From Juanita Broaddrick to Tara Reade: In Forty Years Has Nothing Changed at All?

Juanita Broaddrick, right, with residents of her Arkansas retirement home and Bill Clinton in April 1978, the same month she alleges that Clinton assaulted her (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

Hid among the grease and grime of the Tara Reade rape discussion — "Should we believe her? To what extent? Would Biden really do such a thing? But what if a public discussion leads to Trump's reelection?" — lies the shadow of another rape accusation.

Undiscussed, rarely brought up, as carefully hid or moreso by the Democratic Party–supporting media as the Tara Reade story was, stands the rape charge by Juanita Broaddrick against 32-year-old Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton, a rape said to have occurred in 1978.

The facts are these (source: a nicely researched 2017 piece by Dylan Mathews at Vox). First, this is what Broaddrick says happened:

In 1978, Broaddrick was volunteering for Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, and claims she met him when he visited his campaign office in her home town of Van Buren, Arkansas, that April. She says he then invited her to visit his office in Little Rock, which Broaddrick agreed to do a week later, when she was in the state Capitol anyway for a conference of nursing home administrators. Once she was at a hotel in Little Rock, she claims Clinton told her that he wasn't going to the campaign headquarters and offered to meet her in her hotel lobby coffee shop instead. Once he arrived, she says he called her room and suggested that they have coffee there, since the lobby had too many reporters. Broaddrick says she agreed.

Then according to a 1999 Washington Post story:

As she tells the story, they spent only a few minutes chatting by the window -- Clinton pointed to an old jail he wanted to renovate if he became governor -- before he began kissing her. She resisted his advances, she said, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.

"The last thing he said to me was, 'You better get some ice for that.' And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door," she recalled.

Broaddrick's story has no third-party witness, but quite a lot of contemporaneous corroboration:

• The director at the nursing home where Broaddrick worked told reporters "that she entered the hotel room shortly after the assault allegedly took place, and 'found Mrs. Broaddrick crying and in 'a state of shock.' Her upper lip was puffed out and blue, and appeared to have been hit.' Kelsey elaborated to the New York Times, "She told me he forced himself on her, forced her to have intercourse."

• In 1999, three of Broaddrick's friends told NBC News on camera that Broaddrick told them at the time that Bill Clinton had raped her.

• In addition, David Broaddrick "with whom Broaddrick was having an affair ... also NBC that Broaddrick's top lip was black after the alleged incident, and that she told him, 'that she had been raped by Bill Clinton.'"

The Other Side

Opposed to this evidence lie the usual adversarial questions about why Broaddrick delayed so long to say something, why she chose the time she did to come forward, and what her underlying motives might have been. Bill Clinton was being impeached for the Monica Lewinski affair — pilloried, really, by Ken Starr's special prosecutor's office — when Broaddrick's story was leaked to the public.

The response to this has been that Broaddrick, according to Vox, "had been courted to come forward about the allegations by Clinton enemies for years," and refused many pleas that she speak out.

"She only came forward after she was interviewed by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's office and her allegation leaked. Broaddrick told the [Wall Street] Journal [here] that NBC News reporter Lisa Myers pursued her for nearly a year before she agreed to an interview, and that she came forward because she wanted to rebut false rumors circulating after her statements to prosecutors (like that David Broaddrick had accepted hush money from the Clintons in exchange for silence)."

In short, if Vox's account is correct, Broaddrick was almost literally the most reluctant of reluctant witnesses at a time when Bill Clinton was beset on all sides with eager ones.

Did Hillary Clinton Weigh In?

It's an ugly story, both in the context in which it occurred — the dubiously moral, hypocritical Republican Party assaulting a presidency it never considered legitimate using charges they themselves were guilty of at the time — and in the Broaddrick story itself.

And the ugliness continued, according to Broaddrick, shortly after the event. In a 1999 interview she gave to the Drudge Report and quoted by Vox, Broaddrick said that "mere weeks after the alleged [1978] assault, Hillary Clinton had tried to thank her for her silence on the matter at a political rally." Broaddrick:

She came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said 'I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.'

