Secretary of Senate declines to disclose information on Tara Reade complaint against Biden

[highplainsdem]

Source: The Hill

The Secretary of the Senate has informed former Vice President Joe Biden that it has “no discretion to disclose” the existence of former aide Tara Reade’s complaint of sexual harassment against the then-senator in 1993.

-snip-

The office in a statement provided to The Hill said the Senate Legal Counsel has advised the “Secretary has no discretion to disclose any such information as requested in Vice President Biden’s letter of May 1.”

-snip-

The Senate’s legal office reviewed the records of the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

The office determined that any complaint filed against Biden could not be made public “based on the law’s strict confidentiality requirements (Section 313) and the Senate’s own direction that disclosure of Senate Records is not authorized if prohibited by law.”

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/495957-secretary-of-senate-declines-to-disclose-information-on-tara-reade-complaint

[Peacetrain]

1. Is she the one that was in Mitch McConnells office before she became

secretary??

[highplainsdem]

4. Yes. She also worked for Laura Bush when she was First Lady.

I wouldn't assume this was strictly a political decision by Julie Adams, since there does seem to be a legal obstacle.

[CincyDem]

2. I'm sure Mitch know it will exonerate so...no info is better than exculpatory data. n/t

[TexasProgresive]

3. Save me from this CT.

My first thought was that the Secretary of the Senate is biased towards the rPukes. They already know that the complaint is baseless or non-existent but by refusing to release the data it keeps this up in the air.
That's my take.

Edit Julie E. Adams is a rethuglican according to her Wiki page. I am becoming firmly entrenched in my conspiracy theory.

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Well budge up, because I'm sitting on that sofa too.

[TexasProgresive]

16. I live in a house with a metal roof

You’d think that would help, but no.
A new thought, if there is even a minor complaint like touching her neck or hair made her uncomfortable they will save it to October.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. Count on it.

[lagomorph777]

18. Yup you are exactly correct. Moscow Mitch has ordered the truth to be hidden.

It certainly supports Biden's case that the Secretary is hiding it.

[forgotmylogin]

5. I45 has free leeway to declassify anything he cares to, so he says.

No evidence, no case.

[MaryMagdaline]

6. Tara Reade could disclose it or give consent to disclose

[DallasNE]

12. That Is My Read Too

She is like a whistleblower so she would be granted protections. But she has gone public with this information so whistleblower protections are no longer needed. Indeed, she wants the information to get out so release it.

[MaryMagdaline]

19. Agreed

[csziggy]

26. Reade may only want to have the existence of a report known

She may not want the actual contents disclosed if they do not corroborate her accusations.

She's already backed off the original claim that she reported digital penetration. She has dropped it back to less than her claims of sexual harassment or assault:

Reade: ‘I didn’t use sexual harassment’ in Biden complaint
By ALEXANDRA JAFFE, DON THOMPSON and STEPHEN BRAUNMay 2, 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tara Reade, the former Senate staffer who alleges Joe Biden sexually assaulted her 27 years ago, says she filed a limited report with a congressional personnel office that did not explicitly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment.

“I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable,” Reade said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press. “I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault.”

Reade told the AP twice that she did not use the phrase “sexual harassment” in filing the complaint, but at other points in the interview said that was the behavior she believed she was describing. She said: “I talked about sexual harassment, retaliation. The main word I used – and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”
https://apnews.com/aec7beb03e9e0e0e6e3c58111293e0ea

I suspect she knew the law would not allow release of the information in the document and that the denial of the release would just re-inforce her claims for those inclined to believe her but not be available to clear Joe Biden of her accusations.

[DallasNE]

27. I Have Been Comparing This To

The Swiftboating of Sen. John Kerry in 2004. The media wanted controversy in order to create a horserace so they legitimized the unfounded swiftboat story and it was the difference on election day as Bush pulled out the victory when he edged out Kerry in Ohio. Things don't have to be true in order to cause catastrophic damage to a campaign. And here we go again. I'm sure the intent of the law is to provide whistleblower protections but at this juncture there is no whistleblower to protect. You will note that it is a Republican lawyer that wrote this opinion too. And this close to the election there is no legal remedy available. The legal system moves too slowly for that. And the media will make this into a bigger story than any of the dozens of stories of corruption, lying, obstruction, etc. that Trump engaged in with a mountain of evidence to back it up. Horserace time for the media.

[csziggy]

28. I think you have it right

And the few rational sources that try to be objective will be drowned out.

[mikelgb]

7. I'll bet other Senators are afraid of complaints filed against THEM from coming out n/t

[stillcool]

21. that's where I'd put my money..

what a treasure trove

[OneCrazyDiamond]

8. By this she is not confirming a complaint exists,

just if it did, she can't disclose it.

[qazplm135]

10. If you are legally blocked from confirming the contents of a complaint

that usually means you are also legally blocked from confirming whether a complaint exists at all.

Also, often, these laws are interpreted so strictly that even if the complainant asks for the complaint to be revealed, they are ignored.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

24. Exactly. Wingers shouldn't read into that answer as though there is more.

[MyOwnPeace]

9. Thus goes the RepubliCon Senate..............

*NO witnesses for Impeachment trial (just may hear something they don't want to hear................)

*NO release of records regarding complaints of sexual harassment (just may show something they don't want to show..........)

THIS is OUR AMERICA - we need to VOTE like WE CARE in November!

[groundloop]

11. Biden needs to hold a press conference DEMANDING those records be released

Who cares whether the Senate can or can't release those records, Joe needs to send the message that the repub controlled Senate refuses to release them and therefore are covering up the truth. Turn the repub playbook against them.

[sdfernando]

13. 1st thought...

Can't have the truth come out because it will exonerate Biden. The yurtle needs to keep doubt in the people's minds. Well, the people that don't have much of a mind anyway.

[Lulu KC]

22. +1 n/t

[Mr.Bill]

15. I will take this to be a comlete exoneration of Biden.

Because if there was anything in that report that would incriminate Biden in the slightest way, it would have been on the internet weeks ago.

[Cha]

25. Exactly.. the repub Senate isn't fooling anybody.

[0nirevets]

17. Bogus procedural smoke and mirrors. If they release it the game's over. Can't have that.

If they release exculpatory evidence they won't have their dead horse to kick until the election. Standard Republican self-serving interpretation of ordinary administrative law.

[Nitram]

20. Biden called their bluff. They r folding without showing their cards.

[Warpy]

29. Iowa Republican named Julie Adams

I imagine she's under strict orders from Turtle to keep it hidden, which might likely be illegal at this point.

Moscow Mitch knows it will fuel all sorts of stupid conspiracy theories that will take hole an no conspiracy nut will believe what is in it when the court finally forces its release.

There is no reason in the world to keep it hidden. It's already been gone over extensively, they knew it was there when Biden was being extensively vetted for VP. Expect Barr to throw his bulk around, too. The legal wrangling will be nothing short of hilarious as they once again seek to justify the unjustifiable in the hope a few more morons will buy it.

[Takket]

30. very interesting........

so if i read this right, the next step is for Reade to waive her right to privacy and request the search for and disclosure of a complaint she knows damn well doesn't exist.

Ball is in her court now..........