After the recent investigative report which points to Joe Biden’s failing memory, the White House tried to put out the fire.
The entourage of the President of the United States denounces factually “erroneous” conclusions.
Follow the full coverage
American presidential election 2024: a new Biden-Trump duel?
The best defense is attack. After the last difficult hours, following the announcement of a particularly unfavorable investigative report concerning the state of intellectual health of Joe Biden, the White House decided to respond this Friday. Special prosecutor Robert Hur’s 388-page findings “clearly politically motivated”castigates Kamala Harris, herself a former prosecutor. “The way the president’s attitude has been portrayed in this report could not be more factually incorrect”assures the American vice-president.
A “political environment under high pressure”
Same story from Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the executive. “When the obvious conclusion is that the evidence does not support an indictment, one wonders why this report devotes so much space to gratuitous and inappropriate criticism of the president”he points out. “To suggest that he might not have remembered the date of his son’s death is seriously off the mark.”he further denounces, suggesting that the magistrate may have felt pushed to “exceeding one’s duties” due to the very polarized American political context nine months before the election. “We are in a high-pressure political environment. And when you are the first special prosecutor who has not indicted anyone, there is pressure to criticize”he explains again.
However, “I think the public is intelligent”declares the spokesperson, brushing aside the idea that this document could harm the Democrat running for his own re-election.
VIDEO – Three blunders in a few days: Does Joe Biden have a failing memory?
As a reminder, Robert Hur concluded that the president had “knowingly kept and disclosed classified documents after his vice presidency while he was a private citizen” but explained that“an indictment would not be justified”notably because a jury would give the benefit of the doubt to “a friendly, well-meaning elderly man with a bad memory”. He also wrote that the memory of the head of state “had gotten worse” these last months.