Ed: I just want to note that the White House itself isn’t giving this as an explanation. They’re saying “for security reasons we can’t discuss the medical specialists that come to the White House”. If this is really the reason it would be awful nice if they got their shit together and said it.

I am firmly agnostic on Biden staying on at this point but I am fully ready to shove Peter Baker and A.G. Sulzberger’s heads in the toilet for a swirly if I see them in public for this shit

Breaking News: A Parkinson’s expert visited the White House eight times in eight months from last summer through this spring, according to official visitor logs. The administration has said that President Biden has no signs of the disease.

Parkinson’s Expert Visited the White House Eight Times in Eight Monthswww.nytimes.com The White House has said that President Biden has no signs of the disease and that there has been no reason to update the most recent testing, conducted in February.

I just want to note that the White House itself isn’t giving this as an explanation. They’re saying “for security reasons we can’t discuss the medical specialists that come to the White House”. If this is really the reason it would be awful nice if they got their shit together and said it.

Yeah, it would be good to have them say something, but doesn't the article also say that Biden definitively does not have Parkinson's? I am not clicking for obvious reasons.

I haven’t seen a non-paywalled link tbh. What the WH said at the briefing is “no, he doesn’t have Parkinson’s, but no, we’re not telling you why this doctor visited the White House”. I think if it was just consulting on the bill they would have said so. All clear as mud, as usual.

White House is the government, not the campaign. If they have a policy of not commenting on medical visitors then it’s principled and reasonable to maintain it in this situation. If you break that policy once, all hell breaks loose.

I’m being a bit facetious here. The clear implication was that he was there for clinical reasons and they don’t comment on that. The legislation connection seems to have been made up by somebody, don’t know whether it was official or it just emerged on social media.

The medical staff treats all White House staff, so if he were there treating/consulting on someone else, it’s understandable that they’d want to protect that person’s privacy. I think that and/or extra checks to be sure Biden doesn’t have it are the most likely explanations.

I don’t see any privacy or security based reason why they can’t say “it wasn’t for the president”.

Fair enough. I also feel like another variable is that the WH press office pretty evidently hates the NYT at this point, and isn’t going to point them in the right direction one way or the other.

Post