Connect with us

International

‘They’re So Dishonest’: Doctor Unloads On Media For Asking Biden ‘Terrible’ Questions Instead Of ‘Grilling’ Him

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By JASON COHEN

 

Physician and medical professor Dr. Vinay Prasad criticized the media on Thursday for not asking President Joe Biden the right questions to assess his cognitive capability.

Democrats have increasingly been encouraging Biden to drop out of the presidential race after his debate performance against former President Donald Trump, which caused worries regarding the president’s mental competence. Prasad on his YouTube channel said the media should challenge the president’s capability through asking tougher questions rather than pushing him to take a cognitive test.

WATCH: 

“The media, they’re so so relentlessly focused on whether or not he should get a neurologic test. I think they fundamentally misunderstand. Yes, if you’re his doctor, you might want to do tests on this gentleman, but if you’re vetting a candidate for this office, the test is learn how to ask better questions,” Prasad said. “The questions they ask are so terrible. Ask pointed questions, ask really questions that force him to retrieve memories, ask questions that really ask him to articulate.”

“Don’t ask open-ended questions that allow him to filibuster and just go back to saying the stock and trade things he says all the time that come out like rote memorization,” he continued. “Push him in different domains. You can actually assess someone for president if you are a competent journalist and ask the right questions. They don’t appear to do that.”

Corporate media’s years-long effort to quash questions regarding Biden’s mental fitness faced a substantial setback after the debate. Despite worries from Americans, legacy media outlets consistently downplayed their legitimacy.

“We have to admit that they’re completely dishonest. Before the debate, when 50 million Americans watched him with word-finding difficulties and things of that nature … they were running a media campaign that said any video you saw of him was probably doctored or it was taken out of context because, of course, the man is doing just fine,” Prasad said. “They never raised the question of, ‘is he performing, this 80-plus-year-old gentleman is up for the task of being president?’ They never raised that question. The moment that everyone saw it, and then the jig was up and they couldn’t conceal these deficits anymore … now they’re suddenly happy to run op-ed after op-ed and calls for him to step down.”

“They’re so dishonest, this media. What are you doing in the White House Press Corps? Don’t you see the man? Aren’t you assessing him daily? Why are you keeping that a goddamn secret?” he asked.

Biden recently sat down for an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in an effort to reassure voters that he is capable of being president, asserting his debate performance was just a “bad night” and that he is not cognitively diminished. The president also seemed to express an unwillingness to take a cognitive test.

“No amount of medical testing is going to answer the question of if somebody is fit enough to be president of the United States. Just like no amount of imaging and test questionnaires is going to tell you if a college kid is able to play in the NBA,” Prasad added. “You have to watch them play basketball and you have to watch him engage in the sorts of acts that one would expect from a president.”

“It would probably involve, I would imagine, being woken up in the middle of the night and having to get your opinion on a bunch of big issues and that might happen like many nights in a row, so you might have some chronic sleep deprivation,” he said. “How would you perform under those circumstances? You might get a sense for that if you were really grilling somebody in a vigorous dialogue and vigorous questioning, which the media didn’t want to do for all this time.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

espionage

Inside Xi’s Fifth Column: How Beijing Uses Gangsters to Wage Political Warfare in Taiwan — and the West

Published on

A new Jamestown Foundation report details how China’s Ministry of State Security and allied triads have been used to subvert Taiwan’s democracy as part of Beijing’s united front.

Editor’s Note

The Bureau has previously reported on how Chinese state-linked crime networks have exploited Canada’s real estate market, casinos, and diaspora associations, often under the cover of united front work. One of these groups, the Chinese Freemasons, has been linked to meetings with Canadian politicians, as reported by The Globe and Mail ahead of the 2025 federal election. The Globe noted that the Toronto chapter explicitly advocates for the “peaceful reunification of Taiwan.” The Jamestown Foundation’s new findings on groups active in Taiwan — including the Chinese Freemasons, also known as the Hongmen, the related Bamboo Union triad, and the China Unification Promotion Party (CUPP) — show that Taiwan is the epicenter of a strategy also visible, though less intensively, across democracies including the United States. The parallels — from Vancouver to Sydney to New York to Taipei — should alert governments that the “fifth column” problem is international, and it is growing.

