[RoosterRedux]

I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding.

Under U.S. law, the autopen has been deemed a legally valid method for a president to sign documents, provided that the president has authorized its use. This was confirmed in 2005 by the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush and has been used by multiple administrations.

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.

[Ann Archy]

No....he ACTUALLY HAD TO PHYSICALLY SIGN THEM!!

[Steven Tyler]

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

[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.

[chaosagent]

In Biden’s case, proving or disproving that in court would be extremely difficult.

Why?

Start with the fact that Mike Johnson said that when he asked Biden why he had signed a EO halting all LNG exports, Biden had no idea that he had signed such an EO or why he would do it.

Start there.