President Joe Biden's COVID-19 diagnosis sparked a mad dash to get him back to his Rehoboth Beach, Delaware residence, the UK Daily Mail reported. One of the news outlet's reporters who was onboard Air Force One described the ordeal.
Senior White House correspondent Emily Goodin was among reporters in the press pool who had accompanied the president to Las Vegas, Nevada. The reporter explained what led up to the moment when Air Force One abruptly left town with the press and president on board.
Biden spent Monday, July 15, campaigning as planned. Goodwin said that "despite escalating calls from within the Democratic party for the president to quit the 2024 race, he appeared to be in a jovial mood when he arrived in the afternoon at Joint Base Andrews, outside of Washington, D.C."
The next day was another successful stop, in which he delivered what the reporter called "one of his more impressive teleprompter speeches at the NAACP convention," Goodwin recalled. However, by that Wednesday, everything had changed.
Goodwin said that "by Wednesday at noon, it was a dramatically different story" from the rest of the trip. "The President was running about an hour behind schedule," which the reporter said "wasn't unusual" as Biden is "habitually late."
However, it was after the presidential motorcade and the press made their way to the next stop at a Mexican restaurant that Goodwin noticed a change. The Secret Service attempted to hide Biden from photographers as he entered Lindo Michoacan's dining room.
"When he finally stepped through the door, his appearance was shocking. He looked pale, weak, exhausted, and shuffled slowly across the room," Goodwin said. The reporters in the press pool "all agreed" that he looked unwell.
Afterward, Biden did some interviews while the press waited. However, after some hours of waiting on him without word on what would happen next, they finally got the email from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
"President Biden tested positive for COVID-19. He will be returning to Delaware where he will self-isolate and will continue to carry out all his duties fully during that time," the email said. This meant that the press was going along for the ride.
Goodwin described a hasty takeoff. "Air Force One was flying so fast that I was shaking in my seat. Less than 30 minutes ago, my colleagues in the White House press corps and I had received word – just before the rest of the world – that President Biden had been diagnosed with COVID," Goodin shared.
"Now we were joining him on a mad rush back from Las Vegas to the Bidens' Rehoboth Beach getaway in Delaware. Moments after fastening my seatbelt, the massive engines of the presidential Boeing 747 roared to life," Goodwin recalled.
Goodwin's account seems to hint that the return trip was more of an emergency situation than was previously reported to the public. "The flight attendants, in their custom blue uniforms, stumbled in the aisles as the jet's nose pointed skyward," Goodwin said.
"Tray tables shook. Reporters held up their water glasses so they wouldn't spill. Most concerning, though, was that we had no idea what was going on," she added. Then, "in less than four days' time, his 52-year career in politics would come to a dramatic end" when Biden stepped down from his reelection campaign, Goodwin later said.
There was much speculation about what happened between Biden's departure from Las Vegas and his announcement about backing out of his reelection campaign. Now, it appears the situation was more dire than the public was previously led to believe.
President Joe Biden said he would follow through with "Supreme Court reform" during his speech on Wednesday, The Hill reported. The president addressed the nation from the Oval Office days after quitting his reelection bid.
Biden spoke about his decision to exit the presidential race from behind the resolute desk in the short address. He also laid out his plans for what has now become a lame-duck presidency.
"Over the next six months, I’ll be focused on doing my job as president," Biden said. He listed off many things he would fix that he was also responsible for breaking, but also pledged that he would "call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy."
For decades, the left had zero problems with how the Supreme Court operated. Not so coincidentally, this was also during a time when liberals had the majority in the court.
Now that the court is 6-3 in favor of the conservative judges, Democrats seem to have homed in on perceived flaws in the Supreme Court system that has decided against some of their pet causes. They were outraged that the court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022.
The left also lost the battle over affirmative action as the court outlawed race-based admissions in higher education. Most recently, the high court found in favor of granting presidential immunity for former President Donald Trump, which may have sealed the deal for Biden.
Until now, Biden has been reluctant to tackle these initiatives because of the danger of politicizing the Supreme Court. However, several media reports state that Biden is ready to make changes, such as imposing an ethics code on justices.
This comes after Justice Clarence Thomas received scrutiny over high-value trips and gifts he received but did not report, which could become the rationale for Biden's change. The president also wants to impose term limits on the justices rather than lifetime appointments.
With Biden officially out of the running, he may be free to do more without worrying about scrutiny as an incumbent running for reelection. This could include the changes to the court and other issues he's promised to tackle in his final months.
