Jake Tapper Accuses Biden's White House Of Lying About Ex-President's Declining Health
CNN anchor Jake Tapper on Tuesday shared his view on why details about the reported deterioration of Joe Biden's health were not revealed prior to his departure from office, accusing the former president's White House team of spreading lies about his condition.
In an appearance on 'CNN News Central,' Tapper, who co-wrote a book with Axios' Alex Thompson on the topic, said many reporters were trying to piece together how Biden was faring behind the scenes, while those working closely with him were committed to distorting reality.
'Bottom line is: The White House was lying not only to the press, not only to the public, but they were lying to members of their own Cabinet,' Tapper said. 'They were lying to White House staffers. They were lying to Democratic members of Congress, to donors about how bad things had gotten.'
Tapper said he and Thompson spoke to about 200 people for their book, almost all of whom were Democrats who would not have been as candid about Biden's condition ahead of the 2024 election.
An excerpt of the book published by Axios Tuesday morning claims that Biden's physical condition worsened so much in 2023 and 2024 that 'there were internal discussions about putting the president in a wheelchair' but his team was adamant that doing so ahead of the election would be politically damaging.
In response to this part of the book, an unidentified spokesperson pushed back on the reporting, acknowledging 'physical changes as he got older' but stressing that his condition didn't worsen and that his performance on the job was not impacted.
'We are still waiting for someone, anyone, to point out where Joe Biden had to make a presidential decision or make a presidential address where he was unable to do his job because of mental decline,' the person said in a statement to Axios.
Biden's physician Kevin O'Connor previously disclosed his client's 'stiffened gait,' saying it probably explained the 'wear and tear' on his spine. Following Biden's 2024 annual physical, O'Connor said Biden's gait remained stiff but hadn't worsened in the past year.
Biden, who turned 82 on Nov. 20, 2024, dropped out of the presidential race last summer following a disastrous debate performance that amplified concerns about his health and mental acuity. He ceded his place to then-Vice President Kamala Harris who went on to lose to Donald Trump.
Joe Biden Candidly Reflects On Kamala Harris' Loss To Donald Trump
Jill Biden Opens Up About 'Hurtful' Attacks On Joe Biden's Cognition
CNN Anchor Is Caught Making Face At Biden Remark, And His Next Move Is Surprising
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
24 minutes ago
- E&E News
New megabill text revives land sales, axes IRA funding
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's portion of Republicans' party-line bill proposes to sell off certain public lands and repeal billions of dollars for energy programs in Democrats' 2022 climate law. The committee's proposal, unveiled Wednesday evening, contains many of the provisions in the House-passed H.R. 1, the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' — including ones that would target the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office or charge a one-time fee to speed up permitting for some natural gas projects. But there are some significant differences. Most notable is a new section favored by Chair Mike Lee (R-Utah) to revive the sale of public lands, reigniting a firestorm of opposition from advocates. The provision goes further than an abandoned proposal in the House, encompassing Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands across 11 Western states. Advertisement ENR's text comes as the Senate is racing to tweak and quickly vote on tax, energy and national security legislation after the House approved its version last month. Republicans are working through the reconciliation process, which will allow them to skirt the Senate filibuster and pass the budget-focused bill with simple majorities.
E&E News
24 minutes ago
- E&E News
The legal pitfalls of Zeldin's climate rule rollback
EPA's proposal to stop regulating power plant climate pollution is built around a bold claim that experts say could create legal stumbling blocks. The U.S. power industry is the nation's second-highest emitting sector. But in its draft rule repeal, EPA argues that the industry emits too little heat-trapping pollution to be worth regulating. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Wednesday that his agency would repeal two 2024 power sector standards: one to limit climate pollution and another to curb mercury pollution. He accused the Biden administration of enacting the rules to kill off 'baseload' coal and natural gas generation. Advertisement 'That's not the unintended consequences of the decisions that are made by the Biden EPA,' he told an audience of reporters and industry representatives. 'That was the intended consequences.' The repeals, he said, would save fossil fuel generation and advance President Donald Trump's 'energy dominance' agenda. But Zeldin also stressed at the event that the proposals could change before they are finalized, based on public comments. 'That is a decision that we aren't prejudging, that I cannot prejudge at the onset of the proposed rule, but that is a decision that I will have to make at the end of this process,' he said, in response to a question from POLITICO'S E&E News. If EPA finalizes its power plant rule repeal in its current forms, experts warn it could face numerous challenges. Here's a look at EPA's legal arguments and their possible pitfalls. An about-face on the Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act provision that EPA uses to regulate power plant carbon — known as Section 111 — asks EPA to first determine whether a source category 'causes, or contributes significantly' to harmful air pollution. EPA determined in the 1970s that coal and gas power plants met that standard and began regulating them for smog, soot and other pollutants. EPA has always interpreted the statute as requiring only one so-called finding of significant contribution per regulated sector — and not separate findings for each pollutant, like carbon. But Wednesday's proposals break with that precedent. 