
Why Biden's health cover-up is worse than Watergate
Except it's not 'maybe.'
For more than four years, Biden perpetuated the biggest fraud on the American people in the history of the republic. And all the president's men and women were his co-conspirators. Every day, they told the public that Biden was not just physically and cognitively fine, but that he was in better shape than anyone in the White House.
White House officials not only dismissed questions about Biden's age and acuity but claimed he was so fit that he was wearing his staff out.
On one of the rare occasions when the liberal media gently inquired about Biden's health, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, told CNN that 'I can't even keep up with him.'
This is from the same woman who told the country that videos of Biden falling down and wandering off were 'cheap fakes.'
She lied. They all did.
All administrations bend the truth. But the Biden team went further than any other.
When Special Counsel Robert Hur issued his report last February, in which he noted that Biden had broken the law but that a jury would likely not convict because they would find him to be 'well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,' Biden responded with a tirade against Hur for asking in the interview about when his son Beau had passed away — which Biden could not remember.
'How in the hell dare he raise that?' Biden shouted indignantly. But Hur never asked about it. It was Biden who had brought up Beau's death in a meandering, nonsensical reply to a question about where in his house he had placed classified documents.
The rest of the White House piled on Hur, with Kamala Harris leading the charge. She called Hur's description of Biden's faltering memory 'gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate.'
It was none of those. Everything Hur stated was true. Hur showed enormous restraint and decency in dealing with Biden. How was he rewarded? According to Tapper and Alex Thompson, Hur was blackballed by the legal establishment and could not find a job for months.
Even as they were smearing this honest public servant, White House officials continued to peddle the idea that Joe Biden was, at age 81, almost superhuman.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Meet the Press that 'The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it because he is sharp, intensely probing and detail-oriented and focused.'
No, he wasn't. Biden was largely incapacitated, worked only a few hours a day and couldn't recognize long-term friends and staffers. It wasn't until June 2024, after Biden's debate, that the farce could no longer hold.
But even in the wake of that disaster, Biden and company kept lying to everyone, insisting that Biden only had a cold and was still up to the task of running against Trump — and serving another four years. Only after intense pressure from his own party did Biden finally, and reluctantly, drop out.
And we know now that Biden likely had cancer. According to a Biden spokesman, Biden last had a prostate specific antigen test 11 years ago. Having compassion for Biden at this time does not preclude asking why he wasn't tested, or if that is simply another lie.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has announced his committee will ask members of the Biden administration to testify about what they knew and when they knew about Biden's health. The public deserves answers but more than that, those who engaged in the sham need to be held accountable.
It's worth remembering that, as a first-term senator from Delaware, while Biden reportedly advocated for fairness and not rushing to judgment, he demanded accountability from President Nixon during the Watergate affair and ultimately called for Nixon's resignation.
There is a key difference between Nixon and Watergate and Biden and his decline. While Nixon certainly tried to limit the fallout from the Watergate break-in, he did not know of, order, or approve the Watergate break-in. He only learned of it after the burglars were arrested.
Biden, on the other hand, from the beginning of his presidency, orchestrated his administration's malfeasance. From the moment he announced his candidacy in 2019, Biden was deliberately lying to the country when he claimed he was in great health. He also insisted that all his aides repeat that canard.
None of this was true, but thanks to a compliant media, which Nixon certainly did not have during Watergate, he was shielded from the public. By 2024, he was working a few days a day, a couple of days a week, and was clearly not in charge of the White House or the country.
That was criminal. For at least a year, likely longer, the U.S. did not have a functioning president, and the president's men and women knew it. Yet they lied and covered it up. And that is far, far worse than Watergate.
Justin Coffey is a professor of history at Quincy University.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Buzz Feed
22 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
This Senator Made A Very, Very Good Point About Trump's Weird Comment About Gold
A bunch of Donald Trump's new tariffs went into effect on August 7. But there's one thing that won't be hit with a tariff, and that's gold. Yep, gold is off the table! Some people pointed how that this could be because of all of the gold in the Oval Office. Other people compared him to an Austin Powers villain. And this person said, "I miss when the federal government wasn't a meme." But one reply to Trump's post is going more viral than the rest, and it's from Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. Here's what he said: "Trump could have cancelled tariffs on groceries, clothing, back-to-school supplies – any one of a number of things that would have reduced costs for American families. Instead, he chose gold." NextGen America responded to that comment, "Trumponomics, simplified: More golden ballrooms for him, more tariffs for the rest of us." Thoughts?


Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The White House is launching a review of exhibits at eight Smithsonian museums. Here's what to know.
