Democrats Flee Biden Mental Health Hearing as GOP Calls It “An Admission of Guilt”
“Thank you to Senator Welch from Vermont for being here, leaving us with no other option than to take the boycotting of this hearing as an admission of guilt for their role in this crisis. We must not turn away from the search for answers.”
In a dramatic and politically charged moment on Capitol Hill, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee—save for one—refused to attend a hearing examining President Joe Biden’s mental acuity. Their absence prompted immediate backlash from Republicans, who accused them of stonewalling a serious inquiry into the president’s fitness to lead.
The hearing began with a pointed rebuke from the committee chair, Senator John Cornyn:
This morning, Democrat Senators refused to show up for a hearing on the cover-up of Joe Biden's mental decline
I wonder why? pic.twitter.com/ZDoJgTkQ3T
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 18, 2025
(Full transcript):
“I will note that few of my Democratic colleagues are here today. Thank you to Senator Welch from Vermont for being here, leaving us with no other option than to take the boycotting of this hearing as an admission of guilt for their role in this crisis. We must not turn away from the search for answers.”
Only Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) was present among Democrats when the gavel dropped, leaving GOP members to dominate the room and drive the message.
Livestreams from The Hill and AOL News showed rows of empty chairs where Democratic senators would normally sit, amplifying Republican messaging that Democrats are dodging accountability.
Despite being the only Democrat in attendance at the beginning, according to the Guardian, Senator Welch tried to turn it on Republicans:
“What has this Senate debated in the months that we’ve been here, other than nominations? Have we discussed the possible war with Iran? Have we had a serious discussion on the floor about the massive mounting debt?” Welch asked.
“I’m going to tell you what I think is a cover-up. I think this ‘big, beautiful bill’, done by reconciliation, whereby the decision of the majority, not a single member of the minority, who represents half of the citizens of this country, can even be in the room when the terms and the policies are being debated. We are not there.”
Even as most Democrats stayed away, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who chairs the committee, made a surprise appearance—not to defend Biden, but to pivot the conversation toward President Donald Trump. In a move that stunned the chamber, Durbin played a supercut video of Trump’s own verbal flubs and mental stumbles.
According to Mediaite, the edited video included moments such as Trump struggling with names, losing his train of thought mid-sentence, and fumbling with the papers of a recently signed trade deal. Durbin argued the double standard was glaring, stating:
“But instead of exercising this constitutional oversight duty, my Republican colleagues are holding this hearing. Apparently, armchair diagnosing former President Biden is more important than the issues of grave concern, which I have mentioned.”
Durbin later exited the hearing without taking questions, leaving Republicans to accuse him of deflection and further politicizing an already contentious issue.
Despite the theatrics, Republicans continued pressing their argument that Biden’s aides and doctors are shielding the public from the truth. Without Democrats present to challenge witnesses or introduce counter-evidence, the hearing proceeded uninterrupted, though it was clear the partisan divide over Biden’s health is only deepening.
The question now isn’t whether Biden’s mental acuity is a legitimate concern—it’s whether any Democrat in Washington is willing to address it with both candor and consistency.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Turban Durbin can’t leave the senate and depart the mortal coil fast enough. Either would be acceptable.
As for discussing Brandon’s mental health or lack thereof is there a purpose to it? What is the endgame? Is there one and if so what is it?
To void the pardons and any laws that were signed by autopen.
How would they do that? Can they do that? I;m not saying they shouldn’t I just want to know how?
This is he first step.
They could do it If and only if they can prove that Biden either did not authorize a specific pardon and/or the signing of a specific law, or that he was not competent at the moment he did so. I don’t believe they can prove that with sufficient specificity, but they should definitely be looking in that general area, and the inquiry might lead to some useful legislation to handle a similar situation arising in future.
Got it. Thanks.
This essentially! And it is a very serious issue because if Biden was not mentally competent then it calls into question the legality of basically everything his name was used to sign off on.
And where in the Constitution does it state that the President of the United States needs to be or is required to be “mentally competent” to perform the functions of the office. If such a requirement is there I certainly can’t find it.
It doesn’t need to state it. An act by a person incompetent to carry out that act is a nullity. If a demented person sells his house the sale is automatically void; why would the same not be true for signing a bill or for issuing a pardon?
The problem is proving it. I don’t see how that can ever be done, but the senate should certainly be making the effort.
Answer: it’s the basic premise of all contract law.
I’m sure some enterprising journalist could put together an edited tape of Durbin’s fumbles and missteps–it’s not hard to make him look the fool.
This would be true of anyone; we all misstep, misspeak and fumble words on occasion.
