Tapper reveals Democratic sources felt no remorse about covering up Biden decline in interviews for book
"We never got somebody that said, 'We should never have done this. I can't believe we did it. In retrospect, it was a mistake. How arrogant we were.' I mean, even, you know, there was a top aide, a top White House aide, who acknowledged to me that this short 10-15 minute interview I did with Joe Biden in October 2022, he would not have been capable of doing in October 2023. That admission was stunning to me," Tapper said on The Stephen A. Smith Show.
He added, "But it did not come with, 'And we really made a mistake, we shouldn't have run him. What an error. I can't believe we did it.' It didn't come with that."
Tapper and Thompson's book, "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," has detailed the length at which those closest to Biden went to cover up his limitations while in office. The CNN host recently said the scandal may even be "worse than Watergate."
Axios Reporter Pushes Back On Biden's Denial Of Mental Decline, Saying White House Insiders Disagree
Tapper said the sources said they thought Biden was the only one who could beat President Donald Trump.
Read On The Fox News App
"So I think that most were telling the truth, as much as they had come to terms with it themselves, but I do wonder where they will be in a year, because I heard from one of the people, one of the Democrats I interviewed for the book, who gave me one of the most shocking revelations, and I checked in, 'How are you doing,' they're upset. But they're not upset at us, not upset at the book, they're just upset that it happened and now everybody is talking about it," he added. "They're still working through a lot."
Thompson also discussed one interview he did that occurred before the election for the book, who he described as saying that all the former president had to do was win and "occasionally show proof of life and the people around him would run the country."
"And their justification was when you, first of all, you're not bringing back Trump. And when people vote for president, they're also voting for the people around them, and some people in the Biden world, that is how they justified keeping this going," Thompson added.
Tapper added that view was "crazy."
Shielding Biden: Journalists Shed Light On The Media's Cover-up Of A Weakened President
"That was somebody who worked for the White House before the election, before Biden dropped out, saying like, it's no big deal, he just needs to show proof of life. That was the term, proof of life.' I mean, that's so offensive," Tapper said.
The CNN host also accused the former president, and those around him, of being anti-democratic.
"And like the idea that Biden thought only he could beat Trump and that he could be president for another four years, both of those are not facts and they both seem odd to me. But the idea that he would deny the Democratic Party an opportunity to have a primary system that would produce, among possible candidates, whether you or Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro or Gavin Newsom or whoever, that he would deny that to the party, so that this small group of people, including him, and one cabinet secretary said to us that it was, at best, he was a senior member of a board that ran the country. It's anti-democratic, really," he said, speaking to Smith, who has suggested that he was open to a potential bid for the presidency.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
Tapper has admitted that he didn't cover Biden's decline extensively enough since the book's release and has said he looks back on it with "humility."Original article source: Tapper reveals Democratic sources felt no remorse about covering up Biden decline in interviews for book
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sanders, Democrats push effort to kill ‘handouts' for fossil fuels in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other critics of the Trump administration's environmental policies are renewing a push for legislation that would end energy subsidies that the critics say will 'destroy the planet.' The proposal, dubbed the 'End Polluter Welfare Act,' is a revival of past environmental advocacy efforts from Sanders and others, but it adds in targeted responses to Trump's agenda-setting 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' signed into law this month after passage by GOP majorities in the House and Senate. 'Donald Trump has sold out the young people of America and future generations,' Sanders, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nominations in 2016 and 2020, said in a statement Friday. 'The fossil fuel industry, with the support of Trump, is more concerned about their short-term profits than the wellbeing of the planet.' 'No more polluter welfare for an industry that is making billions every year destroying the planet,' Sanders added. The Hill reached out to the White House, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of the Interior for comment. The latest progressive-driven proposal would cut more than $190 billion in federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the next decade, including $20 billion in bonuses designated for coal, oil, methane and pipeline companies through Trump's massive tax and spending overhaul. It also would also prevent the Trump administration from opening new public lands to drilling and mining. Other lawmakers who have signed onto the legislation include Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). It has more than 20 additional House backers. 'Fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their product harms the climate, but have made obscene profits while communities are left to clean up the mess,' Mahyar Sorour, a spokesperson for the environmental advocacy group Sierra Club, said in a statement. 'Taxpayers cannot afford to write a blank check to Big Oil and Gas companies through subsidies, corporate giveaways, and sweetheart deals.' Republicans, under Trump's tight control, hold majorities in the House and Senate, so it's unlikely the legislation will gain much traction ahead of the 2026 midterm election cycle. However, opponents of Trump's shift in environmental policies argue that they want to highlight potential ramifications from the administration's efforts. 'We are done letting fossil fuel executives write the rules while our communities pay the price,' Omar said in a statement on the proposed legislation. 'The End Polluter Welfare Act will finally hold polluters accountable and eliminate these harmful subsidies once and for all.' The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is projected to significantly ding the country's efforts to reverse the effects of climate change and add more emissions that will exacerbate global warming. Climate think tank C2ES found in an independent analysis that U.S. emissions will be 8 percent higher because of the new Trump law. The most significant provisions in the Trump-driven policies repeal tax credits for green energy technologies such as wind, solar energy and electric vehicles efforts adopted in the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats ask SEC to investigate ICE detention contracts
