The White House is reportedly “extremely upset” with the New York Times for publishing stories about President Joe Biden’s age.
Speaking with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said the White House told him that the administration is “extremely upset” about its coverage of Biden’s age. Sulzberger, however, emphasized that the outlet will continue to report fairly on both presidential candidates.
“We are going to continue to report fully and fairly, not just on Donald Trump but also on President Joe Biden,” Sulzberger said.
“He is a historically unpopular incumbent and the oldest man to ever hold this office. We’ve reported on both of those realities extensively, and the White House has been extremely upset about it,” he added.
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks after meeting with members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters at their headquarters in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Sulzberger, however, clarified that the Times does not regard Biden’s age with the same level of caution as former President Donald Trump’s “five court cases.”
“We are not saying that this is the same as Trump’s five court cases or that they are even,” Sulzberger said in the interview. “They are different. But they are both true, and the public needs to know both those things. And if you are hyping up one side or downplaying the other, no side has a reason to trust you in the long run.”
Reports and worries about Biden’s age erupted into the mainstream this month with the release of special counsel Robert Hur’s report indicating that the president has suffered from cognitive decline, which has affected his memory. Hur even used this as a basis to recommend that he not be prosecuted for “willfully” retaining classified documents. As Breitbart News reported:
The report says the investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen” but does not establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Yet Hur’s assessment of Biden’s “significantly limited” memory also played a part in his decision not to prosecute.
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the report states. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.”
“It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
Hur’s report is riddled with examples and assessments that Biden’s mental faculties and memory have deteriorated, saying, “Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations.”
Shockingly, the report says, “He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died.”
A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly feel that Biden is now too old to serve another term.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Friday, Feb. 16, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Sources later confirmed to ABC News and the New York Times that Biden attorneys Ed Siskel and Bob Bauer wrote “to Attorney General Merrick Garland, complaining that details in the report about the president’s recollections during an interview with investigators ‘openly, obviously and blatantly violate department policy and practice.’”
As many as four people confirmed the correspondence with the New York Times. Per ABC News:
Bradley Weinsheimer, a senior Justice Department official, responded the following day that the “identified language is neither gratuitous nor unduly prejudicial because it is not offered to criticize or demean the President; rather, it is offered to explain Special Counsel Hur’s conclusions about the President’s state of mind in possessing and retaining classified information.”
Upon the release of Hur’s report, Siskel and Bauer responded to Weinsheimer’s letter that they “fundamentally disagree with [his] assessment that the comments contained in Special Counsel Hur’s report were consistent with Department policy and practice.”
“They surely were not,” they asserted.
Paul Roland Bois directed the award-winning feature film, EXEMPLUM, which can be viewed for FREE on YouTube or Tubi. “Better than Killers of the Flower Moon,” wrote Mark Judge. “You haven’t seen a story like this before,” wrote Christian Toto. A high-quality, ad-free stream can also be purchased on Google Play or Vimeo on Demand. Follow him on Twitter @prolandfilms or Instagram @prolandfilms.
Comments are closed.