The plot to fool America

Naturally, the then vice-president was poleaxed by grief. But he never forgot the pledge that Beau insisted he make: 'You've got to promise me Dad, that no matter what happens, you're going to be all right'. He understood that his son was urging him not to 'retreat from my obligations to the wider world'.
In his memoir, Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose, Joe Biden writes movingly of his son Beau's death in 2015 from brain cancer at the age of 46.
Among the causes to which he then devoted himself was cancer research: 'we would create and fund a Cancer Moonshot to reinvent the systems for prevention, research, and care, bringing together the best clinicians, scientists, and other experts to double the rate of progress and deliver real outcomes for patients. Why couldn't we end cancer as we know it?'
Now, a decade after Beau's death, Biden has been diagnosed with the same disease: in his case, an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. Though his condition is incurable and such news is grim under any circumstances, the statement issued by the former president's office on Sunday indicated that the cancer 'appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management'.
This will probably involve treatment with androgen blockers, which can slow the growth of tumours, combined with bespoke chemotherapy, advanced radiotherapy and the latest forms of immunotherapy. The very science that Biden has valiantly championed for many years may help increase his life expectancy.
And this is precisely why David Axelrod, former chief strategist to Barack Obama and longtime critic of Biden's bid to seek re-election, was wrong to say on CNN on Sunday that the recent debate about his cognitive and physical decline while he was president – ignited by one new book in particular – should now be 'more muted and set aside as he's struggling through'.
The very science to which Biden is turning is rooted in a dispassionate commitment to the truth, to evidence and to forensic investigation. Yes, a sense of decorum is essential to any civilised society. But it should not be misappropriated as an excuse to evade difficult discussions or to bury awkward revelations.
In Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again (Hutchinson Heinemann), CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson describe nothing less than a historic political scandal; the consequences of which are now being felt around the world as Donald Trump gets busy.
Biden's cognitive impairment was known to those around him, but his refusal to acknowledge this himself was matched only by the determination of his closest aides to shield him from media scrutiny and from contact with his own cabinet, Democratic senators and members of Congress.
As shocking as the book undoubtedly is, it is also forensic, measured and, as a consequence, absolutely damning. To their great credit, Tapper and Thompson allow the facts to speak for themselves.
It is perfectly possible to feel the deepest sympathy for Biden's new medical predicament; and to be appalled by the cover-up that took place on his watch. Indeed, it is intellectually and emotionally lazy to confuse the two issues.
Now that he is a private citizen, Biden's health is an entirely personal matter; when he was the most powerful person on earth, and intending to remain so until January 20, 2029, it was a matter of the deepest public significance. And that distinction stands, however uncomfortable it may feel to some.
'It was an abomination,' one prominent strategist tells the authors. 'He stole an election from the Democratic Party; he stole it from the American people.'
'He totally fucked us,' says David Plouffe, the seasoned adviser recruited to turbocharge Kamala Harris's doomed 107-day campaign, of Biden's decision to run again, his disastrous debate with Trump on June 27 and the unforgivable delay of more than three weeks before he stepped aside.
At the heart of the story is the so-called 'Politburo' of the president's most trusted aides: Mike Donilon (part of Biden's inner circle since 1981); Steve Ricchetti (who had been one of Biden's chiefs of staff when he was vice-president); Bruce Reed (who had been another); and Ron Klain (chief of staff from January 2021 to February 2023, nicknamed 'the prime minister'). According to one senior source: 'Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board'.
The Politburo and the next concentric ring of border guards did everything in their power to insulate Biden from the rapid-fire interaction that is the basis of any successful political leadership. They restricted his hours of work, supplied him with cue cards for everything, and ensured that he read from teleprompters in settings in which a parish councillor, let alone the leader of the free world, should have been able to speak off-the-cuff.
Most egregiously, they kept his pollsters away from him – ensuring that he was not exposed to real-time data about public opinion (though he only had to read the press to know what Americans thought about his frailty). With the tacit collusion of Biden's longtime physician Dr Kevin O'Connor, they ensured that he was never subjected to a formal cognitive test in his routine medical check-ups.
Still, the deterioration was increasingly and painfully clear. On December 9, 2022, in the Outer Oval, he could not place his national security adviser Jake Sullivan, and Kate Bedingfield, his communications director. 'Steve…' he said to the former. 'Steve…' Then, turning to Bedingfield, he called her: 'Press'.
When George Clooney, a longtime ally of the president, met him at a fundraiser in Los Angeles on June 15, Biden did not recognise the Hollywood star. As Tapper and Thompson write: 'A man he had known for years. Clooney had expressed concern about Biden's health before – a White House aide had told him a few months before that they were working on getting the president to take longer steps when he walked – but obviously the problem went far beyond his gait. This was much graver. This was the president of the United States?'
The Politburo's myth that only their boss could win in 2024 'became almost a theology, a near-religious faith in Biden's ability to rise again. And as with any theology, skepticism was forbidden'. They demanded unquestioning loyalty to the president on the grounds that Trump represented a grave threat to democracy; but, in contradiction, they also claimed that the Republican nominee was headed to jail.
As Tapper and Thompson put it: 'It wasn't a straight line of decline; he had good days and bad. But until the last day of his presidency, Joe Biden and those in his innermost circle refused to admit the reality that his energy, cognitive skills, and communication capacity had faltered significantly'.
If this was not a conspiracy, then what is? Biden's presidency was in many respects successful. But that did not justify the plot to conceal his rapid decline – a plot that was bound to fail, and did.
