Biden Issues Another Artificially Narrow Waiver In Search On Sexual Assault Evidence

220px-Biden_2013We discussed yesterday how former Vice President Joe Biden issued a request to release material from the National Archives related to the allegation of sexual assault made by former Biden staff member Tara Reade. There was less than met the eye however.  Biden adamantly refused to open up the records held by the University of Delaware and has steadfastly limited any searches to Reade’s complaint rather than any such allegations.  Now Biden is adopting the same artificially narrow approach in his letter to the United States Senate.  While CNN has been running glowing interviews about the letter, it is clearly drafted to limit the search.  Once again, I fail to understand this reluctance to simply end all discussion with total transparency.  Biden, in my view, has the stronger case here given the limited evidence and witnesses supporting Reade.  The fact of any recollection of this allegation by various staff members is highly compelling evidence. Yet, he continues to issue strangely curtailed requests while proclaiming that he is being totally transparent. It is not clear if this is just a reflexive resistance to full disclosure, over-lawyered language, or actually an effort to conceal information.

The National Archives has already declared that the earlier waiver related to their material is irrelevant since “Any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate.”  Notably, the coverage today largely does not mention the narrow construction of the letter to the Senate or the fact that it was sent after the Archives denied it had any such material.  It was the Archives that pointed out that a request had to be sent to the Senate. Instead, CNN was running interviews today praising Biden for his transparency.

Notably, the coverage has also ignored that Biden justified the initial narrow request to the Archives by assuring the public that any such material could only be found at the National Archives. The Archives is now saying that that is not true –  a fact that could have been easily confirmed by the Biden staff before his long-delayed response to the Reade allegation.

The immediate denial of the Archives that it would have such material only highlighted the steadfast refusal to open up the papers sent to the University of Delaware.  It also puts pressure on the University of Delaware in being used to block access of the media and the public.  This pressure will build if reports are proven accurate that Biden staffers have already has access to the material for an earlier review.  I think such a review is a wise move for any presidential candidate and may be unrelated to these allegations. However, it reflects the problem in allowing the privatization of such records.

What is most striking about the United States Senate letter is that it reflects Biden’s original position that he only wants a search of the complaint, not any related material from Reade or any material related to other sexual misconduct allegations. In his interview with MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski, Biden was pushed to allow the release of any material related to the Reade controversy.  However, he refused to allow a search of his papers under lock and key at the University of Delaware and has not ordered the release of any information or document on sexual misconduct allegations from other women.

Now Biden’s letter repeats his narrow position that focused on this one allegation. He asked the Senate

“I request that you take or direct whatever steps are necessary to establish the location of the records of this Office, and once they have been located, to direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search. I would ask that the public release include not only a complaint if one exists, but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation.” (emphasis added)

In fairness, this is still more disclosure that Donald Trump has allowed in relation to multiple women accusing him of sexual misconduct or his taxes.  However, if Biden wants points for transparency, he really needs to be transparent. As I have said before, the solution is obvious and simple: release any material related to any sexual misconduct or harassment allegation by anyone from any of these archives or libraries. That includes the Senate Ethics Committee, the University of Delaware, and any other archives or areas holding Biden-related papers.

CNN and other media outfits continue to run glowing accounts of these waivers with little or no discussion of how they are carefully limited in where the searches can be made and what the searches can look for.

Again, I view Biden’s position as more compelling on the current record.  However, these narrowly focused, narrowly crafted waivers only magnify concerns.  Rather than simply turn on the light, he continues to insist that searches are confined to where he is directing a flashlight.  Biden already said on MSNBC that he did not want his papers at the University of Delaware to be opened because it would be used as “fodder” against him in the campaign.  So, he wants transparency but only to the degree that he can minimize negative impacts.

I will say it again.  I have argued for decades that these papers should be public documents, not private documents.  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.

The most relevant records for reviewing Biden’s veracity and leadership are his official papers.  Yet we allow Biden to control the papers and prevent their review so that they cannot be used against him in seeking the highest office in the land.

157 thoughts on “Biden Issues Another Artificially Narrow Waiver In Search On Sexual Assault Evidence”

  1. I wonder if Biden called Bill Clinton for some pointers on how to handle situations like this.

  2. According to body language crossing arms is a signal for hiding behind or from something. Bit by bit and Commie Sanders and the Do Nothing Done Nothing pack are drooling to see who takes his place.

  3. I absolutely love how lefties, in trying to defend Biden, bring up Trump not releasing his tax returns. That’s right ladies, sexual assault is relegated to the same status as taxes. It’s just a minor technicality. Trump didn’t release his tax returns therefore women who accuse Biden of rape can’t see his Senate papers. Perfect.

    Please keep slow walking this all the way to Election Day. This way it never goes away. Brilliant.

  4. Joe cant remember what happened in the past and by November he wont remember whats happening in the present 🙂

    1. smith5522 – a 14 y/o is now accussing Biden of sexually harassing her. It is being reported in The Hill.

