The Washington Post Now Reporting on Democrats' Conspiracy to Hide Biden's Mental Decline When They Were a "Hidin Biden" Co-conspirator From the Get-Go!

 

Opinion | Biden’s decline was covered up. Here are ways to prevent a repeat

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/29/biden-frailty-cancer-transparency-media/

It seems the Washington Post (WaPo) is experiencing memory problems at least as severe as
Biden’s when it comes to how they were reporting on his mental acuity right up until he went on parade at the Presidential Debate to confirm to the World how impaired he really was. Don’t forget, it was the crack WaPo political reporter Jennifer Rubin that slammed the "shoddy front-page Wall Street Journal article” correctly assessing Biden’s cognitive decline saying it was "essentially the promotion of a right-wing meme." Rubin went on to write in the WaPo:

"The Journal’s faceplant should lead to a much larger discussion: to what extent and in what way age matters to the performance of the chief executive. Frankly, it has nothing to do with the sort of factors Biden’s critics obsess over (e.g., verbal slips, how fast he moves)," Rubin told readers. "Does he misspeak? Does he physically stumble? Focusing on such relatively superficial subjects has come to define political journalism."

"A president’s gait, verbal tics and minor recall errors have virtually nothing to do with the job of being president. The White House occupant is not a "Jeopardy!" contestant, a stand-up comic, a talk-show host or guest; the president is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief," she later wrote.

It is a little disingenuous for the Washington Post to now report on the Dem’s conspiracy to hide Biden’s mental decline reaching from the inner circles of the White House to the Dem Congressional leaders without acknowledging that the WaPo was a co-conspirator in the “Hidin Biden” conspiracy.

Recordings of Biden Justice Department interview emerge, highlighting his memory lapses

By Joe Walsh, Ryan Sprouse

CBS News report updated 17 May 2025

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/biden-hur-interview-tapes-special-counsel/

Snippets from a 2023 interview that led Justice Department special counsel Robert Hur to describe former President Joe Biden as an "elderly man with a poor memory" were obtained and published by Axios Friday, showing Biden's halting tone of voice and difficulty remembering dates.

CBS News has confirmed the audio matches the transcript of the interview released by the Biden White House in 2024.

In one four-minute clip, Biden was asked by Hur's team — which was investigating Biden's handling of classified records — about where he kept his documents shortly after leaving office as vice president. Biden's response is marked by long pauses, and his voice appears hoarse at times. His speech is especially halting as he describes the period around his son Beau's death.

In the audio obtained by news outlet Axios, Biden can also be heard struggling to remember the year when Beau died or the year when President Trump was first elected. Members of his staff can be heard correcting him or reminding him of the date.

A written transcript of the five-hour interview was released last year, but portions of the audio released Fridayprovide context on Biden's demeanor and memory problems at certain points in the session.

In response to the audio, Biden spokesperson Kelly Scully told CBS News in a statement, "The transcripts were released by the Biden administration more than a year ago. The audio does nothing but confirm what is already public."

Biden's verbal delivery was a key part of Hur's report. The special counsel wrote in February 2024 that Biden sounded like a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Hur said it's a view jurors may share, making it hard to convict Biden of knowingly holding sensitive documents at his home and office. Hur's report noted "significant limitations" to Biden's memory, including his difficulty remembering when his son died.

Hur recommended against charging Biden with a crime, though he did conclude that Biden "willfully" retained government documents.

At the time, Biden and his allies reacted furiously to Hur's report — especially the "elderly man with a poor memory" line and the comment about Beau Biden's death.

 

The 'Original Sin' wasn't Biden's. It was the media's

Suddenly reporters are interested in Biden’s decline while in office. Where were they at the time?

Thiessen, Marc A The Washington Post

Washington, D.C.. 23 May 2025: A.17.  

In the wake of Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis, the debate over his mental decline in office "should be more muted and set aside," Democratic strategist David Axelrod suggests. The opposite is true. It is now clearer than ever that Biden was in no condition, either mentally or physically, to serve a second term. And the time has come to hold those who misled to the American people about his fitness for office to account - not just in the White House but in the media, too.