In February, special counsel Robert Hur delivered his report on Biden's allegedly unauthorised storage of classified documents and, on the basis of his own interview with the president and earlier audio recordings of conversations with his ghost writer Mark Zwonitzer, described him as 'a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory'. He could not remember, for example, when Beau had died, or when he had been vice-president.
Hur's entirely legitimate point concerned Biden's state of mind when he retained the files; as well, by implication, his fitness for trial. For this, he was publicly vilified by senior Democrats.
Biden himself seethed in a press conference that it wasn't 'any of their damn business' to ask about his son's death, that he 'knew what the hell I'm doing' and that he didn't need the special counsel's 'recommendation'. As if to make Hur's point for him, he then proceeded to confuse the presidents of Mexico and Egypt.
There was a price attached to telling the truth. The former special counsel struggled for some months to find work after these denunciations. According to one Democrat donor: 'if you said anything, you got your head chopped off'. Better to sleepwalk towards disaster than to be honest.
A handful dared to breach omertà. Dean Phillips, who stood down last year as a congressman for Minnesota, tried courageously to mobilise a serious primary challenge to the president and, in the end, undertook the task himself, knowing he would fail. 'People will talk their way into beliefs,' Phillips would later say of the Biden cult. 'Even OJ believed he didn't do it at the end.'
Joe Bidenʼs ʻdisastrousʼ presidential debate with Donald Trump on June 27, 2024. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty
Overwhelmingly, however, senior Democrats – whatever their suspicions, whatever fears they had based on troubling encounters with the president – kept silent until the aftermath of the debate.
Loyalty? Perhaps. But also selfishness. A presidency is a vast complex of vested interests, rewards and punishments. Most of those in a position to speak up, or even ask questions, kept their counsel until it was too late.
What made the cover-up so ludicrous (as well as disgraceful) was that the public was never fooled. In 2020, 34% of voters had thought Biden too old to be president. By 2023, that figure had risen to 71%.
In the modern world of smartphones, social media and digital bombardment, the Politburo's hyper-choreographed pageant was always going to be rumbled. There were too many clips of Biden falling, or fumbling his words, or gawping in a state of confusion. What Tapper and Thompson call the 'tendency towards groupthink, inertia and an extreme and wildly counterproductive risk aversion' was utterly unsuited to contemporary political culture.
Even before the disclosure of Biden's illness on Sunday, it was being asked: why dredge all this up now that Trump is back in the White House, wrecking the economy, shredding the constitution, turning the republic into a patrimonial kleptocracy, embracing foreign autocracies? Precisely because lies told for so long by Biden and his team played such an important part in the return of MAGA.
As Tapper and Thompson put it: '[F]or those who tried to justify the behavior described here because of the threat of a second Trump term, those fears should have shocked them into reality, not away from it'.
In his brilliant book Ruling Oneself Out: A Theory of Collective Abdications (2008), the sociologist Ivan Ermakoff identifies 'the Statement of Silence' as a critical feature in such crises, where 'silence is a public stance, and as such is strategically informative'. The silence around the Biden White House was deafening.
Original Sin is not only a fine work of instant history. It is also a parable and a warning to all progressives. Traditionally, the Right's greatest sin has been its sense of collective entitlement – although, in the populist age, that ancestral vice is being supplanted by digitised bigotry, shameless grift and an indifference to due process.
The Left's counterpart weakness is the inclination to believe that its moral rectitude justifies all else. Biden might have been physiologically incapable of serving as president at all, much less running for a second term. But he was on the side of the angels. And so it was positively impertinent to question his capacity to do so.
Such delusions and magical thinking are a sure way of failing the public. One thinks of Labour's deranged re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader in 2016; of the use of the hashtag #BeKind to silence difficult debates; of safety-first reticence rather than statesmanlike candour; of progressives' misplaced conviction that there is a 'right side of history' – happily aligned with their own ideology – and that the electorate will always come round to their collective wisdom when they have thought it through properly. The old Marxist idea of 'false consciousness' is still doing its corrosive work.
Such deception and self-deception come at a terrible cost. Even now, Biden insists that he would have beaten Trump. He said as much in his appearance with his wife on ABC's The View on May 8 – a serious insult, if only by implication, to Harris. Asked about the allegations of cognitive impairment, he replied: 'They are wrong. There's nothing to sustain that'. The audience lapped it up.
Some are now casting Tapper and Thompson as the villains of the piece – as though they knew about Biden's diagnosis in advance. But this is not the time to confuse normal sympathy for an ill man with mere sentimentality. The stakes are too high, the dangers to democracy, the rule of law and the global order too grave for any such indulgence.
As Plouffe tells Tapper and Thompson: 'never again can we as a party suggest to people that what they're seeing is not true'. On Friday's episode of Pod Save America, Beto O'Rourke, a former presidential contender and one of the best communicators in the Democratic party, nailed the problem.
'It's not just you and me, but our kids and grandkids, and the generations that follow that might have to pay the price for this,' the former Texas congressman said to host Jon Favreau. 'We might very well lose the greatest country that this world has ever known… It deeply and gravely and perhaps – we'll see – irrevocably harmed this country… The time to be polite, and kind, and respectful is over. You know, Democrats, it seems, care far too much about being right, and being polite, than being in power'.
Some may feel, in the light of Biden's diagnosis, that such words are too harsh. Yet it is facts, not feelings, that, we should fervently hope, will prolong the former president's life; medical science, not cloying 'thoughts and prayers' on social media.
'Don't say mean truths' is apparently a Biden family motto. And what a lousy motto it is. The truth, however unpalatable, is the basis of every robust democracy; and, often, not least in the mayhem that Biden left behind him, it's all that we have.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