'The EPA is proposing that the Clean Air Act requires it to make a finding that [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, as a predicate to regulating [greenhouse gas] emissions from those plants,' states the draft rule. Jason Schwartz, legal director for the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School, said the statutory language was 'pretty clear that you don't need pollutant-specific findings.' Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration, disagreed. He said the Trump EPA is right that the Clean Air Act requires it to make a separate finding of significant contribution before regulating a new pollutant from any given sector. 'This issue, though, is separate from the question of whether CO2 emissions from U.S. power plants significantly contribute to climate change that harms public health or welfare,' he said. 'The courts could agree with EPA on this issue but still reject EPA's position that power plants do not significantly contribute to climate change.' What is 'significant' pollution? The U.S. power sector is responsible for about one-quarter of U.S. climate-warming emissions — and 3 percent of global emissions. It is the largest contributor to climate pollution in the U.S. outside of transportation. It would be difficult for EPA to argue that the U.S. power sector isn't a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, Schwartz said. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in American Lung Association v. EPA that EPA was right to decide that power plants contribute significantly to climate change 'because of their substantial contribution of greenhouse gases, under any reasonable threshold or definition.' The Supreme Court was asked to review that decision and declined. Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department attorney, said the text of the EPA power plant repeal doesn't grapple meaningfully with the D.C. Circuit's decision that power plants are significant emitters almost no matter how you look at it. But she said the agency's broader argument for why power plants shouldn't be considered significant contributors also deserved scrutiny. EPA states in the rule that U.S. power generation's share of global CO2 emissions 'is relatively minor and has been declining over time.' It notes that U.S. gas and coal plants are responsible for about 3 percent of worldwide emissions — a decline from previous years caused as much by rising emissions in developing countries as falling emissions in the U.S. The agency's draft repeal doesn't seem to propose that 3 percent as a new threshold below which source categories shouldn't be considered 'significant.' Instead, it discusses the economic impact of regulating coal and gas plants, which it claims would barely make a dent in global emissions. 'What I think is really unusual here is that they're collapsing the inquiry of whether or not the pollution is harmful into whether or not you can address it,' said Greenfield, who is now a partner at Jenner and Block. 'They're saying, 'This is too small, and regardless, we can't do anything, and so it's not bad,'' she said. 'That's kind of how I read it.' Looming litigation Environmental groups made it clear Wednesday that they will challenge the repeals in court. 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' said Manish Bapna, president and chief executive officer of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Our lawyers will be watching closely, and if the EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' In order for EPA to reverse its existing rule, it has to make the case that the change is reasonable, and that means the agency has to rebut all its prior rationale for its rules, said Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. Courts tend to be skeptical when an agency does an about-face, he said. 'It is an uphill battle, especially where the significance threshold hasn't been evaluated or applied.' Maher said. 'They are changing the goal posts that basically eliminate greenhouse gas regulation.' EPA's regulatory rollback announcement did not address whether the agency was still planning to undo its 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, a goal that fizzled out during Trump's first term. The question of climate costs The Biden-era power plant carbon rule that EPA proposes to repeal was supported by 405 pages of modeling and analysis on health, economic and energy impacts of that rule. But the regulatory impact analysis EPA released Wednesday with its draft rule totaled only 72 pages, compared with the hundreds that are usually devoted to weighing the costs and benefits of important rulemakings. The draft doesn't consider any costs associated with the increased carbon emissions the repeal would cause. It briefly cites 'significant uncertainties related to the monetization of greenhouse gases.' The Trump White House has directed agencies to avoid using social cost of greenhouse gases metrics in rulemakings. Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney with NRDC, said the lack of detailed analysis 'definitely stood out to me.' 'Under the principles of administrative law, agencies can of course change their minds — but they do need to provide a reasoned explanation for their decision, and can't ignore significant aspects of the problem,' she said. 'The paucity of technical analysis, and total lack of climate impacts in their cost-benefit analysis certainly don't seem to lend themselves to meeting those basic standards.' Dena Adler, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, expressed skepticism that EPA would be able to make its case that U.S. power sector emissions were insignificant. 'EPA will be hard-pressed to justify reversing the immense climate and public health benefits of the 2024 carbon pollution rule, and it's arbitrary for EPA to dismiss the climate benefits of the 2024 rule as zero,' Adler said. Even the first Trump administration found U.S. power sector emissions were significant, she added. The legal terrain Richard Revesz, faculty director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, noted that EPA found that its proposed rule repeal would result in greater costs than benefits. He noted that EPA for decades has considered how reducing each source of emissions contributes to solving larger pollution challenges and argued that the new approach breaks with 'rationality' and past practice. Wednesday's proposed repeal, he said, also abandons EPA's own peer-reviewed value of the social cost of greenhouse gases, which the agency has used since the George W. Bush administration. 