Trump Spews Out Bizarre Conspiracy Theory That Biden Was ‘Executed' In 2020 And Replaced By Clones
President Donald Trump spewed out a bizarre conspiracy theory, claiming on social media that former President Joe Biden died in 2020 and was replaced with clones.
On late Saturday night on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump shared a post from a pro-Trump account that alleged Biden was killed in 2020 and the country had been run by 'robotic engineered soulless mindless entities' during Biden's entire term.
'There is no #JoeBiden - executed in 2020. #Biden clones doubles & robotic engineered soulless mindless entities are what you see. Democrats dont know the difference,' the post that Trump shared read.
HuffPost has reached out to the White House for comment.
Trump's wife was previously at the center of similar conspiracy theories. Back in 2019, Trump denied the rumors and conspiracy theories that flooded the internet, which claimed his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, had been replaced by a body double during his first term in the White House.
'The Fake News photoshopped pictures of Melania, then propelled conspiracy theories that it's actually not her by my side in Alabama and other places,' Trump tweeted at the time. 'They are only getting more deranged with time!'
Last month, Trump entertained another conspiracy theory that Biden hid his cancer diagnosis while he was in office. The White House announced on May 18 that Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.
'There are things going on that the public wasn't informed [about],' Trump alleged of Biden's diagnosis while speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on May 19.
Trump then appeared to suggest that the situation should be investigated.
'Why wasn't the cognitive ability, why wasn't that discussed? And I think the doctor said he's just fine,' he continued. 'And, it's turned out that's not so. It's very dangerous. Look, this is no longer politically correct. This is dangerous for our country.'
Biden On His Cancer Diagnosis: 'We're Going To Be Able To Beat This'
Trump Says 'If You Feel Sorry' For Biden, 'Don't Feel So Sorry'
The Extremely Dumb Excuse That Republicans Are Using To Justify Trump's Corruption
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Some Dems Warn Colleagues: Crypto Bill Could Inject Some 19th Century Chaos Into US Economy
The Senate is poised to pass the GENIUS Act in the coming weeks. The bill will bestow upon the crypto industry a long-sought blessing: a key form of the digital currency, stablecoins, will now be subject to a bespoke (and notably light-touch) regulatory system created by Congress. With it will come the U.S. government's stamp of approval. After years spent being dismissed as a haven for money launderers and speculators, the bill is in part a marker that the crypto industry has arrived in Washington. And yet, there are a few problems. The bill could open multiple pathways toward contagion that could spread throughout the financial system, Hill staffers and experts familiar with the legislation warn TPM. Some argue that it would create a financial system that operates with many of the same risks the U.S. left behind in the 20th century, including banks and private companies issuing their own, alternate currencies; others regard the bill as priming the country for a series of runs on digital currencies. Among legislators, the fighting over the proper level alarm about these possible eventualities has been most acute among Senate Democrats. While nearly the entire Republican Senate conference supports the bill, a few Senate Dems have broken off to lead negotiations over the legislation and persuade others in their party to support it. Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) was the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill; others, including Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), have taken the lead in pushing it. Stablecoins, the form of crypto that the GENIUS Act addresses, are cryptocurrencies that are pegged to the value of a state-issued currency, like the dollar. Crypto advocates tout stablecoins as solving a few problems: consumers can use their stability to buy other forms of cryptocurrency; they can also, advocates say, double as a means to quickly transfer payments between people. In that sense, they're kind of like Venmo, only based in the blockchain and, often, possessing perplexing foreign ties. (One of the biggest stablecoins, Tether, is run from El Salvador.) It's that quality that causes anxiety among many experts in banking and financial regulation, including Democratic staffers on the Senate Banking Committee. Stablecoins, under the GENIUS Act, will receive the benefits that the U.S. legal system gives to deposits, but without most of the qualities that make that system secure. 'The GENIUS Act folds stablecoins directly into the traditional financial system, while applying weaker safeguards than banks or investment companies must adhere to,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in a speech last month. Under the bill, there's no deposit insurance to guarantee stablecoin holdings. But more troubling than that, for critics, is the limited regulation of how stablecoin issuers can use the money they receive and how, in the event of a crisis, customers would be made whole. New kinds of businesses will be able to issue stablecoins under the legislation, including banks (typically via subsidiaries) and tech megafirms like Meta, X, Amazon, and others. The risk, experts told TPM, partly stems from how stablecoin issuers would meet a run on their coins. Stablecoins are typically backed up by bank deposits or investments in treasuries; customers pulling their stablecoin deposits at once could resemble an old-school bank run, depleting these assets. 