Hunter Biden suggests Ambien might be to blame for father's disastrous debate
"I'll tell you what, I know exactly what happened in that debate. He flew around the world, basically, and the mileage that he could have flown around the world three times. He's 81 years old. He's tired as s***. They give him Ambien to be able to sleep. He gets up on stage and he looks like he's a deer in the headlights. And it feeds into f****** story that anybody wants to tell," Hunter Biden said on the YouTube show "Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan."
Hunter Biden later told ABC News' Jonathan Karl he was not saying that his father was taking Ambien immediately before the debate -- he was making a point about his travel schedule in the weeks before the debate.
"I have no idea whether or not he used Ambien while traveling through multiple times zones in the weeks leading up to the debate. My point was that his debate performance was completely out of character then and now, he said."
The former president's team declined to comment to ABC News.
Hunter Biden continued to forcefully push back on any assertion that there was some sort of cover-up of his father's condition, and said that progressives rushed to his father's side to laud his agenda in the fallout of that debate. He claimed that, at first, Nancy Pelosi was the lone voice doubting Joe Biden's place on the Democratic ticket.
"If this was a conspiracy … somehow the entirety of a White House in which you literally living on top of each other has kept their mouth shut, about, you know…and what's the conspiracy? That Joe Biden got old? Yeah, he got old. He got old before our eyes," Hunter Biden said.
He continued: "The people that came out against him were who? Nobody, except Speaker Pelosi, emeritus. Speaker Emeritus Pelosi did not give a full-throated endorsement, which allowed everyone else to go 'Ok.' Except who came out full-throated? Progressives, AOC, Bernie, the entire progressive wing. Ro Khanna. The entire progressive side of the Democratic Party said Joe Biden has got more of our agenda accomplished in four years than any president in history."
Pelosi's office declined to comment to ABC News.
MORE: Biden falters in high-stakes debate, Trump spews falsehoods
Along with discussing his father's debate performance, Hunter Biden also denied that the bag of cocaine found in the White House complex back in 2023 belonged to him.
A suspect was never identified by the Secret Service.
"There's this conflation people have. I mean, I think they're opening up an investigation to cocaine that was found in a cubby outside the West Wing of the White House," Hunter Biden said.
Hunter Biden said that since the incident occurred while his father was president, he was immediately targeted.
"They're literally going to do an FBI -- another congressional investigation because they're convinced themselves that it had to be me. That there was a little tiny … I guess my point of view on bringing it up is that, no, I have been clean and sober since June of 2019, and I have not touched a drop of alcohol or drug and I'm incredibly proud of that," Hunter Biden said.
He denied that the drugs were his.
MORE: Photos show cocaine found inside White House complex in July
"Why would I bring cocaine to the White House, stick it into a cubby outside the situation room in the West Wing? When I wasn't there anyway. I mean, who the f*** knows?" Hunter Biden said.
Hunter Biden then said he found it ironic that he was questioned about his drug and alcohol addiction by former Rep. Matt Gaetz during closed-door dispositions on Capitol Hill, as Gaetz was also embroiled in drug and sex scandals.
"I demanded that they do it in public, and they refused .... Matt Gaetz, of all people, was giving me s*** about my drug use. I said, 'Really? All the people at this table, you're going to talk to me about my addiction and my alcoholism?'" Hunter Biden said.
In a statement to ABC News, Gaetz responded, "It is a real shame that the Republican Congress never issued a subpoena to Hunter Biden for live testimony in public. It's also still troubling to me that Republicans in congress allowed Hunter to testify absent the video recording we usually make of witnesses. These would have been great moments for the country to see. The transcripts don't do them justice. Hunter tried to use references to his drug use to avoid accountability for his international shake down business. I hope he's enjoying his pardon."
Hunter Biden spoke with Callaghan for over three hours in a wide-ranging conversation.
