Trump Declares Biden’s J6 Pardons ‘Void, Vacant, and of No Further Force or Effect’
“…because of the fact that they were done by Autopen. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!”
President Donald Trump declared the pardons given to the January 6th committee by former President Joe Biden “void” and “vacant.”
Trump wrote on Truth Social:
The “Pardons” that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them! The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden. He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime. Therefore, those on the Unselect Committee, who destroyed and deleted ALL evidence obtained during their two year Witch Hunt of me, and many other innocent people, should fully understand that they are subject to investigation at the highest level. The fact is, they were probably responsible for the Documents that were signed on their behalf without the knowledge or consent of the Worst President in the History of our Country, Crooked Joe Biden!
Biden issued preemptive pardons for Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, members of the January 6th Committee, and those who testified in front of the committee literally right before he left office.
From The New York Post on March 14:
One Biden White House source told The Post they suspect that a key aide to the then-president may have made unilateral determinations on what to auto-sign. The Post is not publishing that staffer’s name due to the lack of concrete evidence and refutations by other colleagues.
The Biden aide, who did not respond to requests for comment, would frequently make mention of what “the boss” wanted, the source said, but compatriots would have “no idea” if it was true because the internal culture was to not ask questions.
WHAT the actual heck: “I feared no one as much as I feared that [staffer]. To me, [the staffer] basically was the president. No one ever questioned [the staffer]. Period.”
The aide claimed “everyone” had suspicions about the staffer “exceeding their authority when claiming to speak for the president,” and yet, “no one would actually say it.”
The aide believes the staffer used “the autopen as standard and past protocol.” Plus, no one truly knew if the staffer or Biden approved what was signed.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Watch the ones who got pre-emptive pardons and said “I don’t need one”., no go to court to enforce their pardons. Get your popcorn ready.
That final pardon also included Biden’s siblings and spouses. I love that Trump is playing hardball, over use of the autopen, Biden’s mental capacity and who really signed all this stuff, including executive orders. However, I suspect that there are witnesses to Biden saying he would pardon the rest of his family. Might that make Trump’s action tougher to win in court?
Unless they saw Biden do it then it should be moot (if courts were just). “Would” and “did” are supposed to be treated very differently under the law or we’d have a whole lot more people in jail for pre-crime.
Those witnesses would have a much easier time if Biden hadn’t pardoned Hunter, after vowing repeatedly that he wouldn’t.
If he — HE — really pardoned Hunter. He stated many times that he would not, but at the end Hunter ended up with a pardon. It is not beyond possibility that the “super-staffer” put Hunter on the list during the death throes of the administration and Joe did not know that happened. By the time those pardons were done, he was pretty much out of it, if the earlier debate performance was any indication of this mental ability months later.
In Hunters case at least the “super staffer” can be assumed to have the initials HB.
Hunter Biden’s pardon, specifically, was -not- signed by autopen. The signature is much shakier.
No one was surprised by Hunter’s pardon because Joe is and always was, a liar.
Hunter said he wasn’t surprised because, “My Daddy promised and he always keeps his promises. Don’t you Daddy?”
This is interesting. I’d like to see not only the “pre-emptive pardons” challenged in court but also the auto pen when used by someone other than the President. If the signatures are deemed null and void due to Biden’s state of mind and a staffer did them on his/her own then it throws a whole lot of Biden’s Presidency under the bus. Proving it without a person stepping forward is going to be hard, though
1) Read the Bush Department of Legal Counsel memo on the issue. It lays out a pretty convincing case for the legality of the use of an autopen. As long as the person for whom a document is being signed knows and approved the signature, the signature is legal.
The question will be did Biden know and approve and I can see how his wife, his son or any staff members will say he didn’t know. (We agree with you on that point.)
2) A “pre-emptive pardon” was used by Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon.
3) There was a 1915 case on this issue called Burdick v. United States. George Burdick was being called upon to testify against others, but he could have been facing charges himself. President Wilson issued a pardon for any acts Burdick had committed including those that had not been charged.
Burdick went to court to see if the pardon was legal, (it was) and whether he had to accept the pardon. (He did not.)
Nobody is contesting your first point.
Pardons, according to the Constitution, are issued “for Offenses against the United States.” The presumption that a person has committed a crime is an antecedent to issuing a pardon. A person isn’t required to accept a pardon because doing so is an admission that the constitutionally-required presumption that “offenses” have been committed is factually accurate.
Trump is contesting the first point. From his “tweet:”
The “Pardons” that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen.
He goes on to say:
In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!
Yet that doesn’t change that he is clearly saying that the pardons are null and void because of the use of the autopen.
This is not true, and Burdick doesn’t say it is true. Burdick says a person has the choice whether to accept a pardon, not because doing so constitutes an admission, but because of a perception that it does. That perception is common, but wrong.
It is epic trolling. I love it.
I’m convinced that President Trump was right to open this big, serious can of worms, but I wish that he’d refrained from name-calling — which could suggest to a reasonable person that to some extent he’s acting out of personal spite.
Trump deserves his ton of flesh. Let the (accurate) name-calling continue.
