Mortal Sin

In an interview last week, Joe Biden's national security adviser claimed he was stunned to see his boss' disastrous debate performance in June 2024. 'What happened in that debate was a shock to me,' Jake Sullivan said. 'I think it was a shock to everybody.'
Seeing the president incapable of completing sentences and lost in a tangle of words may have been shocking for someone who routinely avoids the news. But it wasn't surprising to anyone paying even casual attention to Biden over the past several years. And it certainly wasn't a surprise to Jake Sullivan.
On December 9, 2022, more than 18 months before the debate that would end his political career, Biden forgot the names of two White House senior officials. One of them was Jake Sullivan.
Standing in the Outer Oval with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Kate Bedingfield, his communications director, he couldn't come up with either of their names, according to one witness. 'Steve …' he said to Sullivan. 'Steve …' he continued, obviously struggling to recall Jake's name. He turned to Bedingfield. 'Press,' he called her, as he beckoned them into the Oval Office.
This incident comes to us in a new book from Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson that has had Washington buzzing over the past week, titled Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. It's one new anecdote among dozens that, taken together, provide an authoritative, detailed, and devastating account of one of the most consequential scandals in modern American history: The president of the United States was unfit to perform the duties of the job, and those close to him went to extraordinary lengths to hide his deterioration.
'Joe Biden knows my name,' Sullivan insisted last week, saying he doesn't recall the episode described in the book. But for Sullivan to have truly been surprised by Biden's confusion and incoherence at the election's only presidential debate would have required his ignorance of dozens of similar incidents, many of them public, as well as sweeping changes to the way the White House staff and the Biden campaign handled the president to hide his decline.
Beginning early in his presidency, top White House advisers and Biden family members devised plans to accommodate his decline. As the president's limitations became clearer, according to Tapper and Thompson, White House speechwriters 'were slowly adapting to Biden's diminished capabilities.' The communications team dramatically limited his public appearances and media interviews. Internal conversations with staff and members of his Cabinet were scripted for Biden—including discussions that took place beyond the eyes of the White House press corps.
Biden's staff imposed tight limits on his daily schedule, often restricting his meetings and activities to midday hours when Biden was thought to be at his best. As his gait became more unsteady, and after some embarrassing falls, his team sought to shorten distances he'd walk and recommended changes to his footwear that would provide the president with additional stability. Biden's fundraisers were reprogrammed with strict limits on the number of questions Biden took from his audiences and little time for spontaneous interaction with those funding his reelection.
All the while, top Biden advisers insisted to reporters that the president was fine—as sharp as ever, in command of facts, energetic in meetings, perfectly capable not only of running for reelection but serving another four years. The public gaffes were anomalous, they insisted, indicative of nothing more than the occasional brain fart, and we all have those, right? His literal missteps? Okay, he's getting a little older and he has arthritis in his feet, they would concede, but none of this has any effect on his ability to do the job. If a reporter was imprudent enough to ask about Biden's increasing number of blunders, they'd be quietly threatened with revoked access to White House sources and sometimes attacked in public.
The main contribution Original Sin makes to the public debate about Biden is providing new, authoritative reporting on the president's decline and the concerted behind-the-scenes effort by top Democrats to conceal it. But for the average reader, the most powerful part of the book comes in a six-page section called 'Special Counsel Robert Hur, Part Two,' when the authors retell a story already in the public domain.
The battle over the report by special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Biden's alleged mishandling of classified information, was widely covered at the time. Hur and his team listened to recordings of conversations Biden had with Mark Zwonitzer, a writer who helped him with the book he wrote after serving as vice president. The recordings were important for two reasons: Biden discussed his possession of classified materials and seemed to have shared them with his co-writer, and the former vice president, in the words of Tapper and Thompson, 'sounded very old and quite diminished. In 2017.'
In the fall of 2023, Hur interviewed Biden twice for a total of more than five hours. The special counsel concluded that, while the president may have committed crimes by knowingly keeping and discussing classified information after his service as vice president, he shouldn't be prosecuted—in part because a jury would likely find him a 'sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.' Top Democrats and sympathetic media personalities insisted that Hur was exaggerating the president's mental deterioration and savaged him as a right-wing hack motivated by politics. For several days, they subjected Hur to an unceasing stream of withering attacks on his character and motives. But a closer look at the interviews (and the actual audio, released publicly by Axios over the weekend) made clear that if anything, Hur was understating Biden's struggles.
The special counsel's questioning of Biden was gentle, not adversarial. Tapper and Thompson republish excerpts of the transcripts nearly verbatim, and the result is an extraordinarily uncomfortable read. There is a relentlessness to Biden's confusion—'I'm, at this stage, in 2009, am I still vice president?' Biden wonders aloud—that leaves the reader hoping for someone to intervene. And at one point, in the middle of a long Biden digression on losing his son, Beau, to cancer, Hur does just that. 'Sir, I'm wondering if this is a good time to take a break briefly,' Hur said. 'Would that be—' But Biden kept going.
No one who had read these transcripts—let alone worked closely with the president daily on crucial matters of national security, as Jake Sullivan had—should have been surprised by Biden's debate performance a few months later.
With so much public evidence of Biden's decline and so many Democrats with a window into the president's deterioration, why did the establishment media pay so little attention to the story?
