Joe Biden On Tara Reade: ‘It Never Happened’

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former Vice President Joe Biden pointedly denied the accusations by former staffer Tara Reade that he sexually assaulted her in 1993.

Mika Brzezinski began an interview with Biden by launching directly into the allegations in a hardhitting interview, saying, “Please excuse the graphic nature of this, but I want to make sure there is no question as to what we are talking about.”

“She says in 1993, Mr. Vice President, that you pinned her against the wall and reached under her clothing and penetrated her with your fingers,” Brzezinksi said. “Would you please go on the record with the American people, did you sexually assault Tara Reade?”

Biden’s answer was clear and direct, “No, it is not true. I’m saying unequivocally, it never, never happened. And it didn’t, it never happened.”

Brzezinki pressed further, “Do you remember her? Do you remember any types of complaints that she might have made?”

“I don’t remember any type of complaint she may have made,” Biden responded. “It was 27 years ago and I don’t remember – nor does anyone else that I’m aware of – and the fact is that I don’t remember. I don’t remember any complaint ever having been made.”

Brzezinksi then asked if Biden or members of his campaign had “reached out” to Reade.

“No, I have not reached out to her,” Biden said. “It was 27 years ago, this never happened, and when she first made the claim we made it clear that it never happened and it’s as simple as that.”

Brzezinski then questioned Biden on a statement that his campaign released saying that there was “only one place” that Reade’s original complaint could be found: The National Archives. The statement asks the Secretary of the Senate to identify any relevant records in the Archive and to release them.

“Are you preparing us for a complaint that might be revealed in some way?” Brzezinski asked. “Are you confident there is nothing?

“I’m confident there’s nothing,” Biden replied. “No one ever brought it to the attention of me 27 years ago, this or any assertion at all. No one that I’m aware of in my campaign, my Senate office at the time, is aware of any such request or any such complaint, and so I’m not worried about it all. If there is a complaint, that’s where it would be. That’s where it would be filed. And, if it’s there, put it out, but I’ve never seen it. No one has that I’m aware of.”

“Since you want to set the record straight,” Brzezinski probed, “why limit this to Tara Reade? Why not release any complaints that have been made against you during your Senate career?

“I’m prepared to do that,” Biden answered. “To the best of my knowledge, there have been no complaints against me in terms of my Senate career and my office and how things have been run. Look, this is an open book. There’s nothing for me to hide. Nothing at all.”

Brzezinksi then backtracked to the Kavanaugh hearings and Biden’s statement at the time that “you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she is talking about is real, whether or not she forgets the facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time.”

“Should we not start off with the presumption that the essence of what she said is real?” Brzezinski asked. “She says you sexually assaulted her.”

“Look,” Biden said. “From the very beginning I’ve said believing women means taking the woman’s claim seriously when she steps forward and then vet it. Look into it. That’s true in this case as well. Women have a right to be heard and the pressure to vigorously investigate claims that they make. I’ll always uphold that principle, but in the end, in every case, the truth is what matters and, in this case, the truth is that the claims are false.”

“Is it possible these claims are in an NDA [nondisclosure agreement]?” Brzezinksi asked. “Do you have any NDAs that have been signed by women who were employed by you?”

“There is no NDA signed,” Biden answered. “I’ve never asked anyone to sign an NDA. There are no NDAs. Period. In my case, none.”

Brzezinski then asked about Biden’s Senate documents which held at the University of Delaware. The university says the papers are still being curated, a process that is expected to continue until 2021. The papers are due to be released two years after Biden’s retirement. Brzezinksi alleged that access to the documents had been changed and asked if Biden would release the documents in the interests of “complete transparency.”

“They weren’t supposed to be revealed,” Biden answered, refuting the claim that the schedule for release had been altered. “I gave them to the university and the university said it’s going to take them time to go through all the boxes. They said it wouldn’t be before 2020 that that occurred. Or 2021. I can’t remember the year that they said.”

“But look, a record like this can only be one place,” he continued. “It would not be at the University of Delaware. My archives do not contain personal files. My documents contain – and when I say ‘personal’ I mean ‘personnel’ files, they don’t contain any personnel files. They are public records. My speeches, my papers, my position papers, and, if that document exists, it would be stored at the National Archives where documents from the office she claims to have filed a complaint with are stored. That’s where they are stored. The Senate controls those archives. So, I’m asking the Secretary of the Senate today to identify whether any such document exists. If it does, make it public.”

