Kamala Harris had profane message for governors uneasy about supporting Biden
"This is about saving our f–king democracy," Harris reportedly told the governors at a July 3, 2024, gathering at the White House after numerous officials expressed reservations about supporting Biden over concerns about his cognitive state.
The comment is revealed in the upcoming book 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf, according to the New York Post.
Biden's campaign was in freefall after the then-81-year-old president appeared tired and disoriented at the June 2024 presidential debate, his only debate against Trump.
"I really don't know what he said at the end of that sentence, and I don't think he knows what he said either," Trump remarked at one point.
The June debate was held much earlier than presidential debates were traditionally held. According to the book, Biden's aides persuaded him to hold the early debate, claiming doing so would allow him to act from a position of strength.
"By holding the first debate in the spring, YOU will be able to reach the widest audience possible, before we are deep in the summer months with the conventions, Olympics and family vacations taking precedence… In addition, the earlier YOU are able to debate the better, so that the American people can see YOU standing next to Trump and showing the strength of YOUR leadership, compared to Trump's weakness and chaos," a campaign memo, published by Politico, reportedly said.
Biden's performance created worries in the Democratic establishment that he would lose the election, and the 45th president began facing calls to drop out of the race. On July 10, 2024, the New York Times published an op-ed by the actor George Clooney urging Biden to exit the race. More Democratic politicians began to follow suit until Biden ultimately dropped out of the race on July 21, 2024. Harris succeeded him in the race, mounting a truncated roughly three-month-long campaign that ultimately failed.
Harris' comments to the governors, made before Biden dropped out, were part of an effort to salvage his flailing candidacy. Following the meeting, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz appeared in the White House driveway to voice their support for the president. Numerous high-profile Democratic governors, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Illinois Gov. Gavin Pritzker Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer – all of whom were touted as possible replacements for Biden – did not appear to vouch for Biden in public. Walz was later tapped to be Harris' running mate when she stepped into the race.
Hochul claimed that all of the governors "pledged our support" for Biden, however, according to the book that claim wasn't true and rankled the governors in attendance.
"Many of the governors were deeply skeptical that Biden could continue his campaign, and they were furious with Hochul for suggesting otherwise," the book claimed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
a minute ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Trump admin may reclassify marijuana: Would that make it legal in the US?
(NEXSTAR) — At the end of last year, it seemed that marijuana could be rescheduled in the U.S. That idea came screeching to a halt when proceedings were put on pause in January. There were early hopes that the then-incoming Trump administration would get the ball rolling, but that didn't immediately materialize either. On Monday, however, President Donald Trump confirmed his administration is 'looking at' reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. 'We're looking at reclassification, and we'll make a determination over, I'd say, the next few weeks,' Trump said during a press conference, The Hill reported. Can TSA stop you for marijuana in your luggage? Marijuana is a Schedule I drug, but the latest efforts, launched under the Biden administration, would put it as a Schedule III drug. The process of rescheduling marijuana — or trying to — has historically played out over years and even decades, Paul Armentano, the deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), previously told Nexstar. It's difficult to say how fast efforts could play out now, but Heather Trela, director of operations and fellow at the Rockefeller Institute, told Nexstar in April that they could be fueled by Trump. 'If President Trump made this a priority, I think this would move,' she explained. If it does happen, it would be the largest DEA policy change in more than 50 years, but you may not notice an immediate impact. If marijuana is rescheduled, will it become legal nationwide? The short, immediate answer is no. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana is considered by the DEA to be it without a 'currently accepted medical use' and has a 'high potential for abuse.' Heroin and LSD are also Schedule I drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended in 2023 that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule III drug. Ketamine and some anabolic steroids are Schedule III substances, which have a 'moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.' Even if marijuana is rescheduled, it would still be a controlled substance that's subject to federal rules and regulations. More importantly, rescheduling does not decriminalize marijuana or make it legal for recreational use on the federal level. Instead, the medical uses of cannabis would be recognized, and federal regulators would acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation's most dangerous drugs. It would also become easier for marijuana research to be conducted. Companies could see a cut in the federal taxes they pay, too. Currently, businesses involved in 'trafficking' in marijuana or any other Schedule I or II drug can't deduct rent, payroll or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. Industry groups say the tax rate often ends up at 70% or more. As a Schedule III drug, marijuana would still be regulated by the DEA and the thousands of dispensaries nationwide would have to register with the agency, just as pharmacies do. Critics say this would come with strict reporting requirements, something dispensaries may despise and the DEA may not be ready for. Trump promised lower grocery prices 'on Day One.' Here's what happened The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation's criminal justice system would also likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years. Then there's the United States' international treaty obligations, chief among them the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which requires the criminalization of cannabis. In 2016, during the Obama administration, the DEA cited the U.S.' international obligations and the findings of a federal court of appeals in Washington in denying a similar request to reschedule marijuana. Where do state efforts to legalize marijuana stand? More than three dozen states have legalized some form of medical marijuana already. Nearly half have legalized it for recreational use among adults. Meanwhile, some states that have already legalized marijuana have seen efforts to roll back voter-approved laws or repeal them. That includes Ohio, where some have been trying to rewrite the recreational marijuana law voters approved two years ago. Other states have made adjustments to aspects of the law, like lowering legal potency levels, Trela said. In some cases, like Virginia, lawmakers have been unable to pass a sales bill, so while possessing cannabis is legal, there is nowhere in the state to legally purchase it. The federal government could, however, turn over the decision of legalization to the states, as it did during prohibition. A bill introduced in the House earlier this year could do just that. The bipartisan STATES 2.0 Act would 'end the federal prohibition of cannabis and allow states to determine their own cannabis policies.' It has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Associated Press
a minute ago
- Associated Press
2 more Republicans join Georgia's competitive race for lieutenant governor
ATLANTA (AP) — Two more Republicans joined the growing list of candidates vying to become lieutenant governor in next year's election. Georgia state Sen. Blake Tillery, a Republican, launched his campaign Monday and state Rep. David Clark of Buford in the greater Atlanta metro area announced his candidacy Tuesday. Tillery, a real estate attorney, was first elected in 2016 and became the Senate Appropriations Committee chair in 2020. This year, he championed bills that would allow lawsuits against anyone who implements sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities and cut public funding for gender-affirming care for transgender adults. Tillery opened his campaign Monday with a statewide tour across seven cities that will end in his hometown of Vidalia. Joined by his wife and two sons at Georgia's Capitol in Atlanta, Tillery said of his family, 'they're the reason why I'm running.' 'I believe that we should continue to focus on items that matter to Georgians, and I want my kids to be raised in a Georgia just like I was, one that believes in faith in God and puts Georgia values first,' Tillery said, adding he's the candidate with 'a record for results.' Tillery touted his work 'advancing conservative causes' on social issues, immigration and taxes. He vowed to eliminate Georgia's state income tax and supports continuing the crackdown on illegal immigration and crime. Before joining the Senate, Tillery was chair of the Toombs County Commission. Clark, a military veteran, promised in a video to be 'a warrior' who will defend Georgia's 'families, values and freedom.' He said he stood for anti-abortion policies, gun rights and religious liberty as a legislator. He also promised to eliminate the state income tax, among other conservative priorities. Clark was removed from the House chamber in 2021 by the former Republican House speaker for violating the chamber's COVID-19 testing policy. 'I've stood up to members of the radical left and to members of our own party who wouldn't fight for what's right,' Clark said. Tillery and Clark will face Republican Senate Majority Leader Steve Gooch, who called himself a 'die-hard MAGA supporter,' and John Kennedy, the top-ranking Republican in Georgia's state Senate and Macon lawyer who helped Gov. Brian Kemp and Georgia's business community pass limits on lawsuits and civil verdicts. Democrat state Sen. Josh McLaurin, a vocal critic of Republican policies in the state legislature, is also running, and State Sen. Greg Dolezal, a Republican from Cumming, is considering a run. Georgia's lieutenant governor presides over Senate sessions, but senators decide how much power the official has. When senators agree, lieutenant governors can be influential. Burt Jones, the current Republican lieutenant governor, is running for governor next year with President Donald Trump's endorsement. —- Associated Press reporter Jeff Amy contributed to this report from Atlanta.
