Donilon’s $4M ‘win bonus’: A Strategy Undermining Biden’s Own Party

Mike Donilon, a longstanding confidant and advisor for Joseph R. Biden Jr., revealed before a House Oversight Committee led by the Republicans, that he would have been handed a $4 million ‘win bonus’ if Biden successfully won a re-election campaign. This revelation highlights Donilon’s vested financial interest in Biden’s continued battle in his re-election campaign, despite widespread opposition emerging from his own party.

Donilon – a part of Biden’s exclusive group of advisors – is known to have withheld consequential information from Biden. This behaviour clearly portrays an aide’s duplicity, working against the interests of his principal. Donilon’s underlying financial motives could have significant implications on the decisions he made on behalf of Biden.

It was Donilon who cautioned Biden that the perception of his age was becoming a significant issue. Despite this, Donilon defended Biden’s poor debate performance, and instead of advocating for his retreat from the re-election campaign, Donilon pushed for Biden to continue.

But why would Donilon be so invested in Biden’s campaign, you might wonder? The answer lay in a lucrative $4 million bonus promised to Donilon, should Biden’s re-election bid be successful. This should raise questions about the motives behind keeping a potentially unfit candidate in the race.

This revelation came during the congressional investigation into Biden’s mental fitness during his presidency, an investigation heavily reported by Axios. Despite the growing concerns about Biden’s mental acuity, Donilon remained a staunch supporter of the former President.

Donilon even went on record in March, months after Biden had left office, stating in an interview with The Harvard Political Review that he still believed that Biden should have continued with the race. Donilon was quoted as saying ‘I still think he’s the best person to be president today.’

While it’s the norm for top campaign aides to be promised a ‘win bonus’ if their candidate succeeds, the sum Donilon was set to receive if Biden won re-election is bewilderingly high. In fact, the $4 million promised to Donilon by far outstripped the remuneration of other senior officials from Biden’s campaign, and even that of Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign team.

At the start of his testimony, Donilon endeavored to defend Biden’s performance during his term and his own role in the program. He tried to brush off the concerns about Biden’s advanced age, saying, ‘Every president ages over the four years of a presidency and Biden did as well.’

However, it’s quite startling how he deflected from the reality that aging while holding the position of the President demands increased scrutiny due to the critical importance of maintaining mental acuity in the role. Spin as he might, it seems obvious that this was an evasion to gloss over the genuine problems that were being raised.

Despite this defense, Donilon later admitted to being ‘frustrated’ by ‘the visuals of President Biden that people were seeing.’ Not sure how the picture wouldn’t be frustrating when you have a leader whose competency has been widely questioned and even probed by the Republican-led Oversight Committee.

By this point, it becomes clear that even Donilon perhaps realized the detrimental effects of Biden’s image on their public standing and campaign performance. The visuals did not match the narrative of strength and wisdom they were trying to sell. Was Donilon mischief to keep pushing for a campaign from a candidate clearly struggling?

Interestingly, when asked for an interview, Mr. Donilon conveniently declined. Maybe, knowing the tide of public opinion and the scrutiny he was under following this investigation, Donilon decided to avoid the spotlight, potentially to evade more in-depth questions about his motivations and actions.

What stands out in the whole saga is how vested interests can be disguised under the veil of loyalty and assurance. Are policy decisions and re-election campaigns driven by the best interest of the public or by financial motivations of those close to the seat of power?

Consider also the irony of Donilon’s bonus. Despite Biden being unable to secure re-election, owing to concerns over his competence, Donilon still received a significant amount. This figure dwarfed the salaries of other senior officials in Biden and Harris’s campaigns. Clearly, loyalty, or perhaps, complicity, is highly valued.

Overall, this story paints a picture of an administration where personal gains could take precedence over meritocracy and the genuine interest of society. The question we must ponder is – are such elements leading us towards a democratic decline?

This saga demonstrates how important it is for the electorate to remain vigilant. It is essential to question those in power, look for underlying motivations, and conduct important checks and balances. Only by doing so can we ensure that our democratic institutions remain robust and perform their intended functions.