Politburo Progress Report: Biden’s Staff Uses the Fifth to Dodge Questions on His Fitness

An update on the Biden Cognitive Decline testimonies, or: How to say absolutely nothing in five hours of sworn testimony

Aug 11, 2025

It's been a minute since I introduced you to Biden's "Politburo": that cozy dozen masquerading as a White House staff for the President "with no clothes." Well, they have been trickling in to the Capitol to testify before the House Oversight Committee, some volunteering and others by force (subpoena), but none of them appear to be coughing up any goods.

If you do a search you will see that much of the legacy media is avoiding this story while it did its absolute best to make "fetch" happen with attempts to tie Trump directly to Epstein. A topic that the legacy media had little interest in until just recently.

It's almost like they don't want to discuss how they spent four years gaslighting America about Biden's obvious decline.

The same media apparatus that brought you "Russia collusion" (another story they are ignoring) is now pretending they can't see a potential constitutional crisis happening in real time.

So while CNN and MSNBC got excited over decade-old Epstein documents while simultaneously trying to bury their past Russia hoax coverage, actual hearings are happening on Capitol Hill. But don't expect wall-to-wall coverage because these testimonies implicate the very people doing the reporting.

The Fifth Amendmenters

Let's start with our most "cooperative" witnesses—and by cooperative, I mean they showed up and said absolutely nothing for hours:

Dr. Kevin O'Connor (Biden's physician):

Our good doctor tried every trick in the book to avoid this conversation. First, he declined the committee's polite request for a voluntary chat. When that didn't work, Comer had to break out the big guns and subpoena him in June 2025.

When O'Connor finally showed up his testimony took all of twenty minutes. Because for every question his response was "on advice of counsel I must respectfully decline to answer" citing both doctor-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment rights. The most notable moment was when he wouldn't even answer whether he was asked to lie about Biden's health.

His attorneys, David Schertler and Mark MacDougall, released a statement emphasizing that the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding the committee's investigation left them no choice. They even threw in a comparison to Trump's 2022 deposition, basically arguing that pleading the Fifth is totally normal and doesn't mean their client committed any crimes. And while this is true, it still leaves you wondering why one needs constitutional protections when discussing a "routine medical consultation."

The best part? This is the same doctor who spent years writing those annual presidential health reports and chatting with reporters about Biden's "excellent" cognitive abilities. But suddenly, when Congress asks the same questions, it's all privilege this and Fifth Amendment that. Not suspicious at all.

Anthony Bernal (Jill Biden's "work husband"):

Our boy Tony initially agreed to a voluntary chat with Congress, then promptly ghosted them. So naturally, Comer had to issue a subpoena in late June to force his appearance.

Fast forward to July 16, 2025, and Bernal shows up and becomes the second staffer to Fifth Amendment all over the place. Especially when asked about whether unelected officials or family members were basically running the presidency.

The best part? When asked the absolutely basic question about Biden's ability to discharge his presidential duties, Bernal went full constitutional shield mode. Rep. Byron Donalds was practically speechless, calling it "shocking," "stunning," and "crazy" that a senior White House official couldn't answer whether the President of the United States was, you know, presidenting.

Both Comer and Donalds were heated following Bernal's "testimony." Donalds even said, paraphrasing here, "Well, if Jill's chief of staff won't talk, maybe Jill herself should explain what the hell was going on." Donalds put it perfectly: since Bernal pleaded the Fifth, "she must answer questions to the American people about Biden's mental capabilities."

Why does Bernal’s testimony matter? Because it is reported that during Biden's presidency Bernal held unprecedented influence and power over the White House and the president as the Chief of Staff to the First Lady. Bernal was reportedly at the Biden beach house during some of the most critical decisions of the presidency, including Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 race. This guy had a front-row seat to the Biden family dynamics, and now he's treating basic questions about presidential fitness like they're asking for nuclear codes.

Donalds was not tip-toeing around when he raised the possibility that if Biden lacked capacity, all those autopen-signed documents might be "null and void"—echoing debates in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), where the Supreme Court struck down the line-item veto as an unconstitutional exercise of executive power, allowing the President to unilaterally amend laws without congressional approval. While Clinton focused on a flawed statute enabling overreach, the autopen scandal raises parallel questions about aides potentially bypassing Biden's direct authority, though proving unauthorized use would be a higher bar, and courts rarely invalidate executive orders retroactively without clear evidence of misconduct.

Could it happen? If the last decade has taught us anything, it’s that anything is possible. What would it mean if an entire presidency's worth of executive actions was potentially invalidated because nobody wanted to admit Biden wasn’t fully in command?

Annie Tomasini (Deputy Chief of Staff):

Rounding out the Fifth Amendmenters is Annie. Sweet, loyal Annie. Here's someone who's been in Biden's orbit for over a decade, from his 2008 campaign through her traveling chief of staff gig in 2020, all the way to running Oval Office operations as president. You'd think someone with that much institutional knowledge might have, you know, some insights to share with Congress.