It's not true, as some professional right-wing outrage merchants have claimed, that the establishment media failed to report on Biden's mental acuity altogether. But major investigations were rare enough that we can tally them on one hand and have digits left over—and it could be argued that we can count them with the same finger many Americans extend in our direction when asked about their views of contemporary American journalism. On June 5, 2024, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes headlined, 'Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.' The story relied on interviews with 'more than 45 people over several months' and reported that people who have worked with Biden, 'including Democrats and some who have known him back to his time as vice president, described a president who appears slower now, someone who has both good moments and bad ones.'
Anyone who follows politics understands when the Washington press corps is obsessed with a story. Take, for example, the New York Times' coverage of the Al Qa'qaa weapons depot in the week leading up to the 2004 election. The Times reported on October 25 that the U.S. military had allowed 380 tons of high explosives held at Al Qa'qaa to go missing, demonstrating the incompetence of the Bush administration's oversight of Iraq. The Times alone ran about two dozen stories about Al Qa'qaa over the next week, and there were 823 mentions of Al Qa'qaa in English-language media over the same period. The coverage of Biden's deterioration never reached that fever pitch—until the debate. Prior to that night, the approach to covering Biden's age and cognitive fitness was often timid and apologetic—more 'let's do this story we don't want to do,' than 'let's go all-in on this big scandal.'
There are several reasons for this: general ideological bias, fear of helping Donald Trump, worries about access to the White House, and more. A Republican with such extensive public evidence of cognitive decline would have undoubtedly been subject to relentless questioning by the country's leading political journalists. The failure to include cognitive test results on his medical disclosure forms would have been taken as prima facie evidence of a cover-up. White House press briefings would have featured hostile exchanges with a press secretary denying observable reality, and background sources would have been badgered to acknowledge public concern reflected in polling.
Even without this everyday coverage, voters consistently told pollsters they had concerns about Biden's age and his mental fitness. In the spring of 2023, only 32 percent of voters surveyed in a Washington Post/ABC News poll said they believed Biden had the 'mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president.' An NBC News poll taken in June of that same year found that 55 percent of voters had 'major' concerns about Biden having the physical and mental health to serve as president.
The media failure went beyond sins of omission to sins of commission, too. Perceptions of Biden's struggles were explained away in reported pieces as the result of misleading 'cheap fakes' or downplayed as problems anyone might have. Biden partisans denigrated anyone who raised concerns. The attack on Robert Hur from Jennifer Rubin, then a Washington Post columnist, was typical. 'But it was Hur's gratuitous smear about Biden's age and memory—most egregiously, his far-fetched allegation that Biden could not recall the date of his son Beau's death—that transformed a snide report into a political screed,' Rubin wrote. (In fact, Hur's claim about Biden's memory was not at all gratuitous, his allegation that Biden didn't recall the dates of Beau's death was accurate, and his report was neither snide nor a political screed.) MSNBC's Joe Scarborough did the same and later lashed out at anyone who might question Biden's abilities. 'Start your tape right now because I'm about to tell you the truth,' he said. 'And 'F' you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Biden, intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever.' Scarborough stood by those comments in an interview this week.
Few people who aren't related to Joe Biden or on his payroll are making that case today.
In an appearance on 'The View' two weeks ago, Biden was asked by Alyssa Farah Griffin about reporting on his diminished mental acuity. 'Mr. President, since you left office, there have been a number of books that have come out—deeply sourced from Democratic sources—that claim in your final year, there was a dramatic decline in your cognitive abilities, in the final year of your presidency,' Griffin said. 'What is your response to these allegations? And are these sources wrong?'
Biden began his response. 'They are wrong,' he said. 'There's nothing to sustain that, number one. Number two, you know, think of what we were left with. We were left with a circumstance where we had a, ah, in insurrection where I started—we, that, not since the Civil War. We were in a circumstance where we were in a position where—well, I'll—pandemic, because of the incompetence of the last outfit end up over a million people dying, a million people dying. And we're also in a situation where we found ourselves, ah, unable to deal with, ah, a lot of just basic issues, which I won't go into—interest of time. And so we went to work, and we got it done. And, you know, one of the things that, that—well, I talked too long.'
As Biden struggled, his wife, sitting by his side, jumped in to answer the question. 'And Alyssa, one of the things I think is that the people who wrote those books were not in the White House with us,' Jill Biden said. 'And they didn't see how hard Joe worked—every single day. I mean, he'd get up, he'd put in a full day, and then at night'—the camera cut away to a shot of Joe Biden, his face frozen in the distant stare so familiar to families who have dealt with loved ones struggling with cognitive issues—'I'd be in bed reading my book and he was still the one on the phone, reading his briefings, working with staff. I mean, it was nonstop. The White House, being the president, is not like a job; it's a lifestyle. It's a life that you live. You live it 24 hours a day. That phone can ring at 11 o'clock at night or two in the morning. It's constant. You never leave it. And Joe worked really hard. I think he was a great president. And if you look at things today, give me Joe Biden anytime.'
One can understand why Jill Biden would stand by her man and try to defend her husband's legacy. But it's precisely because the presidency is more than a job—because 'it's a life that you live … 24 hours a day'—that the cover-up in which she and others in Biden's inner circle participated is such a disgrace. The recent news that the former president was diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer only exacerbates how dire the situation truly was. Good days and bad days at the end of Grandpa's life are heartbreaking. But good days and bad days at the end of an American presidency are dangerous—and the effort to conceal them is a scandal of the first order.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hamilton Spectator

