Footage of Palin singing “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-Lot while wearing a blue-and-pink fuzzy bear costume should not be shown to the jury because it would cause “unfair prejudice and confusion,” lawyers for the former Alaska governor argued in a Manhattan Federal Court filing Monday.
“The bear is part of my nickname growing up, and the whole mama bear thing,” Palin explained on the show after taking off her mask.
"Did you guys notice I changed the lyrics? it was all about men’s butts, not women’s!”
“The Masked Singer” footage was one of an assortment of exhibits Palin hopes to keep out of the trial. Other proposed exhibits include the politician’s website, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages, as well as a 2008 Wall Street Journal article about how her vice presidential candidacy was exposing “divisions among women.”
The Times has not yet responded to Palin’s request.
Palin sued the newspaper in 2017, claiming that an editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
The Times editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than individual politicians.
The Times ran a correction. The Times and former Opinion editor James Bennet, who resigned in 2020, are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Palin’s trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 24. A lower court judge initially ruled that Bennet’s mistake did not meet the legal standard for defamation of Palin, who is a public figure. That decision was overturned by an appeals court.
Sarah Palin won a legal victory Tuesday with a federal appeals court revival of her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over an opinion piece that tied her to the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by Judge Jed Rakoff, who had tossed Palin’s lawsuit on the grounds that an error in a June 2017 Times editorial was not “made maliciously.”
The panel made no judgment on the merits of Palin’s claim that the Times improperly accused her of inciting the shooting that wounded Giffords in a Tucson, Arizona strip mall. Instead, the ruling revolved around an unusual evidentiary hearing in which Rakoff heard testimony from the writer, editor James Bennet. The three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals determined the hearing did not follow proper protocol.
“District courts are not free to bypass rules of procedure that are carefully calibrated to ensure fair process to both sides,” Judge John Walker wrote.
The Appeals Court said Rakoff had let Bennet’s testimony influence a “negative view” of Palin’s allegations. The judge was also too dismissive of Palin’s claims that Bennet had a personal connection to the shooting through his brother, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, the panel wrote. The districts of some of Michael Bennet’s Democratic allies were targeted in Sarah Palin’s map.
“It is plain from the record that the district court found Bennet a credible witness, and that the district court’s crediting his testimony impermissibly anchored the district court’s own negative view of the plausibility of Palin’s allegations,” the appeals panel wrote.
Palin’s suit alleged the editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting. The editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than of individual politicians. The Times ran a correction.
"We are disappointed in the decision and intend to continue to defend the action vigorously,” a Times spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Public figures like Palin generally face a very high legal bar when suing news organizations for defamation. They must prove not only that the material was false but also that the writers or editors acted with “actual malice” against them.
Following is the text of the letter sent to the publisher of the New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger, from Bari Weiss, resigning from her column and editing duties on the paper’s opinion pages. Ms. Weiss had previously worked on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. She’d started as a reporter of The New York Sun.
Dear A.G.,
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those, I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still, other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity — let alone risk-taking — is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned, and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm — language — is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do — the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
by Alexandra Desanctis, National Review April 17, 2020
Overhyping sexual-assault allegations against Kavanaugh but downplaying those against Biden undermines the #MeToo movement’s promise.
In October 2017, reporters publicized the stories of women who claimed to have been sexually harassed and assaulted by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. Since then, our country has been in the grips of a reckoning. The outpouring of similar tales in the months following the Weinstein story seemed as if it would never end; every other day we heard about yet another celebrity accused of using his fame to mistreat the women around him.
It was the birth of a movement, #MeToo, which at its worst has been captured by those who insist we must believe every woman who claims to have been assaulted. For centuries, these advocates say, women’s stories have been disbelieved, and now it’s time to tip the balance of power and believe them all, no matter what.
But at its best, the #MeToo movement represented a promise, to men and women alike: Fear and raw power would no longer derail justice. For the first time, women — and, much less frequently, men — who had been abused would have society’s backing to tell their stories publicly and, if they presented enough evidence, to expect that the men responsible would face consequences.
When Christine Blasey Ford came forward in 2018 with the claim that a teenaged Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her, progressives revealed their unwillingness to accept a #MeToo movement that didn’t “believe all women.” Her story deserved investigation, but when all was said and done, it was problematic in several key aspects, among them that Ford couldn’t produce anyone to affirm she and Kavanaugh had ever met, that she had told no one about the alleged assault for decades, and that she later gave conflicting accounts of what she believed had happened.
None of those facts perturbed Kavanaugh’s ideological opponents in the Democratic Party and the media. Armed with a fresh reason to take down a man they were already determined to reject, Senate Democrats put him through the wringer. Their journalistic allies helped them along by doing little to vet Ford’s claims and giving air time to far less credible accounts of his alleged sexual misconduct.
