Image 01 Image 03

Tara Reade Demands Biden Release Archived Senate Personnel Files, Seeks Record Of Her Complaint

Tara Reade Demands Biden Release Archived Senate Personnel Files, Seeks Record Of Her Complaint

“I would like to hold you accountable for what happened to me, to how your staff protected you and enabled you, bullied me multiple times into silence.”

Tara Reade, the woman who accused  2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of sexual assault, ordered him to release his personnel records from his time in the Senate:

“Joe Biden, I want you to release all the personnel records from 1973 to 2009 and be transparent about your office practices,” Reade told the DCNF. “I would like to hold you accountable for what happened to me, to how your staff protected you and enabled you, bullied me multiple times into silence.”

“You ended my career,” she told Biden. “You ended my job after you assaulted me. You claim to be the champion of women’s rights, but your public persona does not match your personal actions.” (RELATED: Biden Accuser Tells Us New Video Evidence Proves Her Allegations Are True)

She added: “I want this brought to light and I want you to admit it in public. I want a public apology for calling me a Russian agent and having other people try to smear my character in order to cover your crimes.”

Reade claimed in the summer of 1993 “Biden kissed her, touched her and penetrated her with his fingers without her consent.”

Reade stated that she reported the harassment to three staffers. None of them took action. She filed a complaint “with a ‘Senate personnel office,'” but does not have a copy.

A copy of the complaint might reside in Biden’s Senate records at the University of Delaware:

Beginning in 2011 and onward, according to The Washington Postaccording to The Washington Post, the University of Delaware had said it would keep the papers sealed “for two years after Biden retires from public office.”

The collection of these documents fills 1,875 boxes and includes 415 gigabytes of electronic records, according to WaPo, containing committee reports, drafts of legislation and correspondence.

But the university, which has not responded to a request for comment from the DCNF, announced that the records would not be made available shortly before Biden made his presidential campaign official in April 2019, WaPo reported.

The university then said that instead of waiting until Biden departs from “public office,” the documents would not be made available to the public until two years after Biden “retires from public life” — or after Dec. 31, 2019, without defining what “public life” is.

A university spokeswoman told Fox News that the school is still processing the records, “with many items yet to be categorized.”

The network asked Biden’s campaign if he “would authorize the release of the records but did not immediately receive a response.”

Biden has not addressed Reade’s allegations.

Deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield issued a statement:

“What is clear about this claim: it is untrue. This absolutely did not happen,” Kate Bedingfield said.

“Vice President Biden has dedicated his public life to changing the culture and the laws around violence against women,” she continued. “He authored and fought for the passage and reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. He firmly believes that women have a right to be heard — and heard respectfully. Such claims should also be diligently reviewed by an independent press.”

I blogged the other day that two people corroborated Reade’s story in the mid-90s.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Democrats/media will go to the mattresses to stop her and back rapey Joe.

The Hillary and Obama fixers have already made sure the 1993 complaint will never see the light of day.

Tara Reade’s mom is genius!
What an amazing foresight!
Calling Larry King with a made up allegation so that it could be used almost 30 years later against Biden. Genius!


I just don’t care about this. Maybe she’s telling the truth; maybe not. I can’t be the only person who sees this claim as an attempt to get rid of brain-dead Joe and replace him with a stronger candidate. Who gains here?

Biden is a stupid goofball. Maybe all the 20 year olds love him, but they’re too ignorant to know better. They want their college loans forgiven. They want free stuff. Joe says yes. I’ll give you that and raise you a green new deal.

She’s had 27 years to sort this out. Why the big push now? She can’t sleep at night? There has got to be a time limit on these #metoo accusations. You can’t jump out 40 years later, when someone is about to hit the big time, and say the randy desperado grabbed your ti@**.

Everybody wants their damn 15 mns.

    MarkSmith in reply to Titan28. | April 29, 2020 at 10:07 am

    Sounds a lot more than just a grab and sounds like it was someone that does not have much respect for women. Considering his son’s actions, it sounds like it is acceptable.

    I could not image my father doing anything of the sort, he had total respect for women. Something that was passed to me and I hope my son picks up.

