BREAKING NEWS Jill Biden's 'work husband' slapped with subpoena after snubbing Republicans demanding info on Joe's mental decline
Anthony Bernal, the longtime Biden aide nicknamed 'Jill's husband,' was slapped with a subpoena by Republicans after he missed Thursday's session to testify on former President Joe Biden 's mental health.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer issued a subpoena demanding Bernal appear on July 16 as part of his probe into aides' management of the former president.
Bernal was scheduled to appear before the committee on Thursday and Republicans accused him of refusing to appear.
But his allies pushed back against that accusation.
'Calling this a 'refusal' is misleading, when there was simply a request to reschedule the interview,' a person familiar with Bernal's interactions with the committee told DailyMail.com.
Bernal's refusal to appear came after President Donald Trump 's administration waived executive privilege for Bernal and other aides who were called to testify about the former president.
'With no privilege left to hide behind, Mr. Bernal is now running scared, desperate to bury the truth,' Comer said.
Executive privilege guarantees aides ability to speak frankly to a president by giving the president authority to withhold certain information from Congress. It is not unusual for one administration to waive it for another. Biden's administration, for example, waved it for Trump aides who were subpoenaed by Democrats on the special committee looking into the January 6th insurrection.
Comer's letter issuing the subpoena outlines a repeated back-and-forth between the committee and Bernal's lawyer over the date of his appearance.
'Yesterday, on June 25, your counsel informed the Committee that you were no longer willing to appear voluntarily for the transcribed interview on the agreed-upon date: today, June 26,' Comer wrote. 'To avoid any further delays, your appearance before the Committee is now compelled.'
Bernal has worked for the Bidens since Joe Biden served as vice president. He worked for Jill Biden in the East Wing when she was first lady. But he had an outsized influence over the couple and over White House operations.
He continues to work for them.
Michael LaRosa, Jill Biden's former press secretary who worked with Bernal, told Fox News that Bernal 'was probably the most power human inside the Biden's orbit and inside the White House.'
LaRosa later took to social media to weigh in on the situation.
'For Anthony's sake, I hope there is a shrewd legal strategy behind this move,' he wrote on X. 'Otherwise, it feels like a needlessly bonehead escalation that does a major disservice to Dr. B + 46. Media attention was largely focused elsewhere but now the alarm bells are deafening. Bad look for him and the Bidens.'
Comer and fellow Republicans are investigating whether senior Biden aides played any role in keeping quite concerns about the 82-year-old's mental health capacities.
The first Biden aide, Neera Tanden, appeared before lawmakers on Tuesday for a sworn deposition.
She told reporters afterward that there was 'absolutely not' any effort by aides to disguise Biden's mental state.
'I answered every question, was pleased to discuss my public service, and it was a thorough process, and I'm glad I answered everyone's question,' she said.
Comer, however, said Tanden revealed she was the one who controled access to Biden's autopen. Tanden, who served as staff secretary, said she had 'minimal interaction' with the president and sent numerous 'decision memos' to an 'inner circle' of White House advisers for approval.
'Her testimony raises serious questions about who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House amid the President's obvious decline,' he said.
But Tanden was not as personally close to Biden as Bernal, who had walk-in privileges for the Oval Office and the residence, the upper floors of the White House where the Bidens live. Very few aides - usually only the closest and most-trusted - have access to the residence.
Comer told Bernal in the letter that his testimony was particularly important.
'Given your close connection with both former President Biden and former First Lady Jill Biden, the Committee sought to understand if you contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden's fitness to serve from the American people,' he wrote.
Bernal is not the only person close to Biden to receive a subpoena.
Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who served as the former White House physician for Biden, has already been issued a subpoena to appear for testimony Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Has any government crashed as quickly as this one? Yes, and it's not even close...
