Friday, May 22, 2020


"Saving the Planet" Requires the Destruction of the Capitalist State and the Exercise of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!


The International Group of the Communist Left (www.igcl.org), Septembre 20th 2019.


No one doubts today, especially in the face of global warming, that capitalism is ’destroying the planet’ and threatening the very survival of the human species. Even the most fervent followers, ideologues and propagandists of ’capitalism economic liberalism’, such as the Financial Times and The Economist, which in recent days have declared that it was "time to a reset" for capitalism, that "business must make a profit but should serve a purpose too" and ’profoundly chang[e] the economy’ [1]. Up to the point of launching a global media and political campaign encouraging and promoting more than 5000 demonstrations against global warming throughout the world. The reality of the opposition between capitalism and nature is obvious to all - except for some Trump and Bolsonaro who can thus serve as useful idiots, as stooges, to give more credit to the current ecological mobilization. All ideological bourgeois currents, from economic liberals, Keynesians, left-wing anti-liberals, to the most radical anti-capitalists - ex-Stalinists, Trotskyists and leftists - are calling for a general mobilization. Some capitalist companies even invite their employees to ’strike’ so that they can go on demonstration!

That capitalism "estrang[es] from man nature and himself" [2] was already established, noted, explained, criticized and denounced from the very first theoretical and programmatic steps of the revolutionary workers movement, through its theory, Marxism. Nothing new in itself, therefore, for the conscious proletarians and communists. But according to the capitalist media and most state apparatus, there is an absolute urgency since tomorrow it will be too late because of irreversible consequences. According to the latest IPCC report [3], "at the current rate of emissions, global warming will reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052. Without increasing the ambition of the signatory countries of the Paris Agreement and without immediate implementation of the necessary measures, global warming is expected to reach 3°C by 2100" [4].


Sustainable Development and Degrowth ?

To answer this, there would essentially be two options: sustainable development or, for the most radical, degrowth. The opposition between the two is only apparent because they remain on the same ground. Both delimit the scope of political action to the capitalist ideological, political and state framework. Even the most radical limit the struggle within the framework of capitalism, the people and citizens ignoring any contradiction and class division within them, bourgeois democracy and its state when they demand that "Government (...) tell the truth (sic!) by declaring a climate and ecological emergency ; [that they] act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025; [and] create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice" (https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/).

Sustainable development or degrowth - in whatever form and degree - does not call into question the factor of global warming: capitalism; that is, the ever-renewed and expanded accumulation of capital, the ever-increasing pursuit of profit, and widespread commodification. And the political solutions that accompany both are inevitably false solutions from the point of view of preserving the planet; and real impasses and ideological and political traps from the point of view of the revolutionary class, the proletariat. It goes the same for ecological ideology as well as pacifist. Capitalism is war - another classic thesis of Marxism - and pacifism, whatever the conscience and sincerity of each pacifist, is only a means and a moment of preparation for imperialist war. Capitalism is also the inevitable destruction of the environment and ecologism, whatever the conscience and sincerity of each ecologist (often also pacifist by the way), is only a means and a moment of the recruitment behind and in defence of the democratic state in view of the generalized imperialist war.


Why and How Communism is the Only ’Solution’?

Only Communism can put an end to wars and production that devastate the planet. Of course, we are not talking about so-called communism, in fact a particular form of state capitalism due to historical conditions that were also particular, of the former USSR or Stalinist China, which made the growth of industrial production the criterion of the superiority of their so-called socialism over capitalism. And whose object was ultimately only aimed at war.... Nationalization and state control have never been socialist or communist measures like Marx and Engels already in their time [5] have never ceased to warn.

"If, in socialism, there is accumulation, it will be presented as an accumulation of material objects useful to human needs and these will not need to appear alternately as currency, nor will they need to undergo the application of a ’monetometer’ to measure and compare them according to a ’general equivalent’. Therefore, these objects will no longer be commodities and will only be defined by their physical and qualitative quantitative nature, which is expressed by economists, and also by Marx, for the purpose of exposure, by use-value.

It can be established that the rates of accumulation in socialism, measured in material quantities such as tons of steel or kilowatts of energy, will be slow and slightly higher than the rate of population growth. With regard to mature capitalist societies, rational planning of consumption in quantity and quality and the abolition of the huge mass of anti-social consumption (from cigarettes to aircraft carriers) will probably determine a long period of declining production indices and therefore, if we use old terms, disinvestment and disaccumulation" [6] (A. Bordiga).

Saving the planet can only be achieved if we produce for human needs and not for profit. But also, and much more immediately, by removing the threat of generalized imperialist war to which capitalist crisis inevitably leads. That is why the fight against the capitalist state and its destruction is the real urgency for the salvation of the planet. However, this fight can only be fought by the social class that is "s[unk] to the level of (...) the most wretched of commodities" [7], the labour force commodity, that is the proletariat. Because it alone "is a really revolutionary class [and can sweep] away by force the old conditions of production [and] the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class" (Manifesto of the Communist Party). And thus can restore human being’s unity with nature, "his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die" [8].

The present campaign against global warming - however real and dangerous it may be - aims instead to drag the populations, especially the younger generation, behind capitalist states and democratic ideology in the name of the people. And to divert their attention from the class struggle and the international proletariat. At a time when the capitalist class is redoubling its attacks against the proletarians everywhere because of the economic impasse and the growing imperialist tensions and wars. At a time when a massive confrontation between the classes is becoming the central issue because the fate of humanity will depend on its outcome: towards a society without exploitation, no class, no misery, no war, or towards a generalized imperialist war.

To those who really want to fight capitalism and its dramatic consequences of all kinds: it is not in demonstrations encouraged, promoted and even organised by States that they will be able to advance ’the cause of saving the planet’. It is by joining proletarian struggles, workers’ struggles, strikes, demonstrations, etc. and by getting closer to proletarian and revolutionary minorities, especially those of the Communist Left. Because so, and only so, will they be able to find a militant commitment and a theoretical and political coherence that will allow them to integrate and actively participate in the struggle for the true safeguarding of the planet and humanity: the historical struggle of the international revolutionary proletariat for Communism.


The International Group of the Communist Left (www.igcl.org), Septembre 20th 2019.


Home


Notes:


[1] . Quoted by the French radio France Inter: https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-edito-eco/l-edito-eco-20-septembre-2019. The second is translated by us.


[2] . Because wage labour which "tear[s] away from man the object of his production" and ’takes nature from him’, Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, K. Marx.


[3] . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


[4] . https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/quil-faut-retenir-du-rapport-du-giec-sur-rechauffement-climatique (translated by us).


[5] . Not even Lenin by the way - and contrary to what Stalinism, and also partly Trostky himself, claimed - despite the particularly dramatic conditions in Russia after October 1917 and the emergency state capitalist measures that had to be taken in the face of the destruction of the war, international isolation, the paralysis of the productive apparatus and the famine and misery that resulted from it... But that is another question.


[6] . A. Bordiga, Structure économique et sociale de la Russie d’aujourd’hui, Éditions de l’oubli, collection of article and texts written in the 1950, translated by us from French).


[7] . Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, K. Marx.


[8] . (idem)

NFU Calls for a Workforce Complete with International Workers

 
The NFU stands in solidarity with migrant workers for good jobs and rights.  That includes their right to count on work when contracts have been signed.  The New Brunswick government's decision to exclude foreign workers from arriving in the Province has broken contracts that workers were counting on and has left farmers in New Brunswick without the labour force they need.  The NFU-NB issued a joint letter asking the Province to overturn its decision presented here in English and in French.  The national office sent a follow-up letter and the CBC ran a story in print  and video (below) on the impact of that decision on Strawberry Hill Farm, owned by NFU members Tim and Kirsten Livingstone.

We have heard recently that there is a rising distrust of foreign workers.  These workers often have years of experience and special skills that cannot be replaced with inexperienced Canadian labour.  We respect peoples' concerns about Canadian employment, but also respect the skills and dedication that the foreign labour have brought to Canadian farms. We continue to call for good working conditions and respect for all workers.  Please join us in speaking up for them as they work hard to provide Canadians and the world with good food. 

NFU Letter - Time to rebuild our meat processing system

Dear Editor,

The recent closures of meat packing plants in Alberta, Quebec and several American states due to the Covid-19 pandemic are shedding light on the tremendous expense of this style of massive meat processing operation. The expense borne by the workers at the plants is the greatest of all, their health threatened so severely, even causing death to two Cargill workers in Alberta. However the expense doesn’t stop there, as consumers are expected to see meat prices jump, farmers have seen the prices paid for their animals drop by more than 30% and tax payers will ultimately pay the price to help bail out this sector.

Several decades ago when the move to close smaller slaughterhouses in favour of building huge single entity plants was happening, the rationale was that there were going to be tremendous efficiencies in doing this. National Farmers Union studies showed that the promised efficiencies of consumers seeing cheaper meat and farmers making a decent living simply did not materialize. The spread between what famers are paid for their animals and what consumers pay for meat has grown. The working conditions at the plants with thousands of animals being slaughtered each day are stressful at the best of times and downright dangerous now. Farmers suddenly have nowhere to sell their animals and consumers are starting to see less meat on the shelves.

Now is the time to look at how we can build a meat processing system that will not cause these massive problems. A move to build smaller, safer slaughter plants in each province would help to disperse the threats to food security. We could assure meat supply from local farms to meet local demands. If one plant was forced to close it would not disrupt the food chain across the entire country. Providing safe secure food from local farms to local consumers is entirely possible without putting meat packing workers at risk. Surely we’ve learned that bigger is not always better.

