by a statute of limitations, I'm afraid I don't see what else there is to be done, unless some additional evidence comes to light.

Reade did file a police report with Washington DC police. They, the police, say the case is inactive. Because of statute of limitations.

Earlier this month, Reade decided to file a report about the alleged assault with the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department because she was worried about her safety after receiving "online harassment." A spokesperson for the D.C. police department, Kristen Metzger, tells NPR that an investigation into the allegation is now inactive. The statute of limitations for prosecuting the alleged assault has expired.

New Information Emerges Around Biden Sexual Assault Allegation

A former neighbor recalled to NPR that Tara Reade relayed the same detailed accusation against the then-senator many years ago. Many Democratic officials say they believe Biden did not assault Reade.

www.npr.org

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The echo chamber.

I wasn't aware of all the details, but after reading Mr Stern's analysis I fear Ms Reade seems to be a very unreliable witness indeed.

This reads like one of those very rare cases where the defence advocate ends up imploring the prosecution not to put the complainant in the witness box, because what she'll have to do to her won't be pleasant for anyone.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Reade did file a police report with Washington DC police. They, the police, say the case is inactive. Because of statute of limitations.

New Information Emerges Around Biden Sexual Assault Allegation

A former neighbor recalled to NPR that Tara Reade relayed the same detailed accusation against the then-senator many years ago. Many Democratic officials say they believe Biden did not assault Reade.

www.npr.org

In that case, there seems little more to be said about it, then.

There's no way the case can be properly investigated or adjudicated, so all we have at the moment is a single complainant who doesn't seem particularly reliable.

It's like Trump and the "piss tapes" -- maybe true, maybe not, but no way to know.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

Every single piece of data aligns: Trump is behind and dropping

Trump is behind no matter what set of polls one looks at. He trails Biden by 6.3 points as of Thursday morning in the RealClearPolitics average. His job approval rating has sunk in recent days to a mere 44.9 percent, down from a recent high of 47.3 percent on March 31. Though his job approval is still higher than his share of the vote in ballot tests against Biden, he would still trail by more than 3 points even if he did as well as those ratings. There’s no plausible path to winning the electoral college if he loses the popular vote by that much on Election Day.
Polls in battleground states show the same thing. Trump trails Biden in GOP-leaning — but senior citizen heavy — Florida by more than 3 points. He trails in two of the last three polls taken in purplish North Carolina, and he’s behind in the pivotal state of Arizona by more than 4 points. He’s also behind in the Midwestern trio of states that propelled him to presidency — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Every single piece of data aligns: Trump is behind and dropping.

 

[Free]

In that case, there seems little more to be said about it, then.

Your indefatigable spirit on this point I find quite adorable!

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Your indefatigable spirit on this point I find quite adorable!

I'm sure people will say plenty, but it won't be particularly relevant to the question of whether or not the alleged assault took place.

"That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent".

 

[NyteWytch]

"That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent".

Thank goodness that isn't the VVO motto!

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Will the Biden campaign need more color than Blue?

 

[Free]