According to Daily Mail, Rep. Matt Gaetz has initiated an inquiry into potential social media censorship involving a photo of former President Donald Trump after an attempted assassination.
Gaetz’s probe focuses on whether the Biden administration was involved in suppressing the distribution of images and information about the incident.
The attack occurred on July 13, 2024, at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. A bullet grazed Trump, while Corey Comperatore was killed, and two others were critically injured. Thomas Crooks was identified as the shooter.
In immediate response to the attempt on Trump’s life, the Secret Service tackled the former president to ensure his safety. Rep. Gaetz has since written to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, urging a full investigation into whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) played a role in hiding information from the public.
Gaetz’s request for information spans all communications between DHS, social media executives, and government employees from July 13 to July 31, 2024. His demand for transparency includes allegations that DHS has coerced technology firms previously.
Facebook acknowledged a mistake in censoring a real photo of Trump, initially applying a fact-check meant for a doctored image. The photo mistakenly flagged showed Secret Service agents smiling, which was falsely identified as the actual image.
Facebook's spokeswoman, Dani Lever, confirmed the error was rectified and an apology issued. “This was an error,” Lever stated. Facebook indicated the issue stemmed from their systems misapplying a fact-check from a doctored photo to the real one. Lever noted their commitment to fixing the error quickly.
Google faces claims it skewed search results to benefit Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris. The complaints suggest searches for “Donald Trump” led to information favoring Harris.
Google’s communications team explained that these search suggestions are generated based on prevalent topics in news articles. The company remains focused on updating its systems to ensure accuracy.
Donald Trump accused both Facebook and Google of attempting to manipulate the election by controlling the narrative about the assassination attempt. “Facebook has just admitted that it wrongly censored the Trump 'attempted assassination photo' and got caught,” Trump remarked.
Trump Jr. accused Google of hindering information about the event, claiming it was election interference by altering search results. Sen. Roger Marshall announced an inquiry to determine if Google intentionally suppressed details harmful to Trump's political image.
Rep. Gaetz criticized DHS, asserting that its history includes applying pressure on technology firms to censor content. In his letter, Gaetz stressed the importance of transparency and the public's right to information.
Rep. Matt Gaetz has launched a probe into possible social media censorship following an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The incident left one dead and two critically injured, with accusations of suppression against Facebook and Google emerging. Gaetz's inquiry calls for DHS transparency while both platforms are scrutinized for their content management practices.
Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier is demanding an apology from the White House for allegedly undermining his reporting on President Joe Biden’s health and political status.
According to Daily Mail, Baier has questioned the transparency surrounding Biden's condition and suggested potential secret influences on his decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.
Baier is adamant that Fox News deserves an apology. He believes efforts were made by the White House to conceal information regarding Biden's health, which significantly affected public perception.
The veteran journalist clarified that he does not completely buy into the notion of a "White House cover-up." However, he remains committed to investigating the intricacies of the President’s condition.
Compounding the intrigue, Baier mentioned circulating rumors suggesting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened to release unfavorable polling data to undermine Biden’s campaign. He raises concerns about influential figures pulling strings behind the scenes.
Moreover, Baier points to signs of Vice President Kamala Harris assuming increasing responsibilities. This shift, according to Baier, could hint at a developing co-presidency scenario.
He also addressed allegations that Fox News manipulated videos of Biden, specifically footage showing the President being led off stage by former President Barack Obama. Baier firmly denies those accusations, stressing the authenticity of the footage.
Intriguingly, Hollywood actor George Clooney corroborated concerns about Biden’s frailty in a New York Times op-ed. Clooney portrayed a stark contrast between the Biden of recent times and his earlier political self.
Baier expressed frustration, noting that neither the White House nor Biden's campaign engaged with Fox News to refute Clooney's commentary regarding Biden's health.
Baier also recounted receiving alerts about a significant news day, including an attempted assassination of Donald Trump and Biden’s abrupt exit from the 2024 race. Fox News' live coverage of Biden stepping down garnered substantial viewership.
Baier emphasizes the importance of uncovering the true reasons behind Biden's sudden withdrawal from the presidential race. He questions the events that transformed Biden's staunch position on running for re-election to suddenly stepping down.
Speculation involving Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama's purported influence over Biden’s decision has injected further intrigue into the narrative. Baier's observations about Kamala Harris's increased responsibilities have prompted speculation about a more prominent role for the Vice President.
