Jon Stewart Tears Into Jake Tapper, CNN For Ill-Timed Biden Book Promotion
'Daily Show' host Jon Stewart tore into CNN's Jake Tapper this week, accusing Tapper and his parent network of tastelessly promoting the journalist's new book on former President Joe Biden.
'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,' which Tapper co-authored with Axios' Alex Thompson, chronicles what its authors describe as Biden's deterioration during his time in the White House, as well as his reluctance to drop out of the 2024 presidential race.
The book's release this week feels ill-timed in the wake of Biden's advanced prostate cancer diagnosis, publicly confirmed by his office Sunday. On Monday's episode of 'The Daily Show,' Stewart argued that 'Original Sin' contained 'news [CNN and Tapper] should've told you was news a year ago for free.'
'Nothing could slow down this coming, feeding news frenzy about Biden's cognitive health other than maybe a report on his actual physical health, which was not good,' he said. 'But now we've got ourselves a little problem. You prepared an entire smorgasbord ... based on what you thought would be a relatively uncomplicated story about mental decline.'
'But now, doing the story seems almost disrespectful. Can CNN thread the needle?' he continued. 'How do you pivot from excitedly promoting your anchor's book to somberly and respectfully promoting your anchor's book?'
Watch Jon Stewart's comments on 'Original Sin' below.
Stewart pointed to a series of CNN news segments about Biden's cancer diagnosis which also directed viewers to 'Original Sin,' noting: 'It's just fun to watch them not only continue to push the book in light of this difficult news, but to actually frame this difficult news as perhaps even more of a reason to buy this book.'
'Some observers might think, 'Do these CNN people work on commission? Is this a Girl Scout cookie situation?'' he quipped. 'Whoever sells the most Tapper books gets a Schwinn!'
Prior to Biden's announcement last weekend, excerpts from 'Original Sin' reporting had been dominating the headlines. According to Tapper and Thompson, advisers considered putting Biden in a wheelchair at some point during the 2024 campaign, but ended up deeming the move to be 'politically untenable.'
The authors also detail a June 2024 fundraiser during which Biden reportedly failed to recognize George Clooney upon arrival, prompting the 'Good Night, and Good Luck' actor to speak out against the former president's candidacy.
Stewart is, of course, not the first to criticize 'Original Sin.' Biden's eldest granddaughter, Naomi Biden, blasted the book as 'political fairy smut for the permanent, professional chattering class.'
'Put simply, it amounts to a bunch of unoriginal, uninspired lies written by irresponsible self promoting journalists out to make a quick buck,' she wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
Donald Trump Jr. Escalates 'Disgusting' Biden Cancer Dig With 'Mental Disorder' Swipe
Naomi Biden Blasts Jake Tapper Over Book On Grandfather: It's 'Political Fairy Smut!'
Biden's Cancer Has A High Gleason Score. Doctors Explain What That Means.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank
The Trump administration is asking a judge to drop a 2022 settlement the Justice Department had reached with North Jersey-based Lakeland Bank — which was later absorbed by Provident Bank — over allegations of redlining against Black and Hispanic customers. While Provident Bank said it will continue to provide low-cost mortgages to underserved communities, the motion by the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the settlement has drawn the ire of community advocates and legal experts, who say it would make it easier for banks to engage in redlining. 'It goes without saying it's a good thing when financial institutions are complying with those consent orders, but when you take away the teeth — the actual enforcement — who's to say that they will continue to comply,' said Leila Amirhamzeh, director of community reinvestment for New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy four-page motion by the Justice Department, filed May 28 in U.S. District Court, seeks to terminate the consent order the Biden administration negotiated with what was then Lakeland Bank. In the initial complaint, the Justice Department said Lakeland violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by deliberately avoiding banking with Black and Hispanic customers, particularly in and around Newark. The discrimination in question allegedly took place between 2015 and 2021, according to the Biden administration. To settle the complaint, Lakeland agreed to pay $12 million to subsidize mortgages, home improvement loans and home refinancing loans for Black and Hispanic residents and open two branches in underserved neighborhoods. Lakeland also had to provide $150,000 a year for advertising, outreach and consumer finance education in the Newark area. Newark Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ras Baraka wanted one of those new branches to be in his city, and the Greater Toms River Chamber of Commerce also wanted a branch in its area. According to the Provident Bank website, there are currently four locations in Newark and three in Toms River. After acquiring Lakeland, Provident took ownership of the settlement and the mandate to open two branches in underserved areas of New Jersey. The Justice Department in its motion to terminate the order said Lakeland reached substantial commitment to comply with the consent agreement and it is committed to continuing its disbursement of the loan subsidy. Provident spokesperson Keith Buscio told and the USA TODAY Network New Jersey that the bank remains committed to the loan subsidy initiative. He said Provident is not a party to the litigation and referred other questions to the Justice Department. The Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment. Baraka's office in Newark said it is planning to hold a press conference about the motion by the Justice Department on June 5. Court filings show two attorneys who helped file the initial complaint against Lakeland, Michael Campion and Susan Millenky, withdrew as counsel from the case. Campion was appointed in 2022 to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office's Civil Rights Division that was created to enforce federal civil rights laws in New Jersey. The Fair Housing Act was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to prohibit landlords and mortgage lenders from