The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Biden not receiving presidential briefing

by Kyle Ziemnick
Posted 11/12/20, 06:35 pm

President Donald Trump gets a top-secret intelligence report called the President’s Daily Brief. Previous Oval Office occupants have shared the briefing with presidents-elect, but with court challenges to the ballot counting process pending, Trump has opted not to do so with Joe Biden. Some Republicans, including Sens. James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said Biden should see this briefing to prepare for his possible presidency. Biden called the briefing “useful, but not necessary,” on Tuesday. He has received more general briefings since his nomination as the Democratic candidate.

Will we know the full results of the election soon? Most states have yet to certify the official results. A state judge in Michigan is set to rule on a Trump campaign challenge over claims of voter fraud in the state, and two cases will go to hearings in Pennsylvania next week. A judge ruled in a separate Pennsylvania case on Thursday that the secretary of state did not have the authority to extend the deadline for people to correct voting problems such as lack of a valid ID. It’s unclear how many ballots the case represents, but the Trump campaign said it considered the decision a win.

Dig deeper: Read Sharon Dierberger’s report in Muse on late-night talk show hosts’ attacks on Trump.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Kyle Ziemnick

Kyle is a WORLD Digital news reporter. He is a World Journalism Institute and Patrick Henry College graduate. Kyle resides in Purcellville, Va. Follow him on Twitter @kylezim25.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • JerryM
    Posted: Thu, 11/12/2020 10:29 pm

    The way this article is worded suggests Biden is supposed to be briefed.  It would have been instructive if we knew, for example, how previous administrations have acted in these election circumstances.  Is this the first time an election has been contested this much?   

    I am curious why some of the Sift titles suggest President Trump is acting improperly (a previous title refers to his "protesting" when "contesting" could have been a more accurate word use).  In this case, you could have said "Trump opts not to give Biden briefings" and could have included "citing court challenges". 

  • Eileen
    Posted: Thu, 11/12/2020 11:29 pm

    Jerry M, you have some good insights and concerns. I agree with you. Thanks

    Posted: Fri, 11/13/2020 09:21 am


    1. Since the 1960s, the practice (codified into law, I believe) has been for the administration to brief the President Elect after he wins the election.

    2. The Clinton administration briefed George W. Bush, even before he was certified the winner in 2000. That was probably the only time since 1960 that the election was actually in doubt.

    3. Trump is certainly protesting, not contesting, the results. His lawsuits, even if successful, would not give him the presidency. He is using this to pay off campaign debts and build a new fortune by fleecing his supporters.

    4. Transitions are dangerous times, and anti-American interests use transitions against us. It is important that the new President be up to speed from day one on the challenges facing him.

    Posted: Fri, 11/13/2020 03:55 pm

    I agree with you JerryM.

  • Steve Shive
    Posted: Fri, 11/13/2020 07:05 am

    Until we have a final, final and definite, election result Donald Trump is president. Biden isn't and shouldn't be included. This just seems to be common sense. 

    Posted: Fri, 11/13/2020 09:22 am

    That is a standard that has not been applied in the past. There are many, practical reasons why Trump started getting briefings after he was elected, not when he was certified, which is why stalwart Republicans who understand national security are insistent that the briefings happen.

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Sun, 11/15/2020 03:48 am

    Steve is exactly right! The election was essentially stolen and Trump has every right to fight it in court. Here is Newt Gingrich chiding the Republicans for not fighting stronger. Notice that Newt Gingrich is not a radical in the GOP so when he speaks in a strong manner like this people should listen. 

    Biden is a national security risk with his getting kick backs from countries around the world - the worst being China and Russia!  At the point where the Supreme Court doesn't  support his efforts, then Trump will have to decide what to do.  

  • not silent
    Posted: Sun, 11/15/2020 01:20 pm

    I would like to think that World readers can discern between opinions and facts and that we can allow facts to be presented while allowing others to have different opinions. I realized not too long ago that I don't have to fully understand something for it to be real or true.  For example, I don't understand exactly why the sky is blue, at least not in full scientific detail; but I acknowledge that it IS blue.