Consider the New Yorker article by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, telling the story of Deborah Ramirez, who claimed that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a party when he was a freshman at Yale University. The reporters were unable to find a single eyewitness to confirm that Kavanaugh had been at the party Ramirez described or anyone who had ever heard Ramirez recount this accusation.
One friend of Ramirez’s told The New Yorker, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.”
Farrow and Mayer noted, too, that “in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, [Ramirez] was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” In fact, she was willing to go on the record only “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,” at which point “she felt confident enough of her recollections.” Inexplicably, the article was published anyway.
Even worse, media outlets lent credibility to the outlandish tale of Julie Swetnick, who, again without corroboration, alleged that Kavanaugh had “spiked” drinks at parties in high school to facilitate gang rape. Not only did outlets report on this claim despite the lack of evidence, but they purposely withheld evidence that a woman identified by Swetnick as a witness denied ever having witnessed Kavanaugh’s alleged misconduct.
By publicizing accusations that lacked the most basic aspects needed for credibility, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee jettisoned their responsibility to seek the truth and instead used vulnerable women as pawns in an effort to tarnish a political enemy. In doing so, they made it less likely that subsequent women who publicized their credible accusations would be believed.
A year and a half later, Democrats and the media are again undermining the principles of #MeToo, this time by ignoring and downplaying sexual-assault allegations against Joe Biden. While Biden himself has said in the past that we must believe every woman who alleges assault, he has since changed his tune. Now, he and his prominent backers — including one of Kavanaugh’s most vigorous critics, #MeToo celebrity advocate Alyssa Milano — have begun singing the praises of due process.
Meanwhile, reporting on Tara Reade’s accusation against Biden has ranged from nonexistent to shoddy. Almost unbelievably, Biden himself has yet to be asked about the allegation, nor have the many Democratic politicians who have endorsed him.
The New York Times waited 19 days to report on the subject, and, after publishing the piece, later removed a crucial line: “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” There was no editor’s note explaining the deletion.
Later still, the Times Twitter account deleted its tweet that had included this line, noting that it had been removed because of “imprecise language.” Times executive editor Dean Baquet, in a subsequent interview with the paper’s media columnist, Ben Smith, said, “Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct.”
Baquet further told Smith that differences between the paper’s reporting on the Biden allegation and on the Kavanaugh allegations were because “Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way. Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation.” As Dan McLaughlin has pointed out on NRO, it is clear that the Times is comfortable dissecting its opponents while coddling its allies — and the latter are apparently given editorial control over what the paper publishes.
And it isn’t just the Times. A search for “Tara Reade” on CNN’s website, for instance, returns zero results. Columnists at leading papers have further (inadvertently) exposed the double standard. At the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus wrote a column in October 2018 with the headline, “Does it matter what Kavanaugh did in high school? Well, yes.” She has written an entire book around her conclusion that Ford told the truth about Kavanaugh. Her recent column on the Biden allegation, titled “Assessing Tara Reade’s allegations,” concludes, “My gut says that what Reade alleges did not happen.”
Two columns by Joan Walsh in The Nation are also ripe for contrast. In September 2018, her piece was called “The Heart-Wrenching Trauma of the Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh Hearings,” with the subtitle, “It’s difficult. It hurts. It’s unfair. But women will keep telling our stories.” This time around, her tone has changed from melodrama to nuance: “The Troublesome Tara Reade Story” and “Left- and right-wing Biden haters demand that the media investigate her sexual assault charge. It did — and uncovered many reasons to doubt.”
Michelle Goldberg, columnist at the Times, did much the same thing. Her piece on Reade is called “What to Do With Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden?” and the subheading, “A sexual assault accusation against the presumptive Democratic nominee is being used to troll the #MeToo movement.” Her reflection on Kavanaugh bears the much more provocative title, “Pigs All the Way Down,” with the subtitle, “Kavanaugh and our rotten ruling class.”
35
None of this is to say that Reade’s story ought to be believed outright, though she does have one key fact in her favor that Ford did not: She can establish that she personally knew the man she is accusing. But contrasting the coverage of this claim with the coverage Kavanaugh received reveals that far too many in the media care far more about weaponizing sexual-misconduct claims against conservatives than they do about uncovering the truth.
Our feckless media establishment weakens our political process, to be sure, but it also undermines what #MeToo, at its best, stood for: the idea that wronged women could tell their stories and guilty men would be punished. That promise means nothing when a man’s guilt is determined by his political views rather than by the evidence, and when a woman is ignored or derided if she claims to have been the victim of the Democratic Party’s man.
