All assault claims MUST be heard, and we must not start with disbelief or victim blaming. But without witnesses or physical evidence, we must consider Reade’s credibility and Biden's patterns.
FYI: if you’re fiercely for OR against Biden, you won't like parts of this THREAD!
FYI: if you’re fiercely for OR against Biden, you won't like parts of this THREAD!
This is a LONG thread (unrolled version at the end), but here's a basic "table of contents," if you want to skip around:
1. Stories, corroboration
2. Credibility
3. Political motive
4. Past false claims
5. Biden’s patterns
1. Stories, corroboration
2. Credibility
3. Political motive
4. Past false claims
5. Biden’s patterns
First and foremost, whatever your belief on her claim, you should listen to Ms. Reade’s claim of sexual assault in 1993. If you are unwilling, you are not giving her claim fair consideration, just like those who refuse to test her credibility.
soundcloud.com/katie-halper/j…
soundcloud.com/katie-halper/j…
1. Stories: there are inconsistencies, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate any/all claims. For example, in 2009 (16 years after the alleged incident), she said she arrived in DC via plane, but in 2019 that she drove. This could just be misremembering, or conflating memories. 
2009 claim from Medium article on domestic abuse (in which she praises Biden’s work on the Violence Against Women Act), which she has since deleted.
2019 claim from Medium article in which she first claimed harassment by Biden:
medium.com/@AlexandraTara…
2019 claim from Medium article in which she first claimed harassment by Biden:
medium.com/@AlexandraTara…
1. Inconsistencies: also in deleted 2009 article, said she left to follow spouse to new job, didn’t mention assault. Could be because it didn’t happen, or could be she wanted to avoid trauma of the memory. Not in politics in 2009, so not likely protecting professional prospects.
1. In 2018 Medium article (also since deleted), says she “resigned” to pursue various career opportunities, and that she wanted to leave DC because she “saw the reckless imperialism of America,” further noting, “I love Russia with all my heart.”
(More on Russia later)
(More on Russia later)
1. First full contradiction in 2019 by saying she was "forced out." Claims it was because she refused to serve drinks at a party (heard it was at Biden’s request), then blacklisted. Blamed his staff: “It’s not him,” and “did not even know if he realized why I left.”
Pic 1 from her Medium article
Pic 2 from Nevada Union article:
theunion.com/news/nevada-co…
Pic 3 from Washington Post (“WaPo 1”):
washingtonpost.com/politics/forme…
Pic 2 from Nevada Union article:
theunion.com/news/nevada-co…
Pic 3 from Washington Post (“WaPo 1”):
washingtonpost.com/politics/forme…
1. Again contradicts herself in 2020 by claiming Biden “fired” her. NYT interviewed staff/aides in Biden’s office at the time: none recall hearing about the alleged incident or her complaint, but two aides do remember her losing supervisory role around that time.
1. In 2019 Medium article, further claims she filed a report with Senate staff office, but per WaPo 1, no such record found. If she had, Senate rules would’ve required an official hearing, but again, no record or indication of such an event found.
1. First publicly claims inappropriate touching to CA paper Nevada Union in 2019, saying Biden touching her neck made her uncomfortable, but says she didn’t feel sexualized, but like a pretty lamp. In 2019 Medium article, said story "not a story about sexual misconduct."
1. In 2020, shows consciousness of contradiction: Medium story with “not about sexual misconduct” also published by The Union in 2019. But Medium article NOW reads “this is not *only* a story about sexual misconduct.” She can still edit the Medium story, not The Union story.
1. First public claim of assault 3/19/20. In later interview w/Sanders ally Krystal Ball, say didn’t come forward in 2008 when picked as VP to help Obama. Possible, but could've come forward when Biden was regularly mentioned as VP candidate in June, selection announce 8/23/08.
Krystal Ball interview:
LA Times article from June 2008 on veepstakes (Biden gets his own paragraph):
latimes.com/archives/la-xp…
LA Times article from June 2008 on veepstakes (Biden gets his own paragraph):
latimes.com/archives/la-xp…
1. In 2020 claims to Salon she tried to tell assault story to 2019 interviewer from Union, but interviewer “shut [her] down." Possible, but unlikely, since declining a sensational story means less readers/money, and readership not likely pro-Biden (Bernie won the county by 13%).
1. Some Sanders supporters falsely claim Time's Up declined to help. They referred her to several lawyers, all declined. Those who spoke to press say because she wasn’t suing Biden for harassment or assault, but to stop accusations of being Russian agent.
salon.com/2020/03/31/a-w…
salon.com/2020/03/31/a-w…
1. Time’s Up didn’t offer to pay for her legal counsel, noting it could harm their non-profit status. Again, some Sanders supporters also falsely claimed they were protecting Biden because campaign staffer Anita Dunn's connection to them. Again, Salon debunks:
1. On 4/9/20, Reade filed a police report claiming assault in 1993, but doesn’t name Biden, or any of the corroborators. This is noteworthy, since it would make her legally vulnerable if her story on Biden is later found to be false. Investigation briefly active, now inactive.