Think again.

Tomasini initially got the polite congressional treatment: a nice letter on May 22, 2025, asking for a voluntary chat. But her lawyer said, "Nah, we'd prefer a subpoena, thanks." So Comer obliged with a subpoena on July 15, setting up her star turn on July 18.

What followed was 30 minutes of Fifth Amendment to literally everything, including whether Biden or anyone at the White House told her to lie about his health. She also went full Fifth on questions about classified documents found in Biden's garage, whether she was told to conceal or destroy classified material, and anything related to the Biden family business dealings.

Her attorney, Jonathan Su, released one of those classic legal statements that says everything while saying nothing. Basically: "My client did nothing wrong, Biden made all his own decisions, and she's just being cautious because of the big scary DOJ investigation and Comer's threats of criminal referrals."

Tomasini was part of that "protective bubble" around Biden that we've heard so much about. Reports from 2024 specifically named her, along with Anthony Bernal and Ashley Williams, as key players in shielding information about Biden's health and decision-making. She was there for the document inventory at the Penn Biden Center (apparently earlier than the White House admitted), and she had front-row seats to the whole cognitive decline show.

But when Congress asks basic questions about presidential fitness and classified document handling (the kind of stuff that should be, you know, explainable if everything was above board), suddenly it's all constitutional protection time.

Both Comer and Donalds were practically beside themselves. Comer called it "unbelievable" and part of a "pattern of key Biden confidants seeking to shield themselves from criminal liability."

This is where things get spicy: Both congressmen basically said, "Well, if Biden's inner circle won't talk, maybe we need to go straight to the source." Comer flat-out said Jill Biden and Kamala Harris "should" be subpoenaed. Donalds was even more direct, arguing that since close aides like Tomasini won't answer basic questions about Biden's mental capacity, we need direct testimony from the former First Lady.

"I Don't Recall" Crew

Then we have the witnesses who technically answered questions, but in the same way a Magic 8-Ball provides guidance:

Ashley Williams (Oval Office Operations):

Six hours of testimony that can be summarized as "I don't recall" on repeat. Teleprompters in Cabinet meetings? Don't recall. Discussions about Biden needing a wheelchair? Can't remember. Conversations about cognitive testing? Nope, nothing comes to mind.

Williams apparently has the most selective memory since Hillary Clinton's email deposition.

Neera Tanden (Domestic Policy Council):

Neera was the first staffer to testify and, unlike others who leaned heavily on the Fifth Amendment, she answered several questions during her four-hour session. Her testimony offered some insight into the White House’s inner workings, but it also raised troubling questions.

Tanden admitted she ran the autopen show from October 2021 to May 2023, calling it a standard bureaucratic hand-me-down from previous admins. Fair enough, but then came the head-scratcher: she claimed "no visibility" into who was giving the final thumbs-up for autopen use. This is how it played out. She's firing off decision memos to Biden's inner circle, getting them back stamped "approved," and slapping the President's robo-signature on major policies, all without knowing exactly who hit the green light. That's not exactly the transparency you'd expect in the Oval Office.

And get this: during that year-and-a-half stint, Tanden said she had "minimal direct interaction" with Biden himself. So, here's a top advisor mechanizing the President's signature on critical docs, with little face-time from the President and zero insight into the approval chain. It may not be a "cover-up," but it sure smells like a setup where unelected aides could call the shots without much oversight.

When grilled on Biden's health or mental sharpness, Tanden played it straight, denying any chats with colleagues about the cognitive issues that were blaring in polls and plain to see for anyone paying attention. Her lawyer, Michael Bromwich, jumped in afterward to spin it, insisting Biden "personally approved every decision" and Tanden was "never in the dark." But that doesn't quite square with her own words about the blind spots in the process.

Tanden stuck to her guns that this was just "how things have always been done" and swore there was no effort to hide Biden's condition. Yet, the system she described? It's tailor-made for keeping things under wraps if someone wanted to. It's like handing out keys to the kingdom and hoping no one notices the back door's wide open.

“Biden was Totally Fine” Crew

Ron Klain (Former Chief of Staff): Klain's testimony was fascinating, he simultaneously claimed Biden was "fully capable" while admitting his memory "got duller over time." That's like saying your car runs great except for the engine problems. (Also, privately admitting "We're f---ed" during debate prep while publicly defending Biden's fitness is peak political operative behavior.)

Steve Ricchetti (Counselor): Seven hours of defensive testimony where Ricchetti insisted there was "no nefarious conspiracy" while describing a White House structure that sounds exactly like what you'd expect from a nefarious conspiracy.

Mike Donilon (Senior Advisor): Donilon went full denial mode, claiming Biden was "as sharp as ever" and would have been "sharp for another four years." This from the guy who reportedly earned $4 million to keep Biden's campaign afloat and would have earned another $4 million of Biden had won the election. (Nothing like a financial incentive to maintain optimism about cognitive decline.)

