Tuesday, February 24, 2026

FTC Investigating TikTok, May Soon Seek Legal Action.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating the social media app TikTok over allegations it violated federal law regarding data and security practices. TikTok, owned by the Chinese entertainment and technology conglomerate ByteDance, has come under increasing scrutiny over its handling of American user data and its impact on U.S. national security. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have renewed efforts that began under former President Donald Trump to force ByteDance to either divest from TikTok or see the app banned.

Key elements of the FTC probe involve alleged violations of a federal law that prohibits “unfair and deceptive” business practices and contravening provisions of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The FTC is seeking to determine whether TikTok lied to U.S. government officials when it claimed that American user data was not being shared with ByteDance employees in China. Several whistleblowers have come forward, claiming that the data protections TikTok claims to have instituted are a facade and that American user data is still accessible by its China-based parent company.

In addition to the data concerns, the U.S. government regulatory agency is also investigating whether the social media company is in compliance with a federal provision that requires parental consent for the use of child-accessible applications for minors under the age of 13. Recently, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a similar requirement into law, with social media companies needing to now attain parent consent for users under 14.

The FTC says it is nearing the end of its TikTok probe and will soon decide whether to seek a lawsuit against the Chinese-owned company. If it moves forward with a litigation recommendation, the Biden Justice Department will have 45 days to decide if it will pursue the legal action.

show less
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating the social media app TikTok over allegations it violated federal law regarding data and security practices. TikTok, owned by the Chinese entertainment and technology conglomerate ByteDance, has come under increasing scrutiny over its handling of American user data and its impact on U.S. national security. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have renewed efforts that began under former President Donald Trump to force ByteDance to either divest from TikTok or see the app banned. show more

House Dems Push Law to Stop Trump Getting Classified Briefings.

House Democrats are seeking to block former President Donald Trump from receiving classified briefings as the 2024 Republican presidential nominee – a bizarre and unprecedented attack on U.S. political norms.

The GUARD Act, introduced by Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), would bar access to classified information by federal officials or candidates charged with crimes relating to obstructing official proceedings, endangering national security, mishandling classified materials, and other issues related to national defense.

The legislation marks the latest effort by Democrats to interfere in the 2024 presidential election on behalf of President Joe Biden, the Democrat incumbent. Rep. Sherrill’s bill, if it becomes law, could have potentially far-reaching impacts — including preventing former President Trump from reviewing classified evidence in his defense against Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution against him in Florida.

In an attempt to frame the legislation as other than a new front in the Biden government’s lawfare campaign against Trump, House Democrats insist its provisions would apply to other officials like disgraced Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ). The New Jersey Senate Democrat is being prosecuted on charges of corruption, bribery, and acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Egypt and Qatar.

Rep. Sherrill, however, failed to mention her New Jersey Democrat colleague even once in her press release announcing the legislation. Instead, she opted to focus entirely on how it would impact Trump. “Nobody is entitled or legally obligated to classified briefings — certainly not Trump, even if he is the Republican nominee for president,” Rep. Sherrill said.

Former President Trump has pleaded not guilty in Smith’s prosecution over allegedly mishandling classified materials stored at Mar-a-Lago — Trump’s private Palm Beach, Florida club and residence. The National Pulse previously reported that Rep. Sherrill — who bills herself as a national security hawk – has had numerous investments in Chinese-linked companies.

show less
House Democrats are seeking to block former President Donald Trump from receiving classified briefings as the 2024 Republican presidential nominee – a bizarre and unprecedented attack on U.S. political norms. show more

It Looks Like Biden Lied To The DOJ in That Weird Story About the Burnt Penis…

Several elements of Joe Biden’s past that he recounted during two interviews with Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur appear to have been fabricated by the Democrat incumbent. An investigative report indicates Biden lied about his role in defeating a lawsuit brought by a welder who lost his genitals in an accident.

