"If we must blindly accept every allegation of sexual assault, the #MeToo movement is just a hit squad."
Some people were warning about that a long time ago, but were dismissed by the left. "Believe all women" was an absolute. It was a statement insisting on blindly accepting every allegation of sexual assault. And some people did worry that it inevitably would be a hit squad.
"Reade waited 27 years to publicly report her allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her."
Christine Blasey Ford waited over 30 years to publicly accuse Brett Kavanaugh, but that was not seen as a reason to distrust her.
"Implausible explanation for changing story. When Reade went public with her sexual assault allegation in March, she said she wanted to do it in an interview with The Union newspaper in California last April. She said the reporter’s tone made her feel uncomfortable and "I just really got shut down” and didn't tell the whole story. It is hard to believe a reporter would discourage this kind of scoop."
Suddenly it's supposed to be easy for women to tell their stories? For years we've been hearing the much more plausible argument that it's very hard, very emotionally debilitating. But now, it's hard to believe that a reporter intent on getting a big scoop might have asked questions in a less than sensitive way? (And what if the reporter was deeply worried that the allegations might hurt Biden's chances against Trump? Even if wholly subconsciously and unintentionally, that could have affected the tone of questioning.)
"People who contradict Reade’s claim."
Didn't matter with Christine Blasey Ford's claim.
"Memory lapse. Reade has said that she cannot remember the date, time or exact location of the alleged assault,"
Exactly like Blasey Ford.
"Love of Russia and Putin."
Ad hominem. A smear. Why not just go all the way to "she's just looking for attention."
"Reade's writings shed light on her political alliance with Sanders, who has a long history of ties to Russia"
Ad hominem at one remove? People who don't share the accused's political values can't be believed? Then what about Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh?
"As a prosecutor, this would not make me happy. Given that the call was anonymous, Reade’s mother should have felt comfortable relaying the worst version of events [in the call to Larry King] ."
So her mother not talking about the alleged incident in a way that would help a prosecutor make the case is evidence that Reade is lying? Is there even a name for that kind of logical fallacy?
"I’ve never met a woman who stayed silent out of “respect” for the man who sexually assaulted her."
Let's not forget the author is using Reade's mother's description of Reade's motivation, so this is heresay, and as a prosecutor the author is undoubtedly aware of the probative value of hearsay evidence.
But beyond that, is the author really seriously suggesting that women who've been sexually assaulted never stay quiet out of concern about wrecking a man's career and reputation? They are sometimes actively discouraged from reporting, for that same reason.
I have no idea if Biden sexually assaulted Reade. But these arguments for how this allegation is different and less believable are partisanly motivated bullshit.
If you are a liberal who's looking hard for reasons to not believe her, ask yourself if you put any effort into looking for reasons not to believe Blasey Ford.
And if you're a conservative taking this at face value, ask yourself if you were willing to take Blasey Ford's accusations at face value. Because if not, you're no better than the author of this article, however smug you might been feeling about liberals getting a taste of their own.