Congress is diving headfirst into a murky swamp of questions about who was steering the ship during former President Joe Biden’s final months in office.
According to Breitbart, A Republican-led House oversight committee is spearheading an investigation into claims of a cover-up regarding Biden’s alleged cognitive decline, with former White House aides stepping up this week to testify voluntarily.
Led by Chairman James Comer (R-KY), this probe isn’t just a fishing expedition—it’s a full-blown quest to uncover whether Biden’s inner circle hid a decline in his mental sharpness during his presidency. The focus is razor-sharp on who held the reins, especially with curious details like the heavy reliance on autopen for official documents and a flurry of last-day pardons raising eyebrows. Let’s be real: if the president’s signature is automated, who’s calling the shots?
This week, the spotlight falls on Biden counselor Steve Ricchetti and former senior adviser Mike Donilon, who’ve agreed to sit down for interviews on Wednesday and Thursday. Whether they’ll spill any beans or clam up like others remains anyone’s guess. One can only hope they don’t play the “I don’t recall” card as often as a forgetful sitcom character.
Previous witnesses haven’t exactly been fountains of information, with heavy hitters like White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor invoking their Fifth Amendment rights to dodge questions. Others, including Anthony Bernal, once a senior adviser to First Lady Jill Biden, and Annie Tomasini, a former special assistant to the president, followed suit by stonewalling under oath. It’s almost as if they’ve all read from the same “say nothing” playbook.
Contrast that with a few who’ve vouched for Biden’s mental fitness behind closed doors, like former chief of staff Ron Klain, who insisted to lawmakers that Biden had the sharpness to lead. Then there’s Ashley Williams, another former special assistant, who also backed Biden’s capabilities during her testimony. Yet, according to a source cited by CNN, Williams leaned heavily on “did not recall” when pressed on specifics—hardly the ringing endorsement one might hope for.
Williams’ five-hour grilling covered everything from teleprompter use at Cabinet meetings to whispers of Biden needing a wheelchair or cognitive tests, yet her memory seemed conveniently spotty. If you can’t recall whether you had to wake the president up, one wonders what exactly you do remember. This kind of selective amnesia doesn’t inspire confidence in the transparency we’re all craving.
Chairman Comer kicked off this investigation with a bold claim: “The cover-up of President Biden’s mental decline is one of the greatest scandals in our nation’s history.” That’s a hefty accusation, and while it might sound like political theater, the sheer number of aides dodging questions lends some weight to the suspicion. Americans aren’t asking for a witch hunt—just the unvarnished truth.
Comer also emphasized, “The American people deserve full transparency,” a sentiment that’s hard to argue with in a nation built on accountability. But when witnesses hide behind legal privileges or memory lapses, that transparency feels more like a mirage. Surely, we can all agree that clarity, not obfuscation, should be the goal here.
The investigation isn’t slowing down anytime soon, with more of Biden’s inner circle slated to testify next month, including former senior adviser for communications Anita Dunn next Thursday. Each new witness is another chance to peel back the curtain—or hit another brick wall. One can’t help but wonder if we’ll get answers or just more carefully rehearsed silence.
The core of this probe isn’t just about Biden’s health—it’s about the integrity of the presidency itself, especially when autopen signatures handled official business en masse. Granting scores of pardons on the last day via a machine feels less like leadership and more like a bureaucratic shortcut. Shouldn’t such weighty decisions bear the personal touch of the commander-in-chief?
Some might argue this investigation is a partisan overreach, a Republican attempt to tarnish a Democratic legacy after the fact. But when aides refuse to answer basic questions about the president’s capacity, it’s not just politics—it’s a legitimate concern for how our government functions. The public isn’t served by blind loyalty; it’s served by honesty.
For conservatives, this saga underscores a deeper frustration with a system that often prioritizes image over substance, where progressive agendas can obscure hard truths. Yet, even those on the other side of the aisle must admit that a president’s ability to govern isn’t a partisan issue—it’s a national one. Let’s keep the focus on facts, not feelings.
As this House committee continues its work, the hope is for genuine accountability, not just soundbites or political points. If Biden was fully capable, as some witnesses claim, then let the evidence speak clearly and put these concerns to rest. If not, then the American people have every right to know who was truly in charge during those critical months.
