Michelle Obama's chances of winning the 2024 election have significantly increased with bookmakers after Biden's debate with Trump on Thursday.
According to Newsweek, before the debate on June 27, leading bookmakers offered odds of 16/1 (5.9 percent) for Michelle Obama winning the 2024 election. These odds were from Bet 365 and Sky Bet, while William Hill offered 20/1 (4.8 percent).
By 8 a.m. ET on Tuesday, the odds had changed significantly. Bet 365 offered 12/1 (7.7 percent), Sky Bet had 14/1 (6.7 percent), and William Hill posted 10/1 (9.1 percent).
During Thursday's debate, President Biden appeared to lose his train of thought, raising concerns about his age and cognitive faculties. This performance sparked a debate within the Democratic Party about Biden’s viability as the 2024 nominee.
Former President Donald Trump criticized Biden's comments on immigration, questioning the clarity and coherence of Biden's statements.
Before the debate, Biden's odds of winning in November were relatively strong. Bet 365 offered 13/8 (38.1 percent), while Sky Bet and William Hill had him at 11/8 (42.1 percent).
Post-debate, Biden’s odds dropped sharply. Bet 365 shifted to 15/4 (21.1 percent), Sky Bet to 7/2 (22.2 percent), and William Hill to 3/1 (25 percent).
Johanna Maska, a former aide to Obama, posted a video critiquing Biden's debate performance. Maska urged Democrats to consider a new candidate, citing Biden’s inability to articulate his thoughts clearly.
Despite the speculation, Crystal Carson, Michelle Obama's director of communications, reiterated that Michelle Obama has no plans to run for president. Carson emphasized that Obama supports President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for re-election.
The Trump campaign declared victory in the debate, criticizing Biden's performance and preparation. They argued that despite a weeklong preparation at Camp David, Biden failed to defend his record on the economy and immigration effectively.
The debate also had an impact on the odds for other potential candidates. California Governor Gavin Newsom saw his odds improve significantly. Before the debate, his odds were 20/1 (4.8 percent) but improved to 5/1 (16.7 percent) post-debate.
Newsom expressed pride in Biden’s performance and dismissed any suggestions that he might run for president. He described such suggestions as "a non-sequitur."
The recent debate between President Biden and former President Trump has had a notable impact on the betting odds for the 2024 election. Michelle Obama's odds have increased significantly despite her repeated statements that she will not run. Biden's performance has raised concerns within the Democratic Party, and his odds have declined. Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom's odds have also improved, though he has dismissed any intentions of running. The situation continues to evolve, reflecting the dynamic nature of the upcoming election.
The president's health has become a major concern within the Biden administration, particularly after his visibly ailing performance during the first debate. This has prompted widespread discussions among Democrats about the possibility of Biden stepping down.
As reported by Daily Mail, Carl Bernstein, the journalist famous for breaking the Watergate scandal, claims Biden's health issues have been an ongoing problem observed frequently over the past 18 months.
During the 90-minute first debate on Thursday, Biden frequently lost his train of thought, trailed off mid-sentence, and mixed up topics. This performance sparked panic in the Democratic Party and led to calls for Biden to step down.
Despite Bernstein acknowledging Biden's competency in foreign policy, he noted a marked cognitive and physical decline in the last six months.
Bernstein revealed that multiple sources have told him about Biden's repeated similar issues over the past year and a half.
Former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain has been approached by many advisors with concerns about Biden's health. Bernstein cited recent instances where Biden appeared to freeze in public events, such as a fundraiser at the Four Seasons in New York in June 2023.
There have been calls for transparency about Biden's health, including releasing doctors' reports. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre dismissed videos of Biden being helped by Obama and Meloni as "cheap fakes."
Jean-Pierre stated, "Let's not forget: President Obama, President Biden have a relationship. They are friends. They're like family. And I think that's what you saw."
Biden shows no public plans to drop out or resign and continues campaigning. Trump's reaction during the debate included derision and questioning Biden's capability to be president. "I really don't know what he [Biden] just said. He's not equipped to be president. You know it and I know it," Trump said.
The Biden family met at Camp David post-debate to discuss his political future, with his family offering support.
Biden's dive in polls post-Atlanta has led to Democrats panicking and blaming his advisors for poor debate preparation. Bernstein remarked, "This is a problem that's not going to go away unless it's explicable."
Bernstein emphasized that his sources are adamant that what was seen during the debate was not a one-off incident. "They have all gone to Ron Klain in the past year to say 'we have a problem' such as we saw the other night," Bernstein added.
