It is rare for a university to find itself at the center of a national political scandal but the University of Delaware is being pummeled over its refusal to release possible documents related to allegation of sexual assault against former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden, who graduated from the school and served as Delaware’s senator, gave his paper from the Senate to the university in 2011. Among the papers may be the formal complaint filed by former Biden Senate staffer, Tara Reade. However, the university is refusing to release the papers. Papers like the Washington Post have called on Biden to release all of the personnel papers. Years ago, I wrote an academic paper criticizing this control of presidential and official papers – contesting the view of politicians that these papers are personal property. I also testified in Congress against this classification of official papers as personal property. As discussed in earlier columns, this is an example of how abusive this approach can be.
Biden’s 2011 donation of his Senate records is a common gesture of former politicians to their alma maters. That donation encompassed at least 1,875 boxes of documents and 415 gigabytes of electronic records that Biden donated to the University of Delaware in 2011.
The Washington Post reported that the University made a critical change in the expected release date of the document just before Biden announced his run for president.
Starting in 2011 and for years after, the university had described the terms of the agreement as keeping the papers sealed “for two years after Biden retires from public office.” But this year, on the day before Biden announced his presidential campaign, the university changed the way that it described those terms.
Instead of citing his departure from “public office,” the university said the documents would not be made public until two years after Biden “retires from public life” or after Dec. 31, 2019, whichever is later. It did not define what is considered “public life.”
This has been a long-standing issue. In 2002, I addressed the issue in terms of presidential record: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, “H.R. 4187: The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2002,” April 24, 2002. I also wrote a law review article on this subject: Presidential Records and Popular Government: The Convergence of Constitutional and Property Theory in Claims of Control and Ownership of Presidential Records 88 Cornell Law Review 651-732 (2003).
There is no reason why presidents and senators should treat official documents filed in their offices as their personal property. The Presidential Records Act, for example, allows a president to not only conceal material but appoint his own loyalists to make critical decisions on whether and when material can be reviewed. Presidents can unilaterally declare matter as privilege and nonpublic to protect themselves from embarrassment and the judgment of history.
This is wrong. Those personnel records from Biden’s public service are public records, not his. By giving the papers to the University of Delaware, Biden selected a university with a Board packed with Biden loyalists. However, in fairness to Biden, he is doing what politicians have been doing for decades under rules that they designed precisely for this purpose. It is time to end this absurd privatization of public records for presidents and members of Congress alike.
For Biden, the solution is simple and obvious: release his records so the public can fully judge the merits for itself.
Delaware’s motto is Scientia Sol Mentis Est or Knowledge is the light of the mind. This is using an academic gift to shield a politicians and ensure darkness in an area demanding light.
Will Biden get “Kavanaughed”?
Will Adam Schiff demand a Congressional investigation and hearing?
_______________________________________________________
Congressman Adam Schiff
September 27, 2018 ·
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford deserves our respect.
I am inspired by her courage.
She is one woman, but her words carry the weight of millions who have faced sexual assault.
I believe her.
“…..Biden is a notorious flapjaw. His vanity deludes him into believing that every word that drops from his mouth is minted in the golden currency of Pericles. Vanity is the most conspicuous characteristic of US Senators en bloc , nourished by deferential acolytes and often expressed in loutish sexual advances to staffers, interns and the like. On more than one occasion CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted by Biden in the well of the senate in the weeks immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident……”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/23/quot-change-quot-quot-hope-quot-why-they-must-be-talking-about-joe-biden/
Again:
“On more than one occasion CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted by Biden in the well of the senate in the weeks immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident……”
IIRC, Biden’s first wife died in December of 1972.
A newer article by Alexander Cockburn that repeats the claim:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/28/biden-the-lout/
Reade Filed Police Report 17 Years After Alleged Incident
April 9, 2020: Reade filed a police report in April with the Washington, D.C., police alleging sexual assault, telling reporters it was about Biden and the 1993 incident.
April 12, 2020: Reade repeated the assault story to the New York Times, and said she had reported the alleged incident to Marianne Baker, Biden’s executive assistant. She also said she told two top aides, Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman, she felt harassed by Biden — but did not tell them about the assault — and filed a written complaint with the Senate personnel office. She said she had responsibilities in the office taken away from her after filing the report, including managing office interns.
All three former Biden staffers denied to the Times Reade ever told them of any incident, and the written complaint mentioned by Reade has not been found, and Reade has said she does not have a copy of it.
