Former Biden press secretary is ready to tell Americans the truth? Give me a break.

Former Biden press secretary is ready to tell Americans the truth? Give me a break. | Opinion The knives are now out inside the Democratic Party. And the party is bleeding, not only Americans' support and trust but also its last remaining drops of honesty and truth.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Karine Jean-Pierre talks exit from Democratic party in new book
Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre talks about leaving the Democratic party in her upcoming book slated for release in October.
The Democratic Party continues to self-destruct, and I am here for it.
Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has teased a tell-all memoir about former President Joe Biden and the administration she served for nearly three years. 'Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines' is stoking claims that Jean-Pierre is a grifter, profiting off her time in the administration by trashing the former president and the political party that gave her prominence.
Knives are out among Democrats for one of their own who has now betrayed them.
Like other books that have recently exposed details about Biden's poor health, Jean-Pierre's book raises questions about the White House cover-up that attempted to hide the president's mental and physical decline from voters.
It also calls into question Jean-Pierre's honesty: Why did she wait until now, when she can profit from it, to tell the truth about the former commander in chief?
Former White House colleagues turn on former Biden press secretary
Democrats are now a minority party in America. The GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the U.S. House along with a majority of governor's offices and state legislatures. The Democratic Party has lost Americans' trust because of its leaders' penchant for gaslighting, not just about Biden's health but also on issues like immigration, border security and the economy.
Jean-Pierre, who now claims to be an independent, certainly isn't helping her former colleagues rebuild that lost trust.
Details from the book are still sketchy, but Jean-Pierre should provide readers with an inside look at what happened after Biden's disastrous debate with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump a year ago this month.
Jean-Pierre's coworkers have already reacted to the book with contempt.
"Former colleagues expressed confusion at how Jean-Pierre seemingly intends to paint Biden as a victim while pinning her own decision to leave the party on his 'broken' White House," Politico reported, citing multiple former Biden administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Opinion: Biden's cancer diagnosis raises the question: Was he ever in good enough health?
Caitlin Legacki, a Democratic strategist who worked on the Commerce Department's communications team during Biden's presidency, took umbrage with Jean-Pierre's assertion that the Democratic Party betrayed Biden.
'Kamala Harris and the entire Biden/Harris campaign did hero's work to avoid losing 400 electoral votes and giving Republicans a supermajority in Congress, which is what would have happened if he stayed on the ticket,' Legacki told Politico. 'It's more productive to focus on that, and thank Biden for doing the responsible thing by stepping aside, than it is to pretend this was an unwarranted act of betrayal.'
But party insiders continuing to squabble over whether a now former president was or was not betrayed by fellow Democrats entirely misses the larger point.
Opinion: Guess who Americans want to run the economy? Hint − it's not Democrats.
Far too many Democrats, Jean-Pierre included, worked hard to deceive Americans. Their willful lack of self-awareness about their gaslighting and dishonesty is why the party has shown no signs of recovering from the last disastrous election cycle.
Karine Jean-Pierre's book about Biden isn't the first
Jean-Pierre's book will be far from the first to address the deception at the heart of the Biden White House.
On May 20, journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson released "Original Sin," which describes in detail Biden's cognitive decline and the mind-boggling efforts with which his inner circle and the Democratic Party tried to hide the truth from Americans.
Opinion: Texas woman's death would have been prevented if Biden had secured the border
Conservatives had long been suspicious about Biden's health, but journalists with White House access failed to ask tough questions then.
Now that it's too late to make a real difference, those who were silent when it mattered most are more than ready to profit from belated exposés about the former president's failing health.
The knives are now out inside the Democratic Party.
And the party is bleeding, not only Americans' support and trust but also its last remaining drops of honesty and truth.
Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids. Sign up for her newsletter, The Right Track, and get it delivered to your inbox.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

31 minutes ago

• Politico

With Iran Strikes, Trump is ‘Unchained'