When asked why he thought Reade was making the allegations, Biden anwered, “I’m not going to question her motive, I’m not going to get into that at all. I don’t know why she’s saying this. I don’t know why, after 27 years, all of a sudden this gets raised. I don’t understand it, but I’m not going to go in and question her motive, I’m not going to attack her.”

“She has a right to say whatever she wants to say,” he added, “but I have a right to say, ‘Look at the facts, check it out. Find out whether any of what she has said or asserted is true.'”

“That was not the atmosphere in my office at all,” Biden continued. “No one has ever said anything like this.

The interview did become contentious when Brzezinksi pressed the issue of a search of the University of Delaware files for Tara Reade’s name. Biden maintained that the files did not pertain to the case, but that they did contain other confidential records of meetings with presidents and other heads of state. When Biden pressed on how such a search would be conducted, Brzezinski was at a loss.

Joe Biden’s forceful and direct answers to difficult questions will help his campaign. He makes a credible case that Reade’s claims are false. That will be enough for his campaign to move forward.

The matter will hinge on whether the Senate archives produce the original complaint that Reade allegedly filed in 1993. If she is telling the truth, this document should still be on record. Regardless, the rumors will likely be kept alive by Biden’s political opponents.

Biden helped himself in another way in the interview as well. He appeared rational and lucid throughout the exchange. This is in contrast with allegations by the Trump campaign that Biden is suffering from age-related mental problems. Although there were a few stumbles, the candidate appeared as normal as anyone in a live, high-stakes interview. It may be that Biden is clumsy at reading from a teleprompter but is more smooth and direct when speaking from the heart.

Don’t expect the accusations to go away after this interview, but unless Tara Reade can produce more evidence that her encounter with Biden actually happened, the matter will begin to fade into the background.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Biden Accuser’s Neighbor: ‘This Happened’

Intially there seemed to be little substance to the sexual assault accusation against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Over the past few days, more evidence to corroborate the accuser’s story has emerged.

Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the 1990s, told Business Insider, “This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it.” Lacasse says that she discussed details of the assault with Reade at the time.

“I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him,” LaCasse said. “And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.”

“I don’t remember all the details,” LaCasse added. “I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”

A second woman, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the 1990s, said that Reade told her at the time that she had been sexually harrassed by a former boss in Washington. Sanchez also said that Reade said that she had been fired for bringing up the assault. Sanchez does not recall the details or if Biden’s name was mentioned.

Late last week, a video clip of Reade’s mother emerged as she called in to “Larry King Live.” In the segment from August 11, 1993, the woman says that her daughter had “problems” with a “prominent senator” and considered going to the press but did not “out of respect for him.” The caller does not mention Reade or Biden by name and does not disclose the nature of the problems.

Previously, two of Reade’s friends had told the New York Times that they were aware of the incident. The Times report, which interviewed Reade, several of her friends, and a bevy of people who worked for Biden, did not find any further allegations of sexual assault, but seven women did report that Biden had made them feel uncomfortable with kissing, hugging, or inappropriate touching.

Reade alleges that Biden went much further. In a podcast interview with Katie Halper on March 25 and subsequently with NPR, she claimed, “His hands went underneath my clothing and he was touching me in my private areas and without my consent.”

When she pulled away, she says that Biden pointed his finger and told her, “You’re nothing to me, nothing,” before taking hold of her shoulders and telling her, “You’re OK, you’re fine, you’re OK.”

Reade doesn’t remember exactly where or when the incident took place, but believes it to have been the basement of the Senate office building in the spring of 1993. At the time, she was a staffer for Senator Biden.

While the circumstantial evidence is mounting, there are also problems with Reade’s story. Reade originally accused Biden of inappropriate touching of her shoulder and neck in April 2019. Reade now says that she didn’t tell the full story at first because “I just didn’t have the courage.”

Reade also says that she told several other Biden staffers about the incident, again without mentioning the penetration, in 1993 but none corroborates her story. Politico reports that she claims to have told Dennis Toner, a senior staffer, then-chief of staff Ted Kaufman, and two others in the office.

Kaufman responded with a denial, saying, “She did not come to me. I would have remembered her if she had. And I do not remember her.”

Likewise, Toner said, ” “I can’t believe there’s any truth to this whatsoever. It’s out of character. It was never alleged. It makes no sense. And if anyone says I had any conversation about this whatsoever, it’s false. That never happened.”

Further, as recently as 2017, Reade (then Tara McCabe) seemed sympathetic to Joe Biden in a tweet.

Cheri Jacobus

✔@CheriJacobus

 · 16h

If we’re forced to talk about Tara (once they decide which of her many versions of her story to run with),we finally get to talk about 25+ sexual asssult allegations against Trump incl rape of a 13 year-old girl, right? Or Is media still protecting him bcs he’s good for ratings?

Rob Wagner @wagner_rob

I don't understand why Tara -old Twitter account- would praise Joe in 2017. Why would anyone who claims to be a sexual assault victim, praise -unprompted- their assaulter?

545

8:11 PM - Apr 27, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

180 people are talking about this

At this point, it is unclear whether Joe Biden assaulted Tara Reade but there is sufficient reason to investigate further. It is also unclear what effect a lone accusation from 27 years ago will have on the campaign, particularly as Biden faces a president who has his own sexual assault baggage. At last count, at least 25 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct and at least one lawsuit is pending. It’s possible that both campaigns will avoid the issue in a version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

For her part, Lacasse believes Reade’s story, saying, “I have to support her just because that’s what happened. We need to stand up and tell the truth.”

But that won’t stop her from voting for Joe Biden over Donald Trump. “I personally am a Democrat, a very strong Democrat,” she said. “And I’m for Biden, regardless. But still I have to come out and say this.”

Originally published on the resurgent

Conspiracy Activists Accused Of Framing Mueller For Rape

The special counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller referred new allegations to the FBI for investigation yesterday. These new allegations don’t involve Russian meddling in American elections, however. Instead, they relate to an attempt by conservative activists to frame Mr. Mueller for sexual assault.

The story began when the Gateway Pundit reported that “Robert Mueller was accused by a very credible witness of rape.” The story, which has since been removed, alleged that Mueller raped a woman in the St. Regis Hotel in New York in 2010.

The story quickly collapsed when two women claimed that they had been offered money in exchange for accusing Mueller of sexual misconduct. Lorraine Parsons, in an email obtained by The Atlantic, described how a man with a British accent from a company called Surefire Intelligence had contacted her because she worked as a paralegal for Mueller in 1974. Parsons said that the man told her he had been hired by “some sort of politics guy in Washington named Jack Burkman.” Burkman is a talk show host and lobbyist best known for pushing conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich.

Burkman tweeted at noon on Tuesday, “On Thursday, November 1, at the Rosslyn Holiday Inn at noon, we will reveal the first of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's sex assault victims. I applaud the courage and dignity and grace and strength of my client.”

Parson’s email describing the plot to defame Mueller was sent to numerous journalists. In it, she described how the man who contacted her “said (and I will never forget exactly what it was) ‘I want you to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller, and I want you to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect.’”

In exchange for her testimony, she wrote, the man “offered to pay off all of my credit card debt, plus bring me a check for $20,000 if I would do” it.  She added, “He knew exactly how much credit card debt I had, right down to the dollar, which sort of freaked me out.”

The trail to Surefire Intelligence showed that the company was incorporated in Delaware only a few weeks ago per The Atlantic. The records for the company’s website domain registry led to another activist, Jacob Wohl. Wohl’s email was listed as a contact and a telephone number on the Surefire website belonged to Wohl’s mother.

Wohl is an avid Trump supporter and former hedge fund manager. He was accused of cheating clients of his fund as well as using pictures of women without permission on his website. More recently, Wohl has operated a conspiracy website, The Washington Reporter.

At midday on Oct. 30, Wohl teased the upcoming release of the Mueller story, tweeting, “Several media sources tell me that a scandalous story about Mueller is breaking tomorrow. Should be interesting. Stay tuned!”

Interestingly, Jane Mayer of the New Yorker pointed out on Twitter that Wohl and Matthew Cohen, the founder of Surefire Intelligence, bear a striking resemblance to one another. In fact, the two appear to be the same person.

If that weren’t enough, a second woman has also come forward to claim that Surefire approached her about her “encounters with Robert Mueller.” Jennifer Taub, a Vermont Law School professor, says that the company offered to pay her for information about Mueller. Taub, who says that she has never met or had contact with Mueller but has acted as a legal expert about the Mueller investigation for news organizations, promptly forwarded the email from Surefire to the special counsel office. Taub discussed the solicitation in a phone call with MSNBC.

To its credit, the Gateway Pundit has removed the allegations about Mueller from its website. A message at the link where the story was posted says, “We took the documents down and we are currently investigating these accusations. There are also very serious allegations against Jacob Wohl. We are also looking into this.” The site also notes, “There is still a press conference scheduled for Thursday at noon in Washington DC.”

