Biden aides pushed for early debate to show off Biden's ‘strength,' expose Trump's ‘weakness,' book says
The book, "2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America," is set for release Tuesday and claims that Biden's team dismissed concerns about his age during the 2024 election cycle.
The book, authored by Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of the New York Times and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post, says Biden senior advisors wrote up a memo advocating an initial spring debate, followed by a potential second one in early September after Labor Day.
Biden Family Misled Public, Concealed Details On Son Beau's Cancer Diagnosis, New Book Says
This strategy would allow Biden to take on Trump before early voting in battleground states kicked off, set the terms of the debate most advantageous for Biden and highlight Biden's "leadership" in contrast to Trump's, according to a memo on the matter.
"By holding the first debate in the spring, YOU will be able to reach the widest audience possible, before we are deep in the summer months with the conventions, Olympics and family vacations taking precedence," Biden's senior advisors reportedly wrote in an April 15, 2024, memo, published by Politico Playbook. "In addition, the earlier YOU are able to debate the better, so that the American people can see YOU standing next to Trump and showing the strength of YOUR leadership, compared to Trump's weakness and chaos."
Read On The Fox News App
Biden's First Public Remarks Since Cancer Diagnosis Honor Gold Star Families
Even so, the book reports that some Biden aides were hesitant about an early debate, with some even advocating that Biden shouldn't debate Trump at all. Specifically, the book cites a Biden donor who pressed the White House in May 2024 to find a reason to pull Biden from the debates, after the donor reported being "alarmed" by Biden's behavior at a Chicago fundraiser.
Meanwhile, the Trump White House said the debate backfired on Biden, and instead, shed light on Biden's own weaknesses.
"The only highlight from the debate was Joe Biden's inability (to) form a complete sentence," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a Monday statement to Fox News Digital. "American voters got a firsthand look at Biden's weakness, his campaign in chaos, and what it looks like when real leader is missing from the White House."
"Unfortunately for the Democrats, no adviser or so-called 'strategic' move could save their incompetent candidates and terrible policies from President Trump's historic, landslide victory," Rogers said.
A spokesperson for Biden did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
Biden Says He Could 'Beat The Hell Out Of' Authors Of New Book Arguing His Cognitive Decline
Biden and Trump ultimately did face off in a debate on June 27, 2024 – an event that prompted Biden to exit the election in July 2024 and led to Vice President Kamala Harris to take on Trump in November 2024.
"2024" is one of several books that have been released in 2025 detailing Biden's mental deterioration while in office and how Trump won the election. Another example is the book "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," released May 20.Original article source: Biden aides pushed for early debate to show off Biden's 'strength,' expose Trump's 'weakness,' book says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
On Ukraine, Hegseth embarrasses Trump and undermines the U.S.
For the third time in less than six months, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has moved to suspend munitions shipments to Ukraine, and President Donald Trump has reversed the decision. Trump announced on Monday night that the United States will resume weapons shipments that the Pentagon paused last week. This previously happened in February and May. In all three cases, the Pentagon's weapons freeze surprised Trump allies and Congress, and Russia pounded civilian targets in Kyiv before the president changed the administration's course.
Associated Press
34 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California wants new education requirements for police officers. Are they watered down?
Amid calls for police reform in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder in 2020, California lawmakers set out to raise education standards for incoming law enforcement officers. Five years later — as California faces a widespread shortage of police officers — those reforms are being debated once again. In 2020, former Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer introduced a bill that would have required prospective police officers 18 to 25 years old to earn a bachelor's degree before entering the police force. A growing body of research shows that college-educated law enforcement officers tend to use less force and exercise better decision making. The bill was ultimately revised after it was criticized as too restrictive by law enforcement and labor leaders. In an updated version, which was signed into law the following year, lawmakers agreed to raise the minimum age of a police officer to 21 years old, and they asked local police and school officials to create recommendations for new higher education requirements. This year, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Democrat from Thousand Oaks, is proposing a new bill to establish education standards based on those recommendations, but some law enforcement and criminal justice reform advocates are skeptical — albeit for different reasons. Starting in 2031, Irwin's new law would require incoming officers to get a policing certificate, associate degree or bachelor's degree, although there are some exceptions within 36 months of graduating from a police academy. It also creates a law enforcement recruitment task force to identify and recruit candidates for law enforcement agencies throughout the state. In an interview with CalMatters, Jones-Sawyer said the current bill by Irwin undermines the original intent behind his 2021 law by allowing a loophole for incoming officers to satisfy the education requirement through a certificate, prior military experience or out-of-state law enforcement experience. Some policing experts, such as former justice department official Arif Alikhan, echoed those concerns and said the exceptions swallow the whole. 