By the way, where are my car keys?
On top of your head, next to your glasses.
A few things coming out of this that I think would be beneficial: The VP and cabinet are the only people who can initiate the 25th Amendment. Was the 25th Amendment ever explored for Joe Biden? The process needs to be re-examined.
1) Under SOX a CEO must sign off on the accuracy of financial reporting. I recommend that the President’s doctor under penalty of law must sign off on the president’s health as well as perform immediate reporting to Congress a significant health risk to the president that may potentially result in disability to perform the duties of the president.
2) Section 4 of the 25th Amendment limits invocation to the VP and majority of Cabinet. That section needs to be modified to allow the Congress the ability to invoke Section 4.
3) The Vice President and all cabinet members swear to uphold the Constitution, which includes the 25th Amendment. There are no penalties for failing to uphold their Constitutional duty.
Pete Welch should just sit down and be quiet. Obamacare was passed in the dead of night with ZERO Republican votes (and YES, Pete, they represented HALF of the country), no chance for a reading (Nasty Pelousy: “…have to read the bill to find out what’s in it…”), and just before the Christmas break so no debate could be held.
Rather: “you have to PASS the bill to find out what’s in it.”
The Judiciary Committee should just rule that all EO’s signed by Biden’s autopen are null and void. That might get a few Dems to participate.
They should but I’m not sure what that would accomplish other than media hits.
The judiciary committee can’t “rule” anything about anything.
Congress can’t “rule” anything about anything either. Ruling is for courts alone.
But Congress can certainly inquire into the facts and look for evidence that can then be taken to court, or can form the basis for legislation.
Aside from the autopen issue, how can any thinking person not want to know who was running the coutry the last 4 years, was it a coup AND whether any changes are needed to the 25th Amendment to keep this from ever happening again. I think that a criminal investigation is needed, not just some congressional hearings, especially with respect to the billions shoveled out the door at the end of Bidem’s term.
The autopen itself is not an issue at all. There is no question that a president who is competent and alert, and has decided to sign a bill, may do so by instructing an aide to use the autopen rather than by signing it himself. And pardons don’t even need to be signed, so the autopen can’t possibly be a problem.
The issue is whether the president did order the use of the autopen to sign bills, and did order the pardons and orders to be issued, and if so whether he was competent at the time. Those questions have to be asked and answered separately for each individual bill, pardon, and order.
Certainly future laws can be written that either limit the use of Autopen for official signatures or that there is a form of authentication and logging of its use by the president.
Example, using the autopen requires biometric authentication by the President and every signature is scanned and logged.
Or the President must personally authorize via memorandum the specific uses of the Autopen,
We should force the president to use SmartGun™ technology in his autopen.
“If it saves 0nly one… whatever.”
I like the idea of biometric authorization coupled with videotaping of each signing. The videotaping must be made public. This wouldn’t have prevented a demented biden from signing but it would have prevented a power hungry dr jill from signing on his behalf.
I hate to disagree with Milhouse, who knows everything, but Secton 7 of Article 1 of the Constitution says that with respect to bills passed by Congress, in order to become law, “. . .he [the President] shall sign it. . . .” The autopen is not the President. Any bill signed by an autopen is not law. Even if the President told some flunky to use the autopen.
Sorry, you’re wrong. It’s a general principle of law that a signature by proxy is a valid signature. There’s no exception for the president. When the autopen is used to sign a bill, with the president’s conscious and willing authority and in his presence, he has signed it.
Cornyn is trying to fool the rubes again because he’s down in the polls. Hopefully, enough GOP voters in TX have recognized that Cornyn is a Uniparty loser.
For a political party that talks so much smack about getting in people’s faces, the Dems sure do spend a lot of time hiding under their beds.
The king may behead them, hence the cowardice of dandys.
What committee does Dick Durbin chair? He’s a DemoncRat, and far as I know, the DemoncRats are a minority in the Senate. Hence, they do not chair any committees.
This is obviously true. It’s a stupid mistake by a careless LI writer. Durbin obviously isn’t the committee’s chairman, he’s its ranking member.
Normally, when the Democrats are against something the Republicans want, they fight. They disrupt the proceedings, make loud accusations, pose and preen for the cameras.
But this they run away from. They’re terrified!
The hearing is necessary to determine Biden’s mental incapacity. If they can prove he was unaware of the use of the multiple auto pens in his name, it’s game over. It won’t convince demonrat voters, but it will cement the MAGA voter coalition.
That the Dems are trying to memory hole Biden’s mental state while President and doing their best not to find out who used that autopen shows they care about power more than the country.