The concerns raised by Carl Bernstein regarding President Biden's cognitive and physical health are causing significant ripples within the Democratic Party. As the administration grapples with these issues, the calls for transparency and clarity on Biden's health status grow louder. The impact of Biden's recent performances on his campaign and the broader political landscape remains to be seen, but the pressure for a resolution is mounting.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) revealed plans to file articles of impeachment against several Supreme Court justices following a controversial ruling on presidential immunity.
According to Breitbart News, Ocasio-Cortez's announcement comes in response to a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, potentially impacting charges against former President Donald Trump.
The decision, handed down on Monday, was a six-to-three ruling in favor of limited presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. The case will now be remanded, possibly leading to the dismissal of some or all charges against Trump related to the January 6 Capitol riot.
The only Supreme Court justice ever impeached in U.S. history was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, later acquitted by the Senate. This historical context underscores the rarity and gravity of Ocasio-Cortez's move.
In her announcement, Ocasio-Cortez posted on X, “The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.” She further stated, “Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion for the Court's majority, emphasized the constitutional framework designed by the Framers, which demands an energetic, independent Executive. He stated, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”
The ruling has ignited a firestorm of political reactions. Former President Trump celebrated the decision, describing it as a “big win” for democracy, a sentiment he believes bolsters his reelection campaign.
Conversely, prominent Democrats have condemned the ruling. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) labeled it a “disgraceful decision by the MAGA SCOTUS,” while Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) asserted that the Court had gone “rogue.”
A senior Biden campaign official commented, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The Supreme Court's opinion discussed the broader implications of prosecuting a former President for official acts. Roberts noted, “This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency?”
Roberts’ opinion highlighted that Congress cannot criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between the branches of government.
Ocasio-Cortez's impeachment effort reflects a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between the legislative and judicial branches. The potential for impeachment underscores the intense partisan divide over the Supreme Court's role and decisions.
As Congress reconvenes, attention will focus on Ocasio-Cortez and her potential filing of impeachment articles, triggering significant debate across political lines. The Biden administration and its supporters are likely to oppose the ruling, seeing it as a threat to democratic norms. In contrast, Trump supporters may view it as vindication against politically motivated prosecutions. This move will mark a historic and contentious period in American politics, affecting the balance of power among government branches.
Steve Bannon, a prominent ally of former President Donald Trump, reported to a federal prison in Connecticut on Monday.
Bannon is serving a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 congressional investigation.
Fox News reported that Bannon, known for his role as a key strategist during Trump’s presidency, surrendered to authorities at the Federal Correctional Institution Danbury. This follows a lengthy legal battle, including a failed Supreme Court appeal.
Before entering the facility, Bannon addressed reporters alongside Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. He expressed pride in his incarceration, framing it as a stand against what he described as political oppression.
“I am going to prison. I’m proud to go to prison. I am proud of going to prison today,” Bannon declared. He added that his imprisonment was a result of standing up to various political figures and institutions he viewed as corrupt.
At the press conference, Bannon also engaged with a priest who offered spiritual guidance. “Father, don’t pray for me. Pray for our enemies. They’re the ones who are going to need the prayers,” he remarked.
Bannon's legal journey culminated in imprisonment following a series of extensive legal battles. Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court initially permitted Bannon to remain free pending appeal, a process that extended nearly two years.
However, once an appeals court confirmed his conviction, Bannon's bail was rescinded, and he was mandated to surrender by July 1. His lawyers urgently argued that his prosecution was politically charged, intended to prevent him from influencing the upcoming November elections.
Ultimately, Bannon was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress after he ignored a subpoena from the January 6 House Committee, demanding his deposition and submitting specific documents.
In addition to his current imprisonment, Bannon faces an upcoming trial in New York for allegedly defrauding donors in a border wall fundraising project, postponed until at least September. His vocal defiance and legal maneuvers underscore the ongoing conflict between Trump allies and federal authorities. Some view his imprisonment as political martyrdom, a narrative Bannon himself encourages.
“You can’t run a business from a federal prison,” Bannon stated. “I have no intention to do anything with business, but I have a First Amendment right. I have a First Amendment right to have my voice heard, and my voice is going to be heard every day.”
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has not commented on Bannon’s confinement conditions, maintaining its policy of not discussing individual cases.
As Bannon begins his sentence, the broader implications of his defiance and subsequent imprisonment continue to unfold. His case remains a significant point of contention in the ongoing discourse surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and its aftermath.
Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher is urging Democrats to consider replacing President Joe Biden as their nominee for the upcoming election.
Following Biden's lackluster performance in a recent debate against former President Donald Trump, Maher has voiced his concerns in a New York Times op-ed.