What are the chances that Trump declaration holds up on court. It’s definitely going to SCOTUS. What’s the over/under on SCOTUS agreeing with Trump.
Tjhere is extraneous evidence that Biden pardoned his family so no.
That wouldn’t prove anything to anyone not choosing emotionally based on team affiliation. Even if you know you don’t need it turning down a presidential pardon would be epically stupid.
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.”
This has been the most eventful and impactful 100 days of my life. I am 70.
Whether you love him or hate him, no President has ever done so much in so little time.
The only President who comes close is FDR.
He is an extraordinary man.
FDR is in competition for the worst President in the history of the United States. That’s not a positive comparison.
Ditto, and I’m 80.
Appropriate Yeats quote on St Paddy’s Day! Lá Fhéile Padraig sona dhaibh!
I had to register for this site just so I could tell Hodge how must I appreciate his comment! Absolutely wonderful!
Shockling and shockling in the shmowne sray
The people cannot hear the chazan’s voice
The minyan parts. The tzenter cannot hold.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the shul.
The ten-man bond is loosed and everywhere
The ceremony of kaddish has been stilled
With nine we lack kedusha — what is worse,
It’s Monday and the Torah won’t be read.
(It’s a work in progress…)
Took me a minute to realize that was shmoneh esray.
But I love the tzenter cannot hold.
Wasn’t Purim LAST week?
TY Mary,
Remember this? https://nypost.com/2025/01/18/us-news/president-biden-insisted-he-didnt-sign-executive-order-just-weeks-after-doing-so-speaker-mike-johnson/ Biden didn’t know what he signed back then.
BTW, J6 attourney, William Shipley, wrote this for Redstate..
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2025/03/10/pardon-attorneys-n2186488
Whether this sticks? Well it is interesting..
Yes, but that doesn’t prove he didn’t know it when it was signed. He may have been fully conscious, understood it and ordered it signed, and then forgotten it.
Also it doesn’t prove anything about any other measure.
Just when you think it can’t get any better…
The puppet master may yet be revealed.
Reminder to self – buy more popcorn.
Not just the puppet master, all the co-conspirators, with Jill likely knee deep in crap.
I am reading that the only document actually signed by Biden was his decision to remove himself from the 2024 election. If that is truly the case, can it not be assumed that he generally knew of the autopen use and wanted to differentiate what he actually signed with what the pen signed?
I don’t know if that makes much difference overall, but it seems strange.
Perhaps this is why Trump made a big deal of signing everything and then holding it up for the cameras so they could see his signature.
Bigger than John Hancock’s!
Stormy: ‘ he has a shrimpdick’. Fat slob with a shrimpdick and a rapist. How sexy!!! LAFFRIOT
The left’s MO is never let a crisis go to waste. I think President Trump’s is always use an opportunity.
The big discussion now about autopen use could be why he signs and displays the document with his fresh signature.
Perhaps, the Biden administration isn’t the only one he has in his sights. The Obama administration was the first to sign a law in by an autopen. I don’t know what all was autopen into law, but my imagination says Obama signed something that struck President Trump the wrong way and he is using this issue to get after that too.
0bama controversially ordered bills signed by autopen when he was thousands of miles away. That violated the normal rule that a signature by proxy is only valid if the signatory is present. It only happened three times, and no one challenged those bills. As I understand it all three bills have since expired, so it’s too late to challenge them now.
Buy popcorn, my ass. I bought stock in Orville Redenbacher!
Conagra?
Milhouse, if you’re out there, you might recall that about nine months ago (I’m guessing) I asked you in a comment whether any crimes may have been committed by persons exercising Executive authority while Biden was obviously suffering from dementia and unable to delegate such authority. At the time, you said nothing came to mind, which I thought was a reasonable response. So, this story about the autopen is the quintessential example of what I was getting at. If people used the autopen without Biden’s knowledge, something is wrong. Somebody did something bad. At a minimum, Trump might be right here. Thoughts?
You get a downvote for summoning the Milhouse.
His pontificating and “mansplaining” get old.
Millhouse has tunnel vision, mostly right about law, but blind to the bigger issues.
Mansplaining? Isn’t that what y’all lawyers call citing facts not in evidence?
Also, drain out that cauldron , it’s stinking up the place.
You said “without Biden’s knowledge.” That covers a lot of ground.
“nothing came to mind”. The epithet for the entire Brandon administration.
Biden was never declared mentally unfit to hold office when in the WH although there is strong evidence he was never fit to President so I’m not sure how anyone can prove his incompetence now. A staffer making executive decisions and signing EO’s without his knowledge, however, that is a different story.
The Robert Hur report comes close, declining to prosecute due to “poor memory.”
No, Hur said that Biden presented at questioning as a feeble old man with poor memory, and that he would no doubt repeat the performance to any jury, who would be only too willing to buy it.
If you can prove Biden was unaware of the pardons and did not authorize them then you have a case. But you’d have to be able to prove it in each individual case, because he might have authorized one pardon and not another.
