April 3, 2019 Reade was one of eight women who accused Biden of inappropriate touching, telling her local California newspaper, The Union, that while Biden “used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck,” she didn’t feel she was a victim of sexualization, instead comparing it to being treated like an inanimate object, like a lamp. "It’s pretty. Set it over there,” she told the paper. “Then when it’s too bright, you throw it away.” Reade said her responsibilities in Biden’s office were reduced after she refused to serve drinks at an event and after a sexual assault she was fired. Reade initially went public with harassment allegations last spring after Nevada politician Lucy Flores accused Biden of sniffing her hair and kissing the back of her head." Biden was ultimately accused by multiple women of either touching them inappropriately or violating their personal space in ways that made them uncomfortable. In a two-minute video released in April 2019, the former vice president said cultural norms around personal space had changed and pledged to be more mindful of his behavior. Reade loves to file complaints: In 2007: Files a lawsuit against her employer, YWCA Monterey County, claiming workplace discrimination and harassment. She said she was being discriminated against for being "too White."
Eventually she married an Edward Franklin Walker an African-American psychologist. Her relationship with Mr. Walker eventually came to an end after another instance of domestic violence. A neighbor told the police that Mr. Walker had physically abused Ms. McCabe and her daughter, The Associated Press reported, and he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery. He was sentenced to probation, and the charges were later dismissed.
CALL INTO LARRY KING SHOW BY READES MOTHER SUBSTANTIATE READE’S ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT NOT OF ASSAULT
The New York Times reported: "Apparently because of his record with Ms. Reade, Mr. Dronen was in fact among scores of local men questioned in the disappearance of two local women, two people familiar with the investigation said. But within weeks in 1999, the police had traced the women’s murders to a convicted serial killer, Rex Allan Krebs; a senior investigator said DNA was used only sparingly and was not collected by the F.B.I."
TR: Right unfortunately that marriage took a dark turn
MK: Can you tell us a little bit about that?
TR: Yeah I met my ex-husband actually during the time I was living in Washington dc when I was working for Joe Biden the joy of that was my child and I and my daughter and wonderful but the heartbreak was that he was quite abusive and had a history and we were put in a program that required me and my daughter to leave the area and have a sealed name change and live in a safe house it was a very serious domestic violence situation it was law enforcement coordinated with um with women's shelters and then also his parental rates were terminated and so I raised my daughter by myself so you get a name change you get a social security number change you wind up moving to the pacific northwest.
Ms. Reade and her daughter had acquired new names and Social Security numbers in January 1998 under a program authorized by the Violence Against Women Act — the same law whose chief advocate had been Mr. Biden. According to court records from 1996, Reade claimed that Dronen was abusive to her and their then-15-month-old daughter. She described violent episodes including one altercation that left her bruised. Reade was granted a temporary restraining order against Dronen in 1996. Dronen opposed the order with regards to his daughter and, according to the court documents, denied that he did not care for their daughter. He also denied many of Reade's statements about his own childhood history. While he acknowledged that he was violent with Reade in February 1996 and said he apologized for that, he did not acknowledge other violent incidents Reade mentioned in her own testimony. NYT: Mr. Dronen did not dispute Ms. Reade’s account of the violence on Feb. 21, calling it inexcusable. But according to the court record, he asserted that Ms. Reade had previously hit him in the face and, at one point, made a false allegation to get his probation revoked, resulting in the issuance and then withdrawal of an arrest warrant. (Ms. Reade denied doing so in a court declaration, and said she never initiated violence.)
This is what Reade wrote in an essay about domestic violence:
In the coming weeks, Ted Dronen threatened to kill himself, Molly, and me if I left. Then, one night in February, he almost succeeded. Another inconsequential fight escalated and he slammed me against the wall repeatedly. I saw blackness and slid to the floor as he squeezed the air from me, the wood of the futon splintering under his rage. He screamed that he had killed the cat and then I heard Molly’s toddler voice screaming, “Daddy noooo!” before I faded into unconsciousness. The next morning, the red marks on my body had become bruises. I went to work hoping the cover-up and scarf would conceal Tate’s handprint outlined clearly on my neck. My coworker, Blanca, looked up at me, her eyes registering the source of my pain. I hurried away not wanting attention or a possible scandal. Blanca came to my desk and said, “Let’s go for a cup of coffee.” We never made it to Starbucks. Instead she walked me into the victim/witness program at the District Attorney’s office. Our freedom began with pictures of my face, neck, back and a restraining order. The divorce began and a custody battle ensued. Ted Dronen pled guilty to assault. Tate’s late night stalking became so bad we had to leave the state. His parental rights were terminated in court. I received news that Ted Dronen’s DNA was collected by the FBI for two missing women’s cases because he was a “person of interest” – Ted Dronen’s profile was that of a sociopath. With the help of battered women’s advocates and law enforcement, as well as new identities for both of us, Molly and I made our escape to the cleansing rains of the Pacific Northwest to start anew.
