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
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's new model to support Ukraine is a win-win
From the start, Ukraine's defense against Russia's full-scale invasion has been underpinned by a robust commitment from its Western partners. The Biden administration's pledge to support Ukraine 'as long as it takes' promised a sustained flow of military and financial aid directly from Washington. This 'direct donor' model was key to Ukraine's initial resilience, providing essential weaponry from U.S. stockpiles. Biden's approach primarily involved direct transfers from U.S. weapons inventories, prioritizing speed and ensuring that Ukraine received vital equipment quickly to counter Russian aggression. The American government provided extensive amounts of equipment, from air-defense missiles to artillery rounds and armored vehicles, directly to Kyiv. Now, under President Trump, the paradigm is shifting. The U.S. is transitioning from a direct donor to a 'strategic supplier,' where European allies purchase American weapons for Ukraine at their own expense. While this reorientation marks a significant change, it is far from the worst-case scenario for Ukraine. Instead, it represents a pragmatic and potentially more sustainable evolution of transatlantic burden-sharing, securing critical capabilities for Ukraine while invigorating the U.S. defense industrial base and recalibrating the nature of allied support. Support is still 'as long as it takes' but also 'at the others' expense.' This marks a departure from the traditional post-World War II donor-recipient model, particularly within the NATO alliance, towards a more transactional 'America First' approach. Future U.S. engagement in global security will likely be contingent upon tangible economic benefits and direct cost-sharing from allies. Such a shift could lead to a more predictable, albeit less altruistic, framework for security cooperation, where allies are compelled to demonstrate their commitment through direct financial contributions. This policy reorientation accelerates European strategic autonomy. While the immediate effect is Europe paying for U.S. weapons, the long-term implication is a forced impetus for greater European defense integration and self-sufficiency. European nations have already been increasing their defense spending and proactively planning for a future with less guaranteed U.S. aid. This new model, by making U.S. weapons available for purchase, encourages Europe to develop its own robust procurement mechanisms and potentially expand its own defense industrial base. Ukraine's most pressing and enduring need remains robust air defense against Russia's escalating missile and drone attacks. The U.S.-made Patriot air-defense system is critical, as it is one of the few systems capable of intercepting high-speed ballistic missiles. These systems are vital for protecting civilian infrastructure and population centers, which have been subjected to relentless Russian bombardment. A critical strategic reality for Ukraine is that not all American weapons are equally replaceable by European alternatives. While Europe is ramping up its own artillery production, the Patriot system's unique counter-ballistic missile capability makes it a requirement that only the U.S. can provide at scale. Europe, at the same time, has demonstrated a clear willingness and increasing capacity to shoulder a greater share of the burden. The European Union has already provided €165 billion in financial assistance and has launched an €800 billion Defense Readiness Plan. Frozen Russian sovereign assets may be used to finance what Ukraine needs. The shift to a foreign military sales model is explicitly intended to invigorate the U.S. defense industrial base. By integrating 'exportability features' into defense systems during the design phase, the U.S. seeks to advance its competitiveness abroad and potentially lower unit costs for both America and its allies. While the foreign military sales process has historically been slow and plagued by delivery backlogs, the new model offers a potential solution. Consistent, large-scale orders from European allies could provide the long-term contract certainty that the U.S. defense industry requires to invest significantly in surge capacity and overcome challenges. This transforms what was previously a 'drain' on American stockpiles, requiring replenishment at taxpayer expense, into a sustained stimulus for U.S. manufacturing, aligning with 'America First' economic principles. This shift is not merely about burden-sharing; it is about recapitalizing and modernizing the U.S. defense industrial base. While immediate fixes for current shortages remain challenging, this strategic reorientation creates a more sustainable industrial ecosystem. Trump's recent rhetoric marks a notable change from his earlier stance, which often appeared conciliatory toward Vladimir Putin. He has recognized that Russia, not Ukraine, is the core problem in negotiations, even threatening tariffs and sanctions on Russia and its trading partners if a peace deal is not reached within 50 days. The reality that Putin is not amenable to a quick 'deal' is now clear. There is now a crucial political opening for continued support to Ukraine, even if the funding mechanism changes. The narrative that Trump desires Ukraine's fall has been refuted. Instead, Trump is committed to ending the war on terms that align with his administration's interests. This represents a significant psychological advantage for Ukraine, as it lessens the fear of a complete U.S. abandonment.
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
DOJ forms Russiagate 'strike force' to investigate declassified Obama-era evidence
Print Close By Brooke Singman Published July 24, 2025 The Justice Department has formed a "strike force" to assess the evidence publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard relating to former President Obama and his top national security and intelligence officials' involvement in the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The DOJ, on Wednesday evening, announced the formation of the "strike force," to investigate potential next legal steps which may stem from Gabbard's recent declassification of records suggesting that Obama administration officials "manufactured" intelligence to form the narrative that then-candidate Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Justice Department officials told Fox News Digital that the DOJ takes the alleged weaponization of the intelligence community with "the utmost seriousness." A source familiar with the strike force told Fox News Digital that everything is being reviewed and that no serious lead is off the table. The source told Fox News Digital that the National Security Division of the Justice Department will "likely be involved in the investigation." BRENNAN DIRECTED PUBLICATION OF 'IMPLAUSIBLE' REPORTS CLAIMING PUTIN PREFERRED TRUMP IN 2016, HOUSE FOUND "The Department of Justice is proud to work with my friend Director Gabbard and we are grateful for her partnership in delivering accountability for the American people," Attorney General Pam Bondi said. "We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice," she said. The strike force consists of teams made up of investigators and prosecutors that focus on "the worst offenders engaged in fraudulent activities, including, chiefly, health care fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, money laundering offenses, false statements offenses," and more, according to the DOJ. The formation of the strike force comes after a slew of developments related to the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. RUSSIA SAT ON INTEL OF HILLARY CLINTON'S ALLEGED 'HEAVY TRANQUILIZERS' USE, NEW DOCS CLAIM Earlier this month, CIA Director John Ratcliffe sent a criminal referral for former CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI. The referral came after Ratcliffe declassified a "lessons learned" review of the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The 2017 ICA alleged Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election to help then-candidate Donald Trump. But the review found that the process of the ICA's creation was rushed with "procedural anomalies," and that officials diverted from intelligence standards. It also determined that the "decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment." The dossier — an anti-Trump document filled with unverified and wholly inaccurate claims that was commissioned by Fusion GPS and paid for by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC — has been widely discredited. Last week's review marks the first time career CIA officials have acknowledged politicization of the process by which the ICA was written, particularly by Obama-era political appointees. Records declassified as part of that review further revealed that Brennan did, in fact, push for the dossier to be included in the 2017 ICA. FBI Director Kash Patel received the criminal referral and opened an investigation into Brennan. Patel also opened a criminal investigation into former FBI Director James Comey. The full scope of the criminal investigations into Brennan and Comey is unclear, but two sources described the FBI's view of the duo's interactions as a "conspiracy," which could open up a wide range of potential prosecutorial options. The FBI and CIA declined to comment. Neither Brennan nor Comey immediately responded to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Days later, Gabbard declassified documents revealing "overwhelming evidence" that demonstrated how, after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia collusion probe. OBAMA OFFICIALS ADMITTED THEY HAD NO 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE' OF TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION: HOUSE INTEL TRANSCRIPTS Gabbard said the documents revealed that Obama administration officials "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise. The new documents name former President Barack Obama, top officials in his National Security Council, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others. Gabbard, on Monday, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department related to those findings. DOJ officials did not share further details on whom the criminal referral was for. And on Wednesday, Gabbard declassified documents that showed that the intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the "unusual" direction of then-President Barack Obama, published "potentially biased" or "implausible" intelligence suggesting otherwise. That information came from a report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2020. The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee. The report has never before been released to the public, and instead, has remained highly classified within the intelligence community. Meanwhile, Fox News Digital, in 2020, exclusively obtained the declassified transcripts from Obama-era national security officials' closed-door testimonies before the House Intelligence Committee, in which those officials testified that they had no "empirical evidence" of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, but continued to publicly push the "narrative" of collusion. The House Intelligence Committee, in 2017, conducted depositions of top Obama intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others. OBAMA DENIES TRUMP'S 'BIZARRE ALLEGATIONS' THAT HE WAS RUSSIAGATE 'RINGLEADER' IN RARE STATEMENT The officials' responses in the transcripts of those interviews align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — which found no evidence of criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, while not reaching a determination on obstruction of justice. The transcripts, from 2017 and 2018, revealed top Obama officials were questioned by House Intelligence Committee lawmakers and investigators about whether they had or had seen evidence of such collusion, coordination or conspiracy — the issue that drove the FBI's