Yet, Democrats have more to worry about than just what Biden does before he leaves office. With Harris now his replacement as the new presumptive Democratic nominee, they'll have to convince the American people that she is the person for the job.
To combat these succession woes, the establishment media has begun scrambling to change the narrative surrounding Harris. Fox News reported that the effort includes erasing unflattering news from her past.
One of the most striking examples is deleting a GovTrack report that pegged Harris as the "most liberal" senator in 2019. Like something out of George Orwell's 1984, that page was scrubbed sometime earlier this month, even as recently as the day after Biden left the race.
Whatever Biden does in his last few months can't be as horrible as what he's done with the rest of his term. Unfortunately, it still might backfire for his successor who already faces electoral challenges of her own.
The Secret Service reportedly asked former President Donald Trump to nix outdoor rallies after the agency failed to protect him from an assassination attempt, Breitbart reported. Trump was wounded in the right ear at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13.
Anonymous sources claim that the Secret Service is urging Trump to move his popular rallies to indoor venues. Following this advice, the Trump campaign reportedly said it is attempting to book "basketball arenas and other large spaces" for upcoming events.
Trump has good reason to follow this advice after the Secret Service allowed 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks to fire on the former president. Trump sustained a wound from "a bullet that pierced the upper part" of his ear, which outraged the campaign.
During a congressional hearing this week, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle admitted that her agency dropped the ball on his security detail. Cheatle resigned following her appearance before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Tuesday.
Trump's campaign has agreed to the move because it's easier for security personnel "to control who comes through a finite number of doors." However, the change does pose other challenges for the Trump campaign.
Renting indoor spaces has higher costs associated with it, which means more funds are drained from the campaign coffers for the same rallies. Moreover, one campaign official pointed out that it also changes the impact of these rallies.
"Obviously, with an indoor venue, you have a capacity. It doesn’t pack the same punch," the anonymous campaign official said.
"There’s something about being at one of those outdoor rallies," the unnamed official added. Indeed, Trump has built his reputation on drawing large, energetic crowds that motivate his loyal supporters.
However, it seems that the Secret Service is either unable to or not interested in making sure the former president is safe anymore. If that's the case, Trump has more to worry about than just his rallies.
The agency in charge of protecting the former president is guilty of profound failures that almost cost Trump his life. In the aftermath of the shooting, several shocking facts have come to light about the state of Secret Service protection.
According to the New York Post, Cheatle admitted that her agency made several blunders that led to the assassination attempt. One of the most notorious was her claim that the roof Crooks reportedly fired his shots from was unguarded because it was "sloped" and became a "safety factor."
Because of this decision, Crooks had a perfect vantage point just 130 years away from the former president. The gunman was killed by Secret Service counter-snipers, but not before wounding Trump, killing one man, and wounding two others.
Crooks also wasn't stopped despite Secret Service spotting the young man more than an hour before Trump took the stage. Rather than telling the former president to wait before going on, the agency allowed the one person they were charged with protecting to walk right into the would-be assassin's sites.
Trump relies on his outdoor rallies to drum up enthusiasm among voters. He shouldn't have to curtail them because the Secret Service didn't adequately perform its duties.
Trump's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the transfer of funds from the president to the vice president was improper, CBS News reported. Vice President Kamala Harris is running in place of President Joe Biden after the elderly Democrat dropped out of his reelection campaign.
Despite several assurances that the 81-year-old would remain in the presidential race, Biden announced over the weekend that he was stepping aside. He endorsed Harris, who has become the presumptive Democratic nominee in his place.
The FEC complaint named Harris, Biden, and their campaign treasurer, Keana Spencer. The dispute concerns millions of dollars raised for the Biden/Harris campaign while the president was still in the running, which is now under Harris's discretion.
The complaint alleges that they are "seeking to perpetrate a $91.5 million dollar heist of Joe Biden's leftover campaign cash — a brazen money grab that would constitute the single largest excessive contribution and biggest violation in the history of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act")." This comes after an unprecedented candidate swap.
Former President Donald Trump's campaign attorney, David Warrington, accused Biden and Harris of "filing fraudulent forms with the Commission purporting to repurpose one candidate's principal campaign committee for the use of another candidate." It's as if Harris simply crossed out Biden's name and wrote her own instead of filing a Statement of Candidacy as is required.
"There is no provision in federal campaign finance law for Kamala Harris to take over Joe Biden's candidacy now by quite literally attempting to become him via an amendment of his Form 2, assuming control of his campaign by amending Form 1, and making off with all of his cash," Warrington wrote in legal filings. The Harris campaign will likely disagree.
The rationale is that the original campaign was filed naming the "principal campaign committee" with both Biden and Harris. The original fundraising committees have changed names to reflect Harris' new role, such as Harris for President and Harris Victory Fund.
Trump's case also seems questionable in light of FEC commissioner Dara Lindenbaum's statement to X, formerly Twitter. "I agree with @HvonSpakovsky, if @KamalaHarris becomes the Democrat Party presidential nominee, she gets access to the @JoeBiden campaign funds," Lindenbaum wrote on Sunday.
I agree with @HvonSpakovsky, if @KamalaHarris becomes the Democrat Party presidential nominee, she gets access to the @JoeBiden campaign funds. @FEC https://t.co/53HAXugefl pic.twitter.com/oxCp1KwUVM
— Dara Lindenbaum (@DaraLind) July 21, 2024
The Harris campaign experienced a fundraising bonanza in the days after she became the de facto nominee. From the time Biden dropped out Sunday until Monday night, Harris reportedly received $100 million in campaign contributions.
However, Warrington argued that the transfer of campaign funds from Biden to Harris also amounts to a donation and should be treated as such. "This is little more than a thinly veiled $91.5 million excessive contribution from one presidential candidate to another, that is, from Joe Biden's old campaign to Kamala Harris's new campaign," Warrington said.
"This effort makes a mockery of our campaign finance laws," he added. "Contributions by federal candidate committees to other federal candidates are limited to $2,000," Warrington pointed out.
"Yet, Biden for President is seeking to make an excessive contribution over approximately $91 million dollars — more than 45,000 times the legal limit," he added. Warrington also asserted that since Biden dropped out before transferring the money, he technically should have had to return it.
Democrats think just because their voters accepted this switcheroo that, the FEC will, too. However, the matter will have to be litigated as this is an unprecedented situation involving millions of dollars in campaign funds.
The Supreme Court has turned down more than two dozen requests to rehear cases that were already decided by the high court, Newsweek reported. This remedy is available only within 25 days of the high court's decision and is rarely granted.
The Supreme Court has the final say on the nation's legal battles, but litigants may have a second crack at their cases if they disagree with the court's initial decision. However, the door has closed for almost 30 cases as the court published its list on Monday.
"The Supreme Court granting a rehearing is extremely rare. There are two possible forms of a rehearing," explained University of Houston professor Alex Badas, who specializes in judicial politics.
"One after the merits decision. One after a denial of certiorari. Both are very rare," Badas added.
There are specific instances that often warrant rehearing, though it's never guaranteed. According to Badas, a rehearing is warranted if the court subsequently "issued a merits decision in another decision that changes how the Justice view the case they just denied."
That means that if a new case comes up after the court issues a writ of certiorari in a similar instance, it may warrant another look at the issue. Other instances for rehearing include cases where the justices did not participate in deciding it for one reason or another.
In one case, Samuel Alito simply didn't rule on a decision, prompting the participants to request a new hearing. In another, the litigants argued that Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Brett Kavanaugh weren't part of the decision and, therefore, deserved a second consideration.
Sometimes, it's an entire slate of liberal or conservative judges who don't participate which triggers the rehearing request. This happened in Brunson v. Sotomayor, et al., where liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson were named as defendants and therefore sat out the decision.
On the conservative side, Alito and Kavanaugh, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts, were named as defendants and therefore did not rule on a case that requested a rehearing. The request for rehearing was denied.
Among the cases decided this term were a pair that were quite consequential. Most notable was the court's decision on presidential immunity in Donald Trump v. United States, according to U.S. News & World Reports.
The court heard arguments from both sides about whether former President Donald Trump could be held accountable for the events of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot or whether presidential immunity applied. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided Trump had immunity but sent it back to the lower courts to decide exactly which actions that applied to.
In another case regarding Jan. 6, the court was asked to examine whether the government overreached when it charged upwards of 300 Trump supporters with "obstructing or impeding an official proceeding." The uprising took place against the backdrop of the certification of the 2020 presidential election that ended with Joe Biden becoming president.
The court's 6-3 decision found that the government didn't meet the threshold for charging rioters with obstruction, namely the destruction of documents, records, or objects used in the proceedings. Many of the Trump supporters charged with obstruction may now receive lighter sentences.