    It is kinda funny, the Dems rule book is being used against them.

    tom_swift in reply to Titan28. | April 29, 2020 at 12:09 pm

    You can’t jump out 40 years later

    Why not? If the accusation is accurate, it’s as accurate now as it was then. But it’s arguably more important now.

    InEssence in reply to Titan28. | April 29, 2020 at 10:54 pm

    She didn’t wait. If you remember, she complained the next day, and Biden’s staff fired her. She has told multiple people including 3 staffers. Biden’s personnel failed to investigate and record. I’m not saying she is lying or telling the truth; I’m saying that she never had a voice that people would listened to until now. She isn’t the only one who has been silenced.

I am not defending Biden here. Just stating the way that these things usually work. When an individual chooses to donate “papers” to an historical archive, the papers generally come with a Deed of Gift. That document binds the institution to conditions of retention of the collection as well as conditions of access. It is not unusual for a donor to specify that the collection needs to remain closed until after the donor’s death. In certain circumstances, the unprocessed and otherwise closed collection can be used by researchers (usually a biographer) with permission of the donor. After the institution receives the collection, it is processed. A general finding aid describes the collection and there is usually an item-level inventory prepared. This takes considerable time to do. During this process, the collection may be weeded of duplicate items or items that have no real value. In the process, items that have sensitivity under privacy laws may be flagged. However, most archivists are professionally bound to respect the collection and maintain the entire record.

The donor, particularly when the donor is a very public figure, holds the upper hand. The institution often wants that collection to be its centerpiece, so they often accept terms that they might not otherwise agree to.

Having said that, I’m always conflicted when a public figure donates a collection of records relating to their elected service, then puts all sorts of restrictions on that collection. Seems like those records should be a public record, but they never get treated that way.

    Arminius in reply to p1cunnin. | May 1, 2020 at 2:13 am

    I was aware of that. But Biden could still order the University to release his records. And any attempt to claim that is impossible is going to be compounded by the fact his campaign staff has access and is going through those documents.

    Me thinks they are pulling a *Sandy Berger* (if you don’t recall he attempted to steal CLASSIFIED Clinton administration documents from the U.S Archives, lied to investigators, but enough charges were dropped and the one remaining charge was reduced to a misdemeanor; funny how Flynn wasn’t treated with similar lenience) and they are going to remove anything incriminating or just embarrassing to Biden that supports Reade’s version of events. Any such papers will be stuffed into the pants and socks of those campaign operatives and will walk out the door.

Wow at the end of this thread after the Leave a Comment box, I am getting an ad that says

Congressman Steny Hoyer – A Progressive Leader
Steny Hoyer has built an outstanding record of achievement and earned a reputation …

It is a google. Those bastards. They are controlling content every chance they can.

There has to be a way to fight back at this.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to MarkSmith. | April 29, 2020 at 12:59 pm

    Most of the conservative sites have ads to thank Obama for something. Other ads for Chinese-made oxy and pulse meters, and contactless forehead thermometers.

Tara Reid does whatever gives her a psychological boost at the time, starting with flirting with a celebrity and then telling everybody about it.

The test is telling the police right away, as if a street bum had fingered her.

Then, pretty assuredly, she would have been sending negative signals to the man instead of flirting with him.

That gives you a workable legal structure.

    MarkSmith in reply to rhhardin. | April 29, 2020 at 10:11 am

    Sounds like she did report. The attitude of the times were to pass it off as nothing.

      Actually, the attitude of that time (and today as well) is to ignore it if a Democrat is accused. Accusations (real or false) made against Republicans followed by a full three-ring media circus have been a time-dishonored tradition for decades.

      rhhardin in reply to MarkSmith. | April 29, 2020 at 11:14 am

      Report it to the police right away. That is, take it as a crime, not a social event that she changed her mind about.

      The importantt thing is not did he finger her but was she sending negative signals to him at the time, or was she flattered by the attention of a celebrity.

      The quick police report is a good indicator that she was sending negative signals that Biden is obligated to have taken note of.

