Timeline: The Autopen Debate
Key political and legal arguments through the years, and the documents behind them
Greg Collard Managing Editor at Racket News reports on Substack
The House Oversight Committee’s report, “The Biden Autopen Presidency,” can be broken down into two basic parts:
- Biden’s inner circle — or “politburo,” as the report characterizes it — worked like the two guys in Weekend at Bernie’s, constantly propping up the president to hide his declining cognitive condition from the public.
- As a result, Biden was often not in charge, thus the need for the administration to use the autopen multiple times.
The report reaches a conclusion that reads like a judicial ruling: Absent evidence that Biden made executive decisions, “the Committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void.” The report continues:
Barring evidence of executive actions taken during the Biden presidency showing that President Biden indeed took a particular executive action, the Committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void. The validity of the executive actions allegedly approved and signed (largely by autopen) by President Biden must be reviewed to determine whether legal action is necessary to ameliorate consequences of any illegitimate pardons granted, or executive actions implemented, throughout the Biden Autopen Presidency. The Committee finds numerous executive actions—particularly clemency actions—taken during the Biden Administration were illegitimate.
Attorney General Pam Bondi responded the morning the report was released, saying her team was reviewing Biden’s use of the autopen for pardons.
The Oversight Committee’s report focuses on “executive actions,” particularly Biden’s last-minute pre-emptive pardons of family members and characters such as Anthony Fauci.
A federal appeals court said in a 2024 ruling that a pardon or commutation doesn’t require a president’s signature as long as it can be demonstrated that the president made the decision. The Oversight Committee’s report tries to make the case that proof of Biden’s executive actions is missing.
The Biden White House’s executive decision-making procedures were so lax that the chain of custody for a given decision is difficult or impossible to establish. Documents that were used to predicate executive actions should be sufficiently traceable to ensure they reflect the will of the president. Instead, the Biden White House’s flimsy procedure appears to have been extremely vulnerable to abuse.
Interestingly, the committee’s report does not address legislation that was signed by autopen, even though the U.S. Constitution says presidents “shall” sign bills they approve. Still, courts have not ruled whether it’s legal to sign legislation with an autopen. In 2011, President Obama became the first president to “sign” legislation by autopen. The administration relied on a 2005 Justice Department opinion for its legal justification.
CONTINUE READING MORE OF RACKET NEWS’ TIMELINE OF EVENTS, CONTROVERSIES AND KEY DOCUMENTS COVERING “AUTOPEN.’….
Header featured image (edited) credit: Org. post content. Emphasis added by (TLB) editors
••••
••••
Stay tuned…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply