Video: Top Democrat exposes major secret behind Biden White House
A new video shows Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) David Hogg telling an undercover journalist that Anthony Bernal, former First Lady Jill Biden's chief of staff, had 'an enormous amount of power' in the White House during former President Joe Biden's administration.
In a video published Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, by Project Veritas, Hogg was asked by an undercover reporter how corrupt he believed the DNC was. In response, Hogg said, 'I think the fact of the matter is the DNC is always going to be like a campaign arm of the president ultimately. The bigger issue was like the inner circle that was around Biden.'
READ MORE: Video: Trump questions cover-up of Biden's cancer diagnosis, cognitive issues
'Like, Jill Biden's chief of staff had an enormous amount of power,' Hogg added.
Deterrian Jones, a former staff member for the White House Office of Digital Strategy, told the undercover journalist that the 'enormous amount of power' wielded by Anthony Bernal during the Biden administration 'was an open secret' and that the former first lady's chief of staff was a 'shadowy, Wizard of Oz-type figure.' 'I would avoid him,' Jones added. 'He was scary.'
After explaining that Bernal worked behind the scenes out of view of the American people, Jones told the undercover Project Veritas journalist, 'He wielded an enormous amount of power, and I can't stress to you enough how much power he had at the White House.'
Sharing the first video of a two-part series on Hogg's revelations regarding the DNC, Project Veritas tweeted, 'Undercover Meeting with DNC Leader @davidhogg111 Reveals who REALLY ran the Biden White House.'
BREAKING: Undercover Meeting with DNC Leader @davidhogg111 Reveals who REALLY ran the Biden White House
'He wielded an enormous amount of power… I can't stress to you enough how much power he had at the White House.'
"It was an open secret… I would avoid him, he was… pic.twitter.com/i7fskTwhNw — Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) May 28, 2025
In a new book titled 'Original Sin,' CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios political correspondent Alex Thompson explained that Bernal and Biden aide Annie Tomasini helped guide the former president's campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and had significant influence in the Biden White House.
'The significance of Bernal and Tomasini is the degree to which their rise in the Biden White House signaled the success of people whose allegiance was to the Biden family – not to the presidency, not to the American people, not to the country, but to the Biden theology,' Tapper and Thompson wrote, according to Fox News.
Anonymous sources previously told The New York Post last year that Bernal had allegedly 'bullied and verbally sexually harassed colleagues' for over 10 years but was considered to be 'untouchable' due to his close relationship with Jill Biden.
'I don't think people understand how much power and influence he has,' one of the sources said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Common sense but true: Don't let people who hate America move here
I pledge allegiance, to the flag . . . I heard those strange words for the first time at Riverside Elementary School in 1976, as a First Grader who had just moved to the United States with my family. I learned quickly how to say the words, but it took me much longer to learn what they mean. Like Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington, I was born English but chose to become an American. I took US history in middle and high school, got a degree in history, and later taught American history to 8th and 11th graders. But though I knew the names and dates, nothing taught me to love my country like spending half my life outside of it, including 23 years as a US diplomat in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The singularity of American freedom and opportunity is best proven through comparison. Like many other Americans who came here legally and became citizens, nothing rankles me more than seeing disrespect, ingratitude, and even homicidal violence from some who have been granted the opportunity to come here — or allowed to remain despite coming illegally. You'd figure the least they could do would be to obey our rules and respect our culture and values. Watching Columbia University and other supposed elite institutions become hot-beds of radical protest and support for antisemitism and terrorist violence has been painful. It's bad enough when the ill-informed youth are home-grown, but when foreign students here on visas are leading the charge, it's too much to take. So, we shouldn't – and we don't have to. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent announcement that he will interpret our visa laws to keep out those who would steal our secrets, undermine our democracy, or obstruct our foreign policy abroad, is cheering news. Law enforcement officials at the scene of the terror attack in Boulder. AP Photo/David Zalubowski He's suggesting nothing new – our immigration law already contains many ineligibilities both statutory and discretionary, which he can wield. All across the developed West, the same crisis is playing out: who gets to decide who comes in, and who stays? Does our citizenship have any value? Do we ask nothing in exchange? The global Left does not believe in borders. They think anyone, anywhere should be allowed to live where they want. When they get there, the Left believes they should get all the rights of citizens – health care, education, welfare, and even the vote. For them, under no circumstances should a foreigner – invited or not, criminal or not – ever be evicted. This is a recipe for national suicide, and it's a choice we should reject. On Sunday, an Egyptian illegal immigrant attempted to kill several American Jews in Boulder, Colorado by burning them alive. It appears the man entered the US with a tourist visa in 2022, which would have allowed him to come for six months tops. He overstayed, like maybe half a million other foreigners do every year and then claimed asylum so he wouldn't be kicked out. He was given a work permit while he waited years for his immigration case to work through the system. This kind of 'defensive' asylum claim is the easiest ploy for someone, even with no credible case, to remain here. Millions of aliens are waiting in processing backlogs, most of them with cases that don't qualify. Millions more entered illegally over land and were released by DHS when Joe Biden was president, with the administration encouraging them to all claim asylum. Soliman is in the country illegally. AP As Lora Ries and I argued in a recent Heritage report, it's time we reformed our asylum and refugee process so that it prioritizes American interests, brings in a finite number of people that we can accommodate and assimilate, and ends the farce of mass economic migration based on fraud. At the same time, the State Department is right to use the wide discretion they already have under immigration law to more carefully screen those coming in on visas, for whatever purpose. Anyone likely to be coming to foment political unrest should be denied — particularly students, who will stay for years. If visitors or students become undesirable after they get here, they should be sent home. Actively working against American basic values or foreign policy should be a negative factor in applications for legal permanent residence. The process should be real, not a rubber stamp. The bar for citizenship should be the highest of all — requiring not just a basic knowledge of civics, English, and history, but a proven love of this country, or at the very least no evinced hatred for it. We have enough domestic strife without importing the squabbles of the Middle East and the rest of the world. And though terrorism is the worst case of allowing in, or letting remain, people who harbor ill will towards our country or its people, every week brings examples of Americans robbed, raped, killed by drunk drivers, and even murdered by people who would not have been here if we had properly guarded our borders and enforced our laws. Just over a year ago, our Heritage Foundation Center for Border Security and Immigration started this visual map showing just a few examples of these preventable crimes. What started as a few spots has turned into a solid mass in some areas – like Massachusetts, whose governor seems to care more about the rights of illegal aliens than her own voters. No foreign national has a right to a US visa. Once they arrive, each visitor must do what he said he was coming here to do, and obey our laws. Some will learn to value this country enough to want to become Americans. Many of these will find a way, and they are welcome. But to preserve this unique society so many still want to join, we need to start according our country the singular value it deserves. Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Border Security and Immigration Center.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Australia raises minimum wages by 3.5% as inflation eases
By Renju Jose and Stella Qiu SYDNEY (Reuters) -Australia's independent wage-setting body on Tuesday raised the national minimum wage by 3.5% effective July 1, a real wage increase for about 2.6 million workers on the lowest pay as inflationary pressures ease in the economy. The minimum rate will rise to A$24.94 ($16.19) per hour, resulting in an extra A$1,670 in a year for full-time employees, according to the Fair Work Commission's (FWC) annual review. Headline consumer price inflation held at 2.4% in the first quarter, comfortably within the Reserve Bank of Australia's target band of 2% to 3% and having come down from the 7.8% peak in late 2022. FWC President Adam Hatcher said the decision could help many workers to recoup the loss of their real income over the last few years due to high living costs. "If this opportunity is not taken in this annual wage review, a loss in the real value of wages which has occurred will become permanently embedded ... and a reduction of living standards for the lowest paid in the community will thereby be entrenched," Hatcher said. Last year, the FWC increased minimum wages by 3.75% but that was largely in line with inflation. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) described the wage increase as "a great outcome" for employees on minimum wages, who it said suffered the most when inflation soared after the COVID-19 pandemic. "Our lowest-paid workers are getting ahead again," ACTU Secretary Sally McManus told reporters. The Reserve Bank of Australia cut interest rates to a two-year low last month as cooling inflation at home offered scope to counter rising global trade risks, and left the door open to further easing in the months ahead. At the same time, the labour market has remained surprisingly resilient, with the jobless rate hovering at 4.1% for over a year now. Employment gains have been driven by a surge in public sector jobs, with still tepid wage growth suggesting few risks of a damaging wage-price spiral. ($1 = 1.5401 Australian dollars)
