Former neighbor of Biden accuser confirms she was told of an incident in the 1990s

[jserraglio]

WASHINGTON POST Former neighbor of Biden accuser confirms she was told of an incident in the 1990s https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... utType=amp

The former Senate aide who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault shared details of the alleged incident in a conversation in the mid-1990s, her former neighbor confirmed Wednesday.
Lynda LaCasse told The Washington Post in a text message that while she lived near Tara Reade in 1995 and 1996, Reade told her that “Joe Biden sexually assaulted her.”
“She said that he had put her up against a wall, put his hand up her skirt and his fingers inside her,” LaCasse said.
She did not offer other details, referring The Post to Business Insider, which published an interview with LaCasse on Monday. The Post repeatedly left messages seeking to interview LaCasse, but she did not reply until Wednesday’s text.
“I am a very strong Democrat, and am supporting Joe Biden during this election,” LaCasse said in the message. “I believed Tara at the time she told me that Mr. Biden assaulted her, and I continue to support her now. I feel that the truth needs to be told.”
Biden has not commented about Reade’s accusation, despite growing calls by Democrats to do so, and he has declined requests for an interview.
Kate Bedingfield, his deputy campaign manager, denied Reade’s account.
“He firmly believes that women have a right to be heard — and heard respectfully,” she said. “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.”
Biden has faced growing calls from Democrats who want to hear him address the allegations. His refusal has put other Democrats in the position of defending him while also advocating that women alleging sexual harassment or assault should be supported.
Several of the women who are believed to be on Biden’s vice presidential list have declared that they believe his campaign’s denial. Other Democrats have refused to comment, with many neither defending him nor calling on him to explain further.
Get our Coronavirus Updates newsletter
Receive the most important pandemic developments in your inbox every day. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.
Reade, who worked for Biden for nine months ending in 1993, said in interviews with The Post last year that Biden had put his hands on her shoulders and neck when she was working in his Senate office.
She said that she had complained about it to three senior aides in the office, but those aides told The Post they had no recollection of Reade making a claim.
Last month, in a podcast interview, Reade alleged that the then-senator had assaulted her after pushing her against a wall somewhere on Capitol Hill.
Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in California after her tenure in Washington, was quoted by Business Insider as saying that Reade had told her she “had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.” Sanchez has not responded to messages left by The Post.
A 1993 call to Larry King’s CNN talk show also has surfaced in recent days. In the clip, a woman whom Reade identified as her ­now-deceased mother called to report unspecified “problems” her daughter was having with her employer, whom she called “a prominent senator.” The caller said her daughter did not want to go public with her account “out of respect for” the unnamed senator.
The Post published an in-depth examination of her account two weeks ago, in which one of her friends confirmed that Reade had told her of the incident shortly after she said it had occurred.
Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, also told The Post that she had told him in 1993 that Biden had touched her neck and shoulders. Several days after the interview, he said in a text message that he recalled her telling him that Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.”
Several women last year said Biden had been overly affectionate in a way that made them uncomfortable. Reade’s accusation that Biden had penetrated her was the first allegation of sexual assault made against him.
Amber Phillips analyzes politics for The Washington Post's nonpartisan politics blog and authors The 5-Minute Fix newsletter, a rundown of the day's biggest political news. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from as far away as Taiwan.
Matt Viser is a national political reporter for The Washington Post. He joined the paper in October 2018. He was previously the deputy chief of the Washington Bureau for the Boston Globe, where he covered Congress, the presidential campaigns in 2012 and 2016, and John Kerry’s tenure as secretary of state.
Democracy Dies in Darkness
© 1996-2020 The Washington Post

[Barry]

Our local paper also finally reported on this.

The obvious difference is that it took no corroborative evidence for them to jump on Ford's charges against Kavanaugh. The cry was, "Women must be believed," and the pouncing was immediate.

The conservative media that did that this time was behaving exactly as the CNNs and New York Times of the world did in the case of Ford's charges.

[jserraglio]

The Scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites. It's a very old world.

Joe Biden has to answer for his conduct, just like Clinton, Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas answered for theirs.

Maybe Biden and Trump should hold a joint press briefing where they could field all questions about this matter together.

[Barry]

Maybe Biden and Trump could hold a joint press briefing where they could field all questions about this matter together.

Works for me.

[jserraglio]

Agreement then!

And maybe they should both wear face masks to signify repentance and a belated acceptance of proper social distancing.

[lennygoran]

Agreed. And maybe they could both wear face masks to signify repentance and a belated acceptance of proper social distancing.

Made me think about how the presidential debates should be conducted this year? Regards, Len

[barney]

Do you reckon Trump will take part in Presidential debates this year, Len? I bet he finds some reason why he's not going to do it.* He'd get his backside handed to him if he did take part.
* You heard it here first.

[barney]

The Scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites. It's a very old world.

Joe Biden has to answer for his conduct, just like Clinton, Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas answered for theirs.

Maybe Biden and Trump should hold a joint press briefing where they could field all questions about this matter together.

Agreed about age-old hypocrisy. But I would like to point out that on this topic - Biden's accountability - the anti-Trumpers have been without hypocrisy, recognising that Biden, like Trump, must answer. The pro-Trumpers think only Biden is a problem.

[Barry]

The Scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites. It's a very old world.

Joe Biden has to answer for his conduct, just like Clinton, Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas answered for theirs.

Maybe Biden and Trump should hold a joint press briefing where they could field all questions about this matter together.

Agreed about age-old hypocrisy. But I would like to point out that on this topic - Biden's accountability - the anti-Trumpers have been without hypocrisy, recognising that Biden, like Trump, must answer. The pro-Trumpers think only Biden is a problem.

You're missing the point. It's not about Biden for the Right. It's about the media. Media bias and its impact on the political process and perceptions of millions of Americans is up there with the most important issues for us (and again, I suspect it would be for the Left if the media situation were reversed). You always want to bring it down to the individual candidates of the moment. I'm driven by wider trends that the candidates are usually the result of, rather than the cause of.

The fact that Trump calls out media bias relentlessly is one of his attractions to many on the Right.

[lennygoran]

Do you reckon Trump will take part in Presidential debates this year, Len? I bet he finds some reason why he's not going to do it.* He'd get his backside handed to him if he did take part.
* You heard it here first.

Barney I'm not sure of this but we'll see-will Trump be able to walk up behind Biden like he did for Hillary-she should have turned on him and bluntly told him to stop hounding her-could have made her president! Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

You always want to bring it down to the individual candidates of the moment. I'm driven by wider trends that the candidates are usually the result of, rather than the cause of.

Right wingers residing on Planet Trump should be cut some slack for their timid adherence to magical thinking, such as evading individual responsibility and the federal government's responsibility in a disaster by invoking deterministic "wider trends".

[barney]

The Scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites. It's a very old world.

Joe Biden has to answer for his conduct, just like Clinton, Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas answered for theirs.

Maybe Biden and Trump should hold a joint press briefing where they could field all questions about this matter together.

Agreed about age-old hypocrisy. But I would like to point out that on this topic - Biden's accountability - the anti-Trumpers have been without hypocrisy, recognising that Biden, like Trump, must answer. The pro-Trumpers think only Biden is a problem.

You're missing the point. It's not about Biden for the Right. It's about the media. Media bias and its impact on the political process and perceptions of millions of Americans is up there with the most important issues for us (and again, I suspect it would be for the Left if the media situation were reversed). You always want to bring it down to the individual candidates of the moment. I'm driven by wider trends that the candidates are usually the result of, rather than the cause of.

The fact that Trump calls out media bias relentlessly is one of his attractions to many on the Right.

