Senate Probes Biden White House: Who Was Really in Charge?

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans, led by Senators John Cornyn and Eric Schmitt, launched a high-stakes Judiciary Committee hearing to probe what they call a deliberate cover-up of former President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. The session, provocatively titled Unfit to Serve: How the Biden Cover-Up Endangered America and Undermined the Constitution, aims to unravel who was truly calling the shots during Biden’s presidency—a question that cuts to the heart of constitutional accountability.

Cornyn, speaking with his characteristic Texas gravitas, framed the hearing as a quest for transparency, spotlighting critical moments like the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal and the border crisis. "Who was running the show?" he asked, noting that unelected aides may have wielded unchecked power, sidestepping the Constitution’s safeguards. The inquiry draws fuel from Original Sin, a new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, which claims Biden’s inner circle orchestrated a narrative to mask his declining health.

The Republican duo called three witnesses: Theodore Wold, a former Trump administration official; Sean Spicer, ex-White House press secretary; and John Harrison, a legal scholar with Reagan-era roots. Wold and Harrison plan to zero in on Biden’s alleged use of an autopen—a device that mimics signatures—to sign documents, potentially dodging scrutiny that could have triggered the 25th Amendment. Spicer, meanwhile, will contrast the media’s kid-glove treatment of Biden with its relentless scrutiny of Trump, arguing that some outlets ignored glaring signs of Biden’s struggles.

Democrats, led by Sen. Dick Durbin, dismissed the hearing as a partisan stunt, arguing it squanders time better spent on pressing issues. Durbin’s team opted not to call witnesses, signaling their view that the probe lacks merit. On the other side, former President Trump has amplified the controversy, directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Biden’s aides abused the autopen to conceal his condition.

This hearing isn’t just about past decisions—it’s a reckoning with trust in governance. As the Senate digs into these murky waters, the question lingers: if the president wasn’t fully in command, who was? And what does that mean for the republic?