Ms. Reade told The New York Times that she had obtained her degree through a “protected program” for victims of spousal abuse, which, court records show, she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband in the mid-1990s. That history, she said, caused her to change her name, leading to confusion about her status at the school. But an Antioch spokeswoman, Karen Hamilton, told The Times that while Ms. Reade had attended classes, she was certain Ms. Reade had not received a degree...Ms. Reade maintains that she has an undergraduate degree, saying the school has no record of her graduating because of special arrangements put in place to protect her from her ex-husband. She sent The Times a screenshot of a transcript showing her with 35 course credits, her department as “BA Completion” and nothing listed under “date conferred” or “degree conferred.” According to the photo, she entered school on Oct. 2, 2000. Credits from her earlier studies at Pasadena City College were linked to her old social security number and name — the same one she now uses — making her worried that her ex-husband could find her and her daughter, she says. To protect her identity as a survivor of domestic abuse, Ms. Reade says she received her degree through the private assistance of the school’s then-president, Tullisse Murdock. She says she never received a diploma or requested one since she was “fast-tracked” to law school. “The president took it from the registrar and did it herself for complete confidentiality,” she said in an interview. But Ms. Hamilton, the Antioch spokeswoman, told The Times that it had spoken with Ms. Murdock, and that there was no such special arrangement with Ms. Reade.
TR: He wants his bag. I remember going down the Russell building floors and so I don't know if I was in the first floor of the or the basement but there's corridors that lead to the capitol and that kind of thing and I was trying to catch up with him and i've been on a weekday yes and I remember like my heels like my legs hurting a little and like you know there was just from walking really fast I remember things like that and then I saw him at a distance he was talking to someone and they walked away the other direction and then he greeted me he remembered my name and then I said "You know here you go senator!" I handed him the bag and it happened very quickly.
I remember being pushed up against the wall and thinking the first thought I had was where's the bag which is an absurd thought but that's what I thought was where's the bag yeah because I was handing it to him and um he had his hands under underneath my clothes and it was it happened all at once. So he had one hand underneath my shirt and the other hand um I had a skirt on and he like went down my skirt and then went up and I remember I was up almost on my tippy toes and when he went inside the skirt he was talking to me at the same time and he was leaning into me and I pulled this way away from his head. I remember he was kissing my neck area and he whispered Did I want to go somewhere else? and in a low voice he said some other things I can't remember everything he said um but he said something vulgar and I asked what he said I want to you and he said it low and I was pushing away and I remember my knee hurting because our knees. He had opened my legs with his knee and our knees caps clashed so I felt like the sharp pain his fingers were inside of my private area my vagina and it wasn't there was no small talk there was no like precept there was it was just sudden and it was happening like that and he was saying that to me saying those things to me and I was pulling away and then he pulled back immediately when he could see I wasn't complying. I was obviously just tensed up and frozen and not kissing him back and I’m not going with him and he pulled back and he looked at me and he said come on man I heard you liked me and when he said that it was either I heard or I thought but I remember hearing heard when he said that I immediately started thinking what I did. Like how I brought this on. Like did I say something to somebody did I give an impression did? I was just my mind was racing and in that moment I knew this was really bad. I knew I was it was more than just like the assault. It was really bad. He was then angry right and I could feel it wasn't like yelling angry but like that hostility build and he pulled back and he was just looking at me directly and he said he pointed his finger at me and he said You're nothing to me you're nothing
1. Tara didn't remember what floor she was on.
2. This is a very busy corridor and a US Senator is smart enough not to pull an alleged stunt like this in a heavily trafficed area.
3. "Come on man" this is one of Biden's favorite expressions but it would have out of place in this scenario.
4. In another part of the interview Tara says he told her they should basically find a room because he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. This seems to be a new twist to the story.
