Pelosi privately said Biden had lost a step, book says, but publicly bashed WSJ story on his cognitive decline
A new book claims that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., privately said former President Biden had lost a step ahead of his decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential campaign, before she publicly bashed a Wall Street Journal story on his cognitive decline.
Author Chris Whipple's new book, "Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History," recounts behind-the-scenes conflicts between Democrats and the Biden team over whether the president needed to step out of the race after his disastrous debate with then-candidate Donald Trump on June 27, as well as revelations about his allies' candid thoughts about him before the debate.
According to Whipple's book, Pelosi went to the White House in May 2024 for an awards ceremony and was "startled by how much the president had aged."
"He was not the same Joe Biden," Pelosi told a friend, according to the book.
Ex-biden Aide Says Former President Was 'Fatigued, Befuddled, And Disengaged' Prior To June Debate: Book
Pelosi was at the White House to accept the Presidential Medal of Freedom, but the day was "awkward, even painful" for her as she worried Democrats would suffer on Election Day, the book says.
Read On The Fox News App
"She couldn't shake the realization that Joe Biden was a shadow of himself," Whipple wrote.
The next month, the Wall Street Journal published a bombshell report titled "Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping," which outlined several instances where the president made gaffes and displayed low energy in various meetings with lawmakers and officials, citing dozens of interviews with Republicans and Democrats who either participated in meetings with Biden or were briefed on them at the time.
While the Journal's report featured multiple claims that mirrored what the book claims Pelosi felt at the time, she took to social media to trash the "hit piece."
"Many of us spent time with @WSJ to share on the record our first-hand experiences with @POTUS, where we see his wisdom, experience, strength and strategic thinking. Instead, the Journal ignored testimony by Democrats, focused on attacks by Republicans and printed a hit piece," Pelosi posted on X at the time.
Pelosi's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Nancy Pelosi Urged Biden Not To Debate Trump In A Play To His Ego, Book Says
Pelosi wasn't the only high-profile person to dismiss the Journal report that was largely pooh-poohed by the mainstream press.
MSNBC's "Morning Joe" declared the report was a "Trump hit piece on Biden," and left-wing media watchdog group Media Matters called the report "comically weak."
Then-CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy was furious, writing in his newsletter that the "story questioned Biden's mental acuity, playing into a GOP-propelled narrative that the 81-year-old president lacks the fitness to hold the nation's highest office."
"The Wall Street Journal owes its readers — and the public — better," Darcy fumed, repeating the White House narrative that such concerns about Biden's fitness were simply laundered GOP talking points.
Weeks after Pelosi, other Democrats and liberal pundits mocked the Journal's report, Biden's cognitive struggles were on full display during the infamous CNN debate. Biden was widely criticized for appearing "weak," sounding incoherent and struggling to respond to Trump.
His performance set off a widespread panic and calls for him to step aside from the race. He officially dropped out of the race on July 21, less than two months after the Journal report was published.
Biden Lashes Out At Reporters Asking About Age Concerns After Special Counsel Report: 'That Is Your Judgment!'
Wall Street Journal reporter Annie Linskey, who co-authored the report with Siobhan Hughes, appeared on "America's Newsroom" on the heels of the debate to defend her work.
"What we've seen in the last few days, is the reporting that we did was vindicated," Linskey told Fox News host Dana Perino.
"The story was a very difficult story to write," she continued. "We spent months working on it… we had a very high bar."
Linskey encouraged viewers to read the story "carefully," and Perino said the report was "the best kept secret in Washington."
"Pelosi believed Biden's advisers were misleading him, showing him rosy poll numbers. She'd never been impressed by them; in her mind, they were an old boys' club who talked only to themselves," Whipple wrote.
The book also details how the president felt "betrayed" by Pelosi after she helped push him out of the race.
George Stephanopoulos Described Biden As 'Heartbreaking Up Close' During Crucial Post-debate Interview: Book
Whipple said in an interview with Politico about his book that many of Biden's closest aides were in a "fog of delusion" about the former president, and calling it a "cover-up" did not go far enough.
