TARA READE STORY EXPOSES THAT VICTIMS ARE EVERYWHERE

[UPDATED: May 8, 2020, 9pm after watching full Megyn Kelly interview]

Standards of Justice and #MeToo

I don’t believe Tara. At all. In fact, after watching the Megyn Kelly interview, I’m convinced Tara is lying. I will explain my reasons later but I also acknowledge that I don’t know what actually happened. Neither do you, unless that’s you, Tara or you, Joe. Those two know, and probably it will remain just those two. At least if absolute certainty is the standard. On that topic, there’s lots of heated debate about what standard should apply to Tara Reade’s rape accusation against Joe Biden. In fact, many, from casual Twitter keyboard jockeys to mainstream media journalists, are using the moment to conflate the standards that should apply with the #MeToo movement and making grand proclamations about the death of #MeToo. And people are literally running around and losing their minds about this, so much so that Tara and Joe are lost in all the name-calling going on. Frankly, it’s rather sad to see.

So we’re clear, #MeToo IS NOT about evidentiary standards and #MeToo IS NOT on its deathbed, regardless of what side you’re on here. #MeToo is ONLY about the RIGHT to be HEARD. ANY person who claims to be the victim of a sexual assault deserves that, whether it’s against some random ex, a hollywood power broker or the would-be Democratic nominee for President in 2020. Let there be no debate, Tara deserves to be heard.

But let’s also be clear, it’s NOT the same thing to have the right to be heard and that your accusation be PRESUMED to be true. That’s not how it works, and while this is merely the court of public opinion, an accusation like Tara’s is so serious that it requires that we all apply fairness in process. If Tara is telling the truth, and she may be, she was violated, physically, emotionally and psychologically, and not only should her rapist be removed as a candidate for President, he rightly should be put in prison if justice were to be served. If Tara is not telling the truth, and similarly, she may not be, then the false accusation will have damaged not just an innocent man’s reputation and potentially his legacy but also because this matter is so much in the public-eye it will likely harm future actual victims who’s accusations will be met with cynicism of “oh another Tara”.

So what’s the standard then? In a criminal case, in a court of law, the standard is a presumption of innocence and that a guilty verdict would require that the claim be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn’t a court of law, and while the claim if proven would be a very serious crime, the statute of limitations has run, and all things considered, the State vs. Joseph Biden in a criminal court will never be a thing. So, what we’re left with is the court of public opinion and whatever other quasi-court proceeding the political system or institutions determine might be appropriate based on what’s learned here. In both cases, given the severity of the accusation and the foundation of our justice system, Joe Biden merits a presumption of innocence AND Tara Reade merits the right to be heard and to prove she’s telling the truth.

What’s sufficient proof? What evidentiary standards should apply in the absence of an actual court of law? If we truly care about Tara and Joe, and we should of course care about both of them, then we must adopt at a minimum a process with standards that uphold our principals of justice. This would mean the presentation, review and examination of whatever evidence that Tara has to prove her accusation. Understandably, after all these years, there is only so much that reasonably can be expected in terms of evidence. Tara’s words, her testimony, what she may have said to others at the time, these are all fair to be considered. But it should not be enough simply for Tara to state these.

The matter at hand is too great, the accusation brought too troubling, the implications too far-reaching to accept bare words. Tara and her witnesses should make sworn statements. Moreover, for any of these to be fairly considered, Tara and her witnesses must be subject to some reasonable form of questioning and examination. At the end of the day, what we will be left with is a she said, he said, and the credibility of Tara and Joe and any witness will be the final record of evidence for our decisioning.

For now, Tara has not brought forth evidence to meet this standard. She should, and she should be afforded the opportunity to do so fully. As of this writing, Tara has provided some information, as have identified witnesses, but the story is incomplete at this time. While I acknowledge having to confront a matter like this, with so many lunatics out there no doubt shouting and threatening, is exceptionally hard, Tara must do this to be believed and for us, then, to vilify Joe as a rapist. That’s exactly what’s at stake here. All victims of sexual assault are subject in varying ways to an overwhelming burden. It’s not just the burden of having to confront the emotional scars and relive the trauma, it’s having to confront this very system of justice. Presumption of innocence. Evidentiary standards. It’s unfair when you are an actual victim, but it’s also there to protect the innocent.