In conclusion, Baier remains committed to uncovering the full story behind Biden’s sudden campaign withdrawal. Despite mixed responses from the White House and Biden's campaign, he continues to raise vital questions about the President's future and the potential for significant developments in the political arena.
Following Joe Biden's announcement ending his reelection bid, Harris's potential vice-presidential pick has become a topic of discussion.
According to an ABC News/Ipsos poll, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona is leading the field of vice-presidential contenders for Harris.
Daily Mail reported that with 22 percent of voters viewing him favorably and only 12 percent unfavorably, Kelly stands out among potential running mates.
Harris has experienced an eight-point increase in favorability, now standing at 43 percent. This uptick comes after a strategic and energetic campaign season, focusing on solidifying her position within the Democratic Party and expanding her reach among voters.
While voters weigh their options for Harris’s vice president, Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, is widely known but polarizing. Buttigieg is viewed favorably by 29 percent and unfavorably by 25 percent of the electorate.
Among other contenders, Governors Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Andy Beshear of Kentucky each have positive public perceptions, with 17 percent and 13 percent favorability, respectively. Their unfavorable ratings remain low, making them viable options.
According to Republican strategist Matt Wolking, Senator Kelly is perceived as a formidable candidate among the running mates. This perception aligns with voters’ sentiments, which suggest a specific affinity for Kelly over his peers.
However, Governor Gavin Newsom of California has struggled with his image, as his unfavorable rating stands at 33 percent, surpassing his favorable rating of 21 percent. Governors Tim Walz of Minnesota, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, and JB Pritzker of Illinois remain under the radar with low name recognition and favorability.
Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan, reflects a balanced public opinion. She is viewed favorably by 20 percent and negatively by 21 percent, indicating a split voter base.
Harris has gained significant popularity among independent voters, with her favorability rising from 28 percent to 44 percent. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has experienced a drop in favorability, decreasing from 40 percent to 36 percent overall. His favorability has declined sharply from 35 percent to 27 percent among independent voters.
In a display of enthusiasm, Harris garnered more excitement among voters than Trump, with 48 percent expressing enthusiasm for her candidacy compared to Trump's 39 percent.
Biden's decision not to seek re-election, influenced by internal party pressures, has made Harris the unchallenged Democratic candidate for the upcoming election. This has set the stage for a face-off between Harris and Trump in November. Public support for Harris is strong, with 52 percent of the surveyed population favoring her candidacy and 86 percent of Democrats showing their support.
Kamala Harris's recent favorability surge and her new status as the Democratic nominee set the stage for a competitive race against Trump. With a prominent rise in independent support and growing enthusiasm, her choice of running mate, particularly Senator Mark Kelly, holds significant strategic importance. As the campaign progresses, Harris’s ability to address the lingering questions about Biden's cognitive health and maintain the momentum will be crucial for her success.
According to Fox News, former President Donald Trump has vowed to continue holding outdoor rallies despite a recent attempt on his life.
The ex-president, undeterred by the shooting, insists on maintaining his schedule, challenging the Secret Service's advice to move events indoors for heightened security.
In a statement posted on Truth Social this past Saturday, Trump affirmed his decision to press on with his outdoor campaign gatherings. This announcement comes after an incident on July 13 where the president was injured during an attack at a rally held in Western Pennsylvania.
The Secret Service, acknowledging the increased risks, has agreed to significantly enhance its protective measures for the upcoming outdoor rallies. Former President Trump sustained a wound to his right ear during the assassination attempt carried out by 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, according to the FBI.
Kimberly Cheatle, former director of the Secret Service, resigned following the incident amid pressures from lawmakers for her departure. In her resignation statement, Cheatle acknowledged the agency's failure on July 13, noting it was their "solemn mission to protect our nation's leaders."
The incident has propelled calls for a thorough investigation into the security breakdowns that allowed the attack. The assassination attempt, which the FBI confirmed, has raised serious concerns about how such a significant lapse in protection could occur.
Despite these dangers, Trump remains steadfastly committed to his original plans. He emphasizes the importance of free speech and assembly, asserting that safety concerns should not hinder these democratic rights.
Trump also announced his intent to return to Butler, Pennsylvania, for another rally. This event will be dedicated to firefighter Corey Comperatore, who tragically died at the previous rally where the attack occurred. Trump plans to honor Corey alongside the patriots injured during the incident two weeks ago.
The return to Butler holds significant symbolism for the former president. It represents a refusal to back down in the face of threats and a commitment to honoring those who serve and protect their communities.