The National Pulse first covered the incident when the Biden interview transcripts were released to the public. The 81-year-old President engaged in a lengthy 10-minute monologue describing his early days as a lawyer and politician in Delaware after being pressed by Hurr about handling classified materials in the final days of the Obama government. Biden told Hur about a welder whose pants caught fire, recalling: “…a spark caught fire and got caught in the containment vessel, and he lost part of his penis and one of his testicles, and he was 23 years old.”

While Joe Biden eventually worked at the firm representing the defendant in the welder’s case, the lawsuit occurred in 1968 while the Delaware Democrat was still in law school at Syracuse University in New York. Additionally, Biden’s claim that a memo he wrote caused the case to be dismissed was a complete fabrication. The lawsuit was settled with the welder receiving a payout of $315,000 — or approximately $28 million in today’s dollars.

President Biden has faced accusations of plagiarism and fabricating stories throughout his political career. However, the octogenarian Democrat has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years as it appears he has suffered cognitive decline. During the same interview sessions with Robert Hur, Biden was unable to remember the date of son Beau Biden’s death nor when he first became Vice-President under former President Barack Obama.

show less
Several elements of Joe Biden’s past that he recounted during two interviews with Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur appear to have been fabricated by the Democrat incumbent. An investigative report indicates Biden lied about his role in defeating a lawsuit brought by a welder who lost his genitals in an accident. show more

Biden Inquiry Exposes Possible CIA Plot to Protect Hunter From Prosecution.

Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill say they’ve uncovered evidence that President Joe Biden’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may have interfered with attempts by government investigators to speak with Patrick Kevin Morris, a crucial witness in Hunter Biden’s tax case. Hunter previously admitted to receiving substantial loans from Morris — a Hollywood entertainment lawyer — to cover about $7 million in back taxes and legal fees.

A whistleblower has provided evidence to lawmakers indicating the CIA summoned two of the lead government attorneys investigating Hunter Biden to Langley, Virginia, ahead of an interview with Morris. According to the individual who has spoken with the House Judiciary Committee, the CIA actively blocked officials from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and DOJ from interviewing several witnesses during the original Hunter Biden investigation.

“Recently, the Committees received information from a whistleblower alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) intervened in the investigation of Hunter Biden to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigators from interviewing a witness,” Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to CIA director William Burns. He added: “We therefore write to request relevant material from the CIA.”

In recent days, the House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and his family’s business activities has expanded — with new avenues of investigation into family members who used access to the then-Vice President to secure lucrative business contracts and trade on Biden’s name. House Republicans allege that the President’s son, Hunter Biden, and brother, James Biden, were wildly successful in using their access to Joe Biden to secure valuable contracts with foreign business interests.

show less
Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill say they’ve uncovered evidence that President Joe Biden’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may have interfered with attempts by government investigators to speak with Patrick Kevin Morris, a crucial witness in Hunter Biden's tax case. Hunter previously admitted to receiving substantial loans from Morris — a Hollywood entertainment lawyer — to cover about $7 million in back taxes and legal fees. show more

GOP Probes DOJ Attorneys On Hunter Biden Crimes.

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), has filed a lawsuit in federal court to compel testimony from two Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division attorneys, Mark Daly and Jack Morgan. House Republicans argue the testimony from the DOJ officials is integral to their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings.

Daly and Morgan are believed to have intimate knowledge regarding the decision to grant favorable terms in the prosecution of the President’s son for alleged tax crimes. The 59-page filing asks a federal judge to enforce congressional subpoenas previously issued for their testimony.

Concerns regarding the sweat-heart deal between Hunter Biden and the DOJ were brought to light by the House Ways and Means Committee late last year. Testimony from IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler alleged the DOJ ignored the severity of Hunter Biden’s tax crimes out of a sense of political favoritism.

The business dealings of Hunter Biden have come under increasing scrutiny as the House Republican impeachment inquiry moves forward. President Biden’s son is accused of hiding income to avoid paying federal taxes and hiding illicit earnings from corrupt business dealings. Additionally, House Republicans allege Hunter Biden used his access to his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to secure lucrative business contracts.

