Biden should've been given multiple cognitive tests while in the White House, Obama's doctor says
Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as Obama's doctor from 2009 to 2013, highlighted in a phone interview Saturday how Biden — and all politicians over the age of 70 — should be submitted to 'a few hours' of annual mental exams and release those results to the public.
'My position is that a 78-year-old candidate, Trump at the time, an 82-year-old president [Biden] would both benefit from neurocognitive testing,' said Kuhlman, who published a book 'Transforming Presidential Healthcare,' recommending that in November 2024.
Advertisement
'Any politician over the age of 70 has normal age-related cognitive decline,' Kuhlman said, pointing out that he's been making the recommendation for nearly a year — and did so in a New York Times op-ed on the day Biden bowed out of the 2024 race.
'If you look at his three physicals that were released as president, Dr. [Kevin] O'Connor wrote five to six pages, single-spaced. He referenced 10 to 20 specialist physicians.'
5 Joe Biden's doctor should've made him undergo multiple neurocognitive tests during his presidency, former President Barack Obama's physician told The Post.
Getty Images
Advertisement
But the tests did not include any neurocognitive work, nor did Biden submit to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, as Trump did in his first term, a two-minute screening comprising around 30 questions to test for signs of dementia, according to Obama's ex-physician.
'I have no doubt that President Trump aced it,' he said of the test, but said the current White House, in the interest of full transparency, should also release CT scans that were taken after the assassination attempt against the Republican candidate in Butler, Pa., last July.
Kuhlman added the Montreal Cognitive Assessment isn't adequate to determine more serious mental slippage, one of the three main areas that medical professionals should be considering when evaluating the president, along with cancer and cardiovascular issues.
Memory, reasoning, speed of processing and spacial visualization all begin to decline around the age of 60, he also said.
Advertisement
5 Kevin O'Connor served as Biden's doctor during his vice presidency, overlapping with Kuhlman in the White House medical unit.
David Lienemann/The White House
O'Connor served as Biden's doctor during his vice presidency, overlapping with Kuhlman in the White House medical unit.
Kuhlman said he 'respects' O'Connor's 'medical judgment,' but also told The Washington Post: 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest.'
In apparently his only media interview during Biden's term, O'Connor insisted to The Post in July 2024 that the president's cognitive health was 'excellent' — days after being forced out of a re-election bid and replaced by Vice President Kamala Harris due to a dismal debate performance June 27.
Advertisement
5 Kuhlman said he 'respects' O'Connor's 'medical judgment,' but also told The Washington Post: 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest.'
Getty Images
In a break from his predecessors, Biden's doctor never answered questions from the press in the White House briefing room but submitted annual physical reports that noted some physical ailments without addressing the president's mental acuity, other than to say he was 'fit for duty.'
'The president doesn't need a cognitive test,' claimed White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a February 2024 briefing following what would be Biden's final physical as commander-in-chief. 'He passes a cognitive test every day.'
White House visitor logs show the oldest-ever president did submit to evaluation from an expert in Parkinson's disease and 20-year veteran of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Dr. Kevin Cannard, but O'Connor said the January 2024 meeting was part of Biden's annual physical.
'If somebody turns up a report that Kevin Cannard said he has Parkinson's,' said Kuhlman, 'then that's a completely different story, but we have 14 years of Kevin Cannard evaluating him and that's who I would trust.'
5 O'Connor said that was part of his annual physical and ruled out a Parkinson's diagnosis, though other doctors expressed skepticism.
American Osteopathic Association
O'Connor said that was part of his annual physical and ruled out a Parkinson's diagnosis, though other doctors expressed skepticism.
'I could've diagnosed him from across the Mall,' neurologist Dr. Tom Pitts told NBC in July 2024, pointing to Biden's 'rigidity,' 'shuffling gait' and 'slow movement.'
Advertisement
Special Counsel Robert Hur, who determined that Biden 'willfully' hoarded classified documents after leaving the Obama White House, chose not to bring charges months earlier that year in February, in part because a jury would view the president as a 'sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.'
The Republican-led House Oversight Committee subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday to appear for questioning about the former president's mental abilities on June 27.
5 The Republican-led House Oversight Committee subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday to appear for questioning about the former president's mental abilities on June 27.
AP
Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) in a cover letter accompanying the subpoena suggested the doctor's past 'financial relationship with the Biden family' may have 'contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden's fitness to serve from the American people.'
Advertisement
Jean-Pierre, who left the Democratic Party and is publishing a tell-all book about the 'broken' Biden administration, is also expected to be hauled in for testimony.
Days before a book was set to be published alleging a vast cover-up of his decline during his last two years in the White House, Biden announced that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer that had spread to his bones.
The book, 'Original Sin,' notes that O'Connor was reluctant to administer a cognitive test, according to co-authors Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.
Advertisement
Kuhlman said O'Connor had conducted tests for that kind of cancer between 2009 and 2014 when they served together in the White House, but it may not have been 'worth doing in the next 10 years' based on the findings of that final exam, known as a PSA, in the vice presidency.
