We have been discussing the hypocritical positions of Democratic leaders ranging from Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in their response to the allegations of sexual assault by former Vice President Joe Biden. Women’s rights attorney Lisa Bloom caused a stir this week however with a position that is at least honest, if chilling. Bloom stated that she believes that Biden did rape a female staffer but she is still going to endorse him for President of the United States. She tweeted “I believe you, Tara Reade . . . sorry.”
Bloom has previously had embarrassing positions with regard to Harvey Weinstein and Kathy Griffin.
Once again, I continue to be baffled as to why this is so difficult. Biden insists that there is no prior allegation of sexual harassment or assault by anyone. However, he refuses to allow a search for any such allegations in his papers under lock and key at the University of Delaware. I still believe that Biden has the stronger case in this controversy, so I do not get why he resists total transparency on this or any such allegation.
I can see politicians saying that they believe Biden but also demand total transparency on any and all allegations of sexual harassment or assault. What is untenable is saying that you believe him but do not want to review the total record held in these different archives.
Bloom however is virtually unique in applying the same Kavanaugh standard of just accepting any allegation raised by victims of sexual assault. However, she then said she would still work to elect someone she believes is a rapist for president even thought it is not too late for the Democratic Party to select someone else.
Bloom tweeted
“I believe you, Tara Reade. You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago. We know he is ‘handsy.’ You’re not asking for $. You’ve obviously struggled mightily with this. I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe. But I believe you. And I’m sorry.”
So just to unpack this. Bloom believes Reade who says that Biden raped her when she was a staff member and then lied repeatedly to the public. However, she still believes he should be the Democratic nominee–not sure if the apology really makes much of a difference.
Bloom noted that Trump also has been accused of assault. However, that does not excuse endorsing someone you believe is a rapist instead of demanding that the party pick a non-rapist as its nominee.
Mr. Turley,
I’ve been thinking a bit more about your claim that “What is untenable is saying that you believe [Biden] but do not want to review the total record held in these different archives.”
Do you say the same about President Trump’s efforts to keep the Mueller grand jury records from the House Judiciary Committee? After all, Trump claims to be innocent and that the investigation was all a hoax. But he’s fighting in court to keep the grand jury records from the HJC. He had his Solicitor General claim to the Supreme Court yesterday that the administration would “suffer irreparable harm” if they don’t grant a stay while he continues to fight against the HJC being able to review the records (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6883906-19A1035-DOJ-v-HJC-Stay-Appl-1.html ).
Surely you’ll now make a similar argument now about “What is untenable is saying that you believe [Trump] but do not want to review the total record held,” right?
(Yes, I’m aware that grand jury records are normally secret. I’m also aware that there’s a judicial proceeding exception and that the DC Circuit ruled in favor of these materials being released to the HJC.)
Exclusive: 1996 court document confirms Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden’s office
BY MATT FOUNTAIN
MAY 07, 2020 03:22 PM, UPDATED 51 MINUTES AGO
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/article242527331.html
A court document from 1996 shows former Senate staffer Tara Reade told her ex-husband she was sexually harassed while working for Joe Biden in 1993.
The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.
Reade’s then-husband Theodore Dronen wrote the court declaration. Dronen at the time was contesting a restraining order Reade filed against him days after he filed for divorce, Superior Court records show.
In it, he writes Reade told him about “a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office.” -MATT FOUNTAIN
“The Attacks on Tara Reade are Unbelievable Bullsh-t”
“No, you’re not “asking questions,” you’re using rape apologist arguments.”
Lyta Gold
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/05/the-attacks-on-tara-reade-are-unbelievable-bullsh*t/
Replace the * with an ‘i’ to fix the link.
Lisa Bloom is NOT a womens rights attorney, she represented Harvey Weistein, and im pretty sure Mz Bloom and her hideous mom Gloria Allred only pretend to represent female victims in sexual harassment claims , in reality I believe they work for the rapists, protecting them to limit liabilities and minimize claims.
Why else would local TV and News stations run Glorias “fake press conferences” for free?
I believe it’s because Gloria and Lisa secretly work for the sexual harassers including local TV and radio networks and movie studios.
I believe its against legal ethics rules to secretly represent sexual harassers against your own clients-repeatedly. Im also pretty sure most of the claims are settled out of court with no publicity and no disclosure of Gloria and Lisas fees paid by the accused. I bet theyve even represented multiple sexual assault victims against the same Hollywood scumbags repeatedly protecting rapists f8r a cut of the loot over and over.
No steve i dislike bloom and her super annoying mom alred. but the sexual predator type always has a few names in his rolodex to handle what Hillary calls “bimbo eruptions”
it’s almost a career specialty for some people.
so both sides would have representation in these settlements
however, you have made an interesting remark about how the system operates to hide and exonerate the rich men who can pay for these settlements, like michael jackson, or epstein, or weinstein, etc,, while the poor end up much sooner in the dock
Mr. Turley,
You say “he refuses to allow a search for any such allegations in his papers … at the University of Delaware. … What is untenable is saying that you believe him but do not want to review the total record held in these different archives.”
