Why Biden's health cover-up is worse than Watergate
Except it's not 'maybe.'
For more than four years, Biden perpetuated the biggest fraud on the American people in the history of the republic. And all the president's men and women were his co-conspirators. Every day, they told the public that Biden was not just physically and cognitively fine, but that he was in better shape than anyone in the White House.
White House officials not only dismissed questions about Biden's age and acuity but claimed he was so fit that he was wearing his staff out.
On one of the rare occasions when the liberal media gently inquired about Biden's health, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, told CNN that 'I can't even keep up with him.'
This is from the same woman who told the country that videos of Biden falling down and wandering off were 'cheap fakes.'
She lied. They all did.
All administrations bend the truth. But the Biden team went further than any other.
When Special Counsel Robert Hur issued his report last February, in which he noted that Biden had broken the law but that a jury would likely not convict because they would find him to be 'well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,' Biden responded with a tirade against Hur for asking in the interview about when his son Beau had passed away — which Biden could not remember.
'How in the hell dare he raise that?' Biden shouted indignantly. But Hur never asked about it. It was Biden who had brought up Beau's death in a meandering, nonsensical reply to a question about where in his house he had placed classified documents.
The rest of the White House piled on Hur, with Kamala Harris leading the charge. She called Hur's description of Biden's faltering memory 'gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate.'
It was none of those. Everything Hur stated was true. Hur showed enormous restraint and decency in dealing with Biden. How was he rewarded? According to Tapper and Alex Thompson, Hur was blackballed by the legal establishment and could not find a job for months.
Even as they were smearing this honest public servant, White House officials continued to peddle the idea that Joe Biden was, at age 81, almost superhuman.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Meet the Press that 'The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it because he is sharp, intensely probing and detail-oriented and focused.'
No, he wasn't. Biden was largely incapacitated, worked only a few hours a day and couldn't recognize long-term friends and staffers. It wasn't until June 2024, after Biden's debate, that the farce could no longer hold.
But even in the wake of that disaster, Biden and company kept lying to everyone, insisting that Biden only had a cold and was still up to the task of running against Trump — and serving another four years. Only after intense pressure from his own party did Biden finally, and reluctantly, drop out.
And we know now that Biden likely had cancer. According to a Biden spokesman, Biden last had a prostate specific antigen test 11 years ago. Having compassion for Biden at this time does not preclude asking why he wasn't tested, or if that is simply another lie.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has announced his committee will ask members of the Biden administration to testify about what they knew and when they knew about Biden's health. The public deserves answers but more than that, those who engaged in the sham need to be held accountable.
It's worth remembering that, as a first-term senator from Delaware, while Biden reportedly advocated for fairness and not rushing to judgment, he demanded accountability from President Nixon during the Watergate affair and ultimately called for Nixon's resignation.
There is a key difference between Nixon and Watergate and Biden and his decline. While Nixon certainly tried to limit the fallout from the Watergate break-in, he did not know of, order, or approve the Watergate break-in. He only learned of it after the burglars were arrested.
Biden, on the other hand, from the beginning of his presidency, orchestrated his administration's malfeasance. From the moment he announced his candidacy in 2019, Biden was deliberately lying to the country when he claimed he was in great health. He also insisted that all his aides repeat that canard.
None of this was true, but thanks to a compliant media, which Nixon certainly did not have during Watergate, he was shielded from the public. By 2024, he was working a few days a day, a couple of days a week, and was clearly not in charge of the White House or the country.
That was criminal. For at least a year, likely longer, the U.S. did not have a functioning president, and the president's men and women knew it. Yet they lied and covered it up. And that is far, far worse than Watergate.
