Thursday, April 30, 2020

The lines of the partisan fight over Tara Reade take shape

The Democratic defenses of Biden over the Tara Reade accusation are piling up, from Nancy Pelosi to Kirstin Gillibrand.

Former prosecutor Michael Stern provides a lawyerly list of talking points, Why I'm skeptical about Reade's sexual assault claim against Biden: Ex-prosecutor USA Today 04/30/2020.

As I said in an earlier post, for most Democrats and most feminists, Biden is clearly the preferable candidate in November. Supporting Biden over Trump is entirely valid and does not mean his supporters endorse or condone the conduct that Tara Reade alleges, although declarations of accepting Biden's position are clearly dismissing her claims at some level. And nothing can stop the Trump campaign from cheerfully ignoring the many credible accusations against Trump while cynically trying to exploit Reade's claim.

Stern's argument shows why it's nearly impossible to *prosecute* a claim reported so long after the incident. And the time lag does make it harder to judge outside the legal context, too. Not least because people can scour decades of the accuser's life since the incident for things like saying something stupid about Vladimir Putin. Which I'm guessing would normally not be admissible in court during a trial.

But part of the Democratic and women's-rights narrative that developed in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings Biden presided over decades ago is that we need to understand that there is more to consider in judging claims like this than whether it can be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt. What's not believable enough to send someone to prison could certainly be considered credible enough to influence support for a candidate or a judicial nominee.

When it comes to the politics of issues like this, I do think the Democrats need to develop a more coherent approach, knowing that Republicans will pretend to lose their minds over a consensual affair by a Democratic politician while they are also generally willing to say, "Oh, Roy Moore's a good ole boy, who cares what he did 30 years ago?"

The Democratic Senators' handling of the Al Franken case in 2017 is an example of what can go wrong. Kirstin Gillibrand took the lead in calling for his resignation without even the ethics investigation Franken had requested, but other Senators including Sanders and Warren also joined in. Gillibrand's resignation call is still on Facebook, in which she says among other things:
In politics, of course, the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault is not limited to any one party. There have been Democrats and Republicans accused of misconduct, and I have no doubt that there will be more because Congress is not immune to this scourge. The question is what are we willing to do about it when courageous women and men come forward.

We have to rise to the occasion, and not shrink away from it, even when it’s hard, especially when it’s hard. That is what this larger moment is about. So, I have spent a lot of time reflecting on Senator Franken’s behavior. Enough is enough. The women who have come forward are brave and I believe them. While it’s true that his behavior is not the same as the criminal conduct alleged against Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or President Trump, it is still unquestionably wrong, and should not be tolerated by those of us who are privileged to work in public service.

As the mother of two young boys, we owe it to our sons and daughters to not equivocate, but to offer clarity. We should not have to be explaining the gradations between sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping. And what message do we send to our sons and daughters when we accept gradations of crossing the line? None of it is ok and none of it should be tolerated. [my emphasis]
I thought and said at the time that it struck me as ridiculous to suggest that there were no "gradations" between, say, telling an inappropriate dirty joke and actual sexual assault. Now Gillibrand is a potential VP pick for Biden, and she fully supports Biden's denial of Reade's charge. This was part of the point of Rebecca Traister's analysis that I linked earlier. that all this context creates a "poisoned chalice" situation for the woman that he picks for VP. Because in practice, she will be expected to flatly defend him on the Reade charges just like Gillibrand and Pelosi are doing now.

But they've got to learn how to frame their position on this subject better. It really strains credibility to say two years ago that you're declaring a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of sexual harassment including in your own party and then now say in effect, oh, you can't believe that b***h because she said something dorky about Vladimir Putin 25 years after she claimed she was seriously physically assaulted - this is not a good way to build credibility on this whole issue.

No comments:

Post a Comment