Both Burkman and Wohl deny the allegations against them. Burkman tweeted,“The allegations of paying a woman are false.  The left is trying to defend Mueller against sex assault allegations so they attack me in desperation.” Burkman also tweeted, “The woman to whom we allegedly offered payment--Lorraine Parsons--does not exist.”

In a series of tweets, Wohl said the media was “accusing me of offering to pay accusers with ZERO PROOF and ZERO EVIDENCE!” He also claimed that “this ‘woman’ who claims she was offered payment is actually just an invention of the MSM aimed at discrediting the actual accuser (who is VERY credible).”

Wohl and Burkman both claim that their press conference will go ahead as scheduled on Thursday. It should be interesting to see if they follow through with their plans and who, if anyone, shows up to accuse Mueller with them.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why This Rape Victim Is Pro-Kavanaugh

Much has been written about the #MeToo opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The accusations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh have stirred many to protest his impending confirmation to the Supreme Court. However, scant attention has been paid to the victims of sexual violence who support Kavanaugh.

One of the survivors of sexual assault who strongly supports Brett Kavanaugh is Debi Thornton of Columbus, Georgia. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll state here for the record that Mrs. Thornton is my beautiful wife of 18 years.

When she was 15-years-old, Debi was raped by three men as she walked through a wooded area between the high school she attended and the middle school where her mother was a teacher. The men threatened her life if she told anyone what happened. Debi didn’t tell for several days, but her family noticed a change in her personality after the attack. She eventually told her parents what had happened and they notified the local authorities.

What happened after that still makes Debi feel angry. She eventually identified one of the men who was a local star athlete who had graduated years before the attack after she saw him in walking around at a high school football game. The sheriff’s department took her to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation where she passed a polygraph exam. Despite the polygraph results, the local law enforcement never pursued the case and Debi never got justice. The man who raped her went on to attack two other young girls, was kicked out of two colleges and today is a registered sex offender in her hometown.

When it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, Debi says, “I think he’s a good guy and I don’t think he did it.” She adds, “I think he was defending himself and his family during the testimony when he got angry. “I think anyone who’s accused of anything like this would fight tooth and nail,” she says, “I mean, who wouldn’t get angry?”

When Debi really starts talking is when she discusses Christine Ford, a woman she says is “a liar.” She says that victims “remember everything about their attack.” Debi says that “my story has not changed over the years” as Ford’s story has. “You don’t forget the details.”

“When something like this happens, others around you see something has changed within you and they keep pushing you until you tell somebody,” she added, “you don’t wait that long. Even if you don’t go to the police, you tell somebody.” She also says that “Ford’s friends and family would have noticed a change in her behavior following the attack.” So far, no one has come forward to testify that they noticed a change in Ford’s personality after the alleged attack by Kavanaugh and there is no evidence that Ford discussed the attack with anyone prior to 2012.

Debi also did not find Ford’s testimony before the Senate believable. “I feel like there were no real tears,” she said. “I feel like it was an act. She didn’t get angry. You don’t just smile and giggle and look cute. You don’t high-five your lawyers when it’s over.”

“I would be angry if I was giving the testimony,” Debi said. “I wouldn’t say ‘I don’t remember,’ because you remember everything.”

“My case and hers were different because I didn’t know the men until I saw one at the game,” she said. “But everything about her, her facial expressions, everything, it just didn’t match up with how a true sexual abuse victim would act. The body language just wasn’t there. She was trying to be and look cute and sidestep questions. She had to think about what she was going to say and she had to look at her attorneys. You don’t have to get an answer from someone else because they weren’t there.”

“You can remember who did it, but you can’t remember what happened before or after?” Debi asked sarcastically. “That’s wishy-washy. She only got two questions on her polygraph and she can’t remember whether it was before or after her grandmother’s funeral. You don’t forget these things.”

In Debi’s case, even though she remembered everything, it took years to come to terms with her attack. Several years ago, seeking closure, she went back to her hometown in Georgia in hopes of examining her case file. She found that the sheriff’s department had destroyed the entire file. Even her permanent record from the school system had disappeared. She spoke with the city police chief who criticized how the sheriff’s department had handled the case but said that the statute of limitations had run out on the crime.  