The Supreme Court is just as fallible as any other institution. There are remedies for the times when it decides incorrectly, but it's a difficult threshold to cross for the many who aren't pleased with the court's decisions.
Former President Donald Trump has a double-digit lead against newly minted Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Breitbart reported. Harris took over as the presumptive nominee after President Joe Biden stepped down from the race Sunday, thanks in part to pressure from former President Barack Obama.
Biden responded to calls from his own party to get out of the presidential race. After several assurances that he would stay, Biden abruptly announced via X, formerly Twitter, that he was dropping out Sunday.
Now, a Harris X/Forbes poll conducted before the announcement shows that 52% of likely voters choose Trump compared to 42% for Harris. When adjusted using the "leaning" question of the 6% who were undecided, the advantage still went to Trump with 54% to Harris' 46%.
🇺🇲 2024 GE: Among 2,169 likely voters by @Harris_X_ for @Forbes
🟥 Trump: 52%
🟦 Harris: 42%
⬜ Undecided: 6%With leans
🟥 Trump: 54%
🟦 Harris: 46%
—
#161 (1.6/3.0) | July 19-21 | 2,169 LVhttps://t.co/aftIVaQhd4 https://t.co/gK9W0GpOYK pic.twitter.com/eQG2zGoD5P— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) July 22, 2024
According to Politico, Obama had a role in getting Biden to step down from the race. In the aftermath, he has refrained from endorsing Harris while others in the party decided to do just that.
It's clear that Obama saw that Biden's campaign was faltering, and he, along with other prominent Democrats, leaned on Biden to give up his reelection bid. Harris became the logical choice, but Obama did not publicly support Harris immediately.
"We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges," Obama said in a statement Sunday, Fox News reported.
"I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond," Obama added.
Meanwhile, Harris has received the backing of the Clintons, Biden, and other Democrats. After having such an active role in convincing Biden to leave, Obama likely didn't want to seem as if he staged a coup and handpicked his replacement.
Even if Harris is not the most popular choice to replace Biden in the presidential election, she's the most logical at this late stage. According to The Hill, the Democratic convention is less than four weeks away, limiting the time for vetting and choosing a candidate.
Harris has name recognition and the infrastructure already in place to run a campaign since she was part of Biden's reelection bid. Rather than building from scratch, Harris can pick up where Biden left off.
Furthermore, as USA Today pointed out, endorsing Harris as his successor means that the money raised for the Biden/Harris ticket can seamlessly become a Harris war chest. The Biden campaign added another $127 million to its coffers in June, which Harris would then take over.
"If Harris remains on the ticket, as either the presidential or vice presidential candidate, the new ticket would maintain access to all the funds," campaign attorney Saurav Ghosh, who is affiliated with the Campaign Legal Center, explained. Fundraising wouldn't be so easy for a newcomer.
As her track record demonstrates, Harris is nobody's first choice for anything. However, the unprecedented situation Democrats face seems to justify choosing her even with such profound unpopularity.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has whistleblower information about possible security failures that led to the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, Just the News reported. Trump sustained a gunshot wound at a July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
After the shooting, a bloodied Trump stood up and raised his fist to the crowd to show that he was okay. Although everyone was elated to see he had, in fact, survived an attempted assassination, it didn't take long to shift to figuring out how this happened.
Now, Rep. Jim Jordan is trying to determine the failures that left the former president so vulnerable. In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray Monday, Jordan shared what the whistleblowers revealed a possible cause.
Jordan said that an informant from the Secret Service shared that the agency new it had "limited resources" heading into the rally. The FBI and Secret Service were preparing for Trump's rally and an appearance by first lady Jill Biden and may have been spread too thin.
Jordan warned that the committee is attempting to determine what went wrong and will call Wray to a hearing next week. Jordan said he expects Wray to prepare formal remarks for the July 24 hearing.
He has "several unanswered questions about the failures that led to the attempted assassination of a president," which hasn't happened in four decades, as Jordan noted. The Ohio Republican also called on the FBI to determine whether it could "conduct a rapid, transparent, and thorough investigation in the wake of its recent scandals."
He went on to share a numbered list of questions for Wray, many of which the public has been asking since the shooting. Among them is the logistical considerations are, including the number of "agents, analysts, and support personnel" who are conducting the FBI's probe.
Jordan also will want to hear details about the measures taken to secure the building and the venue's perimeter on the day of the rally. Another question from the lawmaker demanded to know what happened with the local police who allegedly "encountered the shooter" before he fired on Trump.
