Tipsheet

Gillibrand: We Must Believe Women. But Not This One.

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  April 30, 2020 1:00 PM

Following up on my earlier post, the emerging profiles in cowardice and hypocrisy among the 'believe women' crowd are head-spinning.  In case you missed this post, be sure to read about Nancy Pelosi's declaration that she is "satisfied with how [Biden] has responded" to Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation.  And as you chew over that quote, recall that Biden's response has entailed: (1) Saying absolutely nothing for five weeks, (2) having his campaign type up a rote denial, (3) distributing outdated and misleading talking points, and (4) ducking interviews once it became clear that even the biggest hacks in journalism could no longer maintain their collective blackout on the subject.  I'm satisfied, Pelosi intones.  RIP:


But let's also examine the case study of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, known in DC as a shameless opportunist and aggressive, clumsy panderer.  During the Kavanaugh melee, Gillibrand's "principles" on believing women were relayed frequently and passionately:


She added that believing women required doing "the right thing, even when it's hard -- especially when it's hard."  At the peak of #MeToo, she broke from many in her party by calling for then-Senator Al Franken to resign amid sexual misconduct allegations, incurring wrath.  But that was a Democrat from a blue state, who would be (and was) replaced by a fellow liberal Democrat.  Now, the stakes are higher.  And the adherence to previous standards is harder.  Especially hard, one might even say.  And thus, we now have Believe* Women.*  The asterisk next to "believe," because she doesn't mean believe-believe, but rather "hear," or whatever.  And the asterisk next to "women," because her previous understanding of belief does not extend to certain women: 


Brett Kavanaugh personally, vehemently, and repeatedly denied the evidence-free allegations against him, which his opponents cited as all the more reason not to confirm him.  Now "vehement" denials via proxy is somehow sufficient?  And when Kavanaugh supporters rallied to his cause, with many women in his life voicing support for his record and pointing out his long history of helping women, this was rejected as offensive and desperate.  But that was then, and this is now.  This column by a former prosecutor picking apart Tara Reade's allegation is worth reading because I believe Joe Biden is entitled to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence, even though he applied very different standards to others.  

But as you read it, bear in mind that many of the objections being addressed are very similar to concerns conservatives raised about Christine Blasey Ford (who had far, far less contemporaneous corroboration than Reade has), and they were accused of "victim blaming" and not, ahem, 'believing survivors.'  Also bear in mind that the author is a clownish partisan who was hardcore anti-Kavanaugh, but who suddenly has questions about evidence:

Recommended

The Gaza Genocide Narrative Suffers Another Major Deathblow Matt Vespa
There's a Big Change in How Biden Now Walks to and From Marine One Leah Barkoukis


Meanwhile, here's who Joe Biden has included in his tight-knit running mate selection club:

The Biden campaign, which is under mounting pressure after a woman claimed Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in the early 1990s, announced Thursday that former Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd will assist in the effort to evaluate potential female running mates. Yes, that Chris Dodd. As in, the other half of the late Ted Kennedy’s infamous “waitress sandwich.”


If you're unfamiliar with that reference, read this.  I'll leave you with a call back to Kirsten Gillibrand's trademark subtlety:

Editor's Note: Want to support Townhall so we can keep telling the truth about Joe Biden? Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code CREEPYJOE to get 25% off VIP membership!