Trump's decision has stirred a mix of reactions among his supporters and the general public. Supporters praise his resolve to continue his public engagements, while critics express concern over the potential risks involved in holding large outdoor gatherings under the current circumstances.
The Secret Service faces a significant challenge in balancing the safety of the former president with his preference for outdoor rallies. They plan to increase personnel and implement advanced protective measures to prevent incidents like the one on July 13, though specific details have not been disclosed.
In summary, former President Trump persists in his endeavor to hold outdoor rallies despite a recent assassination attempt and serious injury. The Secret Service has vowed to intensify security efforts, although Kimberly Cheatle resigned amid criticism.
The upcoming rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, aims to honor firefighter Corey Comperatore and individuals injured during the attack. The event's success depends on the enhanced security measures and the unwavering determination of both Trump and his supporters.
A judge from Arapahoe County has issued an order preventing Colorado Republicans from convening a meeting on Saturday to decide on potentially removing Chairman Dave Williams from his post.
The decision comes after Williams argued that the meeting could endanger the party's stability ahead of an upcoming election, though he is now required to pay a $1,000 security bond, as KDVR reports.
Williams, the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, sought judicial intervention to block the meeting called by some party members aiming for his resignation. They criticized Williams over anti-LGBTQ remarks and complaints about some of his political endorsements.
Judge Thomas W. Henderson ruled in favor of Williams, issuing an order that bars the meeting from taking place for 14 days or until further judicial review regarding a preliminary injunction. In his ruling, Judge Henderson stated that the meeting would potentially leave the party in disarray just approximately 100 days before the Nov. 5 election.
The internal strife was brought into sharper focus after Nancy Pallozzi, chairwoman of the Jefferson County Republican Party, faced censure for organizing the meeting to remove Williams. The state party's executive committee pronounced Pallozzi and Todd Watkins' special meeting as unlawful despite their continued promotion of the event.
As the conflict within the Republican Party escalated, Pallozzi's actions spurred an internal challenge questioning the leadership and governance of the state party. This prompted intensity within the party ranks, raising concerns over stability and unified strategy leading up to the election. Despite the party's declaration against the legality of the meeting, Pallozzi and Watkins pressed on, thereby drawing the matter into the judicial arena. Their defiance, however, was met by the court's decision to restrain the organization of what could be perceived as a disruptive event.
Judge Henderson's ruling emphasized the risk of immediate harm to the party's leadership structure and overall coherence, quoting the potential fallout from such an internal upheaval. He articulated that disrupting the party's leadership could impair its functionality during a critical phase ahead of the election.
Williams, in his argument for the injunction, echoed similar concerns, suggesting that an internally divided party would struggle to present a united front to voters. The judge's agreement on this point tipped in favor of granting the injunction, ensuring that the Colorado GOP could concentrate on electoral preparations rather than internal power struggles.
The court order's 14-day enforcement period provides a window for further legal deliberation on a preliminary injunction, thus maintaining a temporary pause on the contentious internal deliberations. For Williams, it represents a period to stabilize his leadership amid the ongoing disputes.
Before the enforcement of the judicial order, Williams was ordered to deposit a $1,000 security bond, a procedural necessity to activate the court's directive. This move underscores the judge's recognition of the seriousness of the internal rift and its implications for the broader political landscape.
As the judge pointedly noted, any leadership disruptions could leave the state GOP in a vulnerable position, undermining its capacity to mobilize and engage its constituency effectively. The judicial order secures a temporary respite, allowing the party to sidestep imminent leadership voids and associated confusion.
Looking ahead, the pending preliminary injunction hearing will be crucial in determining the next steps for the party's leadership and strategic direction. Judge Henderson's decision represents an attempt to forestall immediate repercussions and ensure organizational focus during a pivotal electoral period.
The events have thrust the Colorado Republican Party into a challenging juncture, with Williams' leadership and the party's internal harmony under scrutiny. Whether the enforced pause will suffice in restoring stability remains to be seen as the legal proceedings advance.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld a state law that restricts abortion and gender-affirming health care for minors.
On Friday, the Nebraska high court ruled that law LB 574 does not violate the state constitution's single-subject requirement, defining both abortion and transgender health care as medical care, as Just the News reports.
Law LB 574 includes restrictions on abortion and gender-affirming health care for individuals under 19 years old. Conservative and liberal factions have kept a close watch on this case due to its contentious nature. The law will significantly impact medical practices across the state.
The court asserted that law LB 574 does not breach the constitutional amendment which obligates bills to encompass only a single subject. The justices judged that abortion and gender-affirming care, although distinct in nature, both fall under the broad category of medical care.