The Times interviewed two dozen people that worked with Biden in the 1990s, the lawyers Reade spoke to, and the other seven women who accused Biden of inappropriate touching last year, and none corroborated the details of Reade’s allegations. The Times wrote that it “found no pattern of sexual misconduct” by Biden.
Edited From: “A Timeline Of Tara Reade’s Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden
Forbes Magazine, 4/29/19
In Her Divorce Deposition, Ivana Trump Described Assault And Rape By Donald
Ivana Trump’s assertion of “rape” came in a deposition—part of the early ’90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book “Lost Tycoon”: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.
The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.
“Your f**king doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.
What followed was a “violent assault,” according to “Lost Tycoon”. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.
“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”
Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.
“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.
Donald Trump has previously denied the allegation. In the book, he denies having had the scalp reduction surgery.
“It’s obviously false,” Donald Trump said of the accusation in 1993, according to Newsday. “It’s incorrect and done by a guy without much talent… He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.”
When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book. In it, Ivana confirms that she had “felt violated” and that she had stated that her husband had raped her during a divorce deposition. But Ivana sought to soften her earlier statement.
“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”
The statement, according to a “Notice to the Reader” in the book, “does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.
The 1990 divorce case between the two Trumps was granted on the grounds of Donald’s “cruel and inhuman treatment” of Ivana. The settlement, under which the Trumps agreed on the division of assets, was finalized in 1991. Her divorce involved a gag order that keeps her from talking about her marriage to Donald Trump without his permission.
Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN.
“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”
Ironically, Ivana says a story based on her own words in a divorce deposition are “totally without merit.”
Edited From: “Donald Trump Made Me Feel Violated During Sex”
The Daily Beast, 7/2715 Updated 2/27/19
did the alleged victim make a timely police report?
this is always a relevant question
we know the answer is NO she did not….and it’s a stale story
Now let’s hear what she said about it herself: from wiki:
“[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a “rape”, but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.
— Ivana Trump[3][1]”
“I DO NOT WANT MY WORDS TO BE INTERPRETED IN A LITERAL OR CRIMINAL SENSE”
IE, HE DID NOT RAPE HER, SHE DID NOT EVEN SAY THAT.
SHE DID NOT LIKE IT, SHE FELT MISTRUSTFUL, IT IS SAD BUT THERE WAS CONSENT
ERGO IT IS NOT EVEN AN ALLEGATION OF RAPE.
Tara Reade’s story is fresh. you want to distract, keep on talking, ok
Kurtz: Tara Reade Filed Police Report Only 3 Weeks Ago
From Today’s Issue Of Forbes:
April 9, 2020: Reade filed a police report in April with the Washington, D.C., police alleging sexual assault, telling reporters it was about Biden and the 1993 incident.
Well, what i mean is that the police report was very tardy. It raises her cred by a hair that she actually did file a police report like what 17 years late. but not much.
There is no criminal case here against Joe for that reason alone. Total reasonable doubt.
Now if you talk about the preponderance of the evidence., then it is a different equation. I find her somewhat credible, but not entirely so.
The difficult thing for Joe are all the many videos of him out there smooching and groping various people who he felt were so lesser than him that he could manhandle them even right in front of their parents and husbands. This pattern of poor judgment and aggressive physical touching makes him suspect.
I personally hope he is the candidate against Trump because I favor Trump and his replacement if there is one, will be stronger than him.
But I want to see Ms Reade’s allegations treated fairly, even as Mr Biden’s constitutional right to the presumption of innocence is also respected.
Terms Of Trump’s Divorce Settlement With Ivana
Donald and Ivana Trump are closing the book on their highly public divorce. She gets $14 million, a 45-room Greenwich, Conn., mansion, an apartment in the Trump Plaza, and the use of the 118-room Mar-a-Lago mansion in Florida for one month a year.
The settlement, under which Mr. Trump will also pay about $650,000 annually to support the couple’s three children, is similar to what Mrs. Trump agreed to in a prenuptial agreement. She later contested that agreement in court.
Last March Mrs. Trump and her lawyers said she was entitled to half of Mr. Trump’s assets, which they then valued at around $5 billion. But the erstwhile billionaire apparently never had that much to begin with and certainly does not have it now. Mr. Trump’s financial problems brought him near bankruptcy last year and forced him to ask his banks to rescue him by lending him more money to pay off bills.
With her ex-husband short on cash and long on debt, Mrs. Trump wants to take the money now rather than hold out for a better deal, her lawyers said. If Mr. Trump is forced to file for personal bankruptcy protection, the lawyers feared that Mrs. Trump would be just one of her ex-husband’s many creditors.