Here her husband had just done this to me, and she was coming up to thank me? It was scary...I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase -- looking less friendly and repeated her statement----'Everything you do for Bill'. I said nothing. She wasn't letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.

No one knows for sure what happened between Broaddrick and Bill Clinton in the hotel room save Broaddrick and Clinton himself, just as no one but Broaddrick and Hillary Clinton knows for sure what passed between them at the rally just a few weeks later — and only Clinton herself knows for sure what she meant to convey, regardless of how Broaddrick took it.

But if Christine Blasey Ford is credible (in my opinion, eminently so), then Tara Reade is credible at the very least — and so is Juanita Broaddrick.

The #MeToo Era: The Briefest of Lights in 40 Years of Darkness

Why bring this up? Because the alleged Broaddrick rape occurred in 1978 — and here we are, in 2020, with many of the same actors, all with the same loyalties, using much the same tactics to silence and sidestep the consequences of almost the same (alleged) crime, the forceable rape of a low-level female political associate by a high-level male with a history of intruding on women.

      Juanita Broaddrick, 1978
      Cover-up continuing, 2020

      Tara Reade, 1993
      Cover-up continuing, 2020

Has nothing changed for Democratic Party leaders in those 42 years?

It's almost as though the #MeToo era, two and a half years at most, the briefest of lights in two dark generations, never occurred at all.
 

When Will Biden Put Aside His Ego And Withdraw For The Sake Of The Country?

One of the Manchester, New Hampshire state legislative districts has 3 seats in the state House. All the candidates, regardless of party, run on one ballot. It's a blue area and the three top vote-getters were all Democrats. In 2018, Democrats Chris Herbert and Ben Baroody came in first and second with over 5,000 votes each. Richard Komi, after polling last in the Democratic primary, came in third with 4,517 votes, beating out top GOP vote-getter Ross Terrio's 3,868 votes. The conservative Komi, a Nigerian refugee, had supported Biden all through the primaries. Bernie came in first in New Hampshire with 76,324 votes. Biden came in a distant 5th with just 24,921 votes, too few votes to qualify for any delegates. And in Hillsborough County, which Komi represents, Bernie also came in first with 25.7% with Biden again, a distant 4th and just 8.8%. Komi didn't mind that his constituents are more progressive than he is. And they probably don't care anymore either since he resigned Friday. Why? Look at this tweet for his boy Status Quo Joe, now deleted:

House Speaker Steve Shurtleff was mortified and told Komi to resign: "I am appalled by Representative Komi’s comments. They were dismissive and hurtful to survivors of sexual assault across the Granite State and across the country. The comments are not fitting for the New Hampshire House of Representatives and immediately upon learning of them I called him and asked Representative Komi to resign his seat."

The Tara Reade scandal has been building slowly. Biden and his handlers had hoped it would go away if they just ignored it-- and, indeed, pre-primary no one from the corporate media would touch it. Now the corporate media is all over it and Biden has finally been forced to respond. His allies are smearing Reade viciously and are basically one tiny baby step away from asserting she paid men to let her blow them. One of them has already said Putin paid her to accuse poor ole Joe, who everyone knows never puts his hands in any women, just all over them. Non-corporate media has been covering this already, of course.

Saturday, Caroline Kitchener asked and tried to answer a question for Washington Post readers-- could Biden really step aside because he has been exposed? "No presidential candidate," wrote Kitchener, "wants to be on the wrong end of an 'October surprise': Major news breaks at the last minute-- maybe the media unearths an old videotape, or the FBI resuscitates a closed investigation into a particular collection of emails. The campaign has to do damage control with limited time before Election Day. October is still a long way away. It was March 25 when Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, publicly accused former vice president Joe Biden-- the presumptive Democratic nominee for president-- of digitally penetrating her with his fingers while she worked in his office in 1993. On Monday, Reade’s former neighbor corroborated Reade’s account in an interview with Business Insider, saying Reade told her about the assault in the mid-90s, soon after Reade says it occurred. Biden spoke about the allegation for the first time Friday morning, saying unequivocally: 'This never happened.'" Biden, like Trump, is an inveterate compulsive liar. There's no reason on earth to believe him now, not anymore than there would be to believe Trump.