Vicki Burns, Winnipeg MB
Fred Tait, Rossendale MB 
Contact information:
Website: www.nfu.ca
Telephone: 306-652-9465
Email: nfu@nfu.ca

Our mailing address is:
2717 Wentz Ave., Saskatoon, SK S7K 4B6

Local Abattoirs


The NFU and its members have been talking about the need for more Provincially-inspected local abattoirs for years before the COVID crisis raised the issue to the public. Issues at the Cargill plant highlighted the bottleneck created by the conglomeration of processing as the NFU brought to the public's attention through this media release and this backgrounder. (Ici en français: communiqué et fiche d'information)

A national Livestock Committee has been struck to address the many issues around livestock and the NFU-Ontario released this letter highlighting the need for local abattoirs.  More action on this issue will follow.

CDC: The coronavirus 'does not spread easily' from contaminated surfaces
Anna Medaris Miller
Crystal Cox/Business Insider


In updated language on its website, the CDC emphasized that the coronavirus spreads easily between people but not easily in other ways, such as on surfaces. 

The newly-formatted advice, drawing attention to this detail, is confusing in light of eye-catching simulations, past research, and expert guidance on how to disinfect surfaces. 

Overall, though, the science has been consistent on how the disease spreads: through close, prolonged contact with people. 

While you should still disinfect high-touch surfaces regularly just in case, it's more important to wash your hands and avoid touching your face. 

If you've been obsessively wiping down doorknobs, groceries, packages, and keyboards to protect yourself from the novel coronavirus, you might be able to lighten up: The virus "does not spread easily" that way, according to newly revised guidance on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.

It also doesn't spread easily from people to animals, or from animals to people, the website says.

Rather, as experts have long emphasized, the virus spreads easily between people who are within about six feet of each other. Specifically, when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks, respiratory droplets can be inhaled by someone nearby and potentially get them sick.

"The virus that causes COVID-19 is spreading very easily and sustainably between people," the website says. "Information from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic suggest that this virus is spreading more efficiently than influenza, but not as efficiently as measles, which is highly contagious."

While this information isn't new, the website's new formatting calls more attention to how the disease isn't likely to spread. That's confusing in light of catchy simulations, past research showing how long the virus can live on surfaces, and expert guidance on how to disinfect various objects.

Plus, the CDC still recommends people "routinely clean and disinfect" high-touch surfaces since it still may be possible, however unlikely, to contract COVID-19 through them.

"It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes," the website says. "This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about this virus."
Crystal Cox/Business Insider

Washing your hands is more important than disinfecting surfaces, but doing both can't hurt


Most important, as always, when it comes to protecting yourself from the coronavirus is avoiding close, prolonged contact with people you don't live with. If you may come into such a situation, it's better to be outside and to wear a mask.

Cleaning surfaces is a lower-priority precaution you can take. To do it properly, it's important to use a product that would kill enough of the virus to prevent disease, Rachel Graham, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, previously told Business Insider's Aylin Woodward.

"Most commercial products labeled 'disinfectants' talk about a 99.9% kill rate," she said, which would bring the potential infectious dose of the virus low enough to keep you safe.

She said smooth, nonporous surfaces like doorknobs and tabletops are better at carrying viruses than porous surfaces like money, hair, and cloth.

The best way, though, to prevent contracting the coronavirus from surfaces, if that's even possible, is to frequently and thoroughly wash your hands and avoid touching your face.

"Of course," Woodward writes, "the coronavirus can't infect you through your hands, so if you never touch your eyes, nose, mouth, you can avoid infection."
TRUMP DEMANDS THAT CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES AND PLACES OF WORSHIP IN AMERICA BE OPENED 

Trump declares houses of worship essential and claims he will override governors if they disagree
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-declares-houses-of-worship-essential-says-hell-override-governors-2020-5

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?


Search Results

Web results

The head of the religious sect that has been at the centre of the coronavirus outbreak in South Korea has apologised to the nation for the disease's spread.
The country has reported 3,730 cases and 21 deaths so far. More than half of all infections involve members of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, a fringe Christian ...
Mar 9, 2020 - South Korean soldiers spraying disinfectant in front of a branch of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Daegu last week. Some people are ...
Mar 25, 2020 - From the movements and contacts of the first people with confirmed cases of covid-19 in South Korea, we get a real-life picture of how a ...