'It would be a financial crisis grease fire,' one Senate staffer told TPM about the possibility. Under this scenario, even people who don't hold crypto investments could be affected. A bank that holds a large amount of stablecoin deposits, when faced with mass withdrawals to shore up one or multiple failing stablecoins, could see its balance sheet falter. The same thing could happen if treasury securities or other backing assets are sold en masse, causing prices to plummet. Mark Hays, who covers cryptocurrency issues for American for Financial Reform, told TPM last month that banks themselves might be exposed in another way. Bank subsidiaries that issue stablecoins could experience a run, meaning that the parent bank would have to bail it out. These are all means by which risks inherent to the form of cryptocurrency might spread. 'The more banks get exposed to that, the more the fallout could be significant,' Hays said. Many critics of the GENIUS Act say that features of the bill will revive the problems that America's financial system experienced in the 19th century. There's an irony here. Some of Trump II's staunchest backers, particularly those on the new tech right, frame their support for the president as part of an effort to return to the 1890s. Trump himself has supposedly become enamored with President William McKinley; some supporters speak about going further than undoing the social changes of the 1960s or the New Deal, and instead call to undo the changes brought by the Progressive Era. That includes the federal reserve, income tax, and many early banking regulations. Of course, in the case of cryptocurrency, this effort to turn back the clock skips right past a key point of the push for legislation. The GENIUS Act, some observers say, could prompt mass adoption of the coins. That, in the event of a crisis, could prompt the Federal Reserve to bail out issuers — a decidedly post-1890s backstop. But one feature of the bill would turn time back: it would allow banks and some businesses to issue their own stablecoins. This hasn't escaped the attention of analysts at JP Morgan; strategists at the bank reportedly noted in a letter to clients that such a system would recall that of 'the 19th century, when various types of banknotes were valued differently.' For big tech firms, stablecoins present an opportunity: users could pay for purchases entirely within an app. Companies with operations around the world could unify transactions under one, in-house coin; they could also charge small transaction fees on each purchase that would open up a new way of making money. Hilary Allen, an American University professor who studies financial regulation, told TPM that the problem, again, would be that these are not actual bank deposits: they are lightly regulated cryptocurrencies. 'People will quite happily leave all their money in an app offered by a big tech platform,' she said. The scale of the risk to the financial system all depends on how many people adopt the use of stablecoins. Relatively few people use cryptocurrencies, though industry boosters argue that passing the GENIUS Act and market structure legislation later this summer will spur more people to do so. Big tech firms issuing their own coins as a means to buy products sold by the firms would also prompt more people to join. But even that, Allen said, could raise troubling questions about how it affects the nature of these businesses. 'Do they become too-big-to-fail financial institutions with all the power and the implicit bailouts that come with that?' 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
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘It is a whole different environment': Republicans revisit key Biden investigations with new momentum
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to interview former Hunter Biden special counsel David Weiss behind closed doors on Friday, two sources familiar with the interview told CNN, as part of a broader Republican effort to revisit previous probes into the Biden family that stalled last Congress but are gaining new momentum now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. The scheduled interview, which could still be moved, would be the second time the Republican-led panel will interview Weiss about his work as Republicans continue to probe whether the investigation was hampered by political interference. Weiss has still never testified publicly about his six-year criminal probe into the president's son, which included three convictions, but was ultimately short-circuited as a result of the former president's unconditional pardon of his son. House Judiciary Republicans have long wanted to call Weiss, the Trump-appointed US attorney, back for questioning after his first closed-door interview in 2023. Committee Republicans were also able to finally secure interviews with two Department of Justice tax division prosecutors involved in the Hunter Biden probe who they had been aggressively pursuing for months, one of the sources familiar told CNN. The Justice Department is working with Weiss to provide access to documents he may need for his interview, a person briefed on the matter said. Any delays in getting access to documents would be a scheduling issue and the ability to have personnel who can oversee it, the person briefed on the matter said. It's not the only Biden investigation Republicans are reexamining that leans into a fresh political appetite with GOP control of Washington. House Oversight Chair James Comer is returning to his probe of the former president's mental fitness in an entirely new landscape after a recent book by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson put Joe Biden's physical and mental decline back in the spotlight. Comer told CNN he is in the process of scheduling key interviews with Biden's White House physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, and other senior aides who had all rebuffed his efforts last Congress. Beyond the five initial interviews from Biden's orbit, the Republican Chairman told CNN he wants to look at the executive orders Biden signed in his last six months in office and use of the autopen. In the weeks immediately after Biden's disastrous 2024 debate performance that unraveled his presidential campaign and upended the Democratic party, Comer requested to interview Biden's doctor and subpoenaed three senior Biden aides to discuss their roles in the Biden White House, which never materialized. Now, Comer said in an interview with CNN, 'it is a whole different environment.' At the time of his 2024 interview requests, Comer's impeachment inquiry into the Biden family's business dealings had fallen apart and the Biden administration felt no incentive to comply with the House Oversight Committee. Probing Biden's decline now, Comer says, will be a lot easier than trying to convince his colleagues of an alleged Biden family foreign influence peddling scheme, which even Comer conceded was difficult to do, particularly in a minute or less on Fox News. Republicans failed to uncover evidence to support their core allegations against the president, and lacked the votes in their divided, narrow majority last Congress to impeach the president. 'The money laundering and the shell companies, the average American couldn't understand that. I mean, that was hard to understand,' Comer told CNN. 'You know, I did not do a good job explaining that.' But with his investigation into Biden's mental and physical decline, Comer said, 'people see a president that clearly is in decline. They saw it in the debate.' Democrats sought to dismantle the Republican-led 11 month impeachment inquiry into Biden last Congress at every turn. Comer told CNN that although those Democrats aren't jumping at the opportunity to cooperate now, he does not see them as being obstructive either. 'I take that as a step in the right direction,' he told CNN. Tapper and Thompson's book documents how Biden, his closest aides and his family forged ahead with the former president's doomed 2024 reelection bid despite signs of his physical and mental decline. In a previous statement to CNN, a Biden spokesman criticized the book, saying that evidence shows that 'he was a very effective president.' Former Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips, who launched a long-shot challenge to Biden and was outspoken about his concerns over the former president's age, told CNN he did not think there needed to be an investigation on Capitol Hill at this point into Biden's fitness as president. 'This case already went to trial, the jury of American voters convicted the party of the accused, and handed out the harshest political punishment possible-losing the single most consequential election in modern history,' Phillips told CNN. Instead, Phillips called on Biden to authorize his physician to disclose his health file and condition under oath. 'Only if the former president refuses, or if questioning uncovers possible criminal activity, should an investigation be initiated,' Phillips added. Biden was recently diagnosed with an 'aggressive form' of prostate cancer. CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Internal Docs Raise Questions About Trump IRS Pick Billy Long's ‘No-Show Jobs' And ‘Strange' Schedule Inside A Powerful Agency
It's not quite clear what is happening with former Missouri Congressman Billy Long and his associates at the federal Office of Personnel Management, where he has been a senior advisor to the director since March. And Long's internal OPM calendar, which was obtained and reviewed by TPM, doesn't exactly shed light on the situation. In fact, multiple former OPM employees who discussed the matter with us said Long's schedule — which shows him averaging less than three items per week over the past three months — only adds to the questions about his workload and whether he is complying with recordkeeping requirements. In a statement to TPM, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who is the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, suggested the calendar data from OPM indicates Long and some of his associates were taking advantage of the agency, which plays a crucial part in the federal bureaucracy. 