'It completely obviates the need to have any educational background,' said Alikhan. 'Officers who have a college education tend to perform better.' Representatives from some law enforcement unions, by contrast, think the bill still goes too far. Dustin Smith, president of the Sacramento Police Officers Association, said the new requirements 'would be catastrophic to staffing statewide,' limiting the supply of incoming officers. Those concerns haven't stopped the bill from sailing through the Legislature, where it has received widespread support from many law enforcement agencies. It's supported by all of California's statewide law enforcement advocacy groups, including the California Police Chiefs Association, the California State Sheriff's Association, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the umbrella labor organization that lobbies on behalf of police unions, the Peace Officers Research Association of California. It has received no formal opposition. Democratic lawmakers at odds with one another over new standards In introducing his bill, Jones-Sawyer viewed a college education as paramount to law enforcement training because it would expose incoming officers to new perspectives, healthy debate and critical thinking skills. 'We keep looking at law enforcement as if anybody can do it,' said Jones-Sawyer. 'No. You need a certain type of person to have the skills and ability to deal with modern-day policing.' Instead of requiring an associate degree in modern policing, as Jones-Sawyer said he intended, the new bill allows incoming police officers to meet the education standards with four years of military or out-of-state law enforcement experience. While Jones-Sawyer intended to carve out certain exceptions for people with prior specialized military or law enforcement experience, they would have only been given some credit – not all. New officers also have the option of attaining a 'professional policing certificate' from an accredited college or university, although that curriculum has not yet been developed. The new bill 'does not make policing better, it makes it devolve back into what it used to be,' said Jones-Sawyer. Irwin maintained that the bill advances his efforts and will help police officers improve themselves as they rise through the ranks. Many police chiefs and sheriffs view the bill as a meaningful way to raise education standards while affording incoming officers the flexibility to meet them. In May, Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna wrote a letter to Sen. Jesse Arreguín, an Oakland Democrat and chair of the Senate's public safety committee, arguing in favor of Irwin's bill. The sheriff's office once required all applicants to have a bachelor's degree, wrote Luna, but the requirement was 'short-lived' because the office saw 'an immediate decline in applicants by about 50 percent.' Luna said Irwin's bill is a 'more workable, more inclusive path forward' because it includes exceptions for those with non-academic experience. Although the vast majority of local law enforcement agencies nationwide only require a high school diploma, having a college degree can often create more opportunities for better pay and promotions. Police officer shortage: truth or myth? All across the state, law enforcement officials say staffing is an ongoing problem, which more education requirements might exacerbate. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office is short roughly 1,500 officers as of June 1, according to spokesperson Miesha McClendon. The office was able to respond to recent protests through the support of staff from other areas of law enforcement, including its jails and detective division, McClendon said. In rural areas, such as Plumas County in the northeast corner of the state, Undersheriff Chad Hermann said a single officer is sometimes responsible for covering communities that are as far as 70 miles apart. If that officer needs to make an arrest and drive a suspect to jail, a town could spend hours without any nearby police on duty, he said. Sheriffs and police officers say the shortage is due to several factors, including low wages in some communities, an aging workforce and negative perceptions of police following high-profile instances of misconduct. Departments are offering starting bonuses and other incentives, such as better benefits, as a way to recruit new officers. Some agencies gave record-breaking raises to officers coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. In some places, including the California Highway Patrol, entry-level officers can expect six-figure salaries and top notch benefits. But not all agencies can offer those perks. 'We're not a rich county — we can't offer the big hiring stipends,' said Hermann. 'By adding a requirement like an associate degree, it's going to make it harder to get people from our hiring pool.' He said even exceptions for those with military service may not help the recruiting problem since the hiring pool is so small in a county with just under 19,000 residents. While the new law enforcement recruitment task force in Irwin's bill is designed to ease some of those staffing challenges, Christy Lopez, a law professor at Georgetown University said it's troubling to see that it would only comprise people from law enforcement. 'We need to be moving towards a recruiting approach that seeks to screen in the right people, not just screen out the worst people,' she said. 'And to make sure that we develop that sort of approach to recruiting, you need perspectives broader than just law enforcement.' She said the police recruiting crisis is a myth. 'The idea that there's a crisis in recruiting presupposes that we know what the right number of police officers is and that we're not there,' she said. 'And we don't know that.' What it takes to become a police officer Devin Nisbet grew up in Calaveras County and as a kid, he had a positive experience with one of the officers when he prank-called 9-1-1. Instead of just disciplining Nisbet, who was around 6 years old, the officer gave him a tour of the police cruiser and handed him a patch with the sheriff's office logo. 