Feb 27, 2020 - A former member of the religious group tied to South Korea's coronavirus outbreak says worshipers had to attend mass when ill and couldn't ...
Mar 16, 2020 - A new coronavirus cluster linked to a South Korean religious group emerged on Monday, with 46 cases at a church near Seoul that defied calls ...
Mar 2, 2020 - Health workers at the Shincheonji church in Daegu, South Korea, on ... Why a South Korean Church Is Accused of Spreading the Coronavirus.
Trump declares houses of worship essential and claims he will override governors if they disagree
Grace Panetta and Eliza Relman
7 hours ago

Parishioners wearing face masks at a Mass at Christ the King Catholic Church in San Antonio, Texas, on May 19. San Antonio parishes have begun reopening their doors for in-person services. Eric Gay/AP Photo

President Donald Trump said on Friday that he would move to designate churches and other houses of worship as essential services.

Trump said he would "override" governors who did not open up their houses of worship for in-person services, though he likely does not have the authority to do so.

"I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now," Trump said. "If there's any question, they're going to have to call me, but they're not going to be successful in that call."


President Donald Trump announced at the White House on Friday that he would designate churches and other houses of worship as essential services.

Trump added that he would "override" governors who don't open up their houses of worship for in-person services, though he likely does not have the authority to do so because of the 10th Amendment, which delegates all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution to the states.


"I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now," Trump said. "If there's any question, they're going to have to call me, but they're not going to be successful in that call.

"These are places that hold our society together and keep our people united. The people are demanding to go to church and synagogue, go to their mosque."

Trump argued that businesses like liquor stores and medical services like abortion clinics shouldn't have been reopened before religious institutions.

"The ministers, pastors, rabbis, imams, and other faith leaders will make sure that their congregations are safe as they gather and pray," Trump said. "I know them well. They love their congregations. They love their people. They don't want anything bad to happen to them or to anybody else.

"The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important, essential places of faith to open right now."

He added, "If they don't do it, I will override the governors."

The White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, dismissed reporters' questions about the legality of forcing governors to reopen places of worship as a "hypothetical."

"You're assuming that governors are going to keep churches shut down and keep mosques shut down and keep synagogues shut down — that is a hypothetical question, and we'll leave it to these faith communities to reopen," McEnany said, adding, "We can all hope that this Sunday people are allowed to pray to their gods across this country."

McEnany said it was safe to reopen house of worship as long as they followed the new guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The White House had rejected the CDC's draft guidelines for reopening places of worship, as some officials found them too restrictive and others didn't want to release any guidance, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

The rejected draft CDC guidance recommended that houses of worship temporarily stop using shared materials including prayer books, hymnals, and collection trays for donations. It also suggested not having musical groups perform.
WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE
Lawyer for Tara Reade drops her as a client

 May 22, 2020 By Sky Palma


The lawyer for Tara Reade announced that he will no longer represent her regarding claims that she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden in 1993.

“Our Firm no longer represents Tara Reade. Our decision, made on May 20, is by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” Douglas Wigdor wote. “On that point, our view — which is the same view held by the majority of Americans, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll — has not changed.

“Much of what has been written about Ms. Reade is not probative of whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted her, but rather is intended to victim-shame and attack her credibility on unrelated and irrelevant matters,” he added. “We genuinely wish Ms. Reade well and hope that she, as a survivor, is treated fairly. We have and will continue to represent survivors regardless of their alleged predator’s status or politics.”

The announcement came just one day after defense lawyers in California said they were reviewing whether Reade misrepresented her credentials when she testified as a witness in past cases.


Defense lawyers look to reopen cases where Tara Reade testified as an expert

Reade stated under oath she had an undergraduate degree that her college said she never earned and appears to have exaggerated her role in Joe Biden’s office.


Tara Reade. | AP Photo/Donald Thompson

By NATASHA KORECKI 05/22/2020 POLITICO

Under the name Alexandra McCabe, Tara Reade has for years testified for the prosecution as an expert in domestic violence cases.

But a number of California defense attorneys are considering challenging the convictions of their clients amid questions about whether Reade misrepresented her credentials under oath.

Reade, the former Joe Biden staffer who recently accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1993, stated she had an undergraduate degree that her college says she never earned and appears to have exaggerated her role in Biden’s office, according to trial transcripts in two court cases reviewed by POLITICO.


Six cases involving Reade’s testimony are already under review by the Sixth District Appellate Program, Executive Director Patrick Murray told POLITICO Thursday. The state-funded office oversees appointed defense counsel in appellate cases covering four California counties, including Monterey County, where the prosecution often tapped Reade as an expert witness.

The review will determine whether the attorneys can petition a judge to review their clients’ conviction, and potentially order a new trial.

“I have at least six cases where she testified and I have lists pending from various attorney groups where she testified as a violence expert. I expect that list will expand significantly,” said Murray. “We’re trying to get the lists together. We’re aware of Ms. Reade, we’re in the mode of trying to review the transcripts to see if she misrepresented herself in court.”

He said the calls for a review came as news reports raised questions about her background and detailed her credentials, including the fact that she did not complete an undergraduate degree.

“Last week, I was informed she testified as an expert. Last week I was also informed she lied about her credentials. I didn’t connect the dots on the significance of those two things until yesterday when I was contacted by an attorney,” Murray said.