No, I do understand that you are motivated by your concern about perceived media failings. Do you understand in return that by highlighting unpleasant behaviour by Biden but ignoring a much more obnoxious pattern of behaviour by Trump you come across as hypocritical? And don't you watch Fox News? Isn't that biased enough for you? Ie, presenting a different point of view.
Obviously also I disagree with you about the higher-quality US media - you named, or Joseph did, the WSJ, NY Times and Washington Post. Their columnists may dislike Trump, and many certainly do, but their news coverage is usually scrupulously factual, from what I see. It's clear that Trump sees anything but ringing endorsement as biased against him, which is a strong culture warrior tendency (on both sides), and widely shared on the Right. I wonder whether you have fallen into that trap, or at least failed to disambiguate between comment and news?
One more point: Right-wing culture warriors are still an important part of the media landscape. In Australia, Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny - names you won't recognise, but Australian readers will - have both broken important stories that political correctness made mainstream media reluctant to run.

[Holden Fourth]

You're missing the point. It's not about Biden for the Right. It's about the media. Media bias and its impact on the political process and perceptions of millions of Americans is up there with the most important issues for us (and again, I suspect it would be for the Left if the media situation were reversed).

Absolutely and it's not confined to the US. Years ago people were urged to believe "lawyer" was a dirty word and implied that lawyers couldn't be trusted. (remember all those lawyer jokes?)

Nowadays you'd have to apply that tag to the media. I have virtually stopped watching and reading mainstream news. It's either politically biased to the right or left or is pure fantasy. I cringe every time I see a news headline (you can't avoid them) with the word 'could or 'might' in it. I want news, not mindless and poorly researched speculation.

[jserraglio]

I want news, not mindless and poorly researched speculation.

Here's some news. The only significant speculation in this story deals with how much of an undercount there was due to computers not being able to handle the flood of applications. Estimates of the undercount run as high as 600,000.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Over 3.8 Million Americans Filed for Jobless Benefits Last Week https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1588239004

[Barry]

Obviously also I disagree with you about the higher-quality US media - you named, or Joseph did, the WSJ, NY Times and Washington Post. Their columnists may dislike Trump, and many certainly do, but their news coverage is usually scrupulously factual, from what I see.

My claim isn't that they lie (generally; it happens occasionally). It's that they are extremely selective about which truths they report and which they ignore or under-report, creating false impressions among large swaths of the public in the process. It's also a question of how they cover a story. What angle are they taking.

Our local paper truthfully reports on our far-left D.A. whenever he does something they approve of, like freeing someone who was wrongly convicted or dialing back on cash bail for poor people. But they either bury or ignore it when someone who commits a violent crime is on the street because of that same D.A.'s policies. Both things are truthful, but they only tell you the side of the story that fits in with the overall narrative they are trying to pound into your head. I know about the other side of the story because there is a local blogger who used to be a reporter for that same newspaper who takes it upon himself to shine a light on the truths that don't get reported in the mainstream news.

When Trump banned Trans people from serving in the military, the reaction piece in the local press had comments from someone from a leftwing group called Veterans for Peace, but none from a mainstream veterans group. When a local politician broke up a drug deal in front of her home, she was harassed in the local press for a week because she referred to the people involved in the deal as "junkies."

I could go on for days with such examples.

When we reported on the Congressional small business bail-out a couple weeks ago, there was nothing in the story on some of the pet projects Democrats tried to stick in the bill. I guarantee you that when Mitch McConnell pulls something similar, it gets reported.

[Barry]

Absolutely and it's not confined to the US. Years ago people were urged to believe "lawyer" was a dirty word and implied that lawyers couldn't be trusted. (remember all those lawyer jokes?)

Nowadays you'd have to apply that tag to the media. I have virtually stopped watching and reading mainstream news. It's either politically biased to the right or left or is pure fantasy. I cringe every time I see a news headline (you can't avoid them) with the word 'could or 'might' in it. I want news, not mindless and poorly researched speculation.

I obviously couldn't agree more. As I said the other day, I maintain realclearpolitics.com is the place to go to get a full picture. It's just a gathering site where they have links from media of all political stripes.

It's good to "see" you on here after a number of years, Holden.

[jserraglio]

I intend to keep getting my political news from tried-and-true real clear newspapers: The Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. All three are national treasures.