The ruling highlighted the court’s interpretation of medical care, thereby justifying the combination of abortion and gender-affirming procedures within a single legislative text. The court explained that while the services are different, they are similarly categorized as medical care.
The American Civil Liberties Union initiated the lawsuit, representing various parties opposed to the law. They argued that the combination of subjects within the bill was unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland was a principal representative in this high-stakes lawsuit, advocating for the protection of medical services for women and transgender youth. The organization has long championed both reproductive rights and gender-affirming health care. Despite these efforts, the Supreme Court’s decision signifies a validation of Nebraska's legislative actions on this matter. The court's decision may set a precedent for similar cases in other states.
Opponents of LB 574 fear the implications of this ruling will lead to restricted access to essential medical services for minors. Supporters, however, view this as a crucial victory protecting what they see as the health and safety of young people in the state.
The court acknowledged that "abortion and gender-affirming care are distinct types of medical care." This acknowledgment did not deter their ruling in favor of the law. Proponents hailed the decision as a triumph of states’ rights and a necessary measure for safeguarding youths. Critics have lined up to voice their concerns over potential long-term impacts on individuals seeking such care.
This ruling follows a national trend of states enacting tighter controls on reproductive and gender health issues. Nebraska's decision aligns with legislative shifts seen in multiple territories across the United States.
The decision underscores the court's stance on the legislative power to regulate medical care, while detractors highlight potential infringements on personal freedoms. Both sides continue to wield significant influence in the ongoing debate.
This judgment may inspire similar legislative initiatives in other states. Legal experts anticipate increased legal scrutiny and further challenges as similar laws are tested across the country.
For now, Nebraska stands firm in implementing LB 574, reinforcing its statutory control over medical practices related to both abortion and gender-affirming procedures for minors. The ramifications of this decision will unfold in the coming years.
According to Newsweek, former President Donald Trump faces accusations of breaching the Logan Act through unauthorized diplomacy with foreign leaders.
The accusations center around Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a publicized letter from Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Despite the allegations, legal action is improbable due to the infrequency of Logan Act prosecutions.
Trump’s communication with these leaders triggered suspicions of illicit diplomacy without authorization. Additionally, a planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago has been scrutinized.
Trump’s legal team has been contacted for comments regarding these allegations. The Logan Act, dating back to 1799, has seen only two charges in the early 19th century. Legal experts have expressed skepticism about a potential prosecution against Trump under this rarely enforced law.
On July 13, the former president disclosed a letter from Mahmoud Abbas that condemned an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. Trump’s actions sparked conversations and criticisms, especially on social media platforms. His announcement on Truth Social about an anticipated meeting with Netanyahu was perceived by some as another violation.
Ashleigh London and Anne Reid voiced their concerns on social media, quizzing whether these acts breached the Logan Act. Similarly, Mike Kihn questioned the legality of Trump’s interaction with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Former Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren shared his perspective, underscoring the significance of presenting a unified American voice in foreign policy. He remarked that while Trump might not face charges, his behaviors could undermine U.S. foreign policy and could be illegal.
On July 19, Trump revealed he communicated with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy following his acceptance of the Republican presidential nomination for 2024. Their dialogue touched on the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In his post, Trump articulated his ambition to foster peace and conclude the war, emphasizing the need for both sides to reach an agreement. His remarks generated a blend of praise and criticism. Democratic podcast host Ryan Shead and artist Art Candee openly accused Trump of contravening the Logan Act through these recent engagements. Shead highlighted that Trump's repeated actions were problematic.
Trump’s previous meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at Mar-a-Lago also drew attention. Orbán described their encounter as a "peace mission" concerning Russia’s incursion into Ukraine.
Andrew Warren reiterated the necessity of a consistent American voice in diplomatic matters and noted Trump’s camaraderie with controversial foreign leaders. He described Trump's engagements as potentially undermining America’s official stances.
The wider public continues to scrutinize Donald Trump for allegedly leveraging his former presidential status to engage in unauthorized diplomacy. Various social media reactions underscore the contentious nature of Trump's actions. Individuals like Ashleigh London, Anne Reid, and Mike Kihn have publicly questioned Trump's moves, indicating a prevalent concern.
Former President Donald Trump has been accused of unauthorized diplomatic communications, mainly with leaders such as Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Mahmoud Abbas, raising concerns about potential Logan Act violations. Despite the historical rarity of prosecutions under the Logan Act, public and legal scrutiny persists. Trump's social media declarations and meetings with foreign leaders like Netanyahu and Orbán continue to fuel a contentious debate.