-ABC News' Will Steakin contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump looms large over a Fed likely to again defy his call for cuts
President Trump will loom large over the Federal Reserve's policy meeting this week, even if the central bank does what the market expects and keeps interest rates on hold. Trump and other top White House officials have been hammering Fed Chair Jerome Powell for months over his wait-and-see rate stance and his insistence that more time is needed to assess how the president's tariffs will affect the path of inflation. The president took that message directly to the Fed last Thursday as he toured a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters and confronted Powell in person while the two argued in front of reporters over the true costs of the project. "I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates have to come down," the president told reporters. Traders widely expect the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee to defy Trump and once again keep rates unchanged this Wednesday, as they have for every other meeting so far in 2025. The market expects the first cut of 2025 to happen on Sept. 17, the third-to-last meeting of the year. But at least two of Powell's colleagues are warming to Trump's near-term rate cut call, which could produce some disagreement this week behind closed doors in Washington. One Fed governor, Christoper Waller, has already hinted that he may publicly dissent Wednesday if his colleagues vote to keep rates unchanged. His opinion is that any inflation from Trump's tariffs will prove to be temporary, and he's concerned that the labor market may soon worsen. But many other Fed officials have backed Powell in his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation. They also note that the labor market is holding up, removing any urgency to act in the way that Trump wants. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments "This is a campaign of undermining the chairman's credibility and really trying to undermine his public support in the face of what I think is the real objective, and that is to get a lower rate environment in place," former Kansas City Fed president Esther George said. A Powell press conference following the meeting on Wednesday gives the Fed chair a new chance to respond to the White House's escalating pressure campaign and mounting questions about the $2.5 billion renovation of two Fed buildings along the National Mall. Trump considered firing Powell in recent weeks but has now appeared to back away from doing so, telling reporters this past week that "he is going to be out pretty soon anyway" — a reference to the fact that Powell's term as chair is up in May. While touring the Fed's construction site on Thursday, Trump said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? New headaches But that doesn't mean the White House is going to let up on Powell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this past week called for a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion project and an "exhaustive internal review' of its non-monetary policy operations. He argued that "significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission." The Fed also got another new headache last week when a money manager — and Trump ally who recently served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency — filed a lawsuit arguing that the central bank is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its policy meetings behind closed doors. That money manager, Azoria Capital, is asking for a Washington, D.C., federal court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the FOMC to open its deliberations to the public this week. Some on Capitol Hill are also getting louder about more scrutiny of the Fed. Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, a subcommittee chair on the House Financial Services Committee, is reportedly moving forward with a congressional investigation of the Fed, according to PunchBowl News, even as many of his Senate colleagues have shied away from that idea. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, another Trump ally, formally requested that the DOJ investigate Powell for perjury over June comments about the renovations, although that is seen as a long shot at best. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors last week that he is "disenchanted" with Powell and is even open to modifying the 1913 act that created the Fed. That would be a major change, but it is not expected to come before Congress in the near term, as the House of Representatives went home Wednesday evening for a recess that is scheduled to last for the rest of the summer. Powell has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to leave as chair until his term is up, that his removal is "not permitted by law," and that he was honest and transparent about the Fed's construction project while testifying before Senate lawmakers on June 25. In a July 17 letter to White House budget director Russ Vought, Powell wrote that "we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources" and offered a point-by-point response to Vought's concerns about cost overruns and certain design elements. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts 'I do think it's damaging' Trump and his allies have taken to several new lines of attack against Powell, even beyond the building renovation, as they argue for rates to be as many as three percentage points lower. They cite what they predict will be savings on US debt if the rate is lower, as well as how a lower rate would make borrowing for a home less expensive in the US. Trump has even hinted that he has more than just Powell to blame for the fact that rates have remained unchanged since he took office. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" Trump wrote on his social media platform this past week, referring to the larger Fed Board of Governors on which Powell serves. StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance that he expects Trump's attacks to eventually extend to the regional Fed presidents based around the country. They have rotating positions on the Fed body that makes the final call on rates. The president does not appoint the regional Fed bosses, who are instead chosen by banks in those Fed districts. One of them, Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, defended Powell in a July 18 interview with Yahoo Finance, calling the Fed chair a "totally honorable guy." He also expressed concerns about Fed independence. "It pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." George, the former Kansas City Fed president, said of the president's pressure campaign targeting building renovations: "I do think it's damaging." "It's when we undermine institutions and create suspicion in the public that something is wrong here, I think credibility suffers," she said. "This is a time when the Fed needs its independence," George added. "It is a time when, yes, lower rates would help the federal government, but we know countries that have gone down that path, and we know in this country going down that path does not produce good outcomes in the long term." Last Thursday, though, Trump sounded confident during his tour of the Fed's headquarters that Powell would see things his way. "I think he's going to do the right thing,' the president said. "Everybody knows what the right thing is.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Fast Company
18 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
Fox News
19 minutes ago
- Fox News
Illegal immigrants storm US beaches as Coast Guard battles migrant surge that rose under Biden
The rise in illegal immigration that took place by boats under the Biden administration has created unique dangers for law enforcement, according to a border security expert. Maritime illegal immigration, using boats to enter the U.S. illegally, rose during the Biden administration as a result of the political and economic crises of Haiti and Cuba, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In February 2023, the U.S. Naval Institute said that illegal immigrant interdiction operations were in a "state of emergency" due to societal turmoil in Caribbean countries. Along the border between the U.S. and Mexico in California, illegal immigrants attempt to cross into America using boats as well. On July 12, the U.S. Coast Guard interdicted three people who were trying to enter the U.S. illegally by boat and were apprehended at Imperial Beach in San Diego County, California. Two individuals said they were Mexican, while one said they were Turkish. In January, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a boat carrying 21 illegal immigrants that was headed toward San Diego. Coast Guard officials and Border Protection officials apprehended the illegal immigrants, who were from various countries. "They don't want anyone to drown and die trying to cross into the U.S. Illegally…" "Initial interviews revealed that all individuals claimed Mexican nationality, although subsequent checks identified two passengers as Guatemalan and Salvadoran nationals," the Coast Guard wrote in a press release. California isn't close to the only state having to handle migrant incursions along its shores. In February, the Coast Guard intercepted 132 Haitians on a boat south of the Florida Keys. The Coast Guard boarded the 30-foot vessel and processed the illegal immigrants before they were repatriated to Haiti, according to officials. "The Coast Guard will continue to prioritize strengthening our domestic integrity and disrupting attempts to enter the United States illegally by sea," said Coast Guard District Seven enforcement officer Lt. Zane Carter. "We are steadfast in our mission to safeguard America by securing our maritime borders." Simon Hankinson, senior research fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that these interdictions create a unique danger for law enforcement authorities. "Well, I've seen a very different pattern, say, between the U.K. and France versus off the U.S. coast, where it seems to be a variety of, you know, if it's professional smugglers with really fast boats trying to bring people in and drop them off, then that's one thing for the Coast Guard to cope with," Hankinson said. "And if it is people organizing themselves in leaky boats with insufficient engines and overcrowded conditions, then it's a different thing. I think for the Coast Guard, for our law enforcement, that the issue of safety is obviously paramount." "They don't want anyone to drown and die trying to cross into the U.S. Illegally, even if they're not supposed to do it, but they're also probably worried about people carrying weapons who are trying to smuggle drugs and people in for money," he added. Hankinson said the U.S. should look at what's happening in the United Kingdom as a case study on what to avoid. The U.K. saw 19,982 cross the English Channel to enter the country in the first six months of 2025, according to Sky News. That figure is up almost 50% compared to the first six months of 2024. "You know, I was born in England. It's tragic what's happening there," he said. "You have a whole family of Palestinians who were allowed to stay, even though they'd applied under a program for Ukrainians. You know it's a sort of national suicide by generosity."