It was clear even before his 2020 election that Biden was mentally diminished. During the 2020 campaign, he fumbled the words of the Declaration of Independence; misstated what office he was running for; mistook Super Tuesday for "Super Thursday"; declared "poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as White kids"; and claimed to have worked with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (who died in 1997) on the 2015 Paris climate accord, among countless other mental lapses.

And almost from outset of his presidency, Americans began to realize that Biden was suffering from cognitive decline. In November 2021 - after just 10 months of watching him in action - a 48 percent plurality said Biden was not "mentally fit" for office. By June 2023, a year before his disastrous presidential debate performance, the share of Americans who said they had concerns about Biden's mental and physical health had risen to 68 percent. Yet virtually every news organization in the country downplayed, ignored or helped the White House minimize one of the biggest stories in modern presidential history: that the commander in chief was increasingly non compos mentis.

One of the worst offenders was CNN's Jake Tapper. He accused those who voiced concern about Biden's cognitive decline of "mocking his stutter" and spreading Russian disinformation. Tapper insisted Biden was "sharp" mentally and "not the way he is caricatured on Fox." When Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minnesota) dared to question Biden's age, mental fitness and ability to lead, Tapper attacked him, asking "how seriously can anyone take" his accusations. Now, Tapper has the chutzpah to publish a book, "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," in which he unironically investigates the very cover-up he helped perpetuate.

The only reporters to extensively investigate Biden's mental fitness before his debate fiasco were the Wall Street Journal's Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes, who produced a rock-solid report on Biden's cognitive decline. That didn't stop many of their fellow journalists from joining the White House in attacking their reporting. CNN's Oliver Darcy wrote that their article played into "a GOP-propelled narrative that the 81-year-old president lacks the fitness to hold the nation's highest office" and had "glaring problems" because the on-the-record sources were mostly Republicans. "The Wall Street Journal owes its readers - and the public - better," Darcy declared.

Actually, it is Darcy, Tapper and all the other reporters who should have covered this story but didn't who owe the public better. Every other news organization ought to be asking itself a simple question: Why didn't we report that story?

The answer, as former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson explained in Semafor, is that "the story was reportable" but "too many journalists didn't try to get the story because they did not want to be accused of helping elect Donald Trump," adding, "I get that. But this is no excuse for abandoning our first duty, which is to report the truth and hold power accountable."

Sorry, I don't get that. Reporters didn't care whether exposing Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky scandal would hurt the president politically. The job of a free press is "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor," as the Times stated its principles - in 1896.

But that is not what far too many journalists believe today. Seventy-six percent of Americans say the media should strive to give equal coverage to all sides of an issue, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, but 55 percent of journalists disagree. The disdain for evenhanded reporting is even worse among younger reporters, 63 percent of whom say varying sides do not deserve equal coverage, as do 69 percent of journalists who say their outlet's audience leans left.

This growing disregard for objectivity is destroying public trust in the media. According to the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, 70 percent of people believe "journalists and reporters purposely mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."

Perhaps that is because, over the past several years, they watched as many in the media pushed the discredited, Hillary Clinton-campaign-funded Steele dossier; breathlessly reported false allegations that Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (only to learn from the Mueller report that it was little more than a conspiracy theory); suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation; and then aided the cover-up of Joe Biden's cognitive decline - until his disastrous debate performance made it undeniable (and a political liability for Democrats).

For many, an unmistakable pattern has emerged: Whenever Trump is on the ballot, the media colors its reporting to hurt him and favor his opponent.