TAIPEI — At a banquet in Shenzhen more than two decades ago, Chang An-lo — the Bamboo Union boss known as “Big Brother Chang” or “White Wolf” — raised a glass to one of the Communist Party’s princelings. His guest, Hu Shiying, was the son of Mao Zedong’s propaganda chief. “Big Brother Chang,” Hu reportedly toasted him, an episode highlighted in a new report from the Jamestown Foundation.

Hu would later be described by Australian journalist John Garnaut as an “old associate of Xi Jinping.” That link — through Hu and other princelings Chang claimed to have met — placed the Bamboo Union leader within the orbit of Party elites. Garnaut also reported that the Ministry of State Security (MSS) had used the Bamboo Union to channel lucrative opportunities to Taiwanese politicians. According to Jamestown researcher Martin Purbrick, a former Royal Hong Kong Police intelligence officer, such episodes show how the CCP has systematically co-opted Taiwanese organized crime as part of its united front strategy.

“The long history of links between the CCP and organized crime groups in Taiwan,” Purbrick writes, “shows that United Front strategy has embedded itself deeply into Taiwan’s political life.”

Chang’s global influence is not a relic of the past. The Bureau reported, drawing on leaked 1990s Canadian immigration records, that intelligence indicated Chang’s triad had effectively “purchased” the state of Belize, on Mexico’s southern border, for use in smuggling illegal immigrants into the United States. But Chang is more relevant than ever as fears of Beijing invading Taiwan grow. In August 2025, seated in his Taipei office before a PRC flag, he appeared on a YouTube program to deny he led any “fifth column.” Instead, he insisted Taiwan must “embrace” Beijing and cast himself as a “bridge for cross-strait peace.”

His denial came just months after Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice accused CUPP of acting as a political front for organized crime and foreign interference. Police suspected more than 130 members of crimes ranging from homicide to drug trafficking. Prosecutors charged CUPP operatives with taking $2.3 million from the CCP to fund propaganda. In January, the Ministry of the Interior moved to dissolve the party outright, submitting the case to Taiwan’s Constitutional Court. By March, a Kaohsiung court sentenced CUPP deputy secretary-general Wen Lung and two retired military officers for recruiting Taiwanese personnel on behalf of the PRC. According to court filings, Wen had been introduced by Chang to the Zhuhai Taiwan Affairs Office, which in turn connected him to a PLA liaison officer.

President Lai Ching-te, in a March national security address, warned that Beijing was attempting to “divide, destroy, and subvert us from within.” Intelligence assessments in Taipei describe the Bamboo Union and CUPP as part of a potential “fifth column,” prepared to foment unrest and manipulate opinion in the event of an invasion.

The historical record shows why Taipei is so concerned. Chang’s name has shadowed some of Taiwan’s darkest chapters. In the 1980s, he was suspected of involvement in the assassination of dissident writer Henry Liu in California. He was later convicted of heroin smuggling in the United States, serving ten years in prison. After returning to Taiwan, he fled again in 1996 when authorities sought his arrest, spending 17 years in Shenzhen. During those years, he cultivated ties with influential Party families. At the Shenzhen banquet, Washington Post journalist John Pomfret wrote, Hu Shiying introduced him as “Big Brother Chang,” signaling acceptance in elite circles. Garnaut, writing over a decade later, noted that Hu was an “old associate of Xi Jinping” and that Chang had moved comfortably among other princelings, including sons of a former CCP general secretary and a top revolutionary general.

These connections translated into political capital. When Chang returned to Taiwan in 2013, he launched the China Unification Promotion Party — a pro-Beijing group openly advocating “one country, two systems.” He declared his mission was to “cultivate red voters.” CUPP cadres and Bamboo Union affiliates became visible in street politics, clashing with independence activists and disrupting rallies. During U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2021 visit, they staged counter-protests echoing Beijing’s line.

The ideological warfare runs even deeper. A Phoenix TV segment from 2011 recalled how a Bamboo Union elder declared in 1981 that he “would rather the CCP rule Taiwan than have Taiwan taken away by Taiwan independents.” Chang himself has echoed this sentiment for decades. In 2005, he launched a Guangzhou-based group called the Defending China Alliance, later rebranded in Taipei as CUPP. His activism has spanned disruptive protests, nationalist rallies, and propaganda campaigns amplified through China-linked media channels.