Ms. Reade, a former Senate aide, has accused Mr. Biden of assaulting her in 1993 and says she told others about it. A Biden spokeswoman said the allegation is false, and former Senate office staff members do not recall such an incident.
WASHINGTON — A former Senate aide who last year accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of inappropriate touching has made an allegation of sexual assault against the former vice president, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee this fall.
The former aide, Tara Reade, who briefly worked as a staff assistant in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, told The New York Times that in 1993, Mr. Biden pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers. A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Biden said the allegation was false. In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her.
Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable. Ms. Reade told The Times then that Mr. Biden had publicly stroked her neck, wrapped his fingers in her hair and touched her in ways that made her uncomfortable.
Soon after Ms. Reade made the new allegation, in a podcast interview released on March 25, The Times began reporting on her account and seeking corroboration through interviews, documents and other sources. The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him.
No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.
On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him. Ms. Reade said she filed the report to give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats. Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.
Ms. Reade, who worked as a staff assistant helping manage the office interns, said she also filed a complaint with the Senate in 1993 about Mr. Biden; she said she did not have a copy of it, and such paperwork has not been located. The Biden campaign said it did not have a complaint. The Times reviewed an official copy of her employment history from the Senate that she provided showing she was hired in December 1992 and paid by Mr. Biden’s office until August 1993.
The seven other women who had complained about Mr. Biden told the Times this month that they did not have any new information about their experiences to add, but several said they believed Ms. Reade’s account.
In response to Ms. Reade’s allegation, Kate Bedingfield, a deputy Biden campaign manager, said in a statement: “Vice President Biden has dedicated his public life to changing the culture and the laws around violence against women. He authored and fought for the passage and reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. He firmly believes that women have a right to be heard — and heard respectfully. Such claims should also be diligently reviewed by an independent press. What is clear about this claim: It is untrue. This absolutely did not happen.”
Ms. Reade made her new allegation public as Mr. Biden was closing in on the Democratic presidential nomination after winning a string of primaries against his chief rival, Senator Bernie Sanders. Ms. Reade, who describes herself as a “third-generation Democrat,” said she originally favored Marianne Williamson and Senator Elizabeth Warren in the race but voted for Mr. Sanders in the California primary last month. She said her decision to come forward had nothing to do with politics or helping Mr. Sanders, and said neither his campaign nor the Trump campaign had encouraged her to make her allegation.
President Trump has been accused of sexualassault and misconduct by more than a dozen women, who have described a pattern of behavior that went far beyond the accusations against Mr. Biden. The president also directed illegal payments, including $130,000 to a pornographic film actress, Stormy Daniels, before the 2016 election to silence women about alleged affairs with Mr. Trump, according to federal prosecutors.
Mr. Trump has even boasted about his mistreatment of women; in a 2005 recording, he described pushing himself on women and said he would “grab them by the pussy,” bragging that he could get away with “anything” because of his celebrity.
Even so, Mr. Trump has at times attacked opponents over their treatment of women. The president has not mentioned Ms. Reade’s allegation, which has circulated on social media and in liberal and conservative news outlets.
Ms. Reade, 56, told The Times that the assault happened in the spring of 1993. She said she had tracked down Mr. Biden to deliver an athletic bag when he pushed her against a cold wall, started kissing her neck and hair and propositioned her. He slid his hand up her cream-colored blouse, she said, and used his knee to part her bare legs before reaching under her skirt.
“It happened at once. He’s talking to me and his hands are everywhere and everything is happening very quickly,” she recalled. “He was kissing me and he said, very low, ‘Do you want to go somewhere else?’”
Ms. Reade said she pulled away and Mr. Biden stopped.
“He looked at me kind of almost puzzled or shocked,” she said. “He said, ‘Come on, man, I heard you liked me.’”
At the time, Ms. Reade said she worried whether she had done something wrong to encourage his advances.
“He pointed his finger at me and he just goes: ‘You’re nothing to me. Nothing,’” she said. “Then, he took my shoulders and said, ‘You’re OK, you’re fine.’”
Mr. Biden walked down the hallway, Ms. Reade said, and she cleaned up in a restroom, made her way home and, sobbing, called her mother, who encouraged her to immediately file a police report.
Instead, Ms. Reade said, she complained to Marianne Baker, Mr. Biden’s executive assistant, as well as to two top aides, Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman, about harassment by Mr. Biden — not mentioning the alleged assault.
The staff declined to take action, Ms. Reade said, after which she filed a written complaint with a Senate personnel office. She said office staff took away most of her duties, including supervising the interns; assigned her a windowless office; and made the work environment uncomfortable for her.
She said Mr. Kaufman later told her she was not a good fit in the office, giving her a month to look for a job. Ms. Reade never secured another position in Washington.
