‘Was the president up for the job?’ Steve Ricchetti defends Biden’s fitness as GOP seeks answers
Steve Ricchetti was the gatekeeper for former President Biden.
But House Republican investigators hoped Ricchetti was the key to unlocking answers about Mr. Biden’s cognitive state when he was commander in chief.
The House Oversight Committee summoned Ricchetti for a closed-door deposition recently. Ricchetti worked for President Clinton, was Biden’s top aide when he was Vice President and served as a key advisor in the Biden White House. He frequently visited Capitol Hill as President Biden and Congressional Republicans negotiated a debt ceiling pact in the spring of 2023.
“What’s your message to the committee today?” yours truly asked Ricchetti when he materialized on the third floor of the Rayburn House Office Building for a voluntary, transcribed interrogation.
“I’m not going to say anything on the way in. I’m just going to go in and give an interview,” replied Ricchetti.
“Was the President up for the job?” I inquired.
“Of course he was,” answered Ricchetti. “Of course he was.”
SENATE REPUBLICANS PLAN HEARING ON BIDEN’S ALLEGED COGNITIVE DECLINE COVER-UP
In a statement, Ricchetti conceded that former President Biden “occasionally stumbled.” But he argued the former president was fit for the job. Ricchetti added that no one “usurped President Biden’s Constitutional duties.”
In their inquest, Republicans have specific questions about the former President’s use of the autopen and about legal documents bearing Mr. Biden’s signature.
“Who was signing any of these documents and who was running the White House?” asked Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., on Fox. “That’s the biggest, weirdest scandal probably in American history since Woodrow Wilson’s wife was running the White House.”
That refers to First Lady Edith Wilson. Historians generally believe that she took over day-to-day executive functions after President Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke.
“Anything that had the force of (law) that was signed by autopen should be null and void,” argued Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, on Fox Business.
Unlike Ricchetti, three other Biden figures have ducked questions when summoned for closed-door interviews. The Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for former Biden administration aide Annie Tomasini, former Jill Biden aide Anthony Bernal and the President’s former physician, White House doctor Kevin O’Connor. All three invoked the Fifth Amendment during their sessions before the House Oversight Committee, declining to answer questions.
BIDEN’S AUTOPEN USE QUESTIONED AMID RELEASED AUDIO FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL HUR INTERVIEW
“I think the real witness is the doctor. And unfortunately, he took the Fifth,” said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan.
Marshall himself is an OB-GYN.
“A doctor certainly has an obligation ethically to protect (a patient) for privacy. But the needs of the country – the national security issue, legal issues – trump that relationship as well,” said Marshall.
Democrats contend Republicans are flailing in their probe of the former President. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., believes the GOP should focus on the economy and affordability issues.
“Message to House Republicans,” declared Welch. “You won the election. I mean, I’m not quite sure why they want to waste time on this.”
“He’s not the president,” said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., of former President Biden. “I think we really should just move (on).”
Fetterman himself faced questions about his health after suffering a stroke during his 2022 campaign and hospitalization for depression after taking office as a senator in 2023.
But Republicans contend the Biden investigation is critical. Former President Biden’s medical state isn’t clear, although the public saw his performance in the debate last June. Republicans insist their probe is about figuring out what to do if a future President struggles cognitively.
SENATE HEARING ON WHO WAS ‘REALLY RUNNING’ BIDEN WHITE HOUSE KICKS OFF WEDNESDAY
“What we’re doing today is setting sort of a template for the future,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “How can we make it better? Because it’s a Democratic President today. It may be a Republican President tomorrow.”
It’s not just a challenge for the presidency. But for lawmakers, too. In recent years, Capitol Hill has witnessed uncomfortable, steady declines of late Sens. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Kay Granger, R-Tex.
“Hopefully all of us make the right decision when it’s appropriate,” said Welch. “And we have people around us to do the right thing.”
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., is one of the most conservative, politically pragmatic Democrats in the House. She represents a district President Trump carried three times. And even though Sens. Patty Muray, D-Wash., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., routinely win statewide, they fail to carry Gluesenkamp Perez’s district. Gluesenkamp Perez bested GOP nominee Joe Kent – for a second time – by four points in 2024.
The 36-year-old Gluesenkamp Perez introduced a plan requiring cognitive standards for persons to serve in the House.
The House Appropriations Committee rejected her amendment late last month.
However, there are Constitutional and legal problems with imposing a cognitive exam on prospective lawmakers.
Article, I, Section 5 of the Constitution says the House and Senate “may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” So, it’s possible the House or Senate could impose a “rule” dictating a test. The same part of the Constitution says each body may judge “the qualifications of its own Members.”
INSIDE THE BIDEN COVER-UP PROBE: 8 AIDES QUESTIONED, MORE ON THE WAY
But imposing an additional provision for eligibility to serve could be extra-constitutional. For instance, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says House Members must be at least 25-years-old, have been a citizen for seven years and reside in the state from which they were elected. A senator must be 30, a citizen for nine years and live in the state they represent. However, heaping another mandate on top of that is a problem.
This is why the Supreme Court found term limits to be unconstitutional. An additional “rule” – such as how long one can serve – introduces an extra qualification not outlined in the Constitution. That’s why the Supreme Court ruled against term limits proposals. It’s likely the High Court would follow suit with additional stipulations to serve in Congress.
Moreover, installing an acuity credential holds the potential to undo the will of the voters.
Late Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, D-N.Y., faced ethics issues in the late 1960s. Voters re-elected Powell in 1966. But the House refused to seat him. Powell sued. In Powell v. McCormick, the Supreme Court found that the House didn’t have the right to exclude Powell. The High Court argued that the House’s refusal to seat Powell wasn’t Constitutional since it placed additional conditions on his service in Congress.
There’s no easy solution on how to handle an impaired President or lawmaker. It is often said Congress simply reflects the rest of the country. There are cognitively-diminished persons serving in every walk of life in the U.S. And that’s a reality for those in government, too.
About The Author