Branded a Rape Apologist

There is a rush to judgement going on right now, and I do understand this. And it’s not just that we live in a time and place where we all expect immediacy driven by on-demand, everywhere data access. It’s also because what’s going on here. A potential victim of a sexual assault in a time of #MeToo wokeness. A potential innocent man with a life of public service who stands to run against a sitting President who himself inspires strong emotions. In fact, it’s almost too much NOT to judge.

So I’m clear, I believe strongly that we should not shut Tara out regardless of what preliminary judgement we may have formed. She merits the opportunity, still, to stand up and make her case fairly and completely. And similarly I feel it would be wrong to force Joe to step down based on the incomplete record before us. So, if you’re running around calling those who believe Joe is innocent rape apologists, stop it. That’s toxic garbage. And utterly ignorant. Likewise, if you’re running around and telling those who believe Tara that they are political operatives or Russian-bots, stop it. That’s similarly toxic garbage and utterly ignorant.

In such a politically-charged environment, it’s not easy to keep your head on straight. I know this all too well. About a week ago, as the story started to gain steam, I waded in like many others and offered my opinion, at first casually, restricted by the 280 character Twitter limit. And that’s hard for me. I like to write (as no doubt if you’re still reading you understand all too well by now). Mostly, what I said initially was that based on what had been stated and revealed at that time I didn’t believe Tara BUT that she should be given the opportunity to make her case more fully (more on that later). I was quite shocked what happened next. In virtual nanoseconds, a seething cadre of Twitterers with clever handles and amusing avatars were calling me a “rape apologist” and posting memes that stated the same with varying graphic styles and degrees of competencies.

And it was triggering. Mind you not because I was guilty of anything; most certainly I’m no rape apologist. Rather it’s because I understand ALL too well the damage done to victims of sexual assault. See my wife was raped by her ex. My sister was physically abused by a former husband, another sister emotionally abused by her former husband. Other friends too. The people I love the most, family members, friends, I have had to bear witness to all their pain and suffering, and it’s just awful. And so if you’re some fool who does not know me at all, the pain I’ve borne witness to, my loved ones’ pain, and you dare to call me a rape apologist without knowing or caring to know any of this, well then you should understand that if in reply I call you a worthless POS who should rot in hell; see it’s because I know victims too.

And what I see in the various toxic posts where people rage at one another is just more and more victims. Posters who themselves were abused, assaulted, raped or whose loved ones were, like mine were. And I believe all of them because that’s how bad of a problem this is. To be a woman in this day and age, even post #MeToo, can be awful. The deck is stacked against you, and men can be dogs. And women can be horrible too. The Tara Reade story proves that in spades. There are victims, so so many victims. They are everywhere. It IS that bad.

Why I don’t believe Tara: It’s about Patterns

So back to the actual matter at hand, where exactly does that leave us? There’s Tara on the one side, and Joe on the other. As of today, there are some developments. Tara has hired a law firm to represent her, and that’s a very good thing no matter how you come to this discussion. All alleged victims deserve competent legal representation, and our system of justice functions best when that is afforded freely. And please let’s not digress into who represents her and who is paying for her representation, whether pro bono or otherwise. That frankly is a sideshow and is not germane to the matter at hand. In addition to Tara’s new legal representation, released just today was a snippet from a new interview Tara recently conducted, a new article published from a reporter her interviewed Tara both when she initially alleged a form of sexual harassment and then again after she expanded her story to include an alleged sexual assault, as well as the revelation of a sworn statement given by her former husband that provides some corroboration about aspects of her claim (I address all of this later so please bear with me).

Between now and when we hear and learn more, like many of you I too have formed an opinion. And as I said, I understand why I am doing this. For it matters to me. I understand how badly women can be treated, I understand the suffering brought on by sexual assault but also understand that it would be so wrong to unfairly vilify Joe as a rapist if indeed he is innocent. So I have formed a belief, a preliminary judgement which will have to do for now until Tara and her witnesses comes forth more fully.

I do not believe Tara Reade’s allegations that she was raped by Joe Biden in 1993 in the underground halls of the Russell Senate Building, and here’s why. It’s about patterns. Patterns tell you alot. I pretty much live my life by them. Everyone who knows me knows I do things a certain way. The foods I like, the way I talk and dress, what I do when I get up, when I’m at the gym, my habits, both redeeming and annoying, I have both. We all do. This truism of life is neatly captured, albeit in slightly different ways, in sayings like, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” or “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it”. One my favorites is the last line in F.Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne ceaselessly back into the past.” The sayings express this in different ways but fundamentally they all speak to how we lead a life that reveals patterns. More specifically patterns of behavior.

