A new book released on Tuesday alleges that a small group of advisors known informally as "the politburo" was running the country during the Biden administration, and that former President Joe Biden was no more than a "senior board member."
"Original Sin: " by liberal journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, detailed the inner workings of the administration in an attempt to figure out what was going on behind the scenes and what went wrong with his re-election bid.
The members of the alleged "politburo" included Biden's senior advisors and longtime friends, but also First Lady Jill Biden and son Hunter Biden--neither of whom had anywhere near the experience or the public support to be running the country.
“In terms of who was running the White House, it’s a small group of people that have been around,” author Alex Thompson told PBS’ “Washington Week” on Friday. “Some people within the administration called them the Politburo. That’s the term we used in the book.”
“Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board,” a source close to the White House told the authors.
An unidentified cabinet secretary said about the politburo,, “I’ve never seen a situation like this before, with so few people having so much power. They would make huge economic decisions without calling [Treasury] Secretary Yellen.”
“Many of Biden’s own aides were also kept at arm’s length from the president," the book said.
The reason Biden was put up for another term was because the politburo thought it was getting a lot of good things done, and they (not Biden) deserved four more years.
It's normal for a president to have advisors around and to consider many other opinions before making decisions.
It's not so normal to have the president be an advisor to the group that's really running things.
In many cases, according to the book, Bidne was little more than a mouthpiece for a cabal that's really in charge.
He was akin to a a rubber stamp for what the group wanted to do. The use of the "autopen" was one example of how Biden wasn't really in charge or aware of everything that being carried out by his office.
No doubt he agreed with much of it, but that's not how the presidency is supposed to work.
The public had a sense of this and rejected it soundly. There were many questions asked about who was really running the country that were never answered, and voters didn't stand for it in 2024.
Recent tell-all books about the Biden White House, including one from CNN's Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of Axios, have endeavored to reveal the depths to which staffers, family members, and members of the media sunk to deprive the public of the truth about the then-president's true mental and physical condition.
Now, another well-known political insider, namely former Barack Obama adviser Jon Lovett, has stepped forward to reveal why he played a role in the emerging cover-up, blaming what was his consuming desire for a Democratic Party victory over Donald Trump, as Fox News reports.
Having served as an aide in the Obama White House, Lovett went on to assume the role of a co-host on the liberal Pod Save America podcast.
During a recent appearance on Jon Stewart's The Weekly Show podcast, Lovett took pains to offer an explanation as to why he stayed mum about concerns he says he had about Biden's decline while president and amid the 2024 presidential campaign.
According to Lovett, his concerns about Biden were very real, but he believed that the Democratic Party's electoral prospects against Trump were more important than speaking truth to the American people.
“I remember feeling I want to talk about this as a huge liability. To talk about this is something Joe Biden can overcome, but I'm not going to go so far as to say, 'I think Joe Biden must drop out. He is too old to be president,'” Lovett stated.
The reasons for that stance, Lovett added were, “A, because I didn't know exactly what was going on behind the scenes, but B, if Joe Biden is the candidate, I want him to f***ing win.”
In his attempted defense of his lack of candor on the situation, Lovett expressed his fear that coming clean with his audience about what he observed would result in the weaponization of that information by the president's opponent.
Saying quiet, he contended, helped prevent “having the words we're saying taken out of context and all of sudden be part of the case against Joe Biden from the right – that would use any person criticizing Joe Biden from the left as a weapon against him.”
Arguably struggling to reconcile his current admissions and past conduct, Lovett added, “So it was about being honest about Joe Biden's age as a liability while knowing that if he is the nominee, I want to be clear that I thought it was important to make sure we did everything we could to reelect him.”
While the belated -- and often disingenuous -- explanations of the roles played by liberal elites in hiding Biden's true condition from the country have continued to make headlines and fill airtime on cable news networks, a potentially more serious exploration of what went on now appears poised to commence.
House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) announced last week that he sent letters to a series of individuals who served in the Biden White House, requesting that they appear from transcribed interviews on the subject of the former president's decline.
“The cover-up of President Biden's obvious mental decline is a historic scandal. The American people deserve to know when this decline began, how far it progressed, and who was making critical decisions on his behalf,” Comer wrote. “Key executive actions signed by autopen, such as sweeping pardons for the Biden Crime Family, must be examined considering President Biden's diminished capacity," he added.
As such, Comer is seeking testimony from Biden physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor and former White House officials Neera Tanden, Anthony Bernal, Annie Tomasini, and Ashley Williams, and should those individuals decline cooperation with the probe, it remains to be seen whether subpoenas for their appearance will be the next phase in what many Americans believe is a necessary and long overdue probe.
One of the more fascinating political stories in recent years is that of Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who has gone from liberal darling to a frequent target of the DC rumor mill, as some inside his party suggest he is incapable of managing the duties of his job.
In the wake of a recent New York Magazine exposé questioning Fetterman's mental health, the senator has reportedly expressed frustration about the pressure he feels to appear on Capitol Hill for votes and hearings he believes are unimportant, lamenting what he says has been the weaponization of his health battles, as Huff Post reports.
The lawmaker's most recent public battle was sparked by the aforementioned magazine piece, released earlier this month.
That article included quotes from former as well as current staffers who expressed concerns about the senator's mental health, which has allegedly faltered since he suffered a stroke in 2022, as the New York Post explained.
Former Fetterman chief of staff Adam Jentleson provided much of the fodder for the magazine piece, having resigned from his role in the legislator's office and subsequently sending an email to Fetterman's physician voicing his alarm.
Jentleson was said to have written at the time, “I think John is on a bad trajectory and I'm really worried about him,” noting his fear that if the situation was not addressed, the lawmaker “won't be with us for much longer.”
Other allegations in the piece included suggestions that Fetterman had been seen “wandering” around the Capitol, was nearly hit by a vehicle, and was perhaps neglecting to take his prescribed medications.
In the wake of the New York Magazine piece, Fetterman blasted its content, labeling it “A one-source hit piece, some anonymous sources,” adding, “there's nothing new,”
Fetterman scoffed at the notion that those who offered comment in the article had his best interests at heart, stating, “They are not actually concerned, it's a hit piece.”
Despite that defiant tone, it appears to many that the attacks may be taking a serious toll on Fetterman's enthusiasm for the role he was elected to fulfill, with Huff Post claiming that he is struggling to find purpose in his work in Washington.
“My doctor warned years ago: After it's public that you are getting help for depression, people will weaponize that,” Fetterman recently told the New York Times. “Simple things are turned. That's exactly what happened.”
The toll on Fetterman's legislative diligence has been evident, with the lawmaker missing 18.1% of all floor votes since he took office, and he explained to the Times that he feels increasingly disinclined to make time for “performative” procedural votes at the expense of time with his family.
Though once touted as a fierce liberal stalwart, Fetterman has made waves within his own party due to his demonstrated willingness to meet with Donald Trump and stand against other Democrats on issues spanning immigration to Israel.
However, now that he is reportedly steering clear of votes, hearings, and even town halls back home due to fears he willl be the target of protests, Fetterman's political future seems an increasingly open question.
The Supreme Court issued a decision pausing a lower-court ruling that sought to obtain records from the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as DOGE.
A ruling issued on Friday put a pause on an order from a federal judge ordering that DOGE comply with freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued the decision to pause the order as the Supreme Court considers the future of the litigation against the agency created by entrepreneur Elon Musk in order to cut government waste and inefficiency.
This means the Trump administration will no longer be required to respond to FOIA requests from leftist activist groups seeking to stop DOGE from dismantling corrupt government agencies that have been wasting billions.
DOGE administrator Amy Gleason, who has taken over the agency as Musk has returned to the private sector, will also no longer have to stand for a deposition.
The Trump administration has been battling frivolous lawsuits for the past few months as leftist activists and the bureaucratic deep state seek to stop President Donald Trump's radical reforms addressing decades of corruption.
Activist groups claim that DOGE is a federal agency since it has the power to fire government workers, cut federal grants, and reduce government spending.
If DOGE is a federal agency, it would be subject to federal transparency rules and required to respond to FOIA requests for internal documents and records.
The Trump administration has refuted claims that DOGE is a federal agency, pointing to the fact that DOGE is merely advising the Trump administration on making cuts. The true decision-making power still resides with federal agencies and the White House.
U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper ordered DOGE to respond to FOIA requests in March in a decision saying that, "the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records CREW seeks.”
However, this discovery process is now on hold due to the Supreme Court's order, and it is highly likely that DOGE will be operating without intervention for some time as the Supreme Court tackles more important issues.
In the five months since Trump assumed power in the White House, DOGE has cut billions in government waste using a relatively small team of trusted individuals.
DOGE's cuts to wasteful federal agencies immediately ignited outrage among Democrats who zealously defended wasteful and corrupt agencies, igniting speculation that powerful politicians were using corrupt agencies to direct taxpayer dollars to themselves.