1. She filed another report claiming harassment from people on social media accusing her of being a Russian agent. I haven’t seen details, but to be a crime, it would have to be more than simply saying or suggesting it, but rather targeted harassment.
1. Corroboration: says she told mother in 1993. Mother dead, but 1993 video found of person from same region of CA speaking to Larry King about daughter who had "problems" while working for DC Senator. Timing lines up, but no mention of harassment or assault.
Video available here:
1. Some Sanders supporters falsely claimed CNN removed the interview to protect Biden. The video is not publicly available from CNN; it was found on a Google Play playlist, and the video containing the phone call was mislabeled.
snopes.com/fact-check/cnn…
snopes.com/fact-check/cnn…
1. Brother also says she told him in 1993, but in first public interview with WaPo (“WaPo 2”), didn’t mention assault. After Sanders supporter Nathan J Robinson spoke with him, he sent a text clarifying that he had referred to assault without using those words.
1. Lorraine Sanchez, a colleague of Reade’s in the CA legislator’s office where she worked at after Biden staff job, says Reade told her of sexual harassment and firing in mid-90s, but Sanchez doesn’t mention assault.
1. In 2019, Reade's former neighbor in CA, Lynda LaCasse, confirmed Reade told her "touching" story in mid-90s. In 2020, also confirmed being told assault story, but only after speaking with Reade privately.
Claims by Sanchez and LaCasse detailed here. Incidentally, the reporter claims her social media included favorable statements on Biden and Sanders, but both her Twitter and Facebook accounts have been basically wiped clean of any such references.
businessinsider.com/former-neighbo…
businessinsider.com/former-neighbo…
1. All other friends Reade referred to news outlets for corroboration recall only general claims about harassment, but not assault, or don't recall anything at all (per NBC).
1. Also noteworthy that, unlike Christine Blasey-Ford, she *declined* to share therapist notes from the mid-90s (per WaPo 2), as this would have given testimony from a neutral third party, as opposed to family or friends.
1. One other friend confirmed being told assault in mid-90s story to NYT, but only anonymously, so credibility can’t be tested. It short, it is clear Reade was telling “touching” story in mid-90s, but confirmations of assault story being told all have an asterisk.
1. Summary: some details in her stories have varied from one telling to another, while at other times she told different stories, and in some cases contradictory ones. This weighs heavily on her claim, since the lack of evidence or witnesses means she has only her story.
2. “Pivot I”: Reade’s public comments on Biden shift dramatically in 2018. Before this, she praised his help for victims of domestic abuse, cancer research, and even his efforts to combat sexual assault.
2. Harsh criticism starting 2018, calling him “Blue Trump” (Medium 2019), shopping critical stories to outlets, including *Trump WH* People change opinions on politicians for many reasons, and perhaps she only supported his work, so let's consider other changes from this time.
2a. “Pivot II”: also in 2018, view of Putin changes. In 2017, promotes Mueller, and criticism of Russian law decriminalizing domestic abuse. FALSELY claims in 2020 stopped supporting Putin after “learning more about domestic violence in Russia,” since she knew about it *in 2017*
2a. In 2018, begins writing fiercely pro-Putin essays, one of which is first published in Russian. Later takes down essays, and in 2020 claims “I don’t support Putin at all,” BUT continues praising him and challenging Putin criticisms through *February 2020*
2a. In 2019, she also defended Putin in response to a tweet by a profile called “Friends of Putin." Again, she was denying support as early as May 2019, shortly after “touching” story published.
2a. Also to Vox and Salon, claimed essays praising Putin were part of work on a novel set in Russia, influenced by Noam Chomsky’s writings and Oliver Stone’s documentaries. As we’ve seen, this is not borne out by facts.
2a. Ms. Reade filed for bankruptcy in 2017. To be clear, there is no direct evidence she was offered financial relief for serving Russian agenda, but it could explain the contemporaneous “double pivot,” and fits GRU’s pattern of using financial leverage to "recruit.”
2a. Again, perhaps a coincidence, but in December 2019, she tweets a question about a new Russian law that requires foreign agents to register, or face fines. Perhaps just asking, asking for a friend, but it's possible she was asking to determine if it applied to her.
2a. In case you’re not aware: Putin is currently actively interfering in the 2020 election, and his bot/troll army and propaganda outlets have attacked Biden far more than any other 2020 Dem candidate.
