Did President Biden have memory problems?

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2024

It depends on who you ask: Did President Biden have memory problems when he met with Robert Hur?

The transcript of their interviews has been released, but it runs 250 pages. As we perused a few initial reports, we were struck by differences between the Washington Post and the New York Times concerning one high-profile matter.

Let's start with Matt Viser's instant report for the Washington Post. Headline included, this is the way it starts:

Full transcript of Biden’s special counsel interview paints nuanced portrait

President Biden was in the early stages of his interview with special counsel Robert Hur when the topic of Beau Biden came up—initially with Biden raising it and later as Biden was attempting to get his chronological bearings and wondered aloud when, exactly, it was that his son died.

“What month did Beau die? Oh God, May 30,” he said, naming the correct day, according to a transcript of the exchange reviewed by The Washington Post.

Two others in the room chimed in with the year, and Biden questioned, “Was it 2015 when he died?”

Not long after the exchange, Hur suggested they consider taking a brief break.

“No,” Biden responded, before launching into a long explanation of Beau’s death and its impact on him deciding not to run for president in 2016. “Let me just keep going to get it done.”

As Viser continues, he correctly notes a basic fact. Ever since Hur's formal report was released, "the exchange between Biden and Hur [about Beau Biden's death] has become one of the focal points" of subsequent pundit discussion.

As Viser notes, President Biden's comments about his son's death "led the special counsel to conclude that Biden would not be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents—in part because Biden’s 'poor memory' would make it difficult to convince a jury.

In fact, Hur's account of this matter was so imprecise that it almost sounded, at least to some, like President Biden couldn't remember the fact that his son had died, or couldn't remember the actual incident. Among pundits capable of greater precision, Hur's claim was paraphrased with greater accuracy:

The president wasn't able to remember the date—or perhaps the year—of his son's death.

This jumbled allegation became a major part of pundit reaction to Hur's poisonous claims about Biden's alleged memory problems. In the account which Viser provides, it almost sounds like Biden was sharp as a tack—like he instantly gave the correct date on which his son had passed away, with two others in the room quickly "chiming in with the year."

Viser opens with that topic. To our ear, his account makes it seem a bit silly to think that Biden's acuity would have been called into question on this slender basis.

To our ear, that's the way it sounds in the Washington Post. In the New York Times, Charlie Savage drew the assignment of scanning the lengthy transcript—and his account of this specific matter makes it sound somewhat different.

Indeed, Savage actually includes a fairly lengthy chunk of the relevant transcript—though we're not real sure it helps.

According to Savage, President Biden was asked "about where he kept papers related to work he did after leaving the vice presidency in January 2017." At that point, in response to that specific question, this fandango occurred:

BIDEN: Well, um … I, I, I, I, I don’t know. This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?

HUR: Yes, sir.

BIDEN: Remember, in this time frame, my son is—either been deployed or is dying, and, and so it was—and by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate [sic] that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the president. I’m not—and not a mean thing to say. He just thought that she had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did. And so I hadn’t, I hadn’t, at this point—even though I’m at Penn, I hadn’t walked away from the idea that I may run for office again. But if I ran again, I’d be running for president. And, and so what was happening, though—what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30—

RACHEL COTTON, A WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: 2015.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: 2015.

BIDEN: Was it 2015 he had died?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: It was May of 2015.

BIDEN: It was 2015.

ROBERT BAUER, BIDEN’S PERSONAL LAWYER: Or—I’m not sure of the month, sir, but I think that was the year.

MARC KRICKBAUM, HUR’S DEPUTY: That’s right, Mr. President. It—

BIDEN: And what’s happened in the meantime is that as—and Trump gets elected in November of 2017?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: 2016.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: ’16.

BIDEN: ’16, 2016. All right. So—why do I have 2017 here?

ED SISKEL, BIDEN’S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: That’s when you left office, January of 2017.

BIDEN: Yeah, OK. But that’s when Trump gets sworn in, January.

SISKEL: Right.

BAUER: Right, correct.

BIDEN: OK, yeah. And in 2017, Beau had passed and—this is personal …

Savage includes that long chunk of transcript. On balance, we're not sure why. There's a bit of "Who's On First" to that passage, but we're not sure it tells us anything much worth knowing.

In this chunk of transcript, Biden starts by flatly miscasting the timeframe in which his son died. Quickly, things move onward from there. 

Memory and acuity-wise, is there anything of interest there, in these initial bits of confusion? We're not real sure that there is. 

That said, Viser's account in the Post makes this whole thing go down a whole lot easier. Maybe you had to be there, or maybe you have to hear the audiotapes.

Call no man happy until he's dead! The admonition is sometimes attributed the famous Greek statesman, Solon.

We also think of the joke we learned from Paul Reiser way back when. He referred to the joke as Goldberg's Law. To the extent that memory serves, it went a great deal like this:

The man with one watch always knows the time. The man with two watches is never quite sure.

 Hur's report included a widely-quoted political bomb. We can't quite tell you why.

