Biden-Robert Hur audio: Everything ex-Prez said - from son Beau to classified documents
The audio of former President Joe Biden's interview with former special counsel Robert Hur in the classified documents case was published by Axios on Friday. In the final investigation report, Hur had said that Biden, 81 at the time, was a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory'.
Here is the complete transcript:
'So, during this time when you were living on Chambers Road and there were documents related to the Penn Biden Center or the Biden Center, or the cancer from your shot, or your book, where did you keep papers that related to those things that you were actively working on?' Hur asked.
'Well, I don't know. This is what, 2017, 18, that period?' Biden said, only for an affirmation from Robert Hur.
'Remember, in this time frame, my son has either been deployed or was dying. And so it was... And by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate who were encouraging me to run in this period, except the president.'
'They're not mean things. He just thought that she had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did. And so I hadn't at this point, even thought.'
'I'm at Penn, I hadn't walked away from the idea that I might run for office again. If I ran again, I'd be running for president. And so what was happening, though, once Beau died, May, was it 2015 he had died?'
'I think it was 2015. I'm not sure the month, but I think it was 2015.'
"Trump gets elected in November of 2017 2016, alright, so 2017, that's when you left office in January of 2017. Okay. That's when Trump gets sworn in. Right.
And in 2017, Beau had passed,, this is personal, the genesis of the book and the title Promise Me Dad was, I know you're all close with your sons and daughters, but Beau was like my right arm and I was my left. These guys were a year and a day apart, and they can finish each other's sentences.
I used to go home on the train during the period that I was still in the Senate. Anyway, if you remember, there was pressure. Beau knew how much I adored him. And, and, and it sounds, maybe it sounds so, everybody knew how close we were. There was not anybody in the world who wondered whether or not, anyway.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Colombian presidential candidate Miguel Uribe shot in the head at rally, critical
Miguel Uribe, a conservative Colombian presidential hopeful, was in critical condition on Monday after being shot in the head at close range during a rally over the weekend. In a statement, doctors said the 39-year-old senator had 'barely' responded to medical interventions that included brain surgery following the assassination attempt, which has had a chilling effect on the South American nation. Uribe was shot on Saturday as he addressed a small crowd of people who had gathered in a park in Bogota's Modelia neighbourhood. On Sunday, hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital where Uribe is being treated to pray for his recovery. Some carried rosaries in their hands, while others chanted slogans against President Gustavo Petro. 'This is terrible,' said Walter Jimenez, a lawyer who showed up outside the hospital with a sign calling for Petro's removal. 'It feels like we are going back to the 1990s,' he said, referring to a decade during which drug cartels and rebel groups murdered judges, presidential candidates and journalists with impunity. Petro has condemned the attack and urged his opponents not to use it for political ends. But some Colombians have also asked the president to tone down his rhetoric against opposition leaders. The assassination attempt stunned the nation, with many politicians describing it as the latest sign of how security has deteriorated in Colombia, where the government is struggling to control violence in rural and urban areas, despite a 2016 peace deal with the nation's largest rebel group. The attack on Uribe comes amid growing animosity between Petro and the Senate over blocked reforms to the nation's labour laws. Petro has organised protests in favour of the reforms, where he has delivered fiery speeches referring to opposition leaders as 'oligarchs' and 'enemies of the people." 'There is no way to argue that the president … who describes his opponents as enemies of the people, paramilitaries and assassins has no responsibility in this,' Andres Mejia, a prominent political analyst, wrote on X. The Attorney General's office said a 15-year-old boy was arrested at the scene of the attack against Uribe. Videos captured on social media show a suspect shooting at Uribe from close range. The suspect was injured in the leg and was recovering at another clinic, authorities said. Defence Minister Pedro Sánchez added that over 100 officers are investigating the attack. On Monday, Colombia's Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo said that minors in Colombia face sentences of up to eight years in detention for committing murders. Camargo acknowledged that lenient sentences have encouraged armed groups to recruit minors to commit crimes. However, she said that Colombian law also considers that minors who are recruited by armed groups are victims, and is trying to protect them. 'As a society, we need to reflect on why a minor is getting caught up in a network of assassins, and what we can do to stop this from happening in the future,' she said. Camargo said officials had not identified any death threats against Uribe before Saturday's assassination attempt. But on Monday, Uribe's lawyer said he has sued the director of the National Protection Unit, a government agency that assigns security guards and bulletproof vehicles to politicians and human rights leaders. Uribe launched his presidential campaign in October. His lawyer, Victor Mosquera, said the National Protection Unit ignored multiple requests by Uribe to have his security detail expanded as he campaigned. 'His security detail had to be improved,' Mosquera said in a press conference. 'We have to investigate whether the attack (on Uribe) was a consequence of negligence.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 hours ago