      Lacking that, she’s going along with the whole experience and then changing her mind when she sees some other advantage for herself.

    tom_swift in reply to rhhardin. | April 29, 2020 at 12:24 pm

    So . . . being fingered my a street bum and being fingered by your boss are equivalent?

      rhhardin in reply to tom_swift. | April 29, 2020 at 2:28 pm

      Women tend to get something out of the high status male’s attention but not the bum’s. So in the case of the high status male, the male is subject to female mind-changing risk. Consensual at the time and regretted later.

      The lady has to stick with the signalling she used at the time, positive or negative, so that the guy gets signalling due process.

      About the only thing you can count on is a police report filed at the time, to indicate the lady was of negative mind through the encounter, and not just changing her mind later.

      If women are going to be treated as adults, they ought to be able to handle that.

“until two years after Biden ‘retires from public life’ — or after Dec. 31, 2019, without defining what ‘public life’ is”

Joe, how can we ever begin to miss you if you won’t ever go away?

Applies also to,
countless others

It is entirely moot. Biden will never release any documents. The MSM/DNC axis will never treat Biden they way they treated Kavanaugh, Trump, Thomas, Moore and a host of other falsely accused Republicans. Any documents that might prove Reade’s accusations are now destroyed.

This is just a prelude of what we can expect should the USA finally morph into Soviet States of America.

How can the NY Times proclaim Biden is clean, have they reviewed the sealed records that Delaware has?

Frank Hammond | April 29, 2020 at 11:21 am

Stay out of Fort Marcy Park!

What Tara needs is to connect with some of the female secret service agents who have been suffered upon by O’Biden to give her some pointers on where and how to get information she’s looking for.

Difficult to imagine that she was the only 20-something young woman that Biden hit-on.

What if Tara Reade has been a sleeper DNC operative activated just now to boot Slow Joe from the ticket? The assault probably did happen, but it’s been kept under wraps until it was needed. The press is adding credibility by NOT covering it, exactly what the public would expect leftist reporters to do…

amazing how quickly the mantra changed from all women must be believed to how all women must be heard.
evidence and confirmation be damned

Ms. Reade may have a very credible allegation against VP Biden, none of us know. Sure it seems she has some supportive folks who say she told them at the time and the Larry King Live telephone call, if it’s her mother, seems devastating. But with Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Harris, Abrams, Sanders and others already endorsing Uncle Joe, I can’t imagine the DNC letting this go much further. The embarrassment for all of them would be, to quote Pres Trump, “Huuugggee”!

Complaint? What complaint? We don’t have any record of any complaint.

    Arminius in reply to Mark. | May 1, 2020 at 7:38 am

    Funny how those embarrassing/incriminating documents go missing. When it concerns a Dem, of course.

    When it concerns a Republican, as in the case of Flynn, not only are the documents always to be found they are altered if they aren’t incriminating enough when too truthful as is.

    “The Michael Flynn smoking gun: FBI headquarters altered interview summary

    by James A. Gagliano | November 05, 2019 12:23 PM”

    Mr. Gagliano is a retired supervisory FBI agent and former field agent who, believing in the honor and integrity of the bureau he once worked for, believed that while the agents assigned to the cases of Hillary Clinton, the FBI’s own investigation into DJT, Mueller’s investigation of DJT, and Mueller’s investigation and subsequent conviction of General Flynn, had made some mistakes they were honest mistakes. Not malicious, partisan mistakes. In fact, he believed the investigation into the FBI’s conduct was itself a partisan witch hunt.

    When he wrote this editorial it was to admit he was wrong. Strzok, for instance, was involved in all four investigations. And Strozk, like Comey, McCabe, Page, Rosenstien, Mueller, Weissenstein, Van Glack, and every member of the villainous mob that attempted to get Trump, his family, and his inner circle by fair means or foul (mostly foul) is a lying sack of shit.

    The FD-302s that the government uses in criminal trials such as Flynn’s are supposed to at least supposed to be accurate summaries of interviews with suspects. In fact since the FBI doesn’t record its interviews they insist in criminal trials that their FD-302s are the equivalent of transcripts of the conversation. Thus they are only written by the agents who interviewed the suspect. This was not the case with Flynn.

