Insane oversight in the Democratic Party's autopsy of the disastrous 2024 election
The 'after-action review' commissioned by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) won't question the timing of President Biden's decision to stand down shortly before the election, people with knowledge of the findings told The New York Times.
The review will also steer clear of finding out whether Kamala Harris was the best pick to replace Biden following his disastrous debate performance against President Donald Trump, those briefed on its progress also told the outlet.
It won't look into her campaign or the decision by staffers to frame it as a choice between democracy and fascism.
Officials told the outlet that it will examine the election as a whole and not on the campaign, instead looking at actions taken by groups associated with the party, with a focus on super PACs that funded the campaigns of Biden and Harris.
The Times reported that blame would be thrown at Future Forward, the party's main super PAC.
Those briefed on its contents said that the group, w ho spent $560 million to support the two presidential hopefuls spent too much propping up Harris and not on attacking Trump.
The group's advertising approach is to be criticized as being too focused on television programs and not effective.
DNC spokesperson Rosemary Boeglin told the outlet: 'The DNC's post-election review is not a finger-pointing exercise, it's about bringing together Democrats across the ecosystem to adopt an actionable playbook to win, not just for 2026 and 2028, but to dominate for cycles to come.
'Democrats are clear-eyed about the challenges facing the party—many of which are rooted well before the 2024 cycle—and it requires all of us to make structural changes in how we run campaigns.'
The review was started in March and has not yet been finalized, it is expected to be released this fall.
After Trump won the election and made his return to the White House, Biden has continued to face questions over his mental decline while in office.
The 82-year-old is facing a Republican led investigation probing the extent of the Democratic president's decline was understood by his top staffers.
The investigation has focused on former staffers who would be privy to the most sensitive presidential discussions and his use of an autopen to sign documents.
Biden has denied the claims being pushed by Trump that he did not have the focus to make decision as president.
He told The Times: 'I understand why Trump would think that, because obviously, I guess, he doesn't focus much. Anyway, so - yes, I made every decision.'
While being questioned by lawmakers, Biden's personal physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, and Jill Biden's longtime aide Anthony Bernal, have all pleaded the fifth amendment protections in recent weeks.
Oversight Chairman James Comer noted that there's a pattern beginning to emerge after Biden's former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser Annie Tomasini also pleaded the fifth this week.
'There is now a pattern of key Biden confidants seeking to shield themselves from criminal liability for this potential conspiracy,' Comer wrote.
'Annie Tomasini, former Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Oval Office Operations, pleaded the Fifth when asked if Joe Biden, a member of his family, or anyone at the White House instructed her to lie regarding his health at any time.'
She also pleaded the fifth when asked about classified documents being found in Biden's garage, if the former president instructed anyone to destroy or conceal classified documents at the Democrat's home or if she's conspired with anyone to hide information on the Biden family's business affairs, Comer shared. The Kentucky Republican said this is a 'historical scandal.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Liberal senator has complete meltdown on Senate floor while bashing 'authoritarian' Trump
Liberal senator Cory Booker suffered a complete meltdown in a theatrical outburst that even stunned members of his own party on Tuesday. The New Jersey Democrat unleashed a fiery tirade on the Senate floor accusing fellow Democrats of bowing to President Donald Trump and calling the current administration 'authoritarian'. His dramatic protest briefly derailed a bipartisan police funding package. Booker's voice rose and did his fury as he turned a routine procedural vote into an emotional sermon, slamming his colleagues, the Justice Department, the president, and even television networks in a sprawling, unscripted rant. 'The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call!' Booker thundered. 'It's time for Democrats to have a backbone. It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines!' The meltdown came in response to a unanimous consent request from Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada), who sought swift passage of a slate of bipartisan police bills in honor of Police Week. But Booker blocked the motion, furiously demanding changes to the grant formulas -claiming the Trump administration had been weaponizing law enforcement grants to punish Democratic-leaning states like New Jersey, New York, and California. 'No! No! Not on my watch!' Booker declared, pacing furiously. 'We are standing at a moment where our president is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States of America!' The theatrics drew immediate backlash, not from Republicans, but from Booker's fellow Democrats, including Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), who accused him of sabotaging months of work for his own political performance. 'This is the first time we're hearing about this, and he's trying to kill the whole package,' Cortez Masto said. 'I can't help it if someone couldn't change their schedule to be at the committee markup,' Klobuchar jabbed, referring to Booker's absence when the bills were debated weeks earlier. In a sweeping tirade that seemed less like a Senate address and more like a 2024 campaign revival, he accused the Democratic Party of complicity in Trump's 'authoritarianism.' 'I see law firms bending the knee to this president. I see universities bending the knee. I see businesses taking late-night talk show hosts off the air. I see mergers requiring tribute to this president. And what are we doing here today? Passing resources that only go to states he likes! 'That is complicity within an authoritarian leader who is trashing our Constitution.' At one point, Booker seemed to abandon legislative language entirely, speaking with apocalyptic rhetoric. 