Assessing allegations

I wanted to spend some time going over the weight that I give the Biden allegations and why. I'll start right out by telling you that there are going to be so many buts and qualifications that it will seem almost useless. There may still be some value.

For the record, I started out thinking they were probably true, and now I am leaning more toward them not being true.

The first thing in favor of them being true is that 92 to 98 percent of accusations are true. That is a reason to at least take any accusation seriously. Also, remember this from yesterday: THE REMEDY FOR FALSE ALLEGATIONS IS INVESTIGATION!


A vote against believing was the timing and source of the reports. Katie Halper is not the best source, and it does feel like the allegations are being promoted mostly by Sanders supporters. One could expect the GOP to look for something else on Joe Biden, given that the Hunter Biden/Ukraine stuff didn't work out, but calling attention to rape allegations is not their best bet.

Also, now? Thirty years later and toward the end of the primaries but after the other good ones have dropped out?

However, sometimes you take the source that will listen, and many women are finding it harder to stay silent now. Blasey-Ford had started thinking about saying something about Kavanaugh in 2012, but it felt more and more urgent as he got closer to confirmation to the Supreme Court.

For another word on sources, let's remember that The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards story, but they held information back on Weinstein and Trump. There is a lot more that goes into what gets reported than whether it matters or whether it's true.

Another vote for believing is Joe Biden's overall track record of not respecting women's personal space, and the persistence of rape culture over time. It is completely possible to believe that in the 90s a man known for being hand-sy might make a pass at a women that would count as digital rape (meaning fingers, not computerized) and that he would not even think of it as rape. In some jurisdictions it probably would not have counted as rape. That is not a justification for him; that is a condemnation of rape laws and the lack of respect historically for women's bodily autonomy. It doesn't mean all men rape, so it does not determine any claim, but it's important to understand that context.

The most important vote for believing was the corroboration. It sounded like she told people at the time, with a positive ID, and they remembered and were willing to go on record as remembering.

That has some real weight to it. Other people can lie too, of course, and that is why you look for a paper trail and other confirmations.

For example, there was an accusation of harassment by Biden at a 2008 event, but investigation revealed that he was not there. Could they have gotten the event wrong, but the story right? That's why you dig deeper.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dinner-organizer-says-biden-was-not-at-event-where-alleged-sexual-harassment

Ironically - and as another testimonial to the importance of investigation - this is where I have started to question Reade's claims, as the story is starting to change more, and becoming harder to verify.

Some details can be hard to remember, especially after this amount of time. Also, I had initially thought all of the corroborating people were on the record, and at least one is anonymous. That is not a definite dis-qualifier, but it is weaker.

At this point, Reade herself said that her filed complaint does not mention the rape, only objectification. However, being able to locate the complaint would at least demonstrate a part of the story that is verifiable, and that is sounding less and less likely. It appears that Senate record handling processes leave something to be desired, but since the complaint did not contain anything criminal, then it seems believable when staff members do not remember fielding complaints. We can at least give their memories as much weight as Reade's,

At this point, I think her claims could be true but are more likely not true. Maybe.

Is this less satisfying than being able to either declare Reade a liar or Biden a rapist? Obviously.

Will I still vote for Biden? In the general, definitely. Warren is on the Oregon ballot for the primary and I will vote for her, clearly the superior candidate among Biden, Sanders, and Gabbard. That won't change anything, but I'm still doing it.

I will acknowledge that I think Biden is handling this well; clearly denying while still acknowledging that women deserve to be heard, and requesting documents.

On the point of opening up the university archive, it shouldn't have the complaint, and I think at one point you have to draw a line. The birthers saw the regular birth certificate and the announcement and the long form, and they still didn't believe it. I don't know that we are there yet in this case, but I am not criticizing his actions related to this so far.

This is amazing, because in Biden's responses to other complaints on the personal space issue, or even questions about how he mishandled the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings (letting the other women speak would have been good), he has really shown that he hasn't learned anything. Clearly someone coached him. However, a potential president listening to someone smarter than him and acting on it is a good thing, and was not previously viewed as a luxury.

"Probably not a rapist" is not the strongest election slogan, but if there are issues there, and how we got here, and with my primary vote not really mattering, well, that might be a topic for another day.

For more on the topic:
https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html

NEW: Obviously it still needs further digging, but this may explain the corroboration and a lot of things:

https://twitter.com/ZacAKAMadu/status/1258781555981537281