Posted on 05/02/2020 6:40:34 PM PDT by edwinland
Three potentially interesting background notes on the Tara Reade story:
1. She is not merely alleging "sexual assault". She is alleging rape. The FBI definition of rape is as follows:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape
If Biden were a Republican the press would surely know the correct word. They might even rediscover their dictionary if he were a Democrat who already served two terms and was no longer potentially eligible to appoint pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. But I digress.
2. Title VII of the Civil rights Act prohibits harassment based on sex (among other protected classes) and that's the Act the rest of the country was subject to starting in 1964,
https://www.justia.com/employment/employment-discrimination/title-vii/
The Civil Right Act of 1964 should have been the Civil Rights Act of 1963 but it was bottled up in Congress by Democratic Segregationists (but I repeat myself), notably , Howard W. Smith. After JFK was assassinated, Johnson challenged Congress to pass it as a memorial, but still it was held up by Democratic Segregationists and then filibustered by Democratic Segregationists, including Stom Thurmond, who said the Act was "reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress".
(A quick aside. Biden eulogized Strom Thurmond as his "closest friend" and as described by Buzzfeed he "noted, in an admiring context, a 1947 editorial that praised Thurmond’s work with reading programs for black students at the “separate, but equal schools”)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/biden-praised-segregationist-strom-thurmond-as-closest-friend-who-believed-in-heterogenous-diverse-society
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/joe-biden-strom-thurmond-eulogy
Senate Republicans then crated a new bipartisan bill meant to defeat the filibuster but that too was filibustered, this time by the most senior ("former") Ku Klu Klan member in Congress at the time, Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat.
The Republican bipartisan Act finally passed the Senate with 71 votes.
3. Even then, the Act would not have protected Tara Reade from harassment because the Democratic Congress in 1964 ...
EXEMPTED ITSELF FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
yes. It wasn't until Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that Congress became subject to ITS OWN LAWS.
https://web.archive.org/web/19990427174200/http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
In fact that was the FIRST PLANK of the Contract with America and the Contract was so popular with ordinary Americans it helped the Republicans win the House for the first time in 53 years. And Republicans made good on their promise by passing the Congressional Accountability Act in 1996 which outlawed sexual harassment by Congressmen (in 1996!) and also outlawed retaliation against accusers for the first time.
(As an aside, not everyone was happy with this situation. Bill Clinton, for example described it as the "Contract on America" and there's no need to wonder why he felt that way.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/clinton-congress.html)
Moreover, the CAA also established the Office of Compliance as a place for staff to report harassment:
https://www.ocwr.gov/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014-102b-Report.pdf
Many people think the OCC process, while clear, is too slow, overly complicated, and insufficient to hold Comgressmen accountable. But that's a story for another day.
For today, it's sufficient to know that when Tara Reade worked for Joe Biden in 1993 there was no law against sexual harassment by Congressmen, and no clear process for staff who were victimized by Congressmen to follow.
So if the facts of her complaint seem unclear, that could indicate a hazy memory . Or, as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd's successors in the Democratic party are already arguing, it could be indicate she is being dishonest.
(Another aside. It was once said that "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time." That was said by Joe Biden.)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/01/bidens-kavanaugh-comments-resurface-after-sexual-assault-allegations/3067692001/
But it could also very accurately indicate that because of the strenuous efforts of "former" KKK members, segregationist leaders and other type of Democrats in the 1964 Congress (if any), the Civil Rights Act was was almost never passed, watered down when it did pass and then specifically drafted to exempt the Congressmen themselves, so there was no clear process for Tara Reade to follow in 1993.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape
https://www.justia.com/employment/employment-discrimination/title-vii/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/biden-praised-segregationist-strom-thurmond-as-closest-friend-who-believed-in-heterogenous-diverse-society
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/joe-biden-strom-thurmond-eulogy
https://web.archive.org/web/19990427174200/http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/clinton-congress.html
https://www.ocwr.gov/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014-102b-Report.pdf
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/01/bidens-kavanaugh-comments-resurface-after-sexual-assault-allegations/3067692001/
Has Whoopi Goldberg weighed in? This sounds like a situation in which she would say it wasn’t “rape rape”.
