>> Why do you believe Biden and not Kavanaugh, are they not both entitled to the same presumption
of innocence regardless of their political views?
>> That was Jake Tapper asking you a question that many are wondering about when it comes
to some of the defenses that establishment democrats have used against Tara Reade in
an effort to defend Joe Biden who's been accused of sexual assault.
Now, Gretchen Whitmer, who's a possible VP pick for Joe Biden was asked that question.
Let's hear what she has to say. >> Jake, as a survivor, and as a feminist,
I'll say this, we need to give people an opportunity to tell their story, but then we have a duty
to bet it.
And just because you're a survivor doesn't mean that every claim is equal. It means we
give them the ability to make their case and the other side as well and then to make a
judgment that is informed. I have read a lot about this current allegation. I know Joe
Biden, and I've watched his defense and there's not a pattern that goes into this.
And I think that for these reasons, I'm very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says
he is. And that's all I'm gonna say about it. I really resent the fact that every time
a case comes up, all of us survivors have to weigh in. It is reopening wounds and take
us at our word, ask us for our opinion and let's move on.
>> So that was Whitmer's response to it. I do wanna just quickly clarify one statement
she made and provide some facts to it. Because she says that there's no pattern and I hear
this point regurgitated quite a bit by centrist democrats. But the truth is, while there haven't
been any other credible allegations of sexual assault, there certainly has been a pattern
in regard to Biden invading the personal space of women, touching them in ways that they
felt uncomfortable with.
In fact, Reade was one of eight women who came forward last year with allegations that
Biden made them feel uncomfortable with inappropriate displays of affection. And this case is actually,
I wouldn't say very different from the Christine Blasey Ford case. And that was the woman,
of course, who accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her.
This is a little different in that you have several people now who have gone on the record
to tell reporters that Tara Reade did share details of what allegedly happened to her
at the time that it allegedly happened. And so that's way more evidence than we had in
the Dr. Ford case.
And I just find it interesting how it certainly is being treated differently from the Blasey
Ford case? >> Well, look, there are differences. And
so first of all on Whitmer, I don't remember folks being agitated about getting asked about
it when it was Kavanaugh. So now that she's trying to be Biden's VP, all of a sudden when
you ask her about it, she's agitated.
It's a perfectly normal question and I don't see any reason why people shouldn't ask that.
And do I know what happened that day for the billionth time? I'll say I don't. And I think
that there's interesting evidence on both sides, which we'll get into in this video
as well.
In terms of the corroborating witnesses, I'm very frustrated. That every article is vague,
and it's a core part of their job. You talked to the witnesses, I wish we had, but you did.
So are they saying that they're corroborating sexual harassment, sexual assault? Are they
corroborating the touching which Terry talked about earlier and was on the record about
for over a year, the rubbing the neck and the touching the shoulders, etc?
Or are you talking about the significant sexual assault being corroborated? And sometimes
it's there but oftentimes it isn't. >> Yeah, so I wanted to jump in on that because
I've been poring over these stories and you're right in that, with some of the witnesses,
it's a little unclear.
But let me just remind you of the former colleague of Tara Reade. She had told Business Insider
that she remembers the skirt and the touching, basically the details of the sexual assault.
Then there was Tara Reade's next door neighbor who said unequivocally that Tara Reade gave
her the details of the sexual assault.
And just recently, the Associated Press published a lengthy interview with Tara Reade. And in
that piece, they also talked to two additional individuals, one of whom said was told about
the sexual assault at the time that it happened. Both of these people are anonymous by the
way. The second person said that Tara Reade told her about the sexual harassment ten years
later.
So it varies depending on which witness we're talking about here.
>> So in terms of you're coming into that she has more corroborating witnesses then
Dr. Ford. That is true. Although if you ask any establishment Democrat, almost certainly
they will give you the opposite answer even though that's an actual factual question.
That's a fact, right? Whether you believe that was an opinion. And I don't blame Dr.
Ford for not having corroborating witnesses. She was a young girl, she didn't know it was
gonna come up decades later, etc. But there is another difference that leans in other
direction which is that Dr. Ford was very, very consistent throughout very credible,
very believable.