Edited From: “Trump’s Settle: She Gets $14 Million Plus”
The New York Times, 3/21/91
After Divorce From Ivana, Trump Binged On Women Begore Meeting Marla Maples
Trump and Maples’s relationship was at a crossroads after Trump and Ivana divorced in 1992. At one point, he broke up with Maples by FedEx-ing her a letter, the source said. Trump bragged about his bachelorhood. “I had been in Europe f**king every model in the world. My life was wild,” he told Vanity Fair in 1994.
But Trump, a famous germophobe, also found monogamy reassuring as the AIDS crisis raged. “Being single out there is a little bit scary, to put it mildly,” he said. “It’s like being in Vietnam, in the forests, and knowing there are guns pointed at your head.”
Two factors—one personal, the other professional—ultimately led Trump to propose to Maples. On October 13, 1993, Maples gave birth to Tiffany. Trump’s conservative parents were upset that he’d fathered a child out of wedlock. But the bigger problem was that it likely complicated Trump’s plan to rid himself of his failing casinos. At the time Tiffany was born, Trump was preparing to take his casinos public to raise cash to pay down his debts. His tabloid domestic life spooked Wall Street and diminished his chances for an IPO. Marrying Maples would calm investors.
But before marrying, Trump needed Maples to sign a prenup. His divorce with Ivana had been a legal war. (In March 1990, Ivana sued Trump for $2.5 billion to nullify a revised version of the prenup that Trump’s lawyer, Roy Cohn, had drafted back in 1977.) Ultimately, Trump and Ivana settled for $14 million. (Ivana took the deal because her team worried Trump was going bankrupt.)
Edited From: “Marla Was Under Duress: Revealed In His Marla Maples Pre-Nup, Donald’s Draconian Art Of Marriage Deal”
Vanity Fair, 6/4/19
I’m sure people’s divorce filings are absolutely accurate in every detail and that Vanity Fair would have impeccable sources about conversations that took place 28 years ago.
It seems this is what Paint Chips reads before bedtime in order to make himself feel like a man and complete his act. It’s OK Paint Chips that is what this article was created to do for people like you.
Just like the hero you worship, you cannot civilly dispute facts with which you disagree without attacking someone personally. Seth is describing Ivana’s actual testimony, given under oath, in her deposition that was filed in her divorce case before it was sealed. This incident was widely published before the transcript was sealed. Ivana’s soft-pedaling of the rape and torn hair incident only happened after Trump settled and paid her off, a term of which was non-disparagement. One reason for the absurd pompadour he wears is to conceal the scalp reduction scar.
Paint Chips doesn’t deserve civility. WaPo doesn’t either even though the richest man in the country owns it. It’s a rag. Let’s make sure that the personality of the poster shines through. I don’t mind the debate about Trump’s indiscretions. Without question he has done things I don’t approve of, so what? Knowing this entire debate people voted for Trump and he won.
If Paint Chips used the numerous posts in discussion to promote a position that would be good enough but that is not what he is doing so he should be treated with the disrespect he deserves.
Take note, I don’t respond with disrespect to respectful people just like right now when I treat you as a normal commenter.
I’m willing to cut Joe Biden some slack on this since he can’t remember.
I tell you, a famous or powerful man often comes on to thousands of women in his life.
He apparently came on to her plenty, that much I believe without a doubt, her earlier story about him caressing her hair and so forth. But this kind of bad behavior is par for the course among the famous and powerful. It’s a lot of pretending that it ever stopped happening. It never did.
And they toss them aside, rudely. This actually helps their ability to avoid consequences– the victims of their advances or attacks are made to feel small and insignificant. It’s actually the same methodology chil molesters use to scare little kids. Very hurtful words heaped on hurtful acts.
Now to be fair, it’s a demerit to her credibility that she did not timely report the allegations of sexual assault. But the part i find most believable, is what she said that he said after he was rebuffed:
“you’re nothing to me.”
That’s typical famous a-hole talk after an incident like this
As a clerk I worked numerous civil defense cases involving sexual misconduct. I was absolutely disgusted by what I saw.
And for the record I am not a feminist in fact I deplore them. But men should act with honor. Including the famous. Laws should be respected.
What a lot of famous men need is actually a punch in the nose from an angry relative. But we know that in America if you punish a famous miscreant with vendetta, you’ll quickly end up in jail. The system works to protect the rich and powerful from righteous peasant indignation and violence, above all else.
