Concerns Over Biden’s Presidency and Accountability

Two summers ago, our team was actively monitoring government activities. We gathered in a conference room, pondering the same questions that were circulating across the nation: “What was the state of governance under the ousted president?”

This was before Joe Biden’s noticeable struggles in debates. Even then, we had doubts about his capacity to maintain a full re-election campaign. Thoughts emerged around whether state election laws would permit Democrats to replace him when crucial polls closed. A leaked Democratic National Committee memo has rattled both supporters and critics of Biden.

The audio recording circulating raises significant concerns. It implies that the actions taken were calculated rather than accidental. During a broadcast, seemingly in response to footage of Biden’s difficulties, someone inquired about the authenticity of a document signed by him in the White House.

After a brief pause, speculation arose. The likely explanation? An autopen. Just take a moment and consider that.

The unfolding events became what President Trump termed “the scandal of the century”: a Congressional investigation, a Department of Justice inquiry—evidence suggesting that Biden’s aides acted in extraordinary ways to conceal his condition, even leading to the re-arrest of someone who shouldn’t have had their sentence reduced. Yet, accountability appears elusive.

This is utterly frustrating. The actions during Biden’s administration were not just troubling; they seemed to cross legal lines. The Constitution assigns the presidential role to a single individual. That leader must possess the competence and awareness necessary to perform official duties. Voters must hold that person accountable.

But that accountability didn’t materialize. For a country advocating democracy globally for decades, the events surrounding Biden’s inauguration are somewhat embarrassing.

Come Monday, there would finally be accountability. After extensive litigation spanning more than two years, recordings involving Biden were released to the public.

Biden and his well-resourced legal team fought back in federal courts yet faced defeat. Although he had the option to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, he chose to concede. His lawyers invested significant resources attempting to undermine our credibility in various court documents, seemingly hoping it would affect the outcome. There’s something oddly satisfying in knowing Biden’s team had to recruit a motivated attorney to scrutinize my candid views.

Relevant News: Biden’s Recently Released Audio Tape Raises Concerns

So, what does this release mean?

Firstly, it becomes clear that Biden’s decline wasn’t sudden; in fact, it stretches back to 2016 and 2017.

The recording features an interview between Biden and author Mark Zwonitzer as they worked on Biden’s memoir shortly after he left the vice presidency. Biden struggles to recall Congressman Jim Clyburn’s name, the very individual who would end up significantly aiding his 2020 campaign—repeatedly expressing confusion and uncertainty during the conversation.

Even back in 2017, the good and challenging days of his presidency were already apparent. The recording is punctuated with pauses and hesitant words, making his speech sound as though it’s buffering on an old internet connection.

This might shed light on why the 2020 campaign opted to limit his public appearances, perhaps as a means to disguise his decline until they felt it was safe to present him to the public. Democratic leaders recognized that they were trying to sell a flawed product long before the public caught on.

Second, this tape raises critical questions surrounding Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s handling of classified information.

While Mr. Hur opted not to pursue charges, arguing that a jury would perceive Biden as a “sympathetic elderly man struggling with memory,” the recordings reveal more severe misconduct than expected.

Biden has acknowledged multiple times that the material he possessed might be classified. Following that admission, the audio falls silent—segments likely edited for reasons of national security. These aren’t random pauses but form an essential part of the recording.

Records indicate that Biden disclosed sensitive information related to national security to ghostwriters lacking the required clearance. He made these disclosures while pursuing a lucrative book deal valued at $8 million.

This silence within the tape is significant; it suggests intentionality rather than mere carelessness. Consequently, these recordings could warrant a renewed investigation into whether the inquiry into Biden’s actions was an effort to uncover the truth or to manage a politically sensitive scandal.

Relevant News: Biden’s Unfortunate Decisions Under Scrutiny

Lastly, this tape may pave the way for criminal investigations.

Biden asserted to the public that he did not share classified information. The recording flatly contradicts that assertion. Knowingly disclosing national defense information to unauthorized individuals could constitute a federal offense. Unlike a witness with memory loss, recordings don’t need to testify.

Investigations shouldn’t merely stop at Biden. The White House took steps to undermine Mr. Hur in 2024 for accurately reflecting the president’s mental state. Officials aware of the truth reacted negatively to Mr. Hur’s statements. This autopen issue isn’t just an isolated concern; it implicates the aides who facilitated and concealed it while benefiting in the process.

Careful reconstruction of the timeline is vital. Biden’s decline was evident in 2016 and 2017, but by 2024, it was even more pronounced. What was his mental state when he took classified documents? Did he realize he was revealing protected information during the tape recordings? How did Mr. Hur evaluate Biden’s intentions during the alleged infractions compared to later inquiries?

These questions demand answers.

Ultimately, the tapes belong to the American people. The Surveillance Project has simply returned them to their rightful owners.

The U.S. must ensure that no presidential administration operates through mechanical, impersonal fiat. There can only be one individual wielding presidential authority. That person must grasp what responsibilities that entails, accept accountability, and above all, maintain the trust of the electorate.