Almost one year into the Starmer administration and the question is already being asked: has a government ever crashed so quickly? There's no denying the dismal poll ratings in which Labour now regularly runs behind Reform UK, the disappointing election results, mixed signals on the economy, U-turns, disarray in the parliamentary party and talk of 'regime change' (in No 10, not Tehran). There is obvious cause for Labour supporters to be disheartened, but some reasons to be cheerful too… How bad is the decline? It's not as bad as it looks. On the basis that, at the last general election, Keir Starmer converted Boris Johnson's 2019 Commons majority of 81 into a Labour overall majority of 174, it was indeed a stunning, historic performance – the best 'conversion' for any party since the Second World War. However, such a picture flatters to deceive. It was all done with fabulously tepid public support. Labour's vote share was 33.7 per cent, less than any other winning party in modern times, with only about one in five of the electorate expressing positive support. Starmer 's personal ratings were also modest as he went into the general election, certainly by comparison with, say, Tony Blair's stellar image in 1997. It's true that Labour poll ratings on the eve of the 2024 election were over-optimistic, and it's a little hazardous to compare real results with polls. But the overall point remains; Labour were never as loved as we might falsely imagine or discern from the eccentricities of the British electoral system. But is it still bad? Yes, in terms of a government emerging from a general election with a comfortable majority and sinking so low within a year of that result. But if we extend our timescale a little, it's also true that almost every such government suffers 'mid-term blues'. Blair's prolonged honeymoon after 1997 is a notable exception, and some administrations have gone into apparently terminal decline within about two to three years, but have recovered. The most spectacular post-war example would be how the Suez crisis in the autumn of 1956 wrecked Anthony Eden's government after he'd won an easy victory over Labour in May 1955. In that case, a change of leader helped preserve Tory rule the next time round. Another precipitous decline in reputation and standing – actually faster than Starmer's – followed John Major's election win in April 1992. His majority was slight (21 seats overall) but he'd beaten Labour by a solid seven percentage points. However, on 16 September 1992, 'Black Wednesday', sterling was forcibly ejected from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the Tory party's reputation for economic competence was shredded with it. An impressive economic recovery followed, but with little beneficial effect on the divided Tories' poll ratings. Even at the time, it looked like the die was cast for Labour's triumph in 1997. Slightly exceptional must be Boris Johnson's squandering of the historic achievement he enjoyed in 2019. He made his own share of mistakes – overpromising, underdelivering, Partygate, sleaze and misleading parliament – but the effect of the Covid pandemic on the economy also had something to do with his mostly self-inflicted fall from grace. After all, his personal ratings peaked during the vaccine rollout in 2021, and he was gone a year or so later when party and public lost patience with him. Which prime minister got it right? Margaret Thatcher. Her government, elected in May 1979, had a decent mandate but fell into deep economic trouble and disarray by 1981 in the depths of recession. She was rescued by a divided opposition, economic recovery, the 'Falklands factor' and a certain steadiness of nerve. A landslide followed in 1983. What about Labour governments? They don't win that many elections. A close analogy would be Harold Wilson 's second administration; he was also elected with a landslide – a majority of 97, in 1966 – but by 1968, the pound had been devalued, his economic planning policy was dead, and the government's popularity had collapsed, with historically bad local election and by-election results. However, Wilson and his chancellor, Roy Jenkins, took Reeves-style tough decisions and went through the 'hard slog' of tax rises and spending cuts to stage a formidable recovery. They still had to sacrifice major legislation to backbench revolts (reform of the Lords and the trade unions respectively), but were not far off winning the 1970 general election. Instead, the victor was a Tory leader most had written off as hopelessly bad at the job. Any other comforts for Labour? Well, Starmer is only the third Labour leader to win a general election, and he's already been in office longer than Liz Truss, who breaks all records for political dive-bombing (albeit some distance past the previous general election). Starmer will probably surpass Alex Douglas-Home's 363 days in No 10 (1963-64), and if he makes it to the next general election, he'll beat Johnson, Callaghan, Heath and May for time in office. He might even win again to complete his 'decade of renewal'. A volatile electorate, the intervention of Reform UK and the Tories' extreme weakness might throw up all sorts of surprises. History proves that economic success can sometimes yield dramatic post-nadir electoral dividends. It might happen. If so, by 2033 or 2034, Starmer could look back on his current travails as mere 'noises off'. But not yet.
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Iran denies any meeting with US next week, foreign minister says
DUBAI, June 26 (Reuters) - Iran currently has no plan to meet with the United States, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday in an interview on state TV, contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump's statement that Washington planned to have talks with Iran next week. The Iranian foreign minister said Tehran was assessing whether talks with the U.S. were in its interest, following five previous rounds of negotiations that were cut short by Israel and the U.S. attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. The U.S. and Israel said the strikes were meant to curb Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear programme is solely geared toward civilian use. Araqchi said the damages to nuclear sites 'were not little' and that relevant authorities were figuring out the new realities of Iran's nuclear programme, which he said would inform Iran's future diplomatic stance.
Sky News
22 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump-Iran live: 'Decisive' Iran strikes leave world 'much safer' - but ex-CIA director warns 'don't jump to conclusions' over damage
Donald Trump's press secretary has hailed the US strikes on Iran for making the world a "much safer place". She spoke after the defence secretary furiously defended the mission in the wake of an intel report that questioned its success. Follow live and listen to Trump 100 below.
