Hunter Biden suggests Ambien contributed to Joe Biden's poor debate performance
'I know exactly what happened in that debate,' Hunter Biden told YouTube personality Andrew Callaghan.
'He flew around the world basically the mileage he could have flown around the world three times. He's 81 years old. He's tired as sh–,' Hunter Biden said. 'They give him Ambien to be able to sleep. He gets up on the stage, and he looks like a deer in the headlights.'
The interview was posted online on the anniversary of the former president's announcement that he would not seek reelection.
A spokesperson for the former president did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Biden's debate performance was a turning point in the 2024 campaign. The former president spoke haltingly, mixed up words and struggled to complete his thoughts. Biden aides that nit attributed it to a cold and Biden later asserted in the days after the debate that he had been sick.
Some Biden allies have in the year since the debate offered up other explanations, including that the then-president was overworked and exhausted by a taxing trip to Europe before the debate. But Biden had spent roughly a week holed up at Camp David preparing for his debate with President Trump before taking the stage.
Hunter Biden took aim at several critics of his father during his interview with Callaghan, including actor George Clooney, who penned a New York Times op-ed urging the former president to drop out, and former Obama White House staffers like David Axelrod.
'David Axelrod, who had one success in his political life, and that was Barack Obama, and that was because of Barack Obama, not because of fuck— David Axelrod,' Hunter Biden said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Current Stupid CEO Flex: Everybody's Replaceable (Including Them)
caucasian senior businessman - spooky portrait The Wall Street Journal had an interesting recent article about a change in the way executives talk about workers. What they think of as artificial intelligence has given them the confidence to say that everyone is replaceable. Wholesale elimination of jobs has been developing for at least the last decade — much longer if you consider the broader development of automation. Will new AI technologies enable even more job destruction? Certainly, but it will come at a cost and likely spread further than prudent and intelligent business strategies would allow. Possibly including their own jobs. The Myth Of Profit Maximization Chief executives typically look to improve the fortunes of a company and returns to shareholders. Many take to heart the argument Milton Friedman made in a 1970 New York Times op-ed that the 'social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.' That has been further interpreted as meaning the responsibility to maximize return on investment to shareholders. This is both legally incorrect and strategically troubling and mistaken. Experts in corporate governance have, across many years, tried to find a legal basis for the prescription. It has yet to appear. In the 2014 Supreme Court decision in 'Burwell, Secretary of Health and Huma Services, et. al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores,' the Court addressed whether a for-profit corporation could give money to religious causes. 'While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court.' Corporate law and governance also recognize that a company's board and executives have duties to the company. They are charged with strategy and operations for the company's benefit, with the shareholder's benefit being an offshoot. In basic calculus, math students learn that you cannot maximize for more than one variable at a time. That doesn't necessarily mean one factor cannot benefit while another does as well, but maximization mathematically means something has to come first. Everything becomes subject to that desire. Confusing People And Machines There is a peculiar attitude among executives, which has been around for a long time, that people are infinitely extensible. The signs come up with every wave of layoffs, and if you've ever been one of the people who survived a round of staff cuts, you have likely experienced this. Those left are expected to pick up and complete the extra work with neither additional pay nor schedule adjustments. Everything is supposed to be compressible. Employees are expected to contort themselves, making operations look as though they were normal. Forbes contributor Bryan Robinson discussed a study last year that noted 88% of layoff survivors experience burnout, and 25% suffer from mental and physical exhaustion. A developing and increasing trend is the desire to replace people with actual machines. Bring in not only the robots to do everything physical, but software to do everything mental. Chief executives want to make shareholders happy, which drives up share prices and the CEO's own holdings. Replace people with mechanisms to drive labor costs down and profits up. Ten years ago, I wrote about how automation was already coming for white collar jobs, including professional ones. A study at the same time said 'highly creative' professionals would remain safe. That didn't last long. When all work becomes something to be done by mechanisms — robots, artificial intelligence, or people — human needs become unimportant. Ultimately, there is only the need to cut costs, to increase profits. Three Rising Risks The decisions may seem obvious to the MBA crowd, but they bring three risks to business. One is the loss of institutional knowledge. It is people who hold the understanding of how processes work, the things a company needs to know about its customers. Again, this has been known for many decades. Lose people and you lose understanding. In theory, a company could use technology to capture and store much of this, but they don't tend to. Next is the risk of mediocrity, which is particularly true of large language model software that works on complex statistical algorithms. These products don't think. Instead, they're trained on vast examples of how words connect and then respond accordingly. What seems like intelligence is clever repetition, in a way. This brings up average responses. Furthermore, increasingly repeating what others have done undercuts creativity and innovation. The third and biggest risk is the undermining of the jobs and incomes of a growing portion of the populace. What happens when fewer and fewer people can make a good living? Who's going to buy all the products and services that companies need to sell to make their growing profits?