House Republicans, moving to the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, expected to begin increasing their focus on the Biden family’s business enterprises and allegations they traded off of Joe Biden’s name and political access.

show less
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), has filed a lawsuit in federal court to compel testimony from two Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division attorneys, Mark Daly and Jack Morgan. House Republicans argue the testimony from the DOJ officials is integral to their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings. show more

SCOTUS Reverses, Now WILL Allow Texas to Protect Border.

Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett ruled Tuesday to lift the administrative stay upheld on Monday by Justice Samuel Alito, which blocked Texas from enforcing SB4, a newly introduced immigration law. The law enables local law enforcement to detain migrants and empowers state judges to order deportations.

The two justices issued an order vacating the prior order by Justice Alito, noting that the legislative pause enacted on behalf of the Biden Department of Justice by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was not a ‘stay pending appeal.’ Instead, the two justices concluded the stay was administrative in nature as the circuit court had cited its docket management authority.

President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice contends that the power to make and enforce immigration law is solely reserved in the Constitution to the federal government. Texas has countered that constitutional provisions afford state governments latitude on immigration law when the federal government is unable or refuses to enforce security at the border.

While a temporary freeze halted the law’s execution in early March, following a preemptive lawsuit from the Biden government, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it would go into effect on March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Justice Alito ordered a second emergency stay request on Monday. Tuesday’s order from justices Kavanaugh and Barrett has vacated Alito’s order.

While the justices have lifted the stay, they have yet to rule on the actual merits of the case.

show less
Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett ruled Tuesday to lift the administrative stay upheld on Monday by Justice Samuel Alito, which blocked Texas from enforcing SB4, a newly introduced immigration law. The law enables local law enforcement to detain migrants and empowers state judges to order deportations. show more

SCOTUS Blocks Texas From Securing the Border.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito extended an order Monday blocking Texas officials from executing a new state immigration law authorized by Governor Greg Abbott. The state-sanctioned SB4 considers illegal immigration a state-level crime in addition to being a federal offense. This law equips state and local law enforcement to prosecute illegal immigrants charged with unlawful entry. It also empowers Texas judges to order forced returns to Mexico as an alternative to prolonging their prosecution.

The Biden government has argued that SB4 is unconstitutional. Following its request last month, a federal judge halted the law on the grounds that it contradicted federal immigration laws. The 5th Circuit Court suppressed that ruling until Alito postponed enforcement for administrative reasons.

Alito’s stay preserves the status quo until the court deliberates on the Justice Department’s request for emergency relief. The litigation concerning SB4’s legality continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Texas officials, led by Abbott, argue that the federal government’s efforts to control illegal immigration are inadequate, necessitating the state’s intervention. For three years, Texas has mounted actions to contest the federal government’s supremacy over immigration policy. Moves include transporting illegal immigrants to Democrat-controlled’ sanctuary cities’ and installing deterrents along border regions.

On the other hand, the Justice Department maintains that SB4 violates federal law and the Constitution, as immigration enforcement has traditionally been a federal duty. They also argue that the legislation impairs relations with Mexico, whose government has dubbed SB4 “anti-immigrant” and pledged to refuse illegal immigrants returned by Texas.

show less
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito extended an order Monday blocking Texas officials from executing a new state immigration law authorized by Governor Greg Abbott. The state-sanctioned SB4 considers illegal immigration a state-level crime in addition to being a federal offense. This law equips state and local law enforcement to prosecute illegal immigrants charged with unlawful entry. It also empowers Texas judges to order forced returns to Mexico as an alternative to prolonging their prosecution. show more

Biden’s DOJ Silences Immigration Judges Amid Criticism Over Meddling In 3 Million-Case Backlog.

The Department of Justice has imposed a policy requiring immigration judges to seek department approval before speaking with the media or the general public. An organization representing the interests of immigration judges says the move effectively prevents them from voicing their opinions publicly amidst a surge of 3 million unresolved cases.