      1. Why have we not heard of this Democrat State Legislator in Nevada, Rep. Lucy Flores, alleging Biden sexually harassed her?

        Amazing. The list is truly long! And then there is his son, Hunter Biden! Obviously the #Metoo is bullsh!t


        “Nevada politician has accused Joe Biden of sexual harassment”

        Lucy Flores, former member of the Nevada Legislature and 2014 candidate for lieutenant governor and U.S. Congress, has accused former Vice President and potential 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden of sexual harassment. The allegation was made in a New York Magazine article published Friday.

        Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction,” she wrote under the headline, “An Awkward Kiss Changed How I Saw Joe Biden.”

        “As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. ‘Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?’

        “He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head … he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it.”

      2. Not harassing her. Just saying the wrong thing. What’s interesting is the man’s been saying the wrong thing for decades and it never catches up with him. You’d think inventing a phony family history through appropriating Neil Kinnock’s family history might you look so absurd that Delaware voters would toss you out. Nope.

        1. DSS – If I had a 14 y/o student and told her her breasts looked great, I would be looking for a job a McDonald’s that afternoon. It is sexual harassment.

    2. smith, you have no history on these threads. No one has ever seen your comments.

  5. The Biden sexual assault allegations are nothing more than a smoke screen. Sexual assault sickens civilized people, but ‘#MeToo’ genuinely means ‘#MeDoWhatIWant’ to powerful men. Twice the Democrat party of liberals and progressives elected the known rapist Bill Clinton.

    Biden will weave, dance and deny, accept a woman as his vice presidential running mate, and all will be forgotten. Sadly, the statute of limitations have expired as has any admissible evidence with Ms. Reade.

    But Biden’s and his son Hunter’s illegal, corrupt, and criminal activities in China, Russia, the Ukraine and only God knows where else are very much judicially alive and subject to criminal prosecution. That’s the story, not his assault of another woman.

    1. No, #metoo was a tool to be used against selected targets. Unfortunately for its originators, it has proved inconvenient from time to time.

  6. While we’re at it, can we puleez build a modular records center for presidential papers, say, in Kansas City? We move the archival material from the extant Presidential libraries to said records center. Every four-to-eight years, the center adds another module, connected to the others by a concourse. As for the presidential libraries, we deed them and the gewgaws they contain over to the county governments where they are located and resolve to never build another one.

  7. Turley:. Show a better photo of Biden. That one is squirelly. It’s kind of like the Hillary articles where that ugly itchBay picture is always posted.

  8. Tara Reade is becoming the Trump campaign’s desperate obsession aided and abetted by the fringe far left. An alliance made in the darkest corners of our politics.

    1. IOW, you are jealous it wasn’t you fingering the poor woman.

      Nice to see you on here Joe…or is it Hunter…..Bill Clinton….H. Weinstein…

  9. “It is not clear if this is just a reflexive resistance to full disclosure, over-lawyered language, or actually an effort to conceal information.” LOL! Statements like this remind one that, in the end, Turley is a Democrat.

    1. D3fiant, Turley’s not a Democrat. But you’re a sock puppet.

    2. BS He’s a Trumpster.

      Democrats don’t post red meat for the crowd on the site everyday. Supposed exposes of MSNBC 2nd tier commentators, left wing professors, Hillary Clinton, and the presidential candidate in 2nd place on sexual assault charges are not one anyone who is serious writes about every day. I guess he has tenure and just doesn’t care anymore.

      1. BS He’s a Trumpster.

        IOW, he occasionally takes an interest in news items and occasionally advances arguments inconvenient to the Democratic Party.

  10. Simply stated as Occam’s Razor suggests, Biden is not releasing all records because there is something in those records to hide.

    1. Yes Jeff, no doubt comments intended to be private about people he will have to deal with when he’s president. That’s the way it’s done with people in public life.

  11. After watching the interview with Mika, it is clear he is hiding something.

    1. Yeah Paul, as a Trump supporter you’re a proven seer and BS detector.

      1. Anon – thank you for acknowledging my inate talent. 🙂

      2. Book, Paul’s the ‘nice’ apologist. He’s not the mean, foul-mouthed Trumper. He’s more like the ‘civil Trumper’ with seemingly logical excuses. In fact, one imagines Paul has a Boomburg-like terminal feeding Trump excuses 24-7.

        1. Young-ish – my comments about Trump are not “seemingly logical excuses.” They are facts. Get with the program.

  12. Now a ninth woman has come forward, saying that when she was fourteen Biden made a highly inappropriate remark about her breasts.

    Sounds like our guy.

    “I got a puppy in my van. Wanna see him?”

    The man has a better than even chance of landing in the President’s chair. So much of our public life forces us to live by Erma Bombeck’s admonishment of Betty Friedan: “Lady, you’re not going to make it better tonight. You can’t make it better, you laugh at it”.

  13. My guess would be that Mika Brzezinski and other figures in the media are working for a faction in the DNC that wants to replace Biden with someone who isn’t dotty. When they fail, the scandal will go away. That’s what happens when scandals are inconvenient to the Democratic Party; the media just stop reporting on it.