According to Daily Mail, Bill Maher has suggested that the Democratic Party should hold an open convention to find a new candidate. He described Biden's debate performance as "the worst episode of The Golden Bachelor ever," highlighting his belief that the president's age is a significant disadvantage.
Supporters of President Biden argued that his poor debate performance was due to a cold.
However, Maher questioned this excuse, asking why Biden was out campaigning the next morning if he was indeed unwell. He used this point to emphasize the need for Democrats to reconsider their choice of nominee.
Maher sees the upcoming convention as a chance for Biden to step aside gracefully. He believes an open competition would invigorate the party and attract public interest. Maher said a new nominee could revitalize the Democrats' chances in the election.
Maher speculated about potential candidates who could enter the race if an open convention were held. He mentioned names like California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, and several others.
Maher particularly praised Newsom for his strong television presence, which he believes is a crucial factor for success in modern politics.
Maher has been vocal about his concerns regarding Biden's age and policies on his Max show, "Real Time." He has consistently argued that Biden's advanced age could be a liability in the election.
In June, Maher criticized Biden's new immigration policy, predicting it would harm his chances of winning the presidency. He pointed out that the policy limits the number of asylum seekers at the border to 2,500 per day, a decision he believes is politically damaging.
Despite Maher's criticisms, Biden's campaign continues to work hard to maintain support from donors and surrogates. However, Democrats are growing concerned about Biden's ability to stay in the race and win the election.
Bill Maher has urged Democrats to consider a new nominee for the upcoming election, citing President Joe Biden's age and recent policy decisions as major concerns. He suggested an open convention, envisioning a competitive race involving several prominent Democratic figures.
Maher has consistently highlighted Biden's age as a potential liability and criticized his immigration policy. The decision ultimately rests with Biden, who is being encouraged by his advisors to remain in the race. Maher's op-ed reflects a growing concern within the Democratic Party about the president's ability to secure re-election.
President Joe Biden's recent debate performance has sparked intense concern among his aides and the public regarding his cognitive and physical health.
As reported by Daily Mail, a White House photographer disclosed concerns about President Biden's cognitive health, with aides revealing behind-the-scenes insights following a poor debate performance.
Despite the White House's explanations attributing his performance to a 'cold,' insiders and past officials suggest that his decline has been evident for some time.
Biden's campaign has brushed off the issue, describing his debate performance as merely a 'slow start.' When asked about Biden's daily condition during a post-debate interview, Vice President Kamala Harris avoided directly answering the question.
Anderson Cooper questioned Harris on Biden's condition, asking if the president's debate performance reflected his everyday state. Harris sidestepped the query, focusing instead on Biden’s ability to bring together Republicans and Democrats.
West emphasized that the debate was not an isolated incident of poor performance, suggesting a pattern of decline. Reporters have long complained about limited access to Biden, noting that his press interactions are heavily managed.
First Lady Jill Biden and close aides are rumored to be protecting the President, especially concerning his health issues. Residence staff have experienced unusual separations from the Biden family, heightening suspicions of efforts to conceal health matters.
During a hot July 4, 2021, event, Biden was seen quickly returning inside the White House, raising concerns among staff about potential health-related secrecy. A former White House residence official noted that the separation between the family and staff was significant, unlike previous administrations.
The former official commented on Jill Biden's protective nature, saying she often wouldn't allow staff to assist the President. The first lady's top aide, Anthony Bernal, was also mentioned as being highly protective.
A recent poll indicates that 72 percent of voters doubt Biden’s cognitive faculties for another term, a seven percent increase since earlier in June. Former White House physician Rep. Ronny Jackson has frequently questioned Biden's health, suggesting that his condition might be manipulated before public appearances.
Chandler West has been vocal about the need for Biden to step down, arguing that the President's decline has been apparent for months. In an interview with Axios, West reiterated that insiders have been privately acknowledging Biden's health issues for some time.
The White House has consistently attributed any signs of Biden's decline to temporary issues, such as a 'cold' or a 'bad night.' However, West's comments suggest that these explanations may not fully address the concerns raised by those close to the President.
President Joe Biden's recent debate performance has intensified concerns about his cognitive and physical health. While the White House attributes these issues to temporary factors, insiders and former officials suggest a more significant decline. Chandler West has publicly called for Biden to step down, reflecting a sentiment shared by some aides and staff. The restricted access to Biden and the protective measures taken by close aides have only fueled speculation. As public doubt rises, the call for transparency from the administration is expected to grow.