Now all the usual detractors will say what about Trump. Fair enough. Here’s your answer. Those accusations have been made vetted and are now STALE.
Tara Reade’s is by contrast FRESH and Joe is now running for the POTUS as DJT was 3 years ago.
So it’s his turn in the spotlight.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52462113
Indeed it is his turn in the spotlight and he better perform.
Your judgement on feminism must be primarily emotional as logically it has been a positive for not only most the population, but the entire country and world and is one of the most, if not most important developments of the last century. Even women who don’t call themselves feminists are but think it is limited to not shaving legs or playing rugby. The most conservatives of them today would never put up with what many of our mothers and before did in the workplace, home, outside the voting booth.
Maybe define your terms Kurtz as you can’t arguing for a return to those bad old days.
feminism is an ideology and i reject it. feel free to call me old fashioned if you like, some screeching women have accused me of being “part of the patriarchy” and i said
“OF COURSE I AM!!!”
i don’t need to explain more, i am a nobody and nobody cares what i think about that
i just make the point that I support women having lawful bodily integrity in general, in spite of rejecting all the feminist nonsense about “social structures of oppression” etc all that is not even worth refuting
I tell you, a famous or powerful man often comes on to thousands of women in his life.
Thanks for the fantasy.
It’s no fantasy. If you didn’t know that, try and read some rock star biographies, and wrap your head around the reality that they’re not the only ones who act that way.
If this story is true, then why did it only come to light when Biden became the presumptive nominee? Why not during the 2 elections when he ran for VP? Why didn’t she keep a copy of the written complaint she claims to have filed? Why don’t many of her alleged witnesses recall her making this claim? Why did she only file a police report just now, instead of 30 years ago or whenever it happened? Why doesn’t Biden have a history of assaulting women, like Trump does?
I think I know. In fact, I know I know. Trump allegedly flew into a rage when his own internal polling showed that he was losing to Biden, even in key battleground states. Biden has done no campaigning, and Trumpy Bear is being denied the vainglory rallies his tender ego craves for affirmation, but he is still getting his fat ass kicked. He also is incensed by polling showing that he is losing ground by performing in the daily Trump Show, instead of allowing scientists to inform the public about the COVID-19 pandemic. He also is infuriated by the fact that most Americans do not want things to open up until or unless there is a vaccine–85% think it is too soon, and 91% do not want schools to open for in-person classes. We believe the scientists and not the politicians. The economy he lies about creating from nothing is tanking and the recession we are in may well become a depression. Evidence is mounting that he had more than ample warning about how bad the pandemic would be when he was lying about it being a “hoax”, downplaying it and lying about a vaccine being available “very quickly”.
Yeah, he needs to do something to turn the tide, so now we trot out Tara Reade. Sorry. It stinks too much.
“If this story is true, then why did it only come to light when Biden became the presumptive nominee? Why not during the 2 elections when he ran for VP? Why didn’t she keep a copy of the written complaint she claims to have filed? ”
Natacha, these and a few others are good questions. That is why investigations are done. To answer the questions raised. If years ago she filed a complaint and it was trashed that is important to know about unless you believe that abusing women is a good thing.
“If this story is true, then why did it only come to light when Biden became the presumptive nominee?”
Great question. It’s been asked for years, going back to Clarence Thomas, and probably before.
The answer has consistently been “Shut up you sexist A-hole, she deserves to be heard”.
“For Biden, the solution is simple and obvious: release his records so the public can fully judge the merits for itself.”
Yep. “Simple and obvious.” So it will likely never happen, though it should.
I am shocked I tell you, SHOCKED!
————
Some members of the University of Delaware Board of Trustees, which has sole authority over Joe Biden’s Senate archive, have close ties to the former vice president, Fox News reported.
Calls to make the archive public have grown over the past week as former Biden staffer Tara Reade’s allegations of sexual assault, which Reade says occurred in 1993 when Biden was a senator for Delaware, have garnered increasing media coverage. The Biden campaign has denied the allegations.
The chairman of the university’s Board of Trustees is longtime Biden donor John Cochran. In 1996, Cochran bought Biden’s home for $1.2 million, shortly after which Biden’s son Hunter was hired by MBNA, where Cochran was vice chairman at the time.
Board member Terri Kelly, former CEO of W.L. Gore & Associates, donated the maximum legal amount to the Biden presidential campaign in 2019. Carol Ammon, another board member, has given $10,000 to the campaign and related PAC’s. Five additional board members have donated upwards of $1,000 to Biden and affiliated PAC’s.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-has-ties-to-univ-of-delaware-board-members-keeping-his-archive-secret-amid-reade-allegations/
—————
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Would it be possible to go back and see what bythebook had to say about Kavanaugh’s treatment?