Tara Likes Politics

Tara Reade has lead a life with patterns. It’s evident for all to see, even with the precious little we know about Tara at this time. For instance, we know Tara likes politics. She worked in Senator Biden’s office, as an intern for Congressman Leon Panetta and apparently for a State Senator too. And by now most of us have seen and read various blog posts by Tara, most all of which address political topics and people. There’s nothing wrong with liking politics, in fact it’s fair to say that a passion for politics can contribute positively to the civic well being of our democracy. But it can also be the basis for abuse.

Tara Wants to be Noticed

Politics ultimately IS about power. Choices are made. Lives transformed. Haves and have nots. It’s power, and power does attract people. I think it’s fair to say that there is a pattern in what we know about Tara, and that the pattern reveals that Tara likes power or at least to create the perception that she is a part of that game. Consider those blog posts. Putting aside judgement about the appropriateness of her opinions in those posts, Tara was clearly working hard to create a certain impression. The prose flowery, even outlandish and high-falutin at times. There’s nothing overtly wrong in doing that. We all can imagine ourselves at times as more important than we are, our voices surely must be heard. But in Tara’s case there’s a pattern here, and it’s quite noteworthy. Not many among us pen and publish love letters of mawkish and shameless admiration to Vladimir Putin, as if he and the rest of the World are just waiting to hear from us. Not just once but multiple times.

This same pattern is evident in how Tara brands herself. She is, among other things, a self-proclaimed “Actress”, “Poet”, “Novelist”, “J.D.”, “Educator”. I will confess to not knowing everything that Tara may or may not have done in her life but I can say with complete confidence that I do not know of anyone who feels the need to publish every remotely conceivable title that describes themselves EXCEPT those who have an unhealthy need for attention. And to be fair, Tara is NOT an “Actress”, “Poet”, “Novelist”, or “Educator”, at least in the conventional sense that these titles are generally used by the rest of us, as in working actress or published writer or educator with some certification, in each case however modest. There is no indication that Tara has any of these beyond self-published blog posts. As to the J.D., it appears that Tara attended and graduated from law school (though apparently chose to skip out on paying). That one designation is accurate though again I would consider that highly unusual to use outside a job resume except if you were publishing a legal journal or article. Otherwise, it falls into the same pattern of LOOK AT ME.

Tara is Dishonest

So Tara stretches the truth a bit, so what, that’s not bad, right? But it’s not that simple. There’s a much bigger pattern of behavior evident in what we know about Tara, already, that reveals something very material. Tara is dishonest, and there’s lots of evidence that supports that conclusion. I will not go through point by point all the sordid stories out there in the Twittersphere but as they say where there’s smoke there’s fire, and we can see plainly flaming in the background bilked nonprofits, check fraud, phony GoFundMe campaigns, defrauded landlords and law schools and others left with nothing post $400k bankruptcy. To be fair and clear, just because you get in over your head doesn’t mean you’re dishonest. Life’s hard, and that happens to many of us. And a bankruptcy is not itself a proof point of dishonesty. But of course what we see isn’t just that. In Tara’s case, we already see people coming forth and telling the World that Tara isn’t honest, that she took advantage of them, manipulates the truth, stole from them. It’s the pattern that tells you something.

So what do these patterns mean then? What do they tell us actually happened in the case of Tara v Joe? Again, and to be perfectly clear, Tara’s patterns of behavior do not tell us anything conclusively. There are always exceptions to patterns. We’re human, not robots, so nothing always moves and happens in perfect patterns. But patterns ARE reliable, in fact they are the single most reliable way of predicting anything in this World, so much so that most every aspect of our society is analyzed and decisioned based on pattern analysis. In modern lexicon, this is referred to as “data science”. And data science is all about patterns.

Tara Leaves Her Job with Senator Biden but Why?

So back to Tara’s patterns. How do they explain Tara leaving her job with Senator Biden in 1993? And how do you explain the evidence that suggests she told many people including potentially her mom, her brother and potentially others that she left because of some form of harassment or assault? The last distinction is important because Tara herself has told very different versions of the story over time. Most recently, she suggests that whatever complaint may have been filed described her being “uncomfortable” and retaliated against, presumably because she did not agree to serve drinks at a function after Biden suggested that he liked her legs. In other versions of the story, including in a blog post, Tara says she left Biden’s office on her own because she was tired of American’s imperialism.