In late September, as the allegations mounted against Kavanaugh, Debi went on Facebook Live to give her own testimony about her attack. She notes that she was very emotional in her recording, unlike Ford in her Senate testimony. She notes that she has spoken with other victims of sexual abuse who are also skeptical of Ford’s testimony on the “Confirm Kavanaugh” Facebook page.

“I don’t want to make this political,” said Debi. “Because sexual abuse shouldn’t be political, but if Ford really cares about sexual abuse she should donate the money from her Go Fund Me accounts to a sexual abuse victims foundation.”

“I do think she should be charged [for perjury],” said Debi, choking back emotion, “And everyone that helped her concoct her little skit.”

Debi has mixed emotions on the #MeToo movement in general. “I think it would have been really good to highlight it,” she said, “but many jumped on the bandwagon because they wanted personal attention and were falsely accusing people. Some probably were telling the truth, but a lot of them fabricated things just to get attention or because they were mad at somebody.”

“You have to look at the evidence,” Debi said. “Women don’t always tell the truth. You have to look at body language and the evidence. People need to think for themselves and not just go by the political party. This shouldn’t be about politics.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Just Say No To Me-Too McCarthyism

The campaign against Brett Kavanaugh has been likened to a witch hunt. While it’s true that the unverified claims against Judge Kavanaugh are reminiscent of the days when people denounced their neighbors for supposedly practicing witchcraft, it also resembles a much more recent period of American history: The McCarthy era.

Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) became infamous for his hunt for communist infiltrators in the US government from 1950 to 1954.  McCarthy’s witch hunt began with a speech on February 9, 1950 in which he claimed to have a list of 205 members of the State Department who were “members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring.” McCarthy made accusations – without evidence – against a number of people both inside and outside of government.

McCarthy had a large following but eventually overplayed his hand when his Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held hearings to investigate the army. When the army’s legal representative, Joseph Welch, asked McCarthy to provide his list of communists to the committee, McCarthy accused a member of Welch’s law firm of being a communist, Welch fired back, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” About the same time, Edward R. Murrow, a prominent journalist of the day, attacked McCarthy on his show. The two incidents caused McCarthy’s support to ebb.

The attacks on Kavanaugh are similar to McCarthy’s tactics. People accuse him of sexual assault and rape without any corroborating evidence. Like McCarthy’s accusations of communist conspiracies, the sum total of the accusations against Kavanaugh is the accusations themselves.

I don’t know whether Kavanaugh’s accusers are telling the truth or not, whether they are mistaken or not or whether their stories are exaggerated. What I do know is that none of the women who have come forward have presented evidence or witnesses to support their claims.

If the only evidence that Americans now need to destroy a person’s life is an accusation without supporting evidence, then no American is safe. Unfounded allegations can be levied against anyone, male or female. Whether they are to be believed depends more on which party they belong to than the evidence at hand.

Sexual assault is a serious matter, just as communist infiltration was in the 1950s, but spurious charges only serve to distract from the real problem. If Kavanaugh’s appointment is scuttled by charges without supporting evidence, then the tactic will be used over and over again until Americans reject it as they rejected Joseph McCarthy. Real victims of sexual abuse will be lost in the background noise.

More than an unsupported accusation should be required before we, as a country, decide to ruin a man’s life and career. Brett Kavanaugh’s record as a lawyer and judge has been spotless for almost 30 years. To stop his confirmation, the Democrats had to go back more than three decades to impeach his character with allegations not supported by witnesses or evidence.

Edward R. Murrow’s words from 1954 are just as applicable today as the modern McCarthys seek to destroy an honorable man.

“This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve,” Murrow said. “He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’”

Originally published on The Resurgent

It's Time To Confirm Brett Kavanaugh

Senate Republicans should bite the bullet and move ahead with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

I am very sympathetic to women who have been the subject of sexual harassment or abuse, but the accusations presented by Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez both lack supporting evidence. In the case of Ford, the evidence was so weak that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) sat on the accusations until a week before Kavanaugh’s scheduled confirmation vote. No corroborating evidence has been presented to back up Dr. Ford’s testimony and three people (Patrick Smyth, Mark Judge, and Leland Keyser) in addition to Judge Kavanaugh have denied the allegations.

Kavanaugh’s second accuser only came forward as Republicans were planning to move forward with Ford’s testimony. As Erick Erickson pointed out, Ramirez, who waited as long as possible to come forward, seems uncertain that it was even Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her. The New Yorker did not corroborate Ramirez’s claims with other witnesses. There seems to be some doubt that Kavanaugh was even at the party in question.

