The Biden campaign has been bound to sexual harassment allegations from the get-go. He addressed his historically infamous misconduct in a 2019 video, posted on his twitter page, offering a half-hearted apology about how "social norms have begun to change, they've shifted", excusing his personal irresponsibility with a 'change in norms'. But it was always immoral, as not all of his contemporaries were accused of sexual misconduct, and even so, 'norms' don't determine what's moral.

He continues to defend his actions, with no sincerity, stating that "it's the way I've always been, it's the way I've shown I care about them," as if to propose that a compliment or gesture of endearment could be confused for being sexually pervasive by so many people, and that this could jsut be excused as a personality quirk.

It becomes needless to further my argument when the video is watched in it's entirety; three women who accused him of such behavior voiced in a Washington Post article that the apology "...didn't fully address their concerns." Democrat Party leaders' such as Nancy Pelosi came to Biden's defense, repeating his words in a PoliticoLive conference: "He's an affectionate person, from children to senior citizens – to everyone – that's just the way he is."  The Party decided to push aside the concerns of the victims to become a mouthpiece for the Biden campaign.

This was not the only 'apology' by Biden. In the same month, he visited Anita Hill, who reported to a Congressional committee that Thomas Clarence, the then-nominee to the Supreme Court, subjected her to wildly inappropriate sexual discussions and sexually harassed her through other means when she was his employee. He would apologize to her in person about his role in the aforementioned committee. Excerpts of an interview by Anita Hill, released by the New York Times, would note her response to Biden:

''I cannot be satisfied by simply saying, ‘I’m sorry for what happened to you,' said Ms. Hill, now a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University. 'I will be satisfied when I know that there is real change and real accountability and real purpose.' Ms. Hill, a deeply private woman who does not often speak publicly about her experience, said she does not find Mr. Biden’s conduct disqualifying. 'I’m really open to people changing,' she said.

But, she added, she cannot support Mr. Biden for president until he takes full responsibility for his conduct, including his failure to call as corroborating witnesses other women who were willing to testify before the Judiciary Committee. By leaving them out, she said, he created a “he said, she said” situation that did not have to exist.

'The focus on an apology, to me, is one thing,' Ms. Hill said. 'But there needs to be an apology to the other witnesses and there needs to be an apology to the American public because we know now how deeply disappointed Americans around the country were about what they saw. And not just women. There are women and men now who have just really lost confidence in our government to respond to the problem of gender violence.'"

Needless to say: Biden's victims would not accept his apologies since they knew, as did a near-total consensus nationwide, that this was just a farcical and shallow set of statements to set the prepare for his upcoming presidential campaign. "The focus on an apology" to Anita Hill was a publicity stunt, failing to "respond to the problem of gender violence."

The Atlantic would comment about his disingenuous public speech he gave regarding the Anita Hill hearing, held prior to their face-to-face apology, in which he said that "I regret I couldn’t come up with a way to get her the kind of hearing she deserved," while being the head of the Judicial Committee at the time (which was in charge of the hearing), and also being the one who controlled two other testimonies willing to come forward to the hearing (testimonies by other former employees of Clarence Thomas: Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett). Biden wielded the executive authority to prevent any failures of the hearing. He chose to be willfully inept when heading Anita Hill's hearing – and yet he "wishes" it succeeded in her favor?

Joe Biden, as head of the Judicial Committee, swearing in Anita Hill for the Congressional hearing. (Oct.11 1991)1)
Joe Biden, as head of the Judicial Committee, swearing in Anita Hill for the Clarence Thomas Congressional hearing. (Oct.11 1991)

All of this confirms to the public; that Biden has a history regarding sexual assault and harassment, about suppression of its justice when wielding authority, about being the perpetrator for the latter, and pathologically avoiding responsibility for his actions which is confirmed as true by his victims. Does this sound like a man who would not be guilty for what the newest allegation states?

