Jake Tapper claims Trump is 'not transparent' about health issues amid Biden fiasco
The book, which hit shelves Tuesday, has stirred up Washington with its detailed depiction of Biden's rapid physical and mental decline in office.
Former ESPN NFL reporter Ed Werder mocked Tapper, posting, 'He sold his credibility as a journalist for access to power - and now expects to profit from the very audience to whom he lied.'
ALSO READ| Jake Tapper exposes Joe Biden aides' secret plan to put him in wheelchair for potential second term
Despite having reportedly downplayed Biden's condition for years, Tapper, claimed, 'President Trump appears healthy, but he has not been transparent about his health records, and that's something American people have right to.'
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville didn't mince words. 'And I was saying this since 2022, alright?' Carville told Fox News. 'I think it was a big mistake for him to say he was running for reelection. And I've said it at the time and I will say it now, and I will say it a thousand times.'
'It's not a job for 80-year-olds,' Carville added, noting Biden would have been 86 by the end of a second term. 'I don't know if it's his staff, or if it's the family or who it is, but whatever it was it was just a colossal mistake... I think it cost us the presidency.'
ALSO READ| Trump's awkward moment; Apple rant gets disturbed by repeated calls on his own iPhone | Watch
Biden eventually dropped out in July, endorsing Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
19 minutes ago
- NDTV
$1,000,000,000: This Is How Much Harvard Will Lose If Trump Okays Fund Cuts
New Delhi: Harvard University may lose up to $1 billion annually if US President Donald Trump goes ahead with his plans to cut research funding, tax policy and student enrollment, according to a new report in a leading American daily. An analysis of the worst-case scenario losses shows that America's oldest institution may have a budget deficit of over a billion dollars annually, should the impasse in the Harvard-Trump tussle prevail. According to The Wall Street Journal, a loss of $240 million in Endowment Fund, $700 million in research funding and $110 million in college, graduate school revenue puts the total number at over a million. Even though Harvard has a massive $53 billion endowment, which is still wealthier and more powerful than its peers, the university doesn't have much flexibility with that money. Much of the endowment is designed for specific purposes, such as some funds are allocated only for medical research, others for scholarships and some are locked in long-term investments. In addition to this, Harvard is a tax-exempt university. But with Trump's intention to take away the tax-exempt status and impose an 8 per cent tax on endowment, it could lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The US General Services Administration (GSA) on Tuesday asked all federal agencies to rethink their contracts with Harvard University and instead look for alternative businesses/companies for future endeavours. Harvard University has a higher percentage of international students, more than 7,000, who pay full tuition fees. With the Trump administration threatening to block the university from enrolling these students, it could reduce tuition fees. Since April, the US administration has taken away over $2 billion in research and education funding. With cuts to this, Harvard University might have to slash programs or departments, lay off professors or researchers, and reduce student scholarships. One of its major schools, the Kennedy School of Government, has started laying off employees and cutting down some of its departments or programs. The university has also started selling investments at a loss. They sold $1 billion worth of private equity investments at a 7 per cent discount. Katharine Meyer, an education policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that losing $100 million contract may seem small by itself, but if this keeps happening, the university won't be able to cover all the lost money from federal contracts, grants, and other income sources. She said, "This $100 million dollar contract pullback is certainly the smallest effort that we've seen, but I think the cumulative impact is hurtling toward a point where eventually Harvard does not have infinite funds to be able to fill in where they've lost federal contracts and grants and any other sources of their revenue." Over the last few months, the Trump administration has been at loggerheads with Harvard, particularly after anti-Israel protests over Benjamin Netanyahu's brutal war on Gaza and American support for what demonstrators called a genocide of Palestinians. The administration has also accused to varsity of giving safe space to people with antisemitic views. Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, told reporters that Harvard had broken US civil rights laws. She said that if any organisation breaks federal law, like these civil rights laws, they should not be given federal funding, such as grants for research or education. The Trump administration has also removed Harvard University from its electronic student immigration registry. This is used to track international students studying in the US, so if a university is removed, then international students can't legally study there. The US has asked embassies to reject student visa applications of those looking to study at Harvard.