Remember when Donald Trump was an isolationist? Yes, once upon a time, that's how many in the national security realm described this president. Plenty of his moves — from his digs at NATO to his use of the 'America First' slogan — seemed to justify the label. Officials, journalists and others, including myself, would sit around pondering questions like: 'Does America First mean America Alone?' In the years since he first took office, it has become increasingly hard to define the 'Trump Doctrine' for foreign policy. He has taken more and more contradictory moves while growing more confident in his Oval Office instincts. Foreign affairs luminaries have devoted many papers to trying to clarify the aims of a man who refuses to come into focus. He's a shallow transactionalist! He's a principled realist! He's an imperialist with a Western Hemisphere fixation! Trump himself once even said, 'I'm a nationalist and a globalist. I'm both.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites this weekend is the latest sign that he's now in a phase where he's willing to take enormous risks with little concern about the blowback. He has survived so much already — two impeachments, criminal convictions, two assassination attempts. He doesn't have to run for office again, and, as has been amply noted, his advisers won't restrain him the way they did in his first term. Even when Trump backs down (the TACO thing) he still redefines the parameters of the conversation. 'It's Trump unchained,' said Ilan Goldenberg, a Middle East specialist who worked for the Biden team, referring to the president's behavior. I've never been a fan of the race to define presidential doctrines. It feels unfair to try to box in leaders who face so many varying crises. But I sympathize with people who seek to impose coherence on Trump because, as humans, we all need some sense of order and clarity. When I asked several former officials and analysts what Trump's strikes on Iran meant about his foreign policy doctrine, their exhaustion at trying to understand the mercurial president came through. 'I have no idea what the doctrine is. Ask him,' an Arab analyst said. 'Seriously?' a Bush II administration official replied. I granted them anonymity to be frank about their uncertainty. Others took a shot. Trump 'stresses diplomacy but leaves little doubt that those diplomatic windows do not stay open indefinitely,' said Bill Cortese, a GOP operative close to the White House. 'The use of force is always on the table but the use of U.S. assets is limited, focused, and with an end goal — no more open-ended conflicts. And it must answer the ultimate question: Does this directly benefit the people of the United States?' Eddie Fishman, a sanctions expert who worked for the Obama administration, put it this way: 'Trump seems to believe that the quick and decisive application of U.S. power — be it economic or military — can achieve maximalist objectives. As Trump sees it, the disparity in power between the U.S. and other countries is so great that when we act boldly, others will capitulate.' Trump's decision to strike Iran will test these theories, as well as his risk tolerance. It also could determine how his 'doctrine' — as much as one can call it that — is ultimately defined. Trump has urged Iran not to retaliate and to use the U.S. strike as an opportunity to negotiate some sort of peace. But Iran has already threatened revenge, and nearly every U.S. official I spoke to expects it will fulfill that promise. On Sunday, there were reports that Iran may shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a move that could spike oil prices and roil markets. The U.S. also has some 40,000 troops stationed across the Middle East, giving Iran many potential targets. If Trump's hope for a one-and-done strike devolves into an endless tit-for-tat, he will have led the U.S. into the very type of war he's long promised to avoid. So much for the 'isolationist.' For countries watching this from the sidelines, there are lessons to learn from how both Trump and Iran approached this conflict, which spiraled after Israel began striking Iranian targets more than a week ago. One is that Trump isn't bluffing about using force, even in an extreme way. While he carried out military strikes during his first term (on Syria, on an Iranian general who was in Iraq) those moves were arguably more calibrated than this weekend's bunker-buster bombing on Iranian soil. A second lesson is that he believes in diplomacy, but he doesn't have much patience for it. That's especially the case when it comes to an adversary he sees as much weaker than the United States. Iranian officials tried to use their usual delaying tactics as they negotiated with Trump's envoys. When Israel decided to strike Iran two days before Iranian and U.S. officials were due to meet, Trump, annoyed with Tehran's unwillingness to commit to zero enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil, didn't try very hard to stop the Israelis. 'They thought they were dealing with a different kind of leader, like the kinds of leaders they've been playing games with for the last 30 or 40 years. And they found out that's not the case,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. Another lesson is to be prepared for the worst-case scenario when it comes to Trump. He says he'll decide 'within two weeks' whether to bomb you? It probably means you'll get bombed, like, right now. 'Don't underestimate and dismiss when he says crazy things,' Goldenberg said. 'They might actually happen.' When it comes to Iran, Trump watchers can still revert to the phrase 'America First' in trying to capture his bedrock foreign policy belief. Trump naysayers can argue that he's abandoning 'America First' by entering a war that could lead to the loss of U.S. lives and resources. Trump supporters can say: What's more 'America First' than eliminating the nuclear threat from an avowed U.S. enemy? The great thing about 'America First' is that it is malleable, just like Trump himself.

The Hill

41 minutes ago

• The Hill

Rubio: ‘No planned military operations' against Iran unless they attack Americans

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Sunday that the United States currently has no military operation planned against Iran but left the door open for future strikes if it does not demonstrate a meaningful effort to make peace. 'We have other targets that we could hit, but we achieved our objective,' Rubio said in an interview on CBS News's 'Face the Nation.' 'The primary targets we were interested in are the ones that were struck [last night] in devastating fashion,' Rubio continued. 'And we've achieved that objective.' Rubio made clear that the U.S. would retaliate if Iran attacked Americans 'or American interests.' 'There are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless — unless — they mess around and they attack Americans or American interests. Then they're going to have a problem,' he said. Rubio said he would not 'broadcast what those problems are' but stressed U.S. capabilities to carry out sophisticated attacks. 'Know this: The United States flew halfway around the world, right into the heart of Iran, over their most sensitive locations — these things got rocked — and then we left. And we were out of their airspace, we were over the ocean before they figured out what had happened,' Rubio said. 'And there are plenty of other targets — We don't want to do that. That's not our preference. We want peace deals with them, and that's up to them to decide,' he continued. Trump announced Saturday evening that U.S. forces bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and said to Iran, in a social media post, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' The bombs targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. The bombings put the U.S. directly in Iran's crosshairs for retaliation and made it an active participant in the Mideast war, which Israel launched with airstrikes against Iran on June 13.