'There's too much going on in this country! Due process rights under attack! Secret police picking people up off the streets! If we don't stand as Democrats, we deserve to lose!' Not backing down, Booker's volume rose a he shouted 'Don't question my integrity! Don't question my motives! I am standing for Jersey!' Booker had been looking to amend police funding bills to guarantee equitable distribution of federal grants. He argued that Trump's Department of Justice was denying funds to liberal states in retaliation for opposing his second-term policies. 'Why would we do something today that is playing into the president's politics?' Booker asked. 'When are we going to stand up for our body?' But Booker had already supported many of the same bills in committee, according to Cortez Masto, making his last-minute protest a surprise ambush, not a principled objection. 'These bills passed unanimously out of committee. He didn't raise these issues then. Why now?' Cortez Masto said. Klobuchar chimed in: 'One of the things I don't understand here is why we have committees if people are going to skip the meetings and then grandstand on the floor.' Booker seemed to take her jab personally and it only served to rile him further. 'Dear God, if you want to come at me, you'll have to take it up with me, because I'm standing for what's right!' Booker cried. 'Not on my watch. I'm protecting Jersey today. I'm protecting the Constitution today.' After nearly an hour of heated debate, Booker then withdrew his objection, allowing the legislation to pass. 'I don't need the lectures about urgency,' Booker snapped, in one of his many interjections. 'The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call. 'If we stand united, if we stand strong... we will win. We shall overcome,' he said, channeling civil rights-era hymns. Booker's impassioned display earned plaudits from some progressive activists online, inside the Senate chamber it landed with a thud. 'Cory Booker just said what needed to be said. Silence in the face of rising authoritarianism isn't neutrality it's complicity,' wrote one supporter. 'This man is electrifying in his moral clarity and needs to be President one day,' stated another. But plenty of other interpreted Booker's bellowing hot air. 'There's still no substance to it though. No policy platform that inspires voters and differentiates the party from corporate interests. It's empty flailing,' surmised one. 'Democrats are really good at saying words and sound bites. Do they do or actually meany anything? No. But they're really good at it,' stated another.
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
With Biden gone, and faced with indescribable famine, the Democratic consensus on Israel and Gaza shifts
The crisis in Gaza reached new horrific levels this week as the world's leading authority on famine and food security declared that mass starvation and death is imminent within the enclave unless Israeli forces begin allowing more aid into the Strip. In Washington, the mood among Democrats on the issue is dark. Having chained their party to support for Israel under the Biden administration, the party suffered a devastating defeat in 2024 and are now being forced to watch a resurgence on the progressive pro-Palestinian left. Despite breathless insistences to the contrary by center-left commentators, it's becoming increasingly clear that the base of the Democratic Party is shifting away from the pro-Israel consensus long upheld by the DC foreign policy establishment. It's not just the left, either; new polling shows a generational divide across all party lines on the issue of sympathy for support of Palestinian statehood and an end to the slaughter in Gaza. Few will say it openly, but no one is denying it on the left: there has been an earthquake within the party. The upstart victory of Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor came amid a barrage of coverage from the mainstream media — including his hometown papers, the New York Times and New York Post — which often insinuated that Mamdani harbored anti-Semitic beliefs or falsely accused him of expressing them. It also rebuked the endorsements of aging Democratic would-be kingmakers Bill Clinton and James Clyburn, who issued late-game endorsements of New York's former governor, Andrew Cuomo. In a poll out Tuesday from the IMEU Policy Project conducted by Data for Progress, a clear portrait of the race emerges. Nearly eight in 10 New York mayoral primary voters said they believed Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza. Putting aside the mayoral race entirely for a moment — how does a candidate in the ideological vein of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris fare among an electorate like that? In the same poll, 63 percent of Democratic primary voters in the city supported what could easily be described as Mamdani's most hardline position on the matter of Israel-Palestine: his support for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were he ever to visit the city. A lower figure than the number that are willing to assign the term 'genocide' to the conflict, but far from insignificant. A news article in the Jewish magazine Forward put the question plainly on Monday: 'After Mamdani and Gaza, are Democrats turning against Israel?' Democrats in New York and across the country are quickly waking up to the rapidly shifting ground beneath them. Rep. Ritchie Torres, a Democrat and vocal critic of his colleagues in the so-called 'Squad,' bluntly assessed that he could not win a Democratic primary for governor in the state after Mamdani's victory. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House Minority Leader, reportedly told allies that he doubts his ability to win the speakership with Mamdani in play. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York's junior US senator, issued a humbling apology to Mamdani after accusing him (falsely) of supporting 'jihad.' The efforts to dodge what could be a historic wave of primary challenges fueled by progressive rage over the next three years are hastily getting underway. Joe Biden's departure from the White House and Netanyahu's close alliance with Trump make criticizing Israel a much easier prospect for Democrats. The mass starvation and shocking killings of Palestinians at aid reception areas by Israeli troops have accelerated the criticism of Israel from Washington Democrats in the past week. In the Senate, a large coalition of Democrats led by Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is urging the Trump administration to publicly break with the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and return to reliance on neutral international groups to provide aid. Van Hollen, who was a lonely voice for Palestinian suffering under the Biden administration, now has the backing of nearly half of his caucus. One unsurprising holdout was John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania senator and vocal supporter of Israel, including some of its most controversial war-fighting methods that have been denounced as war crimes by the International Criminal Court and others. Fetterman, up for reelection in 2028, has vultures circling him. Conor Lamb, his former primary opponent, is punching him relentlessly on social media and in a series of public appearances he's made at town hall-style events across the state. Lamb, who tweeted in support of destroying Hamas and supporting Israel after the October 7 attacks, lost out on endorsements from the progressive left that now despises Fetterman when they ran against each other in 2022. Another Pennsylvania congressman, a Democrat, tweeted (publicly!) that he hopes Fetterman doesn't run for president. This past week, Lamb tweeted that he hopes Pope Leo, the first American pontiff, 'continues to speak against starvation and barbarity in Gaza.' Members of the House are speaking out as well. Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana, came out in support of an arms embargo against Israel on Monday while accusing Netanyahu's government of 'starving' the population of Gaza. Others, including Madeleine Dean, demanded another ceasefire be hammered out. Torres attacked a Republican colleague for making repeated Islamophobic remarks about Rep. Ilhan Omar, and in an interview with Chuck Todd blasted Netanyahu for doing 'irreparable' harm to the relationship between Israel and the Democratic Party. Leadership is lagging behind but clearly feels the wind shifting: Minority Whip Katherine Clark and Jeffries released statements on Friday on the starvation, each condemning the crisis, neither one using the word 'Israel' at any point. Even Barack Obama, hesitant as he typically is to speak out on the issue of the day in his post-presidency, put out a statement seemingly critical of Israel, writing in part: 'There is no justification for keeping food and water away from civilian families.' The only Democrats who are being truly silent on the issue are tied directly to the former administration. Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris are widely seen as two of the most likely to contend for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Neither has issued a word about Gaza for months. Harris, also thought to be considering a run for governor of California, hasn't sat for a long-form interview this year. In the end it could be difficult to determine exactly how much of the stink attached to former Biden-world figures relates to Gaza, as opposed to the year(s?)-long coverup of the president's declining faculties. One thing is for certain: something shifted in the past week, something beyond just the fallout from election of a charismatic Muslim candidate in a prominent but isolated primary race.
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
Nantucket officials accuse offshore wind developer of going into hiding since Trump's election
Officials in Massachusetts ' Nantucket island on Tuesday accused the developer of the nation's first utility-scale offshore wind project of not responding to their safety queries since Donald Trump 's election after a massive wind turbine broke apart last year and its fragments washed up on beaches. Nantucket's select board gave Vineyard Wind two weeks to respond to a list of demands, including that it follow deadline requirements for notifying local officials of emergencies. Violations could result in fines up to $250,000, the town said, although it was unclear how such a policy would be enforced. Board member Brooke Mohr suggested the Trump administration's skepticism toward offshore wind projects is to blame for what Mohr said was Vineyard Wind's lack of communication. The town said Vineyard Wind, which is owned by Denmark-based Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure in partnership with Spain-based Iberdrola, has failed to respond to private requests for changes to its protocols. Litigation may be a next step if the town's demands are unmet, officials said. 'We believe that they are concerned about the change in policy at the federal level and drawing scrutiny from the new administration, which has ordered a review of offshore wind permitting practices,' Mohr said during a virtual briefing with news reporters. 'However, hiding is not the solution to their problems, nor is it the solution to our problems.' Vineyard Wind did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent by The Associated Press. The project about 14 miles (23 kilometers) off nearby Martha's Vineyard was approved by President Joe Biden 's administration in May 2021, a key step in Biden's plans to increase U.S. reliance on offshore wind by 2030. Fiberglas fragments of a massive wind turbine blade that broke apart off Nantucket began washing ashore last summer during the peak of tourist season after pieces of the blade at the Vineyard Wind project began falling into the Atlantic Ocean in July. GE Vernova, which agreed to pay $10.5 million in a settlement earlier this month to compensate island businesses that suffered losses as a result of the blade failure, blamed a manufacturing problem at one of its factories in Canada and said there was no indication of a design flaw. It reinspected all blades made at the factory and removed other blades made there from the Vineyard Wind location. In the final days of the Biden administration, federal regulators lifted a suspension order on the project, pending the removal of all installed blades manufactured by GE Vernova. On Tuesday, town officials accused Vineyard Wind of violating a contract made with Nantucket five years ago that requires the company to communicate regularly with the town at all stages of project development and deployment. It also said Vineyard Wind hasn't done enough to reduce light pollution or engage the town with its emergency response plans following the blade failure. Nantucket officials refused to include Vineyard Wind as a signatory in the $10.5 million settlement, citing the company's 'lack of leadership, transparency, and stewardship' following the blade failure.