The concerns about Reade’s testimony come after she leveled sexual assault charges against Biden in March. In 2019, Reade at first alleged sexual harassment, but she has since explained that she wasn’t yet ready to tell the full story — an experience Reade and her attorney argue is common with victims of abuse.

Reade has written and talked extensively about her own experience as a victim of domestic violence. In 1996, a judge in San Luis Obispo Superior Court authorized a temporary restraining order against Reade’s then-husband. Her former husband has denied her claims.

An attorney for Jennifer Vasquez, a woman convicted of attempted murder, said he is currently reviewing options for his client in the wake of recent revelations about Reade.

In that December 2018 case, Reade gave an account of her educational background that conflicts with the account of university officials. When asked to detail her credentials as an expert in domestic violence in the case, Reade testified that she had a law degree from Seattle University and graduated from Antioch University in Seattle with a bachelor’s degree.

Karen Hamilton, a spokeswoman for Antioch University, said in a statement that Reade did not graduate and was never a faculty member. Reade attended Antioch for three academic quarters, in 2000 and part of 2001, the university said.

Reade declined to comment for this story and instead texted a screenshot from a previously published article where she claimed she obtained an undergraduate degree under a special arrangement with a former chancellor of the university, Toni Murdock.

However, university officials conferred with Murdock, an Antioch official told POLITICO, and confirmed that no special arrangement existed.

Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Reade graduated from there in 2004. According to a 2009 article in the law school’s alumni magazine, Reade entered law school under an alternative admission program.

In a follow-up question about whether students in that program can be admitted without a bachelor’s degree, a spokesman pointed to current requirements, which require an undergraduate degree.

“Our current admission requirements are publicly posted on the Seattle University School of Law website, which apply to all admitted students,” David Sandler said. “As in the past, they are consistent with American Bar Association standards for law schools. Federal privacy regulations prevent us from sharing additional information about the educational records of former students.”

Reade also appears to have embellished her role in Biden’s office. Reade served in his Senate office from December 1992 to July 1993 as a staff assistant, a relatively junior position. Reade has said she managed interns for a time. But when queried about her job experience at the trial, Reade referred to herself as a legislative assistant — a more senior job classification that conveyed more responsibility — in his office, according to the transcript.

“I worked with domestic violence prevention for over 20-some years in different capacities. I started working for US Senator Joseph Biden. I was a legislative assistant. He worked on the Violence Against Women Act, the federal act,” Reade testified.

She was later asked if her degree from Antioch University was in political science.

“Liberal arts, yeah,” Reade responded.

“But your resume says liberal,” the attorney followed up.

“Yeah. The focus was political science. I worked for Leon Panetta and Joe Biden and then moved on to King County prosecutor's office,” she said.

In response to a question from the lawyer about whether she was being compensated, Reade said she was paid a stipend and provided with a hotel room.

Vasquez’s attorney, Scott Erdbacher — who directed questioning and whose objection to her as an expert witness was overruled by the judge overseeing the case — said he is revisiting the issue.

“We’re just looking at it to see if there is a reason to reopen it,” Erdbacher told POLITICO. “ I’m sure that anybody who had her on a case will be looking into it very closely. Her testimony in cases, especially if her credibility is a problem, those are all things we would have asked her at trial that would have influenced the outcome.”

Prior to her testimony in the Vasquez case, defense attorneys were given Reade’s resume, a copy of which was provided to POLITICO.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The resume cites a BA from Antioch, as well as separate work for the university.

“Ongoing Online Visiting Professor since 2007 for various Student BA packet reviews: Review the final papers with students via phone and email; provide guidance for final BA,” reads one line from her resume.

A university official confirmed that Reade was not a faculty member, though she did several hours of administrative work total as an independent contractor over 2008, 2009, 2010.

Reade testified in at least two cases for the Monterey County district attorney’s office as recently as last year. In a January 2019 press release, the prosecutor’s office specifically touted Reade’s testimony as pivotal to the conviction.

“Tara McCabe, a domestic violence expert, provided critical testimony which aided the jury’s understanding as to why victims of domestic violence recant, minimize, and frequently stay in abusive relationships,” the office said.

The prosecutor’s office did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Reade’s attorney.

Reade has long described herself as a domestic violence survivor and victims’ advocate, citing past work with domestic violence survivors, including as a volunteer for a time in King County, Washington. A spokeswoman with the King County prosecutor’s office confirmed that someone named Alexandra McCabe was employed as a victim advocate from Aug. 1999 through October 2000.

Tara Reade Stood Apart In Joe Biden's 1990s Senate Staff

People who worked for Biden in 1993 say they’re skeptical of Reade’s allegations — but they also barely knew her. Inside an office culture 27 years later.