Unlike Roy Moore’s accusers, there is so far no evidence to back up the claims from either woman. Unlike Donald Trump’s Access Hollywood tape or Corey Booker’s 1992 college newspaper article, there is no tape or written mea culpa in which Kavanaugh admits to questionable behavior. Unlike Al Franken, there is no photo of Kavanaugh with his hand on an accuser’s nether regions.

It seems obvious that the allegations were brought forward by Democrats only to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote. The Democrats apparently hope that they can delay the confirmation vote until after the new Congress takes office next year or at least until after the midterm elections. In that case, they could argue that the Senate should follow the example of Merrick Garland and delay the confirmation vote until the new Congress is seated.  

It’s time to put up or shut up. If the Democrats cannot bring forward more substantial evidence that Brett Kavanaugh should not be confirmed then Republicans should forge ahead immediately following Dr. Ford’s testimony on Thursday. Unless Ramirez can present more evidence, the Senate should not dignify her accusation with the opportunity to testify.

The problem with forging ahead is that Republicans only have a two-vote advantage in the Senate. If Republican mavericks such as Susan Collins (Maine) or Jeff Flake (Arizona) cross the aisle then the result would be an embarrassing defeat for the GOP. Nevertheless, holding the Republican caucus together on a matter so clear-cut as the accusations against Kavanaugh would be a worthy issue for a test of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Trump’s ability to lead their caucus.

Although there is potential for some political blowback from moving ahead, there is also the possibility that confirming Kavanaugh would help the Republicans in the midterms. A successful confirmation could help excite the Republican voters where a failure to confirm might depress Republican turnout. At any rate, dire midterm forecasts suggest that the GOP has little to lose with a confirmation. If Republicans cannot come together to resist the unsubstantiated smearing of political appointee like Brett Kavanaugh, there would be little point in returning their Senate majority anyway.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats Seize The Moral High Ground

Republicans have a tendency toward shooting themselves in the foot and this week was no exception. With their abrupt about-face on accused sexual harassers John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), the Democrats have captured the moral high on the issue of sexual misbehavior.

For a while it seemed as though both parties would look equally hypocritical on the issue of sexual misdeeds. For weeks, the lists of officials in both parties who were credibly named by numerous accusers grew longer and longer while partisans promptly excused their allies and condemned their enemies.

That changed this week when the Democratic Party suddenly turned first against Conyers and then against Franken. Conyers announced his retirement on Wednesday. Franken’s resignation came on Thursday after 32 Democratic senators called on him to resign.

The Democrat reversal could not have come at a more inopportune time for Republicans. After tepid support for Roy Moore for several weeks, President Trump endorsed Moore on Monday with a charge to the accused child molester to “Go get 'em, Roy!” The same day Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had previously called on Moore to drop out of the race, said, “ It'll be up to the people of Alabama to make this decision” and dismissed the possibility that the Senate would refuse to seat Moore if we wins. The Republican National Committee, which had previously severed ties with Moore suddenly made a contribution of $170,000 to Moore’s financially strapped campaign.

Perhaps the Democrats were waiting on the Republicans to go all-in on Moore to offer up Conyers and Franken as sacrificial lambs. Perhaps the timing was coincidental due to new revelations about Conyers and Franken. In any case, the events of the week could not have been better timed for Democrats.

Moore, who has said that he didn’t “generally” date teenage girls when he was in his 30s, seems to retain a slight lead in polling for the Alabama Senate race. This in spite of contradictory statements about the sexual assault allegations and whether he dated his wife while she was still married to her first husband as well as other scandals such as financial improprieties at his charity and his advancement of conspiracy theories.  

It was a classic bait and switch. Republicans took the bait and supported Roy Moore and the Democrats promptly switched to a hardline on sexual misconduct. The result will be that for the remainder of the Alabama campaign, and though the 2018 elections if Moore wins, Democrats will batter Republicans about the head with charges that the party, which claims to be the party of Christian principles and family values, fully supported a candidate who is credibly accused of being a sexual predator of teenage girls.

What’s worse is that the Democrats will be absolutely right. In the 2018 elections, Republicans will already be defending a do-nothing Congress and an erratic and unpopular president. Now, they must justify their support for Roy Moore as well.

The GOP has faced a similar conundrum in the past. In 1991, David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Louisiana. In an election that presaged this decade’s races to the bottom, Duke’s opponent was Edwin Edwards, a Democrat who had been tried twice on charges of mail fraud, obstruction of justice, and bribery. Edwards was so disliked by Louisiana Republicans that the outgoing governor, Buddy Roemer, coined the slogan, “Anyone but Edwards.”