Arizona Senator Justine Wadsack was stopped for driving at double the speed limit but was allowed to go on her way due to 'legislative immunity.'
The Daily Mail reported that Senator Wadsack was stopped for driving at double the speed limit but was allowed to go on her way due to 'legislative immunity.' The incident has sparked controversy and accusations of political persecution, culminating in the withdrawal of police endorsement and ongoing legal proceedings.
Senator Justine Wadsack of Arizona found herself at the center of a legal and political storm after being pulled over on March 15 for speeding in downtown Tucson. Wadsack was clocked driving at 71mph in a 35mph zone.
Upon being stopped, Wadsack identified herself as a state senator and invoked legislative immunity as a defense against prosecution. The officer, after confirming her speed via radar and consulting with his colleagues, allowed her to leave.
At the time of the incident, the Arizona state legislature was in session, triggering Wadsack's immunity from prosecution.
This legal protection, however, is not available to ordinary citizens.
Following the end of the legislative session, Tucson police attempted to issue Wadsack a citation on June 27.
The summon was filed on June 17, aiming to hold her accountable post-session.
Wadsack responded by accusing the police of political persecution and defended her actions on Facebook. She claimed the speed cited was inaccurate and asserted the citation resulted from her scrutiny of police harassment.
The incident was captured on police bodycam footage, showing Wadsack's interaction with the officer and her departure.
In her Facebook defense, Wadsack highlighted markers identifying her as a senator and insisted on her adherence to the law.
She maintained, "I cannot receive a ticket as a result of 'Legislative Privilege,'" referring to a sticker on her driver’s license and a plaque under her license plate.
The response from the Tucson Police Department and City Attorney Mike Rankin debunked Wadsack's persecution claim.
Rankin emphasized the difference between persecution and prosecution, stressing the objective was public safety.
Wadsack's continued defense did not appease the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, which withdrew its endorsement on July 18.
The organization maintained that the officers acted in strict accordance with the law and treated Wadsack with respect.
Driving more than 20mph over the speed limit in Arizona is classified as a class 3 misdemeanor. This detail underscores the seriousness of the incident and the resulting legal and political consequences.
Lt. Lauren Pettey confirmed the involvement of the police chain-of-command, ensuring transparency in the summons issued to Wadsack after the legislative session had concluded.
The ongoing legal proceedings and political controversy illuminate the delicate balance between legislative privilege and expected accountability.
Wadsack's invocation of immunity and subsequent defense have drawn widespread attention and debate.
Sergeant Richard Gradillas confirmed the active status of the case, ensuring continued scrutiny and adherence to legal processes. This safeguarding of due process has been a focal point amidst the political fallout.
Tucson city attorney Mike Rankin's comments provided clarity, cementing the distinction between politically motivated actions and lawful prosecution based on public safety concerns.
To conclude, the incident involving Arizona Senator Justine Wadsack and her subsequent defense underscores significant issues regarding legislative immunity, accountability, and public safety. The controversy demonstrates the ongoing challenge in navigating these complexities within the legal and political spheres.
Billionaire Bill Ackman has sparked intense controversy by sharing alarming theories regarding President Joe Biden's health.
The Daily Mail reported that Ackman's claims follow Biden's decision to step down from the 2024 presidential race, prompting widespread debate and speculation.
On his X account, Bill Ackman, previously a significant Democratic donor, shared numerous posts about President Joe Biden's health.
Ackman suggested that Biden might be terminally ill, a claim that has caused a significant stir.
The speculation escalated after Biden announced he would not run for re-election, citing health reasons. Ackman pointed to Biden's letter and questioned its authenticity, suggesting the signature looked photocopied.
Adding to the controversy were comments made by Biden's youngest brother, Frank Biden. Frank's remarks about "enjoying whatever time we have left" were seen by many as further evidence of the president's declining health.
Frank Biden's public comments caused many to question if Joe Biden's health concerns were more serious than initially thought. Ackman went on to contrast past signatures of Biden, noting they often did not include an underline, unlike the letter's signature.
Ackman also shared a post drawing parallels between the unverified signature and Soviet Regime Change tactics. This comparison further fueled conspiracy theories surrounding Biden's letter and decision to step down.
Frank Biden tried to quell fears by praising his brother, stating, "I'm incredibly proud of my brother. Selfishly, I will have him back to enjoy whatever time we have left." Despite his attempts, the speculation continued to grow.
