The long-awaited response by former Vice President Joe Biden to the allegation of sexual assault by former staff member Tara Reade occurred this morning on MSNBC Morning Joe. Biden likely viewed this as a most favorable possible forum but host Mika Brzezinski did an excellent job in questioning Biden who, shortly before the interview, publicly called for the release of any complaint by Reade. Biden’s release was artificially narrow and, while he started strong, he quickly disassembled under questioning as to why he would not allow the release of material from the University of Delaware, which we discussed yesterday. The refusal drew objections from advocates for victims of sexual assault. Biden also had missteps like calling the allegation “irrelevant.” The one thing that I will again raise is that this controversy should spark a debate over the privatization or control over what should be public documents by politicians.
Let’s unpack this by starting with the correct answer. Biden should have simply declared that he will request the release of any material anywhere that concerns allegations by anyone of sexual misconduct by him. Period. That level of transparency would put him in sharp contrast with President Donald Trump. I have been critical of Trump for years due to his failure to release such material including his taxes. I was also critical of Hillary Clinton in refusing to release Wall Street speeches. She used Trump’s position to justify her own refusal. It served her purposes to avoid disclosure of her past comments to Wall Street but it destroyed any high ground in criticizing Trump.
When Biden announced that he would be releasing material, I was hopeful. Then the clearly abridged language and narrow release became apparent. In fairness his full statement is below. However, this is the key language:
“There is only one place a complaint of this kind could be – the National Archives. The National Archives is where the records are kept at what was then called the Office of Fair Employment Practices. I am requesting that the Secretary of the Senate ask the Archives to identify any record of the complaint she alleges she filed and make available to the press any such document. If there was ever any such complaint, the record will be there.”
There is less than meets the eye in this waiver. First, the National Archives is not the only place that relevant information would be housed. The University of Delaware has cut off access to Biden’s official papers which clearly could contain such information.
Second, the Biden waiver only asks for the release of a Reade “complaint” and not any material related to that or other allegations of sexual misconduct. Why? All of this is “relevant” and Biden’s action reflected his acknowledgment that there should be public access. Biden agreed that any complaints could be released but he refused to go further.
Mika correctly pressed on the obvious disconnect and asked why he would not release material on this or other allegations at Delaware. Biden gave a clearly evasive argument that such material may be used as a “fodder” in the campaign because he addressed his relations with other leaders. Mika pointed out that sexual misconduct material would not present such problems. Biden however steadfastly refused and became more defiant. I really do not get the political calculation here. If you want to be transparent, be transparent. Biden could have carried the day with a total pledge for access for any and all claims found in any archive or library. Instead, the benefit of his waiver was quickly lost by his defiance.
It was the type of moment that lawyers long for in a trial as a well-prepared witness suddenly is thrown off by a probing question. Both lawyers and police are suspicious when a suspect is highly effusive but artificially narrow in such statements. It is like a suspect encouraging police to search his farm but becoming irate when asked if they could search his house. What we need is sunlight not a flashlight point only to a confined area of search.
I am not sure why Biden disassembled. I found him strong at the outset and commendable in his initial release. I also do not accept the allegation of rape against him without further proof. Indeed, the weight of the evidence is clearly favoring Biden given the denial of some many of his staff members of any knowledge of the complaint. However, his dogmatic refusal to open up the Delaware records needs to be addressed quickly.
Finally, as I stated earlier, there is an important issue in all of this controversy that should be addressed about who should control such material. 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 privileged 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.
Here is Biden’s statement:
“April was Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Every year, at this time, we talk about awareness, prevention, and the importance of women feeling they can step forward, say something, and be heard. That belief – that women should be heard – was the underpinning of a law I wrote over 25 years ago. To this day, I am most proud of the Violence Against Women Act. So, each April we are reminded not only of how far we have come in dealing with sexual assault in this country – but how far we still have to go.
When I wrote the bill, few wanted to talk about the issue. It was considered a private matter, a personal matter, a family matter. I didn’t see it that way. To me, freedom from fear, harm, and violence for women was a legal right, a civil right, and a human right. And I knew we had to change not only the law, but the culture.
So, we held hours of hearings and heard from the most incredibly brave women – and we opened the eyes of the Senate and the nation – and passed the law.
In the years that followed, I fought to continually strengthen the law. So, when we took office and President Obama asked me what I wanted, I told him I wanted oversight of the critical appointments in the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice and I wanted a senior White House Advisor appointing directly to me on the issue. Both of those things happened.
As Vice President, we started the “It’s on Us” campaign on college campuses to send the message loud and clear that dating violence is violence – and against the law.