In an interview, Mr. Kaufman, a longtime friend of Mr. Biden’s who was his chief of staff at the time, said: “I did not know her. She did not come to me. If she had, I would have remembered her.”
Mr. Toner, who worked for Mr. Biden for over three decades, said the allegation was out of character for Mr. Biden. Other senators and office staffs had reputations for harassing women at work and partying after hours, according to those who worked in the office at the time. Mr. Biden was known for racing to catch the train to get home to Wilmington, Del., every night.
“It’s just so preposterous that Senator Biden would be faced with these allegations,” said Mr. Toner, who was deputy chief of staff when Ms. Reade worked in the office. “I don’t remember her. I don’t remember this conversation. And I would remember this conversation.”
The Biden campaign issued a statement from Ms. Baker, Mr. Biden’s executive assistant from 1982 to 2000.
“I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone,” she said. “I have absolutely no knowledge or memory of Ms. Reade’s accounting of events, which would have left a searing impression on me as a woman professional, and as a manager.”
Melissa Lefko, a former staff assistant for Mr. Biden from 1992 to 1993, said she did not remember Ms. Reade. But she recalled that Mr. Biden’s office was a “very supportive environment for women” and said she had never experienced any kind of harassment there.
“When you work on the Hill, everyone knows who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and Biden was a good guy,” she said.
Ms. Reade said that she could not remember the exact time, date or location of the assault but that it occurred in a “semiprivate” place in the Senate office complex.
A friend said that Ms. Reade told her about the alleged assault at the time, in 1993. A second friend recalled Ms. Reade telling her in 2008 that Mr. Biden had touched her inappropriately and that she’d had a traumatic experience while working in his office. Both friends agreed to speak to The Times on the condition of anonymity to protect the privacy of their families and their self-owned businesses.
Ms. Reade said she also told her brother, who has confirmed parts of her account publicly but who did not speak to The Times, and her mother, who has since died.
Differing recollections
At the time of the alleged assault, Ms. Reade said she was responsible for coordinating the interns in the office. Two former interns who worked with her said they never heard her describe any inappropriate conduct by Mr. Biden or saw her directly interact with him in any capacity but recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April, before the end of their internship. Others who worked in the office at the time said they remembered Ms. Reade but not any inappropriate behavior.
Friends and former co-workers describe Ms. Reade as friendly, caring, compassionate and trustworthy, though perhaps a bit naïve. A single mother, she changed her name for protection after leaving an abusive marriage in the late 1990s and put herself through law school in Seattle. After leaving Mr. Biden’s office, she eventually returned to the West Coast, where she worked for a state senator; as an advocate for domestic violence survivors, testifying as an expert witness in court; and for animal rescue organizations.
During her time in Mr. Biden’s office, he was working to pass the Violence Against Women Act, which Mr. Biden has described as his “proudest legislative accomplishment.” In 2017, Ms. Reade retweeted praise for Mr. Biden and his work combating sexual assault. In more recent months, her feed has featured support for Mr. Sanders and criticism of Mr. Biden.
Ms. Reade said she did not disclose the sexual assault allegation last year when she spoke out because she was scared. After her initial complaints were reported last year by a local California newspaper, Ms. Reade said she faced a wave of criticism and death threats, as well as accusations that she was a Russian agent because of Medium posts and tweets, several of which are now deleted, she had written praising President Vladimir Putin.
Ms. Reade said that she was not working for Russia and did not support Mr. Putin, and that her comments were pulled out of context from a novel she was writing at the time.
“It was trying to smear me and distract from what happened, but it won’t change the facts of what happened in 1993,” she said.
As it has for thousands of people who have contacted the group, the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which does not represent clients, gave her a list of lawyers with expertise in such cases. She said she contacted every single one but none took her case. Two lawyers confirmed speaking to Ms. Reade but declined to comment on the record about her or the allegation.
SKDKnickerbocker, the political consulting firm where Mr. Biden’s chief strategist, Anita Dunn, works as a managing director, has a contract with the Time’s Up legal defense fund. Ms. Dunn has never worked with the fund and her firm was not told of Ms. Reade’s request, according to officials at the fund.
Ms. Reade also contacted at least one of the women who spoke out along with her last year about Mr. Biden’s penchant for physical contact.
Lucy Flores, a former Nevada state assemblywoman who accused Mr. Biden of making her uncomfortable by kissing and touching her during a 2014 campaign event, exchanged a few emails last year with Ms. Reade but said Ms. Reade did not share her full story.
“Biden is not just a hugger,” Ms. Flores said. “Biden very clearly was invading women’s spaces without their consent in a way that made them feel uncomfortable. Does he potentially have the capacity to go beyond that? That’s the answer everyone is trying to get at.”
