Biden's former doctor asks to delay testimony to House panel, citing patient privilege concerns
Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who served as Biden's physician at the White House, requested a delay until the end of July or early August 'to reach an accommodation that will protect the very substantial privilege and confidentiality interests of Dr. O'Connor and former President Biden,' according to a letter from his lawyer sent to Rep. James Comer of Kentucky on Saturday. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.
A spokesperson for Oversight Republicans said the committee will follow the House's deposition guidelines, which allow for witnesses to assert privilege on a question-by-question basis, with the committee chair ruling on each claim. But O'Connor is not allowed, in the committee's view, to delay or decline a congressional subpoena due to concerns over questions about potentially privileged information.
The back-and-forth is part of a broader struggle over the scope of the House Republican inquiry into Biden's age and mental fitness, with serious implications for both politics and policy. Republicans have also claimed that some policies carried out by the White House 'autopen' may be invalid if it is proven that Biden was mentally incapacitated for some part of his term.
Biden has strongly denied claims that he was not in a right state of mind at any point while in office, calling the claims 'ridiculous and false.'
The House Oversight Committee first requested O'Connor testify before the committee last July, but the Biden White House blocked his testimony. Comer renewed his request in May and later subpoenaed the doctor in June.
David Schertler, the attorney for O'Connor, in the letter said the committee is refusing to 'accommodate to any degree Dr. O'Connor's objections' over protecting privilege. He said the committee's decision was 'unprecedented' and 'alarming' and warned that it threatened broader principles around medical privacy.
Scherlter said O'Connor could face 'serious consequences' for violating his obligations as a doctor, including losing his medical license.
In a June subpoena of O'Connor, Comer said that claims of physician-patient privilege under the American Medical Association's code of ethics 'lack merit' because that code is not part of federal law. He said the committee's subpoena meets the AMA's own requirement that physicians must share a patient's medical information if 'legally compelled to disclose the information' or 'ordered to do so by legally constituted authority.'
Comer has promised that the committee will make all its findings public in a report after the inquiry has finished. He has subpoenaed O'Connor and Anthony Bernal, former chief of staff to former first lady Jill Biden. The committee last month heard voluntary testimony from Neera Tanden, former director of Biden's domestic policy counsel.
The committee has also requested the testimony of nearly a dozen former senior Biden aides, including former White House chiefs of staff Ron Klain and Jeff Zients; former senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn; former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed, former counselor to the president Steve Ricchetti, former deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini and a former assistant to the president, Ashley Williams.
The Trump White House has waived executive privilege, a principle that protects many communications between the president and staff from Congress and the courts, for almost 10 senior former Biden staffers. That move clears the way for those staffers to discuss their conversations with Biden while he was president.
While the privilege can apply to former staffers, the decision of whether to waive it is decided by the sitting administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Days Away From Securing His Questionable Air Force One Jet From Qatar
President Donald Trump is days away from getting a $400 million 'gift' from a foreign nation. The U.S. government is expected to finalize an agreement with Qatar next week to receive a Boeing 747 aircraft to be used as Air Force One, The Washington Post reported Friday. A July 7 communication reviewed by The Post and signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for Defense Affairs Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, confirms that Qatar will give the 'donation' to the Department of Defense. The deal, months in the making, raises legal, ethical and national security concerns. While the U.S. Constitution forbids anyone holding public office from accepting gifts from foreign governments without approval from Congress, Republicans have largely shrugged off the deal. 'Can't beat free,' Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) told reporters when asked about the offer in May. Trump, who has referred to the jet as a 'palace in the sky,' predictably feels the same way. 'Why wouldn't I accept a free gift?' Trump asked Fox News' Sean Hannity in May while aboard the current Air Force One. The ethical ramifications are so apparent that even the document reviewed by The Post appears to take extra effort to explicitly state that this isn't a bribe. 'Nothing in this [memorandum of understanding] is, or shall be interpreted or construed as, an offer, promise or acceptance of any form of bribery, undue influence, or corrupt practice,' the document reportedly said. The jet would become the new presidential plane until the end of Trump's term before being turned over to Trump's presidential library foundation. However, even before it can be used, the U.S. Air Force will likely spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on renovating the plane — a process that could take years. Trump has made clear he'll accept 'gifts' from any nation willing to give them. At a White House meeting in May, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa jokingly told Trump he was 'sorry I don't have a plane to give you.' 'I wish you did,' Trump responded. 'I'd take it. If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane, I would take it.'
