Congress Must Use Every Tool At Its Disposal To Uncover Biden DementiaGate Cover-Up

A constitutional law expert says Trump should do what Biden did: waive executive privilege to release Biden White House records.

Now that Jake Tapper and crew have had their epiphany about the meat puppet that periodically occupied the White House for the previous four years, it’s long past time congress find out who knew what and when about President Joe Biden’s addled mind.

The Republican-led House Oversight and Accountability Committee is preparing to hold hearings into what is shaping up to be the worst cover-up in U.S. presidential history.

Word this week that Biden has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer only underscores the necessity of multiple congressional investigations into who was actually running the White House as the president faded away before our eyes. While questions remain more than four and a half years later about who exactly elected Joe Biden president, one thing is certain: his stand-ins had no constitutional right to run the show.

“I want to know if he was actually the president of the United States. I want to know what actions are invalid. And then, of course, there are the constitutional questions that come into play,” Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., told me this week on The Federalist Radio Hour. “How do we address those things, if we can at all? And how do we make sure this never happens again?”

Despite the gaslighting from Tapper and his fellow corporate media hacks insisting that they were tricked about Biden’s cognitive decline, Ogles said the former president’s profound senility was evident early on. The congressman noted a disturbing exchange he had with Biden moments before his last State of the Union Address.

25th §4: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide…

expresses the supreme desire of the sovereign American people not to again suffer from an incapacitated President, having experienced that in the final times of Presidents Wilson and FDR, and also Cleveland during his secret cancer surgery.

Plan A, oversight by VP and principal officers [= these 15: Secretary of State Secretary of the Treasury Secretary of Defense Attorney General Secretarybod of the Interior Secretary of Agriculture Secretary of Commerce Secretary of Labor Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Secretary of Transportation Secretary of Energy Secretary of Education Secretary of Veterans Affairs Secretary of Homeland Security] strongly appears to have FAILED. The 25th provides a Plan B, bolded above. Thus it is Congresses DUTY to establish whether Plan A did in fact fail, which duty should include the power to overcome claims of executive privilege potentially covering up a merely alleged executive. If so established, Congresses NEXT DUTY should be to to devise some body to replace Plan A's. What I don't know, but it's their job.

If failure of Plan A is established then also becomes the question of what happens to the alleged actions by the incompetent executive. No precedent for acting (alas some for ignoring) on that at this level but there must be some precedent and case law at lower levels. Review it before opening that Pandora's Box. Don't forget classically Hope was found within that box.

“eyes on the ball. the big issue here is the immense use of auto pen.

Note Trump makes a bid deal about public signing with a big fat pen to avoid the issue.”
____________________________________________________________

Presidential signatures are required on hundreds of documents and correspondence each day, regardless of who holds the office. Trump doesn’t sign all of them by hand, and neither have other presidents since Roosevelt.

If you’re planning to contest those orders signed with an autopen, you will quickly run up against the “De Facto Officer Doctrine,” which gives those holding an office all the authorities of the office, even if they’re later found unqualified for office.

https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/reports/lglb124.pdf

“If failure of Plan A is established then also becomes the question of what happens to the alleged actions by the incompetent executive. No precedent for acting (alas some for ignoring) on that at this level but there must be some precedent and case law at lower levels. Review it before opening that Pandora’s Box. Don’t forget classically Hope was found within that box.”
____________________________________________________________

There’s no violation if the VP and cabinet don’t find any reason to invoke the 25th Amendment. That’s a discretionary act of judgement.

There is nothing to reverse the “actions by an incompetent executive,” particularly since he has not been found incompetent by his VP, Cabinet, or a court. In fact, the “De Facto Officer Doctrine” has controlled the law for the last 500 years (and yes, our Common Law system is a continuation of the English legal system in place before our revolution.)

VP and Cabinet certainly deserve some right to decide he's not too bad and so not act against POTUS. Yet as the country went to the highest possible effort - amending the constitution - to give them the unique power to potentially inactivate POTUS, there should be some responsibility, at least moral responsibility, to pull the trigger if they suspect a problem. No one else can currently save the country from a problem deemed worthy of amending the constitution. After all, theirs is just the first word, not the final word; they just start a complicated process under which Congress gets the final word and POTUS gets due process. And although theirs is currently the official word on competency, the sovereign people are also permitted their personal opinions. Given sufficient public opinion their voice deserves to be heard somehow. If it becomes clear the "officials" thought he was incompetent, yet they declined to act for purely political reasons, there might not exist formal judicial charges fitting their inaction, but those "officials'" reputations certainly would deserve to be well damned in the court of public opinion as going against the spirit of the 25th. I'd hope damned enough to keep them out of being offered future office. And if it could be shown they were bribed or extorted into inaction then criminal charges may fit. The one action the law clearly permits is for Congress to revise the process as plainly stated in 25th §4. Congress may specify a different process, which implies holding Congressional hearings, all the normal law making process. Which commonly would include reviewing the evidence if and why a new law was needed.

Part of the strength of our Constitution is that much of it can be fairly well understood by normal people, including me, without a law degree. The above should be understandable. Whatever the precedents are for dealing with incapacitated officials in statuary and common law I don't claim to know. I'd guessed it's happened sometime someplace and thus that some kind of precedent existed, so recommended looking there first. I also presumed the writers of the 25th researched this and decided precedent alone was inadequate for dealing with Presidential incompetence before writing and ratifying the 25th.

You appear to understand the precedent and I'm inclined to accept you. Changing the 25th now, then applying new rules to Biden would be ex post facto, legal jargon a school kid can find in the Constitution and come to understand. Unconstitutional and I understand why that should be so. Googling "De Facto Officer" I suspect is as poor a research base as googling issues within my own medical specialty, but it provides some info and I can see how it avoids chaos. One reason there should be open Congressional hearings to consider revising the 25th §4 process is the public can be educated via hearings and debates and thus better accept whatever the final result becomes. Are there any De Facto Presidential actions taken without Joe Biden's participation that can be changed? Does it matter whether the De Facto actions were taken with good intent to avoid chaos or whether some were done in malicious will to cause KAOS? Understanding the limits of what can be changed and why will help us cope with the results. And if someone can dream up a better way to manage such messes going forward, an open process is more likely to gather enough support to accomplish it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.