A former top White House advisor is slated to appear before House Oversight Committee investigators on Friday as GOP lawmakers probe whether ex-President Joe Biden’s top aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline.

Ashley Williams, who served as deputy director of Oval Office Operations during the Biden administration, is expected to sit with investigators behind closed doors for a transcribed interview around 11 a.m. Friday.

If she appears, Williams will be the third member of the former president’s White House inner circle summoned in Comer’s probe in recent weeks.

In addition to whether senior aides covered up Biden’s alleged decline, Comer is looking at whether any presidential orders were signed via autopen without the former commander-in-chief’s knowledge.

Any allegations of wrongdoing so far have been denied by the ex-president’s allies.

But Republican investigators have pointed to Biden’s disastrous June 2024 debate and subsequent revelations in the media that there were more concerns from Biden’s inner circle about his fitness for office than previously known.

Williams was one of three then-Biden aides called before Comer’s House Oversight Committee in July 2024 to discuss the former president’s mental state, but the White House at the time called it a ‘baseless political stunt’ to NBC News.

Her expected appearance on Friday comes two days after ex-Biden White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor briefly sat down with investigators on Wednesday.

O’Connor’s encounter with the committee lasted roughly 30 minutes, with the doctor invoking the Fifth Amendment for all questions except his name.

‘It’s clear there was a conspiracy to cover up President Biden’s cognitive decline after Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s physician and family business associate, refused to answer any questions and chose to hide behind the Fifth Amendment,’ Comer said in a statement after O’Connor’s appearance.

‘Dr. O’Connor took the Fifth when asked if he was told to lie about President Biden’s health and whether he was fit to be President of the United States. Congress must assess legislative solutions to prevent such a cover up from happening again. We will continue to interview more Biden White House aides to get the answers Americans deserve.’

O’Connor’s lawyers said he did so out of concerns that House investigators would violate doctor-patient privilege.

‘This Committee has indicated to Dr. O’Connor and his attorneys that it does not intend to honor one of the most well-known privileges in our law – the physician patient privilege. Instead, the Committee has indicated that it will demand that Dr. O’Connor reveal, without any limitations, confidential information regarding his medical examinations, treatment, and care of President Biden,’ the attorney statement said.

‘Revealing confidential patient information would violate the most fundamental ethical duty of a physician, could result in revocation of Dr. O’Connor’s medical license, and would subject Dr. O’Connor to potential civil liability. Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden.’

The State Department informed U.S.-based employees on Thursday that it would soon begin laying off nearly 2,000 workers after the recent Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to move forward with mass job cuts as part of its efforts to downsize the federal workforce.

The agency’s reorganization plan was first unveiled in April by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to eliminate functions and offices the department considered to be redundant. In February, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing Rubio to revamp the foreign service to ensure that the president’s foreign policy is ‘faithfully’ implemented.

Employees affected by the agency’s ‘reduction in force’ would be notified soon, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Michael Rigas told employees in an email on Thursday.

‘First and foremost, we want to thank them for their dedication and service to the United States,’ Rigas said in the email.

‘Every effort has been made to support our colleagues who are departing, including those who opted into the Deferred Resignation Programs … On behalf of Department leadership, we extend our gratitude for your hard work and commitment to executing this reorganization and for your ongoing dedication to advancing U.S. national interests across the world,’ he added.

The department did not specify on Thursday how many people would be fired, but in its plans to Congress sent in May, it had proposed laying off about 1,800 employees of the 18,000 estimated domestic workforce. Another 1,575 were estimated to have taken deferred resignations.

The plans to Congress did not state how many of these workers would be from the civil service and how many from the foreign service, but it did say that more than 300 of the department’s 734 bureaus and offices would be streamlined, merged or eliminated.

Once affected staff have been notified, the department ‘will enter the final stage of its reorganization and focus its attention on delivering results-driven diplomacy,’ Rigas said in the email to colleagues.

The expectation is for the terminations to start as soon as Friday.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters earlier on Thursday that the only reason there had been a delay in implementing force reductions is because the courts have stepped in, as she said the mass layoffs would be happening quickly.

‘There has been a delay – not to our interests, but because of the courts,’ Bruce noted. ‘It’s been difficult when you know you need to get something done for the benefit of everyone.’

‘When something is too large to operate, too bureaucratic, to actually function, and to deliver projects, or action, it has to change,’ she said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

I wrote recently about the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions. Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by one as an ‘imperial judiciary’ model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson’s increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain cathartic purpose for the far-left Biden appointee.

‘I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do,’ Jackson told ABC News.

Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license. The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself.

Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the rebuke of Justice Amy Coney Barrett over what was described as ‘a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.’

‘We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,’ Barrett wrote. ‘We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.’

Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day. 

She is not alone. Across the country, liberal judges have been adding their own commentary to decisions in order to condemn Trump, his supporters, and his policies.