14 minutes ago

• Hamilton Spectator

The Latest: Trump muses about regime change in Iran after U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities

Israel's military said Monday it was striking around Iran's western city of Kermanshah, as fears of a wider regional conflict loomed large after the United States inserted itself into Israel's war by attacking Iranian nuclear sites. The operation raised urgent questions about what remained of Tehran's nuclear program and how its weakened military might respond. The price of oil rose as financial markets reacted. Iran lashed out at the U.S. for crossing 'a very big red line' with its risky gambit to strike the three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs . President Donald Trump, who has warned of additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against U.S. forces, has mused about the possibility of 'regime change ″ in Iran, despite administration officials earlier indicating they wanted to restart talks with Iran. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in an interview with CBS, said: 'Let's meet directly.' Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader, said any country used by the U.S. to strike Iran 'will be a legitimate target for our armed forces,' the state-run IRNA news agency reported. Tens of thousands of American troops are based in the Middle East. Here is the latest: North Korea condemns U.S. strikes on Iran North Korea says it 'strongly condemns' the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling it an egregious violation of Iran's territorial integrity and security interests. North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday that the United States and Israel were escalating tensions in the Middle East through the use of military force, and called on the 'just-minded international community' to raise a unified voice against their 'confrontational behavior.' During his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018 and 2019, but their diplomacy collapsed over disagreements in exchanging the release of U.S.-led sanctions against North Korea and the North's steps to wind down its nuclear and missile program. Kim has since accelerated his arms development while ignoring talk offers by Washington and Seoul. He has shifted the priority of his foreign policy to Russia, sending thousands of troops and huge shipments of military equipment to fuel Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. Trump claims 'monumental damage' inflicted on Iranian nuclear sites President Donald Trump asserted on his Truth Social platform that Iran's nuclear sites sustained 'monumental damage' in the American attack, though a U.S. assessment on the strikes is still underway. 'The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' he wrote. U.S. defense officials have said they are working to determine about just how much damage the strikes did. Iran as well has not said how much damage was done in the attack, though Tehran has not offered any details so far on the strikes it has faced from Israel in its war with that country. Iran likely filled in tunnels at nuclear sites ahead of U.S. strikes An analysis of satellite photos by a nuclear nonproliferation group based in Washington shows Iran likely filled in tunnels at its nuclear site at Isfahan ahead of U.S. strikes early Sunday. The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security published satellite images taken by Airbus it assessed showed trucks dumping soil into tunnels at the site on Friday. The U.S. attack likely targeted the tunnel entries, the group said. 'At least three of the four tunnel entrances are collapsed,' it said. 'The status of the fourth one is unclear.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

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 the country 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. President 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, Isfahan and Fordow, the last of which is 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 Middle Eastern war, which Israel launched with airstrikes against Iran on June 13. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Republican lawmaker on US bombs against Iran: ‘This is not constitutional'

Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), one of the most vocal Republicans pushing against American intervention in Iran, posted on the social platform X that President Trump's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites is unconstitutional. Trump announced that American forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — and that all planes are out of Iranian airspace. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he posted on Truth Social. Massie wanted to introduce a war powers resolution in the House on Tuesday that would prohibit American involvement in Iran. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution,' he posted on X on June 16. The Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 gives the power 'to declare war' to Congress. However, the president also has war powers dictated in Article 2 of the Constitution. Since the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, these two articles are a source of constitutional debate. Also, there has been no declaration of war. Republican Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio) echoed a similar sentiment to Massie's in a post on X. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional,' Davidson wrote. 'I look forward to his remarks tonight.' Many members of the GOP support the president's actions against Iran. Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) was one Republican who supported the president on X, saying, 'President Trump made the courageous and correct decision to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. God Bless the USA. Thank you to our extraordinary military and our indomitable POTUS. This is what leadership on the world stage looks like.' Updated on June 22 at 10:47 a.m. EDT. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.