Biden's Autopen and What Should Be Done About It

[7thson]

This past week, I have read online and watched on FNC the story of an Autopen used during the 4 years of Biden occupying the White House.

What I would like to see done, is to have the DoJ charge just one person that was granted immunity under the Autopen E.O. Bring up charges, start taking that person to trial. Then when the Dems start gnashing their teeth and rendering their clothes, President Trump and the DoJ can have a press brief explaining that by being signed by an autopen, all those E.O. are unConstitutional, and null and void. Let's see how this plays out.

[Steven Tyler]

Correct, because the guy looking into his documents case declared he is a vegatable, not fit for trial, deposition pointless

[cgbg]

Exactly—the court system is set up so that smart criminals win.

Only the dumb ones get caught.

[I-ambush]

[”directing a subordinate”

OK—but where is the proof that the subordinate had been directed to sign in a specific instance.

The details are critical here.]

The case to be made is that Biden was incapable of directing his subordinates because of his profound dementia; therefore, his family members directed that they should be pardoned, along with others who could implicate them in the family graft scheme.

[Sirius Lee]

But it is completely unconstitutional and void if the President is somewhere else and some other person is using the autopen to sign his name, even if the President authorized that person to do so.

There was a report yesterday that pedojoe was absolutely not present - on vacation or visiting another state - when at least four EOs were signed with autopen.

[bert]

Any document not physically signed by the President is invalid.

The Biden Presidency simply never existed

[Fury]

Re: 16 - that doesn’t matter. He could have directed EOs and pardons be executed previously.

Much ado about nothing unless Biden himself says “I didn’t authorize that being signed”.

[ChronicMA]

has the official presidential portrait of the autopen been completed yet?

[nagant]

First you would need to study all of the presidential edicts signed by autopen.

[bert]

You are correct except the examination should be ALL official documents that are unsigned

I maintain that none of the documents are signed and therefore, there are no official Biden Administration documents

[anton]

There is also the issue of compos mentis. In the face of the DOJ decision that he wasn’t culpable on the classified documents case, I would think he might have to prove Compos Mentis to sustain the documents signed during at least the period of his administration after the DOJ determination of incompetence.

[dp0622]

hey, he defeated medicare, give the guy a break :)

[vpintheak]

We know what should be done. But nothing will be done. Once the beta-cucks refused to look into Bathhouse Barry’s real background; I knew without a doubt there is a uniparty.

[DiogenesLamp]

Using an autopen is fine, if the President is physically in the room and is using the autopen simply to avoid writer’s cramp or something. But it is completely unconstitutional and void if the President is somewhere else and some other person is using the autopen to sign his name, even if the President authorized that person to do so. The reason is obvious: Without the President in the room when the autopen is used, there is no way to verify that his signature is actually being used with his consent and permission.

That’s the critical distinction that is being missed in most discussions about this.

You have hit the nail on its head.

[DiogenesLamp]

The key factor isn’t the physical signature but whether the president actually approved or intended to authorize the document, whether by signing it himself or approving the use of the autopen. In Biden’s case, proving or disproving that in court would be extremely difficult.

Not so difficult. When Mike Johnson asked Biden about his suspension of LNG exports, Biden said "I didn't do that."

Biden will not remember the vast majority of that crap signed in his name, and that is easily demonstrated.

[DiogenesLamp]

President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.

The Constitution does not say any such thing. That is all *OPINION* put forth by lawyers who likely never considered the current predicament where nobody knows if Biden was even aware that things were being signed in his name.

As Mike Johnson demonstrated, Biden was completely unaware that he had suspended LNG exports. He said "I didn't do that."

Someone on his staff sure did.

[DiogenesLamp]

Much ado about nothing unless Biden himself says “I didn’t authorize that being signed”.

He said something very close to that when Mike Johnson asked him why he suspended LNG shipments to Europe.

Biden's answer was "I didn't do that!" Johnson informed him, "Yes you did".

Mike Johnson said that was when he realized Biden's staff had been signing everything in his name without Biden's knowledge.

[The Duke]

It seems like I recall hearing a few years ago that the President’s auto-pen can be used remotely(?)

[RoosterRedux]

The autopen didn’t exist when the Constitution, including Article I, Section 7, was ratified. So, of course its application requires legal interpretation.

In 2005, President George W. Bush sought a DOJ opinion on whether the autopen could be used to sign bills into law. The DOJ concluded it was constitutional, but Bush never used it for this purpose.

[Vaduz]

Recall the computer program a few years ago the when you spoke it printed it.
Imagen what it would print if Biden spoke.

[JCM]

I voted for him in ‘92. I had to write in his name, but I could not vote for HW because I did not trust his ‘stand’ on abortion.