BUZZFEED NEWS Posted on May 21, 2020

Wally Mcnamee / Getty Images
Then-senator Biden in 1993.

Sen. Joe Biden’s office had a good reputation. It was the kind of thing staffers remember talking about in 1993 — a time of cultural upheaval on Capitol Hill, witnessed at close range by the aides who began their careers working for the junior senator from Delaware.

They watched their boss preside over the fraught Clarence Thomas hearings, where Anita Hill’s televised testimony brought sexual harassment into the American lexicon, making employers and employees more aware of the way women were treated at work. They saw Washington constantly waver between old and new — an “old boys network” undergoing a “sea change” as they walked the halls and sorted mail. Working next door to conservative Sen. Strom Thurmond, they remember “a lot of ‘Go fetch me a cup of coffee, darlin’’ type of stuff” — while in their own office, women held senior roles and men took on “menial tasks.”

According to interviews with 10 of the former staffers who worked there at the time, Biden’s Senate office stood out as a professional environment with a close-knit cohort of junior aides, many of them in their twenties, some just out of college. During the workday, they embraced a culture of structure and diligence. Outside of the office, they played softball in the summers and did happy hours near the Capitol at the Tune Inn and Tortilla Coast.

But among their number was an exception: Tara Reade.

The California native, then age 28, was employed as a staff assistant from December 1992 to August 1993, but she left little impression on her colleagues at the time. Those who remember working with Reade — and some don’t remember her at all — didn’t know much about her. They described their coworker, largely, as something of an outsider: She didn’t show much interest in socializing with the other junior staffers in the office, nor did she fit their particular mold of a khaki-and-blue-blazered DC professional. Looking back, Reade was a passing figure — an indistinct memory during a time they otherwise recall with vivid detail.


Courtesy of Tara Reade
Reade in an undated handout photo.

Reade, now 56, came forward this spring with an allegation of sexual assault, claiming Biden digitally penetrated her in an empty Senate hallway when she was asked to bring him a gym bag in 1993. She has said that she also filed a harassment complaint, for which she was retaliated against by being relieved of her duties overseeing interns and put inside a “windowless office,” where she was required to check in and out with a senior staffer.

Biden has denied Reade’s claims and asked the National Archives and the Senate to release any complaints from Reade that exist.

None of the people interviewed for this story — all of whom worked for Biden at the same time as Reade — said anything to disprove or corroborate her central allegation of sexual assault. But in interviews, former staffers questioned many of the same basic aspects of her account, saying they clashed strongly with their memory of Biden’s office culture and of a time of heightened awareness around the treatment of women in the workplace.

One former colleague, Ben Savage, directly disputed Reade’s claim that she left the office as a result of retaliation — saying that she was pushed out over concerns he remembers bringing to his supervisor about her performance.

“Did I campaign against her? No,” Savage said in an interview. “Did I provide honest feedback and complain about her? Yeah, I did. I’m 100% certain it contributed to her getting fired.”

Savage, a California resident who worked as a tech administrator in Biden’s Senate office for three years, said he likely spent more time with Reade than any of his colleagues. He started shortly after Reade in February 1993. They were the sole full-time staffers with desks in the mail room, an area adjacent to Biden’s reception area on the second floor of the Russell Building, where they worked together on keeping track of the senator’s mail.

In multiple interviews this month, Savage described their relationship as friendly but not particularly close. She confided in him about her personal life, including about a health problem, he said. Yet Savage also found Reade to be a difficult colleague. Beyond small annoyances — he remembered she banged on her keyboard loudly and threw the windows open in the middle of winter — Reade caused repeated problems with the mail program, he said, and struggled to “keep up with the pace and professionalism of the office.”

Savage said he has reached out to a range of news outlets to try to defend his former boss.

Together, Savage and Reade were responsible for parts of the senator’s expansive correspondence program. Any mail that came into Biden’s Senate office — from constituent letters about a problem in Delaware to petitions for issues like abortion — would be sorted by issue and sentiment, then forwarded to one of three legislative correspondents who sat in an office downstairs. The legislative correspondents would compose a response on behalf of Biden, often with the help of a policy aide, before passing the drafts back to the mailroom. Multiple people who worked on the mail program, including Savage, said they remember the Biden Senate office made it a priority to promptly respond to every letter he received.

Savage described two main issues with Reade: First, he claimed, she often miscategorized incoming mail. Soon after he arrived, he said, he took over that responsibility himself as a result, developing a new coding and cataloging system on a software called Inter-America.

The second problem came later: When legislative correspondents sent drafted responses back to the mail room, Savage said Reade threw out photocopies of the responses instead of properly filing them, causing a problem in the record-keeping system that made it seem like the mail had gone unanswered. Initially, Savage said, he and his supervisor, Dennis Toner, blamed the legislative correspondents for the problem, until Savage asked Reade about the photocopies, and she told him she had been mistakenly throwing them away, he recalled.

