The Biden admin is getting burned by the media. Their coverups are being exposed for all to see.
That’s why a Fox News host was just floored by what a former Biden admin official has just claimed about him.
Karine Jean-Pierre’s Book Deal Faces Scrutiny Over White House Deceptions
Karine Jean-Pierre, former White House press secretary, has stepped into the spotlight with a new book deal for “Independent,” set for release in October. Her announcement, paired with a public disavowal of the Democratic Party for its “betrayal” of Joe Biden, has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy. Jean-Pierre’s tenure was marked by repeated deflections and denials about Biden’s cognitive and physical health, raising questions about her credibility as she attempts to reshape her public image. Doocy, a frequent sparring partner during her time at the podium, argues that her track record of dismissing legitimate concerns as misinformation casts a long shadow over her new venture.
Doocy, speaking on “Fox & Friends,” expressed skepticism about Jean-Pierre’s ability to reconcile her past statements with the revelations she may present in her book. “The thing about this book is that she, towards the end, before Biden dropped out [and] after Biden dropped out, she would say that legitimate questions were misinformation and I told her once, ‘you can’t just call something that you don’t like misinformation,’” he said.
Her insistence on labeling inconvenient questions as false, Doocy suggests, undermines her ability to now claim transparency. He pointed to her role as the public face of the Biden administration, where she consistently deflected concerns about the former president’s mental acuity, leaving many to wonder how she will address those contradictions in print.
Jean-Pierre’s tenure was defined by tense exchanges, particularly with Doocy, who pressed her on Biden’s cognitive health. In September 2023, he questioned why Biden repeated a story “word for word” within minutes during an event, a moment that raised eyebrows about the president’s memory. Jean-Pierre’s response—that Biden was simply making it “very clear” why he ran for president—sidestepped the issue, framing it as a purposeful act rather than a lapse. Such deflections became a hallmark of her briefings, as she worked to shield the administration from scrutiny while maintaining an image of Biden as sharp and capable.
A notable incident occurred in February 2024, when Biden confused French President Emmanuel Macron with François Mitterrand, who died in 1996. Doocy seized on this during a February 6 briefing, raising pointed questions about Biden’s mental health. Jean-Pierre, visibly frustrated, dismissed the line of inquiry, stating she would not “go down that rabbit hole” with him. Her refusal to engage directly with evidence of Biden’s gaffes fueled accusations that the White House was concealing the president’s declining health, a charge that grew louder as more incidents piled up.
Biden’s faltering performance in the June 2024 debate brought these concerns to a head. Doocy pressed Jean-Pierre on why Biden had claimed his brain was deteriorating, only for her to insist he “was joking.” In a July 9 briefing, Doocy pushed further, asking whether Biden’s medical team had refused to test for Parkinson’s or dementia, warning that a damning result could end his presidency.
Jean-Pierre’s response leaned on the administration’s narrative: “Again, as I’ve said many times before, the president has had a full-some, comprehensive — what we said, what we shared with you was comprehensive but he has had a full physical,” she said. “We’ve shown the results of those physicals these past three years … With all due respect, you’re not a doctor, I’m not a doctor. It’s the president’s medical unit that make a decision on what the president needs.”
Doocy’s critiques extended beyond Biden’s health to how the White House managed his public appearances. In September 2023, he noted that Biden’s staff escorted him from events, provided notecards for press conferences, and limited his interactions with reporters. When Doocy asked why Biden was treated “like a baby,” Jean-Pierre called the characterization “ridiculous.” Her dismissive tone did little to quell suspicions that the administration was carefully curating Biden’s image to mask vulnerabilities, a strategy that critics argue Jean-Pierre actively facilitated.
Jean-Pierre’s defense of Biden often relied on branding critical footage as “cheap fakes,” a term she used to dismiss videos showing the president in moments of confusion. Even after the June debate, which left many questioning Biden’s fitness, she maintained he merely had a “bad night.” Her insistence that there was no coverup has since been met with skepticism, especially as she now positions herself as an independent voice critical of the Democratic Party. The contrast between her past assurances and her new narrative invites questions about whether her book will acknowledge her role in shaping the administration’s messaging.
The parallels between Jean-Pierre’s book and Jake Tapper’s recent work have not gone unnoticed. Both have faced criticism for distancing themselves from narratives they once supported, with Tapper’s book drawing ire for what some see as an attempt to rewrite his role in covering Biden’s presidency. Jean-Pierre’s “Independent” risks similar accusations, as her public statements as press secretary often clashed with observable realities. Her claim of leaving the Democratic Party over its treatment of Biden may resonate with some, but it also invites scrutiny of her own contributions to the administration’s efforts to downplay his struggles.
Doocy’s pointed questions highlight a broader tension: can someone who spent years deflecting criticism now credibly claim to speak truth? Jean-Pierre’s book will likely face intense examination, not just for what it reveals about Biden’s presidency but for how it addresses her own complicity in managing the narrative. Her ability to navigate these contradictions will determine whether “Independent” is seen as a genuine reckoning or an attempt to rebrand a tarnished legacy.
Her tenure was defined by a delicate balancing act—defending Biden while facing persistent questions about his capabilities. Whether she can convincingly distance herself from the administration’s missteps, while owning her role in them, remains an open question.