"I have fresh reporting on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis of Biden's final days, and obviously his decline is a major part of the story," Whipple told Politico on Sunday. "I happen to think that to call it a 'cover-up' is simplistic. I think it was stranger and way more troubling than that. Biden's inner circle, his closest advisers, many of them were in a fog of delusion and denial. They believed what they wanted to believe."
The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Fox News Digital's Joseph A. Wulfsohn and Lindsay Kornick contributed to this report. Original article source: Pelosi privately said Biden had lost a step, book says, but publicly bashed WSJ story on his cognitive decline
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
11 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Democratic governors will defend immigration policies before Republican-led House panel
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump spars with California's governor over immigration enforcement, Republicans in Congress are calling other Democratic governors to the Capitol on Thursday to question them over policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform posted a video ahead of the hearing highlighting crimes allegedly committed by immigrants in the U.S. illegally and pledging that 'sanctuary state governors will answer to the American people.' The hearing is to include testimony from Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York. There's no legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, but the term generally refers to governments with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Courts previously have upheld the legality of such laws. But Trump's administration has sued Colorado, Illinois, New York and several cities — including Chicago and Rochester, New York — asserting their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Illinois, Minnesota and New York also were among 14 states and hundreds of cities and counties recently listed by the Department of Homeland Security as 'sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law.' The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. As Trump steps up immigration enforcement, some Democratic-led states have intensified their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting cooperation with immigration agents. Following clashes between crowds of protesters and immigration agents in Los Angeles, Trump deployed the National Guard to protect federal buildings and agents, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of declaring 'a war' on the underpinnings of American democracy. The House Oversight Committee has long been a partisan battleground, and in recent months it has turned its focus to immigration policy. Thursday's hearing follows a similar one in March in which the Republican-led committee questioned the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Boston, Denver and New York about sanctuary policies. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades. In 2017, then-Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed legislation creating statewide protections for immigrants. The Illinois Trust Act prohibits police from searching, arresting or detaining people solely because of their immigration status. But it allows local authorities to hold people for federal immigration authorities if there's a valid criminal warrant. Pritzker, who succeeded Rauner in 2019, said in remarks prepared for the House committee that violent criminals 'have no place on our streets, and if they are undocumented, I want them out of Illinois and out of our country.' 'But we will not divert our limited resources and officers to do the job of the federal government when it is not in the best interest of our state, our local communities, or the safety of our residents,' he said. Pritzker has been among Trump's most outspoken opponents and is considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate. He said Illinois has provided shelter and services to more than 50,000 immigrants who were sent there from other states. A Department of Justice lawsuit against New York challenges a 2019 law that allows immigrants illegally in the U.S. to receive New York driver's licenses and shields driver's license data from federal immigration authorities. That built upon a 2017 executive order by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo that prohibited New York officials from inquiring about or disclosing a person's immigration status to federal authorities, unless required by law. Hochul's office said law enforcement officers still can cooperate with federal immigration authorities when people are convicted of or under investigation for crimes. Since Hochul took office in 2021, her office said, the state has transferred more than 1,300 incarcerated noncitizens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the completion of their state sentences. Minnesota doesn't have a statewide sanctuary law protecting immigrants in the U.S. illegally, though Minneapolis and St. Paul both restrict the extent to which police and city employees can cooperate with immigration enforcement. Some laws signed by Walz have secured benefits for people regardless of immigration status. But at least one of those is getting rolled back. The Minnesota Legislature, meeting in a special session, passed legislation Monday to repeal a 2023 law that allowed adults in the U.S. illegally to be covered under a state-run health care program for the working poor. Walz insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, ___ Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. Also contributing were Associated Press writers Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, N.Y.; Steve Karnowski in St. Paul, Minn.; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The $11 trillion gap between White House and economists on Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill
An array of economists — from the Congressional Budget Office to the Tax Foundation to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model — have reached a similar conclusion: Trump's signature legislation comes with a price tag in the neighborhood of $3 trillion over the next decade. They're all wrong, the White House says. And not just by a little. President Trump and his aides have instead offered claims that the bill will make money and that the final tally for both the tax-cutting legislation and other parts of the Trump agenda will usher in a new golden age not just for the US economy but also for government debt. The claims from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue go as high as $8 trillion in black ink (an $11 trillion chasm with the experts) in claims that go beyond what even Capitol Hill Republicans are projecting. As for reconciling the two, some economists essentially throw up their hands. "You can't square it because it's ridiculous," Erica York of the Tax Foundation said. "The bill unambiguously will increase deficits, it will not contribute that much to economic growth," she added, noting that the bill is largely focused on extending current tax rates that would not be expected to push the economy significantly upward from current levels. Yet the White House has remained steadfast even as this gap has led to increased tensions as the bill goes through another round of adjustments on Capitol Hill. A Wednesday appearance before Congress by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was marked by lawmakers — mostly Democratic, but some Republicans as well — raising the debt issue. In one colorful moment, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson of California asked Bessent to point to an independent expert "not on the payroll of this administration" who says this bill will not add to our debt. Bessent then cited Arthur Laffer, the former Reagan official and longtime Trump supporter who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the president's first term. The comment led to laughter in the chamber, with Thompson shooting back, "I don't think that one counts." It was a hearing where Bessent declined to repeat some of the administration's most aggressive claims, saying instead that "it remains to be seen" whether the bill will add to the national debt. Others have not been so restrained about the impact of Trump's overall agenda. "We're going to cut the deficit by $8 trillion over the next 10 years," press secretary Karoline Leavitt offered recently on Fox News. And a recent White House memo offered a slightly lower figure of about $6.7 trillion to $6.9 trillion in deficit reductions over the coming decade. One issue is that White House projections rely on a set of assumptions that are often internally contradictory, such as taking credit for taxes spurring economic growth while simultaneously saying they have no cost. Other parts of the bill would enact temporary tax cuts — and then take credit for lower costs there — while also claiming other permanent cuts are free. That's in addition to an overriding assumption at the White House that, essentially, things break historically right for the US economy and sustained 3% economic growth is in the offing. That's above even what House Republicans are projecting, as lawmakers there have rallied behind a lower (but still very aggressive) assumption of 2.6% growth. Both projections are unlikely, Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said. "Some people are at 2%, some people are at 1.6% ... that is the neighborhood," he said of a series of projections for growth that hover around 1.8%. He added in an interview that even if sustained 3% growth were to happen, "it would have very little to do with this tax bill." Yet the White House has repeatedly dismissed the experts. Trump budget chief Russ Vought recently told reporters that everything "is part of a coherent fiscal agenda" and that the combination of tax cuts, tariffs, additional promised spending cuts, and "reforms we can do ourselves" to programs like Medicaid will lead to good outcomes for the US bottom line. White House projections also fully embrace recent CBO projections of $2.8 trillion in tariff revenues over the coming decade. But that embrace appears to ignore a prediction in the same report that tariffs will "reduce the size of the U.S. economy" and also lead to a potential inflation increase of 0.4 percentage points in 2025 and 2026. York has calculated that even two seemingly minor adjustments — taking the slightly lower but still very aggressive House estimate of 2.6% economic growth and factoring in the economic costs of tariffs — means the bill "is basically a wash or even negative for GDP." "They're picking and choosing," she added. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet And few are expecting tariffs to stay steady in the coming months, not to mention the coming years. Tariff levels are under active negotiation — two fronts this week are duties on goods from China and India — as the CBO report assumed rates remain steady not just during Trump's term, but also years after he is scheduled to leave office. The tariffs are also under a considerable cloud of legal uncertainty, with an appeals court ruling on Tuesday that Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs could stay in force for now while it considers whether they are legal. "Even if they are upheld by the courts, it still seems like the Trump administration is willing to negotiate them down somewhat," York noted, "and then what happens in four years when a new administration comes in?" Ben Werschkul is Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. David Foster is a graphic artist for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices 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
Washington Post
22 minutes ago
- Washington Post
House will vote on Trump's request to cut funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid
WASHINGTON — House Republicans are moving to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Donald Trump's administration looks to follow through on work by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk . The package to be voted on Thursday targets foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So, if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes. The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along. Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump's sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits , are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump's 'America first' ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias. In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Advocacy groups that serve the world's poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no. 'We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,' said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said. 'And at a time when China and Russia and Iran are working overtime to challenge American influence.' Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed. 'Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn't even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,' Roy said. 'Well, let's just reject this now.'