Politico
35 minutes ago
- Politico
How Political Violence Finally Ends
How does political violence come to an end? It's been a lingering question the last few years in the wake of shocking episodes like the Jan. 6 Capitol riot or the assassination attempts on Donald Trump. And it's become newly pressing following the antisemitic fallout of the Israel-Hamas war on American soil. In the last two weeks, we've seen two Israeli embassy workers fatally shot in Washington, D.C. and eight members of the Jewish community burned in an attack in Boulder, Colorado. There has also been violence against Muslims and people of Palestinian descent since the war began. William J. Bernstein, a neurologist and the author of The Delusions of Crowds, a book about the consequences of mass hysteria in history, expects the waves of political violence to eventually stop — but perhaps not until we reach a terrible episode that serves as a tipping point. 'Eventually, they burn themselves out because it's so awful,' he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. It's a cycle that's been repeated throughout history, Bernstein says: After that extreme moment of violence, the attacks fizzle out — from exhaustion, or even just the lack of novelty. Getting to that end point, however, will be a painful one, and our political system isn't built to soften the blow. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Some people believe we are seeing an increase in political violence in our country, most recently as a surge in antisemitic attacks in response to Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza. What is causing this? I think it's a combination of the Manichean mindset and group dynamics and confirmation bias. The Manichean mindset — this in-group, out-group kind of behavior — you can see historically, and you can also demonstrate experimentally in psychology labs. It's extremely widespread, and it's extremely pervasive. The other thing, which we're just starting to get a handle on, is how genetically determined it is. So if you look, for example, at twin studies, and you look at the psychological characteristics of twins, they're highly concordant. And one of the things that's been looked at is the tendency toward binary thinking; that is Manichean thinking. The sort of online communities and social media communities that form around these issues, I think, attract those kinds of people. But that's not a new phenomenon. We probably would have seen the same thing in anarchist groups 100 years ago. Online communities are more accessible though, right? Yeah, I think that the kindling is a lot drier than it used to be. What drives political violence? Is it beliefs, grievances, or something else? It's like any complex sociological, sociopolitical phenomenon. It's multifactorial. There's the genetic component toward binary thinking. There's the thing that we've already talked about, which is the increased herding of people that's been brought by social media. But there are genuine grievances. There's always a genuine grievance involved. And it's easy enough to see what those grievances are. I mean, what's a good life? A good life is being able to afford a house and being able to afford medical care and education for your children and being able to afford retirement and not being crept with debt up to your ears while doing all those things. Most people feel at least two or three of those things, if not all four of those things. I think one thing that the political right in this country understands to a devastating effect is that identity trumps self-interest. How many times a day does someone remark to you, 'I just don't understand the political right. They're going to lose their Social Security, they're going to lose their Medicaid. Their kids aren't going to be getting preschool paid for. They can't afford medical care. Why are they voting for Republicans?' And the answer is because Donald Trump knows how to push the identity — the us versus them — button. A few years ago, there was a lot of concern about violence coming from the political right, but the attacks of the past few weeks seem to be coming more from the political left. Is some kind of shift taking place? I don't think so. I think there is some epidemiological and even functional [brain] imaging evidence that the right is a little more prone toward conspiracy thinking and Manichean thinking. But there are plenty of Manichean people on the left, too. I mean, a lot of Manichean behavior, most of it was located on the left 60 years ago. I would even say it's just noise in an oscillating system. You've written about the consequences of mass mania in your book The Delusions of Crowds. How does mass mania contribute to the political violence we're seeing in the U.S. right now? If you put a bunch of people in a room, and let's say you're talking about abortion. Let's say there's a median position on abortion, it's exactly right in the middle. So there's a zero, which is people who are absolute anti-abortion opponents. And then you have a 10, which is people who are rabidly pro-abortion. Well, if you put a bunch of people together who are a six, what you see happening is that they slide off to that side because they want to seek the approval of the group, and they find that by making more and more extreme statements, they can garner more