A group of four Democratic lawmakers sent a Friday letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) urging the agency to investigate no-bid detention center contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Reps. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, co-led the effort. 'As the Trump Administration has continued to solicit publicly traded companies to operate detention facilities for immigration enforcement— contracts worth tens of millions of dollars — we, the undersigned, believe that there is an increased need for close oversight by the SEC, in addition to other government accountability measures,' the group wrote to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins. 'Given the speed and opaque nature of these contracts, there is a heightened need to monitor and oversee the release of material information related to these no-bid contracts,' they added. The push comes as large demonstrations have taken place across the country opposing the treatment of undocumented immigrants detained in privately run facilities. California Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D) said constituents have reported concerns of overcrowding as detainees are living in tents with limited access to electricity, food and water. 'Given the numerous claims of civil rights violations, inadequate care, and misuse of resources by many of these companies, we believe that it is imperative that we provide every employee with trusted mechanism to provide Congress and the Federal government with pertinent information, including the SEC as it pertains to these contracts, disclosures, and conduct within the company that could violate federal law or SEC regulations,' the Democrats said. 'Furthermore, the Trump Administration essentially ended the ability of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to police itself or conduct oversight over its various components,' they added. Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey faced federal charges after attempting to conduct oversight at the Delaney Hall Detention Center, where ICE signed a $1 billion contract with the GEO Group to utilize the site for immigration enforcement. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court overturned a New Jersey law banning private operators from gaining contracts with the federal government to run immigration detention centers. Their ruling will now allow the CoreCivic prison firm to continue operating New Jersey's Elizabeth Detention Center, which has drawn broad attention amid the Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
Boston Globe
7 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Man sues over girlfriend's abortion in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Orchestrating the effort is Jonathan Mitchell, a conservative attorney who helped construct Texas's 'heartbeat' law, the most restrictive abortion measure passed before Roe's fall. The lawsuit Mitchell set in motion alleges that the doctor violated the Comstock Act, a 19th century federal law that bans the mailing of 'obscene' materials, including abortion-related materials. Now in a post-Roe era, Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates have worried that the government would invoke Comstock to ban medication abortion, which accounts for most abortions in the United States. Advertisement The case is a new approach alleging state and federal law violations - filed in federal, rather than state court - though it's too early to tell how viable that strategy will be. Advertisement 'This very much has the feeling of taking matters into your own hands,' said Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California at Davis. The plaintiff, Jerry Rodriguez, is suing California-based physician Remy Coeytaux for more than $75,000. Rodriguez, who stated that he is suing on behalf of 'all current and future fathers of unborn children,' is asking the court for an order blocking Coeytaux from mailing abortion pills. His complaint adds that he plans to sue the manufacturers and distributors of the abortion pills if they are identified during discovery. Coeytaux did not respond to a request for comment from The Washington Post, and it was unclear whether he had retained an attorney as of Thursday. In Texas, women who get an abortion cannot be prosecuted. But antiabortion activists in the state have publicly sought out men who are willing to bring cases against people who helped their partners have an abortion. Mitchell, who declined to comment Wednesday, has represented men in at least two similar cases out of Texas, both filed in state court. In a 2023 lawsuit, a man alleged that three women helped his ex-wife get abortion pills to end her pregnancy. That case was later dropped. In May 2024, Mitchell helped a man file a petition to investigate an ex-partner's out-of-state abortion, setting up for a wrongful-death lawsuit. In the new federal court complaint, filed Sunday, Rodriguez alleges that Coeytaux mailed abortion pills to his girlfriend's estranged husband in September 2024. The pair were not divorced when Rodriguez and the woman began dating but were already legally separated, according to the lawsuit. Rodriguez's girlfriend, whom The Post is not naming because she is not a plaintiff and to protect her privacy, took abortion pills on two occasions, once in September and another in January, to end two pregnancies after her estranged husband and mother 'pressured her,' according to the complaint. On Monday, Rodriguez filed a separate wrongful-death lawsuit in state court against the estranged husband and mother; Mitchell is also representing him in that case. Few details of the relationships between Rodriguez, his girlfriend, her mother and her estranged husband are included in the lawsuit. According to Rodriguez's complaints, his girlfriend is now pregnant again. Advertisement Since the Supreme Court in 2022 struck down the constitutional right to the procedure, the number of abortions has increased, bolstered by medication abortions enabled by telehealth, data shows. In an attempt to thwart that access, officials in red states are launching attacks on the shield laws in blue states that keep the pills flowing across the country. Texas and Louisiana are pursuing legal action against a New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to patients in those states, which both ban nearly all abortions. To the frustration of prosecutors, New York officials have refused to comply, citing the state's shield law. As a result, the conservative strategy to punish providers had slowed in state courts, though experts say the cases could end up on the Supreme Court's docket and ultimately reshape medication abortion access. In the meantime, the federal lawsuit has emerged as a new method to potentially curb abortion access. Carmel Shachar, a law professor at Harvard Law School, said the case designed by Mitchell uses a different legal framework, but the end goal remains the same - to 'close that telehealth loophole.' Advertisement