And Tara Reade at times is consistent, at times is very believable. And then I have
pointed out that she said back in 2019 to the AP, I wasn't scared of him that he was
gonna take me into a room or anything. It wasn't that kinda vibe. Now that was just
a year ago, that wasn't a long time ago.
So I don't know why in the world she said that if she had already been sexually assaulted
by him. And she knew that that's exactly the kinda vibe that he gave out because that's
what he did to her. So I'm not saying that's what he did. I don't know why she would say
that if she did experience it.
So whereas Dr. Ford did not have that kind of inconsistency. So there's evidence on both
ends of it being more credible and less credible. >> So I wanna give you some more information
of what we're learning through the story developing. But let me just interject with a little bit
of commentary.
Because for all of the democrats who have weaponized the metoo movement for political
purposes, they have done a great deal of damage to that movement. Which I think started with
all of the best intentions, but unfortunately was co-opted in my opinion by bad actors who
decided to weaponize it for their own purposes.
I don't agree with the headline that I'm about to read to you guys. In fact, I find it pretty
disturbing and disgusting. But there's a little bit of respect toward it because of how brutally
honest it is and I wish that centrist democrats would just come out and say it.
I wish they would come out and say what they actually think. Just like Robin Abcarian a
columnist at the LA Times did over the weekend, she published a column with this headline.
Whatever happened with Tara Reade in 1993, Biden is still infinitely better than Trump.
That is a strong statement to make because whatever happened with Tara Reade, so if he
raped her, doesn't matter?
It's okay, it's okay if Tara Reade was raped, because Biden's still better than Trump. I
mean, I don't agree with that, obviously, right? I think that making a value judgement
based on two people who could be sexual predators is an issue to say the least. But I just wish
Whitmer would just say it.
Look, regardless of what happened, I think that Biden would be a better candidate, would
be a better leader for this country. Just say it, but stop pretending like you see a
significant difference in the credibility of Dr. Ford versus Tara Reade. It's just a
disgusting way of handling it.
Because it needlessly smears and attempts to discredit a woman who has come forward
with these allegations and literally has nothing to gain from it whatsoever.
>> So as far as we know, so look, in terms of the centrist democrats, some of them are
now using the same talking points that the republicans used to use.
Why didn't she come out earlier? Why did she ever praise Biden? When this is what Republicans
said about Anita Hill, this is what they said about Christine Blasey Ford. So now the same
people who are outraged outraged by Republicans saying that are saying the same exact things
about Tara Reade.
So look, I think the Tara Reade allegations are totally removed from any judgment on how
good or bad a candidate Donald Trump is. So how you vote six months from now, to me is
a completely different issue than whether this is true or not true. I mean, so, It's
like saying, okay, well if Biden did this then he is worse than Hitler.
Or even if Biden did this, he is still better than Hitler. Okay, I mean, I know why we're
talking about Hitler in this case cuz he's running against them but right, it's apples
and oranges. And I think that what's frustrating me about it is that centrist democrats feel
like if they say this happen, then they have to somehow admit that Trump is better than
Biden.
But they don't have to admit that at all. >> No, they don't.
>> Trump is accused of 12 sexual assaults and harassments, over 12, over a dozen. So
I mean some counts are in the multiple dozens, depending on how you count Trump's aggression.
So you don't have to say that Biden is worse than Trump to say that this happened.
Or if you say this happened, it doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump. But we live in
a world where there is no longer news. There's only two sides. You're either going to vote
this way or you're gonna vote that way. And everything is partisan and everything is viewed
through that partisan lens.
So for example, on this show when we break that partisan lens and we say, hey listen,
Tara Reade could be right and Trump could still be a monster. It doesn't compute, so
hence we get charged with, so you want Trump to win, which in a logical world has no nexus
whatsoever.
But in a world that is purely partisan, that is how they view it. So if I want Trump to
lose, I'm gonna say Tara Reade's a liar. And god damn it, don't do that cuz those two things
are not logically connected, and it's totally not fair to her.
Now, that also doesn't mean she's definitely telling the truth, I don't know, there's facts
on both sides. And by the way, saying there's facts on both sides doesn't mean that they're
equal either. There could be 90% on one side, 10% on another side. But there's so many facts,
it's certainly a worthy question and worthy of being asked.