Joe Biden's letter announcing his decision to withdraw was shared on social media on a Sunday afternoon. At the time, Biden was isolating due to a Covid-19 diagnosis, which some speculated might have influenced his decision.
There were more factors at play beyond Biden's health. Democratic donors had started withdrawing funds, and internal campaign polls showed a decreasing chance of Biden beating former President Donald Trump in the upcoming election.
On the day of the announcement, several of Biden's advisers, including Steve Ricchetti and Mike Donilon, presented data indicating he could no longer win against Trump. This revelation was a crucial factor in Biden's decision to step down.
With Biden out of the race, Vice President Kamala Harris declared her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. Prominent Democrats, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, quickly rallied behind Harris.
Despite Trump's remark that Harris would be easier to defeat than Biden, national polls showed a tight race. Harris trailed Biden slightly in national polling averages, with Biden leading 48% to Harris's 46%.
Notably, Harris performed better than Biden in key swing states, such as Pennsylvania and Virginia. She was also closer to Trump in Pennsylvania and led by a larger margin than Biden in Virginia.
These poll numbers were collected before an assassination attempt on Trump and prior to Biden's withdrawal from the race, which could shift the dynamics further.
The speculation surrounding President Joe Biden's health has stirred significant debate, fueled largely by billionaire Bill Ackman's public posts. Ackman's claims and Frank Biden's comments added to the speculation about the president's well-being.
Biden's decision to step down amid declining polling numbers, withdrawing donor funds, and health concerns has reshaped the Democratic primary race, with Vice President Kamala Harris stepping in and prominent Democrats voicing their support.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has accused Democrats of a "big cover-up" regarding President Joe Biden's health.
Newsweek reported that Johnson is contemplating an investigation into Biden's cognitive abilities and public transparency.
During an interview on CNN's State of the Union, Johnson discussed his concerns about Biden's health with host Jake Tapper. The Louisiana Republican suggested that the public has been kept in the dark about the president's true condition.
Johnson argued that Biden's mental faculties have diminished significantly since his election four years ago. He emphasized that the aging process is natural and not Biden's fault but insisted that it is crucial to address.
"Democrats have prevented the people from seeing what people in close proximity have seen," Johnson said. He expressed frustration over exaggerated claims from House Democrats regarding Biden's abilities.
Johnson criticized Democrats for allegedly hiding the truth about Biden's condition, claiming that Biden is no longer fit to serve as president.
During the interview, Tapper asked Johnson if he had considered an investigation by Congress or law enforcement into the alleged cover-up. Johnson confirmed that this was under discussion.
He pointed to Biden's performance during the June 27 presidential debate against Donald Trump, where Biden appeared to lose his train of thought several times. Biden's team attributed these moments to a cold and jet lag.
Johnson remarked that despite Biden's team's explanations, many Democrats and influential figures have called for Biden to step aside for a different nominee.
Johnson stated that Biden and his advisers have consistently maintained that he will not drop out of the race. However, reports suggest that Biden is contemplating bowing out and has inquired about Vice President Kamala Harris's potential to defeat Trump.
"Every time, I'd see one of those statements, I couldn't believe they were doing it," Johnson said, criticizing Democrats' portrayal of Biden's capabilities. He described Biden as "cognitively impaired."
Johnson revealed that he had hesitated to speak out earlier due to concerns about projecting weakness on the global stage.
Johnson's comments come amid long-standing concerns about Biden's age. At 81, Biden is the oldest person ever elected to the presidency, and there are questions about his ability to seek another term.
Donald Trump, at 78, also faces scrutiny regarding his age and cognitive abilities, creating a unique dynamic in the upcoming election.
As Biden isolates in Delaware due to a COVID-19 infection, the pressure for him to withdraw from the 2024 race increases. Johnson's accusations add another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate about Biden's fitness for office.
Newsweek has reached out to Johnson's office and the White House for comments on the matter. There has been no official response yet.
Johnson believes that addressing Biden's health concerns is crucial for national transparency and integrity. He argues that the public deserves to know the truth about the president's condition.
Johnson's allegations and the potential investigation he has suggested have significant implications for the upcoming election and the broader political landscape.
In summary, Johnson has accused Democrats of covering up Biden's health issues. He is considering an investigation, citing concerns about Biden's cognitive decline and the integrity of public information. The unfolding situation has intensified scrutiny on Biden's fitness to serve and the transparency of his administration.