Former press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre leaves Democratic Party, claims ‘betrayal' in new book
Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is leaving the Democratic Party and promoting a new book expected to offer insight into her time serving under President Joe Biden.
'Independent,' Jean-Pierre's upcoming tome, vows to deliver a hard-hitting analysis of 'America's broken two-party system,' while urging readers to 'embrace life as Independents,' the Hachette Book Group announced Wednesday.
A description of 'Independent' indicates Jean-Pierre elected to leave the Democratic Party — a decision she didn't take 'lightly' — after Biden dropped out of the presidential election and Trump returned to office.
'She takes us through the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision,' according to the publisher.
Jean-Pierre is one of many associates who was close to the former president when whispers of his cognitive decline came to a head during a June 2024 debate in which the Democrat struggled to make sense.
Biden left the race in July, with supporters and critics wondering if his inner circle had experienced similar lapses.
Jean-Pierre posted a video on Instagram on Wednesday promoting her book.
'This book, 'Independent,' is about looking outside of boxes, not just always being in a partisan stance,' said the 50-year-old from Queens.
Jean-Pierre was the first Black woman and openly LGBTQ person to serve as White House press secretary. She assumed the position after Jen Psaki left the Biden administration in 2022 for a high-profile gig with MSNBC.
Prior to working with Biden, Jean-Pierre worked on both of President Barack Obama's winning campaigns and served as chief of staff for Kamala Harris during her vice presidential run.
Her book will be released Oct. 21.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brickbat: Friends in High Places
Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio reports that Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, mishandled the state's emergency shelter system by approving "improper and unlawful" no-bid contracts for food and transportation services, costing taxpayers millions. Some of the contracts went to Healey's campaign donors. DiZoglio's audit criticizes Healey for not using competitive bidding, leading to overpayments, while highlighting a lack of transparency and oversight in the program. Healey's team says the contracts were necessary due to an unexpected surge in migrant and homeless families. The post Brickbat: Friends in High Places appeared first on
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination.
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. | Opinion This Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the laws on discrimination apply to everybody equally. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn't matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they've been discriminated against. On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. The news media covering this decision has widely referred to it as a 'reverse discrimination' case, but that shows their understanding of discrimination is wrong. The unanimous decision from the court in this case is correct and offers valuable lessons for how the left needs to rethink its group politics. Reverse discrimination isn't a thing. There is only discrimination. The ruling overturns a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a "majority group" in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Essentially, the lower court established different criteria for determining whether a single person had a valid discrimination case against an employer, compared with a person who was part of the majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, sending the case back to a lower court. Opinion: Trump abandons his most impressive presidential legacy ‒ conservative judges Different rules based on different groups is precisely the kind of discrimination that American law prohibits. This is the spirit of all of American anti-discrimination law, including the relevant statute in this case, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on all sorts of characteristics. The only test in cases of discrimination should be if you prove you were discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. If yes, you have a case. If not, you don't. There is no need to consider whether somebody is even a part of a minority group, or even how their discrimination plays into any sort of broader civil rights struggle. In this case, because the plaintiff was straight, the lower court added an additional burden for her to prove discrimination than if a gay person had filed an identical suit. Title VII provides far more detail on how one proves discrimination than my haphazard framework, but the spirit is the same in that there is no mention of one's group status being a determining factor. 'As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the unanimous decision. This case is a promising step, but legal neutrality on characteristics is not a consensus In the decision at issue, the court reached consensus, with all nine justices signing on to Justice Jackson's opinion. While unanimous decisions are not uncommon, what is interesting about this case is that the liberal justices have signed on to an approach typically favored by conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for constitutional colorblindness, and the reality is that American law treats all characteristics equally in its application of laws. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court This very issue divided the nation's highest court into its respective ideological leanings just two years ago, when Students for Fair Admissions won against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, resulting in affirmative action admissions practices being outlawed nationwide. In that very decision, Justice Jackson authored a fiery dissent against the colorblind approach of the majority opinion. While that case deals with race and this one deals with sexual orientation, any protected characteristic should be viewed the same. Decisions like these make Justice Jackson's jurisprudence all the more frustrating. The same principles that demand neutrality of the law in some areas are suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to affirmative action. I hope that the recent case is a genuine change of heart from Justice Jackson and the other liberal justices, but I fear that this case is just another puzzling inconsistency from the court's junior justice. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Musk Loses Billions as Tesla Price Plummets Over Trump War
The fight between Donald Trump and Elon Musk over the GOP tax bill caused even more problems for Musk's electric car company, Tesla, Thursday. Musk's public disagreement with the president, centered around the legislation's proposal to end clean energy tax credits, contributed to Tesla's stock price tumbling more than 10 percent as of publication Thursday afternoon. At the opening bell, one share of Tesla was worth about $322. Its value is currently listed at just under $300, with a substantial drop coming after Trump torched Musk from the Oval Office. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump said around noontime. 'I'm very disappointed with Elon,' he continued. 'I've helped him a lot. He knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem and he only developed the problem when he found out we're going to cut the EV [Electric Vehicle] mandate.' Musk, who was obviously listening, shot back on X minutes later: 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' added Musk, who donated about $275 million to Trump's campaign. 'Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' Trump, he claimed, was showing 'such ingratitude.' The legislation that Trump has affectionately called the 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' would do away with a tax credit worth up to $7,500 for some Tesla models. This would cause Tesla to lose $1.2 billion this year alone, JPMorgan analysts predicted, according to Bloomberg. That's on top of an estimated $2 billion loss due to the Senate last month blocking a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency waiver allowing California to ban gas-powered cars by 2035. Tesla, in a social media post last week, warned that nixing the tax credit would 'threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid.' The company, which has more of Musk's attention since his exit from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, is coming out a rough first quarter in part due to the backlash to Musk's slash-and-burn role at DOGE and the effect of Trump's tariffs, which Musk opposed. Vehicle deliveries, for instance, fell nearly 13 percent in the first three months of the year, a period that saw several dips in stock prices. To help counter that, Trump and Musk in March used the White House driveway to line up various Tesla models and urge Americans to buy them. Consumer sentiment didn't appear to come around, though, as protests at Tesla dealerships and instances of vandalism continued. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