We had to get men involved. They had to be part of the solution. That’s why I made a point of telling young men this was their problem too – they couldn’t turn a blind eye to what was happening around them – they had a responsibility to speak out. Silence is complicity.
In the 26 years since the law passed, the culture and perceptions have changed but we’re not done yet.
It’s on us, and it’s on me as someone who wants to lead this country. I recognize my responsibility to be a voice, an advocate, and a leader for the change in culture that has begun but is nowhere near finished. So I want to address allegations by a former staffer that I engaged in misconduct 27 years ago.
They aren’t true. This never happened.
While the details of these allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault are complicated, two things are not complicated. One is that women deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward they should be heard, not silenced. The second is that their stories should be subject to appropriate inquiry and scrutiny.
Responsible news organizations should examine and evaluate the full and growing record of inconsistencies in her story, which has changed repeatedly in both small and big ways.
But this much bears emphasizing.
She has said she raised some of these issues with her supervisor and senior staffers from my office at the time. They – both men and a woman – have said, unequivocally, that she never came to them and complained or raised issues. News organizations that have talked with literally dozens of former staffers have not found one – not one – who corroborated her allegations in any way. Indeed, many of them spoke to the culture of an office that would not have tolerated harassment in any way – as indeed I would not have.
There is a clear, critical part of this story that can be verified. The former staffer has said she filed a complaint back in 1993. But she does not have a record of this alleged complaint. The papers from my Senate years that I donated to the University of Delaware do not contain personnel files. It is the practice of Senators to establish a library of personal papers that document their public record: speeches, policy proposals, positions taken, and the writing of bills.
There is only one place a complaint of this kind could be – the National Archives. The National Archives is where the records are kept at what was then called the Office of Fair Employment Practices. I am requesting that the Secretary of the Senate ask the Archives to identify any record of the complaint she alleges she filed and make available to the press any such document. If there was ever any such complaint, the record will be there.
As a Presidential candidate, I’m accountable to the American people. We have lived long enough with a President who doesn’t think he is accountable to anyone, and takes responsibility for nothing. That’s not me. I believe being accountable means having the difficult conversations, even when they are uncomfortable. People need to hear the truth.
I have spent my career learning from women the ways in which we as individuals and as policy makers need to step up to make their hard jobs easier, with equal pay, equal opportunity, and workplaces and homes free from violence and harassment. I know how critical women’s health issues and basic women’s rights are. That has been a constant through my career, and as President, that work will continue. And I will continue to learn from women, to listen to women, to support women, and yes, to make sure women’s voices are heard.
We have a lot of work to do. From confronting online harassment, abuse, and stalking, to ending the rape kit backlog, to addressing the deadly combination of guns and domestic violence.
We need to protect and empower the most marginalized communities, including immigrant and indigenous women, trans women, and women of color.
We need to make putting an end to gender-based violence in both the United States and around the world a top priority.
I started my work over 25 years ago with the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. As president, I’m committed to finishing the job.”
The Great White Hope of the Democratic Party is a package of expired Swiss Cheese looking for a bit of ham to complete the package.
Joe’s Biden’s campaign dispatched operatives to the University of Delaware’s library in the past year to rifle through his secretive Senate records there, Business Insider reported Thursday. https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/joe-bidens-staff-accessed-records-at-university-of-delawares-library/
Joe’s Biden’s staff accessed records at university of Delaware.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/joe-bidens-staff-accessed-records-at-university-of-delawares-library/
I read your link and found this:
“The development comes as both The Atlantic and The Washington Post argued that Biden should instruct the university to turn over the records, saying they “could contain confirmation of any complaint Ms. Reade made, either through official congressional channels or to the three other employees she claims she informed not specifically of the alleged assault but more generally of harassment.”
It looks to me like the Main Stream Press knows Joe is a loser candidate and are trying to push him out of the race.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
biden should have checked first, before stating that the documents were in the National Archives. Just today the National Archives refuted his statement.
My take: Dull, Dithering and Disingenuous.
Unfortunately true but still better than your boy.
Joe Biden: “I will be more mindful and respectful of people’s personal space”
When you see the way Alyssa Milano is protecting Joe Biden from credible accusations of rape or his long history on video of putting his hands all over
women and little girls at every opportunity, what we knew to be true is just proven again.
The #metoo movement was never really about right and wrong. It was always just a weapon that these people used against their enemies both within their industry and in the larger political arena.
Does her filing a Criminal complaint make all of these papers potential evidence, and as such accessible?
No, the statute of limitations has long passed on any potential crime. The filing of a criminal complaint at this point is meaningless.
The Dems did not have a single candidate who was fit to be president and have a finger on the nuclear button.