2b. Some have suggested Ms. Reade is a mentally ill woman who appeared on the Dr. Phil show, claiming Putin was her lover. Salon has spoken with the family of this person, and confirmed it is NOT her.
2b. Reade has been accused of lying and stealing from a group with which she once volunteered; again, it is one person’s word against another (though they do have documentation), but if true, again suggests a pattern. Full thread by group owner here:
2b. Also, at different points has claimed she has and has not worked for political campaigns. We have seen several contradictory stories already, and we will see more below, starting with her claims related to candidate support in 2020.
3. Motive: claims to Newsweek she originally supported Warren, moved to Sanders after Warren dropped out. This is FALSE: she tweeted her choice to vote for Bernie *two weeks before first votes were cast* and that she feared a Biden-Warren ticket *five days before* Warren exited.
3. These views are not surprising, since she claimed in March 2020 she ONLY gets news from Sanders staffer (and notorious smear artist) David Sirota, "or bernie supporters," or her daughter.
3b. ~10:30PM on Super Tuesday, basically the moment it was clear Biden and Sanders were the last two viable candidates, she responded to a tweet on the matchup, writing "Timing... wait for it... tic toc." 16 days later, she made her first public claim of assault.
3b. She had sent out a similar tweet with the “tick tock” message just after midnight on February 4th, essentially the night of the IA caucuses, responding to a tweet from “The Bern Report” suggesting Biden was doing well (recall that no results were available that evening).
3b. ST tweet was from Ryan Grim of The Intercept, whose Katie Halper did interview with Reade's first public claim of assault. Reade *twice more* indicates political motive, saying story “disqualifies” Biden, and tweeting the Intercept interview, telling Bernie “Please stay in.”
3c. The Intercept: far-left, pro-Sanders / anti-Biden, staff includes Syrian truthers, one reporter’s pro-Putin article published in Putin's propaganda outlet, Russia Today. Smeared "establishment" Dem Gil Cisneros without checking facts.
IOW, this fits their pattern / agenda.
IOW, this fits their pattern / agenda.
3c. Also worth noting she first approached pro-Bernie media and figures, and has been hesitant to interview with non-partisan media. These groups have been eager to run these stories, often without checking claims, requiring them to be vetted / corrected by other media outlets.
4. False claims: women often face unfair skepticism on assault claims, so let's compare with an allegation proven to be false. In 2018, several women accused Roy Moore of sexual assault, all providing either evidence or witnesses of inappropriate behavior. Then, Jaime Phillips...
claimed Moore impregnated her at 15. Story had inconsistencies, and her internet postings and discussions with reporters suggested a possible political motive. Turns out she was sent by the right-wing Project Veritas to prove media outlets were just "out to get" Moore.
4. We have seen similar issues with Reade’s claim, including inconsistencies and contradictions (incl. sudden shift of political support), as well as a clear political motive, which is not limited to stopping Biden, but also helping Sanders specifically.
5. Biden’s patterns: several women have claimed Biden was not respectful of personal space, and prone to unwanted touching of a non-sexual nature. Seven women, including Reade, came forward with stories in May 2019.
Here is a full account of those who have accused Biden of inappropriate touching.
businessinsider.com/joe-biden-alle…
businessinsider.com/joe-biden-alle…
5. Biden is rightly criticized for this, and has promised to change, but doesn't cross the line to harassment or assault, both requiring sexual intent. When asked, none of the other seven women claimed assault, nor did Biden’s staff. In short, this claim does NOT fit his pattern.
Quotes from Biden staff from NYT article cited above.
5. Those who commit this type of assault rarely do so only once, seeing all women merely as objects for their gratification. In contrast, Biden's staff from the time describe the environment as supportive and professional, and note that Biden had no such reputation in Washington.
Summary:
1. Stories: some inconsistencies not necessarily contradictory, some are; corroboration of “touching” story in mid-90s, assault story less clear
2. Credibility: contemporaneous Biden/Putin pivot (possible leverage?), dishonesty on Putin (pattern of dishonesty?)
1. Stories: some inconsistencies not necessarily contradictory, some are; corroboration of “touching” story in mid-90s, assault story less clear
2. Credibility: contemporaneous Biden/Putin pivot (possible leverage?), dishonesty on Putin (pattern of dishonesty?)
3. Motive: false claim on Bernie support, apparent political motive to help him, reached out to pro-Bernie media
4. Her assault story fits several patterns of false claims.
5. “Touching” story fits Biden’s pattern, assault claim does not
4. Her assault story fits several patterns of false claims.
5. “Touching” story fits Biden’s pattern, assault claim does not
@threadreaderapp unroll
Here is the full story on her March 2020 edits of the story. They are substantial.
romansresearch.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/tar…
romansresearch.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/tar…
