(Thread) Do Tara Reade's advocates now accept that, put at its most charitable, that Reade likes to tell "stories"? There are so many different accounts of why she left Biden's office that you need a spreadsheet to keep track. There are six very stories she's recounted (cont...)

(2) The first was that her boyfriend got a new job on the other side of the country, and kept her up all night begging her to move with him. The second was that capitol hill was too anti-Russian and she refused to be part of the imperialist war machine. The third was that she

(3) left to pursue an acting and modelling career. The fourth was that she was asked to serve drinks at a senate event and was told Biden liked her legs, that she refused, was victimised, sidelined, put in a windowless office then forced out. In another article she said though

(4) that at the time she was perfectly fine with the request as she believed it dovetailed well with her aspirations in modelling. The fifth was that Biden touched her shoulder inappropriately, she made an official complaint, and was then fired. The sixth is that the issue had

(5) nothing to do with Biden, it was about his failure to properly supervise his senior staff who were bullying her, that it was about corruption and she was forced out by this malicious staffers. I am not insensible to the fact that victims of sexual harassment, abuse and

(6) violence may not provide details of the entire allegation in a single instance. I represented a victim of sexual harassment and violence in an Employment Tribunal (a UK employment/discrimination court... incidentally, she was successful and was awarded over £50,000), when she

(6) provided, at the invitation of the defense counsel during cross-examination, additional details that were not set out in the claim form, she was accused of "embellishing" and "embroidering" her account. I understand that people can be embarassed about the detail, and provide

(7) different levels of detail in different fora. But Reade's claim that when she went public last year with her allegation that Biden had touched her hair and shoulders, that somehow the multiple journalists from Vox, New York Times, WaPo, etc, who were all investigating her

(8) story and trying to scoop each other, somehow did not provide a channel through which she could get the true story out, and she found their "tone" off-putting so didn't bother, creates credibility issues. As does the fact that she had to coach her friend and brother to

(9) go back to the Washington Post and "remember" the additional details. At some point, you have to say that a changing story does matter. I think credibility also does matter, in an area where the vast majority of the time the only witnesses are the victim and the accused,

(10) then it forms one of multiple indicia that, while none being conclusive in and of themselves, taken together can form a basis for drawing inferences about the likelihood of the allegation being true. I note that in attacking mainstream feminists and the MeToo movement, the

(11) right-wing and the far-left, have tried to wedge them and claim that they are hypocrites and "Believe Women" is meaningless. But it never meant any more, or indeed any *less*, than all allegations will get a respectful hearing and be properly investigated. The constant

(12) comparisons between Reade and Dr Ford are interesting. Dr Ford had never wanted her allegations to be made public, she knew how vicious and horrified it would be if played out in the media. But she also felt an obligation to let the senate committee know about

(13) Justice Kavanaugh's history. By contrast, Reade has only ever intended that these allegations should be adjudicated in the media. Despite engaging a senior Republican donor and Trump supporter as her attorney, she has said she has no intention of commencing any civil or

(14) criminal procedure. In a complaint made to the DC police, Reade said that she was making this complaint because she wanted 'protection' from social media critics and almost ostentatiously declined to actually name a perpetrator or make a particular accusation.

(15) When the rubber hit the road, Dr Ford stood before the United States congress and testified under oath, on live television, risking perjury charges and imprisonment if she lied. She named the place, the time and even date of something that occurred when she was 17. Reade

(16) says she doesn't remember where or when it happened, let alone the date, making it almost impossible for Biden to establish his innocence, if he is innocent, through evidence of his whereabouts. Dr Ford was and is a widely-respected professor, she has a husband and children

(17), she had absolutely no reason to seek to make up such an accusation. As I said, she didn't want it played out in the media. It was publicised, against her wishes, by Ryan Grim of the Intercept, also publiciser of the Reade allegations, the former fact somehow being cited

(18) as establishing his credibility in the latter matter? Reade, on the other hand, has a very dubious background. It has now been revealed that she left Biden's office only days after being charged with check fraud (will this become the seventh account?). She left behind her

(19) in California a trail of debt and bankruptcy, and fraud allegations. She managed to run up over $400,000 in unsecured debt (i.e. there are no assets like a car or a house to sell to cover the debt) which is truly extraordinary, including owing $12,000 to her landlord,

(20) was also accused of defrauding a hose sanctuary, and sued a womens shelter for discriminating against her, she claimed, because she is white. She has gone under multiple named over the last 30 years. On their own, none of these things might be conclusive, but together they

(21) form an array of indicators that are flashing red on Reade's credibility. That her claims are being used as a battering ram against mainstream feminists and MeToo by gleeful Republicans and right-wingers itself speaks volumes. We may never know the absolute truth, one way or

(22) the other, as to whether Reade is telling the truth. But what we can know without ambiguity is why Reade suddenly decided to go public with these new allegations as soon as Biden become de facto Democratic nominee. Reade admitted as much herself with her "tick tock" tweet

(23) Credibility matters, a changing story matters (particular given she cannot say when, where or on what date it occurred, so the entire thing is a moving target) and motivation for raising it now matters. On the underlying substance, we're no further than we were 6 weeks ago.

(24) And perhaps given the 'moving target' issue, that's the point. It's intended this will stay in the public eye, that it will continue to be used to gin up Republicans as part of a culture war against feminism and liberal values. This story is done, all you now need ask

(25) yourself is, given nothing can be further proven one way or the other, whose interests are being served with this story, and why is it being furthered in this particular way? That is what this story is about now, as it enters its sixth week.