Most importantly, Jordan will want Wray to share what the FBI's investigation after the fact turned up. "What does the FBI’s evaluation of the shooter’s phone and digital activity show about his actions and movements in the days and hours leading up to the attempted assassination?" Jordan said in the letter.
Many of these questions from Jordan hint at the larger point that something doesn't add up about this shooting. The 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, had no criminal history until the day he lined up what could have been the perfect kill shot, CNN reported.
"Even though he didn’t get his primary target, the shooter was successful in a lot of ways because he got closer to doing something no one has done in decades," a federal official told the news outlet. Crooks was characterized as a loner but not particularly political.
Authorities are saying it now looks as if he was more opportunistic, picking Trump as his target because his rally was within an hour of where the young man lived. "It didn’t look to me like he was ready for an assault," former FBI behavioral analyst Kathleen Puckett said.
"It looked to me like he was taking a window that he saw a vulnerability in where he felt that he was unobserved to the extent he could get off some critical shots," Puckett added. She also warned that trying to figure out his motives might be "complicated" and turn up few answers in the end.
Congress needs to hold these people in the intelligence community accountable. The American people deserve to know what happened and why, or mistrust of the government will continue to grow.
A federal court upheld a Mississippi law that confers a lifetime voting ban on felons convicted of certain crimes, The Hill reported. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision to strike down the law.
The law states that people convicted of felonies, including arson, bigamy, bribery, embezzlement, forgery, or theft, are barred from voting for life. The plaintiffs in the case sued on the grounds that this violated the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment.
Thursday's 13-6 decision demonstrated that the full court disagreed. The decision stated that overturning the law "would thwart the ability of the State’s legislature and citizens to determine their voting qualifications, and would require federal courts overtly to make legislative choices that, in our federal system, belong at the State level," the majority opinion said.
“Do the hard work of persuading your fellow citizens that the law should change. The paramount lesson of the Constitution and Richardson is that the changes sought by Plaintiffs here can and must be achieved through public consensus effectuated in the legislative process, not by judicial fiat," the document went on.
The plaintiffs have argued that disenfranchising felons violates the Equal Protection Clause. "Denying broad groups of our citizens, for life, the ability to have a role in determining who governs them diminishes our society and deprives individuals of the full rights of representative government," the plaintiffs' attorney Jon Youngwood said in a written statement.
"We remain confident in this case, and our clients remain committed to ensuring that their right to vote is restored." Previously, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit had deemed it "cruel and unusual" punishment to strip voting rights.
"Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear national trend in our nation against permanent disenfranchisement," the ruling from the smaller panel had determined. The decision said that "severing former offenders from the body politic forever, Section 241 ensures that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the term their culpability requires, and serves no protective function to society."
This portion was overruled by the opinion of the full court. "Every circuit court that has had the chance to invalidate felon disenfranchisement has rejected the opportunity," the later majority opinion said.
Mississippi has the strictest voting laws, with some 11% of the electorate deemed ineligible. While some complain about disenfranchising voters, this type of law could be a major story in the upcoming presidential election.
These rules about allowing convicted felons could become front and center during the presidential election in November. Former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in a Manhattan court in May, the Associated Press reported.
Although he is not a resident of Mississippi, Trump's home state of Florida has similar rules that would keep him out of the voting booth. As the GOP presidential nominee, it will become fodder for his opposition if the candidate can't even vote for himself.
However, the liberal love affair with criminals may work in his favor this time. Since Trump was convicted in a New York court, where the laws are more favorable to felons, he may get to cast a ballot after all and provide a photo op that Democrats will bristle at.
"If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law," explained Blair Bowie from the Campaign Legal Center. It remains to be seen what Trump's sentence will be in New York, but it appears the conviction is more meaningless by the day.
Felons have broken the law in a serious way, and they have to pay the price, even if it is for life. Allowing them the same rights to vote as the general public is antithetical to justice.
A former White House senior official is accused of working as a spy for the South Korean government, the Daily Beast reported. A federal indictment claims Sue Mi Terry was allegedly trading America’s secrets for luxury gifts.
Terry has held positions on the White House National Security Council and as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. The 54-year-old is also married to Max Boot, a Washington Post columnist.
Prosecutors are alleging that she used her influential positions to act as a double agent for the South Korean government. According to USA Today, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said Terry “subverted foreign agent registration laws in order to provide South Korean intelligence officers with access, information, and advocacy.”