    The irony is that the Democratic Party’s usually has junk candidates (in 2004 and 2008 especially, Wesley Clark the huge exception). This year, a mess of people with some chops in business, public administration, or both ran. All of them were ignored by voters in favor of a mediocre, resume-puffing, small-city mayor; a lapsed prosecutor known as a terror to work for; a cranky old Trotskyist (whose whole life up to age 40 was an embarrassment); Princess Spreading Bull, and Sundown Joe.

    The problem is that what Democratic voters fancy is important is in fact trivial. That mentality will give us VP candidate Stacey Abrams.

    1. “My guess would be that Mika Brzezinski and other figures in the media are working for a faction in the DNC that wants to replace Biden with someone who isn’t dotty. ”

      Yep. You hit the nail on the head.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. Absurd, at least Democrats don’t need the Electoral College to win.

    3. “That mentality will give us VP candidate Stacey Abrams.”

      My guess is “not a chance,” but little would surprise me.

  14. What is surprising is that the Dems would choose Biden as their candidate at all. Given his decades-long reputation as “funny uncle” type, they should have foreseen that allegations like these would come out, especially post-Kavanaugh. That, together with his obviously dismissed mental capacity make for an especially weak candidate. They must assume that there are enough “yellow dog Democrats” to put any candidate they offer over the finish line, no matter how flawed.

    1. This is why I find this entire episode so baffling.
      Gaffe-meister Biden is a weak candidate to begin with.
      Add in the rape charges, along with the dementia, and he’s unelectable.
      WHY are the dems nominating a guy who has virtually ZERO chance of beating Trump??
      There’s something else going on here……………..

      1. TruthHurts, you’re a stupid puppet if you think Trump can win with Great Depression unemployment rates.

        1. You can think whatever you want of me, after all, it’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it.

          I’m not changing my mind though. Biden is a terrible candidate who has ZERO chance of beating Trump.

          1. If Democrats had responded with President Trump in calling out China, none of this would have happened.

    2. Actually TIN, it’s former GOP suburban women we expect to put him over the top.


  15. The Tara Reade allegations May end
    Up as a minor issue for Biden.
    The Big issue for Joe is his involvement
    In the General Flynn affair.

    1. The business about Flynn is of interest to people who already vote Republican and of interest to a tiny minority of others who want the rules to be fair and fairly enforced. It will have no effect on Biden’s prospects.

      1. “…The term “perjury trap” has been thrown around a lot — often carelessly. In this case, though, it didn’t seem to be a matter of actually tricking Flynn into lying, but rather giving him a choice between admitting what the FBI already believed it could prove and letting him lie about it. This official believed not showing him the evidence and choosing the latter course would make the Trump White House “furious.”

        And here’s the important point: The official had very good reason to believe Flynn would lie about this … because he already had.

        ….Then-acting attorney general Sally Yates would later tell the White House that Flynn had misled it and that this opened him up to potential blackmail by the Russians, since they would have known the actual contents of the calls….

        It is generally accepted that as long as law enforcement is pursuing a legitimate investigation, the “perjury trap” claim doesn’t apply. The Justice Department’s manual for U.S. attorneys states that, while such claims are commonplace, as long as law enforcement is “attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, the perjury trap doctrine does not apply.”

        A 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service states, “The doctrine poses no bar to prosecution in most cases, however, because the government is usually able to identify some valid reason for” the inquiries.

        One very valid question raised by the new documents, though, comes when the unnamed official muses about whether the goal is to “get him fired.” It’s one thing to choose between letting Flynn admit his wrongdoing or lie about it; it’s another to suggest a potential aim is his removal from his White House post. That would seem to be something that is beyond the purview of law enforcement, and it’s key to claims that Flynn was personally targeted.

        But also keep in mind the Yates development: There was real concern around this time that Flynn had not just done something wrong, but that he had opened himself up to blackmail by the Russians because of his actions. In that case, it may be more understandable that the FBI saw some value in getting him removed from such a high-profile post, irrespective of whether he had committed a crime because of the possibility that he was compromised.”

  16. From the morning news, former House rep Jason Javitz queried why Biden didn’t ask the Senate ethics committee, instead of Biden’s personal records, to look through it’s records for any reference of a complaint from Meade?

    1. Biden told Mika a complaint would be in Senate archives and they should be searched.

  17. Biden obviously has something to hide, and that is why he refuses to release those records. Even in his mentally diminished state, he knows what is in his record supports Reade’s allegations.

    Now a ninth woman has come forward, saying that when she was fourteen Biden made a highly inappropriate remark about her breasts.

    Nine women all saying Biden sexually harassed or assaulted them. And Democrats enable this serial rapist and sexual harasser, just as Republicans enable Trump in his sexual predatory behavior.

    THIS is why so many Americans vote third party or not at all. THIS is why Democrats lose elections they should have in the proverbial bag.

    1. “THIS is why so many Americans vote third party or not at all. THIS is why Democrats lose elections they should have in the proverbial bag.”


Comments are closed.