Your defence rests on her saying harrasment in the 90s and rape now.
My 'defense' is that anyone accused of rape should have at least some say in how the court of public opinion judges them. Just as Tara Reade is permitted - encouraged - to publically tell her truth, there should be a flip side to that too. And then people, or voters, or juries can make up their mind based on the balance of evidence. That doesn't feel unfair to me.
As I said many moons ago, I fully believe that Tara Reade felt sexually harassed in Biden's employ. That is supported by tangible evidence and believable corroboratory witnesses. I believe this can and did have a meaningful impact on her life.
What I don't know, and have yet to see is any real, consistent and corroborative evidence for Joe Biden having raped her against a wall.
As through March of this year probably dozens if not hundreds of other females have also been employed or worked voluntarily for Joe Biden during his 30 years. Several of whom have gone on record refuting Reade's claim. Many of whom have willingly spoken up in his defence, in his character and in support of him.
I have to balance that against her initial claim, and for me I come out on the side of: Joe Biden is generally viewed as a good human being that definitely has a way of putting his hands on shoulders of women which could definitely make them uncomfortable. He's also known for hugging men too much. If that is all he is accused of, I personally don't believe that is disqualifying, and certainly shouldn't stop a potential avenue to get Trump out of office.
If he raped Reade, then that is obviously disqualifying and should be prosecuted.
Hence. I really, really think it's important to judge her most recent accusation alone, on its own merits, and not try to muddy the waters with her prior accusation. Is that really hard to understand?