“If Democrats Didn’t Have Double Standards They’d Have No Standards at All”
It’s difficult to have standards no matter how they are described when all their standards are lies.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Heres a must see video, montage of Biden saying all women must be believed
https://www.independentsentinel.com/very-funny-biden-video-about-women-touching/
Hat tip to Chris Plante for coining the phrase “If not for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.” It describes Democrats so well.
Strom Thurmond was Biden's Best Friend
Biden praised Thurmond's support for reading at separate 'but equal' schools
Clinton called it the Contract on America
The Congressional Accountability Act explained
Biden says believe women even if she forgets the facts or it has been made worse over time
Thanks for the source. Always loved that quote. Will cite him next time.
If we leave out the rape and take Reade's initial reduced accusations from 2019 of being fired for refusing to be "eye candy" serving drinks for a Senator and then being retaliated against, how does that stack up against the Democrats disqualifying Mitt Romney for having "binders of women" in 2012, meaning background checks on qualified women to work in his administration?Were the actions she DID recount really acceptable social norms in 1993, Bill Clinton's first year in office, or is it really changing the goalposts when the Democrats are on the receiving end of the scandal?
Was Romney having research on highly qualified women in 2012 WORSE than Biden wanting women staffers to be cocktail waitresses in 1993?
-PJ
So everything Romney is irrelevant, stick to closer parallels like Brett Kavanaugh
The dems also tried to peddle the lie about Kavanaugh organizing a gang bang or rape of Christie Balsey Ford.
Since this is a thread about Democrat double-standards and we're in another Presidential election, rather than attack me, why don't you stick to the topic and answer my question of whether a 2012 accusation of having "binders of women" research documents is worse than a 1993 accusation of using your female staff as cocktail waitresses because they were pretty.
-PJ
At no time, did I attack you.
It seems that this may come as a shock to you, but pointing out Romney’s flaws as well as the half hearted nature of the charges laid on Romney (because the purpose was never to damage Romney with that issue but to run out the clock) is not an attack on you.
If anything, it is an attack on Romney that points out that even in 2012 the globalists were propping him up.
I'll say this much about the Democrat establishment:
With Blasey-Ford, I think they were caught off-guard by what was essentially a "rogue" actor making an incredible accusation. That said, they quickly organized and weaponized her against Kavanaugh as a "hail Mary" attempt to keep SCOTUS from tilting conservatively.
With Biden, it might be a similar situation where they were caught off-guard by the seriousness of Reade's updated accusation, but they just as quickly organized AGAINST Reade to protect Biden.
So there is the double-standard based on who's ox is being gored.
Honestly, I think that if this came out after the DNC convention, they would have supported Reade and tossed Biden so they could replace him with a DNC leadership pick. Since it happened before the convention, they have to assume that Sanders has the most committed delegates and will make a stink of things at the convention, making it harder for the DNC establishment to overtly insert their choice. That's why they need Biden to limp his way to the convention, no matter what. They can always oust him over this later.
-PJ
prove it
The problem is, repubs have to prove they’re innocent and dems’ victims have to prove the dem is guilty.
We’ve all seen Joe. I believe Reade but what I believe doesn’t matter.
I was reacting to "stick to closer parallels like Brett Kavanaugh." At first read, to me it came off as a bit abrupt and assertive, since you made no attempt to actually respond to what I wrote and, in fact, presumed to tell me what to do.
I, too, was sticking to the parallels, albeit different ones.
-PJ
I believe Tara Reade as much as I believed Christine Blasey-Ford.
This is what Chris Plante, Mark Levin, and I have been saying for years.
I’m sure I got it from you guys. It’s a great quote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.