The autopen itself is a red herring. Not only is an autopen signature valid if the signatory is in the room and authorized it, but pardons don’t have to be signed in the first place. No, the real issue is whether Biden actually pardoned these people at all. If someone did it in his name, without his authority, then it’s a forgery.
Can Biden be made to appear before a Congressional committee and questioned about this and other issues promulgated by autopen?
Just use puddin cups to entice him to appear
Or young girls and a shower.
Young girls in the shower is creepy enough. But your own daughter in the shower is a whole other level of sicko.
How ’bout chewing on babies?
The cauldron is ready for reuse.
I don’t understand the cauldron reference
The cauldron previously used to summon Milhouse.
Double, double toil and trouble. Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Liver of blaspheming Jew…
IDK, I don’t think a former President has ever been subpoenaed to appear before Congress but then again, no former President was ever charged in multiple courts or impeached twice for nothing either.
In an ordinary case where Bob the J6 committee member is being sued/prosecuted for their official actions, I really, really doubt it. The former president would issue a statement to the court saying the pardon was approved and that would be the extent of his exposure.
The only way to force a former President into court for an official action would be impeachment, with the intent of removing his Presidential immunity, and *that* would allow him to claim 5A. Unless (and we’re getting further down the rabbit hole) the House extends immunity to him to force testimony against the cabinet members/staffers who set up the preemptive pardon, who can then be prosecuted. In short, if Biden was aware of the pardon and approved of it, any prosecution is an immediate dead-end. If not, the can of worms gets opened and everything goes nuts.
But in this case, Biden isn’t alleged to have done anything wrong. He would have been properly exercising and enumerated power of the president. Someone is basically alleged to have impersonated him. He would be a witness/victim saying whether or not he authorized the use of his signature.
Which would imply he was mentally incapacitated. Jill isn’t going to allow that to happen.
No. It would not imply he was mentally incapacitated. It would imply that a subordinate used his signature without his consent or knowledge.
And Jill has no say in anything. A subpoena is a subpoena.
Gerald Ford voluntarily explained to the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on criminal justice why he’d pardoned Richard Nixon.
And he did it directly instead of telling the absolute truth of “….and if I didn’t pardon him, you (censoreds) would have dragged him through criminal and civil court on a thousand charges and lawsuits until he died broke.” The Dems already used his impeachment as a club to get their greedy little hands more firmly on the levers of power. Imagine their joy if they could harass the former President through the courts on TV every day….a lot like they did for Trump, come to think of it.
Biden’s death is coming in 3….2….
Hillary got the call!
LoL. Hello! There’s a reason why Biden was chosen by his handlers to be the figurehead democrat president. Because they knew full well that his increasingly enfeebled mental status made it very unlikely he’d ever be called to testify before any Congressional Committee on any subject whatsoever. So I guess the answer to your question is, yes they could. But in reality even if they were to do so Biden couldn’t answer the questions put to him as his mental status is such that he simply wouldn’t remember anything of his four year presidency.
But, what if they ask him a question about authorizing such and such, and Biden doesn’t remember, and autosign was used. In these cases, not remembering is sort of an admission of foul play.
You’re making too much of it. All the former President would do is issue a statement similar to: “All pardons during my term were personally approved of by the President.” Game, set, match. You would need absolute unimpeachable evidence to the contrary to even *start* a case to get any of the pardons overturned in court. Trump knows this, BUT his move makes the Dems scramble to defend their criminal conduct, shooting more holes in the bottom of their leaky lifeboat. It also short-sheets any attempt they may want to make to challenge the J6 pardons.
No. Not remembering it now is no indication at all of whether he did it, or of what his mental state was at the time.
I fear that some judge somewhere will put a nationwide TRO on any attempt to undo Brandon’s pre-emptive pardons.
Look, as far as I am concerned, the entire Biden administration was illegitimate. The Democrats cheated and (up till now) have gotten away with it. There are hundreds of people that deserve to be locked away in a cold, dark concrete cell never to see the light of day for what they did to us.
These pardons continue the crime spree. Of course Biden did not sign them. He was non compos mentis as far back as 2020. If he were your family member, you could easily have gotten a court order in 2024. No way he could have comprehended pardoning those people never mind signing the pardons.
The pardons are fraudulent.
Prosecutions need to go forward.
Peter Moss:
Don’t forget that a federal prosecutor officially found that while Biden was probably guilty, there was no point in prosecuting him, since a mentally-impaired memory-deficient senile old man would be a “sympathetic defendant”.
How many people, total, were “pardoned” or granted “clemency” in his last months in office? I think that the total number is upwards of 4,200. Are was supposed to believe that a senile old man who couldn’t find his way off a stage could review that many criminal cases in that short a time? It is well beyond belief that he knew anything about most of those, which means that his cabal staff took care of it.
Has the statute of limitations expired on that yet?
Any executive action attributed to him that occurred post the debate (?) with Trump should be questioned, pardons included. That was the date that the shroud was removed and the world got to see the true mental condition of POTUS.
Up until then he was “sharp as a tack”. BTW, there is some beachfront property in Searchlight, Nevada, for sale at a good price.
