Was the truth about Joe Biden's health hidden from American voters?
Former US president Joe Biden's
announcement
on Sunday that he has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer paused the avalanche of damning stories about his mental acuity and cognitive fitness for office during his presidency.
The leaks and pre-publicity around a new book Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again by Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper have been going on for weeks.
The authors contend that Biden's decline was obvious during his tenure as president and accelerated while he was campaigning for a second term. They say the facts of the 82-year-old's health were kept secret from the wider Democratic party and the American public by a small inner circle, led by his wife, Jill.
Then last weekend audio surfaced of his
interview
with former special counsel Robert Hur in 2023 in which Biden sounded confused, rambling and with a notably weak voice.
READ MORE
There were public messages of support and sympathy for Biden and his family from his supporters and political rivals - even president Donald Trump - when he announced the news.
But as the week has gone on, commentary has turned to speculation around the timeline of his diagnosis, reviving questions about what health issues he was dealing with while in the White House.
Irish Times Washington correspondent Keith Duggan looks back a monumental week for Biden and the Democrative party.
Presented by Bernice Harrison. Produced by Declan Conlon and John Casey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Several injured after ‘terror attack' on promenade in Colorado, US police say
Several people were injured and some may have been set on fire at an outdoor promenade in Boulder, Colorado, police said. Police said a man was taken into custody in the attack that the FBI immediately described as a 'targeted terror attack'. Boulder police chief Steve Redfearn told reporters on Sunday evening that it was too early to discuss a motive but that witnesses were being interviewed. 'It would be irresponsible for me to speculate on motive this early on,' he said. READ MORE The attack took place at a promenade where demonstrators had gathered to call for the release of hostages who remain in Gaza. FBI director Kash Patel posted on social media: 'Our agents and local law enforcement are on the scene already, and we will share updates as more information becomes available.' Boulder police said there were 'several victims' in the attack. The injuries authorities found were consistent with reports of individuals being set on fire, Mr Redfearn said. Several streets of the typically popular pedestrian promenade were evacuated, police said. Colorado Governor Jared Polis said in a statement that he was 'closely monitoring' the situation, adding that 'hate-filled acts of any kind are unacceptable'. The Boulder attack occurred as law enforcement authorities in the US grapple with a sharp spike in anti-Semitic violence and just over a week after a man was arrested on charges in the fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy staffers and shouted 'Free Palestine' as he was being led away by police.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on Trump's latest tariff move: this is how trade wars start
The latest decision by Donald Trump t o double the level of tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from 25 per cent to 50 per cent may have a limited direct impact on Ireland. But the move is of wider importance than just its narrow impact on the sectors involved. And this needs to be understood in Dublin. The first point to note is the obvious one. Despite the ruling of the federal trade court last week that Trump had gone beyond his authority in imposing tariffs without getting the go-ahead from Congress, the US president is determined to push ahead. In choosing the steel and aluminium tariffs, he is focusing on an area which was not part of the federal court ruling - tariffs imposed in a specific sector for national security reasons. For Ireland , the concern here is that pharma and computer chips also fall into this category. In pharma, in particular, the president may soon be in receipt of a report he commissioned which could give him leeway to impose sectoral tariffs. Ireland needs to remain alert to this risk. The second point to note is that Trump's tariff policy continue to be driven in large part by headlines rather than substance. The steel and aluminium tariffs allowed him to trumpet his protection of a key US sector. But in reality there is little space capacity in the sector to take up the slack from a lower level of imports. And prices will rise for the many businesses importing these products. READ MORE The same calculus may apply in the pharma sector – and here it would take American companies a long time to return production to the US market. Tariffs would mean supply disruption and higher prices. But that does not mean they will not happen. The final, and perhaps most concerning, point is what Trump's latest move means for the negotiations between the EU and the US. Brussels has held off from responding to the tariffs imposed by Trump so far – including the first round of steel and aluminium tariffs, hoping to clear the way for a negotiated deal. It would be in Ireland's interests were such an agreement to emerge, avoiding a full-scale transatlantic trade war. Now, however, with the steel and aluminium tariffs hiked to 50 per cent, pressure will grow on Brussels to respond. The EU wants to do a deal , for sure, and there is an argument for it to drag things out a bit longer to see how this latest move plays out. But the EU cannot be seen to be pushed around by Washington. In turn, if it retaliates, this could sour the mood of the talks and lead to further retaliation from Trump. This is how trade wars start. The concern is that the US side still expects unilateral concessions from the EU, while Brussels is preparing for a give-and-take negotiation. Despite Trump's legal power on blanket tariffs being trimmed, significant risks still lie ahead.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on financial regulation: time to spread the net
EU regulators are set to conduct comprehensive stress tests of the non-bank sector, which could begin as early as next year. The non-bank sector includes hedge funds, private equity firms, and other investment vehicles that have grown significantly in size over recent years. The move has prompted fears among these investment funds that new layers of regulation are on the way. But increased scrutiny is the right course of action for two key reasons. The creation of EU banking union in 2014 introduced a much more robust regulatory regime for systemically important banks across the 27-member union, including much stricter rules on lending and capital ratios. This has had the effect of pushing a lot of borrowing and related activities to non-bank entities, which has increased the level of risk in the sector. The stress tests aim to gauge the threat it poses to the wider economy. There is a second and potentially more important reason. Over the first 100 days of Donald Trump's second presidency, he has slashed many of the US financial regulations introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Of particular concern, he has hollowed out many of the federal agencies responsible for regulating the financial system and, in some cases, brought them under the direct control of the White House. Moreover, he is actively using his presidency to promote highly volatile crypto currencies. This all creates risks in the financial markets, as does the fact that Trump's budget bill, now in Congress would, if enacted, add up to $3 trillion to the US national debt over the next decade. It is little wonder that the bond markets are nervous. READ MORE Trump often accuses the EU of over-regulation – and the report by former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi has argued that in some areas of the economy, particularly technology, rules do need to be streamlined. But the events of 2008 show that the bias in financial regulation needs to be towards caution. The costs of failure are just too great. The proposed stress tests of the non-bank sector are thus to be welcomed.