USA Today

an hour ago

• USA Today

Not what 'MAGA wanted to hear': Tensions within GOP remain about Trump's Iran strike

MAGA figure Steve Bannon said Trump's comments about potential future strikes on Iran are "open ended" and worried the situation could escalate. After President Donald Trump finished his address to the nation about bombing Iran, close ally and MAGA leader Steve Bannon declared on his podcast that it may not have been what 'a lot of MAGA wanted to hear.' Trump indicated he doesn't want to escalate further, but said 'if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.' Bannon called Trump's comments about potential additional strikes 'open ended' and said the situation has the potential to escalate. 'This is incrementalism,' Bannon said. 'If they hit back at American troops, do we go back in and hit again? Next thing you know, brother, you're in a forever war.' A vociferous debate about whether Trump should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities played out among conservatives in the lead up to the June 21 attack. Some prominent MAGA figures said a strike would go against Trump's anti-interventionist approach, which has tapped into deep discontent with prolonged wars in the Middle East and reshaped the party's foreign policy. Opposition to 'forever wars' has become one of the central tenets of the Trump GOP, something the president has repeatedly highlighted in casting himself as a 'peacemaker' who would get the country out of war − not start new ones. That makes this a delicate and legacy-defining moment for Trump. It's also a sensitive one for him within his own party. More: 'It's blowing up': The Iran conflict is sparking a MAGA civil war Many Republicans are rallying around the president after the Iran strike. Everyone from Trump's former Vice President Mike Pence to a slew of congressional leaders and MAGA figures such as Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk praised the move. 'Great unity in the Republican Party,' Trump wrote on social media the day after the attack. 'Perhaps unity like we have never seen before.' But tensions remain among conservatives. Bannon pointed to posts on the message board for his show in arguing Trump has 'some work to do' to sell his Iran strike to his base, particularly younger conservatives. What comes next will be key. Figures such as Bannon are concerned about seeking regime change in Iran, and don't want to see the situation escalate. 'No regime change war,' former Florida congressman and MAGA firebrand turned conservative media figure Matt Gaetz wrote on social media June 22, saying he hopes any Iran retaliation would be minimal and not prompt further U.S. attacks. The Trump administration is attuned to such concerns. Vice President JD Vance appeared on two prominent television programs June 22 to make the case that Trump isn't pursuing regime change. 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East, I understand the concern,' Vance said on NBC, adding: 'This is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing.' Vance also addressed the contradiction between the president casting himself as a peacemaker while dropping bombs on Iran. 'There's a question about how do you achieve peace, and we believe the way you achieve peace is through strength,' Vance said on ABC. Some conservatives are dismissing concerns that Trump's bombing campaign could fracture the GOP. Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone told USA TODAY Trump is "far too wise" to get drawn into a "prolonged never-ending war," which he said is the only thing that could divide the MAGA coalition. Lanhee Chen, a fellow with the conservative Hoover Institution and former adviser to leading GOP figures, said on NBC June 22 that the debate between the the GOP leading up to Trump's strike on Iran has been muted since the bombs fell. Chen argued that keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons has long been a unifying point for Republicans. If the attack ends up being similar to what Trump did in 2020 when he ordered a drone strike that killed an Iranian general and didn't escalate into broader conflict, then Chen believes Trump is "going to be able to hold the coalition together." Republican consultant Matt Gorman said on Fox News Sunday that Trump "threaded the needle beautifully." Gorman, who served as an adviser to GOP U.S. Sen. Tim Scott's 2024 presidential campaign, said the Trump administration has been clear that the Iran attack is "a very limited, targeted, focused operation. They don't want anything long term." Iran's response could change the Trump administration's calculus, though. The president is gambling he can deliver a targeted strike without getting drawn into a prolonged conflict, something he has pledged to avoid. "We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into," Trump said on Inauguration Day. That commitment could be tested if Iran hits back and Trump weighs whether to retaliate with more U.S. strikes, which he is promising to do. 'I think the concerning part, at least the part that's open ended, is these additional strikes," Bannon said.