I believe that Tara did tell her mom and others that something happened to her back then. I’m not convinced that what she told others was that she was raped in the manner now alleged. It would make sense based on the patterns described that Tara would make an excuse one way or another for her leaving Biden’s employment. And keep in mind in 1993 the big story on the Hill at the time were the allegations against Bob Packwood. Sexual harassment. Telling a story to her mom and others that she was likewise treated not only provides a convenient out for her, it puts her squarely where she likes to be. Politics. Power. She was in the middle of it all.

So that there may be some witnesses who say Tara shared with them a version of the story does not prove that particular version of the story in fact happened. To cast this in a different way, if you recount contemporaneously a lie to other witnesses that is proof of nothing other than you lied to them at the time and they are now just repeating your lie. To understand better the significance of these witnesses, you would need them to swear that their statements are true insofar as they represent what they were told and that you can examine them for truthfulness. As it is, there already exists some fair questions about exactly what they remember and what they were told. This merits further review.

Tara is a Disgruntled Employee

Now I accept that one has to reconcile the choice to leave with her interest in politics. Why would Tara just leave? Now it’s also conceivable that there may have been some inappropriate conduct by Senator Biden, in particular by today’s standards. But the record to this point does not support Tara’s penultimate allegation that Joe raped her. There is also another pattern that I have yet to address. Tara doesn’t keep jobs very long. She cycles from one job to another and even with the very bare evidence on her employment history at hand it’s already clear that the pattern reveals that Tara is a disgruntled employee. Allegations of manipulation. Stealing. Toxic behavior. We may all have some regret about jobs where we did not live up to certain standards. Perhaps we made certain mistakes that caused issues, or we were simply derelict in duties assigned due to whatever personal issues we were confronting at the time. But who among us has multiple instances of aggrieved employers who would speak out in the manner that we are already seeing from Tara’s former employers and co-workers. Patterns. They matter because they tell us something.

Accordingly, the pattern here suggests that Tara was a disgruntled employee and that’s why she left her job working in Senator Biden’s office. Might there have been some aggravating circumstances that explain, at least partially, why Tara was aggrieved? Yes I would agree. But do I believe that the record supports Tara’s allegation of rape? Absolutely not. So on her way out, I believe the pattern explains why she put herself in what she imagined was impressive standing to those who mattered to her, her mom, her boyfriend and soon to be husband and friends. An allegation of sexual harassment was topical because of Senator Packwood. And this made Tara matter, at least in her mind.

The Sworn Statement by Tara’s Husband

Consider what we learned today about the sworm statement submitted by Tara’s former husband in a legal proceeding in 1996. In the statement, the former husband states he was working on the Hill at the time of the incident and that Tara told him about an issue she was having with Biden involving “sexual harassment”, and that she said she “stuck a deal” with Biden’s Chief of Staff to leave. Does that not support Tara’s claim? Perhaps. Perhaps not. According to the statement, Tara told her husband that she negotiated an exit with Biden’s Chief of Staff. Heady stuff. But I have hard time believing this. Exactly how does that negotiation play out? “Yo Chief of Staff, Senator Biden raped me in the halls of the Senate, so what exactly are you willing to pay me to stay quiet?” That’s just plain silly. An actual rape victim would do many things but WOULD NEVER do that… unless we’re talking $$$$ but I still wouldn’t buy that story. In particular, during the time of Senator Packwood. If Tara in fact did negotiate an exit, then there should be an easy way to get the record of the payoff (unless we’re talking a satchel of unmarked bills!). I think it would be interesting and helpful to talk further with Tara’s former husband about all of this (he would likely know about a payoff if one in fact did occur).

Further evidence supporting my disbelief of any impropriety even occurring is I do not believe ANY complaint was ever filed despite Tara’s claim that she did so. With attribution to Laura McGann’s solid article published on VOX today, a very thorough effort to request release of any such record of complaint, with all the relevant bodies who might have such a record, revealed that no such record exists. And keep in mind, EVERY staffer who worked in Senator Biden’s office, including the Chief of Staff, confirms that NO concerns whatsoever were EVER raised by Tara. So to believe Tara, one would have to accept that EVERY staffer who worked in Senator Biden’s at the time and who Tara identified as telling her story to is willing to lie years later about all of it to support Joe Biden.

The Larry King Caller

So what about the mother who called in to Larry King? Isn’t that evidence that Tara was assaulted? As a starting point, I think it’s very likely that it WAS Tara’s mom who called into Larry King. It’s too coincidental to believe there would have been another mother living in San Luis Obispo back in 1993 with a daughter working in a Senator’s office. But consider what was said. The mother described a daughter who had “problems” in an office and asks what to do. She does not in any way describe or suggest an assault or even harassment took place. Just that her daughter had a problem and left the office and what should she do. As I conceded before, I believe Tara told her mom something happened, and his is consistent with what was said on that call. I will also say that if Tara told her mom that she was raped, whether she was or not, there is NO WAY that Tara’s mom would call in to Larry King and say what she did.

Tara’s Brother, the Neighbor and the Unnamed Witnesses

So what about the other witnesses including her brother? Again, I will refer to today’s article by Laura McGann. She originally interviewed Tara in March of 2019 when Tara initially alleged that Senator Biden had been inappropriate with her. At the time, Ms. McGann asked Tara to provide corroborated witnesses, and Tara only identified two people, her deceased mother and a friend who apparently helped counsel her through the issues at that time. Ms. McGann spoke with Tara’s friend who described circumstances that fit Tara’s original narrative of inappropriateness but not rape. As described by Tara’s friend, “… it wasn’t that bad” in comparison to other stories (presumably she was referencing the DC culture of the day and perhaps specifically Senator Packwood).

What’s particularly relevant about that first witness is how her story changed in the two different times that Ms. McGann spoke with her. And just like Tara’s did. Kudos to Laura McGann for capturing this in her interviews as she spoke with Tara’s friend both at the time of the first Tara allegation and so too later when the allegation expanded to include rape. So why did Tara’s friend change her story? Did she forget certain details? What she told Ms. McGann was that “It just originally rolled out that way” and “She [referring to Tara] wanted to leave a layer there, and I did not want to betray that.” Huh? So we are to believe, accepting one of Tara’s key witnesses, that Tara and her friend were conspiring to tell a story, in layers, over the course of a year, and we’re working together to tell that story through a reporter or reporters, in one or more bombshell articles to be released at some future unknown date, all of which was a part of some master plan. HAHAHAHHA. Sure. I’ll ignore the other evidence out there where the friend confirms that Tara called and coached her more recently about what the story now is. That’s called piling on.

So what to make of the new witnesses? The brother, the neighbor, the two unnamed witnesses. At this point, not much. It’s not helpful to Tara that these witnesses were not identified originally to Ms. McGann when asked back in 2019. Tara’s later explanation that she didn’t think at the time that they were relevant strikes me in the most favorable light as odd. Tara went to law school, and one of the supposed witnesses was HER BROTHER. Based on an incomplete record which I acknowledge, even excusing the later inclusion of the brother, I do not find this account credible. According to multiple accounts, the brother’s story changed. Initially, it was Tara had some problems and that’s why she left, later it was by text message, oh yea, Tara told me that she was raped exactly as she claims. The brother is also connected to some of the GoFundMe shenanigans. On the record, he’s not credible. The two unnamed witnesses, who knows? There is also the report of an unnamed witness who claims to be a longtime friend and says she doesn’t believe Tara, that she has always been one to seek attention. Let all of them submit sworn statements and then let their stories be subject to further review and examination. Until then, it’s a nothing burger.

Tara’s Two Different Stories about What Happened

So am I unfairly disbelieving Tara because her story changed over time? No. I understand and accept that is not unusual by itself in the case of victims of sexual assault. As many have pointed out, to confront the pain and shame and rejection a victim endures takes unimaginable amounts of courage and that can’t always come out cleanly in one effort, at one time and for all of it to fit in a perfect package. But there’s way more to Tara’s story than that. There are the patterns previously described. Interest in politics and power. To be perceived and validated as doing something, being someone. And the dishonesty.

So consider how all this played out. Throughout the 2000s, in particular when Joe Biden was in the limelight, Tara was quite vocal and aligning herself with Joe. Complimenting him on Twitter, repeatedly. She knew, she worked in his office. “My old boss speaks truth. Listen”, she wrote. She even went further, highlighting the work he did protecting women and victims of sexual assault. Ask yourself this. Is it conceivable, even remotely conceivable, that if Tara had been raped by Joe as alleged that she would be publicly praising her rapist this way. It’s absolutely not, and it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. Sure, abuse victims can be apologists for their abusers but that’s when they are stuck in relationship dependency. None of that applies here. This alone should be enough. But then again the patterns are there too. Tara was aligning herself in the news of the day. She could claim she knew because she worked in Biden’s office. This gave her stature. The story fits the pattern perfectly.

