A former key aide to Jill Biden has stonewalled House investigators, raising serious questions about transparency in the previous administration. Anthony Bernal's refusal to answer on Wednesday signals a deeper issue that demands scrutiny.
According to Fox News, Bernal, once a senior advisor to the former first lady, invoked the Fifth Amendment during a closed-door deposition on July 16 with the House Oversight Committee. The probe seeks to uncover whether senior aides concealed signs of former President Joe Biden's mental decline while he was in office.
Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., didn’t mince words, telling reporters that "all options are on the table" for further action, including potentially calling Biden himself. Alongside Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., Comer criticized Bernal’s legal team for claiming the plea wasn’t an admission of guilt, a stance that rings hollow when accountability is on the line.
Comer later revealed a damning detail: Bernal pleaded the Fifth when asked if unelected officials or family members executed presidential duties or if Biden ever instructed him to lie about his health. That’s not just dodging a question; it’s a neon sign pointing to potential misconduct.
Rep. Donalds pulled no punches, stating, "If you cannot answer a simple question about Joe Biden's capabilities, then that further demonstrates that he was not in charge of his administration." His follow-up assertion that every order, bill, or memorandum signed under such conditions could be "null and void" cuts to the heart of why this investigation matters.
The deposition, meant to be staff-led, saw lawmakers like Reps. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, and Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, in attendance, with Crockett flippantly dismissing the matter as "fine" while calling her opponents "losers." Such casual deflection from serious allegations only fuels the perception of a partisan shield around the former administration.
Bernal isn’t alone in clamming up; he’s the second ex-Biden staffer to take this route, following former White House physician Kevin O’Connor, who did the same last week. O’Connor’s deposition lasted under 30 minutes, with video footage showing him refusing to answer anything beyond his name.
O’Connor’s legal team argued it wasn’t guilt but a fear of breaching patient-doctor confidentiality that drove his silence, a claim a House Oversight aide swiftly rebuffed by noting he could have answered non-privileged questions. This excuse feels like a convenient escape hatch when the stakes are this high.
The pattern here is troubling: two key figures, both tied to intimate knowledge of Biden’s condition, opting for legal cover over public clarity. If there’s nothing to hide, why the consistent wall of silence?
Comer’s probe is digging into allegations that top aides obscured Biden’s mental and physical decline, even questioning whether executive actions were signed via autopen without his full awareness. Biden’s allies have pushed back, and the former president himself told The New York Times he "made every decision" independently, a claim that’s hard to square with the stonewalling.
Bernal’s background adds another layer, with a book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson dubbing him the head of the "loyalty police" among Biden staffers for his fierce protectiveness. Now serving as Jill Biden’s chief of staff in the transition office, his past role makes his refusal to speak all the more glaring.
Originally set for a voluntary interview last month, Bernal backed out after the Trump administration waived executive privilege for him and others, prompting Comer to remark in late June that it was "abundantly clear" Bernal never intended transparency. That shift from cooperation to obstruction speaks volumes about the intent to evade.
Two other former Biden staffers have already sat for voluntary interviews, while another, ex-deputy Chief of Staff Annie Tomasini, faces a subpoenaed appearance this Friday. The House Oversight Committee’s persistence shows they’re not backing down, and nor should they when public trust hangs in the balance.
The American people deserve answers, not legal loopholes, especially when Comer notes their concern over who truly held the reins of power. If unelected figures or family stepped into presidential roles, as the investigation suggests, it’s a betrayal of democratic principles that can’t be swept aside.
This isn’t about partisan games; it’s about ensuring no administration operates in shadows, free from scrutiny. As Comer vows to press on, the hope is for clarity over cover-ups, because a government by the people can’t afford anything less.
