Now It Can Be Told: "Reporters" Writing About Biden's Mental Decline Now Admit That Everyone In DC Knew He Had "Lost a Step" In 2020, But For Some Reason Never Reported It Until Biden Had Retired from Politics

Ed Morrissey referred to this as the "Now It Can Be Told" school of fake "journalism."

Basically, when a lie is no longer useful, because the public knows it's a lie and is now punishing politicians and "journalists" for repeating it, Democrats and "journalists," but I repeat myself, execute a Nixonian Modified Limited Hang-Out lie in which they say they have finally nailed down the "reporting" on facts that everyone in the world had the facts about five years ago.

Their claim is that everyone who knew this five years ago were biased, partisan, and acting, as Jake Tapper's snarky chyrons say of Republicans, "WITHOUT EVIDENCE." You see, we were all "Prematurely Right," whereas the relentlessly-factual media has only recently finished sifting through the sands of evidence to Tell the Public What the Truth is just now.

You may think you were right and they were wrong. They insist, no, you were just partisan in guessing at what the facts were, whereas the Truth Scientists of the media actually conducted the necessary Journalistic Chemical Tests with their beakers and Bunsen burners and change-color strips and proven the truth just now.

It's like the communists of the 30s supporting Hitler because they supported Stalin and Stalin had reached a deal with Hitler to divide Europe between us, and attacking anyone who prematurely opposed Hitler before he proved he was a Bad Egg after all by invading Russia.

You think you knew the truth before the media. You're wrong, Stupid Bigots. The media just discovered the truth this past couple of months. Before that, it was unknowable.

I mean, except to the extent the media denied the truth previously.

But the media was right to deny the obvious truth previously. The media is always right. When they're wrong, they were right to be wrong at that time.

Fox News: Now It Can Be Told, Kamala Harris is an election denier who considered calling for recounts after her blowout loss.

Harris was 'completely shocked' by defeat, believed she could've won with more time, author says Journalist Amie Parnes says Harris asked staff on election night if they needed a 'recount'

Former Vice President Kamala Harris was reportedly blindsided by her 2024 election loss to President Donald Trump and "bought the hype" that she would win, according to a new book.

"She was completely shocked, and [Harris' running mate] Tim Walz was shocked," The Hill reporter Amie Parnes said on the podcast "Somebody's Gotta Win with Tara Palmeri," released Thursday.

...

While continuing to discuss the confusion within the Harris campaign on election night, Parnes said that Walz was sitting in his hotel room "stunned."

"He has no words. And people are kind of explaining to him, same thing with her. And she's like, are you sure? Have we done a recount? Should we do a recount?" Parnes said on the podcast, recounting how Walz and Harris reportedly reacted to their defeat.

"They thought that they were going to win. And so, you know, when they come back now and say, 'Oh, no, we didn't really have a chance.' No, that's not what they were thinking. They thought they were going to win," she added.

Harris campaign staffers felt "gaslit" by leadership about Harris' chances at winning after being told that "things were looking good" for the candidate ahead of the election, according to Parnes.

Harris also "bought the hype" that she was doing better than she was, the author said.

"Kamala Harris was looking at her crowd size, and they felt like the vibe was strong and people were saying, 'Oh, we have more boots on the ground. We're doing better in fundraising,'" Parnes continued. "And she bought all of that. She bought the hype, and so did a lot of people in the campaign."

I'm old enough to remember when claiming you really won an election because of crowd size was enough to get you followed at airports by Air Marshalls.

According to the book, Harris reportedly told friends in the aftermath of her defeat that she could've won the election if she had more time and if Biden hadn't run for re-election.

"She could have won, she told friends, if only the election was later in the calendar -- or she got in earlier. In other words, Joe Biden was to blame," the authors wrote.

Actually, she could have won if Biden dropped out later. Harris was briefly ahead of Trump by four points in the polls for a couple of weeks after Biden dropped out. But then, as people listened to this Ding-Dong cackle insanely, and looked into hard-left past, they recoiled from her.

Friends of Harris said that she believed Biden's unpopularity and her late entry into the race tanked her campaign.

However, not all of Harris' friends believed time would have helped, according to the book.

"That is f---ing bonkers," one Harris friend reportedly said. "If Election Day was October first, we might have actually somehow pulled it off. Shorter was actually better, not longer."

THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID JACKASS

One Harris advisor said the candidate's problem was "substance," not a lack of campaign time.

"I don't think we needed more time... We needed more substance. And she did not have more substance," the advisor is quoted in the book.

In some real Now It Can Be Told "reporting," the authors of this book say that they saw signs of Biden's decline during the 2020 campaign but for Reasons Too Complicated For You To Understand, the time was not ripe for reporting this until this f***ing week.

Joe Biden Was "a Shell of Himself" by End of Term. Hunter Biden Didn't Help.

Here, Annie Parnes talks about watching the debate. Vanity Fair is asking the questions, in bold-face.

At that point, in June 2024, President Biden's physical and mental capacities had long been a central issue in the campaign. Was his terrible debate performance still a surprise to you?