A hearing on Obama’s birth certificate would have both republicans and democrats fleeing. Some lies are too massive to ever admit.
That’s because there’s nothing to hear. Anyone who still believes the birth certificate is fake is a blithering idiot, even less competent than Biden, and belongs in a straitjacket, not in the senate.
On a previous occasion Henry Bowman set you straight about this. The same people who installed a tailor’s dummy as president fabricated much of the bent, black messiah’s background
No he didn’t. There are simply no facts whatsoever on the side of those making these allegations. They’re the same lunatics who claim the moon landings were faked, the earth is flat, and the four humors theory is still valid.
I don’t know whether it’s fake or not. I do know there were plenty of irregularities stated about it, obamaramas ss card, and his general background to raise questions, At this point it doesn’t matter,
There are no irregularities about his SS card either. It’s all made up by paranoid idiots.
If I recall correctly, forensic questioned documents experts have reported that the “long form” birth certificate, which surfaced after the short form one was impeached, was constructed from many other forms and is unreliable.
No experts have ever “reported” that. The people who have “reported” it are not experts at anything. They are nothing but paranoid lunatics.
“Republicans continued pressing their argument that Biden’s aides and doctors are shielding the public from the truth.…”
Uh, no. Biden’s aides and doctors are trying to shield Biden’s aides and doctors—i.e., themselves—from having the public find out the truth about them.
If say in a year or two President Trump shows a misstep the Democrats won’t be able to get into a hearing on this fast enough.
Look, it was obvious in 2019 when he was running to anyone who’s ever even been around the elderly, such as volunteering in a nursing home, let alone anyone who’s lived with an aging parent or grandparent.
Biden wasn’t fit to lead and an unelected group of people was leading the executive branch. That is criminal and I want blood, period.
First, the Congress cannot draft bills that remove or rescind the powers of the presidency from a mentally incapacitated person or to give Congress oversight of executive function over such a person — that would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Second… Biden is no longer president.
So it is safe for Republicans to stick their heads out of their holes and beat their collective chests in a meaningless performance that is meant only to solicit donations. And the only people impressed with this are the same people who enjoy watching YouTube videos of Sen Hawley or Sen Kennedy “destroying” liberals in hearings. Yet neither of those two ever proposed legislation to back up their words; they always vote for DC’s interests at the end of the day..
Suspected mental incompetence should be accepted as grounds for impeachment. That would probably require a constitutional amendment.
I’m not all that certain the fact that Biden is no longer President in any way protects him from responsibility for acts he performed (or failed to perform) when he was President, and I certainly am not willing to say that a purported pardon signed by a machine cannot be questioned legally.
For example let’s suppose the Trump Department of Justice decided to test the issue and brought charges against someone Biden purportedly pardoned. At some point in the trial or during pre-trial proceedings the accused says, “You can’t try me, I was pardoned” and proffers the purported pardon in bar to trial. As the proponent of the evidence, it is his burden to show the authenticity of the document.
If the document carried the wet signature of the President, that would probably suffice, but in this case the Prosecutor says, “That is not President Biden’s signature. In fact, it is identical to “signatures” fabricated by an autopen. Thus, the presumption of regularity is not available since the basis for the presumption is that it was in fact signed in the regular course of business.” That would force the accused to prove by evidence independent of the signature that the signature was affixed at the direction of President Biden or that he — not an autopen — actually signed the document.
This would not be the first time an artificial signature was challenged in court, and there are rules of proof used in such cases to determine whether the artificial signature is accepted as legally binding. Suppose the pardon fails those standards. Better yet, suppose the preponderance of the evidence is that Biden was not involved at all, what happens now?
Pardons don’t need to be signed.
And there’s a strong presumption that a pardon purportedly by the president is in fact from him. But yes, the prosecution could challenge that presumption and claim the president did not authorize that pardon. It would have to prove it, though.
The proponent of evidence has the burden to prove authenticity.
While it’s true that pardons do not legally need to be signed, it is easier to establish authenticity if they are signed with a wet signature; but with an artificial signature it can make proving authenticity much harder since the presumption of administrative regularity may not be available and the proponent would have to present actual evidence of some sort.
Even as most Democrats stayed away, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who chairs the committee
news to Sen Cornyn
Poorly-done drama and theatrics.
Again…
will the be jailed like bannon and navvaro were!!!??!!!!!!
fjb was in fact the perfect representation of the left
given his position of power not b/c of merit but b/c of skin color>>>cheating
the typical lefty way of by any means necessary
he is their hero and they are right to run from any hearings b/c once again it would just expose ( with the correct questioning) their meritless based agenda