By David Harsanyi
Friday, May 08, 2020
There aren’t a ton of synonyms for the word “hypocrisy.”
I’ve become aware of this problem ever since I began writing about the Tara
Reade–Joe Biden situation. I keep gravitating towards phrases such as
“despicable hypocrisy,” or “partisan hypocrisy,” or “unconscionable hypocrisy,”
but you can only go to the well so often. Really, though, I’m not sure how else
to describe the actions of someone like Senator Dianne Feinstein.
You might recall that it was Feinstein, the ranking
member of the Judiciary Committee, who withheld Christine Blasey Ford’s
allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh
from the Senate so that it could not be properly vetted, in a last-ditch effort
to sink the nomination.
Feinstein knew that Ford’s credibility was brittle — the
alleged victim could not tell us where or when the attack occurred, hadn’t
mentioned Kavanugh’s name to anyone for over 30 years, and offered nothing
approaching a contemporaneous witness.
At first, Feinstein did not want to provide Ford’s name,
or a place or time of the alleged attack, or allow the accused to see any
evidence against him, denying him the ability to answer the charges.
Henceforth this brand of justice could be referred to as
“The
Joe Biden Standard,” since it’s exactly the kind of show trial the
presumptive Democratic nominee promises college kids via Title IX rules.
When finally asked about Reade yesterday, Feinstein
responded: “And I don’t know this person at all who has made the allegations.
She came out of nowhere. Where has she been all these years? He was vice
president.”
To put this in perspective, when Ford came forward “out
of nowhere,” Feinstein said:
“Victims must be able to come forward only when they are ready.”
What’s changed?
During the Kavanaugh hearings Feinstein noted
that “sharing an experience involving sexual assault — particularly when it
involves a politically connected man with influence, authority and power — is
extraordinarily difficult.”
Is Biden not a politically connected man with influence, authority,
and power? Feinstein is now arguing the opposite: She is saying we should
dismiss Reade’s allegations because she failed to come forward against a
powerful man earlier.
But to answer Feinstein’s question about what Reade has
been “up to” the past 27 years: Well, she’s been telling people
that Biden had engaged in sexual misconduct. She relayed her story to her
former neighbor, her brother, her former co-worker, and at least two other
friends. It is also likely that her mother called Larry King Live asking
for advice for her daughter the year of the alleged attack.
Yesterday a document uncovered by local journalists in
California — somehow missed by Barack Obama’s crack vetting team — shows
Reade’s ex-husband bolstering her claim in 1996 divorce proceedings:
“On several occasions [Reade] related a problem that she was having at work
regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office.”
The reaction to the divorce papers has been
extraordinary. Biden defenders argue that because Reade alleged “sexual
harassment” — a catch-all term used in the 1990s when men were getting away
with despicable behavior far more often — it proves her story has changed.
Biden, through his deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield, alleges that “more
and more inconsistencies” come up every day.
Even if Reade didn’t tell everyone everything that
allegedly happened every time she mentioned the incident, that doesn’t
definitively prove anything. If it did, none of us would have ever heard the
name Christine Blasey Ford.
Indeed, at time of Ford’s evolving story, there was a
slew of journalists taking deep dives into the unreliability of memory and
trauma and complexities of relaying assault allegations. I assume that science
hasn’t changed in two years.
Let’s also not forget that, despite Ford’s
inconsistencies, Biden still argued that Kavanaugh should
be presumed guilty. Why shouldn’t he?
It is also quite amazing to see Biden’s defenders
implicitly contending that Reade is only credibly claiming that she was
sexually harassed for nearly 30 years, so her story must be politically
motivated.
Even if we concede that Reade is a wily Sanders operative
or Putin stooge, what political motive could Reade possibly have had back in
1993 — after working for Biden — to smear the senator? What motive did she have
to repeat that story to her family before Sanders was a candidate or Putin was
running Russia?
By the way, liberals have never argued that political
motivations should be disqualifying. Ford came forward, by her own admission,
because she did not believe the man who had allegedly assaulted her in high
school should be given a seat on highest court in the land. Reade says she
doesn’t want a man who allegedly assaulted her — when he was in his 50s — to
hold the most powerful office in the world.
Feinstein, of course, isn’t the only one to engage in
this kind of transparent double standard. When asked about Reade, the idealist
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said, “I’m not sure. Frankly, this is a messy moment,
and I think we need to acknowledge that — that it is not clear-cut.”
Where was all this hand-wringing and caution over the
messiness of sexual-assault claims when nearly every Democrat and all their
allies in the press were spreading Julie Swetnick’s alleged “gang rape” piece?
Nowhere.
AOC, whose position on Biden has evolved, invited Ana
Maria Archila, the women who had famously cornered a weak-kneed senator Jeff
Flake in an elevator and yelled at him about Kavanaugh, to the 2019 State of
the Union address. Archila now says,
“I feel very trapped.”
I bet.
People point out that there are numerous
sexual-misconduct allegations leveled at Donald Trump. Indeed. If they haven’t
yet, news outlets should scrutinize and investigate the credibility of those
allegations, as they did for Biden but not for Kavanaugh. But it’s important to
remember that Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll was given immediate and widespread
coverage on cable news, while Reade reportedly wasn’t asked to tell her story
by any major network — save Fox News — until this week.
Of course, most Biden defenders are being purposely
obtuse about the debate — Mona Charen’s recent column
is an excellent example. The problem isn’t that Biden is being treated
unjustly, or that he should be treated unjustly; it’s that he is being
treated justly by the same people who treat others unjustly. Democrats have yet
to explain why Biden is afforded every benefit of the doubt but not Kavanaugh,
and not millions of college students.
Public figures such as Biden have every right to demand
fair hearings and due process. Voters have every right to judge the credibility
of both accuser and accused. Many women are victims. Many women are victims who
are powerless to prove it. And some women are frauds. You can’t keep demanding
that our political system adjudicate similar incidents under two completely
differ set of rules. It’s untenable.
No comments:
Post a Comment