According to the orders given by Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty, the judges, who are part of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), must first receive authorization from the DOJ before expressing their views. The gag-order-like policy for immigration judges does not appear to have any precedent under prior presidential administrations.

The instruction comes at a point when immigration services are being inundated by an invasion of illegal immigrants at the US southern border. Before the new policy, the NAIJ — represented under the umbrella of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers union — had been publicly raising the alarm regarding the overwhelmed immigration system. Federation president Matt Biggs criticized the DOJ order for curtailing the free speech of his union membership.

With the border crisis unabetted by the Biden government, the immigration case backlog continues to worsen. Each of the 682 immigration judges in December had a caseload of around 4,500. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University stated that judges can conclude approximately 750 cases annually.

In a public statement, Judge Mimi Tsankov, who presides over the NAIJ, attributed a share of the blame for the increasing backlog to the Department of Justice’s ineffective leadership and intrusive intervention in the immigration court system. The case backlog has soared from just over half a million in September 2016 to 3 million in November 2023 — with the number of cases continuing to grow.

show less
The Department of Justice has imposed a policy requiring immigration judges to seek department approval before speaking with the media or the general public. An organization representing the interests of immigration judges says the move effectively prevents them from voicing their opinions publicly amidst a surge of 3 million unresolved cases. show more

READ: Biden Indulged in 10 Minute Rant About Country Clubs and Burnt Penises During Special Counsel Testimony.

President Joe Biden delivered a long and rambling response when pressed by Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur regarding document retention during the final days of the Obama government. The 81-year-old Biden, ignoring Hur’s question, went on a nearly 10-minute rant discussing country clubs, interview practices of almost 60 years ago, and how a man he knew lost his genitals in a fire.

Hur asked Biden: “So now let’s talk about the Naval Observatory. So you’ve been living there for eight years. So at the end of your vice presidency, what kinds of papers or documents or files were at the Naval Observatory as you were preparing to leave and move out?”

The President began to respond substantively but quickly spiraled into a bizarre and unhinged tangent comparable to the iconic Simpsons scene where Homer Simpson’s father indulges himself in a winding story that ends up nowhere.

Read it for yourself:

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, if you’re talking about anything that was a substantive matter, classified or otherwise — you know, the fight in the Judiciary Committee over whether or not — I was the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. It was — really meant a lot to me. And so they might find stuff on the Violence Against Women Act in one section of a drawer or in the shelves of the library or of the Naval Observatory.

Or issues, you know, relating to — I know it’s gonna sound strange to you guys, but agriculture is a $4 billion industry, agriculture is a $4 billion industry in Delaware and the Delmarva peninsula, and so — or, you know, I’d have a lot of political things that — I, I don’t know where they were, but I know I had material that — where I, you know — like, there’s a whole, whole bunch of stuff around about how -~ what made me run for President in the first place, and about how things were — you know, I mean, for example, I, I was a — I got a job with a — I didn’t take law school very seriously, but I won the International Tort Competition. I was in — matter of fact, the first time in tort class, we had a really difficult professor. I mean, very well-known, Professor at Syracuse, and he called on me to — you know how they do in law school, discuss a case, you know, in your first torts class. And I had never read the case, and I stood up and I spoke for 10 minutes. The whole class stood up, started clapping.

The transcript notes there was laughter among those in the interview at this point.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And he said, Mr. Biden, you’ll be a hell of a trial lawyer. He said, not a single thing you — had to do with that.

Again, the transcript denotes laughter.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And — but at any rate, so — but in law school, I got in law school, and I got, believe it or not, a job offer from some prestigious law firms. I was not sure where I wanted to go, out west and where — I wanted to move to Idaho, I thought, and so I was going to go out and interview with Boise Cascade. That’s all I’d really — and — but I took a job with the best-known trial firm in Delaware in mostly civil defense issues. And, and so — and I remember a guy named [REDACTED] (phonetic), a brilliant guy that went to Amherst and Harvard and said — when he was interviewing me said, in those days, you had to — today you would be killed. You had to put your photograph in the upper right-hand corner when you’re applying for a job. And he looked at me and said, I assume you’re expecting to be hired on your looks.