Unfortunately, DOGE's cuts have done little to keep up with the growing debt, thanks to years of out-of-control spending by the Biden administration.
However, the Trump administration had to start somewhere with cutting waste, and DOGE has been doing amazing work saving taxpayer dollars.
Before dawn on Wednesday, a tumultuous incident erupted among the ranks of the U.S. Secret Service, casting a spotlight on continuing concerns about behavior and discipline in the agency's Uniformed Division.
Reports indicated that two female officers, stationed outside former President Barack Obama's Washington, D.C., residence, engaged in a physical confrontation reportedly sparked by frustrations over scheduling.
Details of the early morning altercation reveal that around 2:30 a.m., a dispute arose outside the home of former President Obama. The incident involved two female officers of the Secret Service Uniformed Division. Issues allegedly began when one officer's replacement was late for duty, leading to heightened tensions.
As the disagreement intensified, the officer who was upset over the delay reportedly escalated the situation by contacting her supervisor. This communication occurred over a recorded line, highlighting the urgency of her request for assistance before matters became physical.
The officer, clearly agitated, is noted to have said she needed help "immediately before I whoop this girl's ass," reflecting the intensity of the emotions and frustration at play in this scenario.
Despite the severity of the incident, it is important to note that the commotion did not disrupt the Obama household or the peace of the surrounding neighborhood, according to reports.
This altercation is not an isolated occurrence for the agency, which has been under scrutiny due to similar incidents in recent years. Last year, an altercation involving Michelle Herczeg and the security detail of Vice President Kamala Harris also spotlighted issues within the same division.
The consistent exposure of such events in the public eye continues to highlight the pressing need for reform in the agency known for its utmost discretion and professionalism.
Agents and officers have engaged in discussions regarding this incident, broadening the debate on appropriate conduct and discipline standards expected within their ranks.
The Secret Service has grappled with matters concerning discipline, professionalism, and issues related to substance use. To address these ongoing challenges, former President Donald Trump appointed Sean Curran as the new director earlier this year.
The leadership change seeks to address these systemic issues and improve the agency's reputation and operational effectiveness. However, the incident involving the two officers underscores the complexity and depth of issues that need to be tackled.
The question of disciplinary action remains unresolved. According to reporting from RealClearPolitics' Susan Crabtree, it is not yet clear if either officer sustained injuries or if disciplinary measures have been implemented following the altercation.
Within the Secret Service, this episode is expected to undergo an internal review, part of the agency's standard disciplinary process. The outcome of this review will likely influence how similar incidents are managed in the future.
As scrutiny continues, the agency must confront both public and internal expectations to maintain a standard of professionalism and accountability. These evaluations are vital for restoring trust and operational integrity.
President Donald Trump's oldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, seems to have taken up a new hobby -- Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
According to reports, the eldest Trump daughter posted a picture to her millions of social media followers showing her mid-throw with her trainer, drawing plenty 0f attention.
The photo appeared to show Ivanka Trump close to taking down her instructor, Gui Valente. He's one of three instructors who are famous for their celebrity clientele.
Gui Valente is a brother of Joaquim Valente, who is model Gisele Bündchen‘s boyfriend. Ivanka Trump has previously posted photos of training sessions with the Valente brothers at their Miami, Florida gym.
The Valente brothers posted a statement on Instagram regarding their passion for training their clients in the art of Jiu-Jitsu.
"Jiu-jitsu is more than a martial art. Rooted in ancient tradition and refined over generations, it offers a path to physical confidence, mental clarity, and emotional balance."
They added, "Its philosophy, reflected in the @753Code, reminds us that true strength comes from character, discipline, and purpose.
What makes this journey even more meaningful is sharing it with those we respect and value. As families, training together gives us the rare gift of growing side by side, on the mat and in life."
As far as Ivanka Trump's level of commitment, it's definitely there. In her pictures of her training sessions, she sports a blue belt, which is typically indicative of at least two years of consistent training.
Earlier this year, Ivanka Trump opened up about her daughter getting her into the popular sport.
"I most recently got into jiu-jitsu, courtesy of my daughter, Arabella," Ivanka Trump said. "I started driving her to classes. She started asking me to join, so I joined. Then my two sons wanted to do what their older sister was doing. Then my husband joined."
Ivanka Trump's followers praised her on Instagram for taking the sport seriously and showing dedication.
"You are real life female super hero! So inspiring for all women to cultivate physical, mental, emotional and energetic strength," one Instagram user wrote.