First Lady Jill Biden is the latest cover star of Vogue, stirring controversy as she faces accusations of 'elder abuse' for allowing President Joe Biden to continue his 2024 re-election campaign despite his poor debate performance.
According to Daily Mail, the appearance has sparked claims that she is the real power in the White House and raised questions about President Biden's ability to perform his duties.
Gracing the August issue of Vogue, Jill Biden wears a $7,000 outfit, including a white power suit, portraying an image of authority. The magazine features an interview with the first lady, focusing on her work and support for another term in the White House.
The editor’s note in Vogue acknowledges current events, mentioning Jill Biden's call from Camp David to support President Biden after his debate performance on June 27, 2024. The Biden family was at Camp David for a pre-planned photoshoot with photographer Annie Leibovitz.
Jill Biden defended President Biden’s performance, stating they "will not let those 90 minutes define the four years he’s been president." She emphasized their commitment to continue fighting.
The article has led to controversy among Democrats regarding Joe Biden's capability to serve, with some suggesting Jill Biden could persuade him to leave the race. Conservatives have criticized Jill Biden, suggesting she holds significant power in the White House.
Vogue's piece highlights Jill Biden's various campaign activities and her role in promoting Joe Biden. The magazine mentions her efforts in conveying the message that Joe Biden is capable of saving Democracy.
In the interview, Jill Biden acknowledges the difficulties of campaigning, emphasizing the urgency and high stakes of the current campaign. "Every campaign is important, and every campaign is hard," she says. "Each campaign is unique. But this one, the urgency is different. We know what’s at stake."
The roles of the Biden family and their efforts to protect President Biden have come under scrutiny, with claims that Hunter Biden and the grandchildren are urging him to stay in the race. Jill Biden is compared to Eleanor Roosevelt by Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders for her efforts to ensure community voices are heard in Washington.
Critics like Sara Isgur have pointed out that the Biden family's insistence on Joe Biden remaining in the race raises concerns about their motivations. "At some point, after so many warnings, it starts to look like this is why the Biden family won’t let him leave the race," she wrote on X.
Other conservatives like James Fischback have accused Jill Biden of being excessively power-driven. "There has never been a more maniacal, power-obsessed first lady than Jill Biden," he stated.
Despite the criticism, supporters praise Jill Biden for her dedication and resilience. Anthony Bernal, in his comments to Vogue, defended her, saying, "Her family means everything to her—so of course, you could say her ‘Philly’ kicks in when her family gets attacked. It’s cruel. What mother wouldn’t feel that?"
In summary, Jill Biden's cover on Vogue has ignited debates about her influence and President Biden's ability to serve another term. The article captures the varying perspectives on her role, from accusations of elder abuse to comparisons with historic first ladies like Eleanor Roosevelt. As the 2024 election campaign unfolds, the Biden family's unity and strategies will continue to be closely watched.
Sen. John Fetterman has expressed strong disapproval of fellow Democrats calling for President Joe Biden to step down as the 2024 presidential nominee.
According to Daily Wire, Fetterman argues that abandoning Biden could help former President Trump in the next election.
Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, has been vocal in his support for Israel. This stance has sometimes been at odds with President Biden's actions concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Despite Biden's performance in debates against former President Trump, Fetterman continues to defend him as the Democratic nominee. He believes any move to abandon Biden is detrimental to the party's chances in the upcoming election.
Fox News's Shannon Bream posed a question to Fetterman about the impact of internal Democratic opposition on Biden's re-election bid. She referenced the "Abandon Biden" movement, which criticizes Biden’s policy in Gaza.
The movement has been vocal about its dissatisfaction with Biden, stating that his policies in Gaza are grounds for opposing his re-election. They assert that Biden's actions lead to death in Gaza, and they are campaigning to prevent his re-election.
Fetterman did not hold back in his response. He labeled the "Abandon Biden" movement as the "dumbest s***" he has ever heard. He emphasized that Democrats abandoning Biden would inadvertently assist Trump.
Fetterman stressed the importance of unity within the Democratic Party. He warned that defecting from Biden would only help Trump, which he believes is a dangerous move.
He highlighted the stark choice facing voters in the next election. Fetterman contrasted Biden's vision of rebuilding America with Trump's focus on revenge and retribution.
Fetterman called for all Democrats to rally behind Biden. He insisted that now more than ever, it is crucial to support Biden’s candidacy.
He reiterated that the presidential office should not be weaponized against those who disagree with its occupant. Fetterman believes Biden offers a positive direction for America.
He warned that defecting from Biden could lead to severe consequences. Fetterman’s remarks underscore the urgency he feels about maintaining Democratic unity.