Greasing the skids for Cankles the inevitable pantsuit princess and comrade Cuomo.
NY will save the day because we’re all in this together comrades.
The CPUSA doesn’t want gropey Joe and the sobama magic is long gone as the fainting hopey changey girls are AWOL and dumpsters are full of Fundamental Transformation tchotchkes.
More appropriate moniker would be Belligerent Babble bu5 sock puppets are rarely accurate.
Again, why would records of a staff grievance be maintained at the University of Delaware and not in the files of the personnel apparat of the U.S. Congress or at the Office of Personnel Management?
Probably wouldn’t and according to Biden it would be illegal based on confidentiality of personnel records. Somebody – JT? – can look this up.
Reade believes those records prove who she spoke to about her allegations and when they were there, which help prove part of her claims.
I kind of doubt we are going to find a record where she made specific allegations of the type she is raising now. Remember, even in interviews last year she did not mention what she is claiming now. And her Mom went on Larry King and did not mention it.
It is well known that Biden and Warren were on different sides of a bankruptcy issue when Biden was in the Senate. I imagine his papers contain some choice words for her, although they are now generally allies. This is the sort of thing Turley wants the press to start combing through in Biden’s archives. Biden is right not to open up this sort of fishing expedition to try to create division in the Democratic party and open a path for an unpopular President to get reelected.
When Trump opens up all of his Presidential papers to scrutiny rather than blocking every legitimate Congressional subpoena then we can talk about transparency. Maybe when Biden is running for reelection and the Republicans nominate a very transparent opponent then maybe some criticism of Biden for not reciprocating would be warranted – but clearly Biden is the far more transparent of the two major candidates at this point.
Here is my thoughts on this, by way of analogy. Bad Wrestler’s girl friend whacks Good Wrestler over the head with a metal chair when the referee isn’t looking. Waking up to the Realities of Life, Good Wrestler has his girl friend whack Bad Wrestler over the head with a metal chair when the referee isn’t looking.
Now, the Deep Philosophical Question is, is it proper conduct to whack people over the head with a metal chair during a wrestling match? On that level, I would say “No.” It is outside the rules, dangerous, and you can break a perfectly good metal chair. BUT, the better question is, is the Good Wrestler justified giving the Bad Wrestler a good dose of his own medicine? I resoundingly answer YES! In fact, the only chance one has of teaching morals to the Bad Wrestler is to do to him, what he does to others. I think maybe Foucault said that too.
Sooo, while I do not approve of these 30 year-old sexual disclosures, Joe Biden and the Democrats done it to Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas, and they should get whacked right back over the head too! At least, Tara Reade has a believable story.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – remember that metal chair is folded up so the impack is spread over the greatest number of square inches, causing the least amount of damage. It is how tanks travel on sand and high heels don’t/
TMI on your personnel life, I may need some mind bleach.
Tony – my personal life was not involved in the answer. I just happened to get good grades in physics.
As a practical matter, yes. If you don’t hit them back twice as hard, it doesn’t stop.
Recall that after 1991 Republicans extended the olive branch to Democrats on judicial confirmations by offering no opposition to Ruth Bader Ghastly and Stephen Breyer. NB, over the period running from 1854 to 2007, Democratic nominees to the Court opposed by more than about 1/4 of the Republican Senate caucus were as follows: a midnight appointment by James Buchanan on the eve of the Civil War, one of Andrew Johnson’s nominees (ignored), a pair of Grover Cleveland’s nominees who failed in succession (and who were opposed by a large slice of the Democratic caucus as well), Louis Brandeis (a ‘public interest lawyer’ with no history as a judge), Hugo Black (a New Deal partisan nominated at the time of the court-packing scandal, whose history on the bench consisted of a couple of years as a JP), Sherman Minton (a Truman chum who had been a New Deal partisan in Congress and whose nomination was criticized by the New York Times), and the twin nomination of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968 (Fortas being an example of several different pathologies in the legal profession and federal politics and the nomination having come about consequent to a sketchy contingent letter of resignation by Earl Warren).
So, how did the Democrats respond to the olive branch? Fully half the Democratic caucus voted to ax John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Count and over 90% did so in re Samuel Alito. Then we had partisan Democrats whining that the Republicans had ‘stolen’ a seat from Barack Obama (who’d made two appointments to the Court when the useless Ford-Bush legatees courteously gave up their seats on his watch) because they ignored his nomination of Merrick Garland. The ghouls were all licking their chops at the prospect of replacing the deceased Mr. Justice Scalia with one of their minions and, ergo, the Republicans were obligated to get out of the way. Then, of course, they engineered a grotesque campaign of defamation against Brett Kavanaugh. Until people like Christine Blasey get bankrupted for instigating these frauds (rather than six-figure GoFundMe windfalls), we’ll continue to see them.