'Greenhouse gas emissions cause extensive economic harm, and their proper valuation is certainly not zero as this proposal essentially suggests,' said Revesz, who served as administrator at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the Biden administration. 'Courts have previously rejected agency analyses that undervalue or fail to value the significant and well-established damages from greenhouse gases.' Zeldin's move Wednesday was just the latest in a yearslong back and forth at EPA over how the agency should address the climate effects of the power sector. In 2015, the Obama administration set the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants — only for the rule to be blocked by the Supreme Court. The first Trump administration's replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan — called the Affordable Clean Energy rule — was then repealed by the Biden administration, which replaced it with the regulation EPA is now trying to unwind. The Biden rules were already being challenged by Republican-led states and industry groups. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments in December but put deliberations on hold after a request from the Trump administration. The Biden-era rule relies on carbon capture and storage technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions. States and industry argued before the appeals court that the technology has not advanced enough to be applied at the scale proposed by the rule and that EPA exceeded its authority when it finalized the rule . The Biden EPA defended the regulation, as well within the agency's traditional rulemaking power to regulate pollution at its source. This story also appears in Energywire.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Terry Moran launches Substack to continue doing ‘important work' following ABC News ouster
A day after ABC News parted ways with longtime correspondent Terry Moran following his 'world-class hater' tweets about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, Moran announced that he was joining the growing chorus of former TV anchors and hosts who have launched their own Substacks. 'For almost 28 years, I was a reporter and anchor for ABC News, and as you may have heard, I'm not there anymore,' he said in a video posted to social media and his own personal Substack account. In the post titled 'Independence Day,' the former Nightline anchor suggested that he would be going the independent route for the time being, following in the footsteps of other veteran broadcasters and reporters who have recently found themselves sidelined by mainstream news networks and legacy press outlets. 'I'm here, with you, on Substack, this amazing space. And I can't wait to get at it, to get at the important work that we all have to do in this time of such trouble for our country,' he stated. 'I'm gonna be reporting and interviewing and just sharing from you, and hoping to hear from you as well.' Moran did let his followers know that it could be a while before he actually starts producing content on a regular basis. 'So, it'll be a few days, maybe a little bit longer, got to get some stuff sorted out, but can't wait to see you,' he concluded. The now-former ABC News anchor and correspondent is adding his name to the expanding list of prominent names who have turned to Substack and similar subscriber-based platforms as television news networks and media conglomerates continue to slash costs amid dwindling ad revenues. Jim Acosta, the former CNN anchor who left the cable news giant earlier this year rather than accept a move to the dreaded midnight shift, encouraged Moran to follow in his footsteps and join Substack earlier this week. 'Come on in, Terry. The water is warm,' he told Vanity Fair. With other TV news vets such as Joy Reid, Don Lemon, Chuck Todd and Chris Matthews all creating their own online programs – not to mention one-time MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan starting up his own Substack-based media company Zeteo – Vanity Fair spoke to some who have recently taken the dive into independent journalism. 'My advice to Terry or any other legacy media person who goes independent is this: You have spent your whole life as a buyer. People came to you with information, job offers, etc. Now you are a seller,' former CNN analyst Chris Cillizza said, adding, 'My view is that as an independent news creator, you have to be in a lot of places at once.' Moran's Substack announcement also came shortly after anti-Trump digital media empire MeidasTouch – which just hired Katie Phang after MSNBC canceled her show – publicly pitched him to join the network. 'There's a seat at the table for you, Terry,' MeidasTouch founder Ben Meisalas declared in a video posted to social media. 'Help lead the next era of journalism—one that doesn't flinch when democracy is under threat.' The journey from broadcast television to Substacking has been quick for Moran, who was suspended by ABC News on Sunday after he sent out a late-night screed savaging Trump and his deputy chief of staff Miller. 'Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred,' Moran wrote in the since-deleted tweet. 'He's a world-class hater. You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.' He added: 'The thing about Stephen Miller is not that he is the brains behind Trumpism. It's not brains. It's bile.' With the administration demanding that the network take action against Moran and MAGA media calling for him to be fired, ABC News announced on Sunday morning that he was 'suspended pending further evaluation' as his post 'does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards.' Moran, who had just sat down with Trump for a newsmaking and high-profile interview six weeks earlier, found himself fired two days later. Progressives and liberals savaged the move and accused the network of once again capitulating to the president, specifically noting that the network had paid Trump $15 million late last year to settle a defamation lawsuit involving anchor George Stephanopoulos. In the end, though, the decision to cut Moran may have had as much to do with economics as it did with criticism over his tweets, which also reportedly resonated within the halls of the ABC newsroom. 'The fact that Moran was at the end of a contract cycle — his deal was set to expire on Friday, according to a person briefed on the matter — made it easier for ABC to take swift action,' CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter reported on Tuesday.