I bought several acres a few years back when it was cheap for only $900,000 an acre.
True. He was sharp as a tack. They just never specified which *end* of the tack.
At some point this will go before a court, and Biden will have to swear under oath did he or did he not instruct those pardons to be autosigned in his stead. The court will have to determine …
> If Biden can swear he authorized all the autosigning.
> Any evidence affirming that testimony.
> Biden’s competency (current and past)
> If not competent, is it periodic or full blown.
> Staff knowledge and if they did a coverup.
> Does it date back to his infamous “too senile to convict” result from his secret doc investigation.
> If autosigning, even if by verbal or other direction of the non-signer, is as legal as an actual in-person signature.
> How that applies to other non in-person “signatures”, like digital “signing” a digital doc instead of a physical signing of a physical doc.
> If every single legal doc he authorized via autosign WAS authorized by him in some provable manner, even if only his current testimony.
> Going forward, what is required to document future autosign validity.
> If and when autosigning is legally the same as actual signing.
> How that affects all the autosigned legal docs in general.
Legal standards need to be set.
If it gets to the SCOTUS, I doubt they’ll get 5 justices willing to invalidate all Biden’s autosigned docs. They may invalidate those from his last few months when he withdrew from the race “for health reasons”, or invalidate none,
Invalidating all may not be even on the table, since even if you have Alzheimer’s you can be intermittently competent.
If it gets to SCOTUS Im doubting it will be to invalidate all of his autosignatures but just the more dodgy ones later in his presidency.
By whatever time he might be called to testify (per your scenario) he would be so non compos mentis that he would be unable to provide any legally binding testimony.
One of my points exactly.
It’s extremely difficult to claim “The witness was incompetent and senile two years ago, but is competent and fully able to testify now.”
Very good point.
It would be interesting to have Special Counsel Hur testify as to what he really thought of Biden’s condition when he said that he was an elderly man with a poor memory. (If some actions are invalidated, that might affect the timeframe.)
But if the process is the punishment — and it is — none of this matters except the time and money it takes the malefactors to defend against it.
These are not valid questions. Pardons don’t need to be signed.
The only place in the constitution where the president is required to sign something is bills. And in that case it’s well established that he may have someone else sign for him, provided that he is in the room at the time. 0bama broke this rule three times, ordering bills to be autosigned on his behalf in Washington while he was in France, Indonesia, and Hawaii. Those bills were very possibly invalid, but no one challenged them at the time, and as I understand it they’ve all expired so it’s too late to challenge them now.
Hot Air has some reasoned analysis on this worth reading.
At first I was of the same mind that this is an optional fight, but in reflecting 2 minutes, it’s a good idea.
1) It puts the criminals in a defensive position which now they have to spend sweat to fight this action AGAINST the president. It draws power from their own lawfare efforts.
2) The autopen angle has merits. The weekend at Bernie’s presidency should be subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny and there is broad acceptance that Biden was NOT in control.
I don’t like the idea going beyond that. One president should not have the power to undo the pardons of the previous. Goose/Gander…. this will come back to bite the Exec office and weaken it if that becomes the case.
Also I liked the prior angle of calling those pardoned to testify- then holding them in contempt for lying.
“I don’t like the idea going beyond that. One president should not have the power to undo the pardons of the previous. Goose/Gander…. this will come back to bite the Exec office and weaken it if that becomes the case.”
Normally Id support your position on this however Democrats have put us where we are today through their actions to do everything possible to get Trump out of the Presidency, out of contention for the Presidency and out of contention for living.
Therefore Democrats absolutely MUST suffer the consequences for their actions.
Once upon a time I would be been loathed for anyone to go after Clinton or Barry, peace be upon him, but not now. Now Im all “they can go f99k themselves”.
True, but the premise here is that the pardons were not even the actions of the president– they were forged.
Yes.
There’s the key point — if it was a staffer who exceeded his authority then the pardons can be undone.
Oh, and do a forensic audit of the staffer’s finances…
I will take it one step further, as a win-win scenario for Team Trump. If he wins at the Supreme Court, the win is obvious. If he loses, however, he still wins. You will have the deep state powers, who might choose to attempt to invalidate some of Trump’s pardons, arguing, on record, in front of the Supreme Court, that pardons are inviolate, even in the extreme case of a President who is incompetent mentis.
“I don’t like the idea going beyond that. One president should not have the power to undo the pardons of the previous. Goose/Gander…. this will come back to bite the Exec office and weaken it if that becomes the case.”
I’d generally agree it’s a bad idea. However, I’m also of the mind that each president is the equal of every other president with regard to his powers. What one POTUS does, another POTUS should, in principle, be able to undo. To declare that a POTUS can’t undo what a previous POTUS did is tantamount to saying that a POTUS can’t undo his own actions, which is obviously nonsense.
While each president is the equal of another, the pardon clause of the Constitution does not allow for a review of previous pardons. A presidential pardon is one of the very few absolute powers afforded to any branch of the government.
