So you find it "not surprising"... meaning you admit that you dismissed the allegation and assumed "the woman is lying" from the get-go?
So much for believing women, I guess.
I will acknowledge that Biden's case looks much stronger than it did a few weeks ago, and that Reade has, at least, not presented her case very effectively.So, she has changed her story repeatedly. Her corroborating witnesses have changed their stories to match hers. One of the witnesses said outright that they did not remember being told a former US Senator and Vice President sexually assaulted their friend until the friend reminded them of it. Multiple people have come forward with tales of her being a career grifter with constant money problems. Her firing from the Biden office coincides with her being charged for check fraud. She has written bizarre love letters to Vladimir Putin and haphazardly attempted to delete them to avoid scrutiny.
And, finally, she appears to have possibly lied not only on the stand about her credentials, but defrauded a law school by convincing them to admit her without a degree.
None of those things separately or even taken together necessarily disprove that her claim is true, but there has to be a point at which a spade is called a spade and an unfalsifiable claim made by someone with such low credibility is not taken seriously. Certainly I think it’s unfair to continue claiming that Biden is inarguably a rapist given the current absence of even slightly similar claims.
My problem with Reade all along was that she came through outlets that lack credibility. Credible outlets reported that her claims were unable to be vetted appropriately for over a year. And now it turns out that she is not one with a history of honesty, apparently up to and including outright fraud and perjury. So...
At the same time, there is no way to definitively prove that she is lying about being raped either, and as you noted, contradictions in a story do not prove that the basic allegation if false (human memory, especially about traumatic events that happened years ago, being imperfect to put it mildly), nor does lying about something else prove that one is lying about being raped. Which is why these attacks should not be used.
Attacks on Reade's credibility in general do not end well. It is impossible to prove that she is lying any more than that she is telling the truth, based on available evidence. All attacking her character does is evoke and give new life to a long and ugly history of character assassination against women who allege sexual abuse, make hypocrites of us and give the Republicans Whataboutism to justify doing the same.
It is also hypocritical and sexist to accuse her of lying without proof (and of committing a crime, I believe, since it would mean she filed a false police report) while demanding that Biden be given the presumption of innocence. It says that her right to presumption of innocence is less than his.
This is why I have tried to carefully avoid any defense of Biden which involves attacking Reade.
On a related note, I am deeply disgusted by the sadly predictable way that this case is already being used by some (not Fire Nexus, as far as I am aware) to launch a broader attack on the credibility of women who allege sexual abuse, and particularly by the multiple instances I've encountered of people trying to use this as a springboard to relitigate the Al Franken case, and argue that he is another example of a Democrat being framed by a false accusation.
So let's get one thing clear:
This case is not the Al Franken case, or any other case. Even if Reade were somehow proven beyond all doubt to have lied about being raped, it would not prove that any other woman also lied. It would not mean that other women should not be believed. In the Franken case, for example, he had multiple accusers, confessed, and was literally photographed groping a sleeping woman. There was nothing ambiguous about that case, and it did not hinge on unproveable testimony by one witness. The repudiation of Franken from within the Democratic Party was one of its finest hours. But sadly it is one that many Democrats seem to regret, and wish to undo for partisan reasons. The message I'm getting here is that for many Democrats, "believe women" actually means "Say you believe women, unless the accused is on our team". Which means that on this issue at least, they really are no different than the Republicans.
Automatically defending anything if someone on "our team" does it while believing anything if it makes the other side look bad, creating an alternate reality to defend our side, and attacking anyone who speaks inconvenient truths as an enemy is how the Republican Party became nothing but an extension of the Trump crime family. God help us if the Democrats go the same route.