Savage said he took his complaints about her work directly to Toner. He also remembers Toner asking him about Reade’s performance. When reached for comment, Toner said he did not remember Reade, or any problems with the mail program in 1993 — though he did not doubt the specifics of Savage’s account. He recalled Savage as a “disciplined” and “conscientious” employee who helped the office function more efficiently.

One of the legislative correspondents at the time, Cara Ameer (then Cara Nader), said she remembers attending a meeting with Toner and the other legislative correspondents where he addressed problems with the mail program, but made no mention of Reade.

Savage also remembered Reade telling him in the spring that she believed she was being pushed out because of her health issues, an element of his account first reported by CNN. Doug Wigdor, Reade’s lawyer, confirmed she had a health issue at the time, but added that she did not recall Savage well enough to remember specific conversations with him.

Wigdor did not dispute Savage’s account of the mail program, except to say that that the criticism of Reade’s performance occurred in the context of retaliation for her complaining about alleged harassment. By then, he said, she had already raised concerns about at least one alleged incident — where she said a supervisor had asked her to serve drinks at an event because Biden liked her legs.

“It’s not uncommon in retaliation cases for an employee to complain and then to be micromanaged, or nitpicked, and ultimately told, like Tara was, that she wasn't a good fit.,” Wigdor said.

John Earnhardt, another staffer, said he took over as Reade’s successor in the mail room in April 1993 while she was still on payroll. He said he was never told why the previous person in his role had left, but he did recall a heavy emphasis during his onboarding on not throwing out the mail, though he said the person training him never mentioned Reade.

“I do remember it was like, ‘Hey, this is the job. Don't throw any mail out,’” Earnhardt said. “I do remember that specifically, like, ‘That's the worst thing you can do.’”

No one interviewed for this story remembered any incidents of women being harassed or made uncomfortable in the office, nor did anyone remember hearing any allegations about Biden specifically. In more recent years, Biden has been accused of touching women in a way that made some of them uncomfortable. He addressed the issue last yearsaying, “The boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset” and “I’ll be much more mindful.”

Reade’s time in the office followed Anita Hill’s 1991 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Biden at the time, that left some Democrats deeply unsatisfied with the way Hill had been treated. Biden reportedly expressed “regret” in a phone call to Hill last year for her treatment, though Hill has said she didn’t consider that to be enough.

Decades later, new reporting in the #MeToo era revealed that Capitol Hill was and remains a place where lawmakers set up a system to push harassment or discrimination allegations into a confusing, archaic system of adjudication.

But at the time, those hearings also started a national conversation about women’s treatment in the workplace and ushered in the “Year of the Woman” in 1992, when several women senators were elected, changing the makeup of Capitol Hill.

“There was a sea change,” said David Long, who worked for Biden on the Judiciary Committee from June 1992 to around July 1994, starting as a receptionist. Long described how he had found the Capitol to be an “old boys network” when he arrived in 1991 to work for Sen. Ted Kennedy. “It really became a much more inclusive and equal place, I think, as a place to work.”

Former Biden staffers described their environment as more amenable to women in leadership roles than other offices on the Hill. Some of his senior staffers were women, such as Evelyn Lieberman, his press secretary, or his legislative director, Jane Woodfin. Biden was “ahead of the curve,” Long argued, when it came to elevating women in the office.


CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
From left: Sens. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Joe Biden of Delaware, Nov. 13, 1993.

According to Earnhardt, the staff assistant who replaced Reade, Biden was “very sensitive about women really doing anything for him that was looked [at] as menial” — a sentiment repeated in interviews with other men who worked there at the time. Earnhardt said he was once asked to bring the senator Tylenol or Advil. On the dais during Judiciary Committee hearings, there was an “unwritten policy,” he said, that if Biden wanted a cup of coffee, “a guy had to bring it to him.”

One aide who worked in close proximity to the former senator for decades, including in the early ’90s, said he never heard him comment on a woman’s appearance. There was no “locker room talk,” as he put it.

Reade’s account of the office culture, including her interactions with the senator, differs sharply from those of her former coworkers. While others said Biden almost never interacted with junior staffers, with the exception of an annual staff photo day, Reade has said she remembers seeing the senator around the hallways and him touching her neck and shoulders.

In an email to her lawyer, Wigdor, which he read over the phone, Reade wrote, “I experienced sexual harassment and assault from Joe Biden, so it’s a rather obvious answer that I did not find it a safe and friendly environment for women. It was the opposite of empowerment for me. I felt objectified and after the assault, traumatized with no recourse except the end of my career.”

Former staffers were skeptical about some aspects of Reade’s story, like her contention that she was asked to serve drinks at an event or bring Biden his gym bag, saying that those tasks would not have normally been assigned to someone in her position.