'It made me want to be part of it,' said Nisbet in an interview with CalMatters. After dropping out of college, Nisbet was working for a grocery store in Calaveras County when that same sheriff's office held a recruiting event in a nearby parking lot. The agency promises a $10,000 bonus, spread out over three years, for new recruits. At the time, he said he thought to himself, 'Why not try to do this?' It took Nisbet roughly seven months to pass the county's background checks and exams, which include a written test, a psychological exam and a medical exam. He then received a tentative job offer from the Calaveras County Sheriff's Office, contingent on completing a police academy. In January, he enrolled in the police academy at San Joaquin Delta College in Stockton. Police academy training in California typically takes a minimum of six months, but some police departments require far more training. Nisbet is paid by the Calaveras County Sheriff's Office for the entirety of this training, just under $34 an hour. The college program requires students to learn CPR, first aid, and various laws about use of force, search and seizure and firearms. They're tested in scenarios that can include chases or combat. In one timed exam, they must pull a 165 lb dummy, cross a 25 yard obstacle course, run 500 yards and scale a 6-foot fence. Some students fail to pass the academy's courses. Others never get hired because they fail the police department's background checks or have low scores. Nisbet is set to graduate on July 2, at which point he'll begin working, but his training won't be over. New officers must complete weeks of field training and a year of probation. 'I believe that people, if they want to do this job, they need to get evaluated first,' said Nisbet, though he said an associate degree shouldn't be required. He said many of his classmates don't have a college degree. ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
Judge torched for Planned Parenthood order: 'Her court looks like a fast food drive-through'
A federal judge drew enormous backlash from Republicans after she blocked the Trump Administration on Monday from following through on a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that strips federal funding from Planned Parenthood. Critics of Judge Indira Talwani said her fast-acting decision to grant Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion vendor, a temporary restraining order was an extraordinary overreach of judicial authority. Tom Jipping, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital the judge's move was "obviously out of bounds." "What you have here is Congress exercising its explicit constitutional authority to make spending decisions, and you have a district judge arguably trying to exercise power she doesn't have to force Congress to change," Jipping said. Talwani, a Boston-based judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued the temporary order, which lasts 14 days, after Planned Parenthood sued the government over the One Big Beautiful Act, a massive tax and budget bill. The provision stripped Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, which the nonprofit said could force it to close roughly 200 of its 600 facilities and deprive about one million customers of non-abortion-related services. Congress narrowly passed the bill with no support from Democrats last week, and Trump signed it into law on July 4. Talwani's brief two-page order came on the same day Planned Parenthood sued, and it contained only the explanation that the nonprofit showed "good cause" for the temporary relief. "I don't know how fast that judge reads, but she issued her TRO within a couple of hours," Jipping said. "That makes her court look like a fast food drive-through." Sen. Mike Lee, a lawyer and Senate Judiciary Committee member, said he believed the judge's order was not an innocent mistake and floated the idea that the House could initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge. "We have the best judicial system in the world, but it's run by fallible, mortal humans. People make mistakes. But unless I'm missing something here, this wasn't an honest mistake," Lee said. "This was a pretty egregious judicial usurpation of legislative power." Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor who once represented numerous Jan. 6 defendants, suggested on X that the First Circuit Court of Appeals reassign the case. "The only way District Judges are going to be disciplined to adhere to their role is if they are sanctioned for brazenly ignoring the limits of their authority for partisan ends," Shipley wrote. Talwani set a hearing for July 21 to consider arguments from Planned Parenthood and the named agencies in the lawsuit, Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The Department of Justice (DOJ) could challenge the order in the interim. DOJ chief of staff Chad Mizelle said the judge's restraining order amounted to "lawless overreach," and he called for the Supreme Court to intervene. The order came in response to Planned Parenthood claiming in its lawsuit that Congress's budget bill unconstitutionally targeted Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions. Opponents of abortion have focused their energy on weakening Planned Parenthood in the years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the passage of the budget bill marked a milestone success for them. Some told Fox News Digital recently that it was one of several steps they needed to take to address the glaring fact that abortions remain prevalent and could even be on the rise. Attorneys for Planned Parenthood said Medicaid does not cover abortion and that depriving Planned Parenthood of its hundreds of thousands of dollars in Medicaid reimbursements would cause more than half of its customers to lose access to services that do not include abortion. Cancer and sexually transmitted infections would go undetected, especially for low-income people, and more unplanned pregnancies would occur because of a lack of contraception access, the Planned Parenthood attorneys said. "The adverse public health consequences of the Defund Provision will be grave," the attorneys wrote. Some Democrats celebrated Talwani's order but did not address the legality of it. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) said on Bluesky that the judge in her home state delivered "some good news" for people who have relied on Planned Parenthood for health care. "But make no mistake: our fight is far from over," Clark wrote.