No need. Kavanaugh probably dry humped Ford, but more importantly is his unhinged and lying appearance before the committee. Not SC material.
.Do you like beer?
He was not unhinged. He was outraged.
He acted like a man of flesh and bone, who is outraged over false accusations. Not a fake stony faced sociopath like so many others who rise up in federal service.
MR. K
The DNC talking point is that Kavanaugh was unhinged, so that will be bytheDNCscript’s story, and he will stick to it. He is not saying it because he believes it. He is saying it because it is his job. To spew out DNC talking points.
Just like Joseph Goebbels spun out Nazi talking points.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“false accusations”
Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.
The woman making the accusations and her Democratic lawfare-artist handlers failed to adduce one piece of evidence that she’d ever met Brett Kavanaugh or Mark Judge. Neither was it so that the location of their respective residences or their school enrollments or their siblings’ school enrollments would have made it likely they ever would meet. She names four people present, and they all draw a blank. The one she names as her personal friend later tells an interviewer that she couldn’t recall any gathering like that at any time, as it would not have fit within the schedule she was keeping at that time. She names a different person as someone who introduced her to Kavanaugh’s circle. He says he has ‘no knowledge relevant to her claims’. Just how unsubstantiated does an allegation have to be before you stop taking it seriously? Partisan Democrats tell us that there’s no bottom if a bottom would be inconvenient.
That’s true TIA but given that Judge would never confirm her presence and avoided testifying, a quixotic accusation was made somewhat believable based on it’s hopelessness. His unhinged and lying testimony was what was disqualifying.
His unhinged and lying testimony was what was disqualifying.
Although you’re not under oath, this is classic projection. You disqualify yourself in nearly everything you post.
That’s true TIA but given that Judge would never confirm her presence and avoided testifying, a quixotic accusation was made somewhat believable based on it’s hopelessness. His unhinged and lying testimony was what was disqualifying.
You have no evidence, and all four principles say for attribution that it did not happen, so your next gambit is to complain Judge did not give oral testimony. And your gambit after that is to pull out of your a** an accusation that Kavanaugh is ‘lying’. The term ‘lying’ does not mean what you fancy it means.
The unhinged man has been a federal appellate judge for 14 years and he has an ant heap of former clerks willing to attest to his character.
None the less, his unhinged and lying testimony was disqualifying.
There were no lies (bar the ones you’ve uttered).
“Kavanaugh probably dry humped Ford,”
Jan F., you like to libel people don’t you. You think like a pervert.
The ‘probably’ is cute, given there’s no evidence apart from her claims that the two of them ever met. You’d think they’d have at least one mutual acquaintance who could for attribution put the two of them in the same room at some occasion. Zippo.
DSS, What we are hearing from Jan F. and Peter are their dreams. Both of them are incomplete individuals so they involve a lot of fantasy in their lives. Neither is very successful.
Don’t think so. Peter’s trying to divert the discussion to Summer Zervos and Ivana Trump for a reason. CBF is not a subject he cares to raise. It takes a special brand of arrogance to strike the attitudes Gainesville is striking, and PH hasn’t got it.
“Have you boofed today”? I haven’t embroidered in years, but maybe I’ll make him a sampler-style cross-stitch with this quote of his, complete with a flower border, frame it, and send it to him as a gift.
Some others have tried that criminal trickery
From WaPo Link Within The Hill Link
Biden’s Delaware Collection Uncatalogued
There are 1,875 boxes and 415 gigabytes of electronic content, largely uncatalogued. Searching won’t be as easy as some might assume. But an inventory conducted with an eye toward releasing only relevant material could at least ascertain whether personnel records are part of this archive at all. Demands for the release of the entire trove invite a worthwhile debate about candidate disclosures, yet that’s not a battle that needs to be fought today. The narrower question is whether the public ought to have as much information as possible about an assault accusation against a presidential contender, and the answer is yes.
Another place to look is at the source: the candidate himself. Mr. Biden may have little to say besides what his campaign has already said — that he did not do this, and that this is not something he ever would do. Yet the way to signal he takes Ms. Reade’s case seriously, and the cases of women like her seriously, is to go before the media and the public ready to listen and to reply.