It says:
The President… shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States…”
That’s it. It doesn’t say it’s “unreviewable” by anyone, although I’d agree that because it an executive function, explicitly granted to the POTUS, that it’s unreviewable by either of the other two branches.
Consider what you’re saying. The POTUS can’t review his own actions? Obviously, he can. Then what prevents him from reviewing the actions of past presidents and reversing them? All presidents are, well, presidents. There is no separation of powers issue with a president reviewing, and reversing, an act of a previous president. (The only exception to this that I can think of is when a POTUS signs legislation, making it law, because it has been made law by the signature, placing it outside of his review – even if he still has the authority of refusing to enforce it. It will remain law for the next president to enforce, or not.) Presidents regularly withdraw or cancel their own EOs. They also regularly cancel EOs issued by previous presidents. Why can they do this? Because each president is just another president. They are the same entity, the POTUS. If a pardon can’t be recalled or cancelled, by what authority are EOs cancelled or countermanded?
You’re really arguing that a president can reverse his own pardons? If it can be undone then it isn’t a pardon.
Grant reversed 3 of his own pardons. (Arguably).
Today the accepted view is that a pardon is valid when signed, in Grant’s day the view was it didn’t count until hand delivered to the recipient. He signed them and they were out the door, down the road by messenger. He received an info update soon after that caused him to change his mind so he sent folks to recall the messengers before they were delivered.
The Constitution is silent on this issue. Personally I don’t think a validly issued pardon can be revoked by a President even by the same President who issued it. I view the power as one the President should exercise very rarely after gathering all the fact, applying some serious contemplation and only then using it. Rather like a bullet being fired, make sure you want to pull the trigger b/c it can’t be called back once pulled.
To GravityOpera:
I’m arguing that there’s nothing in the Constitution that supports the idea that a pardon can’t be rescinded. A pardon is traditionally permanent. A pardon is not a right.
What to do when it’s found that a pardon protects the recipient from justice for a truly heinous crime (as Biden’s blanket pardons may do) that was unimagined at the time The pardon was issued? We’re supposed to shrug our shoulders?
There’s nothing in the Constitution granting the power to unpardon anyone. Presumably because pardons were understood to be permanent and it didn’t occur to them that anyone needed it explicitly laid out for them.
That is what a pardon is.
It’s inherent in the word “pardon”. You’re ignoring what a pardon is. It is not a promise not to prosecute. A pardon wipes away the crime. It restores the person’s status to what it was before the crime was committed. Once that person is no longer a criminal, of course he can’t be prosecuted. Prosecuted for what? Saying that the president (let alone any future president) can rescind the pardon is saying that he can proclaim an innocent person to have committed a crime! If he can do it to someone who did in fact commit it but was pardoned, then he can equally do it to someone who never committed it at all!
This is also why a president can’t pardon future crimes. A pardon is an instant, not a permanent. It wipes away crimes that already exist; it can’t wipe away crimes that do not yet exist. If pardons could be rescinded then they would have to be permanents, that continually suppress the effects of crimes, rather than wipe them away and be done with them; if so they would also be able to apply to future crimes.
It’s on the level of Artaxerxes (Esther 8:8, for example – “for no document written in the king’s name and sealed with his ring can be revoked.”) or Darius (Daniel 6:15 – “Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no injunction or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.”)
See my reply to gitarcarver.
Certainly you’re not suggesting that a king can’t revoke or change his own decrees, or that a successor can’t revoke or alter them. What these quotes mean is that the issue of a sovereign can’t be revoked by a non-sovereign.
Article II makes our POTUS as close to a sovereign as our republic allows. Certainly he can sit in judgment of his own, and therefor a predecessor’s, acts. Any belief that a pardon is unreviewable must mean its unreviewable by the other two branches of government. There is no such conflict when a POTUS reverses the act of a previous POTUS.
No, that is not what they mean. Your interpretation would make nonsense of them. If Achashverosh could have revoked the decree that Haman made in his name, and sealed with his “autopen”, then Mordechai, who now had the “autopen”, could have done the same. Esther wouldn’t have needed to bother the king.
It was only because the decree authorizing the massacre of the Jews was irrevocable that the only solution was to issue a new decree authorizing the Jews to defend themselves. And that’s why the Jews had to wait 11 months in suspense, not knowing how the war would turn out. Had the nazis proved stronger on the day than the Jews, they could have carried out their plan with perfect impunity.
as was surfaced prior, accepting the pardon is admission of the crime.
The president is convicting without trial by judge/jury and bypassing the sentencing to say—- “all is square” by decree. Given the pardonee accepts the pardon. Per other commenters- don’t think the demons won’t look for some way to remove Trump’s pardons by decree as the country spirals even deeper into turmoil if the Dems don’t stay out of power for the next 12 years.
Now that sentence above gets tricky for those who accepted the pardons because they in essence confessed to a crime by accepting.
“…don’t think the demons won’t look for some way to remove Trump’s pardons by decree as the country spirals even deeper into turmoil if the Dems don’t stay out of power for the next 12 years.”
Bingo.
No, it is not.
Well, the point here is that the pardons were NOT issued by the President.