Another wrote, "So inspiring. I wished I knew these skills. Self defense being taught in school woukd be so impactful."
It'll be interesting to see how far she takes it.
Kentrell Flowers, the man who attempted to carjack two U.S. Marshals who were working a security detail for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, learned his fate this week in court.
According to Law and Crime, Flowers, 19, was sentenced to 120 months in a federal prison for the crime.
He pleaded guilty earlier this year to "one count of using, carrying, possessing, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence," and made headlines in the process not only for who he tried to carjack, but also what happened as a result.
Flowers was ultimately shot in the face as the carjacking attempt concluded.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon handed down the sentence this week, along with a five-year supervised release.
The attack made headlines given that Justice Sotomayor was the person being protected by the U.S. Marshals security detail.
Law and Crime noted:
According to court documents filed in Washington, D.C., federal court, the incident took place at about 1:17 a.m. on July 5, 2024, in the 2100 block of 11th Street Northwest, which is just outside of Sotomayor’s home. Two deputies were parked in separate unmarked U.S. government vehicles when a silver minivan “stopped directly next to” one of them.
The criminal complaint filed in court provided additional details.
"As the silver van stopped, an individual later identified as Kentrell Flowers, got out of the van, approached the Complainant’s driver’s door, and pointed a firearm directly at the [deputy] through the front driver’s side window," the criminal complaint read.
It added, "The [deputy] pulled out his department issued firearm and fired approximately four times at Defendant Flowers through the window, striking Flowers in the mouth."
Not surprisingly, the shot fired through the window at Flowers resulted in the criminal dropping immediately to the ground.
Deputies quickly provided Flowers first aid. A second deputy had fired at Flowers but didn't strike him, according to court documents.
Law and Crime added:
One of the deputies grabbed the gun Flowers had been holding and later identified it as a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson. The weapon had no rounds chambered and eight rounds remaining in the 13-round capacity magazine.
After being shot in the face and then sentenced to 120 months in a federal slammer, it's safe to say Flowers presumably has plenty of time to think about all of the regrets he has.
Clint Eastwood and his colleagues from countless westerns and other movies were shocked to learn of the death of a staple in the industry.
According to Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health revealed that actress Mara Corday has died. She was 95.
The actress appeared in several hit films, including the classic cult horror film "Tarantula," and alongside Eastwood in a number of movies.
Corday once described Eastwood as a "Godsend" for her career in the movie industry.
The Washington Post obtained a death certificate via the L.A. County Department of Health confirming that Corday died in early February at her residence in Valencia, California.
According to Corday's formal death certificate, the late actress died of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
RIP Mara Corday who has passed away at the age of 95 🕊💔 pic.twitter.com/vR3Mp95c0l
— ClassicActorsOfHollywood (@CAOH110291) May 25, 2025
The Hollywood Reporter noted:
A onetime contract player at Universal-International, Corday also worked in many Westerns, among them Drums Across the River (1954), starring Audie Murphy; King Vidor’s Man Without a Star (1955), starring Kirk Douglas; and The Quiet Gun (1957), starring Forrest Tucker.
Notably, Corday was married to actor Richard Long from 1954 to 1974, until he passed away due to heart issues.
Corday once gave an interview regarding her hit horror film, Tarantual, noting that movies like that at the time really boiled down to the special effects side of the production.
The outlet noted:
There’s not much of a plot,” Corday said in an interview for Tom Weaver’s 1996 book It Came From Horrorwood. “You’re at the mercy of the ‘fright,’ the ‘horror,’ or whatever. You’re at the mercy of the special effects people, because if they don’t do a good job, then the whole picture goes in the toilet. For instance, The Giant Claw!”
Given her Hollywood status and resume, it shouldn't come as a surprise that many of her fans across social media paid tribute to her.
"RIP Mara Corday, 95. Of course, we love her for TARANTULA, THE GIANT CLAW and THE BLACK SCORPION, but here she is in a low-budget 1956 Ron Ormond-produced Western, with a title that would serve Leslie Nielsen well decades later," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Our farewell tribute to the beautiful Universal actress of colorful westerns and creature features."
Clearly, her legacy will live on and her films will be enjoyed for a long time to come.
A new book titled "Original Sin," authored by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, unveils tensions that surfaced between former Vice President Kamala Harris and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper during a summer 2024 interview, Fox News reported.
Harris reportedly used harsh language to express her frustration with Cooper following a contentious interview in which he questioned Biden’s debate performance against Trump.