Tara Reade, a former campaign aide to Joe Biden, has now reported to the police regarding a case of sexual assault by her former employer: Joe Biden. This is not new information. She had previously reported about Biden's sexual harassment in April, 2019. This account largely corroborated to other allegations facing Biden, in which he hugged, kissed, and touched people in uncomfortable ways. She would go into further detail regarding his actions last month, this would be published in an interview with the Katie Halper podcast.

Under these descriptions, it would be regarded as sexual assault.

Warning, this is graphic descriptions regarding themes of rape/sexual assault:

"He just had me up against the wall...it happened all at once. The gym bag- I don't know where it went, I handed it to him and it was gone. His hands were on me, and, it was underneath my clothes. And-um, yeah- and then, he went...he went down my skirt and then up, inside it, and he penetrated me with his fingers...um- He was kissing me at the same time, he said several things to me: I can't remember everything he said...when I pulled away, he got finished doing what he was doing, and I was pulled back. And he said "come on man, I heard you liked me". That phrase stayed with me, because I kept thinking what I might've said...it's like he implied that I had done this."
The Full Interview with Tara Reade by the Katie Halper Podcast. 

Since her disclosure to the public, media reportage had been silent for a short-while. And it is not expected to emerge in a meaningful way to the news cycle, due to the domination of the COVID-19 outbreak on media broadcasts.

However, most reportage already made by 'liberal' media institutions was conducted with an inherent bias favoring Joe Biden. The New York Times ran an article about their unilateral investigation into Reade's allegations, explaining how several of Biden's interviewed victims believe Reade's allegations to be true. Oddly, however, this very article concludes that "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden," without any further investigation of the harassment mentioned in the first half of the article.

Instead, the New York Times opts to indulge its suspicions that Reade is either a Trump-Russian instigator or an agent of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Outside of her tweets, no real evidence is presented. This argument takes up a sizeable percentage of the NYT's "investigation".

Further efforts are gone into her "differing recollections". As Vox News reports, this is a typical a right-wing trope used to de-legitimize the allegations of sexual abuse survivors. When Dr. Blasey-Ford accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, 4% of Fox News' coverage (and 1% of MSNBC and CNN's) on the trial was spent questioning Ford's memory.

The article explains that this is often the case with many sexual abuse survivors: accusations of lying, simply for not holding up to the standard of an eidetic, photographic memory. There would inevitably be inconsistencies in each individual recollection on sexual assault. An Arizona State University survey (Traumatic memory characteristics: A cross-validated mediational model of response to rape among employed women) found how "rape memories were less clear and vivid... [and] less likely to occur in a meaningful order." Professor Amy Hardy of King's College, London, explains why this is the case:

“We also know that if people dissociate during trauma – where the cognitive part of the brain shuts down and they go a bit spacey or numb – it exaggerates this fragmentation process, so their memories have an even more here-and-now type quality.”

The main body of the investigation primarily involves baseless suspicions of Reade as an agent, defensive statements by the Biden campaign, and the peddling of right-wing narratives used to attack sexual abuse survivors. All this conveniently overlooks the interviews with the victims of Biden's sexual harassment.

Conclusively, all this invalidates the majority of the arguments proposed by the New York Times article. Nonetheless, the NYT holds a very reputable presence in America and was even near-perfectly recited by Joan Walsh on the 'progressive' news media giant, The Nation. In this article, Joan Walsh notes that Biden's sexual harassment "[isn't] good, but it’s not rape", proceeding to argue how it's improbable that he sexually assaulted someone, despite having a history of sexually harassing multiple women – the same women she wholeheartedly believes.

The entire case of the allegations by Tara Reade has revealed how 'liberal' news agencies will waive objectivity in investigations and instead adopt the tactics of their political 'polar-opposite' when it comes to the convenience of fulfilling their interests. The Democratic Party is much more akin to the Republicans than what is presented at face value.


Disclaimer: The author of this article recognizes the use of 'allegation' as a term to belittle victims of sexual assault; that is not the intent within this article, which uses the term in reference to the legal definition under the current systematic norm. The author wholeheartedly supports the voices of the brave people who have come out voicing their trauma.