In virtually all the #MeToo cases, I have held to the legal standard that proof is the essential factor. I have written at length against believing a woman who cannot produce proof. I know that sexual assault cases can be very difficult to prove, but that is still no reason to make a mere accusation sufficient evidence to punish the accused.
Consequently, I cannot know for sure if Tara Reade is telling the truth. She seems to have more evidence – although not conclusive – than Christine Blasey Ford had in pointing the accusatory finger at Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Reade did confide in friends at the time. Her mother did call into a news program to say her daughter was assaulted by a prominent politician – now identified as former Vice President Joe Biden. But even all that falls short of guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
So, why the headline suggesting that I am leaning in favor of Reade’s testimony. That is not to say I am ready to convict Biden. There is still insufficient evidence that would hold up in a court-of-law – and that is the appropriate standard of legal judgment we should always require.
I give Reade’s claim a bit more credibility, however – not because of any new hard evidence – but because of Biden’s manner of dealing with accusations and lies.
Biden was most emphatic in his protestation that what Reade described never happened. There was no caution or equivocation in his voice. He could not explain why she would say such a thing. He did not know why she would have told friends. Biden did not strain for memories of those days gone by. He looked into those cameras with steely eyes and declared it never happened … period.
It was the very nature of Biden’s prostration of innocence – so emphatically – that got me wondering. It seems that whenever Biden is faced with any sort of accusation, his denial becomes table-pounding emphatic. There are no nuances.
He did the same thing when saying that his son, Hunter, did nothing wrong in taking that job in Ukraine – or getting billions of dollars for his company from the Chinese during a trip arranged by daddy Biden. He said that any accusations of wrongdoing were totally and utterly debunked by earlier investigations. He was most emphatic on that point. Of course, it was not true.
When Biden ran for President previously, he emphatically claimed to have gone to law school on a full scholarship, wound up in the upper half of his class, and was declared as the outstanding student in his political science class. In fact, he had a small partial scholarship, wound up near the bottom of his class, and was never named the outstanding poli-sci student. He was lying – emphatically lying.
Looking over the history of his various claims, you can almost pick out the untruths, the lies, and the exaggerations by how emphatically Biden expresses them. The bigger the lie the more emphatic are his statements – whether telling lies as an offensive or defensive strategy. Even when his claims are proven to be lies, he defends them in the most emphatic manner.
The closest historic example I can cite is President Clinton looking into the camera and saying emphatically, “I have never had sex with that woman.” It was a total unvarnished prevarication.
As Shakespeare might put it, Biden “doth protest too much.” I cannot say Biden is guilty of the crimes of which he has been accused, but his claims of innocence seem a bit less credible to me now.
So, there ‘tis.