Hunter Biden says his father was on Ambien before 2024 debate disaster: ‘A deer in headlights'
'I know exactly what happened in that debate,' Hunter told YouTube personality Andrew Callaghan in an interview released on Monday.
'He flew around the world. He's 81 years old. He's tired. They give him Ambien to be able to sleep and he gets up on the stage and looks like a deer in the headlights.'
The veteran Democrat cut a frail figure when he took to the CNN debate stage in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 27 last year to battle it out with Trump as he sought another four years in the White House.
Biden went on to give a series of mangled answers, failing to make the case for his record in the Oval Office or a second term and at one point declared incoherently: 'We finally beat Medicare.'
'I really don't know what he said at the end of that sentence,' his Republican opponent said after one garbled answer. 'I don't think he knows what he said either.'
After more than three weeks of pressure from panicked Democrats for Biden to step aside, he finally did so on July 21, paving the way for then-vice president Kamala Harris to run in his stead, only for her to lose to Trump the following November.
While the use of Ambien is common for sleep disorders, there was no mention of it among the six medications prescribed to the Democrat that were referenced in his annual physical report published on February 28 2024, signed off by Biden's presidential physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor.
In the same interview, Hunter noted that there was little opposition to Biden running again prior to the televised head-to-head: 'The people who came out against him were nobody, except… Speaker Emeritus [Nancy] Pelosi did not give a full-throated endorsement.
'The entirety of the progressive side of the Democratic Party said Joe Biden has got more of our agenda accomplished in four years than any president in history.'
That changed in the aftermath of his father's very public humiliation, Hunter alleged. 'They said, 'We are going to blow up the party if you don't drop out. We're going to protest this all the way up for the next month, all the way up to the convention.''
Picking up his father's story, Hunter told Callaghan: 'He gets over the hump, he goes and does the [ABC News anchor George] Stephanopoulos [interview]. Everybody goes, 'OK, that's not enough, we got to see him give a press conference.''
What followed was another troubling public appearance on July 12 at which Biden appeared alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and accidentally referred to him as 'Vladimir,' apparently confusing him with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Five days after that, with the pressure campaign on him to step aside only intensifying, Biden was diagnosed with Covid-19.
'He woke up in the morning and he had a severe case of Covid, and the pictures of him getting on and off the plane were just devastating, and then the vultures descended,' Hunter remembered.
'So Joe Biden, I think, did the most selfless thing that I know of any politician in the history of this f***ing country. He stepped aside to save the party.'
In the same interview, Hunter lashed out at Hollywood actor George Clooney who wrote a New York Times editorial last year calling on the president to drop out of the race after becoming concerned by his appearance at a charity gala alongside Barack Obama.
'F*** you. What do you have to do with f***ing anything?' Hunter said angrily of Clooney.
While the president's son made his opinion clear on why the Democratic ticket failed at the polls last year, others have pointed to his own role in bringing down his father's presidency.
A lightning rod for MAGA conspiracy theories, Hunter's prosecution on tax and gun charges led to speculation that the president would pardon his son, which he denied – and then did anyway – leading some to feel he had received favorable treatment because of his privileged position.
The book 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf argues that Biden was preoccupied with the prospect of his son going to prison at the height of election campaigning last summer, causing him to take his eye off the ball.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump is right about North Sea oil
Maybe it is Donald Trump's way of getting back at Keir Starmer for Labour sending activists to campaign for Kamala Harris in last year's presidential election. Either way, the US president seems to have no intention of obeying the convention that leaders of democratic do not delve into the domestic politics of their counterparts in other nations – and especially not while they are on a foreign tour. Today, Trump has doubled down on his attack on the windfarms he says are spoiling the view from his golf courses in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire. Posting on his Truth Social account he asserted that UK government ministers 'have essentially told drillers and oil companies that 'we don't want you'. Incentivise the drillers FAST. A VAST FORTUNE TO BE MADE for the UK, and far lower energy prices for the people.' We know how Ed Miliband will want to respond to that, assuming he has not been locked away on Starmer's orders for fear of spoiling the PM's friendship with the President. He will put on his bewildered air and tell us that wind and solar power are so much cheaper than oil and gas, and that what Trump is proposing would put us in the hands of 'fossil fuel dictators' who apparently have to power to set energy prices in the UK. The facts, though, are firmly on Trump's side in this case. If Britain's net-zero policy is delivering us such cheap energy how come we have some of the highest electricity and gas prices in the world? According to the government's own data on energy prices, UK domestic consumers paid an average of 36.4 pence for their electricity and 10.2 pence for their gas in 2023. US consumers paid 12.9 pence and 4.0 pence respectively. And no, the UK's high prices cannot be blamed on our reliance on gas. In the UK last year 29.2 per cent of electricity was generated by gas and 30 per cent from wind. In the US the corresponding figures were 42.5 per cent and 10.3 per cent. Nor is it true that the North Sea is in such sharp decline that Britain isn't missing much by refusing new licences and taxing the remaining industry to extinction (with a windfall tax which imposes a levy of 78 per cent on profits). According to the North Sea Transition Authority the combined 'provable and probable' reserves of oil and gas in the North Sea still amount to the equivalent of 3.3 billion barrels of oil. Offshore Energies UK – which represents the industry – puts it at 7.5 billion barrels. To put that into context, over 40 billion barrels equivalent of oil and gas have been extracted from the North Sea since the 1960s. Unlike the US, long-term self-sufficiency in oil and gas is no longer possible for the UK – at least not from the North Sea, although some estimates for shale gas suggest that fracking could produce up to 47 years' worth of supplies at the current rate of consumption. However, there are still useful quantities of oil and gas beneath the North Sea which would be exploited if only the government would allow it. Moreover, no one really knows how much is down there unless you look for it – but who is going to spend money prospecting for new reserves in the current climate? As for Trump's point about greater North Sea production lowering energy prices, it is hard to argue with it. Britain's eager adoption of renewables has not lowered prices, however much Miliband may promise us savings of £300 a year. On the contrary, we seem to be paying through the nose for our electricity and gas – around three times as much for our electricity and two and a half times as much for our gas compared to consumers in the much more fossil fuel-reliant US.