I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who previously presided over Trump’s election interference case, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at ‘a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.’ That ‘one person’ was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.

Later, Chutkan again added her own commentary when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning January 6 defendants. She acknowledged that she could not block the pardons, but proclaimed that the pardons could not change the ‘tragic truth’ and ‘cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.’

One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, ‘[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.’

Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6 defendants from the Capitol.

Last week, Mehta had a straightforward question of jurisdiction concerning a challenge to the denial of grants by the Trump administration. While correctly dismissing the challenge, Mehta decided to add his own commentary on Trump’s priorities and policies:

‘Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.’

For Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor were alone in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court’s decision on universal injunctions. To her credit, Justice Elena Kagan (who voted with Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent in the earlier case) voted with her conservative colleagues in rebuking Judge Brian Murphy in Boston.

Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy’s conflicting order and wrote the new order ‘clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.’

This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government. Sotomayor observed that the Trump order only directed agencies to plan for such downsizing and said that the courts could hardly enjoin such policy preparations in the Executive Branch.

However, Jackson could and would. 

The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views. We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice.

The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have long been a critic of what I called the era of ‘celebrity justices,’ where members seem to maintain political constituencies at public events. 

Such speeches not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric.

Judicial advocacy from the bench has been a concern since the founding. Article III can have a corrosive impact on certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes, avoiding political questions or commentary.

The ‘opportunity to tell people how I feel’ can become a slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds. The Court is not a cable show. The price of the ticket to being ‘one of nine’ is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you. 

Opinions must remain ‘opportunities’ to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.

A former White House physician is criticizing Kevin O’Connor after the ex-Biden administration doctor refused to answer questions by House Oversight Committee investigators earlier this week.

Dr. O’Connor, who served as White House physician to former President Joe Biden, sat down for a transcribed interview with committee staff and panel Chair James Comer, R-Ky., on Wednesday. The closed-door meeting lasted roughly 30 minutes, with O’Connor invoking the Fifth Amendment to all questions, save for his name.

His legal team said there were concerns the broad scope of Comer’s probe could force O’Connor into a position of risking doctor-patient confidentiality privileges. 

‘Well, you can’t do both,’ Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, a former White House doctor himself, told Fox News Digital in an interview afterward.

‘I mean, the Fifth Amendment is designed to keep him from incriminating himself in some type of, you know, criminal or unethical behavior. He’d already addressed the issue of patient-doctor privacy, or confidentiality, with the committee.’

He pointed out that O’Connor’s lawyers had already raised issues with patient-doctor confidentiality in a letter to the committee trying to get the interview delayed, but Comer pressed forward.

‘They had already let him know that in this particular case, because he had been subpoenaed, and it was a legal process, he’d been subpoenaed to testify before Congress in this closed session, that the patient-doctor privilege no longer applied,’ Jackson said. ‘And President Trump had waived presidential privilege. So it left him with nothing. Nothing to stand on except for pleading the Fifth.’

Before being elected to Congress, Jackson served as White House physician to both former President Barack Obama and current President Donald Trump.

Comer told reporters on Wednesday that Jackson played a key role in crafting questions for O’Connor. 

‘We have a lot of questions that we’ve prepared for this. We’ve consulted closely with Ronny Jackson, my colleague, who was the White House physician in the first Trump administration. We’ve consulted with a lot of people in the medical community, so there’s going to be a lot of medical questions that are asked,’ he told reporters before the transcribed interview.

He is investigating accusations that Biden’s former top White House aides covered up signs of his mental and physical decline while in office, and whether any executive actions were commissioned via autopen without the president’s full knowledge. Biden allies have pushed back on those claims.

‘The cover-up could not have happened without the assistance and the help of his personal physician, Kevin O’Connor,’ Jackson said. ‘I think that’s why he pled the Fifth, because he realized he was about to implicate himself as a key player in this cover-up.’

O’Connor’s lawyers have denied any implications of guilt.

Jackson said some of the questions he recommended to the committee would have surrounded any potential neurological concerns or cognitive tests while Biden was in office.

But many of those were left unasked, it appears, after O’Connor’s brief meeting with House investigators.

The doctor’s lawyers said O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds was not an admission of guilt, but rather a response to what they saw as an unprecedented investigatory scope that could have violated the bounds of patient-physician privilege.

‘This Committee has indicated to Dr. O’Connor and his attorneys that it does not intend to honor one of the most well-known privileges in our law – the physician patient privilege. Instead, the Committee has indicated that it will demand that Dr. O’Connor reveal, without any limitations, confidential information regarding his medical examinations, treatment, and care of President Biden,’ the attorney statement said.

‘Revealing confidential patient information would violate the most fundamental ethical duty of a physician, could result in revocation of Dr. O’Connor’s medical license, and would subject Dr. O’Connor to potential civil liability. Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden.’

Fox News Digital reached out to O’Connor’s lawyers for further comment.