discriminating based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Nearly 60 years later, racial wealth disparity remains vast. In New Jersey, the median household wealth of white families is $322,500, compared with $17,700 for Black families and $26,100 for Hispanic families, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice said. In New Jersey, 77.3% of white residents owned a home in 2020. By comparison, 42.8% of Black residents and 32.7% of Hispanic residents were homeowners, according to the Urban Institute, a research group. Critics said the Justice Department's motion to drop the Lakeland settlement is a step by the Trump administration's bid to reverse diversity, equity and inclusion programs. David Troutt, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said the motion by the Justice Department to terminate the consent decree is part of a larger campaign by the department to rescind investigations and agreements involving anti-Black racism, while beginning investigations into what it deems 'illegal DEI.' 'The Trump administration's withdrawal from a federal consent decree without justification is an extraordinary act of endorsing racist practices and housing market manipulation,' Troutt said. 'For the very government that successfully enforced those borrowers' civil rights to now repudiate them sends a message unlike any we've seen since the federal government first endorsed redlining in the 1930s,' Troutt said. Lakeland isn't the only New Jersey bank that faced scrutiny under the Biden administration. Toms River-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. agreed to pay $14 million to subsidize mortgages, helping settle a lawsuit that alleged the bank violated federal discrimination laws. Since then, it has improved the rating given by federal bank regulators who oversee investments in underserved communities to 'outstanding.' The Justice Department hasn't filed a motion seeking to terminate the consent order with OceanFirst. But two attorneys who represented the U.S. in the initial complaint, Millenky and Nathan Shulock, have filed motions to withdraw from the case, according to the court docket. A combined 22 Provident and Lakeland branches closed in 2024 following the $1.3 billion merger creating a 'super community bank.' Each branch that closed was within roughly three miles of a nearby branch. Activists and opponents warned that the merger would mean fewer banking services would be available for underserved communities, such as people of color, the elderly and disabled. New Jersey Citizen Action applauded Provident for its continued commitment to the terms of the consent order. But the group said the Justice Department should continue to enforce it. 'When you actually terminate these consent orders, there's no deterrence, and it's basically telling financial institutions that the Department of Justice is going to be taking a hands-off approach to fair lending issues, to redlining,' New Jersey Citizen Action's Amirhamzeh said. Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook Michael L. Diamond is a business reporter for the Asbury Park Press. He has been writing about the New Jersey economy and health care industry since 1999. He can be reached at mdiamond@ This article originally appeared on Feds seek to drop Lakeland Bank settlement over alleged redlining
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump fires heat experts as summer begins
The Trump administration's purge of federal personnel poses the latest threat to a rule meant to protect workers from extreme heat. As part of an agency reorganization, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired the research team tasked with studying the deadly effects of high temperatures and how to safeguard against them, writes Ariel Wittenberg. The layoffs take effect this week, just before the start of a summer that is forecast to be hotter than normal across the United States. The nation has suffered a string of record-breaking temperatures in recent years as climate change driven by burning fossil fuels supercharges heat waves. Extreme heat kills more U.S. residents each year than hurricanes, floods and tornadoes combined, federal data shows. The heat team will disappear just days before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is scheduled to hold a hearing on the government's first-ever proposal to protect workers from extreme heat. Drafted under the Biden administration, the long-delayed rule would require employers to offer outdoor workers paid water and rest breaks when combined heat and humidity exceed 80 degrees. Almost every aspect of the proposed rule has a citation that leads back to research conducted by the heat team within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advocating for the rule without the experts on hand is 'like going to trial without your expert witness,' Doug Parker, who led OSHA during the Biden administration, told Ariel. Congress created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — which housed the heat team — in 1970 to recommend safety standards to regulators. The OSHA regulation relied on the team to define heat stress, to explain how heat affects the human body and to describe how hydration helps prevent heat-related dangers, which include kidney damage and sudden death from heat stroke. Oil and gas industry lobbyists have urged Trump to ax the proposal. Rebecca Reindel, safety and health director at the AFL-CIO, said she worries that without the heat team's testimony, the Trump administration will be more likely to kill the rule. The heat team's demise has already led to a halt in public communications on heat. In past years, the agency used social media campaigns and in-person presentations to raise awareness about staying safe in extreme heat. The team's social media accounts have been silent since April 1, when Kennedy announced the layoffs. It's Tuesday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Alex Guillén breaks down details of President Donald Trump's newest budget proposal and its calls for a 55 percent reduction for the Environmental Protection Agency. Power Centers Auto giants in China's gripThe nation's leading automakers are growing increasingly worried as Trump's trade war with Beijing ramps up and China slows the flow of rare earth elements they rely on to build parts for electric cars and other vehicles, writes Hannah Northey. 