So why, then, did Tara’s story change? In March of 2019, Lucy Flores came forth with an allegation that Senator Joe Biden grasped her shoulders from behind and kissed the back of her head without her consent during a campaign event in 2014. Not exactly salacious behavior by bad DC powerbroker standards but clearly inappropriate and harassment by legal standards and cultural mores of the day. This was big news as Joe was preparing to announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President. The World looks on. #MeToo wokeness. It’s certainly convenient for Tara to join this moment. Convenient either because in fact something did happen (in line with Tara’s first or second version) or nothing actionable happened at all. It each case the story fits perfectly.

At the time, the story Tara tells is relevant. As described to Ms.McGann, what happened WAS NOT a story of sexual misconduct but rather as Tara emphasized abuse of power. In fact, Tara conceded that the issue was really about how the staff retaliated against her and not about Biden who Tara admitted might not even know why she even left. Consider further the AP Interview in which Tara states: “I wasn’t scared of him [refering to Senator Biden], that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.” It’s one thing to not tell a full story about an assault, to leave out certain details, in particular the darkest ones. IT’S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING TO STATE SOMETHING THAT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH WHAT YOU LATER CLAIM HAPPENED. This version of Tara’s story does fit the other women’s story perfectly too. In rings true and whether you believe what she may have said back in 1993 to her mother, boyfriend/husband and friend was true or a somewhat inflated version of the truth or even a complete falsehood, this moment gives Tara the platform to be seen and heard. Something the pattern tells us matters to Tara. Alot.

Yup. Timing… wait for it…tic toc

What happens next plays neatly into these patterns. All of sudden, Tara becomes a big Bernie supporter. Now that’s not, by itself, noteworthy. Bernie Sanders is a long-standing and serving US Senator. But consider that fact further. Why does Tara suddenly take notice of Bernie? In fact, he was a candidate during the last election cycle too. But Bernie now, more than ever, was lightning in a bottle, his ascendency into political discourse particularly a phenomenon driven by online discussions. The very place Tara likes to inhabit.

Moreover, part of Bernie’s appeal seemingly fits into some of the apparent actual political beliefs that Tara holds. I won’t call Bernie or his followers, including Tara, Russian operatives. That’s cheap and unfair. But Bernie advocates policies that many would call socialist, and some of Tara’s Medium blog posts that condemn capitalism and promote Russian and Putin as the fairer, better model, fit into the narrative of Tara joining the Bernie movement.

To be clear, there is nothing nefarious to conclude from the mere fact that Tara became an outspoken Bernie supporter in opposition to Joe Biden. But when the campaign started to turn in Joe’s favor, Tara replied to a Tweet of Ryan Grim of the Intercept on March 3, 2020, signaling that she may have some damaging news about Biden that she was going to reveal. While I doubt most victims of sexual assault gameplan their reveal in clever social media posts, that’s not the primary basis why I find all of this troubling. It’s because how and when Tara chose to come forth with her new story falls fight back into the pattern. Tara is thrusting herself into a big story. Bernie needs help. And here comes Tara conveniently to be a savior.

The Rape Allegation

Tara’s second account of the incident was revealed approximately a year after Tara first came forward to accuse Senator Biden of inappropriate conduct. Putting aside the obvious questions of why Tara’s story changed, there are real questions about the credibility of the account Tara gives this time around. According to Tara, Mariane Baker, Senator Biden’s longtime assistant, came rushing in one day and told her to “hurry” and deliver a gym bag, that the Senator “was already on his way” and that she should catch up with him because “he wants his bag.” I’m going to skip over some smaller things like exactly where was Tara when Mariane came “rushing in” as it’s highly unlikely Tara would have her own office, and why was Tara sent on this errand, as that’s the kind of thing interns do, not staff assistants.

The sequence of the errand doesn’t make much sense. Senator Biden has apparently requested his bag but since he’s already on his way that would mean he left it by mistake. Fair enough. But how did this ask occur? In 1993, while cellphones existed, they were not widely in use. Somebody should look into this but I am not convinced that Senator Biden was using a cellphone at this time. Assuming he wasn’t, how did Senator Biden communicate that he wanted his bag while on the move? Did he stop in some other office and borrow a phone? Doesn’t seem to add up. And one would think, even factoring in attitudes of powerful people, the ask would still be a bit more specific in terms of where to bring the bag as opposed to “Hey, I left my bag, and I’m on the move, send someone to run after me, find me along the way and bring it to me. NOW!” Even if it were “meet me at the Capital”, that also means virtually nothing. Where would Joe place himself, and where would anyone know to go? This makes little sense.

