Steve Ricchetti Furthers Skepticism About Biden’s Mental Fitness

To start with, Steve Ricchetti, a critical aide to ex-President Biden, was widely perceived as possessing some secrets regarding the former President’s mental competency during his tenure. As a result, the House Oversight Committee sought his testimony in a discrete, private session. His role carried considerable weight as he had been an advisor during Clinton’s presidency, Vice President Biden’s top aide, and a relevant figure in Biden’s White House.

Ricchetti had been frequently visiting Capitol Hill as debt ceiling discussions between then President Biden and Congressional Republicans unfolded in 2023. However, upon entering the deposition, he chose to remain silent, leaving room for wondering if there was something he was hiding.

Claiming Biden ‘occasionally stumbled,’ Ricchetti attempted to avoid further speculation by asserting that there were no instances where anyone else took over the former President’s Constitutional duties. His statement was a desperate effort to downplay the importance of questions regarding periods when Biden allegedly used an ‘autopen’ for signing legal documents.

These questions around the legitimacy and legality of actions taken during Biden’s presidency have led Republican investigators to question who handled the White House’s operations in particular situations. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., made a reference hinting at the historical precedent of First Lady Edith Wilson effectively running the Oval Office when President Woodrow Wilson experienced health issues.

The Republicans’ inquisition also focused on the legality of autopen-signed laws. Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, led this charge, suggesting that any law activated by Biden’s autopen should be rendered null. As such, questions linger about the actions taken by people in Biden’s orbit.

Three other figures from the Biden administration, Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal and Dr. Kevin O’Connor, shied away from responding to an Oversight Committee subpoena. Their refusal to cooperate and invoking of the Fifth Amendment served to stoke further suspicions around the operations of the former White House.

One key figure, White House doctor Kevin O’Connor, was identified as an important witness by Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. Paradoxically, he refused to cooperate and chose to use his Fifth Amendment right in this situation. Marshall, who is also a medical professional, argued that the national security implications override a patient-doctor confidentiality agreement.

Meanwhile, Democrats have attempted to dismiss the probe into Biden’s administration as an unproductive venture. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., implied that Republicans’ efforts would be better allocated towards resolving economic and affordability concerns. Their dismissive remarks, however, failed to address the mounting evidence suggesting potential irregularities during Biden’s presidency.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., echoed Welch’s sentiment, urging for a focus on the present instead of dwelling on ex-President Biden’s leadership. This call for complacency overlooks essential questions related to the cognitive qualifications for high public office positions.

Interestingly, Fetterman had previously faced concerns about his own mental health during his 2022 campaign and subsequent senatorial appointment. However, he and his Democratic colleagues continued to find a way to avoid addressing the elephant in the room—the uncertainty surrounding former President Biden’s cognitive status.

On the contrary, Republicans have firmly asserted the significance of the Biden investigation. GOP members consider this scrutiny a crucial step in preventing any future cognitive mishandling at the highest level of governance. This denotes their commitment to learning from past mistakes, as professed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Throughout the recent political era, Capitol Hill has experienced the painful and awkward waning of a few senators’ cognitive capacities. This underlines the need to address this issue head-on instead of turning a blind eye.

A refreshing divergence from the herd of evasion came from Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., who proposed an amendment that would mandate cognitive testing for House occupancy. Despite her amendment being rejected, the gesture unveiled the pressing concerns in governmental governance.

Complicating the issue, the legal possibility of enforcing cognitive testing seems conflict-ridden given the Constitution’s parameters. Adding a clause for cognitive testing could contradict the Constitutional provision that each body may judge its members’ qualifications. This tension is reminiscent of the Supreme Court declaring term limits unconstitutional.

The painful reality is that cognitive decline can impact any individual from any occupation, including those in government. The larger issue at hand is the methods used to address these declines, especially when they occur in positions of immense national importance.