And now Americans are watching with deep skepticism as the same reporters who dismissed Biden's mental decline are suddenly asking tough questions about it - and making excuses for their failure to cover it. Sorry, Biden's mental decline was obvious for years, and the reporters covering the president knew it. They just could not bring themselves to report a story that might help Trump. How will this profession recover its reputation? The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

The National Security Implications of Chinese Students Attending US Universities (and How the Washington Post Sees It)

These three below Washington Post article concerning the Trump Administration clamping down on foreign students attending American universities appeared in the WaPo 28-30 May 2025, and evolved from a story lamenting the loss of revenue foreign students bring to colleges to finally recognizing that some of these students, especially the Chinese, pose a serious National Security risk. Most of the Chinese students major in engineering, computer science and other hard sciences with direct application to military and economic uses. What they learn here they bringing back to China and apply to either advancing military weapons systems or infringing on our patents and copyrights so they can wage economic war on us in World markets.  By avoiding research and development costs, the Chinese can and do undersell us by copying and selling our proprietary products cheaper than we can even produce let alone develop them.

It’s possibly just a coincident but after I posted my below comment in the comments section of the first article is when the focus slowly shifted from purely the colleges’ economic loss to recognizing that there was a national security and national economic component to the loss. Although I had previously posted similar comments, this is the first time my concerns have appeared to gain any traction.

 

Although I only posted the headline and a few snippets from each article, I did include a link to the entire WaPo article and it is well worthwhile reading each of them. After reading the articles, read my comment that I hope had some role in evolving the story from one of economics on colleges to one of National Security.

Higher Education

Here’s how much international students contribute to the U.S. economy

 

International students contributed $44 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023-2024 school year. Their loss could hurt more than just universities’ bottom line.

 

By Vivian Ho 28 May 2025

 

As the Trump administration pauses new student visas in its battle to force change at the nation’s elite universities, economists warn that the loss of international students would affect not just the schools that depend on their tuition but local and state economies, as well.

 

The more than 1.1 million international students who studied in the United States last year contributed nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2023-2024 school year, according to nonpartisan nonprofit NAFSA, the Association of International Educators — from $10 million in Alaska to more than $6 billion in California — and supported more than 378,000 jobs.

 

“Students don’t just spend money paying tuition fees,” Nicholas Barr, a professor at the London School of Economics, said in an interview. “They pay rent, they go to restaurants, they travel.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/28/international-students-economic-impact-trump-harvard/?commentID=85ec1814-c41d-484d-96a2-8b8824328480

 

 

Immigration

Trump administration to crack down on Chinese visas, Rubio says

 

He said the State and Homeland Security departments will work to “aggressively revoke” visas of Chinese students in the United States, “including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

 

By David Nakamura and Katrina Northrop

29 May 2025

 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday announced plans to crack down on Chinese holders of student visas and ramp up scrutiny of new visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, escalating the Trump administration’s confrontational approach to Beijing.

 

He did not specify which areas of study would be targeted — of the 277,398 Chinese students at U.S. universities last year, more than 110,000 were pursuing math, engineering, science and technology courses ….

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/28/chinese-visas-applicants-trump-rubio/

 

 

 

Trump’s visa clampdown plunges 275,000 Chinese students into uncertainty

 

Chinese students make up nearly up nearly a quarter of all international students in the United States. Here’s who they are and what they’re studying.

 

By Kim Bellware and Angie Orellana Hernandez

30 May 2025

 

More than a quarter-million Chinese students attending college in the United States saw their futures plunged into uncertainty Wednesday when the Trump administration announced an aggressive clampdown on student visa holders from that country.

 

The majority of Chinese students study subjects related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics, according to the Institute of International Education. For the 2023-2024 academic year, nearly a quarter of students were pursuing math and computer science, while 17 percent were majoring in a form of engineering.

 

Nearly half of Chinese students in the U.S. — 44.3 percent — are seeking graduate degrees, while about 32 percent are enrolled as undergraduates, the IIE data showed. About 22 percent of students are participating in optional practical training, which offers temporary employment directly related to an F-1 visa holder’s field of study.