President Trump has been credibly accused of sexual assault, including rape, by dozens of women. He has responded by brushing the accusations off, once claiming repulsively, “She’s not my type.” It may seem unfair to hold Mr. Trump’s likely rival in the 2020 race to a standard that Mr. Trump has failed to meet again and again. But Mr. Trump shouldn’t be allowed to set that standard. A better man could.
Edited From: “Biden Himself Should Address The Tara Reade Allegations And Release Relevant Records”
The Washington Post, 4/29/20
It doesn’t seem reasonable that if a complaint is filed against a senator, the only record of that complaint is under the control of senator. McConnell and Pelosi need to make public how congressional records are archived for FOIA requests. If a complaint is not a part of the public record, then that has to change immediately.
There’s evidently a settlement fund which finances payouts in these cases. There has been some reporting of the activity there, but I don’t think it’s open books.
The settlement fund strikes me as an additional wall to protect our Congress.
The Federal Office of Compliance has a treasury department account for paying out settlements. I believe that account is taxpayer funded. If their is no political or financial penalty for a member of congress when a claim is proven and an award is paid, then a claim is effectively made against the politician’s constituents. Taxpayers deserve and need to know the character of those they are bailing out.
Ha Ha Senators believe they are Lordships. People are confused by all the “equality” talk into thinking perhaps they are not. In reality, they are, essentially, aristocrats.
They’re just an electoral aristocracy, not a hereditary one.
People are confused by all the “equality” talk into thinking perhaps they are not.
Confused? That’s kind. A great many people are simply ignorant of history. They have no idea how this republic began and why our government exists in its current form. They have no idea they are the masters and those they elect to office are the servants. I know the theory, which is why I’ve never understood why the framers didn’t do more to protect their creation from the most obvious of weaknesses: the People. They dedicated volumes to why the government is structured the way it is and of course that includes describing the nature of those that would populate it. But I haven’t found anything that describes and warns about the nature of the People. This statement from President Garfield on the centennial of the DoI really captures the problem we face today:
“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature …If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”
Many have referenced the USA today column doubting Tara Reade. I should like to point out the author is Micheal J. Stern. Mr.Stern is always certain that old accusations against Republicans are always true and old accusations against Democrats are always false. I’m glad for him that the world is so simple.
Could be, but his points are solid, though he doesn’t cover the California woman.
Evidently a federal prosecutor who left the Department in 2014 and went into court-appointed public defender work in Los Angeles. Smells like a career crash.
What is abundantly clear is that abhorrent and/or criminal acts when committed by a member of the opposite party should be prosecuted to the fullest and bar said person from ever holding public office. When said acts are committed by a member of your part, forgive, forget, and deny.
And also abundantly clear, the news media have clearly picked sides and become extensions of political parties.
Sad, truly sad for this once great nation.
Why in bloody hell would it be in his papers? If Congress has a grievance officer, record of the complaint should be in those files. (Unless, of course they scrub the files for defensible reasons and bad reasons).
Ideally, all the transactions of the office of a member of Congress would be deemed public records and placed on deposit in the appropriate archive. If retention of a subsection thereof was at the discretion of the Senator or those among his staff, the residue would be placed on deposit. Flat nothing recording transactions of his office should be donated to a third party at the Senator’s discretion. (His campaign committee materials or household material is another matter).
Ditto the President’s ‘papers’. About the only thing that should fit into that category would be diaries and commonplace books written out in his own hand.
That would apply to ‘bleached’ private servers and smashed cell phones also, I would imagine?
“Why in bloody hell would it be in his papers?”
DSS, I’m not sure of the exact meaning of “Presidential Papers”, but you seem to answer your question “the President’s ‘papers’. About the only thing that should fit into that category would be diaries and commonplace books written out in his own hand.”
Your definition makes more sense to me than other ideas, but I will bet that a lot more papers are present than just those that you think “should fit into that category”. That is why the information being sought could very well be in his papers.
U of D is clearly acting consistently with it’s long held position – no, Biden has obviously not left “public life” or “public office” – and deserves none of JT’s criticism. If he doesn’t like the agreement, also consistent with SOP, fine, and his criticism may be valid for future agreements.
JT’s pushing of the Reade story is understandable for a Trumpster, and we can expect more from him. He should focus his criticism on the papers toward Biden. It’s his responsibility, not U of D’s. I suppose he doesn’t because that removes the pretend concern with University practice and would lay naked his partisan pushing of a story that could help his otherwise sinking candidate.
JT’s pushing of the Reade story is understandable for a Trumpster,
It’s understandable for anyone who wishes to treat like cases like, which is a component of moral reasoning. That’s not you, of course
A column a day on Reade when a crisis which could be worse than the Great Depression is on hand and being mismanaged by somebody is not treating like cases like. It’s propaganda masquerading as academic concern.