approval. So when you put people together like that, their opinions tend toward the extremes, either one or the other. And eventually, you get to the point where you're advocating violence. I think it's just a natural progression of that sociological phenomenon. The classic type where you saw this happen was with people who were concerned about the Covid-19 vaccine. And it started out with the moms' groups: 'Should I get my kids vaccinated? I have some concerns. I want to talk about this and be better informed.' You put a bunch of people like that together, and pretty soon, that morphs into political violence. Is there anything that U.S. politicians — on the left or right — could do to tamp down on anti-Israel or antisemitic political violence in the United States? I'm pretty cynical. The answer I would give you is nothing that will improve their vote count. The name of the game these days is to energize your base, particularly with our primary-based system. Do you think our existing system rewards political violence? I think so, yeah. I'm old enough to remember when there wasn't a lot of ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans. If you did a Venn diagram of their policy positions, there was a lot of overlap. Now there's almost no overlap. With the primary-based system, what's going to happen is that it favors extremism on both sides. Now what's the solution to that? It would be nice if we had an open primary system. It would be nice if we had more objectively and rationally drawn congressional districts. Those two things would help, but to depend upon the goodwill of ordinary politicians in the public interest of our political class these days, and particularly, the way that elections are funded, I think that's a very, very big ask. A year ago, you told an Atlantic reporter that you don't think political violence 'ends without some sort of cathartic cataclysm.' Can you expand on what that means? What does a 'cathartic cataclysm' look like? Well, I think a cathartic cataclysm is when you see law enforcement officers in masks, snatching people into vans and shipping them abroad, or at least to Louisiana, because they have a political opinion. I mean, that's state violence. And let's call a spade a spade: The assassination attempt on Donald Trump during the election campaign was probably politically motivated as well. But what's a cathartic turning point look like? Well, a cathartic turning point looks like an awful piece of mass violence. It would have to be an episode of mass violence that is directly attributable to an easily identifiable political player. I thought Jan. 6 was that, but I guess Jan. 6 wasn't cataclysmic enough. What comes after the 'cathartic cataclysm?' Can there be a moment of reckoning that means less political violence for a while? Well, people just get sick of the violence. It's what happened in all major civil wars. Eventually, they burn themselves out because it's so awful. It's what happened in Northern Ireland. It hasn't happened in the Middle East yet, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but eventually it does happen. I can remember back in the '60s, early '70s, it felt like the political violence was never going to end. I mean, if you were an Italian in the '60s or the '70s, major political and judicial figures, including prime ministers, were getting bumped off on a regular basis. And it seemed like it was never going to end, but it did. It seemed like the anarchist violence of the early 20th century — it lasted for a couple of decades, killed the U.S. president — it seemed that was never going to end either, but it does. These things burn themselves out. I guess the best way of putting it is that human beings seek novelty, and after a while, political violence gets to be old hat and uncool. What's an example of cathartic violence from history? Well, I think that the political violence of the late 1960s was cathartic. You had the assassination of the U.S. president, of Martin Luther King, of Bobby Kennedy. And then it stopped. People shied away from political violence. Exactly why it stopped, I don't know, but it did. It wasn't just assassinations, it was also street violence. And then things calmed down. If I had to come up with a reason why, it's that people get bored. Initially, politically posturing and making violent threats gets you admiration and psychological support from other people, but eventually it gets old, and people stop doing it. Do you see the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol or last year's attempted assassination of Donald Trump as having contributed to the political violence we're seeing today? Is all of this building up in our society? Yeah. And unfortunately, a big part of that is institutional. I mean, what does it say when you commit violent crimes en masse and then the president of the United States pardons you? It basically tells people, 'Yeah, you've got a free pass the next time.' In that previous interview, you suggested that the Jan. 6 riot wasn't a turning point for political violence in our nation, because it didn't end up worse — there wasn't a 'cathartic cataclysm' with the killing of a politician, for instance. Is there any way to subdue violence without having to embrace that kind of extreme ending? How do we lower the temperature in America? If you're lucky, it burns itself out without a cataclysmic event. And I stand by what I said, which is that, had they actually killed Mike Pence, I think that would have ended it right there.