41 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Dramatic moment CNN star Anderson Cooper is forced to urgently evacuate set live on air after missile fired

Anderson Cooper and his CNN team were forced to evacuate live on air while broadcasting live from Tel Aviv. The CNN star was discussing the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict with the network's chief international correspondent, Clarissa Ward, and Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond, when sirens started to ring. 'I should just say that we're now hearing an alert,' Ward said as the alarms blared in the background. Cooper informed the audience that they were all getting an alert saying Israeli forces expected a missile to hit their area in 10 minutes. 'So these are these are the alerts that go out on all of our phones when you're in Israel. It's a ten-minute warning of incoming missiles or something incoming from Iran,' Cooper said. 'So now the location we're in has a verbal alarm telling people to go down into bomb shelters. So we have about a ten-minute window to get down into a bomb shelter.' The mainstay anchor then asked his crew if it would be possible to continue their broadcast as they evacuated. 'And we'll continue to try to broadcast from that, that bomb shelter. And even if we can, on the way down,' Cooper said. 'All right. I think we're going to head down to the shelters. Chuck, do we have capabilities as we go down?' 'Just checking your microphones. Be ready in a second,' Chuck replied. Cooper then continued to talk through their evacuation, explaining as the crew walked from their hotel room to the bomb shelter. While waiting for the elevator, Diamond discussed the damage he witnessed from Iran's airstrikes in Israel the day before. The crew's connection briefly dropped while they were in the elevator, then came back on as Cooper, Ward and Diamond approached the shelter. As the pundits continued to talk, a final 90-second alarm sounded, warning residents that it was a 'red alert' and to seek safety.

NBC News

2 hours ago

• NBC News

Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Presidents testing limits Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. The U.N. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.'

Daily Mirror

4 hours ago

• Daily Mirror

Donald Trump's defence chief claims Iran attack was shared with lawmakers

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was asked when congress was informed that President Trump had taken executive action to launch an offensive on Iran US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed to journalists that Congress was not informed about Saturday's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities until after they had taken place. In a press briefing on Sunday morning, the former Fox News pundit turned Trump ally responded to reporters' queries about the surprising move. When one journalist asked the 45-year-old when Congress was notified that the president had taken executive action, he answered, "They were notified after the planes were safely out." ‌ After a brief pause, he added, "Uh, we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act." Then, a moment later, he stated: "They were. ..immediately thereafter" ‌ Several politicians from both parties have criticised Trump's action, accusing the president of acting unconstitutionally. Congressman Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican and vocal opponent of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, reacted on X just minutes after Trump announced the offensive, stating, "This is not Constitutional." Massie has been a key figure behind a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at preventing American military engagement in the ongoing Middle East tensions, reports the Mirror US. Others were more restrained in their criticism while still expressing concern about executive overreach, with Republican Warren Davidson, a congressman for Ohio tweeting: "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional." Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch Trump supporter, has openly criticised the President for siding with Israel in its conflict against Iran. ‌ On social media, she fumed: "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war." She also pointed out the cause and effect of the hostilities: "There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first." The political sphere was caught off guard by Trump's sudden move, especially since he had previously declared that he would take "two weeks" to decide on US involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran. ‌ Trump had earlier indicated a period of contemplation, saying, "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks," as read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt last Thursday. In a surprising admission, Trump acknowledged his collaboration with Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in orchestrating the strikes, expressing gratitude towards Netanyahu for his backing. Netanyahu reciprocated the sentiment on Fox News, stating, "Tonight, President Trump and the US acted with a lot of strength. President Trump, I thank you. The people of Israel thank you." According to the Iranian state-affiliated news agency, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issued a stern response: "Today's act of aggression by the terrorist American regime has granted the Islamic Republic of Iran the legitimate right to act in self-defense, including through options that go beyond the delusional calculations of the aggressor coalition." The comments were somewhat enigmatic regarding the specific 'options', but the menace was unmistakable. With an air of defiance, they continued: "The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is well-versed in the realities of this full-scale hybrid war and will never be intimidated by the noise of Trump or the criminal gangs ruling Washington and Tel Aviv."