Be honest JT, put on the red hat and just blast Biden.
It’s a law blog, you twit. There are economics blogs you can consult if you have an interest in that.
There are laws around every single issue of the day and somehow JT almost always lands on ones he describes as unfavorable to MSNBC commentators, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, any other Democrat who looked crosswise at Bernie Sanders.
Get your Gestalts checked – you twit.
Yeah, it ain’t FAIR! Turley keeps picking on people and companies who do bad and shameful things! He needs to pick on people and companies who aren’t doing bad things to even it out!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yeah, that’s true, because everyone knows the biggest and only criminals and the source of the nation’s problems are MSNBC commentators, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Democrats who look crosswise at Bernie Sanders.
Well, I wouldn’t say they are the ONLY criminals, but you are right about them being the biggest!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky:
Why feed the bookish Troll-holes?
Book, it’s insulting to the American people to think Tara Reade is somehow more relevant than the 20 women accusing Trump of misconduct.
What’s more, Trumpers like Turley would have us believe we need to pause pandemic coverage for a week to focus on Tara Reade instead. Like Biden’s alleged misconduct should be reason enough to overlook Trump’ colossal failures in managing the pandemic
I am content to go with quality instead of quantity.
One alleged victim with substantial backup is better than 20 gold-digging ho’s.
Once again, Peter Shill/Seth spews out DNC talking points.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, a lot of people warned Paint Chips not to increase the lead content in his diet so now we are left with his meaningless statements. The entire Democrat Congress failed to recognize the problem and then failed again by going from one extreme to the other. Paint Chips agrees with both extremes because both sides of his brain fail to connect to one another.
Of course he is quite happy with the destruction of America by this virus for as he said in the past it brings us that much closer to the ideology seen in the Stalin years.
Seth, it’s an important story and is front page on the WaPo and NYTs, but not more important than our chaotic response to potentially an event worse for the republic than the Great Depression. Captain Queeg is busy watching Fox news while we ship out on open waters without enough tests.
All of your accusations are petty and against anyone that might have opinions different than yous. This is a criminal matter. As I already wrote “I don’t see why the papers cannot be accessed by a neutral party to divulge only that information pertinent to a specific legally signed complaint.”
It appears the poster’s complaints have more to do with his dislike of the hosts position than any discussion of the topic. Anon seems to be arguing against Professor Turley’s ideology than the subect at hand.
Obfuscation is the word here, nothing else explains Biden and all other politicians who “lock” their records. Deeds, not words.
No doubt Alma’s papers, including notes, emails, evaluations. etc. would only shine a blameless and positive light on her, her relatives, and associates, but not everyone works on a unicorn ranch like her, and would like some distance before releasing that record.
They need to give up the papers.
Right, Paul. But Prof Turley assumes that Reade actually filed a complaint. Also, USA Today, yesterday, has a lengthy piece establishing good cause to doubt her accusation.
“A former neighbor in the mid-1990s, Lynda LaCasse, says she is a Democrat who intends to vote for Biden, but decided to speak out about her recollection of Reade’s story because she believed it when she first heard it.
“This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,” LaCasse told Business Insider.
Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade between 1994 and 1996 for a state senator, said Reade told her about being sexually harassed by “her former boss while she was in D.C. and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.” Sanchez did not remember if Reade specifically named Biden.
Additionally, Reade says she told her mother about what happened, but she died a few years ago. Reade recalled that her mother had called in to “Larry King Live” to ask for advice about the treatment her daughter received in 1993. Over the weekend, a clip of what Reade says is her mother’s voice on the line with Larry King was unearthed by The Intercept.
The woman on the call told King that her daughter had just left Washington, “after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.”
Report:Biden accuser spoke to neighbor of alleged assault
As for the report Reade says she filed when she worked for Biden, media investigations haven’t confirmed its existence. Reade believes it may be within the collection of records from Biden’s Senate days that are housed at the University of Delaware, closed for viewing until two years after he retires from public life. She has called on the former vice president to allow access to the records.”
“She told me X” isn’t that probative. What it does indicate is that Reade didn’t dream this up six weeks ago when someone ran $100 dollar bill through her trailer park.
It’s pretty amusing to have partisan Democrats propagate claims against Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh that don’t have a fraction of the corroboration and situational logic that this one does, then turn around and pretend to be skeptics in assessing this woman. The less blatantly dishonest try to change the subject of discussion to Summer Zervos.