Biden had an assistant, Terry Wright, who handled personal errands for him. He “was the person who schlepped [the senator’s] bags around and accompanied him on the train and made sure that he was where he needed to be at the right time. That was his job. So why would someone else do Terry's job?” said Melissa Lefko, who served as a staff assistant in the office from August 1992 to August 1993.

Reade maintains that she was asked to bring Biden the gym bag, and through Wigdor she also recalled once being asked to bring the senator a folder. “She didn’t have a close relationship with [Biden], but there were days that she didn’t see him and days that she did see him,” Wigdor said.

According to Reade’s coworkers, Biden didn’t spend much time in Washington apart from his business on the Hill, and he eschewed cocktail parties and after-hours events. He didn’t keep an apartment or a car in DC, largely relying on Wright to shepherd him to and from the Capitol. Former staffers remembered begging their counterparts in the office of Sen. George Mitchell, then the Senate majority leader, for his schedule of the day’s final vote, so they could book the earliest Amtrak from Union Station to Wilmington, Delaware.

Junior staffers embraced Biden’s efficient routine: The atmosphere was “very buttoned-down, very professional,” said Long. It was not a place where entry-level employees got points for trying to get face time with the senator, or muscle their way into meetings, they recalled. Employees were expected to fulfill their duties, stay in their lane, and respect the chain of command. Time spent in the office was time spent working, they said. “And we worked hard all day long,” said Lefko.

"You were in a professional environment, so you wanted to be professional in every way — to look and act that way,” said Cara Ameer, the legislative correspondent.

That ethos of structure and professionalism formed a social fabric for the young people on staff. Reade never joined their circle.

“It was a very, very tight-knit group,” said Long, the staff assistant for Biden on the Judiciary Committee. “We worked incredibly long hours for no money. I knew where all the happy hours were so I could eat for free. I don't remember her being part of any of that.

“I don't have any definitive memories of her.”

Some suggested that Reade simply wasn’t a good fit for the culture of the office, but they struggled to pinpoint exactly why they felt that way when they knew so little about her. Two people brought up the clothes she wore to work — specifically recalling that she wore capes and dressed in a “hippie” style — as an example.

“She definitely seemed to me to march to her own drum,” said Ameer. “Maybe she didn’t like us. Maybe she thought we were a bunch of preppy Capitol Hill staffer types. If there was a mold of a Capitol Hill staffer, I would kinda say we probably fit it. We were well dressed.”

Reade’s attorney, Wigdor, said that while she did participate in a few social events, such as touch football, she was “private in the office,” and most of her friends were outside work, like in Thompson-Markward Hall, a dormitory for young women where he said Reade lived at the time.

But Reade also described a class divide between herself and the rest of the staff.

“She felt that most of these staffers and interns went to elite colleges, and she didn’t, and they looked down on her, is the best way to describe it,” said Wigdor.

Payroll records indicate that she worked in Biden’s office for a total of eight months. But according to Reade, she was only an active presence in the office for about half that time.


John Duricka / AP
From left: Women's activist Eleanor Smeal, Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Biden on Capitol Hill, May 27, 1993.

By April 1993, John Earnhardt had already assumed her responsibilities, quickly befriending the other young people on staff. Earnhardt said he never met Reade or saw her around the office. Savage, her old colleague, said he doesn’t remember telling her goodbye. After Earnhardt arrived, he didn’t see or speak to her again.

By Reade’s own recollection of spring 1993, she was still in the Senate — working from the “windowless” room, cut off from the rest of the staff.

According to her attorney, she thinks the room was somewhere between reception and the mail room, but she isn’t sure. What she does remember is being moved into a room without windows, only a door, by late April or May 1993, and a telephone and computer were installed for her. She said she was given a “desk audit,” meaning she had to check in with senior staff before leaving the office.

By then, Reade has said in interviews, her job was to “show up and just look for another job.”

Sometime that summer, Wigdor said, Reade stopped coming into the office.

When her tenure as staff assistant officially came to an end weeks later on Aug. 6, 1993 — Reade’s last day on the Biden payroll — few of her colleagues noticed.

“It was a pretty awesome time of life,” said Long, the Judiciary Committee staffer, describing his own memory of Biden’s office in those years. “We worked really hard as a group. We socialized. We knew each other really, really well. All the support staff were really tight, and we looked out for each other.

“And I certainly would hope for Tara that her memories would be good as my own, and I certainly see that they're not.”


MORE ON TARA READE
Tara Reade Knows She Has A Difficult Allegation. And She’s Had A Difficult Time Getting A Hearing.
Rosie Gray · April 30, 2020
Henry J. Gomez · May 1, 2020


Ruby Cramer · April 28, 2020

Ruby Cramer is a politics reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.
Contact Ruby Cramer at ruby.cramer@buzzfeed.com.

Rosie Gray is a reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.
Contact Rosie Gray at rosie.gray@buzzfeed.com.