So this is NOT a President undoing another President.
Exactly. The only issue is proving it.
If I recall he can be impeached
Who? Biden? I doubt it as he no longer holds office so that would be off the table.
You miss the reference. The Democrats have already set the precedent of impeaching an ex-president. So this is just following their rules.
And entirely appropriate by the constitution. Hypothetical: Let’s say Biden accepted a bribe to write a pardon (remember, hypothetical). He can *not* be prosecuted for that *unless* he is impeached and his Presidential immunity removed by conviction in the Senate, even if the discovery of the hypothetical crime is made a year or two from now.
That is not true. Impeachment has no effect on presidential immunity. It can neither grant nor remove it.
Accepting bribes is not an official act, so an official who does so is not immune for it. He is immune for the official acts he takes because of the bribe, and impeachment doesn’t change that. But there’s no immunity for the bribe itself.
At least one US elected official was impeached after leaving office. The reason and purpose for impeaching someone who is not in office is to prevent the person from attaining an office in the future. Biden was a one-term POTUS (thankfully). Impeachment and condemnation in the Senate would prevent him from running for the office (or any other federal office) in the future. Not that this would be necessary, but it would be a great relief to know that he is permanently disbarred from the Oval Office.
No, it wouldn’t. it would only bar him from being appointed to federal office. He could still be elected, if anyone were willing to vote for him.
This action lives rent free in the heads of all democrats. It isn’t necessary that it prevail in court.
The idea of reversing pardons living in Democrats’ heads is a bad thing.
As a massive trolling operation or just to make d/prog sweat a little by kicking over the ant hill… then sure. I don’t see this effort succeeding unless they get direct testimony from the person(s) controlling the auto pen where they confess they misused it to sign items that Biden didn’t see or even know about beforehand. That said it could be viewed as more/less a form of law fare to force d/prog to occupy their time, effort and money to push back against. The more they put into this the less have available for other issues. It kinda turns them into cats chasing the beam of a laser pointer.
Well does not most signings include video clips. If election fraud is proven in 2020 and auto pen was used, we are not talking about some minor stuff, we are talking coup on the American people via NGOs like Tides feeding WEF, Climate, Soros, WHO, etc.
As implied by my earlier post, given that many Biden family members were pardoned as he exited office, I suspect that this will indeed be the hill that Biden’s agents and the Democrats have to go to great lengths to defend.
What else does orange harvey have to do to convince you redhat rubes that he’s a moron? Seriously.
The allegation from a Biden aide is that a random staffer used the autopen to sign off on things that Biden neither approved of, was told about, or even knew anything about.
That’s like somebody signing your checks and you didn’t know about it, only several thousand times more serious as it implicates legislation, executive orders, pardons, and other things only the President can do. This is some random person hijacking the power of the US government.
And you’re mad at Trump for looking into it?
Good summary.
You are proving to us you are a moron
Projection, your name is Tj.
A boy who gets a bad report card and forges a parent’s signature thereon is in relatively serious doo-doo if he’s caught (as he invariably will be caught). But you think someone can effectively forge the signature of a POTUS and that this has no legal implications and is without consequence?
“Signed, Epstein’s Mom”
Or, maybe in this case:
“Signed, Dr Jill’s Husband”
He keeps winning, while you keep drooling.
The contrast could not be more obvious.
If you just sat down and shut up, you might learn something.
He’s far from a moron. I would say that he often misunderstands or half-understands things he is told, and expresses them incorrectly. He’s usually got a valid point, but what he actually says is often incorrect, or only approximately correct. Those whose task it is to implement his words generally figure out what he meant, and/or check with him to see what he meant, and then figure out whether and how it can be done legally.
We are witnessing a rare case of when the sword may be mightier than the (auto)pen!
First of all, why do we have the autopen? If it’s worth having the President sign it, why don’t we require President to sign it?
Second, this would seem to be easy to find the answer. Just ask Biden. Yet I don’t see any reporters banging on his door with any questions…
Short answer? We have the autopen because nobody has dared actually bring a court case against it.
Why do ordinary people need notary publics and signature guarantors? Wouldn’t someone who uses the autopen for the President of the United States need to be a notary public or at least be licensed and bonded to perform their duties? And a log book kept to document when the autopen was used.
Anyone can sign a document by proxy, and no notary is required.
But the signatory must be present, and authorize it himself while of sound mind.
No, we have it because signature by proxy is a well-established legal procedure.
But in any case it’s irrelevant to pardons, which don’t have to be signed at all.
The theory is that the autopen is used directly by the president, to save himself carpal tunnel — not by every dickwad in his office, to save himself from Leavenworth.
For things like Christmas cards, that’s fine. For legal documents, he’s got good medical care.. he can risk carpal tunnel.
