Go figure.
Kevin O’Connor had attempted to avoid testifying in the House Oversight probe of Joe Biden’s competency, and in determining whether others hijacked the presidency while Biden deteriorated in office. He tried negotiating with the committee, apparently to no avail, and finally agreed to appear — but that’s it. All that Biden’s doctor would say was that he would not say anything, lest it tend to incriminate him:
Kevin O’Connor, who served as Joe Biden’s physician while the former president was in office, is refusing to testify in a closed-door interview as part of the House GOP probe into Biden’s mental acuity.
O’Connor asserted doctor-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a statement from his attorneys. He had repeatedly argued his duties as a doctor complicated his testimony and prevented him from sharing some sensitive information. But House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who is leading the investigation, has rejected those claims.
“On the advice of his legal counsel, Dr. O’Connor refused to answer questions that invaded the well-established legal privilege that protects confidential matters between physicians and their patients,” the statement read. “His assertion of his right under the Fifth Amendment to decline to answer questions, also on the advice of his lawyers, was made necessary by the unique circumstances of this deposition.
It’s certainly O’Connor’s right to refuse to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment. That use cannot be used as evidence of guilt … in court, anyway. The rest of us are free to wonder why the president’s physician worries that honest answers about the mental capacity of a then-sitting president would tend to incriminate his physician.
And for that matter, Congress can feel free to reach its own conclusions about what this means as well. House Oversight chair James Comer offered his rather acerbic conclusion about O’Connor’s decision to take Five and clam up:
“It’s clear there was a conspiracy to cover up President Biden’s cognitive decline after Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s physician and family business associate, refused to answer any questions and chose to hide behind the Fifth Amendment. The American people demand transparency, but Dr. O’Connor would rather conceal the truth. Dr. O’Connor took the Fifth when asked if he was told to lie about President Biden’s health and whether he was fit to be President of the United States. Congress must assess legislative solutions to prevent such a coverup from happening again. We will continue to interview more Biden White House aides to get the answers Americans deserve.”
Well, that’s certainly how this looks, anyway. Why else would O’Connor use the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions about Biden’s cognition? If the answers were straightforward, O’Connor would just have testified that he assessed Biden as cognitively sound the entire time. And if that were the truth, O’Connor would have no fear of prosecution for perjury or conspiracy relating to the usurpation of presidential authority during Biden’s term.
Of course, that would likely require O’Connor to explain this, from April 2022:
Or this, from October 2023:
One can see why O’Connor decided to rely on the Fifth Amendment rather than attempting to explain this away — not to mention the voluminous admissions after the election that everyone knew Biden was cognitively incapacitated while in office.
And that still leaves the question open: who really did run the White House and exercise authority reserved only to the elected President? O’Connor may not have direct testimony to answer that question fully, but he could at least establish Biden’s incapacity as the context for further subpoenas and investigations. And O’Connor seems unwilling to provide it, while refusing to say anything.
Comer may not be done with O’Connor yet, though. The House Oversight chair could work with Attorney General Pam Bondi to grant immunity in exchange for his testimony. Immunity removes the threat of self-incrimination and therefore negates the use of the Fifth Amendment, and O’Connor would be forced to testify honestly and fully. He could still be prosecuted for perjury (or its congressional equivalent), and charged and prosecuted for contempt if he refused to testify even with an immunity grant.
O’Connor had better keep his schedule open, in other words. And so should everyone else, because O’Connor’s decision today will only act to fire up the committee and sharpen their determination to get to the bottom of what may be the worst political scandal since Woodrow Wilson’s stroke.