NDTV
20 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump's Big Bill Cuts Clean Energy Tax, Residential Solar To Get Hit Fast
As Republicans in Congress rushed forward with a massive tax and spending cut bill, a North Carolina renewable energy executive wrote to his 190 employees with a warning: Deep cuts to clean energy tax credits were going to hurt. '(The changes) would almost certainly include the loss of jobs on our team,' wrote Will Etheridge, CEO of Southern Energy Management in Raleigh. 'I'm telling you that because you deserve transparency and the truth — even if that truth is uncomfortable.' The bill now in the House takes an ax to clean energy incentives, including killing a 30% tax credit for rooftop residential solar by the end of the year that the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act had extended into the next decade. Trump has called the clean energy tax credits in the climate law part of a 'green new scam' that improperly shifts taxpayer subsidies to help the 'globalist climate agenda' and energy sources like wind and solar. Businesses and analysts say the GOP-backed bill will likely reverse the sector's growth and eliminate jobs. 'The residential solar industry is going to be absolutely creamed by this,' said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a business group that advocates for pro-environment policies. President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' takes aim at renewables broadly, including phasing out tax credits enjoyed by utility-scale solar and wind. But cutting the residential solar credit will happen sooner. Companies have announced more than $20 billion in clean-energy investments in North Carolina in recent years. Etheridge, whose company installs solar panels and helps ensure buildings are energy efficient, was among many in the sector to lobby Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina for changes in the bill. Tillis ultimately was one of three Republicans to vote against the measure, but in a sign of Trump's power over legislators to pass it, Tillis said he wouldn't seek reelection after Trump said he'd likely support a primary challenger. Now, Etheridge says losing the tax credit will likely mean laying off 50 to 55 of his workers. He called the elimination of residential tax credits a 'bait and switch.' 'I made a decision from being an employee to taking out a loan from my grandmother to buy into my business and put my house on the line' in part because of the stability of the tax credits, he said. He said he'll scramble now to figure out ways to diversify his business. 'If you require a money-spigot from Washington to make your business viable, it probably shouldn't have been in business in the first place,' said Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Michel said he doubted many clean energy companies would go out of business, but 'I think that they will be right sized for the market and that the people that are employed with them will find better jobs and more stable jobs in industries that are actually viable and don't require billions of dollars of federal subsidies.' Even ahead of debate over the bill, experts at E2 said in May that $14 billion in clean energy investments across the country had been postponed or cancelled this year. The bill the Senate passed Tuesday removes a tax on some wind and solar projects that was proposed in a previous version and gives utility-scale projects some time to begin construction before phasing out those tax credits. Karl Stupka, president of Raleigh-based NC Solar Now that employs about 100 people, said the Senate's bill eased the impact on commercial projects 'while destroying the residential portion of the tax credits.' Roughly 85% of his business is residential work. 'They took it away from every average American normal person and gave it to the wealthier business owners,' he said. Stupka said if the bill becomes law, companies will rush to finish as many solar jobs as they can before the credit ends. He expected to lay off half his employees, with 'trickle-down' job losses elsewhere. 'It would cause a pretty severe shock wave,' he said.