 

The IIE estimated that Chinese students in the U.S. have an economic impact of $14.2 billion. Its report listed New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois as the most popular landing spots for the students.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/29/chinese-students-data-visa/

 

 

The Old Colonel’s Take on Chinese Students Attending US Universities and the National Security Implications

 

I’ve been posting this below in the past and I’m absolutely delighted that the WaPo is finally echoing my concerns:

 

In the lead up to World War II the United States sold Japan huge amounts of iron so in essence we supplied them with the materials that enabled them to attack us. We are now in a similar situation with Communist China but instead of iron, we are selling them the intellectual capital to shoot back at us and with which to defeat us both economically and militarily. In the 2023-24 school year over 277,000 Chinese nationals were enrolled in U.S. universities, representing roughly 25% of all international students and they are mostly attending our top universities mostly majoring in engineering and computer science. The top universities with significant Red Chinese student populations include Columbia University, Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, the University of Southern California, University of California Los Angeles, Michigan State University and Ohio State University.

 

What the first article is touting as an economic negative is really a National Security positive. Although by reducing the number of foreign students attending, colleges may lose the tuition they would have paid but that money is a pittance compared to the intellectual “ammunition” they are taking away in knowledge. It is what these Chinese students learn here and bring back home that will someday enable China to challenge us both economically and militarily. Instead of us selling them the “iron” to defeat us on the battlefield, we are selling them what is now our intellectual “iron” so they can defeat us on both the economic and military battlefields of the future. Appears we have forgotten the lessons we learned 80+ years ago.

Washington Post Reporting on SecDef Hegseth's Dysfunctional Department of Defense and the Old Colonel's Take on His Performance

On 27 May 2025, the day after Memorial Day, this article appeared in the Washington Post.  

Within Pete Hegseth’s divided inner circle, a ‘cold war’ endures

 

At the Pentagon, personality conflicts persist and inexperience reigns, fueling speculation about Pete Hegseth’s long-term viability in Trump’s Cabinet.

 

By Dan Lamothe, 28 May 2025

 

An enduring rift among Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s cadre of senior advisers has divided the Pentagon’s front office and fueled internal speculation about his long-term viability in the Cabinet post after several episodes that attracted White House scrutiny, according to numerous people familiar with the matter.

 

The article goes on to describe a Pentagon in chaos and a dysfunctional Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although lengthy, Lamothe lays out a compelling argument that Hegseth’s inner circle is too busy fighting amongst themselves and playing one-ups-manship jockeying for position to carry out the business of keeping this country safe. Don’t take my word for it, it’s well worth your time to read Dan Lamothe’s entire article at:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/27/hegseth-advisers-pentagon-trump/

As I often do, I posted my take on the article in the WaPo comments section and here is my evaluation of the former “FOX & Friends” personality, former Army National Guard Major and now present United States Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Peter B. Hegseth.

Of all of Trump’s Cabinet appointees, Hegseth is by far the least qualified. His ill advised dismissal of highly respected and performing senior uniformed leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; Chief of Naval Operations; the Director of the National Security Agency; and the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy and Air Force has caused unnecessary chaos and dissension in the ranks. He has done more to degrade Military readiness in 100 Days than Biden did in 4 years and that’s saying something. His “Signalgate” blunder not only exposed him as incompetent but also called into question the competence of everyone on the call. I predict Hegseth will have worn out his welcome at the Pentagon by the end of the Summer and Trump will be forced to fire him.

As for “Signalgate,” I am a retired 30 year service Army Full Colonel with a Pentagon G-3 tour and combat battalion and brigade level commands and in my opinion anyone that can’t recognize this below exchange over non-secure communications as a serious compromise of highly classified operational information does not belong in any Government position responsible for National Defense. As a matter of fact, everyone participating in this forum that did not immediately intervene to curtail this serious Security breach is equally at fault. Heads should roll!

Judge for yourself, here is the exact text of SecDef Hegseth’s “Signalgate” Message:

"TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch. 1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package). 1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s),"

"1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package). 1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets). 1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched … Godspeed to our Warriors."

Waltz later wrote "The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Vance replied, "Excellent.”