It is painful to look at Biden in these interviews. Besides looking really really old, Biden’s eyes look different in every news interview or townhall video he does. Squinty slits or strangely wide open or somewhere in between. They are never normal and relaxed. Hard to say if it is more painful to listen to old Joe or watch him with the sound on mute. Bottom line? He will never be president, nor should he be. And the entire Democrat party establishment/media knows it.
If you remember the last campaign – Trump did not release his tax records although every other candidate for decades had done that. The press shrugged. His health records too. He had NDAs for all the settled sexual harassment complaints. Wikileaks (and the Russians) released a lot of emails from Hillarys campaign. So then the press spent crucial weeks poring through the minutia of every remark Hillary or her campaign made about this or that individual, or speeches she made. There were all kinds of conspiracy theories launched and circulated in the right wing – such as that Hillary was running a child sex ring through a pizza parlor.
Now, tell me again why the Democrats should bend over backward to do a one sided disclosure which the press can pick apart ad nauseum which ho humming all the Trump corruption which – unfortunately, is often hidden in the records he has been refusing to release.
By the way, Biden said today he has never had a None Disclosure Agreement with anyone.
I completely agree. There is no benefit to release and it has been shown that there are many risks. Until Trump opens up documents, Biden should not either.
Because Trump’s Tax Return is just a fishing expedition for stuff to use against him. H has a complex return and there will be lots of stuff that could be purposely misinterpreted. And, Trump has been audited every year by the IRS, so his returns are probably on the level.
Biden, OTOH, has a valid sexual assault charge leveled against him, so any investigation there is not a “fishing expedition.”
Plus, are you really sooo naive as to believe that the Democrats do not already have a copy of Trump’s tax returns??? C’mon, they had it back in 2015-2016 and just could not use it because it was obtained illegally.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You asked for an answer to why tax returns should be treated differently than Senate records. I thought that was obvious, but I will explain…..
Tax returns are private and belong to the taxpayer. Trump has no duty to hand over his tax records and neither does any other Presidential candidate. This practice is a recent thing in the life of the U.S. as a country.
On the other hand, when a person is elected, he works for the Government. The Government is the representative of the people and paid for by the people. Being public, means that all records that were created while in the service of the Government, should be open to the public.
No politicians should be allolwed to hide their records, while they were in Government employ, from the people, unless the information is classified.
Since neither Biden, nor any of his Campaign Staff or attorneys as claimed that there were any “classified” documents, these documents should be open to public scrutiny. Especially in a case where a person is runnig for President and has been a “Public” servant for 40 years or so.
JT is again misrepresenting the issue. Biden told Mika 10 times that the Delaware papers will not contain personnel files, which other than the Senate archives, is where any complaint would be. He explained that keeping them there this would be an illegal invasion of personnel privacy, a point perhaps that went over JT’s head. He’s only a law professor. Further, Biden has a legitimate interest in other documents – which could relate to his future allies and opponents as President – being held secret until he retires. That was the intent of the original agreement, clearly. If JT still insists – falsely – that this is a coverup, he should work on clarifying with others, including the U of D if Biden is correct on the nature of the documents. His skipping that step tells you what you need to know about his motive – reelecting Trump.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat…
Ha, ha, ha. I think that trophy goes to the Republicans and their “Christian” allies!
It is encouraging to see people like you feel threatened by Christians. Clearly they are doing something right.
If it weren’t for a constant state of hypocrisy, (which I maintain is due to their inability to recognize irony) there would be no sense of ethos within the left. Let that explain, not only Biden, but every other troublesome double speaker on the left.
“…it destroyed any high ground in criticizing Trump.”
Dem loyalists don’t care; “Orangeman bad” is analysis (moral and legal) enough for them.
Biden fans will praise this performance to the sky and ask us all to move on.
And they will point to every Trump flaw/fault to excuse their boy. “…but Trump…”
Yes. That is called being a partisan. Loyalists of all parties do this.
Not true. The Republicans didn’t stand with Nixon on his Watergate problem and forced him to resign. I don’t recall ever seeing the Democrats do anything but rally around their Comrades. Can you refresh my recollection?
Right up until the end they were so screw the revisionist’s history ( lies).
Biden should ignore the bitch from Buechenwald.
That is a ‘sick” statement, from a “warped” mind. The accuser is a lifelong Democrat and voted for hillary and not Trump. But, your use of the Nazi Concentration Camp is weird, sick, and shows how distorted your mind is when it comes to politics.
The use of your term “bitch,” from a concentration camp, is likely how the Nazis would have said it.