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Europe's absurd US investment pledge brings risks
BERLIN, July 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Donald Trump is a master of the art of making brash promises he has no intention of keeping. Ursula von der Leyen appears to have done the same to clinch the European Union's controversial tariff deal with its largest trading partner. But the European Commission president's vague pledge that $600 billion of European investment will flow stateside in the next three years is risky. If the U.S. president decides that the Europeans have failed to keep their end of the bargain, he will have an excuse to tear up the agreement. Just a day after announcing the deal that will impose a 15% charge on most European imports to the U.S., the two sides seemed at odds on many details – including the EU's investment promise. The White House said, opens new tab on Monday that the 'massive' pledge would be 'in addition' to current investment flows from the bloc, which it said exceed $100 billion a year. By contrast, the European Commission said, opens new tab on Tuesday that EU companies had simply 'expressed interest' in investing such an amount in the U.S. by 2029 – but didn't specify it would be on top of existing flows. In either case, it would be a big increase. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Europeans last year sent some $205 billion of new investments, opens new tab across the Atlantic. Strip out the $53 billion from the United Kingdom, and the EU number is closer to $150 billion. If the White House is correct, EU firms would have to more than double their investment spending every year until 2028 to deploy an extra $600 billion. Even the EU's more modest interpretation implies a sustained one-third jump from 2024 levels. This is as implausible as the EU's equally brash promise to import American energy worth $750 billion. Neither pledge may be binding. The deal clinched by Trump and von der Leyen has not yet been formalised in a document signed by both parties. Commission officials hope such a text might be signed by August 1, when the U.S. tariffs come into force. But even then Brussels cannot direct investment decisions by private European companies. Unlike Japan, which promised a similarly vague $550 billion investment fund, the EU cannot even support or subsidise U.S.-bound investments, as these powers belong to its members. Any transatlantic investment drive is also at odds with policies to encourage investment and boost productivity at home. Whether the lure of the U.S. market will trigger an outbreak of enthusiasm among European investors in the next few years is dubious. Tariffs may help persuade carmaker Volkswagen ( opens new tab and luxury giant LVMH ( opens new tab to produce more in the world's largest economy. But they must also factor in the effect of trade barriers on supply chains, Trump's unpredictable policies, and the consequences of higher import prices on U.S. growth and inflation. If Trump's trade deals fail to deliver the economic bonanza he promises his voters, he may look for an excuse to revisit the EU deal. Von der Leyen will then regret having made a vague promise that she knew she could not deliver. Follow Pierre Briancon on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
European Commission proposes partially suspending Israel from Horizon programme
The European Commission has proposed partially suspending Israel from its flagship £80bn Horizon science research programme over what officials called a 'severe' humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It comes amid worldwide condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza including demands by Donald Trump that it must do more to stop the 'real starvation'. On Tuesday, the leading international authority on food crises, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, said the 'worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out' in Gaza. Horizon Europe is among the most prestigious science research programmes in the world and has never suspended a country before. Officials believe, however, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is so severe that it now has a legal basis for suspension. In its proposal to member states the commission reports that '90% of households face severe water insecurity and malnutrition rates are rising sharply' with 'severe shortages of medicine' and 'virtually the entire Gaza population … at risk of famine'. Israel has denied that it is the cause of starvation, blaming it on other factors including the looting of aid by Hamas and distribution failures by the UN. It said on Tuesday that 'over 200 trucks were collected and distributed yesterday by the UN and international organisations' with an additional 260 awaiting collection and distribution. That volume of aid is, however, still below the levels needed. Before the war, an average of 500 aid trucks a day entered Gaza, supplying a population that was not hungry, had access to decent shelter, healthcare and clean water, had a functioning economy and also had a thriving agriculture sector that contributed to food availability. EU officials described the current aid increases as an improvement but said that they had been denied access to Gaza to verify the delivery of humanitarian aid and that there needed to be more entry points and distribution centres. Their proposal, if approved, would deny Israel access to one of the critical research areas within the Horizon programme, called the European Innovation Council (EIC), which specialises in disruptive technologies. Israel is one of the most successful member countries in the programme receiving about €200m (£173m) of the €900m allocated since 2021, with about €135 in grants and €65m in equity investment. There are currently 46 Israeli companies in the EIC programme, the EU said. The commission said in a statement: 'While Israel has announced a daily humanitarian pause in Gaza fighting and has met some of its commitments under the common understanding on humanitarian aid and access, the situation remains severe.' It added that the suspension would flow from its review of the trade association agreement with Israel, prompted by calls for a review of the agreement by the Netherlands backed by 17 countries in May. Officials said the partial suspension would be given legal effect through article 79 of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement if the action was deemed 'proportionate'. A seven-page proposal will be put to ambassadors from member states gathering in Brussels on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the EU-US trade deal. According to the rules the EU would need qualified majority, which means votes from about 15 member states to carry it through as long as they represent 65% of the bloc's population. This would almost certainly mean Germany would have to support the move. Senior EU officials said the mood at the ambassadors' meeting last week on the matter of humanitarian aid was 'heated' and there seemed to be a 'special urgency' about putting this proposal on the table. The UK was blocked from Horizon for three years after Brexit, rejoining in 2024, but officials said this was different to a suspension.