I don't need an arriviste curated news portal like realclearpolitics. I have direct access to the best in traditional journalism because my employer provides us with both the print edition and the digital print edition of the Wall Street Journal—a daily infusion of first-class journalism. I am also inspired every time I see a 17-year-old toting around his copy of the WSJ print edition.

[lennygoran]

I intend to keep getting my political news from tried-and-true real clear newspapers: The Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. All three are national treasures.

On getting the news I always favor CNN in the morning over Morning Joe but at 8AM this morning Biden gave his first public defense on the sexual assault charge-Mika conducted the questions and where she couldn't get a straight answer was on someone checking the Delaware College records to see if there is any mention of Tara Reade-why couldn't Biden say he would not mind if someone just checks those records for the name of Reade-I have to say I don't think he fully addressed that--he kept saying that the Senate archives was the place to search-- but Mika did try a number of times. I sure hope there's no smoking gun there. Regards, Len

[barney]

I intend to keep getting my political news from tried-and-true real clear newspapers: The Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. All three are national treasures.

On getting the news I always favor CNN in the morning over Morning Joe but at 8AM this morning Biden gave his first public defense on the sexual assault charge-Mika conducted the questions and where she couldn't get a straight answer was on someone checking the Delaware College records to see if there is any mention of Tara Reade-why couldn't Biden say he would not mind if someone just checks those records for the name of Reade-I have to say I don't think he fully addressed that--he kept saying that the Senate archives was the place to search-- but Mika did try a number of times. I sure hope there's no smoking gun there. Regards, Len

And if there is, what then? The Democrats are going to copy the Republicans and say we back our candidate no matter what. Don't you think? What will they do if Biden has to withdraw? I don't think the moral ground will be much higher on the Democrat side of the hill than the Republican - and that's just higher than a worm can lift its head.

[barney]

You're missing the point. It's not about Biden for the Right. It's about the media. Media bias and its impact on the political process and perceptions of millions of Americans is up there with the most important issues for us (and again, I suspect it would be for the Left if the media situation were reversed).

Absolutely and it's not confined to the US. Years ago people were urged to believe "lawyer" was a dirty word and implied that lawyers couldn't be trusted. (remember all those lawyer jokes?)

Nowadays you'd have to apply that tag to the media. I have virtually stopped watching and reading mainstream news. It's either politically biased to the right or left or is pure fantasy. I cringe every time I see a news headline (you can't avoid them) with the word 'could or 'might' in it. I want news, not mindless and poorly researched speculation.

I believe it was Mark Twain who observed that when it comes to newspapers (or, today, media at large) you have two choices. You can choose not to read them, and be uninformed. Or you can read them and be misinformed.
You've obviously chosen the former. Your prerogative. I'm a news junkie, and have to go for the latter.

[barney]

Obviously also I disagree with you about the higher-quality US media - you named, or Joseph did, the WSJ, NY Times and Washington Post. Their columnists may dislike Trump, and many certainly do, but their news coverage is usually scrupulously factual, from what I see.

My claim isn't that they lie (generally; it happens occasionally). It's that they are extremely selective about which truths they report and which they ignore or under-report, creating false impressions among large swaths of the public in the process. It's also a question of how they cover a story. What angle are they taking.

Our local paper truthfully reports on our far-left D.A. whenever he does something they approve of, like freeing someone who was wrongly convicted or dialing back on cash bail for poor people. But they either bury or ignore it when someone who commits a violent crime is on the street because of that same D.A.'s policies. Both things are truthful, but they only tell you the side of the story that fits in with the overall narrative they are trying to pound into your head. I know about the other side of the story because there is a local blogger who used to be a reporter for that same newspaper who takes it upon himself to shine a light on the truths that don't get reported in the mainstream news.

When Trump banned Trans people from serving in the military, the reaction piece in the local press had comments from someone from a leftwing group called Veterans for Peace, but none from a mainstream veterans group. When a local politician broke up a drug deal in front of her home, she was harassed in the local press for a week because she referred to the people involved in the deal as "junkies."

I could go on for days with such examples.