Exactly. He’s got good insurance. He can go to the doctor.
got to love how djt is challenging alll these leftists games
but he will probably lose (some?) of this in the courts otherwise the whole pardons event will be ruled illegal
Yes, but (Democrat rules) all this lawfare is now on the taxpayer’s dime, while the opposition now has to pay for their own lawyers. Plus, he’s in a great position to pull a sue and settle since he owns both sides of the courtroom (again, Democrat rules).
that could mean that anythinggg signed by a secretary etc could then fail in the courts challenge and I dont think the courts will allow that
Most probable result for future autsignage will be the courts will rule that autosigning a legal doc IS permissible – but with some sort of documentation of authorization.
Maybe one that has to be actually signed?
Yeah, the recursion alone dooms this approach.
No, it could be a witness statement, attesting that the president authorized it. “I, John Smith, was with the president in the Oval Office at the White House on January 31st, 2025 at 5:35 PM, when he asked me to sign this bill in his name; I have done so accordingly, using the autopen located in that office. Signed, John Smith.”
Also, everything that Trump ever signed with autopen during his first administration should be ruled invalid.
First of all, I would be ok with that. And so would everything signed by anyone with an autopen.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is fraudulent use of the autopen by a staffer. If true that is invalid and probably illegal.
Yes, Biden had no idea what happened, and I guarantee that he has no idea what pardons were issued in his name.
HOWEVER, that doesn’t matter.
The simple fact is that if Trump actually tries to prosecute any of them is the courts are simply NOT going to open the can of worms of determining exactly when Biden became incompetent.
The Dread Coward Roberts will take the easy way out, like always, and simply declare them valid because Biden wasn’t AKSHUALLY, OFFICIALLY declared incompetent.
The problem is that you can’t guarantee it. Not unless you produce a witness who was actually there and says “Oh, the president wasn’t even there that day; he had gone to the Residence for a nap, so we signed it for him”.
Don’t think I’ve ever heard of one President undoing a previous President’s pardons before. Imagine that’s definitely wing challenged in court. However the bigger message here is Trump is going after those who persecuted him, whether or not those pardons were valid!
Because every President before this made a big production out of signing pardons and there was no question they did it, the only debate was whether they were selling pardons.
There is legitimate reason to believe Biden has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA who was actually pardoned in his name.
I hope it goes to the Supreme Court. Guidelines need to be established for autopen use. Perhaps a log book or witnesses or some other way to verify the autopen was not unlawfully used.
The Dread Coward Roberts won’t touch this. He’s not going to let the precious ‘legitimacy’ of his court be lowered by trying to actually identify when exactly Biden went incompetent. He’s going to either refuse to rule on ‘standing’ or declare that Biden himself has to say he didn’t order something signed (which obviously he’s never going to do).
Standing on a pardon would be established if the government tried to prosecute someone, and that person produced the pardon as his defense. The government would then have standing to challenge the pardon by proving either that it’s a forgery, or that the president was incompetent at the time he had it signed. How it could prove that is the problem. The only way I can think of is to find a witness willing to testify to that effect.
Hmmmm
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-had-no-idea-he-signed-natural-gas-export-pause-johnson-says
“House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Friday recounted a meeting with President Biden from early last year when the president appeared to forget he signed an executive order pausing the export of liquified natural gas (LNG).
Johnson publicly recalled the story for the first time to Bari Weiss during an episode of her podcast “Honestly” for The Free Press after saying that through his “personal observation” in dealing with Biden, the president “has not been in charge for some time.” Johnson’s story was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in June, though the newspaper’s reporting relied on anonymous sources at the time.
Irrelevant, because his failure to remember that he’d done it is no proof that he didn’t do it. He may have done it, and even been lucid at the time, and then forgotten about it.
Boy Howdy, for an administration that claimed to be so honorable, free of corruption and pure as the driven snow they certainly are fighting over preemptive pardons.
Good way to expose your own guilt, guys/gals!
What if parents of kids sent to juvenile detention centers by Pennsylvania “kids for cash” judge Michael Conahan were to sue, questioning the legality of Conahan’s pardon? I’m not an attorney, but it seems like they would have standing and it might be a key to opening the Pandora’s box.
Brilliant idea!
The way Biden would have handled this is that USAID would have given money to someone who gave it to someone else who gave it to the “public interest law firm” that volunteered to repesent the parents. Oops, no more USAID money… well, sucks to be honest I guess.
No, the parents would have no standing. Nor would the kids themselves. The only party with standing would be the government, if it sought to enforce the sentence notwithstanding the “pardon”.
Another benefit not yet mentioned — this shines a much-needed light on a massive vulnerability in the ‘signing system’ as a whole. This would be no more acceptable in a Republican administration than a Democrat one, so leave aside partisan considerations for a moment. A system that’s so transparently easy to game is not acceptable in a first world country. Even if nobody can be proven to have actually taken advantage of it YET, it needs to be fixed.
Does this mean Fauci can be prosecuted after all? That would be wonderful.
This will be reversed in a nanosecond if any of them appeal.
Alan Dershowitz was asked about exactly this and no there is no case for use of an autopen eliminating the validity of a pardon.
What he could do is have it investigated as a non-criminal matter but as a matter of law this isn’t going to stand.
No actually. This isn’t saying the autopen eliminated validity. This is saying someone, who is not president, fraudulently used the autopen without the president’s knowledge or consent. If that’s the case, it’s not valid.