38 comments:


  1. Either he's deemed demented, not competent to stand trial, or he must be prosecuted just as vigorously as Mr Trump is. It's that simple. Pick one; rejecting both possibilities is not an option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is so silly. He can be NOT demented and also be NOT criminal in any respect, which would make him not prosecutable for a crime like Trump is, but innocent of criminal wrongdoing, which is what Hur determined.

      Delete
  2. Trump committed multiple crimes related to his handling of classified documents. Biden did not. That's why they are not being treated the same. That has nothing to do with Biden's memory.

    When you are trying to remember facts around some incident, you do it by reinstating the context. That is what Biden's musing is about. He is trying to figure out why he has certain documents by first reviewing where he was and what was going on in that time period.

    The longer transcript illustrates that there is no reason why Biden cannot function well, when there are aides at hand to help him remember whatever he might momentarily forget. This is called group memory, or crowd-sourcing, and it happens all the time in business and other sorts of meetings.

    Somerby is correct when he says that Biden had not forgotten that his son had died, and the transcripts shows that he recalled the exact date. Why would anyone suppose he didn't remember that? If he had, it would indicate dementia, but he didn't. Those who said he could not remember his son's death were clearly lying, based on the transcript.

    Somerby keeps saying he doesn't think various reporting is important, like this:

    "Memory and acuity-wise, is there anything of interest there, in these initial bits of confusion? We're not real sure that there is. "

    I disagree. I think these transcript quotes vindicate Biden's memory and that those who called his memory into question on the basis of this transcript are way off base, so far that their misrepresentation seems deliberate. I think it is good that this information has come out, so that the trickery of Republicans is made clear and the health of Biden's mind is made obvious to voters.

    When Somerby several times says that he doesn't know what any of this indicates, he is trivializing the revelations and trying to minimize the impact of this information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't worry about it.

      Delete
    2. It’s good to know that you wouldn’t worry, 5:22. Thanks for sharing.

      Delete
  3. Notice that the question that was asked of Biden by the interrogator is not presented in either quote. How can someone determine what Biden recalls without knowing what question he was being asked?

    That seems fishy to me, but it applies to both quotes AND to Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We can't quite tell you why."

    Not even a guess?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Call no man happy until he's dead! The admonition is sometimes attributed the famous Greek statesman, Solon.

    We also think of the joke we learned from Paul Reiser way back when. He referred to the joke as Goldberg's Law. To the extent that memory serves, it went a great deal like this:

    The man with one watch always knows the time. The man with two watches is never quite sure."

    What do either of these "jokes" have to do with a report on Biden's memory as evidenced by excerpts from two transcripts? Nothing whatsoever. This is more of Somerby's stream of consciousness reporting based on loose associations. This is very similar to what Trump does in the middle of his speeches, where he wanders off on tangents that have nothing to do with anything and are barely comprehensible. Why does Somerby do this? Is he perhaps as demented as Trump?

    Thank God Biden doesn't do this. That would be more of a suggestion of age-related decline than the conversations in these transcripts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It raises concerns about Biden's age and fitness for office

      Delete
    2. No, it allays such concerns.

      Delete
    3. But it calls to mind Biden's campaign promise of 2020 to get us out of forever wars. And then how he got us into like 3 of them. That's where you really start to see a problem come November.

      Delete
    4. We have no boots on the ground. Biden cannot prevent other countries from starting wars.

      Delete
  6. Can’t quite tell us why? You don’t really have to Bob. Hur took the job to advance his career by indicting Biden. When it turned out that would destroy his career, he went for damage control.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right after the horrific Oct 7 attack, President Biden publicly said he would back Israel regardless. Now he says the backing is conditional. His memory seems not to have lasted six months. (Or is his word not to be trusted?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was before 30,000 Gazans were killed. Presidents are allowed to adjust their policy.

      Delete
    2. We shouldn't give Israel one more dime because of what they are doing to innocent civilians including children. What they are doing is inhumane, immoral and disgusting.

      Delete
    3. The big mistake Israel and the United States have made is forgetting that it's not the year 2000, it's not 2010 it's not 2015. It's 2024 and all of their atrocities are documented and broadcast on Tic Tok. The whole world has been watching it as it happens. It's all recorded. And when the dust settles and Israel comes to its senses and gets its humanity back, it will be impossible for them to square what they have done. That part is already over. The current leadership will all be sent to prison for the rest of their lives and the state of Israel will have to come to terms with being perpetrators of one of greatest, most despicable moral crimes of the century.

      That said, it's true Hamas must be destroyed.

      Delete
    4. "...President Biden publicly stated that he would back Israel regardless" In what public forum would the president give unconditional support to Israel's future actions? Why would the word "regardless" be included in a statement of support for Israel? Did Biden actually say that irrespective of what they do to the Palestinians he would back Israel? If he said this provide the quote and context. If you cannot do so, your assertion can be assumed to be a fabrication.

      Delete
    5. OK Unamused I took the trouble to use a search engine. Here are some quotes from our President.