- First Post
Who's calling? Trump picks up calls from unknown numbers, vulnerable to scams: Report
President Trump's reported use of his personal phone to answer unknown calls, along with aides relying on unsecured devices, has exposed his administration to spoofing, impersonation, and foreign surveillance, according to a report read more President Donald Trump's reported habit of answering unknown callers on his personal cell phone, along with top aides frequently using unsecured personal devices, is sparking renewed concerns among cybersecurity experts and federal officials. According to an Axios report, citing The Atlantic, the practice has left the Trump administration vulnerable to basic security threats such as spoofed calls, impersonation attempts, and foreign surveillance. While there is no public evidence that Trump has fallen victim to such schemes, federal investigations and intelligence reports suggest the risk is real and growing, added the report. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Ongoing investigations According to The Wall Street Journal report, federal authorities are currently probing a scheme in which someone spoofed the phone number of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles to impersonate her in calls to senators, governors, and CEOs. The impersonator's identity and intent remain unclear. Meanwhile, a Bloomberg investigation found that Chinese hackers gained access to US telecom networks as early as summer 2023, a full year earlier than previously disclosed. That access, according to The New York Times, was exploited by a China-backed cyber group known as 'Salt Typhoon' to monitor communications involving Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other high-ranking officials. Adding to the concerns, former national security adviser Mike Waltz, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others in the administration have been embroiled in separate controversies related to their use of the encrypted messaging app Signal on personal devices, bypassing official communication protocols. History of lax security Trump's disregard for secure communications isn't new. During his first term, he carried two phones — a secure one for calls and a less secure one for social media, according to Politico. Despite security officials urging him to replace the latter device monthly, reports suggest he sometimes went months without checks. It remains unclear how much of that protocol has changed during Trump's current term. 'I think people gave up on that years ago,' a current adviser told The Atlantic. In a written statement, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung declined to detail any specific security measures, saying, 'President Trump is the most transparent and accessible President in American history.' 'World leaders, heads of state, elected officials, and business titans all reach out to him because they know America is back under President Trump's leadership,' Axios quoted Cheung as saying. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He also took aim at Trump's predecessor, adding, 'Joe Biden was hidden and sheltered by his handlers because he was a total embarrassment and bumbling idiot during his time in office.' The bigger picture Since returning to office, the Trump administration has faced mounting criticism over its handling of digital security, with experts warning that convenience is being prioritised over protection, reported Axios. The administration's widespread use of personal devices and encrypted messaging apps like Signal has raised red flags, especially as traditional security protocols appear to be sidelined. Reports indicate that the federal cybersecurity apparatus has also taken a hit, with nearly a third of staff at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) having departed. Concerns have been compounded by the actions of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has championed several controversial technology initiatives. One such effort involves deploying a still-buggy AI tool designed to comb through sensitive government data—sparking fears about vulnerabilities and potential misuse, added the report. The broader threat landscape is also shifting rapidly. The FBI recently warned that artificial intelligence tools are now being used to clone voices using just seconds of audio, making it easier than ever for scammers or bad actors to impersonate senior officials. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Spoofing phone numbers has become a low-cost, easily accessible tactic thanks to free apps, a method already exploited in a scheme impersonating Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles. These developments underscore a troubling reality: security is increasingly being compromised in favour of speed and direct access, creating new openings for deception, surveillance, and manipulation at the highest levels of government. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Kamala Harris won the U.S elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024
Kamala Harris won the U.S. elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024: A new report is stirring fresh debate about the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, claiming that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were even cast. The bombshell allegation raises a serious question: Did Kamala Harris actually win the 2024 election ? According to the investigative piece from Daily Boulder, a private lab quietly implemented sweeping changes to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties ahead of the 2024 race. Those changes, the report claims, were made with no public notice, no formal testing, and no third-party oversight. What changes were made to voting machines before the 2024 election? The report centers around Pro V&V, a federally accredited lab responsible for certifying voting machines in key states like Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and California. In early 2024, the lab reportedly approved updates to ES&S voting systems, which included: New ballot scanners Printer reconfigurations Firmware upgrades A new Electionware reporting system Instead of labeling these as major changes, Pro V&V classified them as 'de minimis,' a term typically reserved for insignificant tweaks. This classification allowed them to bypass public scrutiny and avoid triggering full-scale testing or certification processes. But watchdog group SMART Elections wasn't convinced. In their words: Live Events 'This wasn't just a glitch in some sleepy county. It was a stress test of our entire system.' Soon after the machines went live, complaints began to surface. Were votes miscounted or ignored in key counties? In Rockland County, New York, several voters testified under oath that their ballots didn't match the official results. Senate candidate Diane Sare reportedly lost votes in precinct after precinct: In one district, 9 voters claimed they voted for Sare, but only 5 votes were recorded. In another, 5 voters swore they supported her, but only 3 votes appeared. It wasn't just third-party candidates who saw odd results. In multiple Democratic-leaning areas, Kamala Harris's name was reportedly missing from the top of the ballot entirely. Voters said they couldn't even find her name to select. These same areas had high support for Democrats like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, yet Harris received zero votes—a statistical anomaly that defies traditional voting patterns. Even more shocking: Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than Republican Senate candidates in these districts. As reported by Dissent in Bloom, a political Substack, 'That's not split-ticket voting. That's a mathematical anomaly.' Who is behind Pro V&V, and why is there no oversight? At the center of the controversy is Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V. While he doesn't appear in the headlines, his lab certifies the machines that millions of Americans use to vote. According to the report, once the controversy began to gain traction, Pro V&V's website went dark, leaving only a phone number and a generic email address. No public logs. No documentation. No comment. Pro V&V is certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). However, once accredited, labs like Pro V&V face no real public oversight. There is no hotline, no review board, and no formal process for the public to challenge or remove them. The EAC itself has four commissioners, two of whom—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Even if wrongdoing were discovered, the process to revoke a lab's accreditation is slow, murky, and entirely internal. There are no public hearings and no outside investigations. As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains fully accredited and uninvestigated. Could Kamala Harris have actually won the election? The question is no longer whispered in political corners—it's being asked outright. In May 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that allegations raised by SMART Elections were credible enough to move forward. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections , is scheduled for hearing this fall. While the lawsuit won't change the outcome of the election—Congress already certified Trump's victory—it could set off wider probes, from state investigations to federal criminal inquiries. Political writer John Pavlovitz openly questioned the result, writing: 'Kamala Harris may have won.' During the campaign, Harris reportedly drew massive crowds, high early voting numbers, and strong poll performances in swing states. Her debate showing against Trump was widely viewed as dominant—Trump even skipped the second debate. And yet, despite that momentum, Trump won. Adding fuel to the fire, Elon Musk, who vocally supported Trump, posted cryptic tweets during the 2024 cycle, including: 'Anything can be hacked.' Later, Musk stated: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election.' Trump himself added to the speculation, telling supporters: 'He [Musk] knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.' The upcoming court case could become a pivotal moment in election security history. The lawsuit claims that a private company quietly changed voting machines in over 40% of U.S. counties—and no one knew until after the votes were counted. The implications are serious: Could future elections be altered without oversight? Should the EAC change how it certifies and monitors voting labs? Is the public being kept in the dark about the technology behind their vote? SMART Elections warns this isn't just about one race: 'If one underfunded watchdog group can dig up this much from a quiet New York suburb, what else is rotting in the shadows of this country's ballots?'
