Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt has dropped a bombshell theory that could rewrite the narrative of the Biden presidency.
The Washington Examiner reported that in a fiery discussion on Fox News’s The Ingraham Angle, Schmitt speculated that former first lady Jill Biden might have been the one calling the shots while President Joe Biden struggled with what he calls a profound inability to serve.
“This was, I think, a scandal bigger than Watergate,” Schmitt declared, comparing the situation to the historical precedent of President Woodrow Wilson’s incapacitation over a century ago.
Well, if history is repeating itself, it’s doing so with a modern twist—and a lot less press scrutiny, according to the senator. One has to wonder if the public was left in the dark while critical decisions were made behind closed doors.
Schmitt pointed to Wilson’s 1919 stroke, after which first lady Edith Wilson reportedly downplayed her husband’s condition while he recovered. The parallel, he argues, is striking, suggesting Jill Biden could have played a similar role during her husband’s alleged cognitive decline.
Adding fuel to the fire, Rep. Ronnie Jackson of Texas echoed Schmitt’s historical analogy, noting that Edith Wilson kept her husband’s condition “hidden” from public view.
Jackson even speculated that Biden’s doctor, Kevin O’Connor, might have been complicit in obscuring the truth, given his close ties to the Biden family. That’s a serious charge, and it raises questions about who, if anyone, was guarding the guardrails of accountability.
Congressional Republicans are now digging deep into what they call a cover-up of Biden’s mental state, with Schmitt insisting that the American people “deserve to know” who was truly in charge.
Whistleblowers have claimed Biden couldn’t even locate the Oval Office bathroom—a detail that, if true, paints a troubling picture of leadership. For a nation that elects one person to helm the ship, this kind of uncertainty is a bitter pill to swallow.
The investigation isn’t just about past events; it’s also looking at tangible evidence like the use of Biden’s autopen for signing documents. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has suggested that laws signed via autopen might not even be valid if Biden was unaware of his own signature. That’s not just a procedural quibble—it’s a potential legal earthquake waiting to happen.
Meanwhile, Sen. Josh Hawley, also from Missouri, is pushing for internal records to confirm whether Biden authorized autopen use for pardons and clemency grants.
Testimony from Theodore Wold in a recent Senate hearing emphasized that there “should be a record” of what the president signed and when he consented. If those records don’t exist or paint a murky picture, the fallout could be monumental.
Schmitt previewed the next steps, noting that Senate Republicans plan to seek documents from an archivist tasked with maintaining a paper trail of presidential actions. It’s a move aimed at uncovering hard evidence of who was steering the ship during Biden’s tenure. One can only hope this pursuit of clarity doesn’t get bogged down in partisan mudslinging.
Turning his sights on the press, Schmitt didn’t hold back, accusing them of ignoring Biden’s struggles to prevent a certain former president from reclaiming the White House.
Yet, he argues, the public wasn’t blind—video footage of Biden’s difficulties spoke louder than any headline. It’s a fair point: in an age of instant media, how did such a story slip through the cracks for so long?
The senator’s frustration is palpable when he calls Biden’s inability “on full display” for anyone paying attention. If the press prioritized narrative over truth, as Schmitt suggests, then trust in the media takes another hit. That’s a loss for every American, regardless of political stripe.
Schmitt also tied the alleged cover-up to broader policy failures, blaming “left-wing radicals” for open borders, inflation, and inconsistent foreign policy under Biden’s watch.
While the rhetoric is sharp, it’s a reminder that leadership—or the lack thereof—has real-world consequences. The question remains: Who was minding the store while these decisions unfolded?
Looking forward, Schmitt is adamant that accountability must be the endgame, stating, “We gotta make sure people are held accountable and this never happens again.” It’s a noble goal, though the path to achieving it feels fraught with political landmines. Still, ensuring mechanisms exist to address such crises is a cause worth championing.
The investigation’s scope, from autopen signatures to historical comparisons, underscores a deeper concern about the integrity of democratic processes. If a president is incapacitated and the public is none the wiser, the very foundation of representative government is at risk. That’s not hyperbole—it’s a call to vigilance.