Purbrick situates these developments within a wider united front playbook. Taiwanese triads and Chinese Freemason associations are courted as grassroots mobilizers, intermediaries, and psychological enforcers. A recent report from the Washington Post has also linked the Chinese Freemasons to the powerful 14K Triad, a global network deeply implicated in Chinese underground banking networks accused of laundering fentanyl proceeds for Mexican cartels through the United States. The triad–Hongmen nexus complements other CCP efforts: online influence campaigns, cultural outreach, and intelligence recruitment inside Taiwan’s military.

The implications extend beyond Taiwan. In Canada, Australia, the United States, Southeast Asia, and beyond, intelligence agencies have documented how PRC-linked triads launder drug profits, fund political donations, and intimidate diaspora critics. These groups benefit from tacit state protection: their criminality overlooked so long as they advance Beijing’s strategic objectives. It is hybrid warfare by stealth — not soldiers storming beaches, but criminal syndicates reshaping politics from within.

For Taiwan, the Bamboo Union and CUPP remain immediate threats. For other democracies, they serve as case studies of how united front tactics adapt across borders. President Lai’s warning that Beijing seeks to “create the illusion that China is governing Taiwan” resonates internationally.

Before leaving journalism to establish an advisory firm, John Garnaut himself became entangled in the political fallout of his reporting. He was sued by a Chinese-Australian real estate developer from Shenzhen, who had funneled large donations to Australian political parties. The developer, later publicly implicated in the case by an Australian lawmaker under parliamentary privilege, successfully sued Garnaut for defamation in 2019. Subsequent disclosures confirmed the tycoon’s implication in an FBI indictment involving United Nations influence schemes and notorious Chinese operative Patrick Ho, later linked to a Chinese oil conglomerate accused of targeting the Biden family in influence operations. Together, these episodes highlight the global reach of united front networks.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

 

Continue Reading

International

Brazil sentences former President Bolsonaro to 27 years behind bars

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

In a stunning display of political persecution, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal sentenced conservative former President Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison on trumped-up charges of “crimes against democracy.” The ruling, driven by leftist judges loyal to radical President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, effectively ends Bolsonaro’s political career and underscores the growing use of weaponized courts to silence conservative leaders.

Key Details:

  • Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years and 3 months in prison on charges critics say were fabricated to eliminate him from politics.
  • U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the conviction as a “witch hunt,” promising America will respond.
  • President Donald Trump has already imposed heavy tariffs on Brazil and sanctioned the lead judge, Alexandre de Moraes, for human rights abuses.

Diving Deeper:

The conviction of Jair Bolsonaro marks an unprecedented step in Brazil’s descent into judicial tyranny. A panel of just five STF justices, led by notorious censorship crusader Alexandre de Moraes, claimed Bolsonaro plotted a coup to overturn the 2022 election. Only one justice, Luiz Fux, dissented, while the others rubber-stamped Lula’s narrative of a “digital militia” undermining democracy.

In reality, Bolsonaro’s true crime was daring to challenge Brazil’s rigged electoral system and standing in the way of Lula’s return to power. The conviction is less about defending democracy and more about crushing political opposition. By sentencing Bolsonaro to nearly three decades behind bars and slapping him with a permanent ban from public office, Brazil’s courts have ensured that the conservative movement’s most powerful leader is silenced.

Internationally, outrage is building. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the ruling as an act of persecution by sanctioned human rights abuser de Moraes, warning the U.S. “will respond accordingly.” Bolsonaro’s lawyers are preparing appeals to international courts, arguing that due process was shredded in a show trial orchestrated by Lula’s allies.

The Trump administration has already taken decisive action, slapping a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods and targeting de Moraes with Global Magnitsky sanctions for his authoritarian crackdown on free speech. Bolsonaro’s conviction is certain to deepen tensions with Washington, as conservatives see the case as a test of whether global elites can jail and silence opposition figures without consequence.

For Bolsonaro’s supporters, the ruling is proof that Brazil is sliding into dictatorship under the banner of “defending democracy.” What Lula and his allies call justice looks to many more like the criminalization of conservative thought — a warning of what happens when the Left is allowed to use courts as political weapons.

Continue Reading

Trending

X