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Chuck Todd blasts podcasters for platforming Hunter Biden, 'spectacle' hurting Democrats
Former NBC News anchor Chuck Todd condemned media outlets for platforming former President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, arguing he is a hazard to himself and the Democratic Party. As Democrats struggle to chart a new course after their defeat in the 2024 election, the one thing many can agree on is that the Bidens should step away from public life. Hunter Biden was in the news again after he spoke on Andrew Callaghan's "Channel 5" podcast last weekend and Monday's episode of former DNC chair Jaime Harrison's "At Our Table" podcast, making headlines for wild tirades defending his father and blasting his critics. Todd responded on his own podcast by declaring, "I will never book Hunter Biden," and explained why. "Number one, he's not the candidate. He wasn't on the ballot. Anything he says in defense of his father, I don't know whether it's true or not, but it doesn't matter. He's a son defending his father," he said. Todd reserved his full ire for those who platform Hunter, saying, "I have a real problem with the folks that are booking him. If you've chosen to book Hunter Biden, you've chosen to book spectacle. You're not interested in - and you know, the two interviews that have gone viral were both designed to get attention, not to surface new facts, not to give you a better understanding of what may have happened. It was just, 'Let's give him a platform to settle some scores that maybe he wants to settle.'" He continued, "I don't think this does Hunter Biden any good. I don't think this does Joe Biden any good. It certainly doesn't do the Democratic Party any good. That's why it's surprising to see the former DNC chair start a podcast and decide that the best way to market it is Hunter Biden." "It's a choice who you book," he argued. "I make choices. Everybody makes choices. It's a choice who you book. If you're putting Hunter Biden on, you know what you're doing. Look, I think there's a lot of things going on there." "I don't like it when politicians use the media or campaigns or voters for their own therapy." Todd added he's a big advocate of going to therapy, "but let's not do it in public. Try to deal with your issues amongst yourself." "This is ultimately why I was critical of Joe and Joe Biden for running in the first place, because their family wasn't ready for this," he added. "And I think Hunter Biden's behavior now post-election is more proof the family wasn't in a position… this is why running for president can do major damage to a candidate's family." After surviving the death of his first wife and daughter in 1972, the death of his eldest son Beau in 2015 hit Biden very hard and Todd argued the family didn't take enough time to grieve and recover from it before he launched his 2020 presidential campaign. In the past, the Bidens seemed to be "the poster child" of balancing public service and supporting one's family to Todd. "But that was a family in crisis internally," he said. Fox News Digital reached out to the "Channel 5" podcast, the "At Our Table" podcast, representatives of Joe Biden, and the legal representation of Hunter Biden, and did not receive an immediate reply.
3 hours ago
With Columbia as a model, White House seeks fines in potential deals with Harvard and others
WASHINGTON -- The White House is pursuing heavy fines from Harvard and other universities as part of potential settlements to end investigations into campus antisemitism, using the deal it struck with Columbia University as a template, according to an administration official familiar with the matter. Fines have become a staple of proposed deals in talks with Harvard and other schools, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The new strategy was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Federal civil rights investigations into schools and universities almost always have been resolved through voluntary settlements, yet they rarely include financial penalties. The Biden administration reached dozens of such deals with universities and none included fines. Columbia's settlement with the Trump administration included a $200 million fine in exchange for regaining access to federal funding and closing investigations accusing Columbia of tolerating harassment of Jewish students and employees. The agreement announced Wednesday also orders Columbia to ensure its admissions and hiring decisions are 'merit-based' with no consideration of race, to hire more Jewish studies faculty, and to reduce the university's reliance on international students, among other changes. It places Columbia under the watch of an independent monitor and requires regular disclosures to the government. The agreement deal includes a clause forbidding the government from directly dictating decisions on hiring, admissions or academics. Columbia leaders said it preserves the university's autonomy while restoring the flow of federal money. The Trump administration is investigating dozens of universities over allegations that they failed to address campus antisemitism amid the Israel-Hamas war, and several institutions have faced federal funding freezes, like those at Columbia and Harvard. The federal government has frozen more than $1 billion at Cornell University, along with $790 million at Northwestern University. In announcing the Columbia settlement, administration officials described it as a template for other universities. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a 'roadmap' for colleges looking to regain public trust, saying it would 'ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.' As Trump departed the White House on Friday, he told reporters that Harvard 'wants to settle' but that Columbia 'handled it better.' The president said he's optimistic his administration will prevail in Harvard's legal challenge — at least on appeal — and he suggested Harvard may never regain the level of federal funding it received in the past. 'The bottom line is we're not going to give any more money to Harvard,' he said. 'We want to spread the wealth.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