That year, unlike recent history, Republicans did not embrace a flawed candidate, claiming that the opposition was worse. Instead, Republicans did the unthinkable. Pushing their partisan tendencies aside, the Louisiana GOP endorsed Democrat Edwards under the slogan, “Vote for the crook. It’s important.”

The question for today’s Republicans is, “What is important?” 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Hillary: People Are 'Misremembering' How I Attacked Bill's Accusers

According to Hillary Clinton, people are “misremembering” her role in attacking the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. The comments came in an interview last week with radio personality Rita Cosby that was part of Mrs. Clinton’s promotional tour for her book, “What Happened.”

Cosby asked the former First Lady if she had any regrets about not being supportive of the women who accused President Clinton and her role in “sort of attacking the victims.”

Clinton responded with a long, meandering answer that never directly addressed the question posed by Cosby, but implied that Bill Clinton’s accusers were all liars. Clinton began by saying that “every situation has to be judged on its own merits,” but that “people are either misremembering or misinterpreting history.”

“Of course, you should give people who make such allegations the benefit of the doubt, that's what our system does,” Clinton said, “but then you have to investigate them.”

“There were allegations that were disproved,” Clinton claimed. “There were allegations that were absolutely contradicted under sworn testimony.”

In reality, the accusations against Bill Clinton are very similar to the accusations against Donald Trump and Roy Moore.  In many cases, sexual harassment and assault accusations are based largely on the testimony of the parties involved with little or no physical evidence.

In the cases of “he said/she said” in which women accused Bill Clinton, Hillary clearly took her husband’s side. Hillary called the women “bimbos” and “trailer trash” and allegedly threatened to destroy their reputations, notes the Daily Wire.

Despite Hillary’s claim that the allegations against Bill Clinton were disproved, the former president did admit to affairs with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers, two of the women that Hillary Clinton had attacked. In other cases, the truth is still elusive. Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones still stand by their stories of sexual assault at that hands of Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton’s defense of her husband is one more case of sexual hypocrisy. Partisans of both sides are more interested in using abused women as a weapon against their opponents than in helping them find justice. Hillary Clinton is no different. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Two Quotes That Show How Much The Parties Value Character

The past week laid bare the deepest motivations of many people in American politics. While both parties claim to be the champions of morality and virtue, people paying attention were disabused of the notion that either party is more concerned with character than votes.

On Friday, Kate Harding, a self-described “feminist and the author of a book on rape culture,” wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post offering a partisan defense of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). Harding doesn’t defend Franken’s bad behavior. Instead, she defends his political affiliation.

“It would feel good, momentarily, to see Franken resign and the Democratic governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, appoint a senator who has not (as far as we know) harmed women,” Harding writes. “If I believed for one second that Franken is the only Democrat in the Senate who has done something like this, with or without photographic evidence, I would see that as the best and most appropriate option. But in the world we actually live in, I’m betting that there will be more. And more after that. And they won’t all come from states with Democratic governors and a deep bench of progressive replacements. Some will, if ousted, have their successors chosen by Republicans.”

Yes, you heard that correctly. Harding is openly admitting that the only reason that she doesn’t want to see Franken punished is that it would set a precedent in which other Democrats, ones who might be replaced by Republicans, might also be forced to resign.

Harding’s position is obviously partisan and hypocritical, particularly from a feminist in the party that five years ago claimed that Mitt Romney and Republicans were waging a “war on women.” What is shocking is how blatant Harding’s hypocrisy is. In her world, political affiliation means more than justice for women who were harassed or abused by Democrats. Republicans rightly denounced the political calculations of Democrats like Harding.

But wait, as they say, there’s more!

The very same day, at the same moment that Republicans were denouncing Kate Harding’s hypocrisy, the Republican governor of Alabama was making a remarkably similar statement. “I believe in the Republican Party, what we stand for, and most important, we need to have a Republican in the United States Senate to vote on things like the Supreme Court justices, other appointments the Senate has to confirm and make major decisions,” Gov. Kay Ivey (R) said on AL.com. “So that's what I plan to do, vote for Republican nominee Roy Moore.”

At the same time, Ivey acknowledged that the allegations made against Moore were credible. “I certainly have no reason to disbelieve any of them,” she said. “The timing is a little curious. But at the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve them.”

