Fact check: What evidence has Tara Reade provided to support her allegations against Joe Biden?

1. Summary of the results

Tara Reade has provided limited and largely uncorroborated evidence to support her allegations against Joe Biden. The evidence she has presented includes:

• A criminal complaint filed in April 2020 that did not specifically name Biden ^[1]
• Claims of filing a Senate personnel complaint in 1993 regarding workplace issues, though no copy of this document has been produced ^{[1] [2]}
• A 1993 Larry King Live phone call allegedly made by her mother discussing workplace harassment ^[2]
• A 1996 court declaration by her ex-husband mentioning workplace harassment ^[2]
• Testimonies from three individuals: her brother, former neighbor Lynda LaCasse, and former colleague Lorraine Sanchez, who claim she told them about the alleged assault ^{[1] [2]}

However, none of these sources directly witnessed the alleged assault, and journalists have been unable to independently verify her full account ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several crucial pieces of context that significantly impact the credibility assessment:

• Contradictory testimony from 74 former Biden staffers: A comprehensive PBS NewsHour investigation found that none of the 74 former Biden staffers interviewed corroborated Reade's claims of sexual misconduct, with most describing Biden as a fair and respectful boss ^[3]
• Disputes about her job performance: Former staffer Ben Savage disputed Reade's claim that she was fired for complaining about harassment, stating instead that she was terminated due to poor job performance ^[3]
• Credibility concerns: Reade's credibility has been questioned due to inconsistent statements and misrepresentations about her professional background ^[1]. Specifically, questions have been raised about her potentially false claims of having a bachelor's degree from Antioch University ^[4]
• Impact on past criminal cases: Her questionable credentials have led to reviews of past criminal cases where she served as an expert witness, highlighting broader concerns about her truthfulness ^[4]
• Inconsistencies under oath: There are documented inconsistencies in her testimony, including instances where she cited Biden's work for women while under oath, which contrasts with her later allegations ^[5]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while factually neutral, presents an incomplete picture by focusing solely on what evidence Reade has provided without acknowledging the substantial contradictory evidence and credibility issues that have emerged. This framing could mislead readers into believing her allegations have more substantive support than the available evidence suggests.

The question also fails to mention that multiple investigations and fact-checking efforts have found significant problems with her account, including the comprehensive PBS NewsHour investigation that interviewed dozens of former Biden staffers who worked alongside Reade ^[3]. By omitting this context, the question inadvertently amplifies unsubstantiated claims while downplaying the extensive contradictory evidence that has been documented.