In response, the Smithsonian said in a statement on Tuesday that it remained committed to 'scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents,' it said in a statement. Advertisement Here's what to know about the Smithsonian and the Trump administration's review of its museums. What is the Smithsonian Institution? A Smithsonian Institution sign is seen on the National Air and Space Museum on the National Mall on March 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Kevin Dietsch/Getty The Smithsonian Institution is the world's largest museum, education, and research complex, and includes 21 museums and the National Zoo, with 11 museums lining Washington's National Mall. It was founded with funds from British scientist James Smithson, who left his estate to the United States to create 'an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge' in Washington. Which Smithsonian museums are under review? The review, first Advertisement 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter said. The letter said additional museums would be reviewed in subsequent phases. How long will the review take and what will it entail? The review will take a look at all public-facing content, such as education materials, social media and digital content 'to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. The review will also include curatorial processes and guidelines, exhibition planning and collection use. The White House is directing the museums to submit materials from exhibits and drafts for upcoming events within 30 days. Within 75 days, museums are asked to submit the 'remaining requested documentation including promotional literature, grant data, educational materials, and guided tour content.' Within 120 days, the letter said, museums will be expected to take corrective action, 'replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions.' Earlier this month, its National Museum of American History had temporarily What's Trump's existing relationship with the Smithsonian? On March 27, Trump Advertisement The order placed Vice President JD Vance, a member of the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents, in charge of overseeing the effort to 'remove improper ideology' across the institution's museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo. 'Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history,' the Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. Alyssa Vega can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive: Inside Newsom's ‘no regrets' strategy in fighting Trump, Texas
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is taking on what he calls a 'no regrets strategy,' saying he must 'fight fire with fire' in countering the President Trump-led redistricting efforts in Texas. In exclusive comments made to The Hill, Newsom said he is feeling 'very confident' about moving forward with his own redistricting plan, as the California Legislature returns to session next week. And while he acknowledged it's 'never a slam dunk,' he said he is optimistic about the signs of 'public unity' on the issue from Legislature leadership in his state. '[The] biggest risk is not taking one,' Newsom said to The Hill. 'Trump doesn't deserve the passivity, acquiescence. Democracy demands we at least try, eyes wide open, recognize the stakes.' 'I'm a longtime believer in independent redistricting, with receipts,' the governor said, acknowledging that 'these are not normal times.' 'As Lincoln said, 'The facts are new, we must think anew, we must act anew.'' Newsom sent a letter to Trump on Monday warning that if the president does not call off redistricting efforts in Texas, California would move forward with redistricting its own congressional lines to favor Democrats, nullifying any seats Republicans could gain. 'If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,' Newsom wrote in the letter. 'But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.' 'You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make,' Newsom added in the letter. 'This attempt to rig congressional maps to hold onto power before a single vote is cast in the 2026 election is an affront to American democracy.' When the California Legislature returns from summer recess next week, Newsom will need a supermajority in each chamber to move forward with a special election later this year. A redrawn congressional map for 2026, 2028 and 2030 would be on the ballot, after which California would return to its independent commission, Newsom told The Hill. In his comments to The Hill, Newsom said he was taking the action in order to stop Trump, saying he and his party shouldn't be 'bystanders watching our Democracy slip out from under our collective grasp.' 'We have agency and will ask voters to exercise it,' he said. The redistricting move is one in a string of resistance efforts he has led since Trump took office earlier this year, publicly contesting the administration while his name is bandied about as a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. Political observers say his next moves in the redistricting fight could be pivotal in steering his political future. 'If he counters the Texas power grab by nullifying or even perhaps exceeding the number of seats that they steal, he will be an instant national hero to Democrats, no doubt about it,' said longtime Democratic strategist Garry South, who is based in California and worked on Newsom's 2010 campaign for governor. 'Democrats nationally are desperately looking for someone to get in Trump's face and to take strong actions to counter his authoritarian moves, and this would be about as strong a countermove as any governor could take, and it would have instant national political implications.' 'Governors do a lot of things in their states that they brag about if they run for president. 'I started a program here. I signed a bill there.' But very few of those successes have had national political import, and this certainly would,' South added. An Emerson College poll out earlier this month showed Newsom in third place in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2028, with 10 percent of the vote. He trailed former Vice President Kamala Harris, who had 12 percent, and former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, who led the field of would-be candidates with 17 percent. Newsom has distinguished himself as a competitive option in polls since Trump took office and even more so since June, when the governor publicly fought Trump over sending the National Guard into Los Angeles when protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement erupted across the city. But some operatives say Newsom can't push too hard or do too much. They say he has to walk a fine line between countering Trump and acting to advance his personal political aspirations. 'If this is seen as a 'Newsom special,' it fails,' said one California political operative who is close to the Newsom administration. 'If it's seen as good governance, it might win.' 'What's more likely to resonate with voters is Trump's awful track record with California and the threat of two more years of his unchecked clown show,' the operative added. Strategists have little doubt that with anti-Trump messaging, the redistricting ballot measure would pass with flying colors among California voters, especially those who turn out for special elections in the state. 'In an odd-year special election in California, the turnout is always more blue. It's older, it's better educated, it's better informed,' South said. 'This will simply be a vote to screw Trump and to some degree, Texas, the state that Californians love to hate.' 'You have a double whammy here. You have Trump, and you have Texas. Two T's, I guess you could call it,' South added. But political observers say th whether or not Newsom succeeds, the effort is still politically advantageous for him and Democrats more broadly. 'It's OK to put up a fight and lose, because people understand right now the system is not set up for the non-Trump party to win anywhere,' said Christina Bellantoni, the director of the University of Southern California Annenberg's Media Center. 'No Democrat that wants to be instrumental in nominating the next presidential nominee … wants somebody that's just gonna sit around.' 'They want a fighter,' Bellantoni added. 'Come on now. This is not about compromise or making deals. This is about putting up a fight. And putting up that fight, surely you might lose.' But in his comments to The Hill, Newsom said he is well aware of the stakes for democracy — and his political ambitions. Still, he added, 'If it fails, we did what we could.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.