Parnes: It was just stunning to watch.

Allen: We'd been watching Biden's decline for a long period of time and, honestly, thought he had lost his fastball some when he was running in 2020. And it was still so shocking to see the leader of the free world so bereft of coherent thought.

You knew this from 2020 and never said a word about it, huh?

Your book describes the lengths to which the president's longtime inner circle--including first lady Jill Biden and senior advisers Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti--went to hide that decline. Who was most responsible?

Parnes: All of them. It's pretty remarkable how they kept him very closed off. He was a shell of himself. When he entered the White House, he was so, so different from the man who I covered as vice president, a guy who would hold court in the Naval Observatory with reporters until the wee hours.

Again, the admission that they knew since 2020 -- but kept silent.

Until now.

Now It Can Be Told, you see.

How large a part of the equation was Hunter Biden?

Allen: Most people have looked at Hunter Biden as somebody that his father has had to deal with. And what we really found in the reporting here is that Hunter Biden is somebody that his father wanted to deal with on political issues, that Hunter was, as was described to us by one source, his father's closest political adviser, which is mind-blowing. I mean, if you're seeking--and I don't mean this to knock Hunter Biden in an untoward way, but it is not clear that he has the best record as somebody you would lean on for judgment.

They're still walking gingerly around Hunter Biden. Apparently it's still forbidden to say he was an out-of-control drug addict, flesh-renter, and foreign agent.

The book doesn't use the word cover-up to describe the effort to conceal the extent of Joe Biden's deficits. Was it one?

Allen: I think our view is that there is more complexity to it.

Of course. The left must still be protected. They did an "oopsie," but certainly not a cover-up! There's "complexity!"

Largely, the people who are closest to the person in power are people who do not tell that person things they don't wanna hear...If you were going to stand up and say something, you would be thrown out of the room. That basically happened with Anita Dunn toward the end.

What we saw was a lot of bad decision-making and, perhaps at the very top, people putting their own interests, and what they believed were Joe Biden's interests, above the interests of the Democratic Party and the country. And so that's a failure. That's a moral failure, but maybe not a criminal one, which is what the term cover-up sort of implies, a criminal conspiracy, and we didn't reach that threshold.

The idea of a political cover-up has never in history required proof of actual crimes being committed. They certainly never imposed this new requirement on Trump's or Bush's own oopsies. It is fabricated for the nonce just to avoid saying the Democrat Party committed a cover-up.

Of course, they also insist the media didn't participate in the cover-up, either!

Dozens of reporters pursued the truth about Biden's age and health; I wrote about it way back in May 2023. Yet did we, the mainstream media, still blow it?

Parnes: No, I don't think we missed it. I think we were all onto it.

They "were all on to" the story of Biden's dementia, but they couldn't report it at the time because Biden's staffers told them not to.

But the problem is, I think [the Biden camp's] response was kind of unethical in a way. When I called the White House and I tried to do a story on the president's exercise routine--which is something that every president has sort of put out, minus Trump, maybe--that was pretty low-hanging fruit, and that should have been a sign to me at the time--and I think it was--the fact that they couldn't even tell me what he did, if anything. Those were all signs that something wasn't right there.

A common frustration for readers of presidential campaign books is, "Now you tell us! Why didn't you report this a year ago instead of saving it to sell books?"

Allen: I think we started our interviews in August, but the vast majority we did were postelection, for a variety of reasons. No, we didn't hold anything back for the book that would have been material to the election at all. Amie and I both did significant reporting during the year, or during the election, on all of these aspects.

You literally said that everyone in DC knew Biden was off his game in 2020 not ten minutes earlier in this very interview.

Meanwhile, Jake Tapper, who's also publishing his own Now It Can Be Told book in a few weeks, insists he's not "on the left."

Jake Tapper literally used to slide into my DMs to insist on this all the time. If I referred to him as a "liberal" reporter, he would tell me that he doesn't identify as a liberal and that I have no factual basis for saying so.

Just like he used to insist that we have no factual basis, except our own eyes and ears and experience, to say that Joe Biden was in steep mental decline.

Jake Tapper denies being 'on the left' during tense exchange with Trump agriculture secretary

CNN host Jake Tapper refused to be called a member of the political left in an interview with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins about President Donald Trump's tariff policy.

CNN host Jake Tapper refused to be labeled a member of "the left" in an interview with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on Sunday about the fallout from President Donald Trump's tariff plans.

"So how long do you anticipate this tariff chaos is going to be going on? Thirty days, 60 days, 90 days?" Tapper asked Rollins on "State of the Union."

"I think it's really important to realize that last Wednesday was when the president announced this new American order, the new American economic plan," Rollins said. "We're now two days in. You've got two days of data, everyone, especially on your side, on the left, is freaking out."

"I'm not on the left," Tapper quickly said, prompting an amused response from the Trump Cabinet official. "All right, Jake, thank you," Rollins said.

posted by Ace at 05:45 PM

| Access Comments