In exchange, she received lavish gifts. “Terry allegedly sold out her positions and influence to the South Korean government in return for luxury handbags, expensive meals, and thousands of dollars of funding for her public policy program."
According to the 31-page indictment, Terry could spend up to five years in prison for allegedly spilling secrets to the South Korean National Intelligence Service. She became a "valuable source of information" who also gave access to U.S. officials and used her influence to shape policy.
In exchange, she got a taste of the good life. Terry was treated to dinners at the finest restaurants and received designer handbags, including a $3,450 Louis Vuitton purse, a $2,950 Bottega Veneta handbag, and a $2,845 Dolce & Gabbana overcoat.
Most troublingly, Terry also received $37,000 to find a public policy program that advocated for the communist nation. Perhaps it's no coincidence that she also testified to Congress on behalf of Korean interests.
On three separate occasions, when she appeared before lawmakers, Terry certified that she was not an agent of a foreign government. Despite the compelling case in the government indictment, Terry's attorney, Lee Wolosky, said she was an American patriot.
“These allegations are unfounded and distort the work of a scholar and news analyst known for her independence and years of service to the United States. Dr. Terry...was a harsh critic of the South Korean government during times this indictment alleges that she was acting on its behalf. Once the facts are made clear it will be evident the government made a significant mistake."
How It Worked
Despite her attorney’s protestations, prosecutors allege that Terry used her connections from her time in government to carry out espionage and betrayal. She worked in various positions for the U.S. government between 2001 and 2011.
According to court documents, Terry once slipped a handwritten account to a "handler" at the North Korean intelligence agency that outlined the details of a 2002 meeting with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding strategies for dealing with North Korea.
In April 2023, Terry allegedly hosted a cocktail party funded by the foreign intelligence agency. One of her handlers even attended disguised as a diplomat to make connections with congressional staff on the guest list.
Terry also penned opinion pieces with her columnist husband at the behest of her handlers, Fox News reported. Ironically, Boot had accused former President Donald Trump of being a Russian agent.
It would be a monumental scandal if Terry were, in fact, working as a foreign agent against American interests. It's frightening that she had access to high places, important people, and even the American media while allegedly working for our adversaries.
Several Democratic governors have pledged their support to President Joe Biden's reelection bid despite his horrible debate performance last week, Breitbart reported. Meanwhile, Biden has pledged not to concede or drop out as rumors swirl.
During his first debate with former President Donald Trump, Biden seemed confused, tripped over his words, and seemed to freeze at certain points. This has led many to declare him unfit to run for reelection even as Biden pledges to stay in the race.
Still, some Democrats are circling the wagons for him as the campaign season ramps up. A call with several Democratic state governors has yielded support from some of their heaviest hitters.
Among those are Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, who participated in a call with Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Others who issued statements of support included Govs. Katie Hobbs of Arizona, Ned Lamont of Connecticut, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, and Wes Moore of Maryland.
Newsom and Whitmer both took to social media to show their loyalty to the Democratic Party's presidential candidate. Perhaps they feel their future chances require it, including becoming Biden's replacement should the time come.
"I have three words from the President tonight — he’s all in. And so am I," Newsom posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday.
I heard three words from the President tonight -- he’s all in. And so am I.@JoeBiden’s had our back. Now it’s time to have his.
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) July 4, 2024
Whitmer similarly posted a simple message that she wasn't wavering from the Democrats' presidential pick for 2024 after the call with Biden. "JoeBiden is our nominee. He is in it to win it and I support him," Whitmer posted.
.@JoeBiden is our nominee. He is in it to win it and I support him.
— Gretchen Whitmer (@gretchenwhitmer) July 4, 2024
Despite the high-profile Democrats performing damage control, others have begun to speak up about the need for Biden to step down as the candidate. The first to do so was Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, the Associated Press reported.
Doggett, the 15-term lawmaker who represents the district that includes left-leaning Austin, said Biden wasn't able to "effectively defend his many accomplishments" during the debate. He called on Biden to "make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw" from the race.
"My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly, nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved. Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden’s first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw," Doggett said in a statement Tuesday.
"I respectfully call on him to do so," he added. Doggett said Biden should act as former President Lyndon Johnson did and step away from the race when victory is unattainable. "Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw. President Biden should do the same," Doggett added.
The emergency meeting to garner support to prop up Biden will do little to convince the American people that he's fit to serve. Now that voters have seen Biden for what he is, there's no going back regardless of what prominent Democrats say.