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
When Bill Clinton praised India's cultural diversity
The mortal danger, of losing our democracy, was far from apparent in May 1994, when Prime Minister Narasimha Rao paid his first and only state visit to the United States of America. Although it came a bare seven years after Rajiv Gandhi's visit in 1987, it far surpassed the former in importance for it took place in a world transformed by the end of the Cold War and an India transformed by its new-found economic freedom. In the US, the Democrats had returned to power after being in the wilderness for twelve years. Victory in the Cold War had released US foreign policy from its straitjacket, and revived some of the expansive generosity it had shown towards Germany, and the developing countries, in the first decades after the end of the Second World War. The India that Narasimha Rao represented was also radically different from the one that had existed seven years earlier, for its economy was no longer hemmed in by import bans and sky-high tariffs. The integration of its large home market with that of the rest of the world was well under way, and was being watched avidly by American investors. At the White House press conference that followed Rao's one-on-one meeting with Bill Clinton on May 19, the President paid India a tribute that few of those who heard it have forgotten. He began his statement to the assembled media by listing the subjects he had discussed with Rao from a few slips of paper in his hands—clearly aides-memoire from his aides. Then, with the briefest of pauses, he added, 'Along with the US, India is one of the world's great experiments in multi-cultural democracy. His people have fought for more than four decades now to keep democracy alive under the most amazing challenges.' These remarks were not scripted for he did not look down at the notes that he had been consulting earlier even once. More than what he said, it was the tone in which he said it, and the slight emphasis he put on the word 'amazing', that revealed the depth of his admiration for India's achievement. Clinton's praise in 1994 was sincere. As a Rhodes scholar and student of philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University, he had perceived what few others had till then: that in sharp contrast to nation building in Europe and North America, India had succeeded in turning itself into a modern nation-state without taking recourse to war. After the end of the colonial era in the 1960s, 130 new countries had joined the United Nations. All but a few had started out as democracies. Only five had been able to sustain and stabilize it. India was by far the largest and most complex among them. So, as the leader of the world's richest and most powerful democracy, Clinton's praise for India's success was not therefore simply a diplomatic courtesy, but was born out of a genuine desire to understand how India had done it. What made the Indian experience unique was the starting point from which it had begun. The European nation-state had been born out of protracted conflict... most devastating of all, the Thirty Years' War in continental Europe from 1618 to 1648, which cost eight million lives through battle, disease and famine. The horrific destruction of that war led to the Treaty of Westphalia, which was Europe's first concerted effort to create the foundations of peace and proscribe war. This was easier said than done. In the three centuries that followed its signature, the nascent nation-states of Europe had to defend their borders from attack while simultaneously suppressing upsurges of sub-regional loyalties within them. By gradual degrees they learned to minimize external threats by creating well-marked and heavily defended 'hard' frontiers with their neighbours; the internal one, from sub-nationalism, was met by fostering the growth of a single, homogeneous cultural narrative. The rise of industrial capitalism reinforced both these tendencies by bringing a third element into this mix of motives: this was the competition to industrialize. This created the rationale for a further hardening of the boundaries between nation-states... . Thus, by degrees the nation-state became an instrument for the creation and preservation of economic autarchy. Economic autarchy further deepened cultural, political and economic divisions that nation building had already created between the people of neighbouring countries. The penultimate step in nation building was cultural homogenization. This was achieved by enforcing a common language and a single, sanitized version of history. In communities where this too did not work, nation-states played their last card. That was 'ethnic cleansing'.... By the early twentieth century, forced homogenization and ethnic cleansing had become the defining features of the European nation-state. Its bestiality reached its nadir in the Holocaust in which Hitler's Nazis starved, worked or gassed to death six million Jews shipped into Germany and Poland from all over Europe, and took human civilization to the lowest point in its 5,000-year history of unremitting violence.… In sharp contrast to European nation building, the Indian state is founded upon a ready acceptance of India's ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural diversity. India has more than 2,000 ethnic groups, and twenty-nine principal languages, of which thirteen are spoken by more than ten million people, and another sixteen that are spoken by more than a million. Twelve of the thirteen major languages belong to powerful ethno-linguistic groups that have lived in independent kingdoms for several centuries at a time over the past two millennia. Taken in its entirety, India has the most complex and at the same time most flexible system of devolution and power sharing that the world has ever known. The measure of its success is not that there has been no ethnic conflict in India, but that there has been so little, and that accommodation has been reached in all cases but one, with little violence. Excerpted with permission from Speaking Tiger Books. Also read: Samsung Galaxy Book5 Pro: A laptop for Android loyalists who secretly desire Apple's ecosystem play