It’s forgery, invalidating the document bearing the forged signature. This is not a novel legal concept.
I see someone is pro-forgery.
The problem is if challenged on what was released by the government as pardons aren’t he would have to prove his claim.
A little reminder Joe Biden is senile and right now probably doesn’t know where he is.
The Democrats failed a very basic test by keeping Biden in office to use as a puppet.
However that leaves Trump with no witnesses and no ability to ask the former president if he had anything to do with the pardons.
That is why I do not think this could survive a challenge in any courtroom.
What would is a civil investigation by the government.
The Dems have a Hobson’s choice that may define the outcome of this. If they declare Biden incompetent before these documents were signed, they are null and void. If they declare him competent then and now, he must answer about each document and explain why he signed them with an autopen. Either way, they lose.
He is probably incompetent now; that doesn’t mean he was incompetent at the time.
Even if he were able to be questioned he wouldn’t have to explain why he chose to use the autopen. That’s entirely his business. What he could be questioned about was whether he actually did authorize these pardons, and when. But he could say he doesn’t remember; that would not invalidate them.
Really the government’s only option to invalidate the pardons would be to find a witness willing to testify that they were made without the president’s authorization.
Here’s my question:
How does this impact the 25th Amendment?
The assumption in that amendment was that the people involved would want to declare the President unfit because it would impact their ability to actually execute the office’s prerogatives and duties. But this person(s) just up and did them anyway – which would obviate the need for the 25th amendment. So, the intent of the legislature was obviously that the President had to actually do some things his own self.
If only we had a legislature that wanted to do its actual job and was jealous of its authority and the proper separation of powers.
It doesn’t. The case isn’t that Biden was incompetent. It’s that a staffer fraudulently used the autopen without knowledge or consent. It’s forgery.
It doesn’t. The purpose of the 25th amendment is to provide a dignified way to remove a president who is unable to function but is too beloved and respected to be subjected to the indignity of impeachment.
The primary case the drafters had in mind was a president who didn’t object to his removal, but was unable to resign, e.g. because he was in a coma or a straitjacket.
It also handles the case of a president who very much objects to his removal, and deliberately makes it harder to remove him that way than it would be to do it by impeachment.
If the author of this piece knows the name of the staffer who auto signed without permission, I don’t understand why we’re not being given that name.
Would be fantastic if it past muster as Crimes against humanity on Fauci should be prosecuted.
But some Hawaii Judge would declare what a President can sign in person or have a Puppeteer do it for him.
No, Trump would intervene on Fauci’s defense and say how much Fauci deserved the Presidential Commendation he awarded Fauci with.
You keep on believing that.
Btw, why didn’t the Nobel committee revoke warmonger Obama’s prize?
Why would it? The Nobel Peace Prize is a worthless political award made by a committee that knowingly uses it to advance leftist causes. It awarded 0bama the prize before he’d even had a chance to do anything, just for being elected.
Why hasn’t Chauvin’s sentence been commuted yet?
Chauvin was convicted by the State of Minnesota. He later pled guilty to two Federal Civil rights charges one for Floyd, one for excessive force v a 14 year old. His Federal sentence is running concurrent to his State sentence. All a pardon or commutation from Trump for his Federal sentence would do is pull him out of the Federal Prison and send him into a Prison run by the State of Minnesota with lots of folks Chauvin helped put there. The President has no power to Pardon or commute crimes/charges by a State.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Remember . Then election was rigged. Orange harvey won. 1/6! Was a justifiable protest . It was mostly peaceful except for Antifa plants. Orange harvey did nothing wrong- he asked pelosi for ng and she refused. Liz cheney and kitzinger broke multiple laws . So did jack smith. In fact smith had to drop the case because he had no evidence. Do i get a red hat?
“Hey, guys, Orange Man Bad!
Guys?
Guys?”
Remember, Donald Trump won. Enjoy your President!
Yes, that’s all about right.
Red hats are for sale online or at your local souvenir shop.
Summarized: The question is “Did a staffer forge Biden’s signature on legal documents?”
Answer: Maybe, but the Biden administration took no action to deny the legitimacy of the signed document, so the documents are going to be treated as legit *unless* extraordinary proof comes to light. So far, we only have a candle or two.
This is completely wrong, for two reasons:
1. No signature is required. A president may pardon someone orally, or in any other form. Signatures are required only on bills.
2. Even bills may be signed by autopen, provided that the president personally authorizes it, and is in the room — both physically and mentally — when they’re signed.
This is the important point. If the president can prove that his predecessor did not make these pardons, then they are indeed void. But the burden of proof is on him, and how could he fulfill it? What we have is a mere anonymous allegation. Maybe it’s true, but where’s the proof?
Because there’s no corroboration.
This , of course, was typical orange Harvey. Something to get the redhat boogerpicks. all fired. The LAST thing orange Harvey would ever do is prosecute Kativinger or Cheney or Smith becuase it would dredeg up all of his lies and despicable acts on 1/6. Not that the redhat boogerpicks would care but decent, grouned people did.