Once again, the transcript denotes laughter.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And I said — and I thought the job was over, and I said, I said, well, it would improve the look of your firm.

Those present respond with laughter again, according to the transcript.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: I mean, I was just — So anyway, to make a long story short, they ended up offering me a job. And in Delaware, it has -~- used to have the lowest pass rate in the country because we’re not big on encouraging lawyers to come and play in Delaware. It’s a very tight bar. And, and so what happened was you take the bar, you graduate, and you have to clerk for somebody for six months. (Indiscernible 0:11:51.6). And they don’t give the bar exam until the middle of September. You don’t get your results to your — for the bar exam until January. And, and so — I — but I got hired in the meantime by this firm appropriately named Prickett, Ward, Burt Sanders. And, and to make a long story not quite so long, I was sitting second chair with the, with the, with the guy who ran the firm, Prickett, Mr. Prickett, and there was a young man who we were representing, [REDACTED] (phonetic) getting — and (indiscernible 0:12:34.3) construction company, you know, I had to turn those — we have more oil refineries than any place other than in Houston in Delaware and Pennsylvania, (indiscernible 0:12:43.6) up in that area.

And this poor kid is down a hundred-foot vessel, chimney, scraping the hydrogen bubbles off of the inside. They were made to shut the plant down once every — whatever, about eight months or six months or a year, whatever it is. And he was wearing the wrong pants, wrong jeans, and he -~- a spark caught fire and got caught in the containment vessel and he lost part of his penis and one of his testicles and he was 23 years old.

And I sat through the -~ his presentation with the, with the senior, and we had in Delaware, which is – the Dupont family had no influence of course – contributory negligence. If you were slightly contributory negligence, you were out.

And so the senior partner turned to me and said, write a memo for tomorrow, we’re going to make a motion to dismiss after presenting this case. So I did. I wrote this memo. And son of a bitch, it prevailed. And I looked over at that kid and his wife home with two little kids, and I thought son of a bitch, I’m in the wrong business, I’m not made for this.

It is at this point that Biden transitions to discussing the admission practices of private country clubs in Delaware, before explaining his decision to become a public defender.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And I — there was a famous club called the Wilmington Club — no blacks, Catholics are allowed — have been allowed to be members. The DuPont family name. And we went to a place called the Wilmington Club, and he thought he was doing — he said, take the lunch at Wilmington. I said — the only time I ever lied that I can remember looking somebody in the eye, and I mean sincerely, I said, oh, my dad’s coming in today, I was going to see -~ okay. He didn’t give a damn where I went. I walked across and walked through to the second — the basement on a public building and walked in with a guy named Frank and I said I want a job as a public defender. He said, don’t you work for Prickett. He said, he said, are you okay, like what the hell’s the matter with you. I quit and became a public defender.

The process of that was that’s what got me — I had been involved in the civil rights movement. That got me deeply involved in trying to reform the Democratic Party, which was a southern Democratic Party. We were a slave state by law. We were one of the border states so we couldn’t figure — anyway, but the Democratic Party was a conservative party in Delaware. The DuPont family ran the Republican Party, but they were like Rockefeller Republicans at the time. And so I got involved with a group of people trying to reform the Democratic Party.

At this point Biden informed Hur his story was meant to illustrate the amount of materials he has kept over the years.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And the whole point of telling you all this is I had a lot of material that I kept notes on and, and when that — where as I was taking on the Democratic Party. And they came to me and asked me to — this group, this new Democratic coalition — I had, in the meantime, it’s two years down the road, I was 26 years old, 27. And I went to work part time for a criminal defense firm mainly, a real estate — there were five people. And so I was no longer a public defender because I couldn’t be a public defender and work for that firm.

President Biden’s moment of clarity does not last however, and he again plunges into a lengthy rant — several times to “make a long story short.”

