Former Biden aide confesses to limited contact with then-president despite defending mental sharpness

Imagine defending someone’s mental fitness on national television, only to admit under oath that you’ve barely met the man. That’s the eyebrow-raising revelation from Ian Sams, a former spokesman for the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, whose testimony has sparked fresh questions about transparency in the previous administration, as Just the News reports.

This story boils down to Sams confessing to congressional investigators that he had minimal interactions with President Joe Biden, despite publicly vouching for the president’s cognitive health, while the House Oversight Committee probes an alleged cover-up of Biden’s mental decline and the questionable use of an autopen for official documents.

Let’s start at the beginning: during Biden’s tenure, public appearances were often marked by stumbles, memory lapses, and speech that left even supporters wincing. The administration kept the president largely out of the press’s reach, fueling speculation — especially among conservatives — that something was being hidden. It was a slow burn of concern that eventually erupted.

Uncovering hidden truths

Fast forward to Biden’s debate performance, which was so shaky and disjointed that it led to his exit from the presidential race. Republicans had long raised alarms about his mental capacity, and this moment seemed to validate years of pointed questions.

Enter then-special counsel Robert Hur, whose report on Biden’s handling of classified documents after his vice presidency didn’t just critique policy — it delivered a brutal assessment of the president’s mental sharpness. Released in February, the report added fuel to an already blazing fire of doubt.

After Biden left office, House Oversight Committee chair James Comer launched a full-scale investigation into how senior officials might have obscured the president’s condition. Comer’s team is also digging into whether an autopen was used without proper authorization to sign executive orders and pardons in Biden’s final months. It’s the kind of detail that makes you wonder who was really running the show.

Minimal contact, maximum claims

Now, let’s talk about Ian Sams, who testified before Comer’s committee on Thursday. He admitted to meeting Biden only four times — two in-person chats, one virtual meeting, and a single phone call. For someone who spoke with such confidence about the president’s mind, that’s a shockingly thin resume of interaction.

Chairman Comer didn’t hold back, noting, “Ian Sams frequently spoke publicly and with apparent authority about President Biden’s mental fitness.” But let’s unpack that: how do you claim insight with barely a handful of encounters? It’s like reviewing a movie after watching the trailer.

Comer added, “Rather than drawing conclusions from firsthand experience, Mr. Sams received much of his direction from the White House Counsel.” That raises a polite but pointed question: was Sams a spokesman or just a mouthpiece for someone else’s script? Turns out, taking the stage doesn’t mean you know the plot.

Who was really in charge?

Comer’s third jab hits even harder: “Mr. Sams’s testimony raises serious questions about who is truly calling the shots in the White House.” If a key defender of Biden’s faculties barely saw him, then who was steering the ship — or at least signing the papers? Transparency isn’t just a buzzword; it’s a necessity.

The investigation isn’t stopping with Sams. Comer has subpoenaed Biden’s closest aides, including the White House physician and former chief of staff, though many have dodged questions about the president’s health. Stonewalling only deepens the suspicion that there’s more to uncover.

Then there’s Neera Tanden, former director of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, who told the committee she directed the use of an autopen but had no clue who gave the final nod. Like Sams, she too had scant direct contact with Biden, according to Comer. It’s a pattern that doesn’t exactly scream confidence in leadership.

Autopen mystery deepens intrigue

The autopen issue isn’t just a technicality — it’s a potential breach of trust. If Biden wasn’t signing critical documents himself, and aides can’t pinpoint who authorized the machine’s use, then the integrity of those final executive actions is in question. Americans deserve to know whose hand, or machine, was on the pen.

This entire saga paints a troubling picture of an administration that may have prioritized image over honesty. While progressive defenders might argue this is a partisan witch hunt, the facts — limited access, evasive aides, and mechanical signatures — suggest a deeper problem. Hiding behind closed doors rarely ends well.

In the end, Comer’s push for answers isn’t just about politics; it’s about accountability to the American people. If senior officials shielded Biden’s condition while decisions were made in the shadows, that’s a betrayal of public trust. And as this investigation unfolds, one thing is clear: the truth, however inconvenient, always finds a way to surface.