Some Democrats are asking for Bernie and some of the minor candidates to unsuspend their campaigns and take Biden on. So far no one is biting, some using the shitty excuse that it could cause chaos in the shitty party that demanded such a shitty candidate as their nominee. All the corporate Dems are setting their hair on fire claiming any show of disunity would be playing into Trump's hands. Umm... wouldn't keeping a fatally flawed candidate like Biden on the ticket be playing into Trump's hands? Trump's campaign has many millions of dollars to make sure every voter hears all about this filthy little secret that Biden has endeavored to not address. Kitchener seems eager to present the establishment perspective-- or maybe she's just a gullible fool.

This kind of division within the Democratic Party is exactly what Trump wants, said Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod, a former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The calls for Biden to step down are coming from people who didn’t want him to be the nominee in the first place, she said.

“It’s silly talk. I think maybe it gives the far left or people who were not supportive of Joe Biden something to hang their hat on. But it’s not realistic.”

Reade’s allegations might dissuade some voters from turning out for Biden, but a new nominee would likely be far more harmful to the Democrats’ chances of defeating Trump, said Jennifer Lawless, a professor of women and politics at the University of Virginia.

“It would make the Democratic Party look utterly incompetent,” she said.

Groper

More evidence in support of Reade’s claims could potentially change the Democratic Party’s calculus. But that evidence would likely need to be extremely conclusive and damaging, said Lawless — not just more corroborating accounts, like the statements from Reade’s former neighbor-- but a “smoking gun” more in line with Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape, where Trump admitted to sexually assaulting women.

While that kind of evidence did not derail Trump’s presidential campaign, Lawless says, the Democrats have “held themselves to a higher bar” by harshly condemning Trump and Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh for the allegations wagered against them. When former Congressman Al Franken (D-MN) was accused of sexual assault, several high profile Democrats publicly called for his resignation, which led him to eventually step down.

The situation could also shift with public opinion, said Lawless.

“If public opinion polls start to change in the next few weeks, and Biden looks like he is faring less well in some of these battleground states, all bets are off.”

Unless new information emerges, Lawless doesn’t expect the Reade allegations to have a major impact on Democratic voter behavior. That might be different if Biden was not going up against Trump, she says. But evaluated against Trump’s long history of sexual assault allegations-- and the hard evidence of the “Access Hollywood” tape-- Democratic voters concerned with these issues will likely still side with Biden, said Lawless.

“As awful as this is, the worst case for Biden is that he’s now on a level playing field with Trump on this dimension [of sexual assault allegations].”

If “smoking gun” evidence did surface, and pressures mounted for Biden to step aside, he would probably have to do so voluntarily, said Jewitt. Biden has already won too many delegates to lose the nomination in any other way. If that happened, a host of other Democratic candidates would rush to reinstate their campaigns. After the first round of votes at the convention, there would likely be no clear winner, said Jewitt, at which point any other person would be free to jump into the race. (Jewitt has fielded many questions in the past month from people eager to know if New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo could run for president. In this scenario, the answer is yes.)

Based on his age-- 77-- Biden’s vice presidential pick was always going to be particularly important, said Lawless. It’s even more important now. Going forward, the vice presidential nominee-- who Biden has promised will be a woman-- will be called on to defend Biden with regards to these allegations, probably more frequently than Biden is called on to defend himself.

It’s a “tough spot” to be in, Lawless says. But that surely won’t deter prospective nominees. If Biden wins, the vice president will be better positioned for the presidency than any woman in history. Years from now, she could be the one deciding how her party responds to a woman who comes forward to share her story of sexual assault.

The anybody-but-Bernie crowd that owns the corrupt corporate Democratic Party apparatus wants just one thing, for Biden to hang on until they can replace him in a proverbial smoke-filled room with another one of any number of neoliberals, someone putrid who would never win the 2020 primary, a Hillary, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Newsom... someone who would put voters into the position of having to eat the DNC's shit or be stuck with 4 more years of Trump. The Democratic Party is now a greatly diminished, sad to behold, one-trick pony: heads you lose, tails you lose even worse.

Is the Tara Reade Story Approaching Critical Mass?

Big Media silence is breaking in the Tara Reade story

by Thomas Neuburger

Is the Tara Reade story reaching critical mass, approaching a tipping point? It seems so.

The initial response to this story was silence from anyone with political or media power. The media in particular completely ignored it. Comparisons of CNN coverage of the Reade story with their coverage of the Blasey Ford story show a marked discrepancy. Reade told her full story first in a March 25 interview with Katie Halper. Yet CNN published no Tara Reade stories until April 25, and then, it seems, they published only in embarrassed response to The Intercept's revelation that Reade's mother had called in to CNN's own show, Larry King Live, on August 11, 1993 to discuss in unspecific terms her daughter's problem.

CNN finally broke silence on the Reade story less than a day after Ryan Grim and the Intercept published the Larry King show transcript and the Media Research Center located and tweeted a clip of it. Blasey Ford's story, in contrast, went viral on all national media. including on CNN, as soon as it was available. Deservedly so, in her case. Not so much, in Reade's.

To conclude that the media buried the story to help Biden remain the presumptive nominee is inescapable. The plan, apparently, was to starve the public of Reade news and wait out the indie-press storm until newer news drew their attention.

Once the wall of silence was breached, the indie press started asking why Democratic Party leaders and opinion makers, especially prominent #MeToo women, were either absent from the discussion or suddenly coming out in support of Biden. Kirstin Gillibrand and Hillary Clinton are the latest to announce support as of this writing, but the silence of many — Elizabeth Warren prominently among them — is still deafening. Note that "I support Joe Biden" and "I believe Joe Biden" are different statements.

Only Nancy Pelosi, speaking with Ari Melber on MSNBC, has been asked directly about Reade's accusation and replied, "I'm satisfied with his answer." (It's very much to the point of this piece that the only sources I could find to link to for this quote are right-wing sources like Breitbart. Yet Melber's show is on MSNBC.)

Now the story itself, or the story about the story, is coming to mainstream pages and screens, thanks partly to the shaming of the indie press and partly to the recent report by Rich McHugh in Business Insider.

Michelle Goldberg tweeted this on April 27, three days prior to this writing:

This is the most persuasive corroborating evidence that has come out so far. What a nightmare. https://t.co/u4yPbEElaf

— Michelle Goldberg (@michelleinbklyn) April 27, 2020

The New York Times now publicly acknowledges Biden's silence:

Democratic Frustration Mounts as Biden Remains Silent on Sexual Assault Allegation

Activists and women’s rights advocates have urged Mr. Biden to address a former aide’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her in 1993. His lack of response has angered them.

In an April 27 New Yorker story entitled "The Biden Trap: As the candidate faces credible assault allegations, his progressive female colleagues are being offered a poisoned chalice," Rebecca Traister observes:

Biden’s shaky past behavior around women and their bodies isn’t staying in his past.

BuzzFeed weighs in with "Democrats Will Have To Answer Questions About Tara Reade. The Biden Campaign Is Advising Them To Say Her Story “Did Not Happen.”"

In which article we see this:

Democrats are in an increasingly precarious position as reporters assess Reade’s allegation. By any measure of the #MeToo movement that has seen the Democratic Party embrace “believe women” as a mantra, Reade, 56, has provided a serious account, disputed by Biden’s campaign and former senior staffers who worked in his office in 1993 but corroborated in part by people she told about the incident in the 1990s.

Chris Cillizza add his bit with "Joe Biden's campaign is twisting a New York Times story to defend against the Tara Reade allegation".

And the Daily Beast pursues responses from 10 prominent women's groups and notes their near universal silence (emphasis added):

Why Have Women’s Groups Gone Dead Silent on Biden Sex-Assault Accusation?

Women’s groups and prominent feminist figures have remained almost universally silent over a former staffer’s accusation of sexual misconduct against former Vice President Joe Biden—including those individuals and groups who came to express regret for how the Democratic Party handled similar accusations made against President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

The collective non-response from mostly Democrat-aligned groups comes as potential female running mates struggle themselves in responding to the Biden allegation, which has the potential to upend his campaign against President Donald Trump, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women in alleged incidents spanning decades. And it echoes the division among progressives when the #MeToo movement revived scrutiny of Clinton’s own alleged sexual misconduct.