'I hope that Kevin O'Connor had that conversation every year with his patient, Joe Biden, and documented that in the medical record,' he said. 'If he did the PSA and chose not to release it, I don't agree with that.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
Texas AG Paxton will try to expel Texas Democrats if they don't return by Friday
The legal process to remove the lawmakers will likely take time. First, Paxton must file a case against each individual absent Democrat in various district courts, a process that would surely lead to appeals and could drag out long beyond the end of the special session on Aug. 19. Even if Paxton succeeds in getting them removed, Gov. Greg Abbott would need to call for special elections to fill the seats, according to Texas law, which says that 'an unexpired term in office may be filled only by a special election.' Paxton issued a nonbinding legal opinion in 2021 during Democrats' last quorum break, which Republican Gov. Greg Abbott cited on Monday while also accusing the lawmakers 'absconded from their responsibility.' In that opinion, Paxton took no position on whether breaking quorum is constitutional. He also declined to say whether fleeing Democrats could or should be removed from office. Rather, he called it a 'fact question for a court' that he said was beyond the scope of his office to decide. He noted instead that he could file what are known as 'quo warranto actions' in court, asking a judge to determine whether the missing lawmakers had officially vacated their seats. When Abbott made the same argument on Monday, Democrats responded simply: 'Come and take it.' Democrats have fled Texas to blue strongholds like Illinois, New York and Massachusetts in order to prevent the legislature from voting on a recently-drawn congressional map — pushed by President Donald Trump — that would give the GOP five more friendly seats ahead of next year's midterms. 'Democrats are going to fight this tooth and nail and until the will of the voters is respected,' Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin said during a press conference on Tuesday. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to the knife fight. This is a new Democratic Party. We're bringing a knife to a knife fight.' The Texas Constitution allows for quorum-breaking, and lawmakers and legal experts alike were quick to dismiss Paxton's claims that Democrats had abandoned their positions. Kyle Cheney and Shia Kapos contributed to this report.
San Francisco Chronicle
9 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What's known and not yet known about the Justice Department's scrutiny of Trump-Russia probe origins
WASHINGTON (AP) — News that Attorney General Pam Bondi is moving to criminally investigate the Obama-era origins of the Trump-Russia investigation means that one of the most studied, and politically polarizing, chapters of modern American history will be under the microscope yet again. A saga with a long backstory Perhaps no issue continues to aggravate President Donald Trump more than the assessment by intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf and the investigation by law enforcement into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow to tip the outcome of the contest. Robert Mueller, the former FBI director tapped as special counsel by Trump's first Justice Department to investigate, found that Russia had waged a multi-prong operation in Trump's favor and that the Republican president's campaign welcomed the aid. But Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. As president for a second time, Trump has made no secret of his desire to use the Justice Department as a weapon of retribution against perceived political adversaries he sees as having smeared him, including by calling for Obama-era officials to be jailed. And his administration, now more broadly and across multiple agencies, has been engaged in a effort to reopen the long-accepted conclusion — including among prominent Republicans — of Russian interference and to scrutinize the officials involved in reaching that assessment. A Bondi grand jury directive Bondi, a Trump loyalist, has directed Justice Department prosecutors to present evidence related to the Russia inquiry to a grand jury. Grand juries are tools used by prosecutors to issue subpoenas for records and prosecutors and to produce indictments based on the evidence they receive. The bar is low for an indictment given that the presentation of evidence by prosecutors is one-sided, though grand juries do have the option to decline to indict and have done so in the past. A person familiar with the matter confirmed Bondi's directive to The Associated Press but key questions remain. It was not disclosed, for instance, which prosecutors are pursuing the investigation, where the grand jury that might hear evidence is located and whether and when law enforcement officials might seek to bring criminal charges. The Justice Department, in an unusual statement last month, appeared to confirm the existence of an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director James Brennan but provided no details or specifics. Potential targets of probe remain unclear It's not clear who might be targeted in the investigation, but the Trump administration has been aggressively challenging intelligence community conclusions about Russia's actions and intentions that had long ago seemed settled. It's been a welcome diversion for the administration as it confronts a wave of criticism from Trump's base and conservative influencers over the handling of records from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. In the last month, Trump administration officials and allies have released a series of documents aimed at casting doubt on the extent of interference and at portraying the original Russia investigation as an Obama administration frame-job. The documents have been hailed as incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy, but a close inspection of the records shows they fall well short of that. Among the documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, the administration's director of national intelligence, are emails from 2016 showing that Obama administration officials recognized in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in favor of Trump. But the absence of evidence that votes were switched — something the Obama administration never alleged — has no bearing on the ample evidence of other forms of Russia interference, including a hack-and-leak operation involving Democratic emails and a covert social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and spreading disinformation. Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a previously classified annex of a 2023 report by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the first Trump administration to hunt for government misconduct in the Russia probe. The annex included a series of emails, including one from July 2016 that was purportedly sent by a senior staffer at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, that referred to a plan approved by then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to falsely link Trump to Russia. But Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood that it was a product of Russian disinformation. Fresh scrutiny has also centered around the intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference, which was published in January 2017. An annex in a classified version of the assessment contained a summary of the so-called Steele dossier — a compilation of opposition research that included uncorroborated rumors and salacious gossip about Trump and Russia. The latest in a series of investigations Multiple government reports, including not only from Mueller but also a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee that included current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have documented Russia's activities in sweeping details. To be sure, reports from the Justice Department inspector general and Durham also identified significant flaws in the FBI's Russia investigation, including errors and omissions in applications the Justice Department submitted to a secretive surveillance court to eavesdrop on a national security adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign. But Durham found no criminal wrongdoing among government officials, bringing three criminal cases — two against private citizens that resulted in acquittals at trial and a third against a little-known FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email. It is unclear if there is any criminal wrongdoing that exists that Durham, who launched his investigation in 2019 and concluded it four years later, somehow missed during his sprawling inquiry.
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Kamala Harris won't cure what ails the Democratic Party
William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, was the last commander in chief born a British subject and the first member of the Whig Party to win the White House. He delivered the longest inaugural address in history, nearly two hours, and had the shortest presidency, being the first sitting president to die in office, just 31 days into his term. Oh, there is one more bit of trivia about the man who gave us the slogan 'Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.' Harrison was the last politician to lose his first presidential election and then win the next one (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson managed that before him). Richard Nixon lost only to win way down the road. (Grover Cleveland and Trump are the only two to win, lose and then win again.) Everyone else since Harrison's era who lost on the first try and ran again in the next election lost again. Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran twice and lost twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan each ran three times in a row and lost (Clay ran on three different party tickets). Voters, it seems, don't like losers. These are not encouraging results for Kamala Harris, who announced last week she will not be running for governor in California, sparking speculation that she wants another go at the White House. But history isn't what she should worry about. It's the here and now. The Democratic Party is wildly unpopular. It's net favorability ( 30 points) is nearly triple the GOP's (11 points). The Democratic Party is more unpopular than any time in the last 35 years. When Donald Trump's unpopularity with Democrats should be having the opposite effect, 63% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the party. Why? Because Democrats are mad at their own party — both for losing to Trump and for failing to provide much of an obstacle to him now that he's in office. As my Dispatch colleague Nick Cattogio puts it, 'Even Democrats have learned to hate Democrats.' It's not all Harris' fault. Indeed, the lion's share of the blame goes to Joe Biden and the coterie of enablers who encouraged him to run again. Harris' dilemma is that she symbolizes Democratic discontent with the party. That discontent isn't monolithic. For progressives, the objection is that Democrats aren't fighting hard enough. For the more centrist wing of the party, the problem is the Democrats are fighting for the wrong things, having lurched too far left on culture war and identity politics. Uniting both factions is visceral desire to win. That's awkward for a politician best known for losing. Almost the only reason Harris was positioned to be the nominee in 2024 was that she was a diversity pick. Biden was explicit that he would pick a woman and, later, an African American running mate. And the same dynamic made it impossible to sideline her when Biden withdrew. Of course, most Democrats don't see her race and gender as a problem, and in the abstract they shouldn't. Indeed, every VP pick is a diversity pick, including the white guys. Running mates are chosen to appeal to some part of a coalition. So Harris' problem isn't her race or sex; it's her inability to appeal to voters in a way that expands the Democratic coalition. For Democrats to win, they need someone who can flip Trump voters. She didn't lose because of low Democratic turnout, she lost because she's uncompelling to a changing electorate. Her gauzy, often gaseous, rhetoric made her sound like a dean of students at a small liberal arts college. With the exception of reproductive rights, her convictions sounded like they were crafted by focus groups, at a time when voters craved authenticity. Worse, Harris acquiesced to Biden's insistence she not distance herself from him. Such clubby deference to the establishment combined with boilerplate pandering to progressive constituencies — learned from years of San Francisco and California politics — makes her the perfect solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Her choice to appear on Stephen Colbert's 'The Late Show' for her first interview since leaving office was telling. CBS recently announced it was terminating both Colbert and the show, insisting it was purely a business decision. But the reason for the broadcast network's decision stemmed in part from the fact that Colbert narrow-casts his expensive show to a very small, very anti-Trump slice of the electorate. 'I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken,' Harris lamented to Colbert, decrying the 'naïve' and 'feckless' lack of 'leadership' and the 'capitulation' of those who 'consider themselves to be guardians of our system and our democracy.' That's all catnip to Colbert's ideologically committed audience. But that's not the audience Democrats need to win. And that's why, if Democrats nominate her again, she'll probably go down in history as an answer to a trivia question. And it won't be 'Who was the 48th president of the United States?' @JonahDispatch