'If you ask me, it sure looks like Congressman Long got himself and some pals no-show jobs with maxed-out federal salaries,' Wyden said, adding, 'Somebody who abuses taxpayer dollars like that shouldn't come within 100 miles of the IRS.' Long and an OPM spokesperson did not respond to detailed questions from TPM about his schedule and role at the agency. OPM, which essentially serves as the chief human resources office and personnel policy manager for the federal government, is not the most high profile agency, but it is an influential one. During the second Trump administration, it has played a particularly central role, working closely with the Department of Government Efficiency — the initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk — to slash the federal workforce. Even as his current job is raising eyebrows, Long is on his way to taking a more powerful post. On Tuesday, members of the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-13 along party lines to advance Long's nomination to become commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. That sets the stage for a Senate floor vote that could end in Long's confirmation. President Trump announced his intention to have Long lead the tax agency on Dec. 4, 2024. Long, who represented Missouri's Seventh Congressional District from 2011 until 2023, previously pushed to abolish the IRS and earned a reputation as a staunch Trump loyalist. As TPM has previously reported, Long was one of the members of Congress who promoted bogus conspiracy theories in texts with Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, during the president's fight to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. In the announcement about the nomination, which came before Trump took office for his second term, the president boasted of Long's past work as an auctioneer and described him as the 'consummate 'people person.'' Since then, Long has been installed at OPM as his nomination has worked its way through the Senate. In that time, various controversies have erupted around his nomination to lead the IRS. These include questions about Long's tax credentials, which seem to come from a Florida business that offers a three-day seminar, and about his past private-sector work promoting a non-existent tax credit as well as another credit that has been described as 'riddled with fraud.' And, in recent weeks, Long's stint at the OPM has added to those concerns. On May 23, shortly after Long appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, members provided him with additional written questions for the record. Wyden, who cited the internal OPM calendars, took the opportunity to ask Long about the work that he and three associates — Ben Elleson, Karen Meads, and Mark Czuchry — are doing at OPM. According to Wyden, Long's in-person answer about the role that he and his associates play at the agency left much to be desired. 'If Congressman Long and his associates had real jobs doing serious work at OPM they'd have proven it to us when we gave him the opportunity,' Wyden said. 'The best he could do when staff questioned him on this was to read aloud a printout of a random press release and garble a few brief answers about proofreading and retirement issues, and it wasn't believable at all.' In his written questions to Long, Wyden claimed that both Long and Elleson, who was previously deputy chief of staff and legislative director in Long's House office, were both earning $195,200, which is the maximum salary for a federal worker in Washington D.C. Wyden also referenced the calendars as he asked Long, 'How many hours per week do you work?' Long's response did not directly answer that question or several others that were asked by the senator about his specific accomplishments and schedule. Instead, Long offered a terse three sentence reply. 'As a Senior Advisor at OPM, I work with the Acting Administrator in modernizing and digitizing the federal government retirement system,' Long wrote. 'This includes identifying improvements and discussing options to better serve federal employees. I work at OPM in the Washington, D.C. headquarters.' TPM obtained and reviewed internal OPM calendars that were provided by a source involved in Long's confirmation. They show Long had a total of 34 items on his schedule during March, April, and May, a period that included thirteen weeks and 64 working days. The calendars did not detail the appointments on Long's schedule, but none appeared to last a full day. And many of the items on Long's calendar may not have been work at all. Eleven of them were identified as 'tentative,' rather than scheduled commitments, and one of the blocked off periods was explicitly listed as 'free.' Long's associates at the agency had similarly open schedules. The calendars show Elleson, whose title at OPM is reportedly 'senior adviser,' had 65 items scheduled, an average of slightly more than one thing per day for the three-month period. Of these, eight were listed as 'tentative' and three were identified as 'free.' According to Wyden's questions for the record, Meads, who spent a dozen years serving as the scheduler in Long's district office, is earning a salary of $175,000. Her OPM calendar shows just six items for all of March and April. Everything on Meads' schedule during that two month period was identified as either 'tentative' or 'free.' Meads' calendar for the month of May was completely empty. In his written responses to Wyden, Long defended the work of both of his associates while providing few details. 