5. Tara claimed the worst part of the alleged episode was when he told her she was a nothing and not the assault.
MK: And we were you wearing underwear?
TR: I was wearing lingerie underwear okay
MK: And he pushed it to the side there was no block
TR: Yeah there was no reason Yeah he was able to do what he wanted to do
MK: And I don't mean to get too graphic that's okay but are you saying that they were crotch less when you say that it was a lingerie like can I just be clear on did you push the underwear to the side or was that not an issue?
TR: That was not an issue why because they were just lingerie panties like and I was going to meet my boyfriend later so yeah MK: So that means there wasn't much to them
She just happened to wear panties from Fredrick's of Hollywood that day?
MK: Some people hit you for this saying you kept virtually every record from your stint in Biden’s office why would you not keep the one form that alleged harassment or retaliation
TR: Actually I didn't I didn't keep very much from that time I don't even have pictures really from that time I think I just have a few things
MK: Did you even think to get a copy or try to get a copy
TR: I thought they were going to call me for an appointment so I was just kind I just thought they would be I didn't know I was going to be fired at that time so I just thought I would be imminently coming into the office
MK: How long thereafter were you fired?
TR: Would say it was in within a month I was stripped of my duty so I don't know if they knew about the form but I suspect that it got around
The use of the word ACTUALLY is suspicious. It is like the phrase "Well to tell the truth"
TR: Your comments on Vladimir Putin are a little out there right so just I want to give you the chance to explain what that's about um you've said he's a genius with athletic prowess that's intoxicating he has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness his sensuous image projects his love for life the embodiment of grace while facing adversity uh and that like most women across the world you like president Putin
MK: A lot shirt on or off well that was a joke but um that was humorous meant to be humorous but I’m pretty enamored with him but I i think that that what I want to say about that is if you read all of the posts there a lot about Russia and the anti-Russia sentiment right now that we have and I don't like xenophobia. You know and I i was writing a Russian novel that was part of the writing group that I mentioned earlier and we were doing creative writing creative posts and I was in the middle of studying about Russia kind of immersing myself in that the truth of the matter is you know i've never been to Russia I don't know what it's like to live there or the human rights violations that you know he is accused of.
The fingering episode was part of her creative writing class not reality
TR: Blasey Ford was under oath would you go under oath
TR: They say well she subjected herself to cross-examination would you do that
TR:They also point out that she took a polygraph controlled by someone on her team is that something you want to do
TR: I’m not a criminal Joe Biden should take the Polygraph what I would say is that they're not admissible into court
TR: Blasey ford took one
TR: Is that true I believe that's what I understand but what kind of precedence does that set for survivors of violence does that mean we're presumed guilty and we all have to take polygraphs so
TR: I’m just putting it out there
TR: So I will take one if Joe Biden takes one but I’m not a criminal
THIS TELLS US SHE IS MAKING UP THE FINGERING STORY. SHE KNOWS BIDEN WOULD NEVER GIVE CREEDENCE TO HER STORY BY LETTING HIMSELF BE 'FLUTTERED' AS CIA CALLS IT.
Reade told CNN that she received a bachelor of arts degree from Antioch University in Seattle under the auspices of a "protected program," personally working with the former president of the school to ensure her identity was protected while she obtained credits for her degree. She also said that she was a visiting professor at the school, on and off for five years.
Presented with this, Karen Hamilton, an Antioch University spokesperson, told CNN that "Alexandra McCabe attended but did not graduate from Antioch University. She was never a faculty member. She did provide several hours of administrative work." An Antioch University official told CNN that such a "protected program" does not exist and never has.
BUSINESS INSIDER: BIDEN CAMP REFUSES TO OPEN UP SENATE PAPERS THAT COULD SHED LIGHT ON ACCUSER'S CLAIMS — BUT HAS SENT OPERATIVES TO LOOK THROUGH RECORDS
"Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's campaign has insisted that journalists "rigorously vet" the allegations of former Senate aide Tara Reade, who says she was sexually assaulted by the former vice president and forced out after she complained of harassment. Reade said she believed that Biden's senatorial papers, which are housed at the University of Delaware, may contain notes and other personnel records supporting some of her allegations. But the archives are sealed until "two years after Biden retires from public life," and the Biden camp refuses to open them to the public. Insider has learned that Biden campaign operatives have visited the archives on at least one occasion. Previously, prominent Democrats have argued that public access to official records is essential to evaluating fitness for office.
The campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has repeatedly insisted that journalists "rigorously vet" the claims of former Biden staffer Tara Reade, who alleges she was sexually harassed while working in Biden's Senate office and sexually assaulted by Biden in 1993. But Biden is refusing to allow public access to his senatorial archives, even though they may contain records that could shed light on Reade's accusations — and as his campaign operatives have accessed the papers in the past year. Reade first came forward on a podcast last month to detail her assault allegations against the former vice president. Since then, she has told multiple outlets, including Insider, that Biden pushed her up against a wall, reached under her skirt, and penetrated her with his fingers in spring or summer 1993. Earlier this week, Reade's former neighbor Lynda LaCasse told Insider that Reade had discussed the assault allegations with her in the mid-'90s. [Probably a Trump supporter] In addition to the assault allegation, Reade said she experienced sexual harassment in her job managing the office's interns, including being told to serve drinks at an event because Biden liked the way she looked. She said she complained internally to her superiors about her treatment. Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator after Reade left Biden's office, told Insider this week that Reade told her in the '90s that she had suffered sexual harassment at her previous job in Washington, DC. The Biden campaign has denied Reade's allegations. In a statement earlier this month, Katie Bedingfield, Biden's communications director, said, "Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false."
But one thing the Biden campaign is not encouraging journalists to do is check Biden's senate archives for any records that could corroborate or undermine Reade's accusations. Those records — 1,875 boxes full — remain sealed within the special-collections department at the University of Delaware's library. And the Biden campaign is ignoring calls to open them up. But the campaign itself is curious about what is in those boxes and has dispatched operatives on at least one occasion to search through them, Insider has learned. Andrea Boyle Tippett, a spokeswoman for the University of Delaware, confirmed to Insider that people from the campaign have accessed the collection since Biden announced his presidential campaign in spring 2019. She added that the University of Delaware's library closed in mid-March because of the corona virus and no one from the Biden campaign has gone to the library since its closure. Insider provided the Biden campaign with a detailed list of questions about his senatorial records, including whether he believes the documents should be opened to the public, if Biden or his campaign has authorized anyone to access those archives since launching the campaign, and whether the campaign would consider releasing the documents, as they may contain information that could dispute or confirm Reade's allegations.The Biden campaign declined to comment for this story.
Reade told Insider that she wants the University of Delaware to unseal the records because she believes they contain information that could corroborate her harassment claims against the former senator. She said that while she didn't tell anyone at Biden's office about the assault allegations, she did complain to superiors about harassment and being made to feel uncomfortable. She said she met formally and informally with several Biden aides — including his former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman — about her concerns, which included allegations that she was told she dressed too provocatively and asked to serve drinks at a fundraiser because Biden liked her legs. She believes notes from those discussions would be in any personnel files the archives might contain."Ted Kaufman took notes when I spoke with him," Reade told Insider. "He's now denying that we ever had the meeting, and I watched him take notes. Those notes would be in my personnel file, along with sick days or any kind of extra notes that I turn in," she said, adding that the archives might contain documentation of what she said was an effort to force her to resign after she came forward with the harassment allegations.
'I do not remember her' Kaufman, who has been meeting with Biden in recent days to discuss the campaign's transition plans, told Insider he had no recollection of Reade."She did not call me. She did not come to me. I would remember her if she had, and I do not remember her," he said. "Now remember, this is 30 years ago, and she was a very junior staffer from everything that other reporters have told me."In March, the Biden campaign released a statement from Marianne Baker, Biden's longtime executive assistant, saying she had never come across any accusations of harassment within the office: "In all my years working for Senator Biden, I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone."
Reade thinks the release of Biden's senatorial papers could renew scrutiny on the presumptive nominee's track record with women and help reporters fact-check Baker's claims that Biden had never been accused of harassment."I have read that the campaign denies there's ever been any sexual harassment or complaints, and I know that there has," Reade said, referring to the complaint she said she raised. If anyone else wants to come forward with a story about working for Biden, she said, "this would be a mechanism to give a sense of safety if there's documentation to support their claims."