    Before I continue with this analogy, I suppose I should specify that I'm talking about a clear daytime sky without any unusual factors influencing its color.  I..e, I'm not talking about a sky that is grey with clouds; that weird sky before a tornado hits that actually DOES look kind of green; a sky that is brown with pollution; a sky that is black because of nightfall; a sky full of colors due to sunrise, sunset, volcanic dust, the arora boreallis; or any other condition that affect the color of the sky. Hopefully, we can all agree that a clear daytime sky is USUALLY blue-barring any unusual effects.

    I admit this is kind of silly, but I ask World readers to bear with me. It has taken me a while to realize these things, but realizing them has really helped me. I don't have to convince others to agree with me about the sky for it to be blue.  Someone might come along and say THEY think it's really green, and they can argue me to the floor about why they think it's green or point out that it may look green before a tornado hits; but that won't mean that the "normal" color of a clear daytime sky is green.  It obvioulsy won't hurt me if others insist that the sky is green. They can think whatever they like, they can focus on exceptions instead of the rule, or whatever; but that won't change the sky itself.

    Of course, some people may object to my saying the sky is blue BECAUSE there are exceptions caused by clouds, dust, nightfall, etc; and they may insist that I ackowledge those things instead of making a blanket statement that "the sky is blue."  Some people may think blue is a lovely color, but someone else may not like blue and think it makes more sense for it to be green like the grass and the trees. Like me, some people may not understand exactly why, in scientific terms, the sky is usually blue in its clear, daytime state; but it can still be blue even if we don't understand WHY.  People are entitled to their opinions about the color of the sky; but, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, the sky doesn't change based on what we think about it.

    Now, suppose there was some weird atmospheric condition that permanently changed the "normal" color of the sky.  We would then have to adapt our understanding of the color of the sky.  If our use of language to describe colors changed, we might change the way we described the sky.  (I'm trying to think of all possibilities here!)

    Many issues we face are not as clear-cut as the color of the sky.  (To be fair, the more I thought about it, the color of the sky wasn't as clear cut as I thought!) For those reasons, among others, we must seek the Lord and his discernment.  It also helps to carefully consider the source of any information we encounter (as many commenters have pointed out) and to remain open to learning and/or changing our opinions if we find out new information. We can also exercise grace and kindness towards others and resist the urge to use words as weapons.  I'm still learning these things, so I ask that you extend grace to me when I fall short.

  • Big Jim
    Posted: Fri, 11/13/2020 06:14 pm

    This is pretty ironic. Wasn't Joe Biden the one who suggested using the Logan Act as an excuse to surveil Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn when he was part of the incoming Trump team? Now Biden's foreign policy people are taking calls with their respective counterparts. Which, since the Biden Administration hasn't taken the floor yet, is technically a violation of the Logan Act. Which shoe is on whose foot?

    Posted: Fri, 11/13/2020 03:52 pm

    I wonder if TIM MILLER works for the gov't. He seems to be very knowledgeable about all things government. 



  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Sat, 11/14/2020 10:01 am

    I'm frankly very glad Tim Miller is here. He's one of the few who argues with solid facts.

    Posted: Mon, 11/16/2020 08:11 am

    News2Me, I am employed in the private sector. Any resemblance between me and the deep state is purely coincidental. :)

    Posted: Fri, 11/13/2020 03:54 pm

    Obama withheld a lot of stuff from Trump even after he was confirmed. Obama said he didn't want him to know. FBI is still withholding stuff 4 years later.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Tue, 11/17/2020 06:06 am

    Considering Mr. Trump is still President for another 60+ days, and considering PRESIDENT Trump must still take actions that affect the security of this Nation, and considering that there are highly placed Democrats with a history and inclination to leak things to our adversaries which should be kept secret, I consider it quite prudent for President Trump to exclude Mr. Biden from certain information, at least for the time being.