Connect with us

Politics

Column: 'Retire and go back under a rock': Biden loyalists push back on my call for Joe to get tested

Published

on

Column: 'Retire and go back under a rock': Biden loyalists push back on my call for Joe to get tested

Just like the man they stand behind, backers of President Biden can be a feisty bunch.

Even as more prominent supporters jump ship — Hollywood high rollers George Clooney and Rob Reiner say it’s time for Biden to step aside, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped short of saying she wants Biden to stay in the race — true Bidenistas are digging in.

There’s California Gov. Gavin Newsom, of course, and various House and Senate members who believe Biden should stay the course. But I’m hearing directly from readers ticked off about my column suggesting that Biden undergo a full battery of neurological testing (based on assessments by doctors I spoke to) to reassure the public that he’s OK, as he defiantly insists.

“You should get tested and the results be made public,” said Dan Cordova of Albuquerque. “You should also retire and go back under a rock.”

“SHAME ON YOU for adding to the Biden media feeding frenzy,” wrote Marcy Rothenberg of Porter Ranch. “It’s already been reported that President Biden has arthritis; his back is stiff so he walks slowly. He still can ride a bike. Can Donald? No. He can’t even walk a golf course.”

Advertisement

Even former state legislator and L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl shook a stick at me.

“Instead of joining an echo-journalism ignorant drumbeat, perhaps you might have, as [history professor and essayist] Heather Cox Richardson did, revealed the letter from the President’s actual doctor, Dr. [Kevin] O’Connor, on his neurological exam at the end of February. I hope you will read her as thousands do every day and reveal this in a column.”

I understand and respect Biden loyalty. As I’ve said before, he seems to be a decent and civil man and he’s been a good president.

I also believe, and have often stated, that former President Trump is a menace, and I don’t know who the greater threat to the republic is — him, or all the lemmings in line to hand a second term to a lying, hateful, vindictive, narcissistic felon who failed to deliver on virtually all of his campaign promises (look it up if you don’t believe me).

Readers have asked how I could write a column saying Biden should undergo testing, but not Trump, who has had his own particular set of behavioral issues. I assumed it went without saying that Trump ought to have his head examined. But sure, I’ll get on board with both of them getting a full diagnostic workup.

Advertisement

I loved the suggestion by Terry Spencer of Highland Park that Biden and Trump should have to take the intentionally confusing California DMV license renewal test, and whoever scores highest wins the election.

The Biden backers seem to fall into one or more of three categories. Those who think his health is good enough to handle the job going forward. Those who think it’s too late to switch to a replacement candidate. And those who would vote for a bean and cheese burrito before they vote for Trump.

“I never give much credence to polls, but Biden still does better against Trump than others,” said Kuehl, who added that the chaos of “changing horses in midstream” would do more damage to the party “than sticking with Joe, who, I think, will win.”

Plausible, but the stream is deep, and the horse’s head is barely above water.

A reader named Mark Richardson, of Encinitas, is banking on a passing of the torch, but not just yet.

Advertisement

“We’ll see how the next couple of months go, and if he gets elected, he can resign a month after inauguration day, January 2025 and [Vice President Kamala] Harris can take over,” Richardson said.

Also plausible, but the key words are “if he gets elected.” I have serious doubts, and said earlier this month that Biden should pass the baton and walk away with pride, dignity and grace. Not because of his age (lots of older people are fully functioning), but because of his health.

The president didn’t improve his chances with his stiff gait, slack expressions and word stumbles in the June 27 debate. His judgment wasn’t sharp, either. Instead of getting lured into a silly back-and-forth about which candidate is the best golfer, Biden should have said that as the planet melts and women’s reproductive rights have been stolen by Trump’s Supreme Court, he’d rather talk about saving the country than playing golf.

Things did not get much better for Biden in the televised ABC interview a few days later. And as for the doctor’s report cited by Kuehl and countless others, based on a physical Biden had in February, it leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

“An extremely detailed neurologic exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or ascending lateral sclerosis, nor are there any signs of cervical myelopathy,” said the report from Biden’s doctor.

Advertisement

I’m not taking any statement from the White House as gospel truth, regardless of who’s in office, and I have questions.

When exactly was the neurologic exam taken and by whom? What is meant by “extremely detailed?” And given the progressive nature of memory and movement disorders, isn’t it possible Biden’s condition has changed in the last six months, and will continue to do so?

As Kuehl noted, there’s a big difference between the opinions of physicians making a diagnosis from a distance and those who actually see the patient in question. I couldn’t agree more, and in fact, I wrote a column chastising people who thought they could diagnose dementia in Biden by watching him on CNN. Dementia is not some catch-all phrase for a memory lapse, which could be caused by any number of things.

But no matter how much you love Biden, hate Trump, or both, I don’t know how anyone could have watched that debate and not be worried about Biden’s health.

Neurological movement disorders are often accompanied by specific symptoms that doctors can spot. Several reached out to me after the debate to say they saw signs of Parkinson’s or a related condition. Two neurologists took note of Biden’s blink rate, facial expressions, stiffness and speech patterns.

Advertisement

One, Dr. Michael Mahler, a neurology specialist and UCLA faculty member, said he suspected something in the “Parkinsonian” paradigm.

Dr. Jack Florin, who has been a USC professor and had research fellowships at Stanford and Harvard, said he thinks Biden suffers from a Parkinson’s variant called progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), which can involve cognitive impairment that worsens over time and impact mental processing speed, attention and concentration.

The White House report on Biden’s health didn’t convince Mahler or Florin that we know the full story, or that their own impressions of Biden’s condition are off base. Florin suggested that an MRI, if there hasn’t already been one, would be helpful in supporting his theory that Biden has PSP.

Mahler said “some of the disorders in the realm of Parkinsonism are inherently variable,” meaning that they change over time. And “having a normal neurological exam in February (or earlier) means nothing if a person had a stroke or series of small strokes in March.” But he was cautious about making a specific diagnosis, and said medication for certain disorders can produce symptoms that mimic Parkinson’s.

“One thing that Biden has repeated is that functioning as president is a harder test than asking him to draw a clock or recall five words, and that is probably true,” Mahler said. “Yet it is also true that neurologists around the country saw something during the debate other than reassurance that the president was neurologically fit.”

Advertisement

What I saw was a sad moment in U.S. political history.

A tyrant counting on victory in November.

A weakened president trying to stand tall.

Some of his supporters abandoning him and others doubling down.

It may be that neither candidate gets tested, but come November, all of us are going to be.

Advertisement

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

on

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

Advertisement

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Advertisement

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Advertisement

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Advertisement

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

Advertisement

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

Advertisement

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

Advertisement

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending