President Biden’s defenders are strangely quiet. Not just on cable news or in campaign interviews, but under oath, in closed-door congressional depositions where three of his closest aides, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Annie Tomasini, and Anthony Bernal, each invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked if President Biden was mentally competent to perform his duties during his time in office. These are not rogue interns or peripheral assistants. These are Biden’s inner circle: his doctor, his gatekeeper, and his family’s senior advisor. Their silence is both conspicuous and chilling.
One might think that defending a former president’s mental acuity would be an act of loyalty, not betrayal. If there were nothing to hide, if Biden was merely a gaffe-prone elder statesman unfairly caricatured, surely someone, somewhere, could say so. Yet no one has. Not under oath. And not without invoking the Fifth.
Some may argue that this is simply legal caution in the face of partisan prosecution. But such a defense invites a darker possibility. If telling the truth about the President’s mental state might lead to prosecution, what truths are they hiding? When silence becomes the preferred legal strategy for those closest to power, we must ask: what was going on in the Biden White House that now requires constitutional shields?
Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s personal physician since 2009 and the man who publicly attested to Biden’s health, refused to answer even basic questions about whether the President was fit to serve. His medical license prevents him from violating doctor-patient confidentiality, but that does not explain why he also invoked the Fifth Amendment, a right that applies only when one fears criminal exposure. Did O’Connor fear being charged for misrepresentation, perjury, or fraud? After all, Special Counsel Robert Hur’s February 2024 report described Biden as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and suggested his mental state would prevent a successful prosecution. That characterization alone should have triggered an inquiry. Instead, it was ignored, until now.
Anthony Bernal, Dr. Biden’s chief of staff and a fixture in the Biden household for over a decade, also refused to testify. He was asked whether Biden ever instructed him to lie about his health or whether family members made decisions on the President’s behalf. His response: the Fifth. Bernal had previously agreed to a voluntary interview but withdrew after conferring with legal counsel. It is difficult to reconcile his refusal with innocence. If no one in the Biden family acted as a shadow president, why not just say so?
Annie Tomasini, Biden’s longtime confidante and former deputy chief of staff, likewise pleaded the Fifth. Her refusal covered questions on Biden’s health, the classified documents found in his garage, and any potential role she played in covering up Biden family business dealings. Tomasini was reportedly part of the “protective bubble” that managed access to the President and shielded him from unscripted encounters. Aides have acknowledged that she vetted nearly every human interaction with the President during his final year. If Biden was fully functional, why did he need a handler at all?
Some claim this is all a partisan fishing expedition, a political tit-for-tat following years of Democratic investigations into Trump. But that excuse crumbles under scrutiny. Trump himself was derided for invoking the Fifth in a 2022 New York deposition. Hillary Clinton, Eric Swalwell, and Rachel Maddow mocked him. Trevor Noah quipped, “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth?” This criticism is now boomeranging on Biden’s team. Unlike Trump, Biden isn’t even the target. He’s a former president. The people pleading the Fifth aren’t under indictment. They are aides being asked whether they misled the public about a man entrusted with the nuclear codes.
The implications go beyond hypocrisy. The central question is not whether Biden occasionally forgot a name or stumbled in a debate. The question is whether unelected aides quietly exercised executive power while the President declined in private. That is not merely a personnel issue. It is a constitutional crisis.
Consider the use of the autopen in the final days of Biden’s presidency. According to the New York Times, aides used an autopen to sign dozens of midnight pardons and over 4,000 commutations, an unprecedented action. Biden insisted he had authorized the decisions orally. But who confirmed his competence to do so? Did Dr. O’Connor sign off? Did Bernal or Tomasini decide which clemency petitions were approved? Who was in the room when those decisions were made? And more importantly, who actually made them?
The question of executive capacity is not new. Woodrow Wilson’s wife, Edith, effectively ran the White House for over a year after Wilson’s stroke. Reagan’s inner circle quietly managed operations during his 1987 memory lapses. But in both cases, the public was eventually informed. Biden’s case, if the allegations prove true, would represent the first time in US history that a President’s incapacitation was deliberately hidden while aides and family governed in his name.
That hypothesis is not far-fetched. Biden’s disastrous June 2024 debate performance against Trump made his decline undeniable. He appeared confused, halted mid-sentence, and forgot basic facts. Within three weeks, Democrats forced him to withdraw from the race, replacing him with Kamala Harris. The party’s about-face was so abrupt that critics called it a “coup by resignation.” For months, these same Democrats had sworn Biden was “sharp as ever.” What changed? Not his condition, he didn’t suddenly lose cognitive function on June 27. What changed was the calculus of risk. Democrats decided that continuing the charade would cost them the White House.
The Oversight Committee’s investigation, led by Chairman James Comer, is not merely about classified documents or clemency logs. It is about who was actually exercising power inside the Biden White House. If unelected aides made decisions that the President was incapable of making, and if those same aides now plead the Fifth to avoid admitting it, we are dealing with more than bad optics. We are dealing with an illegal transfer of executive power.
To the skeptics: imagine this were the Trump administration. Imagine Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump refused to answer whether the President was mentally fit or whether they signed pardons without his knowledge. Imagine Trump’s doctor, Ronny Jackson, refusing to say whether Trump understood the documents he was authorizing. The outrage would be instant, bipartisan, and justified. Why is this different?
The Constitution offers mechanisms for addressing presidential incapacity. The 25th Amendment allows for a transfer of power when the President is unable to discharge his duties. But that process requires transparency and formal declarations. It does not authorize backroom arrangements where staffers and spouses act in place of the President without public knowledge or legal authority.
Those defending Biden’s aides claim they are simply protecting themselves from political prosecution. But that argument collapses under one simple question: If Joe Biden was fit to serve, why won’t anyone say so?
The silence is deafening. The pleas for immunity are telling. And the image of three senior aides refusing to speak about a man who was Commander in Chief until just months ago is damning. Whether through deliberate deception or cowardly complicity, Biden’s inner circle has refused to tell the American people the truth.
And that raises the final question: What are they afraid of?
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: Biden Doctor Ordered To Testify On President’s Mental Decline
A ticking time-bomb set by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to Hurt ElectionsThey Must Be Stopped! |
Why the Cover Up now??