Imagine defending someone’s mental sharpness without ever really sitting down with them—shocking, right? That’s the curious case of Ian Sams, a former senior advisor and spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, who recently admitted to meeting former President Joe Biden in person just twice during his tenure. This revelation, unearthed by the House Oversight Committee, is stirring serious doubts about who was truly steering the ship at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
According to Fox News, the core of this story is a probe into whether Biden’s closest advisors hid signs of mental decline and if executive actions, like thousands of clemency orders, were signed using autopen without his full awareness or consent.
Let’s rewind to May 2022, when Ian Sams stepped into his role as a key voice for the White House Counsel’s Office. Over the next two years, until his departure in August 2024, Sams had only four interactions with Biden—two face-to-face, one virtual, and one phone call. That’s a thinner resume of direct contact than most interns could claim.
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., couldn’t hide his astonishment during a recent closed-door interview with Sams. “He saw Joe Biden, talked to Joe Biden two times, the entire stint as White House spokesperson,” Comer noted, pointing out the irony of Sam’s frequent public defenses of Biden’s mental fitness. For a man who tweeted daily and issued statements from the podium, that’s a glaring disconnect worth questioning.
Throughout his time in the White House, Sams was a staunch defender during high-stakes investigations. He pushed back against House Republicans scrutinizing Biden’s connections to family business dealings abroad and challenged Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. Yet, with such minimal interaction, one wonders if Sams was merely parroting a script handed down from above.
In February 2024, Sams called Hur’s findings “wrong” and “inaccurate,” despite the report describing Biden as likely to appear as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur declined to press charges, but Sams’ rebuttal—backed by so little firsthand experience—raises eyebrows. Was this defense rooted in fact, or just a well-rehearsed talking point?
Fast forward to June 2024, after Biden’s shaky debate performance against President Donald Trump, and Sams was quick to dismiss Republican inquiries into Biden’s former White House physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor. Comer, in early July, wrote to O’Connor with concerns that his medical evaluations might have been swayed by private business ties to the Biden family. It’s a fair question when public trust is on the line, yet Sams waved it off as a mere conspiracy.
Speaking of conspiracies, Sams once told Newsweek, “Here they go again, pushing their crazy, discredited theories.” Nice try, but when you’ve barely met the man you’re defending, that jab feels more like a dodge than a rebuttal. Americans deserve answers, not deflections, especially when executive actions might have been rubber-stamped without proper oversight.
The House Oversight probe isn’t just about Sams; it’s about whether Biden’s inner circle orchestrated a cover-up of his mental state. Comer’s investigation is digging into whether autopen signatures on clemency orders and other actions bypassed Biden’s direct input. This isn’t about personal vendettas—it’s about ensuring the integrity of the presidency itself.
Comer’s frustration is palpable when he questions who was pulling the strings. “When we ask, ‘Did Joe Biden tell you this?’ the answer is, ‘Well, no,’” Comer remarked, highlighting the murky chain of command. If Sams wasn’t getting direct guidance from Biden, then who was feeding him the lines?
Even more telling, Comer pointed out to Fox News Digital, “Rather than concluding firsthand experience, Mr. Sams received much of his direction from the White House Counsel.” That’s a polite way of saying Sams might have been more mouthpiece than insider. With such limited access, his bold claims about Biden’s sharpness seem more like wishful thinking than grounded observation.
Sams isn’t the only one under the microscope—former aides like Andrew Bates, Karine Jean-Pierre, and Jeff Zients are also expected to face investigators behind closed doors. The Oversight Committee is determined to uncover whether these advisors propped up an image of Biden that didn’t match reality. It’s a heavy charge, but one that demands clarity for the sake of public confidence.
Comer’s take on Sams’ testimony is both revealing and cautious: “Mr. Sams’ testimony raises serious questions about who is truly calling the shots in the White House.” He’s not wrong to press for answers when the spokesperson defending the president barely knew him beyond a handshake or two. This isn’t about dragging anyone through the mud; it’s about accountability at the highest level.
Some might argue Biden himself claimed, “I made every decision,” in a past interview with The New York Times. But if aides like Sams were operating on secondhand info, that assertion feels hollow. The American people aren’t asking for perfection, just honesty about who’s been minding the store.
At the end of the day, this investigation isn’t about scoring political points—it’s about safeguarding trust in our institutions. Comer and the Oversight Committee are right to keep pushing, even if the progressive crowd cries foul over “conspiracy theories.” When the facts show such sparse contact between a key defender and the defended, skepticism isn’t just warranted—it’s necessary.
