As we all know, perhaps the most damning evidence that Tara Reade’s claim of sexual assault doesn’t add up is that she edited an old post at her Medium blog about her time in Joe Biden’s office to match the claims she was about to make just hours later. No appending of corrections, no clarifications, nothing. Reade made it appear that her new claims had been there when she first wrote that post on April 4, 2019. But we have a way to compare it with the original, as it was published in The (Grass Valley) Union on April 17, 2019.
In the absence of something I haven’t heard or seen, there is no good-faith reason for Reade to have done this. Given how her edits completely changed her story, there is no reason at all why she couldn’t have simply done a new post rather than edit an old one if she really were interested in the truth getting out. While the argument has been made that Medium’s terms of service wouldn’t have allowed her to do a new post, it’s hard to believe Medium would even want to appear to be silencing a claim of sexual assault.
While I believe that Reade’s apparent behavior represents a betrayal to all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, I was hoping for her to explain what she did in a way that made some kind of sense. But something came to light that should absolutely, positively obliterate her crediblity.
While working on a story at my personal blog about the evidence that suggested Reade’s story didn’t add up, I looked into how many times she promoted her story as published in The Union—in which she claimed Biden merely touched her in a way that made her uncomfortable—as the true version of events. By my reckoning, after originally tweeting this story the day after it went live and confirming it as a true account a few days later, she tweeted out The Union story no fewer than 15 other times through 2020.
The last of those times—at least that we know about—was on March 15 of this year. As in just 12 DAYS after she fired off the now-infamous “tic toc” tweet warning that she was about to drop this claim, and NINE DAYS before she went public on Katie Helper’s show. Here’s a receipt.
So let’s review, folks. We have hard proof that Reade edited her old post to match her new claims just hours before going public. And now we have hard proof she was promoting the original story mere days before going public.
There is absolutely, positively no way that any prosecutor with an iota of decency or ethics would take a case to trial in a situation like this. To do so with a witness who is saying one thing while on record saying another would make a mockery of all the safeguards that are intended to prevent wrongful convictions.
Indeed, this has parallels with how the rape case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn imploded in 2011. According to prosecutors in Manhattan, DSK’s accuser had been caught in a torrent of lies and inconsistencies. Not only had given no fewer than three versions of what happened to her that night, but she had been caught lying about being gang-raped in her native Guinea, and may have given false testimony to the grand jury. She’d also denied having any interest in making money off the case, despite being caught on tape discussing just that with her boyfriend.
Under the circumstances, prosecutors had no option but to throw out the charges. Granted, it may have looked bad on paper because of DSK’s wealth and prominence. But there is no defensible reason to go to trial when your case is based on the word of a witness who is on record as having lied this much.
This situation is no different. Granted, the standard of fitness for office is not the same as the standard for convicting someone of a crime. But if you can blow up a presidential bid based on the word of someone who has changed her story so many times, and is on record doing so, we should despair for our democracy.
I was absolutely flabbergasted at this. It is beyond belief that Reade wouldn’t have known someone would do a deep dive into her tweets. The best-case scenario is that she was banking on Biden waving his arms and screaming “fake news!” and “politically motivated!” à la Trump and Roy Moore.
About the only good thing about this development is that it probably rules out any Russian involvement. Putin isn’t this sloppy.
Let there no longer be any doubt. Tara Reade is not credible. And barring an earthshaking development or explanation, the kind of investigation that Rose Twitter, hard-core Bernistas and other Reade defenders are demanding would effectively say that bringing sexual predators to justice is so important that we must chase down claims even when they are obviously non-credible.
Thursday, May 7, 2020 · 7:35:29 PM +00:00
·
Christian Dem in NC
Since this made the rec list, I thought I’d mention this article by Laura McCann of Vox. She spent a year reporting on the Reade story—and couldn’t find enough evidence to prove it. While she thinks we’re in a “miasma of uncertainty,” anyone who has followed this knows that at best, there’s not enough to justify pushing Biden out. At worst—which is where I am at this point—Reade is lying. (h/t Murchadha)