Connect with us

Politics

Mainstream Media Slammed for Ignoring Joe Biden Sexual Assault Accusations

Published

on

  • On March 25, a former Joe Biden staffer accused Biden of sexual assault. While this story gained some traction, most major news outlets did not cover the story in much detail.
  • This led to frustration online among people who thought claims against a high-profile and influential figure who could be the Democratic nominee for President should be getting attention on every level. 
  • Others, however, called the story’s credibility into question. Since the piece comes from just one source, some understood why media organizations might be hesitant to cover it. 

Biden Accusation

On March 25, presidential candidate Joe Biden was accused by a former staffer of sexual assault, but these allegations have yet to make their way to most mainstream media outlets, leading to frustration and criticism.

Tara Reade, who worked for Biden in the 90s, says that the former vice president assaulted her in 1993. Speaking on The Katie Halper Show, she claimed he penetrated her with his fingers when they were alone in a room together. Halper says she corroborated this with Reade’s brother and a friend who learned of the incident when it happened. Both said they told Reade to say nothing at the time.

Biden’s team has denied these allegations, but this is not the first claim against Biden or even the first claim against him from Reade. Last year, she and another woman, Lucy Flores, accused him of harassment and inappropriate touching. Still, when Reade brought forth her assault claim, major outlets like CNN, NBC, Fox News and more were hesitant to report on it in depth or even at all. 

Criticism of Media

People online, however, were very vocal about their concerns. The Hashtags #TimesUpBiden and #IBelieveTara made their way around Twitter. 

Others specifically called out outlets for not reporting on this news. YouTuber Mykie “Glam and Gore” mentioned several organizations in a tweet before claiming that if the tables were turned and this came out about candidate Bernie Sanders, it would be front-page news. 

The idea that the lack of coverage stemmed from a political bias in favor of Biden and against Bernie is a fairly common belief among Sanders’ supporters. Many shared that same sentiment on Twitter, claiming that the media would protect Biden no matter what. 

On the opposite end of the political spectrum, many conservatives also believed the mass media was intentionally not covering the story to protect Biden, the presumed Democratic nominee.

“Will the liberal media cover this the same way they did when it was Brett Kavanuagh? I doubt it,” one Twitter user said.

Biden supporters have defended him, however, claiming that Reade’s story is not credible. Some have even gone on to accuse her of being a Russian asset.

Credibility Questions

While the notion of her being a Russian asset is a conspiracy theory at best, the question of her credibility could be a large factor as to why mainstream media has not leaped on the story.

Without casting doubt on Reade, it is easy to see why news organizations would raise their eyebrows at running with a story that largely comes from one source on a podcast. A piece in Salon noted that for stories like this, journalists usually go through a long series of talking to sources on every side of the issue, verifying accounts and getting into the meticulous details before publishing. 

“Women who tell these stories inevitably get blasted by skeptics who pick their stories apart, so it’s critical to their safety that the reporting holds up under close scrutiny,” Amanda Marcotte, the article’s author wrote. “That’s only going to be more true when the story has major political implications or confusing twists that could be interpreted as red flags — or both, like this one does.”

Jezebel was also critical of the one source allegation, saying that the media silence might have more to do with this than an allegiance to Biden. 

“Part of the media’s silence about the podcast is perhaps not because of any fealty to Biden, but because of the way Halper, who also co-hosts Rolling Stone’s Useful Idiots podcast, aired the allegations—with little context, few follow-up questions, and no additional reporting,” Jezebel’s Emily Alford wrote.

While all this may be true, Arwa Mahdawi explored credibility issues in a piece for The Guardian, noting that many sexual assault stories come with the same levels of uncertainty. 

“Reade’s story may be impossible to verify, but this is the case with the vast majority of sexual assault allegations,” she wrote. 

Mahdawi also said that it is frustrating to see people and media outlets either use this story for political gain, or to ignore it in its entirety. Still, she says that whether or not this allegation gets coverage, it may not even impact 2020 in the long run.

“It is also hugely unlikely that Reade’s accusations will do any damage whatsoever to Biden’s ambitions,” she wrote. “Allegations of sexual assault certainly haven’t posed any hindrance to Trump. The allegations against Kavanaugh didn’t stop him from becoming a supreme court justice. The allegations against Louis CK didn’t kill his career in comedy. ”

See what others are saying: (Vox) (The Intercept) (Huff Post)

Politics

Jan. 6 Committee Prepares Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon for Ignoring Subpoena

Published

on

The move comes after former President Trump told several of his previous aides not to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the insurrection.


Bannon Refuses to Comply With Subpoena

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection announced Thursday that it is seeking to hold former White House advisor Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

The decision marks a significant escalation in the panel’s efforts to force officials under former President Donald Trump’s administration to comply with its probe amid Trump’s growing efforts to obstruct the inquiry.

In recent weeks, the former president has launched a number of attempts to block the panel from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence requested by the committee that he claims are protected by executive privilege.

Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down. On Friday, President Joe Biden rejected Trump’s effort to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.

Still, Trump has also directed former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee. 

That demand came after the panel issued subpoenas ordering depositions from Bannon and three other former officials: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel.

After Trump issued his demand, Bannon’s lawyer announced that he would not obey the subpoena until the panel reached an agreement with Trump or a court ruled on the executive privilege matter.

Many legal experts have questioned whether Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, can claim executive privilege for something that happened when he was not working for the executive.

Panel Intensifies Compliance Efforts

The Thursday decision from the committee is significant because it will likely set up a legal battle and test how much authority the committee can and will exercise in requiring compliance.

It also sets an important precedent for those who have been subpoenaed. While Bannon is the first former official to openly defy the committee, there have been reports that others plan to do the same. 

The panel previously said Patel and Meadows were “engaging” with investigators, but on Thursday, several outlets reported that the two — who were supposed to appear before the body on Thursday and Friday respectively —  are now expected to be given an extension or continuance.

Sources told reporters that Scavino, who was also asked to testify Friday, has had his deposition postponed because service of his subpoena was delayed.

As far as what happens next for Bannon, the committee will vote to adopt the contempt report next week. Once that is complete, the matter will go before the House for a full vote.  

Assuming the Democratic-held House approves the contempt charge, it will then get referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the matter before a grand jury.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading

Politics

Senate Votes To Extend Debt Ceiling Until December

Published

on

The move adds another deadline to Dec. 3, which is also when the federal government is set to shut down unless Congress approves new spending.


Debt Ceiling Raised Temporarily

The Senate voted on Thursday to extend the debt ceiling until December, temporarily averting a fiscal catastrophe.

The move, which followed weeks of stalemate due to Republican objections, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) partially backed down from his blockade and offered a short-term proposal.

After much whipping of votes, 11 Republicans joined Democrats to break the legislative filibuster and move to final approval of the measure. The bill ultimately passed in a vote of 50-48 without any Republican support.

The legislation will now head to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said members would be called back from their current recess for a vote on Tuesday. 

The White House said President Joe Biden would sign the measure, but urged Congress to pass a longer extension.

“We cannot allow partisan politics to hold our economy hostage, and we can’t allow the routine process of paying our bills to turn into a confidence-shaking political showdown every two years or every two months,’’ White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.

Under the current bill, the nation’s borrowing limit will be increased by $480 billion, which the Treasury Department said will cover federal borrowing until around Dec. 3.

The agency had previously warned that it would run out of money by Oct. 18 if Congress failed to act. Such a move would have a chilling impact on the economy, forcing the U.S. to default on its debts and potentially plunging the country into a recession. 

Major Hurdles Remain

While the legislation extending the ceiling will certainly offer temporary relief, it sets up another perilous deadline for the first Friday in December, when government funding is also set to expire if Congress does not approve another spending bill.

Regardless of the new deadline, many of the same hurdles lawmakers faced the first time around remain. 

Democrats are still struggling to hammer out the final details of Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending agenda, which Republicans have strongly opposed.

Notably, Democratic leaders previously said they could pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with 50 votes and no Republican support.

Such a move would require all 50 Senators, but intraparty disputes remain over objections brought by Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), who have been stalling the process for months.

Although disagreements over reconciliation are ongoing among Democrats, McConnell has insisted the party use the obscure procedural process to raise the debt limit. Democrats, however, have balked at the idea, arguing that tying the debt ceiling to reconciliation would set a dangerous precedent.

Despite Republican efforts to connect the limit to Biden’s economic agenda, raising the ceiling is not the same as adopting new spending. Rather, the limit is increased to pay off spending that has already been authorized by previous sessions of Congress and past administrations.

In fact, much of the current debt stems from policies passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, including the 2017 tax overhaul. 

As a result, while Democrats have signaled they may make concessions to Manchin and Sinema, they strongly believe that Republicans must join them to increase the debt ceiling to fund projects their party supported. 

It is currently unclear when or how the ongoing stalemate will be resolved, or how either party will overcome their fervent objections.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

Politics

California Makes Universal Voting by Mail Permanent

Published

on

California is now the eighth state to make universal mail-in ballots permanent after it temporarily adopted the policy for elections held amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 


CA Approves Universal Voting by Mail

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill Monday requiring every registered voter in the state to be mailed a ballot at least 29 days before an election, whether they request it or not.

Assembly Bill 37 makes permanent a practice that was temporarily adopted for elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law, which officially takes effect in January, also extends the time mail ballots have to arrive at elections offices from three days to seven days after an election. Voters can still choose to cast their vote in person if they prefer.

Supporters of the policy have cheered the move, arguing that proactively sending ballots to registered voters increases turnout.

“Data shows that sending everyone a ballot in the mail provides voters access. And when voters get ballots in the mail, they vote,” the bill’s author, Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto), said during a Senate committee hearing in July.

Meanwhile opponents — mostly Republicans — have long cast doubts about the safety of mail-in voting, despite a lack of evidence to support their claims that it leads to widespread voter fraud. That strategy, however, has also faced notable pushback from some that a lot of Republicans who say it can actually hurt GOP turnout.

Others May Follow

The new legislation probably isn’t too surprising for California, where over 50% of votes cast in general elections have been through mail ballots since 2012, according to The Sacramento Bee. Now, many believe California will be followed by similar legislation from Democrats across the country as more Republican leaders move forward with elections bills that significantly limit voting access.

Newsome signed 10 other measures Monday changing election and campaign procedures, including a bill that would require anyone advocating for or against a candidate to stand farther away from a polling place. Another bill increases penalties for candidates who use campaign funds for personal expenses while a third measure increases reporting requirements for limited liability corporations that engage in campaign activity.

“As states across our country continue to enact undemocratic voter suppression laws, California is increasing voter access, expanding voting options and bolstering elections integrity and transparency,” Newsom said in a statement.

“Last year we took unprecedented steps to ensure all voters had the opportunity to cast a ballot during the pandemic and today we are making those measures permanent after record-breaking participation in the 2020 presidential election.”

The news regarding California came just in time for National Voter Registration day today, giving Americans another reminder to make sure they’re registered in their states. For more information on how to register, visit Vote.gov or any of the other resources linked below.

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (Los Angeles Times) (The Sacramento Bee)

Continue Reading