Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Dem Megadonors Wanted To Hold Intervention, Convince Biden To Step Down After Debate Implosion

Published

4 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

 

Democratic megadonors discussed holding an intervention to convince President Joe Biden to step down as the party’s nominee after Thursday night’s poor debate performance, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Many have criticized Biden’s performance at the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump as poor, with the president appearing to freeze at several points, was often hard to understand and made multiple verbal gaffes. Following the dismal performance, some major Democratic donors spoke of setting up an intervention for the president to convince him to step down from the race, while others hoped Biden would decide to exit on his own after seeing the widespread negative reaction, according to the NYT.

“He deserves the opportunity to reflect and say: ‘I still think I can do this. I still think I am the best choice,’” Democratic donor and friend of the president, Stephen Cozen, told the NYT about what he said to other donors calling for an intervention. “That’s his decision. And I will stick with him until he makes it.”

Ron Conway and Laurene Powell Jobs, members of a group of Silicon Valley megadonors, were racing to talk to other donors about what they described as a “possible catastrophe” after the debate, according to the NYT. A possible solution the donors came up with was finding a way to contact First Lady Jill Biden to convince the president to step down from the ticket.

One of those Silicon Valley donors canceled plans to host a fundraiser featuring Biden later this summer, according to the NYT. Despite the concern of losing momentum in receiving donations, the Biden campaign claimed that they had raised $14 million from online sources following the debate into Friday morning.

Biden’s campaign has been struggling to fundraise at the same rate as the Trump campaign over the past few months, despite starting with a $100 million advantage, according to the NYT. The Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee had $212 million at the start of June, while the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee had $235 million.

Among the donors critical of the president following the debate, there was talk about which figure could possibly convince the president to step aside, such as former President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, according to the NYT. The donors also speculated who could possibly replace the president as the nominee, with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and California Gov. Gavin Newsom among the options.

Despite being a front-runner as a possible replacement for Biden, Newsom has made repeated statements expressing his support for the president and pledging not to run in the 2024 presidential election.

Biden’s mental acuity has long been questioned by opponents, due in part to being the oldest president in American history, with a second term taking him well into his 80s. Several prominent Democrats who previously defended Biden’s mental acuity were notably quiet following the debate after seeing the president’s performance.

An investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents by special counsel Robert Hur concluded that the president shouldn’t be charged because he appeared as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

armed forces

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Former FBI Asst Director Warns Terrorists Are ‘Well Embedded’ In US, Says Alert Should Be ‘Higher’

Published on

Chris Swecker on “Anderson Cooper 360” discussing terror threat

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker warned Friday on CNN that terrorists are “well embedded” within the United States, stating the threat level should be “higher” following an attack in Germany.

A 50-year-old Saudi doctor allegedly drove his car into a crowded Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany on Friday leaving at least two people dead and nearly 70 injured so far. On “Anderson Cooper 360,” Swecker was asked if he believes there is a potential “threat” to the U.S. as concerns have risen since the “fall of Afghanistan.” 

“I think so,” Swecker said. “I mean, we’ve heard FBI Director Chris Wray talk about this in conjunction with the relative ease of getting across the southern border. And, you know, there’s no question that terrorists have come across that border, whether they’re lone terrorists or terrorist cells. And they’re well embedded inside this country.”

WATCH:

“I’ve worked terrorist cases. Hezbollah has always had a presence here. They raise funds here, and they can always be called into action as an active terrorist cell,” Swecker added. “So I think the alert here, especially around Christmas time, is elevated. It probably ought to be higher than what it is right now, because I mentioned that complacency earlier. And I fear that complacency as someone who has a background in this field.”

Concerns over the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the U.S. southern border have raised questions over the vetting process of illegal immigrants entering the country.

On Tuesday United States Border Patrol (USPB) Chief Jason Owens announced in a social post that an unidentified South African national who was “suspected of terror”  was arrested in Brooklyn, N.Y. The illegal immigrant had originally been detained in Texas for criminal trespassing but was released due to the “information available at the time.”

In August an estimated 99 individuals on the U.S. terrorist watch list had been released into the country after crossing through the southern border, according to a congressional report. The report found that between fiscal years 2021 and 2023 USBP agents encountered more than 250 illegal migrants on the terrorist watchlist, with nearly 100 of those individuals being later released into the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security.

Continue Reading

Trending

X