Bruce Reed (Deputy Chief of Staff): Reed's contribution was calling Biden's obvious struggles "normal aging." Reminder, Biden forgot deceased colleagues and wandered off stages confused. All normal things I guess when you hit 80 and are president.

Anita Dunn (Senior Advisor/Communications Mastermind): The architect of the "cheap fakes" strategy finally testified voluntarily on August 7, insisting Biden was "fully engaged" while casually admitting he "aged physically" and that his inner circle strategically avoided cognitive testing because there was no "political advantage." She also confirmed they skipped the Super Bowl interview due to fallout from the Hur report calling Biden an "elderly man with a poor memory" almost as if they were concerned the interview would confirm that he was an "elderly man with a poor memory." Ironically, the woman who spent months telling America not to believe their own eyes just explained exactly why that gaslighting campaign was necessary.

Still to Come

We're not done yet. Still scheduled for testimony:

Ian Sams (August 21): Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor—because apparently we need more people to explain why nobody noticed the obvious
Andrew Bates (September 5): Former Deputy Press Secretary who helped craft those "Biden is sharp as ever" talking points
Jeff Zients (September 18): The Chief of Staff who allegedly controlled the autopen
Karine Jean-Pierre (September 12): The press secretary who spent two years telling us Biden was "sharp" and "running circles around people"

And the potential blockbusters everyone's whispering about:

Jill Biden: The First Lady who apparently ran a shadow presidency
Hunter Biden: The son whose hand-signed pardon raises questions about family influence
Kamala Harris: The Vice President whose duty it was to invoke the 25th amendment if Biden was incapacitated

What Happens Next? (Spoiler Alert: Probably Nothing)

Here's the uncomfortable truth: If you're waiting for this investigation to result in meaningful accountability, you might want to find a comfortable chair. History suggests we're heading for the classic Washington ending: lots of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.

We'll get more closed-door testimonies that reveal exactly what we already know (Biden wasn't running the show), followed by a strongly-worded committee report that Democrats will dismiss as partisan theater. Maybe Comer throws in some contempt citations that go nowhere. Roll credits, fade to black, and a year from now this will be a footnote in political history.

The only scenario that changes this trajectory? If someone decides to convene a grand jury (unlikely) or if they actually haul in the big fish: Jill Biden, Hunter, or Kamala Harris. But even then, expect lots of "I don't recall" and constitutional privileges.

The Media's Inconvenient Amnesia Problem

But here's the real scandal within the scandal: Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage of these revelations anytime soon. Because the same media outlets that would normally be salivating over a constitutional crisis story are the ones who spent four years actively participating in the cover-up.

Think about it. CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post: they all spent years repeating Democrat talking points that Biden was "sharp as a tack" and "running circles around staffers." They dismissed obvious signs of cognitive decline as "cheap fakes" and "right-wing conspiracy theories." They turned legitimate concerns about presidential fitness into partisan attacks on Biden's critics.

Now you want them to investigate their own complicity?

It's the exact same playbook they are using with the Russia collusion hoax. Remember how enthusiastically they pushed that narrative for years? Wall-to-wall coverage, breathless reporting, Pulitzer Prizes for fiction. But when DNI Gabbard declassified the Durham Annex, the media had zero interest in covering its revelations and instead focused on dismissing it and discrediting Gabbard.

The only time they grudgingly reported on the Russia Hoax was when the DOJ convened a grand jury and they literally couldn't ignore it anymore. Even then, their coverage was dismissive and reluctant.

Expect the exact same behavior with the autopen scandal. These outlets will bury this story deeper than Jimmy Hoffa unless they're absolutely forced to cover it, like if criminal charges are filed or if Jill Biden gets subpoenaed. And even then, they'll frame it as "Republican overreach" while studiously avoiding any discussion of their own four-year gaslighting campaign.

Because here's the thing: Admitting they were wrong about Biden's cognitive decline means admitting they spit on Democracy and prioritized defeating Trump over informing the American people. And that's a level of journalistic soul-searching they're just not prepared to do.

Conclusion

But the most infuriating part of this entire circus? Even after everything we've learned (the testimonies, the Fifth Amendment pleas, the obvious cover-up), we're still completely vulnerable to another puppet presidency.

Think about it: There are still no meaningful restrictions on autopen use. No requirement to publicly log when a machine signs for the president. No safeguards to prevent a small cabal of staffers from essentially running the country while an incapacitated president's signature gets mechanically reproduced on life-altering documents. And no signs of changes on the horizon.

We just spent four years with what appears to have been a shadow presidency, and our response is... congressional hearings that will probably result in a strongly-worded report? That's it?

If these committee meeting result in no changes What happens when the next president starts showing signs of cognitive decline? What prevents the next group of ambitious staffers from deciding they know better than the voters who elected someone else?

America, we survived one incapacitated president and the national security implications of that, but we must learn from that experience, or risk setting ourselves up to do it all over again.

Because if there's one thing Washington does consistently, it's learn exactly the wrong lessons from every scandal.