A few of the details of how Tara describes the encounter are a bit different in the original version told to Krystal Ball and the version described to Megyn Kelly. In both, Tara describes walking quickly in heels down the hallways of Russell to try and catch up with the Senator and then sees him in the distance talking with someone. In the Ball version, Tara suggests that after catching up with the Senator, they move to some side area, and Joe prompts this by saying, “Come here, Tara”. Tara omits this detail in the Kelly version, and just says, “I saw him at a distance, he was talking to someone, and then they walked away in the other direction, and then he greeted me.” That omitted detail does not seem insignificant to me.

Tara describes the assault as happening quickly and with no real exchange after the greeting. Senator Biden pressed her against some wall, reached under her shirt with one hand to grope her and under her skirt with the other, and digitally penetrated her. I will note in the Kelly version of the story Tara adds the detail that she was wearing crotchless panties when Kelly was questioning Tara about how exactly how did the Senator manage to get his fingers inside her. As the assault happened, Tara states that the Senator was kissing her neck, asked her if she “wants to go somewhere else” and then used some vulgar language which included, “I want to fuck you”. Tara says she struggled to get away and that at some point Biden withdrew from her, said, “Hey man, I thought you liked me” and then angrily pointed at her and said, “You’re nothing to me, you’re nothing.” Finally, Tara says Biden noticing she was upset, grabbed her by the shoulders, shook her and said, “You’re ok, you’re alright.” And then he left.

I’m sorry, but I think Tara’s description of the supposed assault is one of the most outlandish and ridiculous stories that someone has tried to pass off as truth that I have read or heard. EVER. IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. What Tara alleges is about as coarse and vile of an attack as one can imagine, done openly and contemptuously in public. I challenge anyone to find and present a single instance of a individual’s sexual assault performed openly in a public venue. Not hidden out of view. Not in a bathroom. This was supposedly done, during the workday, in the halls of the Russell Senate Building, a place that has LOTS of people running around, AT ALL TIMES, including of course, SECURITY AND POLICE. This story is UTTER GARBAGE.

What the Senator supposedly said during this encounter also reads like REALLY BAD fiction. “I want to fuck you”?! “Hey man, I thought you liked me”?! Who in their right mind could even begin to imagine this would have been said… by anyone, never mind Joe Biden…. even in a fictional story! Because no editor in their right mind would publish that unless this is the story of some 13-year old boy attacking his girlfriend.

And going back to that omitted detail of some side area if anyone wants to still imagine Tara is telling the truth here. I happen to know Russell quite well because I worked briefly on the Hill and had a good friend who worked for a Senator whose office was in Russell. I went there alot. There’s no such thing as a side area if what Tara wanted to imply is an area away from where people aren’t or can’t see. If you’ve spent any time in the halls of Russell, including the basement areas that run between other Senate office buildings, you know these corridors are teaming with people, pretty much at all times.

Further to that point, Tara claims that the incident occurred quickly, in under 3 minutes. I would challenge anyone to go to Russell, in and around the area Tara claims this incident occurred, and film for 3 minutes. It’s not conceivable that the halls are devoid of others for this period of time. And a prominent Senator like Joe Biden being seen doing anything remotely similar to this would be remembered most certainly by any witness. Yet no witnesses to this assault?

For a brief moment, let’s consider a different pattern, one that doesn’t relate directly to Tara. What we know is that men who sexually abuse women DO NOT do this just once. It is a condition that leads to serial acts. A pattern. And that pattern is extremely well documented, published in any number of academic and professional journals and studies. Patterns tell us something. As mentioned above, what Tara alleges is a heinous sexual assault. There is absolutely no indication in all of Joe Biden’s life that he EVER sexually assaulted another women. Yes, we all know about Joe’s reputation for being too friendly and handsey at times. That’s not remotely in same zip code, or solar system, as what Tara alleges. Joe has a pattern for being handsy. Not sexual assault. Pattern analysis of Joe Biden’s life tells us he did not do what Tara alleges.

The Megyn Kelly Interview and Laura McGann Story

Tara comes across as in control and powerful in telling her story. It’s hard to read too much into anything like her demanor, however, I will say that how she relates her story is starkly different than the women I know when revisiting those dark places. Overall, Tara is in control and while there are brief moments of apparent pain, she comes across as emotionally bland and at times relaxed. The victims I know relate their sexual assault and the stories surrounding them with a much broader range of emotions, and rather than being in control, they sort of veer in and out of emotions with moments of painful pause. Dr. Ford during the Kavanaugh hearings presented in a manner that resonates much more closely with the victims I know.

Certain aspects of Tara’s story are addressed in a manner that raise further questions. Above, I made mention of Tara’s further details on the assault itself, and I do not find any of that believable. Tara’s explanation for why she was publicly praising Joe Biden as a strong voice in protecting women from sexual assault just two years before coming forth with her allegations made no sense whatsoever. I also found quite interesting Tara’s efforts to explain away some of the issues uncovered with her past. On the one hand, Tara makes the case she’s a victim here because people are exposing her private life and then references somewhat dismissively an ex, a landlord, as if we all can relate to what that means.

I do not know if Tara is that naive, but her past is absolutely relevant as it goes to her credibility and her real problem here is if the casual Twitter keyboard jockey can uncover so much dirt on Tara that easily, one can only imagine what’s more to come. Moreover, I for one do not relate to the suggestion that well, gee, sure there’s an ex and a former landlord, we all know what that’s like. Actually, I don’t Tara. I am married now but I had LOTS of fun along the way, as the saying goes, “I’m no choir boy" but that said I’m quite certain without exception my exs would all say pretty nice things about me. Most certainly, they would not trash me. At all. And Tara, no, I’ve never stiffed a former landlord, nor my law school, anyone for that matter, so that doesn’t resonate with me either. Tara’s problem is the pattern. The pattern is she is dishonest with people.

Laura McGann’s article is also quite insightful, even beyond the helpful information that she has provided to our understanding of Tara’s story as referenced herein earlier above. Without herself drawing any conclusions about some of the holes in Tara’s story, Ms. McGann does observe the manner in which Tara reacts when confronted with some of the inconsistencies in the stories she told first in 2019 and then again in 2020. Not her words, but I think a fair characterization is Tara acts aggrieved. That’s noteworthy to me because it fits the patterns. Disgruntled employees are always aggrieved. Dishonest people when confronted will try and excuse the behavior by recasting the story into how they themselves have been aggrieved. Look closely at the record for what it is from Tara’s past. That pattern is there throughout. The various bit players in Tara’s sordid past use these exact words.

So on the one hand, we have Tara’s story (fairly it’s STORIES). These stories in the most favorable light can be described as rife with holes and questions. Her witnesses do not line up neatly in support of Tara’s varying accounts. And behind it all, we can see the patterns. Patterns of behavior that provide insight into the life Tara has lead. Patterns DO NOT conclusively tell us what happened in a given moment in time, what exactly happened, or not, in a corridor of the Russell Senate building. But patterns are exceptionally reliable, and ultimately the patterns in Tara’s life explain what happened more credibly than Tara’s own words. The patterns tell us that Tara is lying. She was not raped by Joe Biden.

One final thing I would like to address. I do not believe Tara is a Russian, Bernie or Trump operative. She is being weaponized by many in those camps, there is little doubt, and just how far up the chain it goes, who knows. But this story REALLY is the story of Tara Reade herself. It’s her patterns that explain what happened and what didn’t. Recently I was challenged to explain why would anyone risk so much if this wasn’t true. Ask yourself, though, what really is Tara risking? It’s a sad and sobering reality to consider when you look at some of the wreckage. Tara has had a very hard life and whether she brought it on herself or is a victim in ways we may never truly understand, I don’t see much that she is risking here. And perhaps even more sad, I believe the patterns suggest that Tara truly sees this moment as her opportunity. Validation and attention. And in the end, real money with her very own tell all. The patterns tell me that’s what Tara believes even knowing what she says isn’t true. And indeed that’s a very sad thought to consider.

I will be closely watching this saga as it continues to unfold. I feel invested and not just because I spent so much time expressing my thoughts. It’s because what’s at stake. For Tara. For Joe. For all of us. We may come to this discussion with a certain political orientation but deep down we all feel pain because we know so many victims of sexual assault. Whether it’s you, a loved one, friends, or all of the above, this story is painful. And in the end, they’ll be yet more victims to account. Tara. Joe. And the rest us. This hurts us all.