'Without those essential automotive components, it will only be a matter of time — before the end of this month, most likely — until vehicle assembly in the U.S. is disrupted,' a group of major automakers wrote in a letter to the administration last month. 'In severe cases, this could include the need for reduced production volumes or even a shutdown of vehicle assembly lines.' Bromance over? Musk slams Trump tax billElon Musk just went nuclear on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The billionaire took to his social media platform X to slam the GOP spending package as a 'disgusting abomination,' writes Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing. Musk's comments come just days after he stepped away from his federal-agency-slashing role in the administration — and as the House-passed bill faces Senate scrutiny. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump picks new energy regulatorInstead of renominating Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Mark Christie, Trump picked energy attorney Laura Swett to fill his term-limited seat, writes Francisco 'A.J.' Camacho. Swett, a litigation counsel at the law firm Vinson & Elkins, previously served as an oil pipeline adviser to former FERC Chair Kevin McIntyre and Commissioner Bernard McNamee, who wrote the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 section on FERC. Greenpeace activists 'borrow' Macron statue Greenpeace activists snatched French President Emmanuel Macron's statue from Paris' wax museum and hauled it off to the Russian Embassy in a dramatic stunt to protest France's ongoing business ties with Moscow, writes Victor Goury-Laffont. In a statement, the French branch of the environmentalist group said its members had 'borrowed' the statute because they believe Macron 'does not deserve to be displayed in this world-renowned cultural institution until he has terminated France's contracts with Russia and promoted an ambitious and sustainable ecological transition at the European level.' In Other News Pro-gas attack: The gas lobby is trying to weaken Southern California's boldest clean-air plan in decades. Study: Why some clownfish are shrinking. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Trump is seeking a multibillion-dollar spending increase for disasters next year after vowing for months to cut the federal response to hurricanes, wildfires and other damaging events. A panel of judges expressed skepticism about the science used by EPA to implement a broad ban on methylene chloride in an unusual case that had the Trump administration defending most of the provisions of a regulation issued by the Biden administration. EPA's inspector general found no malpractice in the agency's deployment of key air detection technology after the fiery train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, two years ago. That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration rescinds emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration has rescinded guidance telling health care workers who provide abortions to save their patients' lives that they are protected under federal law. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Tuesday that it is rescinding guidance issued during the Biden administration, reinforcing to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) they must provide emergency abortions to pregnant patients if they are needed to save their lives. 'Legally, it means nothing,' Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project told The Hill. 'The obligation to provide emergency care comes from a federal statute… and as much as they might like to President Trump and Secretary Kennedy can not erase 40 years of law with this press release.' CMS said in a statement that the agency will continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all emergency room patients seeking treatment, including 'identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' 'CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions,' the statement adds. The guidance change comes about two months after the Trump administration dropped a high-profile case over the right to an emergency abortion in Idaho, which health care policy experts said signaled an 'imminent reversal' of EMTALA guidance issued by the Biden administration. EMTALA was passed in 1986 to protect Americans from 'patient dumping,' a practice at hospitals and other clinics where patients are transferred to other facilities without their consent due to their inability to pay. The Biden administration in 2022 issued guidance on abortion specifically, following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. A cascade of state laws quickly banned abortion, but the guidance allowed for emergency procedures and protected physicians in those cases. The move does not change the law, but it does make it more confusing for doctors to know what care they can legally provide pregnancy terminations, especially if they practice in states with abortion bans, according to Kolbi-Molinas. Reproductive rights groups and health care providers are bashing the move, arguing that it will profoundly hurt the health of pregnant people in the United States. 'By rescinding this guidance, the Trump administration has sent a clear signal that it is siding not with the majority, but with its anti-abortion allies — and that will come at the expense of women's lives,' Kolbi-Molinas said. 'The ACLU will use every lever we have to keep President Trump and his administration from endangering our health and lives.' Jamila Perritt, president and CEO of the group Physicians for Reproductive Health, said that she is 'deeply troubled' by the Trump administration's decision to change the guidance, arguing that it is abandoning its responsibility to people who need emergency medical care. 'This action sends a clear message: the lives and health of pregnant people are not worth protecting,' she said in a statement. 'Complying with this law can mean the difference between life and death for pregnant people, forcing providers like me to choose between caring for someone in their time of need and turning my back on them to comply with cruel and dangerous laws…' Meanwhile, some anti-abortion groups lauded CMS's move, calling it a 'victory.' 'Led by Dr. Oz, the Trump administration has delivered another win for life and truth—stopping Biden's attack on emergency care for both pregnant moms and their unborn children,' wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. 'We call on more states to follow the Trump administration's lead and pass Med Ed laws to protect women from abortion lobby misinformation.'