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And one thing led to another and I joined this group to try to reform the party. And they came to me about and I was making the case we’ve just got to get more candidates to run, to — we’re not, we’re not represented. And the southern part of the state of Delaware will talk at you like this, for real, you go down — you think I’m joking, I’m not joking. “Damn, boy, I don’t agree with a damn thing you say,” but he said, “I know where you stand, know where you stand.” That’s how they talk. And it was solidly democrat, southern democrat. We were the only state in the nation occupied by the military for 10 months with drawn bayonets at every corner when Dr. King was assassinated, and that’s really what got me going. Long story, and I’ll end, because it relates to maybe some of the other things you may ask about, is that I had a lot of material that I did recent. When you’re the youngest guy in the room, you get to turn the lights on and off. And so I, I amassed a lot of material making the case why the party had to change and, and they — and it ended up that about 10 months in, the group from the area where I lived came to me and said they wanted me to run for the state senate. I said, no, no, no, I can’t do that. I just — I’m thinking of starting my own law firm and it’s going to — no, I can’t do that. And because they meet in Dover and dah, dah, dah.

And then next thing that happened was I came back about three weeks later. They said we want — to the office I was in at the time. I had now started my own office. And I didn’t realize no one my age ever started his own law firm. I hired two lawyers. I had no freaking money. But I hired them and paid them more than I was going to make, and I started this firm. And there — I remember standing looking out over the public and they said how about running for the county council. I said, no, no, I can’t go down. He said, they meet right across the street there only twice a week at night. You can do this. So to make a long story short, I ended up doing it. But I wanted to be sure that I was going to lose because — so I ran ina district that no one’s ever won, a Democrat had never won.

And I won it.

And next thing you know, I’m in a tough position.

My generic point was there was a lot of material that I had amassed that I wanted to save. I probably still have it somewhere. And so that stuff would travel wherever the hell

I was —

Hur, at this point, finally interrupts Biden. The special counsel steered the conversation back to the relevant question of document retention.

“Do you recall having these types of things with you at the Naval Observatory and this was part of the stuff you were trying to move out?” Hur asked the President.

“No. I had most of it at my house in that office,” Biden finally answered.

show less
President Joe Biden delivered a long and rambling response when pressed by Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur regarding document retention during the final days of the Obama government. The 81-year-old Biden, ignoring Hur’s question, went on a nearly 10-minute rant discussing country clubs, interview practices of almost 60 years ago, and how a man he knew lost his genitals in a fire. show more

REVEALED: Biden Brought Up Beau’s Death First, Just 7 Mins Into Special Counsel Interview.

President Joe Biden brought up his son Beau Biden’s death just seven minutes into his interview with Department of Justice (DOJ) Special Counsel Robert Hur, according to the transcript of the five-hour meeting. After the special counsel’s report was released in February, the President lashed out at Hur — leading the American people to believe it was the special counsel who first broached the subject of Beau’s death.

The DOJ special counsel had been probing Biden on his activities at the end of his then-Vice Presidency and his decision to locate the Biden Cancer Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania. Biden was also asked about his decision to write a book in the last days of the Obama government, with the President explaining he wanted to “write a book about my son because he was a remarkable man” so that his family would “understand who he was and have some documentation of it.”

This directly contradicts Biden’s assertion at his February address on Hur’s report in which he insisted it was the special counsel who first broached the subject of his son’s death. “How in the hell dare he raise that,” Biden growled at the time, adding: “Frankly when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn’t any of their damn business.”

The President had claimed it was Hur who had directly asked the date of his son’s death. However, the interview transcript shows that Biden himself broached that subject as well. Hur noted in his report that Biden had become confused and could not remember the actual date or year in which Beau Biden had died of cancer.

show less
President Joe Biden brought up his son Beau Biden’s death just seven minutes into his interview with Department of Justice (DOJ) Special Counsel Robert Hur, according to the transcript of the five-hour meeting. After the special counsel’s report was released in February, the President lashed out at Hur — leading the American people to believe it was the special counsel who first broached the subject of Beau’s death. show more