When we reported on the Congressional small business bail-out a couple weeks ago, there was nothing in the story on some of the pet projects Democrats tried to stick in the bill. I guarantee you that when Mitch McConnell pulls something similar, it gets reported.

Well it's true that you've named a huge issue, one that I have been well aware of over my 45 years in journalism - and so have my papers. I agree: what you leave out can be as important as what you put in. All I can say is that editors I worked for were generally aware of that problem and pro-active in avoiding it. I didn't work for any paper you read.

[lennygoran]

And if there is, what then?
[/quote]

Barney good question-hey maybe this video clip I just got from a friend is the answer! Regards, Len

VID-20200324-WA0075.... (10.7 MB)

[Barry]

Well it's true that you've named a huge issue, one that I have been well aware of over my 45 years in journalism - and so have my papers. I agree: what you leave out can be as important as what you put in. All I can say is that editors I worked for were generally aware of that problem and pro-active in avoiding it. I didn't work for any paper you read.

You've got me beat. I just hit 25 years at my paper.

I sat right next to the political reporting and editing staff during the '12 and '16 election cycles and saw and heard the skewed analysis first hand.

The last thing I heard one of the political writers say before leaving the office around 6 p.m. on election night in 2016 was, "It's hard to say where the Republican party will go from here." Her assumption was that they were going to get destroyed when the results came in. In fact, they were only hours away from being in their strongest electoral position since before the Great Depression hit. So much for objective analysis.
I then kept a photo-copy of a front page from a couple weeks before the election up by my desk as a subtle dig. It had a big headline about how the GOP was a hopeless mess (in so many words). They were so focused at all times on the Republicans' problems that they forgot to even think about the problems the Democrats were facing in terms of internal division between old-school liberals and the younger Woke Left.

Several female reporters and editors actually lined up for a group celebratory photo on election day, so convinced were they of the first female (Democrat) president.

You should have seen the reaction in the newsroom when the Chris Christie Bridgegate scandal was announced. It was the only time I've ever seen people jump up on desks and wave their arms in excitement.

[barney]

You're a reporter, Barry? Which paper? What's your area?
Well, I have to concede that you are talking from first-hand experience.
I spent 34 years at The Age in Melbourne, which in the 80s was regularly named as one of the top 10 papers in the world - along with the NYT, WP, Times of London, Guardian, Frankfurt paper etc. We noticed these accolades. Sadly it is a travesty now of those days, a quarter of the staff, a quarter of the size (we got beyond 300 broadsheet pages on Saturdays). I served in various roles, special projects editor, chief sub-editor, letters editor, opinion editor and, for the last 12 years, religion editor. I left at the end of 2013, but still have a monthly column and write a lot about classical music.

As opinion editor, it was a very conscious decision to have at least one conservative writer (and at least one women) most days. We felt it was important for our generally progressive readers to see various views.
We were always regarded as progressive paper, though at election time we editorialised in favour of the conservatives more often than not. I admit there is a lot of unconscious bias in reporters (and they often no longer seem trained to recognise it), far more than there is conscious bias, but I can honestly say I've never seen scenes of bias such as you describe. I'm actually a little shocked. There could often be tension or excitement in a room but the only thing that could raise that level of vocal emotion would be sport.

[jserraglio]

And of course the WSJ abounds in editorials and op-eds from a traditional conservative perspective. I read them! even when I do not agree with them. They are well written and well reasoned. Even in college, I was reading every single issue of National Review plus the New York Times daily from start to finish. Those were about all I had access to back then, and I was starving for news of the day and analysis. The New York Times of the early 60's, in and of itself, provided me an education with just as much impact as the courses I was taking. I am still in awe of what the great newspapers of the world, papers like the WSJ are able to produce day after day.

I also love the LOOK of the WSJ print edition. The typography, graphics and layout are just drop-dead gorgeous, and that counts a lot with me. I feel privileged to have access to this journalistic tour de force 5x a week free of change thanks to my school. I could not even begin to afford to buy it.

[Barry]

I messaged you privately with a bit more information, Barney.

One needs to be careful now days.