Yes, Tara Reade Deserves a Full Accounting. That Includes Joe Biden’s Records.
A rebuttal to “Joe Biden, Tara Reade and the steps that can provide a full accounting in the #MeToo era” by Barbara McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks, Joyce Vance and Maya Wiley
In the op-ed piece, “Joe Biden, Tara Reade and the steps that can provide a full accounting in the #MeToo era,” four self-proclaimed former prosecutors and attorneys (the “Authors”) who are purportedly “deeply concerned about respecting the survivors of sexual assault and protecting the rights of the accused,” profess to lay out a framework by which the media should investigate Tara Reade’s allegations of sexual assault and harassment against Vice President Joe Biden. Unfortunately, by the piece’s end, it is clear that, far from being an investigative plan of action, the op-ed is meant to serve as nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit Ms. Reade by misconstruing or outright misrepresenting facts, the relevant timeline and/or Ms. Reade’s statements, in an effort to “bury” her story without adequate process.
Before delving into the substance of the op-ed piece, it bears noting that, earlier today, my firm, on Ms. Reade’s behalf, issued two letters calling for the release of a complaint Ms. Reade filed in 1993 against her boss, then-Senator Biden. One letter was sent to the Office of the Secretary of the United States Senate urging it to reconsider its decision to deny Ms. Reade a copy of the complaint she filed in 1993 with the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices (the “OFSEP”) concerning her allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment against Biden. The second letter was to Vice President Biden urging him to change his mind and permit a search of his archives of Senate papers held at the University of Delaware for records related to Ms. Reade. We are hopeful that the Senate and Vice President Biden both decide to do what’s right and search for and produce records related to Ms. Reade and her complaint, which would render many of the points raised below moot.
Now, turning to the op-ed piece, to give credit where credit is due, the piece does start off by somewhat evenly identifying some of both the supporting and contradicting evidence relating to Ms. Reade’s account of her alleged sexual assault at the hands of Biden. The piece also explains why women like Ms. Reade do not always immediately report incidents of sexual assault for fear that they would be ignored, attacked, blamed or silenced to protect powerful and ordinary men.
However, the piece veers drastically off-course when it purports to analyze “the accused [Biden’s] credibility and response to [Ms. Reade’s] allegation in comparison to the credibility of the accuser [Ms. Reade] and supporting evidence.” The Authors discuss Biden’s May 1, 2020 “Morning Joe” interview during which Biden denied Ms. Reade’s accusations, and claimed that “facts in this case do not exist.” Immediately after mentioning Biden’s statements, the piece references Ms. Reade’s decision to cancel a May 3, 2020 interview with Fox News, insinuating, without any support, that Ms. Reade cancelled the Fox News interview because of Biden’s categorical denial. This was not the case — rather, as the Authors surely knew or could have easily surmised, Ms. Reade cancelled the Fox News interview because she planned to sit down for an interview days later with Megyn Kelly who she felt more comfortable with sharing details of her sexual assault. Indeed, Ms. Reade’s lengthy and detailed interview with Ms. Kelly had already been released (or at the very least parts of it had) by the time this piece was published, yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the op-ed. This omission is unfair, as it leaves the reader to conclude (incorrectly) that Ms. Reade had failed to respond to Biden’s blanket denial made during his “Morning Joe” interview.
The Authors then discuss how Biden asked the Secretary of the Senate to search for and make publically available any documents related to the complaint filed by Ms. Reade — a request the Senate predictably denied. The Authors did not consider whether Biden, a 30-plus-year member of the Senate made the request knowing it would be denied. In any event, the Authors completely failed to acknowledge the lengthy delay between the time that Ms. Reade’s allegations publically surfaced in April 2019 and the Biden camp’s belated request for documents over a year later, not to mention the auspicious timing of this overdue request, i.e., on the same day as Biden’s “Morning Joe” interview.
Moreover, the Authors falsely allege that Ms. Reade’s “response” to Biden’s request to the Senate for Ms. Reade’s records “was to equivocate, saying the complaint she filed with the Senate does not mention sexual assault.” In reality, Ms. Reade has not equivocated, but has always maintained that her written complaint mentioned harassment (perhaps not using those exact words) but not sexual assault specifically. Further, the Authors misleadingly imply that the Senate refused to produce Ms. Reade’s complaint because she did not agree to Biden’s request for disclosure, and that she was therefore being evasive. In truth, Ms. Reade has also requested documents from the Senate related to her complaint, but has been stymied as well.
The Authors then discuss how Biden was pressed during his “Morning Joe” interview to permit a review of his personal Senate papers stored at the University of Delaware. Biden refused to authorize such a search, claiming that the papers do not house personnel records. The Authors then conclude that it would be “unlikel[y]” that any personnel files would be there, and that, because Ms. Reade has said that her complaint did not mention sexual assault, “there is no reason to believe a search of those papers would advance the investigation of Reade’s claim.” This is incredibly shoddy deductive reasoning to say the least. For one, the Authors appear to simply be taking Biden at his “word” that Ms. Reade’s complaint would not be in his files, without basing their belief on any actual or objective facts. Rather, the question that needs to be asked is: Why is Biden refusing to allow a simple search for documents related to Ms. Reade, a short-tenured staffer at his office? Shouldn’t the public be entitled to know whether such documents exist?
Further, the assertion that the investigation into Ms. Reade’s allegations would not be “advanced” if Ms. Reade’s complaint is uncovered because it may not specifically mention “sexual assault” is reckless and untrue. The existence of such a written complaint (which is presently disputed by Biden) would certainly corroborate Ms. Reade’s claims that, at least in her view, she was mistreated by Biden while serving on his staff. The public can ultimately determine whether it believes Ms. Reade’s account, or whether it believes Biden’s blanket denial, or something in between, but there is no question that confirming that the complaint in fact exists has probative value. Indeed, at the very least, seeing a copy of the complaint could refresh the recollection of other Senate officials and staff members, including those who worked in Biden’s office, who curiously claim not to recall Ms. Reade’s allegations. However, to simply dismiss the complaint as having zero probative value and thus unworthy of being searched for, without even knowing its contents, is highly irresponsible.
The piece further states that, “[u]nder these myriad facts, an expedition into personal papers decades old would set the tone for an investigation akin to that of Hillary Clinton’s emails,” and that “[t]he search that should take place is the one that Biden has already called for within the records maintained by the secretary of the Senate.” These are yet further unsupported and/or hyperbolic assertions. Ms. Reade does not seek an “expedition” into Biden’s Senate papers or a full release of his papers. Rather, what Ms. Reade is seeking, and what Biden refused to agree to during his “Morning Joe” interview, was a focused search of his Senate papers only for records pertaining to Ms. Reade. As any seasoned litigator, including the Authors of this piece, would know, a search through Biden’s Senate papers could be easily and diligently conducted, including by a credible, disinterested third party, something that is often done in litigation. For instance, during the Southern District of New York’s prosecution of Michael Cohen, former Federal judge Barbara Jones was appointed as a special master to determine whether documents seized from Mr. Cohen’s office were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Any search through Biden’s Senate papers would be far narrower and focused. Quite simply, there is no reason why a thorough and efficient search through Biden’s Senate papers for documents pertaining to Ms. Reade cannot move forward.
Lastly, while a search through the Senate’s records should certainly also take place, no credible investigator would ever stop just there; rather, any database that reasonably contains potentially relevant documents, such as Biden’s Senate papers archives at the University of Delaware, should be searched. Indeed, the contention that a mere search of the Senate’s records (which the Senate has already stonewalled) is sufficient runs directly contrary to the Authors’ concluding message that “[t]he public, as well as Reade and Biden, deserve a full accounting.” (emphasis added). Unquestionably, a “full accounting” requires a thorough and fair search through Vice President Biden’s Senate papers, and any other repository of information, for documents that may relate to Ms. Reade’s allegations against him. We remain hopeful that both the Senate and Vice President Biden decide to do the right thing and search for and turn over records related to Ms. Reade and her complaint.
