Biden White House doctor Kevin O’Connor referred for investigation of ex-prez health cover-up — could lose license
- Thread starter FastLane
- Start date
QP!
Verified User
I can quote my words above as proof Biden took the test if all we need is someone saying it.
I have already provided proof that Trump SELECTS his Dr's, in the same way he selects all who work for him, based on their ability to go along with any lie he tells or any image he wants to spread.
You do not accept Kevin O'Connors statements just because he said them and NO ONE should accept any of Trump's Dr's.
christiefan915
Catalyst
"Frequent victories in golf events..." That tells us a lot about Barbarella; just another trump toady.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I asked you to respond to the links I posted, that are all current, and you've been ignoring me. We both know why.
QP!
Verified User
Of course they are.
The singular accomplishment of 99% of Trump Retribution Campaign against his perceived enemies will be to make them spend money on lawyers as those charges and cases fall apart.
There is nothing laudable in that, as every person is going to get a lawyer in such situations. That is a given.
QP!
Verified User
And i said Biden did the test 6 times and now i am saying he got 30 out of 30 each time.
So my proof is as good as yours. Statements without proof for the win!
QP!
Verified User
The very first test you get if you want to work for Trump in any area is if you believe the 2020 Election was rigged or not.
Any answer but affirming it was rigged means you will not work for Trump.
That is not because Trump and those around him truly believe it was rigged (only a tiny percent of the most stupid believe that), and is because it demonstrated to Trump that you will deny any reality for him, even the most reality.
If you will not lie for Trump, you will not work for Trump. FULL STOP.
christiefan915
Catalyst
And under oath big Bobby Bolinski said Biden was the “Big Guy,” did that prove a “conspiracy?”You are desperate.Anita Dunn admitted under oath that Biden's aides directed his care or lack there of for political reasons.
christiefan915
Catalyst
You say you're a doctor yet you think the Parkinson's specialist should give out privileged medical info? What about HIPAA?
The Parkinson's doctor already explained why he visited the WH. He's probably still doing it but we don't know because "the most transparent president in history" doesn't release visitor logs.
“Prior to the pandemic, and following its end, [Cannard] has held regular Neurology clinics at the White House Medical Clinic in support of the thousands of active-duty members assigned in support of White House operations,” his letter reads. “Many military personnel experience neurological issues related to their service, and Dr. Cannard regularly visits the WHMU as part of this General Neurology Practice.”
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
A medical doctor cannot legally refuse to answer a Congressional subpoena solely on HIPAA grounds.
Here's a clear explanation of why, grounded in U.S. law:
1. Congressional Subpoenas Override HIPAA in This Context
- HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) protects patient protected health information (PHI) from unauthorized disclosure by covered entities (e.g., doctors, hospitals).
- However, Congressional subpoenas are issued under the authority of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress broad investigative powers. Federal courts have consistently held that validly issued Congressional subpoenas compel compliance and supersede statutory privacy protections like HIPAA when the information is relevant to a legitimate legislative purpose.
- Key precedent: In re Grand Jury Subpoena (various cases) and Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund (1975) affirm that Congressional oversight trumps conflicting statutes unless a constitutional privilege (e.g., Executive Privilege) applies.
- HIPAA itself includes exceptions for disclosures required by law (45 CFR § 164.512(a)), which explicitly includes court orders and subpoenas. A Congressional subpoena qualifies as a "required by law" disclosure.
- There is no federal physician-patient privilege that applies to Congressional investigations (unlike some state laws or attorney-client privilege).
- The Supreme Court in McPhaul v. United States (1950) and related cases has upheld contempt charges for refusing valid subpoenas, with no carve-out for medical privacy.
Hope that helps, kitten.
Congress: Doctor O'Connor have you ever been asked to lie about Biden's mental health?
O'Connor: I plead the 5th.
Why didn't O'Connor just say no?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Here you go, tomcat.A medical doctor cannot legally refuse to answer a Congressional subpoena solely on HIPAA grounds.
Here's a clear explanation of why, grounded in U.S. law:
1. Congressional Subpoenas Override HIPAA in This Context
2. No Physician-Patient Privilege in Federal Law for Congress
- HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) protects patient protected health information (PHI) from unauthorized disclosure by covered entities (e.g., doctors, hospitals).
- However, Congressional subpoenas are issued under the authority of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress broad investigative powers. Federal courts have consistently held that validly issued Congressional subpoenas compel compliance and supersede statutory privacy protections like HIPAA when the information is relevant to a legitimate legislative purpose.
- Key precedent: In re Grand Jury Subpoena (various cases) and Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund (1975) affirm that Congressional oversight trumps conflicting statutes unless a constitutional privilege (e.g., Executive Privilege) applies.
- HIPAA itself includes exceptions for disclosures required by law (45 CFR § 164.512(a)), which explicitly includes court orders and subpoenas. A Congressional subpoena qualifies as a "required by law" disclosure.
- There is no federal physician-patient privilege that applies to Congressional investigations (unlike some state laws or attorney-client privilege).
- The Supreme Court in McPhaul v. United States (1950) and related cases has upheld contempt charges for refusing valid subpoenas, with no carve-out for medical privacy.
Hope that helps, kitten.
Search Assist
Yes, there have been instances where individuals, including government officials, have refused to answer questions during congressional hearings, often deflecting or evading inquiries. A recent example includes Attorney General Pam Bondi, who faced criticism for not directly answering questions posed by senators during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Instances of Evasion in Congressional Hearings
Notable Examples
- Pam Bondi's Hearing: During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Pam Bondi faced criticism for not answering questions posed by Democratic senators. Instead of providing direct responses, she often deflected and attacked the questioners personally.
- Adam Schiff's List: Senator Adam Schiff highlighted numerous questions that Bondi ignored or evaded, including inquiries about her approval of a $400 million jet gift to Trump and the dismissal of antitrust lawyers. Schiff emphasized the importance of accountability and demanded that the committee members insist on answers.
Common Tactics
- Deflection: Witnesses may redirect questions to unrelated topics or personal attacks.
- Combative Responses: Some officials adopt an aggressive tone, attempting to shift the focus away from the questions asked.
- Failure to Address Key Issues: Often, critical questions regarding ethics or legal justifications are left unanswered, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
Impact on Oversight
The refusal to answer questions can undermine the purpose of congressional hearings, which are intended to provide oversight and ensure government accountability. When officials evade questions, it can lead to frustration among lawmakers and the public, as well as a perception of a lack of transparency in government operations.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Doctors citing HIPAA, sweetie. Not "individuals".
Those poor nuns. I guess they did the best they could, but you fought them, didn't you? Learning is a two-way street, princess.
QP!
Verified User
christiefan915
Catalyst
We're talking about one individual here, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, lambchop.
Doctors citing HIPAA, sweetie. Not "individuals".
Those poor nuns. I guess they did the best they could, but you fought them, didn't you? Learning is a two-way street, princess.
HIPAA would not prevent him giving subpoenaed testimony before Congress nor would it prevent O'Connor from testifying about Biden's mental health. Same thing applies to court testimony.
