So is with reason enough by just taking the word of the accused over the word of the accuser? Originally Posted by eccieloverNot at all. It is looking at statements made by the accuser and drawing a conclusion based on those statements. The first allegations against Biden made by Reade were:
Reade told a local newspaper at the time that Biden touched her during her employment in his office in a manner that made her feel uncomfortable. “He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck,” Reade told the Union of Nevada County, Calif., in a story published April 3, 2019. “I would just kind of freeze and wait for him to stop doing that.
After the women came forward in 2019, Biden acknowledged their complaints and pledged to avoid such behavior in the future. “The boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset, and I get it,” he said in a video responding to the complaints on April 3, 2019. “I get it. I hear what they’re saying, I understand it, and I’ll be much more mindful.”
On March 25, 2020, The Katie Halper Show, a progressive podcast, first released an excerpt from an interview Reade conducted with Halper in which she made new allegations against Biden.
In the interview with Halper, Reade alleged that Biden had sexually assaulted her while the two were alone on Capitol Hill in 1993.”
So Reade's allegations changed from playing with her hair to sexual assault. Just as there was some corroboration of charges made against Trump, there is some corroboration of Reade's charges. Based on current evidence, Biden is in a "he-said, she-said" situation and like Trump and Kavanaugh, Biden should be held innocent until proven guilty.