DSS, as I have said many times we are not dealing with people of principle. We are dealing with self-serving attitudes that don’t even care about the future of their own children.
“USA Today, yesterday, has a lengthy piece establishing good cause to doubt her accusation.”
RDKAY, I didn’t see the “good” cause to “doubt her accusation.” in the article and posted a couple of paragraphs above to demonstrate that there are grounds for investigation.
My question is that this seems to be a criminal matter and I don’t see why the papers cannot be accessed by a neutral party to divulge only that information pertinent to a specific legally signed complaint.
has a lengthy piece establishing good cause to doubt her accusation.
One can properly doubt the accusation of anyone who waits 27 years to complain.
Partisan Democrats fancy people inconvenient to them merit ‘doubts’ and people they favor are to be treated with extreme credulity. I’d ask you to treat like cases like, but that’s a waste of air with you lot. The next time I encounter a partisan Democrats who explicitly entertains ‘doubt’ about Christine Blasey Fraud will be the first.
RD, thanks for the USA Today mention, and here’s the convincing column by a former prosecutor and defense attorney.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/
Unfortunately it was written before the named California women who is a contemporary corroborator came forward. I’d be interested in a follow up from him and I would expect we’ll get it. She is the most – or only – powerful corroboration of an actual sexual assault (as opposed to running his finger up her neck) and must be addressed by Biden personally it seems to me, or accepted. Sure, Reade could have fantasized the assault then and relayed it to this woman – possible as she has been all over the map and the picture of unreliability – but otherwise you can’t dismiss it.
“USA Today, yesterday, has a lengthy piece establishing good cause to doubt her accusation.”
Skepticism is a good thing. I agree that such severe allegations should require a higher standard of verification.
I’m quite certain that USA Today and numerous other MSM sources were just as skeptical of the allegations against Kavanaugh.
Oh, wait…
As I am one who pointed out the USA Today piece raising legitimate questions about the veracity of Reade’s accusation, I should note that I had similar doubts about Christine Ford and Anita Hill.
I had none about either as both were the picture of sober consistency compared to Reade. However, Ford’s accusation should not have been lethal given both their ages, his drunkenness, and the time if he had only said “I’m sorry, I don’t remember since I was stinking drunk as I often was then” instead of the BS story and phony drama he reenacted before the committee. That was what was disqualifying. He was an adult 2 years ago.
RDKAY, your statement about USA today actually demonstrated why an investigation was a fair request. Your statement of doubt about Ford, Hill and Reade is understandable because of the time delay.
1. The doubt about Ford is justified by (1) delay and (2) the absence of evidence these two ever met at any time.
2. The doubt about Hill is justified by (1) her following him from one workplace to another when she didn’t have to and (2) her efforts to keep in touch with him and his staff over the years and (3) how difficult it was to locate anyone who had worked with those two at the Department of Education or the EEOC who actually believed her (one reporter said he interviewed about twenty people and found one Hill supporter). and (4) that the old law school chum who testified about Hill’s complaints about her workplace (delivered face-to-face in girl talk) had then moved out to California and (by her own admission) lost contact with AH; said chum took up her post in California four months before Hill began work on Thomas’ staff.
3. Remember those ‘I believe Anita Hill’ buttons you occasionally saw ca. 1992? A paralegal who used to show up in my office had one of those. One of her avocations was licking envelopes for Louise Slaughter during election campaigns. I’d be fascinated to know who she believes at this time.
paul
TRUMP needs to give up his too. Be Best. Be Fair.
bill mcwilliams – Biden potentially has evidence of a crime. Trump does not.
You don’t understand the comparison bill, m, so let us deal with it this way. During the Russia Hoax Trump provided all the WH documents and personal. Does that make it fair?
I hope the staffers at the U of Delaware are socially distancing as they pour over the Biden papers….or does Biden have a Sandy Berger working for him? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html
The Blue Chickens’ (the school mascot – you can’t make this up) refusal and utter partisanship leads reasonable folks to:
A. Assume the worst is true and Reade is right (you know the Dim cabal checked before reversing their decision to release)
B. Universities have outlived their usefulness. Bring on the online learning.
Ground zero. On a hot sunny day. The temp will be nowhere near zero.
“Papers” “paper”. What kind of kids call all things “paper”?
Fat kids. Skinny kids. Kids who climb on rocks?
Dumb schmucks, curly dogs..
Even kids with small pox..
Say paper. They say paper.
The dogs kids like…
To bite!