      I come to Israel with a single message: You are not alone. You are not alone....Well, today, I say to all of Israel: The United States isn’t going anywhere either. We’re going to stand with you. We’ll walk beside you in those dark days, and we’ll walk beside you in the good days to come. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/18/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-october-7th-terrorist-attacks-and-the-resilience-of-the-state-of-israel-and-its-people-tel-aviv-israel/

      As long as the United States stands — and we will stand forever — we will not let you ever be alone.
      In Israel, we must make sure that they have what they need to protect their people today and always....We cannot and will not let terrorists like Hamas and tyrants like Putin win. I refuse to let that happen.
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/20/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-unites-states-response-to-hamass-terrorist-attacks-against-israel-and-russias-ongoing-brutal-war-against-ukraine/

      Note that Biden did not say he'd make sure Israel has what they need contingent on certain behavior by Israel. He said he would support Israel in attaining a complete victory over Hamas. But, that's what Biden is reportedly saying now when he reportedly insists that Israel not do what it takes to destroy Hamas's weapons installations in Rafah.

      Delete
    6. Can a president not ever adjust policy, or criticize Israel ever again, despite the mass killings, David?

      Delete
    7. And you still need to supply the quote in which Biden states that he will support Israel regardless. If tomorrow Netanyahu were to announce his intention to employ a neutron bomb over a civilian area, I take it that your quotes would require the full support of Biden for this plan. All the more ridiculous from a Trump supporter. You know the one who promised a wall the Mexicans would pay for, a health plan to replace Obamacare, etc. At no point did Biden state that he would support Israel regardless of the civilian toll from activities, certainly not in those quotes.

      Delete
    8. Unamused - Are you saying that Israel’s policy in Rafah is equivalent to dropping a neutron bomb? It is the opposite. Israel is carefully giving civilians a chance to flee before attacking all the military installations that Hamas built in a civilian area.

      Delete
    9. @12:23 Israel is going to extraordinary lengths to not kill civilians in Gaza. Compare the bombing of England by German V2 rockets in WW 2. Or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Or the US bombing of German and Japanese cities. In none of these cases was anything done to protect civilians.

      A more relevant comparison is the ongoing bombing of Israel by Hamas and hezbollah. They intentionally target civilian areas. Why do you not criticize these two terrorist groups?

      Delete
    10. Those extraordinary lengths (your term) have not been sufficient to prevent mass civilian casualties.

      Delete
    11. Hamas must to be eliminated but Israel's war crimes against innocent civilians has already been documented and distributed for all the world to see. Even Israeli soldiers have put their war crimes on social media almost as a way of bragging, forgetting that the whole world sees it. When Israel gets its humanity back and the dust settles, Israel will get new leadership that is not insane and the world will begin to come to terms with what has happened.

      Delete
    12. The collective responsibility of Gaza Palestinians for the actions of Hamas does not justify mass civilian deaths. Israel has an ethical imperative to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. A claim that Gaza Palestinians support Hamas's actions does not consider the degree of their support, whether through coercion or misinformation. Collective punishment is inherently unjust as it fails to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.

      Justifying civilian deaths as a necessary evil to prevent future attacks does not address whether such actions are proportional or if there were less harmful means to achieve the same ends. Ethical warfare requires exhausting all other means before resorting to actions that result in significant civilian harm.

      If Israel is found to have intentionally targeted Gaza Palestinians civilians as punitive maneuver or as a way to break the will of Hamas by harming non-combatants, it will have undermined the justness of their cause.

      History will sort it out as a great deal of Israel's actions have already been recorded and distributed world wide.

      Delete
    13. It's similar to when you see criminals getting caught for incriminating texts. They didn't consider that technology was recording their guilt and it could not just be deleted and forgotten. Israel has still yet to understand the degree to which they have incriminated themselves. They went about this military action as if it was 2015 or 2005. But things have changed drastically since then technologically.

      Delete
    14. David: No, I am not equating neutron bombing with the ongoing humanitarian disaster that is well documented in Gaza. US support for any ally cannot be unconditional. This is common sense. Biden did not offer unconditional support of Israel. You are veering off track when you ask why I haven't condemned Hamas. My comment was in response to your suggestion that Biden reneged on a promise to Israel. You have not provided any evidence that Biden gave unconditional support to Israel verbally. He stated that US policy was to stand by Israel and make sure that they have what they need to protect themselves from Hamas, in the quotes you provided. Comparing the Israeli strategy in Gaza favorably to Hiroshima or the Dresden bombings is not a winning argument here.

      Delete
  8. David and Cecelia, please defend Katie Britt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry, I did not listen to or read her speech. SOTU speeches generally have little long-term impact. Responses to SOTU's have even less impact.

      Delete
    2. You read Somerby’s blog. He thinks it is important enough to devote multiple columns to it.

      Delete
    3. Reading it isn’t good enough. It’s a must-watch, David.

      Delete
    4. Oh. SOTU opposition reply. I didn’t watch the SOTU. I think that was the night we ate out.

      Delete
  9. Joe Biden is the George Washington of the twenty-first century.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert Hur's addled, fuzzy memory show's he's far too old and doddering to be a General Counsel for the Department of Justice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The mainstream media made much ado about nothing because they can't be bothered to talk about the facist threat to democracy.

    ReplyDelete