The day before Biden's campaign launched, the University of Delaware changed its access policy for his archivesBiden announced that he would donate the archives, which cover the period of 1973 to 2009, to the University of Delaware in 2011. For years, according to The Washington Post, the university's policy was that the papers would remain sealed to the public "for two years after he retires from public office." However, on the day before Biden launched his campaign, the policy on the library's website was updated to say the records would remain closed until either December 31, 2019, or when Biden "retires from public life." The university did not define "public life." Tippett confirmed that timeline to Insider, adding that Biden's senatorial papers are still being processed, with many items yet to be catalogued. "The entire collection will remain closed to the public until two years after Mr. Biden retires from public life," she said. Michael Crespin, the director of the Carl Albert Center at the University of Oklahoma, which houses the archives of more than 60 former members of Congress, told Insider it was uncommon for such policies to be altered after the records are handed over. "I'll say this, I have not seen that with our collections where the terms of the deed were changed afterwards, and we have over 60," he said. "Now some of them are pretty old, but I've never seen that with our collections."Insider has filed a public-records request with the University of Delaware seeking a copy of the original agreement that Biden signed when donating his records, any changes and correspondence about it, and the sign-in sheet to access the special-collections department where the records are stored. The university denied a similar request made by The Washington Post.
Unlike in other parts of the federal government, members of Congress maintain ownership over their personal and official records from their time in office (the only exception is committee records, which stay with the committee). Crespin said it was standard for politicians to keep their records private, and he found nothing unusual about Biden's language to keep the records sealed. Even if a member did open their collection to the public, he said, they could still pick through it and take out what they want."I think if a particular collection is not open, there's potentially a hole in what we know. You can only learn from what's there, so if you are trying to tell a story, there could be information that you just don't know about," Crespin said. "There's potentially a lot of information here that we could learn about the senator." Lata Nott, a fellow at the Freedom Forum Institute's First Amendment Center, told Insider that while Biden isn't legally obligated to release his senatorial papers, that doesn't mean he shouldn't."I think access to his senatorial records would help to vet Tara Reade's claims because they would contain records from the time that she worked for him," Nott said. "The First Amendment doesn't say you have to release your senatorial papers, but you know what? It would be good if you did. It would show a commitment to openness and transparency and the public understanding of what you did in your time as a senator and how you would be as a presidential candidate."Democrats have demanded that Supreme Court nominees' archives be fully openedIn the past, Democrats have insisted that public access to official records is essential to evaluating someone's fitness for office.
Reade said that in addition to raising complaints internally within Biden's office, she also filed a formal sexual-harassment complaint — without mentioning the assault allegation — with the Senate. Though she said she could not recall which office within the Senate's bureaucracy she approached, she said she vividly remembered how she felt when she handed over the form detailing her allegations."I remember having the same feeling I did after Joe Biden sexually assaulted me," she told Insider. "My legs were shaking; my whole body was shaking. I was so nervous. When I handed the form it felt like there was no turning back now. I was taking this step to formalize my complaint, and I was really concerned I would never get a job on the Hill. And then sure enough when I would apply for jobs, I couldn't get a job on the Hill.
Reade said that she never received any response or follow-up regarding the complaint before she decided to leave Washington for good about two months later. "But I really wish there would have been follow-up or some sort of concrete reply," she said. A staffer at the Senate Historical Office told Insider that in the '90s, a complaint like the one Reade described would most likely have been filed with the Senate's Fair Employment Practices Office, which was established to handle labor issues. In 1995, with the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act, the Fair Employment Practices Office became the Office of Compliance, and it is now called the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.The Center for Legislative Archives at the National Archives maintains the historical records of Congress. But a spokesperson for the National Archives told Insider the center did not have records from the Office of Fair Employment Practices.The Senate Historical Office staffer said the Fair Employment Practices records are governed by a Senate resolution mandating that "records containing personal privacy, information closed by statute, and records of executive nomination are closed for 50 years." The staffer couldn't say for sure whether every complaint the office received would have been permanently archived or, if so, where they would be now. The Standing Rules of the Senate call for all "noncurrent records of the Senate" to be transferred to the General Services Administration "for preservation" at the end of each Congress. A spokesperson for the office of the secretary of the Senate could not immediately say where historical Fair Employment Practices records might be or when, if ever, they may become public. The General Services Administration did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The Senate Historical Office staffer told Insider the rules for filing a complaint to the Office of Fair Employment Practices were complicated and that it was possible that a staffer attempting to do so without proper guidance may not have taken the necessary steps to get an investigation started. "If an employee brought a complaint ... it is certainly possible that if she did not take the prescribed next steps that the statute laid out that the process would not have gone anywhere," the staffer said. According to congressional testimony from 1995, 479 people contacted the office between 1992 and 1995 seeking assistance. Of those, only 102 entered the office's five-step "dispute resolution" process, which included a formal complaint and hearing. If Reade filed an initial report that didn't go anywhere, she wouldn't have been alone.