If this is what you believe, then make an argument that applies to all politicians who’ve been accused of sexual assault and whatever other criminal accusations you put in the same category.
Say who you propose search the papers and identify what categories of papers get searched. Don’t limit it to Biden, as he’s not the only politician who has been accused of assault. Come up with some rules that you apply across the political spectrum. Say how you’ll safeguard content that doesn’t fall in the “allegations” category but that might be leaked (whether about Biden or about someone else who appears in the papers). Etc.
Should it be helpful, here’s a thread from the historian Kevin Kruse where he asks other political historians to share their experiences with such archives: https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1256279932277329921 (e.g., when do people get access, when are they allowed to reference what they’ve found).
Personally, I don’t think searching papers is key. I’d like Biden, Reade, and any other relevant person (e.g., people Reade claims she reported it to) to be questioned under oath, and I’d like the same to apply to all politicians who are accused.
“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”
– Leon Trotsky
“Women’s rights attorney Lisa Bloom…”
– Professor Turley
_______________
Of course there are no “rights” provided to women by the Constitution. Rights are provided to citizens subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Of course, Lisa endorses Joe Biden, he’s a democrat..
#MeToo means? Answer: absolutely n.o.t.h.i.n.g.
If you don’t sing that like Edwin Starr, you’re really missing out on a good chuckle. Huh!
Lisa Bioom has no credibility How could any feminist act as counsel for Harv Weinstein ? But Trump admonished grabbed women by the genitalia Stop defending him Jonathan
another person appears referring to the Professor as “Jonathan.”
Professor Turley, why do these personal friends make comments here?
oh wait, silly me, they’re just adopting the familiar voice to show their lack of respect, never mind
Good name for a valley girl mentality with no morals.
Linda Hirshman did the same thing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/i-believe-tara-reade-im-voting-for-joe-biden-anyway/ar-BB13G1R6
Gotta say that I at least respect that these women have the guts to say what a lot of “feminists” believe and that is that they just do not care if he did it or not, they want to win and election and get rid of Trump and if that means compromising their principles then it is just real politic.
The ones I cannot stomach are the ones who attack Tara Reade to protect Biden or when not attacking her are ignoring her or jumping through mental hoops to figure out how to differentiate her from Blasey Ford. It comes across as hypocritical and as if they think the rest of us are stupid. They are just willing to do this to make sure they can continue to back Biden. Thats it.
Gotta say though, they risk destroying the essence of the #MeToo movement. Further they have just proved that any politically important democrat can commit rape or sexual assault and STILL get the backing of women. Gloria Steinem went to bat for Bill Clinton and went after Monica Lewinsky and Anita Broderick. The two black, democratic women that accused the VA Lt. Gov were vilified and he is still there.
Bottom line is this… If you are a valuable political asset as a democratic male then you can count on being protected by the womens movement if you commit sexual assault. Period
Bill Clinton
“they risk destroying the essence of the #MeToo movement.”
this will not be a great loss. we had and still will have laws against sexual crimes and a decline in tardy accusations is perhaps a good thing on the whole.
” they have just proved that any politically important democrat can commit rape or sexual assault and STILL get the backing of women”
smart people understood this all along. now it’s as obvious as ever
there are valid reasons for this. many heads of state throughout history have been quasi-sociopathic types who think little of sending countless people to their deaths, not just enemies but their own kind, think nothing of schemes which loot and plunder large sectors of their own populations, and sexual assault is perhaps somewhere far less than that on the scope of potentially immoral decisions. to me it seems like a form of puritanism to elevate stray sexual misconducts over dubious acts of war and plunder. but then again I most loudly protested bill clinton at the time not for “monica” but for sending NATO assets to bomb Serbians fighting the Islamic narcoterrorist gang called the UCK which is something apparently few other Americans found troubling. so my views are uncommon.
i may be cynical but i tend to believe at best one gets a bastid, but a bastid who is consistently good for your own side. So i am still figuring out how it was supposed to be good for America that Kosovo was pried away from the Serbians and made into what it is today, the arschehole of Europe.
your point about the sociopathic tendencies of the dickheads in charge is pretty valid, though i admit i have a LOT to learn about our horrific foreign policy record.
to your point that we “have laws against sexual crimes”– according to RAINN less than 5% of reported cases of sexual assault lead to arrest, and prosecution is a fraction of THAT. the #metoo movement definitely had its flaws. i know people who felt alienated, despite having their own “me too” stories, because of its focus on elites and high profile people. even so, it did provide a platform for conversations around rape culture that we desperately need to be having. so i think to leave it at laws alone is insufficient.
i just wonder how we can foster dialogue in a more accessible way, and one that also makes people think about power.