Earlier, we told you Naomi Biden, a granddaughter whom Joe Biden actually acknowledges, was not happy with Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book about Pop's cognitive decline and related cover-up.
Incredibly, the Biden family is still insisting that the fact that Joe's brain is clearly applesauce is a 'false narrative' pushed by those seeking to harm the family. It's not.
Frankly, it makes this writer wonder just how desperate the Biden family is to capitalize on Joe's name while he's still alive. Guess Hunter's artwork just isn't paying the bills, huh?
Anyway -- Chris 'Journalists (D)on't Root for a Side' Cillizza had issues with Naomi Biden's criticism:
Easy to say this.
— Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza) May 20, 2025
Here's the challenge: What, specifically, in the book is wrong? Name names.
And what actual evidence does Naomi Biden have to disprove the reporting by Jake and Alex -- both of whom have well-earned reputations as dependable and trustworthy reporters? https://t.co/seIbJFdSyQ
This isn't how journalism is supposed to work, but Cillizza wouldn't know that.
Appreciate your attitude towards this, but the book doesn't name names. That's a key issue.
— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) May 20, 2025
And that's on Tapper and Thompson.
How about you tell us the names of people who knew this was happening and lied to your face. Or admit that you knew and didn't report on it accurately, because God knows you dove right into the misinformation pool.
— Epicteethus (@EpicTeethus) May 20, 2025
He sure did.
It's what's NOT in the book that's the real problem here.
— Small Metal Owl (@SmallMetalOwl) May 20, 2025
YUP.
Their reputations are well-earned, but not for being dependable and trustworthy.
— Toxic Something Podcast - w/ Keith Burgin (@KeithBurgin) May 20, 2025
Truer words were never spoken.
“And what actual evidence does Naomi Biden have to disprove the reporting.”
— Super Journalist (Retired) - JOURN-EL of Skrypton (@Magnum_CK) May 20, 2025
Depends, if it’s ’sources say’ then the responsibility of proving it’s true falls on the Tapper and Thompson. It’s not on Naomi to disprove what people who may not even exist are saying.
All of this.
That's the job of journalists who seem wholly disinterested in naming names.
Jake Tapper told us it was a stutter
— Aaron Smith (@AaronCSmith1) May 20, 2025
He yelled at Lara Trump about it, too.
Buddy, it’s okay not to engage the guy’s grandchild. Try leaving the bat on your shoulder for some pitches.
— Doug Landry (@dougblandry) May 20, 2025
Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson are big boys. They’re going to be okay without your spirited defense on x dot com.
Oh, but this is so much more entertaining.
The obsequious statement "both of whom have well-earned reputations as dependable and trustworthy reporters" is disproven BY THEIR OWN BOOK! Fluffer.
— Huckleberry Holliday (@ToobEwe45597) May 20, 2025
And Cillizza is too thick to realize this.
I like that part where you challenge Naomi Biden to "name names" when that's what the book you're defending doesn't do. https://t.co/1hRebw9mR5
— RBe (@RBPundit) May 20, 2025
The irony is thick, too.
It’s NEVER anyone’s responsibility to disprove what ‘sources say’ are alleging. It falls on the ‘journalists’ to back up ‘sources say’ with proof. Don’t fall into the ‘sources say’ trap, we have no proof these ‘sources’ even exist outside the imaginations of ‘journos.’ https://t.co/UiRcN2PH7J
— Super Journalist (Retired) - JOURN-EL of Skrypton (@Magnum_CK) May 20, 2025
Correct.
“dependable and trustworthy reporters”🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 https://t.co/MCgSBmTneb pic.twitter.com/r84vqcWxXY
— ♞Paladin♞ (@Glorfindel1951) May 20, 2025
We laughed, too.
Cillizza should try writing comedy.
I'll tell you what's wrong with the book -- it doesn't name names. This is allegedly about accountability and time and time again in this book, people are quoted anonymously. https://t.co/4k0dJm7Alz
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) May 20, 2025
There's no accountability without naming names.
There's no accountability without those people facing consequences for what they did.
There's no accountability in anonymous sources.