If Reade's complaint exists, and was filed to the Office of Fair Employment Practices, the record will remain closed until 2043, more than two decades from now. And if the formal complaint was shared with Biden's office, it — and any other notes or records regarding Reade and her time working for Biden — would remain sealed until two years after Biden "retires from public life.""Joe Biden is running on the platform of character," Reade said. "I did come forward in good faith to my supervisors, following protocol about the sexual harassment, was given no assistance. I would like them to show the honesty and courage to at least release my personnel file. Have your public persona match your personal persona, and give me my personal records."
THE NBC INTERVIEW: BIDEN IS AFRAID HIS OPERATIVES MIGHT HAVE MISSED THE READE DOCUMENTS SO REFUSES TO ALLOW A SEARCH OF THE RECORDS
MB: Your Senate documents at the University of Delaware were supposed to go public, and then they were resealed. The access was changed. I know you are saying any H.R. complaints could be in the National Archives, but why not reveal your Senate documents that are being held in Delaware? I know there’s 1,800-plus boxes. But if she believes and she alleges that the complaints may be hidden there, why not strive for complete transparency? Why was the access to those documents sealed up when they were supposed to be revealed?
JB: Well, they weren’t supposed to be revealed. I gave them to the university, and the university said it’s going to take them time to go through all the boxes. They said that wouldn’t be before 2020 that that occurred, or 2021, I can’t remember the year they said.
But look, a record like this can only be one place. It would not be at the University of Delaware. My archives do not contain personal files. My archives contain documents — and when I say personal, personnel files. They don’t contain any personnel files. They are public records, my speeches, my papers, my position papers. And if that document exists, it would be stored in the National Archives, where documents from the office she claims to have filed her complaint with are stored. That’s where they are stored. The Senate controls those archives, so I’m asking the secretary of the Senate today to identify whether any such document exists. If it does, make it public.
MB: Go ahead. The first is about your University of Delaware records. Do you agree with the reporting that those records were supposed to be revealed to the public, and then they were resealed for a longer period of time, until you leave, quote, public life? And if you agree with that, if that’s what happened, why did that happen?
JB: Because look, the fact is that there’s a lot of things, of speeches I’ve made, positions I’ve taken, interviews that I did overseas with people, all of those things relating to my job, and the idea that they would all be made public in the fact while I was running for public office, they could be really taken out of context. They’re papers or position papers, they are documents that existed and that — when I met, for example, when I met with Putin or when I met with whomever, and all of that could be fodder in a campaign at this time. I don’t know of anybody who’s done anything like that. And so the National Archives is the only place there would be anything having to do with personnel records. There are no personnel records in the Biden papers at the university.
MB: So, personnel records aside, are you certain there was nothing about Tara Reade in those records, and if so —
JB: I am absolutely certain.
MB: — why not approve a search of her name in those records?
JB: Approve a search of her name?
MB: Yes, and reveal anything that might be related to Tara Reade in the University of Delaware records.
JB: There is nothing. They’re not there. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
MB: The point I’m trying to make —
JB: There are no personnel records by definition.
MB: The point I’m trying to make is you are approving, and actually calling for a search of the National Archives records of anything pertaining to Tara Reade. I’m asking, why not do the same in the University of Delaware records, which have raised questions because they were supposed to be revealed to the public and then they were sealed for a longer period of time. Why not do it for both sets of records?
JB: Because the material in the University of Delaware has no personnel files. It has — but it does have a lot of confidential conversations that I had with the president about a particular issue, that I had with the heads of state of other places, that — that would not be something that would be revealed while I was in public office or while I was seeking public office. It just stands to reason. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has done that either.
MB: I’m just talking about her name, not anybody else in those records — a search for that. Nothing classified with the president or anybody else. I’m just asking, why not do a search for Tara Reade’s name in the University of Delaware records?
JB: Look, I mean, who does that search?
MB: The University of Delaware. Perhaps you set up a commission that can do it. I don’t know, whatever is the fairest way to create the most transparency.
JB: Well, this is — look, Mika. She said she filed a report. She has her employment records still. She said she filed a report with the only office that would have a report in the United States Senate at the time. If the report was ever filed, it was filed there, period.