The Daily Beast contacted 10 top national pro-women organizations for this story, including Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women. Most organizations did not respond to a detailed request for comment about the allegation by Tara Reade, a former staff assistant in Biden’s Senate office who has accused the former vice president of forcibly penetrating her with his fingers in the early 1990s. Others replied and did not provide a statement.

In addition, according to the article, "neither [attorney Patricia] Ireland [who presided over NOW during the whole of the Clinton administration] nor feminist icon [Gloria] Steinem responded to a request for comment about Reade’s accusations against Biden."

Finally, the Washington Post's editorial board writes on April 29: "Biden himself should address the Tara Reade allegations and release relevant records".

What's notable in all these reports isn't the story itself. It's that the story is being told in mainstream media outlets where people with mainstream lives can finally see them.

What's Next?

The day may be almost here when Gloria Steinem, Elizabeth Warren, and worse for Biden, all of the female VP candidates and hopefuls mentioned by Traister in her "poisoned chalice" New Yorker article will be asked on the record, not if they support Joe Biden, but if they believe him.

That's a question few women with strong #MeToo credentials will want to answer, since it ties them, perhaps forever, to Biden's "historical shortcomings" (in Traister's delicate phrasing). They have to be concerned that, if another credible accuser comes forward, it could sink them all.

Will this explosion of coverage lead to a collapse of the Biden campaign and a DNC search for a new 2020 standard-bearer? We can't be sure it will. Every indication that's come to my ears suggests that DNC Democrats, those with real power, are certain the storm will be weathered, the story will pass into the background, spring will fade to summer, then to fall, and by November Party-leaning minds will think only of Trump and the wreckage he represents.

But critical mass brings tipping points. We also can't be sure that Reade's story won't lead to Biden's collapse, now that the difficult questions are starting to be asked in places that give permission to ask them.
 

Joe Biden Must Step Aside-- A Guest Post By Harvey Wasserman

Harvey Wasserman is best known as a powerful advocate for renewable energy and as one of America's most prominent anti-nuke activists. Today he's tackling another threat for us:

Joe Biden must step aside. NOW!!!

Someone else must be the Democratic Party’s nominee to run against Donald Trump.

No less than eight women have now accused Biden of sexual imposition. At least one has accused him of forcible digital entry. Her description of the alleged event is gruesome, grotesque and extremely damning.

 None of the accusations put forward by these eight women can be easily dismissed. Taken as a whole, they entirely disqualify Joe Biden to become president of the of the United States.

They guarantee one thing: if he is the Democratic nominee, running against Donald Trump, he will lose.

Biden’s tally of women accusing him of sexual imposition and/or rape is now just slightly under half of those accusing Trump, which stands somewhere around 19. At least one of Trump’s accusers is awaiting a DNA sample to see if it matches an item of clothing she says he stained during forcible entry.

Running against a female candidate, Trump lost the 2016 popular election by nearly three million votes. His Electoral College victory came from three states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) where voter suppression and dubious vote counts made the difference, but went unchallenged by Clinton’s Democratic Party.

Trump’s history of sexual imposition and grotesquely sexist rants clearly hurt him in the popular vote.

This country does have a history of electing sexually compromised men.

In 1803 Thomas Jefferson was (accurately) accused of fathering many children with his slave Sally Hemings, but won re-election in 1804.

Democrat Grover Cleveland won in 1884 despite being charged with a rape that led to the birth of a child. The GOP taunt “Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa?” was answered with “Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha.”

Nan Britten, Republican President Warren G. Harding’s infamous mistress, self-published a best-seller called “The President’s Daughter” (a later DNA test confirmed the accusation). Harding avoided running for re-election by dying in office (many still believe his angry wife poisoned him).

Bill Clinton won the presidency despite multiple accusations of sexual misbehavior. We all know what happened next.

To beat Trump in 2020, Biden would need overwhelming female support. He says he’ll nominate a woman for VP.

But he comes with cringe-worthy photos of unwanted embraces, from-behind message and more.

That ugly gallery would slash any margin the Democrats might claim from Trump’s grotesque misogyny. Like Hillary Clinton, Biden’s female running mate would be harshly attacked for choosing to “stand by her man” in the face of these accusations.

Biden’s actual control over his faculties is now widely doubted. He’s been virtually absent during Trump’s catastrophic mishandling of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Any serious opposition candidate would be daily critical of the death and destruction caused by Trump’s utter failure to cope with this crisis. Biden has been all but missing in action.

  Now he refuses to appear with Bernie Sanders when the two could easily agree to focus their TV time on Trump. As with women voters, Biden will not win without Bernie’s millions of enthusiastic Millennial backers. But exactly when their youthful energies are most needed, Biden and the corporate Democrats are turning them off. It’s exactly what Clinton did to hand Trump the White House.

But above all, Biden now stands accused of exactly the behavior most certain to alienate women.  Turning both women and millennial voters away from his campaign will virtually guarantee a Trump victory in November.

He needs to step aside NOW, while an alternative is still possible.

Dunn And Biden-- A Love Story

TIME Magazine, July 1942: "The richest gossip of his time died last week. On his deathbed, fat, vain little Maury Henry Biddle Paul, "Cholly Knickerbocker" of the New York Journal-American, could well reflect that he had made himself more famous than most of the puppets he wrote about in his quarter century as a society reporter."

Fast forward to today when SKDKnickerbocker, (did they name themselves after Cholly? Are they that self-aware?) PR firm to the stars of the policial firmament, can claim the same mantle-- more powerful than their "clients"-- showing no mercy to their opponents while protecting and enabling their benefactors-- aka, those they have made politically powerful so they can do the bidding of their even more powerful donors. Today's Knickerbocker is much more dangerous because shilling for politicians instead of mere celebrities can make a loser like Biden into the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party-- a candidate who will lose to Donald Trump! The latest ABC/Washington Post poll shows Biden and Trump in a statistical tie.

Case in point-- Anita Dunn, the "D" in SKD. Not only is she "senior advisor" to Joe Biden, but her firm is also the PR arm of the Time's Up movement, so when Tara Reade approached Time's Up for help in exposing Biden's sexual assault on her, the firm held out their 501(c)3 tax status as a reason to refuse to help her, saying that because Biden was a candidate they couldn't get involved. Really? Then all powerful candidates can assault women at will! No tax lawyer supports that claim!

When The Intercept first reported on Time's Up and Reade the details of the assault were not detailed but a subsequent tape and interview withe NewsOne made it clear that this went far beyond "touching" or "hair sniffing"-- it was sexual assault.

Last week, after the details of the assault became public, Krystal Ball interviewed Ryan Grim:





But yesterday she interviewed Tara Reade and followed up with a scathing commentary:





Krystal charges that CNN and MSNBC will "gladly provide a venue for allegations against the outsiders upon whom their status and access do not depend. They've got to be dragged kicking and screaming to do their job when it comes to their own ideological and class brethren." says Krystal Ball. "Why now?" the pundits ask. She's been trying to get her story out for months. Before she reached out to Time's Up, she tried reaching out to Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris but they too are members of the same club as Anita Dunn and Joe Biden.

Krystal again: "If a claim like this had been made against Bernie Sanders, or even Donald Trump, or another media villain like Edward Snowden, do you think the accuser would have any trouble getting press? Do you think it would fall to independent and alternative news to break the story if a woman who worked with Bernie in the 1990s made a credible claim of sexual assault? Do you think CNN and MSNBC would bury their heads in the sand? Every reporter in this town would be breaking down their door to be the first to tell that story." I might add that we could look at what happened to Julian Assange when he took of his condom during consensual sex...

It is beyond time for the Democratic Party to advocate for public funding of elections and get these "foul creatures" as a party insider described them, out of our politics for good!

"Tara is trending on Twitter and all the blue checks and the gender warriors are nowhere to be found," Ball said. "Their principles seem to have abandoned them now that it threatens their access to the Biden campaign and their ability to grift off their coziness and proximity to power." I would add that SDK Knickerbocker is not proximite to power-- I would say they ARE the power and Biden "grifts" off them. More coming.