    “‘I made your edits and sent them to Joe. I also emailed you an updated 302. I’m not asking you to edit it this weekend, I just wanted to send it to you.'”

    Joe refers to Agent Joe Pientka. Strzok and Pientka were the only FBI agents the conference room with Flynn. Indeed the only FBI personnel of any type in that room. Who is the “you” referred to in this text?

    Why, none other than the person Peter Strzok loved more than anyone in the world, especially more than his own wife. Married FBI lawyer Lisa Page. We now know that Page had counselled Strzok on how to conduct the interview to get the most incriminating FD-302 possible. But apparently Strzok didn’t do his job well enough. So he had to get her, someone who wasn’t in on the conversation, to suggest “Edits.” And then he made the edits and showed them to his partner Joe Pientka who agreed with them. Then he emailed the document so Page so she could make her final “edits” are in scare quotes because by making material changes to the 302 she was falsifying the document. Since she didn’t have any clue what Flynn said since she hadn’t been there to hear him, the changes she made could only change the 302 to put words in Flynn’s mouth that she wished he had said, words the she and the rest of her cabal needed him to say in order to frame him.

    Interesting, even though Powell didn’t know as much about the case when she took it over after Flynn fired his original attorneys (from the law firm of Covington and Burling LLC, or just Covington from here on out) she was able to deduce that the FBI agents and consequently the DoJ prosecutors (they were clearly in on it) were lying about who took notes during the interview with Flynn. When the “team” interviews a suspect one agent has the primary responsibility of conducting the interview while secondarily taking notes. The other agent primarily takes notes and only secondarily asks questions. It’s the second agent who is largely responsible for drafting the 302. Strzok told the prosecutors that it was Pientka who was primarily responsible for taking notes and drafting the 392 while he concentrated on conducting the interview (this was true as far as Flynn’s lawyers knew) and Flynn’s original attorneys simply accepted the government’s assertions. When Powell took over the case she did not simply accept the government’s assertions at face value. She insisted that the government had identified as Strzok’s notes were far too neet, extensive, and detailed for Strzok to have taken while conducting the interview. The DoJ was forced to “admit” in letter in response to one of her motions that they had “mistakenly” misidentified whose notes were whose, and that Pientka’s less extensive, less neatly written notes were actually Strzok’s and vice versa.

    At this point I’m convinced that the DoJ prosecutors were in on the lie. The reason those notes were so neatly written, extensive, and detailed was because neither agent had actually written them at all during the interview with Flynn. They were counterfeited days later by FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

    Powell smelled a rat and knew she could believe nothing the DoJ lawyers had or would ever tell her. She didn’t have enough information to know then the rat was Lisa Page.

    Another issue demonstrates Rs are treated differently. Flynn’s original lawyers were members of Covington, a firm that had huge conflicts of interest that had Flynn known about them he never would have let them represent him. Guess who Covington had hired as partners? Eric Holder, Obama’s hyper partisan AG, and Trisha Anderson. That name isn’t as familiar as Holder’s but the conflict of interest was much greater. She had been assigned to the Crossfire Hurricane “investigation” as one of its lead attorneys. She had testified before Congress just weeks before she was hired by Covington that she had read all the FD-302s, all of Comey’s notes regarding his meetings with Trump, and most disturbingly had personally signed off on one of the FISA applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court when the FBI was targeting Trump associate Carter Page. She joined Covington in August 2018. Flynn didn’t fire Covington and hire Sydney Powell until June 2019. So for nearly a year one of the key players in the coup against Trump worked at the firm that was simultaneously representing one of the “small fish” who had gotten victimized by it. A conflict of interest can exist at the law firm level even if the actual attorneys representing the client don’t actually have the conflict. Basically, Flynn was exactly the kind of Trump administration official that Anderson wanted to send to prison and now she was a partner in the firm that was supposed to defend him. This is an actual conflict of interest, not an apparent one, but even if somebody could try to make the case (they can’t) that it was only gave the appearance of a conflict of interest Flynn’s attorneys were required to tell him about it. Based on other incidents when they didn’t inform Flynn of information that they were required to tell him about it. I’ll go into only two. Flynn relied entirely on these attorneys specifically Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony, to tell him what information he needed to when filling out the FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) application. Apparently these are complex forms. Even though Flynn was charged with only one count of lying to the feds, in the written Statement of Offense the feds filed with the court they made it clear that they believed Flynn had lied both to Strzok and Pientka and on his FARA application. But had they asserted two separate charges they would have made it clear to the court the conflict of interest between Flynn had with his counsel. And then Covington would have been disqualified from representing Flynn.