Fetterman draws a clear line in defending Biden between the Democratic vision for America and Trump's approach. His comments serve as a call to action for Democrats to support their current president.
The Biden administration has announced a significant policy change affecting thousands of Haitian immigrants in the United States.
According to Daily Wire, the new order prevents the deportation of thousands of illegal immigrants from Haiti, extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to 309,000 Haitians as of June 3, 2024.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealed the order on Friday, with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas citing ongoing humanitarian concerns in Haiti as the primary reason.
Approximately 200,000 Haitians who had already been shielded from deportation under TPS will have their protections extended by 18 months.
The new directive significantly expands the number of Haitians eligible for TPS, adding around 309,000 individuals who were in the United States on or before June 3, 2024.
A press release from DHS stated that Secretary Mayorkas determined the extension was necessary due to the continued dire conditions in Haiti. Haiti continues to struggle with widespread violence and insecurity, which has exacerbated the country's lack of access to essential services such as healthcare, food, and water.
Natural disasters, including flooding, mudslides, storms, and earthquakes, frequently plague the nation, further compounding the challenges faced by its citizens. Violence has surged, with incidents involving the deaths of political leaders and missionaries, highlighting the perilous situation on the ground.
In response to escalating gang violence in Port-au-Prince, a team of U.S. Marines was deployed in March to protect the American embassy in Haiti.
Secretary Mayorkas stated, "We are providing this humanitarian relief to Haitians already present in the United States given the conditions that existed in their home country as of June 3, 2024."
The Biden administration has previously utilized TPS to protect illegal immigrants from deportation, most notably with an order affecting hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans last year.
The decision to extend TPS to additional Haitians has sparked debate among political leaders, reflecting the ongoing contention over immigration policies.
Despite the criticism, DHS maintains that the extension is a necessary and humanitarian response to the severe and persistent issues in Haiti. The administration's move underscores a broader strategy to address the needs of vulnerable populations while balancing national interests.
The Biden administration's order to prevent the deportation of thousands of Haitian immigrants reflects a response to ongoing violence and insecurity in Haiti. The extension of TPS covers 309,000 additional Haitians in the U.S. as of June 3, 2024. Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas cited humanitarian concerns, aligning the decision with the core objectives of the TPS law. The country continues to face significant challenges, including natural disasters and increasing violence. This move is consistent with the administration's previous use of TPS to provide relief, as seen with Venezuelan immigrants. The order occurs amidst Republican calls for stronger border security.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling that had significant implications for presidential immunity and the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
According to Fox News, Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns about the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment in an immunity case before the Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court affirmed that a president has substantial immunity for official acts while in office and sent former President Donald Trump's case back to lower courts to determine which acts were official.
The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges, asserting his actions were within his presidential duties.
Justice Clarence Thomas expressed serious concerns regarding the constitutional validity of Smith’s appointment. He emphasized the need to address whether the Attorney General had the authority to appoint a Special Counsel without explicit Congressional authorization. Thomas highlighted that "no office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by Law,' as the Constitution requires."
Ed Meese, a former attorney general, supported this argument by filing an amicus brief asserting that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. Meese's brief argued that the position of Special Counsel lacked statutory authority and questioned the legality of a private citizen prosecuting a former president.
Attorney General Merrick Garland defended Smith’s appointment, citing statutory authority. However, questions linger about whether this authority is sufficient without Congressional approval.
The ruling has sparked a broader debate about the separation of powers and the structural integrity of constitutional offices. Justice Thomas warned that if the appointment of Special Counsel Smith is deemed unconstitutional, it could invalidate the charges against Trump. He stated, "Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty."
Thomas argued that the creation and filling of federal offices must adhere to constitutional requirements to maintain the balance of power. He noted that the Constitution mandates Congress to establish federal offices by law, which checks the President’s power.
This decision underscores the critical nature of adhering to constitutional procedures in the appointment of officials tasked with prosecuting high-profile cases.
The ruling raises significant implications for future prosecutions involving presidential actions. The Court's decision emphasizes the need to clearly delineate official acts from unofficial ones to determine the extent of presidential immunity.
Justice Thomas's opinion stressed that "a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President." This statement underscores the unprecedented nature of the current situation and the potential constitutional violations involved.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and appointing Special Counsel Jack Smith has profound implications. The decision to remand Trump’s case to lower courts to determine the official nature of his acts highlights the complexities involved. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concerns about the constitutional validity of Smith’s appointment bring additional scrutiny to the process. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcomes will be closely watched for their impact on the future of presidential immunity and the separation of powers.