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Democratic Party's Brand Is Cooked
Voters have increasingly little faith in the Democrats, a new Wall Street Journal poll found, with the party reaching its lowest favorability rating in more than three decades. Voters overwhelmingly believe that Republicans are better able to handle key issues in Congress than Democrats. The survey found that the majority of voters, 63 percent, have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. Only 33 percent hold a favorable view. This is the most unpopular that Democrats have been according to Journal polls dating back to 1990. As President Donald Trump enacts an increasingly authoritarian agenda and provides little economic benefit to the average American, Democrats are hopeful anti-Trump backlash will give them a strong showing in the 2026 midterm election. While slightly more people expect to vote for Democrats next year than Republicans, according to the Journal poll, Democrats' overall favorability has only dropped since Trump took office. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who worked on the survey, told the Journal. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone's firm, which consulted for both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaigns, worked on the survey with Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio. According to the survey, voters think Republicans in Congress are more capable at handling the economy, inflation and rising prices, tariffs, immigration, 'illegal' immigration, the Russia-Ukraine war, and foreign policy. On the topic of 'illegal' immigration, 48 percent have their faith in Republicans and 24 percent choose Democrats. Democrats scored higher on health care and vaccine policy. Both parties tied at 37 percent on the issue of looking out for middle class families. 'As much as I fully believe that Democrats are not doomed for all eternity, I also believe that many Democrats aren't quite grappling with the serious credibility problems the party still faces,' Democratic operative Tré Easton posted on X. 'The podcasts and everything are real cute, but we've got work to do.' Democrats also scored low in a Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month. In that survey, approval of congressional Democrats reached a new low of 19 percent, with 72 percent of voters saying they disapproved. 'This is a record low since March 2009 when the Quinnipiac University Poll first began asking this question of registered voters,' the university wrote. The Quinnippiac poll found that even registered Democrats disapproved of the party: Thirty-nine percent approved of how Democrats in Congress were handling their jobs, while 52 percent disapproved. Among registered Republicans, 77 percent approved of how Republicans are operating in Congress. In the findings from the Journal, voters are mixed on Trump. About half, or 55 percent, of voters say the country is headed in the wrong direction. This is down from 70 percent in January, meaning voters have become more optimistic since Trump took office, yet Trump is not wildly popular. He has a favorability rating of 45 percent, and an unfavorability rating of 52 percent. A total of 46 percent approve of what Trump is doing as president, and 52 percent disapprove. Fifty-three percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, while 44 percent approve. On the issues of inflation, tariffs, immigration, looking out for middle class families, health care, vaccine policy, foreign policy, and the Russia-Ukraine war, voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing. On the topic of 'illegal' immigration, though, 51 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. The Republican Party is not wildly popular either, though, with 54 percent of voters having an unfavorable view, compared to the 43 percent who have a favorable view. More from Rolling Stone Trump Claims Someone May Have Forged His Signature on Birthday Letter to Epstein I Worked With Stephen Colbert. Here's Why His Cancellation Should Scare You Yes, America Is an Oligarchy Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Law enforcement's response to fatal shooting of state lawmakers raises questions
Law enforcement's response to the June 14 shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses is raising new questions. The Minnesota Star Tribune (MST) examined the timeline of events and found several instances in which law enforcement made unsettling decisions. On June 14, state Sen. John Hoffman, 34, DFL, and Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL, along with their spouses, were shot in their respective homes. Hoffman and his wife were wounded, but survived, while Hortman and her husband were killed. Despite knowing that a suspect — later identified as Vance Boelter — was impersonating an officer and had targeted a politician, law enforcement took 10 hours to alert lawmakers to the potential danger, according to MST. Following the shooting that wounded Hoffman and his wife, a New Hope police officer who was self-dispatched to the home of state Sen. Ann Rest, DFL, allegedly came in contact with Boelter. According to MST, Boelter did not respond to requests from the officer, who then drove away to check on Rest. However, the officer's interaction with the suspect was not immediately reported, according to MST. Additionally, the outlet alleges that Brooklyn Park police encountered the gunman at the Hortmans' home and saw him shoot Mark Hortman in the doorway before firing at the suspect. The gunman then went inside the home and additional gunfire was seen inside the house, according to MST. MST also claims that some police officers and legislators were not fully aware of the threat for several hours. Boelter was indicted on six federal charges in connection with the shootings, including the attempted shooting of Hope Hoffman. The maximum penalties for the charges include life in prison or death, according to the DOJ. "Vance Boelter planned and carried out a night of terror that shook Minnesota to its core," Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson said in a statement. "He carried out targeted political assassinations the likes of which have never been seen in Minnesota. We grieve with the Hortman family and continue to pray for the recovery of the Hoffmans. Today, a grand jury indicted Boelter with the most serious of federal charges for these heinous political assassinations. Let me be clear: Boelter will see justice." Fox News Digital reached out to Brooklyn Park Police and New Hope Police outside of office hours and did not receive a response from either department in time for publication.