The interview, held in June 2024, involved Cooper posing tough questions to Harris regarding President Biden’s debate performance against his opponent, Donald Trump. Cooper’s line of questioning suggested that Biden’s debate presence raised concerns among Democrats.
During the exchange, Cooper referenced comments from Democrats labeling the debate as a “disaster” and a “trainwreck,” which led to Harris emphasizing the importance of substance over style in assessing a presidency. She maintained that the presidency’s value lies not in successful debate appearances but in achievements and governance.
Cooper probed deeper, drawing comparisons between Biden’s debate performance in 2024 and four years earlier. He inquired about the observed differences in Biden’s demeanor, pressing Harris for her perspective on the contrasts that had emerged over time.
Visibly frustrated, Harris responded with a focus on Biden’s tenure, underscoring his performance over the past three and a half years as opposed to the recent debate critiques. Her retorts echoed her stance on evaluating Biden’s historic accomplishments over mere moments on stage.
After the interview, Harris was reportedly displeased with Cooper’s approach, vocalizing her irritation in remarks made to her colleagues. Harris criticized Cooper with strong language for what she perceived as a lack of respect, noting, “This doesn’t treat me like the damn vice president of the United States.”
Additionally, Harris reflected on her previously high regard for Cooper, stating to colleagues, "I thought we were better than that," indicating a sense of personal betrayal by the interview's tone.
In documenting these remarks, Tapper and Thompson’s book characterizes Harris's response as personal, despite Cooper posing questions reflective of national concerns.
The heart of the tension centered on Cooper's insistence on discussing Biden’s debate performance, with Harris’s responses emphasizing an overarching view of Biden’s presidency rather than short-term evaluations. Harris argued that “this election and who is the president of the United States has to be about substance.”
When pressured further by Cooper's inquiries, Harris retorted, emphasizing the longevity of Biden’s leadership over fleeting debate moments. Her replies highlighted her focus on the cumulative achievements of the administration rather than the immediate evaluations stemming from a single debate.
Throughout the interview, Harris demonstrated her loyalty to Biden, aiming to steer the dialogue toward positive achievements rather than dwelling on critical debate feedback.
The revelations from "Original Sin" illuminate the behind-the-scenes tensions Harris experienced following the interview. The book describes her reaction as a strong response to Cooper’s line of questioning, which she perceived as challenging her authority and Democratic ideals.
In highlighting this episode, the book adds another layer to understanding Harris’s role and responses in the 2024 political climate. It underscores the fragile balance of media interactions and political communication in high-stakes environments.
There's so much at stake for President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," and it goes beyond extending tax cuts and no tax on overtime and tips.
According to the Daily Wire, Republicans are cheering hard for the full passage of the bill, as it will mean the end of federally-funded transgender procedures for both children and adults, assuming the bill makes it to the president's desk.
Reports noted that Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was at the forefront of extending a provision in the bill to cut off federal funds for transgender procedures for adults in addition to children, which was already covered in the bill.
Thanks to Crenshaw's efforts, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program will no longer cover transgender procedures.
Calling it the "lobotomy of our generation," Crenshaw doubled down in his fight to ban such procedures from receiving federal funding, even coining the provision the "Crenshaw amendment."
"The Crenshaw Amendment will become law — and it’s long overdue," Crenshaw told The Daily Wire.
He added, "Gender transition procedures are the lobotomy of our generation. So-called ‘gender-affirming care’ isn’t healthcare—it’s fringe science with no proven benefit and massive risks."
We did it. We got my provision into the Big Beautiful Bill. NO MORE Medicaid, CHIP, or ACA funding for GENDER TRANSITIONS on minors. I’ve been fighting this issue for YEARS but we could never get the votes to make it law. Now we will.
Evil keeps losing. We keep winning. pic.twitter.com/Rwr8pclFdr
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) May 13, 2025
The Daily Wire noted:
The provision was secured by an amendment to Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act, prohibiting funding for medically unnecessary procedures. This would mean funding would no longer go toward things like removing the breasts of women who identify as men or crafting pseudo male or female genitalia for transgender-identifying individuals.
As we now know, the bill passed the House by a narrow margin, and Crenshaw's amendment was included.
Social media users reacted to Crenshaw's amendment and his announcement.
"Great! Also, can we cut some of this spending longer-term?" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Great. I support that, but what I care more about is cutting spending. . . . could you, you know, maybe focus on the thing that's going to destroy our country -- our debt?"
Only time will tell if Senate Republicans can muster the support needed to clear the upper chamber.