    It’s like filing a complex tax form. If an individual files what the government charges is a criminally force tax form both the taxpayer and the tax preparer can be legally liable. If the client deliberately provides false information that would tend to clear the tax preparer and implicate the taxpayer. But if the taxpayer innocently provides false information based upon the advice of the taxpayer/accountant that would tend to clear the taxpayer and implicate the the preparer. Same with FARA applications.

    But the Feds have an interest in concealing this very real conflict. Flynn’s verdict could have been thrown out on appeal. Van Glack, the lead prosecutor, subtly included included the language that Flynn lied on the FARA application simply to gain leverage over the Covington attorneys and let them know they had to keep Flynn on the straight and narrow and stick to his guilty plea or he would “prosecute very vigorously.” By merely including language that indicated the government believed Flynn had lied on FARA in the written Statement of Offense which only charged him with one count of lying the prosecutors were able to slip this conflict by the court. But now Flynn’s own attorneys had an interest in seeing that Flynn stuck by his guilty plea or they could be civilly or criminally liable themselves. In fact, Powell has now certainly received the company’s own emails which show the lawyers were very concerned about their own liability.

    So, for instance the day before Flynn plead guilty he asked his attorneys if the agents really thought he was lying. In fact Van Glack had told Kelner and Anthony that the agents thought Flynn had appeared calm and relaxed and they hadn’t thought he was lying. But instead they told Flynn that “They’re sticking by their story.” The second one, entirely fabricated story that assigned guilt to him.

    Basically Van Glack had “turned” the Covington attorneys and made them part of the prosecution that wanted him to plead guilty. In addition to the potential civil and criminal liability the Covington firm had a financial interest in seeing Flynn go away. After the judicial system had resolved Flynn’s case, and Flynn resigned himself to his fate non the wiser, Covington planned on advertising their FARA expertise to other potential clients.

    The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Note I didn’t say Justice system but only judicial system. We don’t have a justice system. The prosecution knew that Flynn was innocent but fabricated the evidence against him. One of the material changes Page installed in the 302 was to change his actual answer to the question had he discussed Russian sanctions when he was asked about his conversation with Amb. Kislyak, that he couldn’t recall if he had (as part of his role as part of the Trump transition team he had had many hundreds of conversaitions with many coungries) to Flynn stated he hadn’t. Of course, the FBI had the transcript and knew perfectly weill the subject had come up. But Flynn didn’t commit to influencing the Trump administration to drop the sanctions or any particular course of action. And if, as memory serves, it was Kislyak who brought the subject up there was nothing that implicated Flynn in any wrongdoing. So the FBI had to fabricate the case to convict Flynn of lying to federal investigators.

    So the bottom line, Mark, if the Trump campaign is in the process of destroying evidence (like Hillary did) that won’t mean anything. It certainly won’t mean that Reade is lying. We’ve adopted the standard of justice that existed in Stalin’s Russia. Lavrentiy Beria, the head of Stalin’s secret police, once told the dictator, “If you want to convict a man you’ll have all the evidence you’ll need. And if you don’t want to convict a man there will be no evidence.”

    Maybe the FBI should change its acronym to NKVD. They sure worked hard to create all the evidene they needed to convict Flynn. But somehow I doubt there will be enough to convict Biden just as there was not enough to convict Obama’s hand-picked succussor, Hillary Clinton.

*So the bottom line, Mark, if the BIDEN campaign is busy destroying evidence…*

Never comment before you’ve at least had one cup of coffee.