'Mr. Elleson is a trusted and respected employee with years of experience. He was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures,' Long wrote, later adding, 'Ms. Meads is a seasoned employee with extensive government experience. She was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures.' Elleson and Meads did not respond to requests for comment from TPM. A former senior OPM staffer who left the agency prior to Trump's second term and requested anonymity to avoid retaliation said the lack of activity on these calendars is unusual. 'I can't imagine a day that I had less than six or seven meetings when I was at OPM — or more — that were back to back. That's especially true for senior directors,' the former senior staffer said. The ex-staffer went on to point out that DOGE, the so-called government efficiency agency, has extensively focused on OPM and placed personnel inside the agency. One of the items highlighted by DOGE as part of efforts to eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is a decommissioned mine in Pennsylvania that OPM has used to warehouse retirement records. Because many of the retirement functions that Long has suggested he is focused on are based there rather than in D.C., the former staffer suggested his work should include an abundance of online meetings that would crop up on the calendar. 'As DOGE mocked or made clear, retirement services is based in a mine in Pennsylvania, so your work cannot be done in person,' the former staffer said. Obviously, it is possible that Long and his associates are simply not inputting all of their activity on the internal calendar system. However, the former senior staffer suggested this would raise other issues since federal recordkeeping requirements call for detailed tracking. Long's third associate at OPM, Mark Czuchry, brings up a whole host of other issues unrelated to workload and bookkeeping. Czuchry is a Minnesota lawyer and partner at the financial firm Lifetime Advisors, which employed Long after he left Congress in 2023. Czuchry, a member of his family, and other employees at Lifetime Advisors were among a group of donors who provided Long with an influx of campaign donations after Trump announced his nomination. Long used that cash to reimburse himself for a personal loan he had made to the failed Senate bid that led him to abandon his House seat. And, last month, the news outlet The Lever surfaced a recording where the CEO of a financial services company touted his relationship with Long and asserted that, if he was confirmed, Long planned to bring Czuchry on board at the IRS. In his written questions to Long, Wyden said Czuchry is also earning a $195,200 salary at OPM. Wyden also noted the fact 'Czuchry was one of many individuals who recently contributed to your Senate campaign fund.' Wyden went on to ask about Czuchry's role at OPM and whether Long wanted to have the attorney 'join' him at the IRS. 'Mr. Czuchry is not employed at OPM and does not plan on being employed by the IRS,' Long wrote in his response, which was submitted on Friday. However, OPM records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight last month described Czuchry as a 'senior advisor' at OPM. While Czuchry seems to have worked at the agency in the past, an OPM spokesperson told Bloomberg for a May 15 story that he had left. Czuchry also had an internal OPM calendar. Like the others belonging to Long and his associates, it was conspicuously empty. There were 27 items on Cuzchry's calendar in March and April of this year. Of those, ten were listed as 'tentative' and one was identified as 'free.' In May, Czuchry's calendar displayed six items, all of which were listed as either 'tentative' or 'free.' A second former OPM employee who left the agency earlier this year and declined to be named for fear of retaliation described Long and his associates' calendars as 'pristine' and said the absence of appointments on them was 'incredibly unusual and disturbing.' The employee had firsthand knowledge of the calendars and said they had raised concerns among others at the agency. 'To be a senior adviser and not be having meetings with various teams — particularly for these sweeping policy initiatives — is strange. They're trying to reimagine the federal workforce,' the employee said. 'They would be meeting with multiple teams. You would be seeing advising or fact finding scheduled throughout the day.' The employee also stressed that, due to its role providing oversight to other agencies, OPM is especially concerned with maintaining standards and procedures. Because of this, the person said, it was particularly problematic to 'have a pocket of four people who aren't contributing to personnel policy in any way but are taking salary.' They also echoed the concerns about recordkeeping and suggested the situation with Long and his associates is even more troubling given the Trump administration's supposed commitment to government efficiency. 'What are these people adding? Why are the American taxpayers paying for him and these three people? What are the taxpayers getting for this time that they have purchased? It doesn't look like anything and that's incredibly disturbing,' the former employee said, adding, 'Talk about 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' What is going on at the government personnel agency? … We always talk about the tone being set, so if this is happening at the personnel agency, what else is happening?'