Justin Coffey is a professor of history at Quincy University.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Anti-Trump DA Alvin Bragg sure acts like he has something to hide — we're suing to find out
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds potentially hundreds of communications appearing to link his office to senior Biden administration officials and other political actors in connection with his unprecedented criminal prosecution of then-former President Donald Trump. We've asked for those records, and he's not turning them loose. So we're taking him to court. Last September, America First Policy Institute launched a formal investigation into the people and motivations behind Bragg's decision to prosecute Trump. Advertisement Our effort had a simple goal: figuring out whether Bragg's case was a routine legal probe — or lawfare, a politically engineered hit job orchestrated to influence the 2024 election. The charges brought against Trump were extraordinary. Never before has a question of federal campaign-finance law — which the FEC declined to pursue, no less — been morphed into a state-level misdemeanor, already time-barred under New York law, then Frankensteined into a felony by alleging it was committed to conceal some other crime never defined by the prosecution, nor unanimously agreed upon by jury. Advertisement Confusing? That's the point. Bragg's office thrives on obfuscation. Public records should be accessible. Criminal prosecutions should be transparent. This case was neither — and still isn't. We were drawn to investigate because we saw just too many coincidences to ignore. Michael Colangelo, a top DOJ official with a focus on white-collar crime, left his Biden administration post to join Bragg's office just months before Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Advertisement Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Bragg's prosecution, had a history of political donations to Biden and to political groups opposed to Trump, the defendant before him. He was officially 'cautioned' on that by the state ethics board. Merchan's daughter Loren worked on Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign and during Trump's trial served as president of Authentic Campaigns, a progressive political consulting firm hired by the Biden-Harris ticket. It all paints a curious picture: A DA who campaigned on a promise to take down Trump, aided by a Biden DOJ veteran, bringing legally contorted charges before a judge with clear partisan connections. Advertisement If this wasn't coordinated, it's one lucky political pile-up. The American people deserve answers. In pursuit of those answers, and in defense of the public's right to know, AFPI submitted a request to Bragg's office under New York's Freedom of Information Law in September 2024. We sought any records that could shed light on whether political influence or coordination played a role in Bragg's decision-making. Our request was specific, lawfully submitted and directly tied to one of the most consequential legal proceedings in modern American history. Ten months later, no records have been produced. None. Though they apparently exist. Instead of providing transparency, the DA's office has engaged in delay, double-talk and silence. We've asked for a list of responsive documents. They won't give one. Advertisement We've asked which of our specific requests the withheld documents pertain to. They won't say. We know, based on our investigation and his office's limited correspondence with us, that the DA possesses hundreds of records of communications with or about political agents who should have had no influence in a 'routine' prosecution, like Lauren Merchan's Authentic Campaigns. Bragg refuses to explain why the public isn't entitled to see them. There is no legal justification for this blackout. No privilege excuses total stonewalling. Advertisement There is only evasion. It's been nearly a year. The records exist, and the DA cannot explain why they remain secret. That alone should raise alarms. AFPI has now turned to the courts to compel compliance. The law does not permit selective transparency by the Manhattan DA. It does not allow politically sensitive cases to be shielded from scrutiny. Advertisement As the New York Legislature declared when it passed the state's open-records law in 1977, 'The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents leading to determinations is basic to our society.' We agree. Advertisement That's why on July 17, AFPI filed its petition in New York County Superior Court requesting that Bragg's records, whatever they may reveal, be released to the public. The law demands openness, and we intend to see it enforced. Jessica Steinmann is executive general counsel and Jack Casali is an attorney at the Center for Litigation at the America First Policy Institute
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
Salt Lake City named USDA hub in federal reshuffling
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is moving most of its employees from Washington, D.C., to five hubs, including Salt Lake City. Why it matters: Shifting operations to Utah's capital could give the state's farmers and ranchers more access to federal officials — and potentially shape policies that better serve the Mountain West. The big picture: The move, announced Thursday by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, will close nearly all USDA offices in D.C. It is part of the Trump administration's effort to cut costs and consolidate the federal government. The other agriculture hubs include: Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis; and Fort Collins, Colorado. Despite the relocation, USDA has maintained that its critical functions "will continue uninterrupted," according to a news release. Reality check: While Utah's cost of living is lower than D.C.'s, it still has one of the nation's most expensive housing markets. Salt Lake City's federal salary locality rate is about 17%. Zoom in: Utah's farmland totaled about 10.5 million acres in 2023 — one-fifth of the state's total land area, according to the University of Utah's Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Utah ranks 25th among U.S. states for total farmland. What they're saying: Utah Republican leaders, including Gov. Spencer Cox and U.S. Sen. John Curtis, celebrated Rollins' Thursday announcement. "The USDA's decision to refocus on its core mission, supporting farmers, families, and rural communities, is long overdue," Curtis posted on X. "Utahns are the best at advocating for and advancing American agriculture." The other side: U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the decision a "half-baked proposal," warning it could affect the USDA's "ability to provide critical services for Americans" and farmers.
20 minutes ago
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON -- A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