Ivey says that she believes in what the Republican Party stands for, but what does the party stand for if it refuses to condemn a man who is credibly accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl and harassing numerous others? It seems that what the new Republican Party stands for is electing Republican candidates at all costs.

Republicans and Democrats finally have found something that they can agree on. They both believe that party politics trumps concerns about character. Unfortunately for the rest of the country, the point of agreement found by the two parties will only serve to further divide the country.

Democrats and Republicans stand united in their hypocrisy. Both seem only too willing to compromise their core beliefs in order to support politicians that represent what they purport to hate. Any man who forces himself on a woman would be rightfully condemned by the left… as long he isn’t a Democrat official. The right would be ready to castrate a 30-year-old man who cruised malls trying to pick up teenage girls… as long as he wasn’t a Republican candidate.

In a perfect world, our politicians would be held to a higher standard than the people they govern. In the real world, the two parties excuse their own members by pointing to the bad behavior of those on the other side. It is a race to the bottom in which both sides claim, “Your pervert is worse than ours.” The truth is that when feminists back misogynists and Christians support an alleged child molester, they have already lost, regardless of whether their candidate wins. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Roy Moore Isn’t Going Anywhere - Neither are His Supporters

As prominent Republicans call for Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore to step down amid allegations that he had inappropriate sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl in 1979 when Moore was 32, the flamboyant Republican is refusing to drop out of the race. In a series of tweets Thursday night, Moore vowed to “NEVER GIVE UP the fight!”

“The Obama-Clinton Machine’s liberal media lapdogs just launched the most vicious and nasty round of attacks against me I’ve EVER faced!” Moore said in the first of four tweets. “We are are in the midst of a spiritual battle with those who want to silence our message.”

“The forces of evil will lie, cheat, steal –– even inflict physical harm –– if they believe it will silence and shut up Christian conservatives like you and me,” Moore said in the second tweet in the series.

“I believe you and I have a duty to stand up and fight back against the forces of evil waging an all-out war on our conservative values!” the third tweet said. “Our nation is at a crossroads right now — both spiritually and politically.”

“Our children and grandchildren’s futures are on the line. So rest assured — I will NEVER GIVE UP the fight!” Moore concluded.

The final tweet also contained a statement in which Moore said that the accusations were a “fabrication” and a “completely false and desperate political attack.”

The accusations against Moore are serious and credible enough to end the Senate hopes of a candidate in any era but this one. Republican leaders, including President Trump, have urged Moore to withdraw from the race, but it is Donald Trump’s example that will inspire Moore and his supporters to fight on. After all, it was only last year that Republicans decided that a history of sexual assault was not disqualifying for their presidential nominee.

The Moore campaign can make a credible case that the accusations against Moore are less damning than those against Donald Trump. In Trump’s case, the candidate was caught on tape in 2005 when he was 59. There was no denying the candidate’s own words. In Moore’s case, it is his word against that of his accusers about events almost 40 years ago. Moore says that the accusations are not true and many of his supporters will take him at his word.

There is also a difference in the amount of evidence. At least 16 women came forward against Donald Trump and his supporters considered them all liars in spite of Trump’s admissions on the “Access Hollywood” tape and boasts of sexual conquests in his books. In Moore’s case, the candidate has been happily married for 33 years and does not have a reputation as a ladies man. Even if Moore’s supporters accept the accusations as true, Moore’s track record for the past three decades gives them room to write off the incidents as youthful indiscretions that are not representative of his current character.

Finally, the argument could by made that voters looked the other way with Donald Trump because the possibility that Hillary Clinton would become president was simply to horrible to accept. A similar argument can be made that preserving the Republican majority in the Senate so vital that it is necessary to overlook Moore’s actions of four decades ago.

Republicans have been unable to advance their agenda already and a loss of the Alabama seat would cut the GOP majority to a single vote. This would effectively end any chance of enacting conservative reforms. It would also make it easier for Democrats to win control of the Senate outright next year.

For all these reasons, Roy Moore will not leave the race and the vast majority of Republicans will stand by him. After elevating an admitted philanderer and “p-ssy grabber” to the head of the party of family values and the country as a whole, it will be easy to stand by someone like Moore. After compromising your principles once, it is very easy to do it again.

For a Republican Party that now seems to put politics over character and values, the descent has been swift. A year ago the party found a way to excuse Donald Trump’s behavior as “locker room talk” and private matters between consenting adults. Now many Republicans are well on the way to rationalizing child molestation.

Originally published on The Resurgent