initial case and later the special counsel probe. "I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," Clapper testified in 2017. "That's not to say that there weren't concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence.... But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence." Lynch also said she did "not recall that being briefed up to me." "I can't say that it existed or not," Lynch said, referring to evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination. But Clapper and Lynch, and then Vice President Joe Biden, were present in the Oval Office July 28, 2016, when Brennan briefed Obama and Comey on intelligence he'd received from one of Hillary Clinton's campaign foreign policy advisors "to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service." "We're getting additional insight into Russian activities from (REDACTED)," Brennan's handwritten notes, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital in October 2020, read. "CITE (summarizing) alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service." Meanwhile, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, according to the transcript of her interview to the House Intelligence Committee, was asked whether she had or saw any evidence of collusion or conspiracy. OBAMA ADMIN 'MANUFACTURED' INTELLIGENCE TO CREATE 2016 RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE NARRATIVE, DOCUMENTS SHOW Power replied: "I am not in possession of anything — I am not in possession and didn't read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community." When asked again, she said: "I am not." Rice was asked the same question. "To the best of my recollection, there wasn't anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause," she said, according to her transcribed interview, in response to whether she had any evidence of conspiracy. "I don't recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw… conspiracy prior to my departure." When asked whether she had any evidence of "coordination," Rice replied: "I don't recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect." Meanwhile, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was not asked that specific question but rather questions about the accuracy and legitimacy of the unverified anti-Trump dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. McCabe was asked during his interview in 2017 what was the most "damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that" he "now knows is true." McCabe replied: "We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information." "You don't know if it's true or not?" a House investigator asked, to which McCabe replied: "That's correct." OBAMA OFFICIALS USED DOSSIER TO PROBE, BRIEF TRUMP DESPITE KNOWING IT WAS UNVERIFIED 'INTERNET RUMOR' After Trump's 2016 victory and during the presidential transition period, Comey briefed Trump on the now-infamous anti-Trump dossier, containing salacious allegations of purported coordination between Trump and the Russian government. Brennan was present for that briefing, which took place at Trump Tower in New York City in January 2017. The dossier was authored by Steele. It was funded by Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie. But Brennan and Comey knew of intelligence suggesting Clinton, during the campaign, was stirring up a plan to tie Trump to Russia, documents claim. It is unclear whether the intelligence community, at the time, knew that the dossier was paid for by Clinton and the DNC. The Obama-era officials have been mum on the new revelations, but a spokesman for Obama on Tuesday made a rare public statement. FBI LAUNCHES CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF JOHN BRENNAN, JAMES COMEY: DOJ SOURCES "Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response," Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. "But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction," Obama's spokesman continued. "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes." He added: "These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio." Print Close URL
Fox News
40 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-Biden chief of staff Ron Klain faces grilling in House GOP's cover-up probe
Print Close By Elizabeth Elkind Published July 24, 2025 A senior former Biden administration official is appearing before House investigators on Thursday. Ronald Klain served as former President Joe Biden's chief of staff in the first half of his term, from the beginning of his term in January 2021 until early February 2023. He is expected to sit down with staff from the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors on Thursday morning for a voluntary transcribed interview. Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., is investigating whether Biden's top White House aides concealed signs of mental decline in the then-president, and if that meant executive actions were signed via autopen without his knowledge. Biden maintained he "made every decision" in a recent interview with The New York Times. Klain is the sixth ex-White House official to appear as part of Comer's probe, and the third to appear on voluntary terms. Former White House physician Kevin O'Connor, as well as senior advisors Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal, all appeared under subpoena. Each also pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions. Ex-staff secretary Neera Tanden and longtime Biden advisor Ashley Williams both appeared for voluntary transcribed interviews, like Klain. Both of their interviews lasted over four hours, though House GOP investigators appear to have gleaned little new information. Before serving as Biden's chief of staff, Klain worked in the same capacity when the Delaware Democrat was vice president during the Obama administration. He also served as a top advisor on Biden's 2020 presidential campaign. Most critical to investigators, perhaps, is the prominent role Klain reportedly played in preparing Biden for his disastrous June 2024 debate against now-President Donald Trump. Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., a member of the Oversight Committee, shared some of the information he hoped would be gleaned from Klain's sitdown. "Did you ever see a question of cognitive ability in the president? Were you aware that he was not making these decisions? Was he being led?" Burlison asked. Fox News Digital's Deirdre Heavey contributed to this report. Print Close URL
