The NYT reports.
The NYT writer — Shawn McCreesh — observes "There is no power in the Constitution or case law to undo a pardon, and there is no exception to pardons signed by autopen," but to say that is to look past the question whether there was a pardon. Even if a pardon can't be undone, how do we know it was ever done? We have a piece of writing, signed by autopen, and maybe it can be shown to have originated within the White House. The power that is in the Constitution is given to "The President," so, interpreting that clause, one might question whether his hand must do the signing... and whether his mind comprehended what he was doing.
But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that. It's the ultimate can of worms. Consider the parallel problem in the exercise of power within the judicial branch. We assume that the judicial opinions that emerge from the usual channels are signed/"signed" by the judges whose names appear on them and that the judges minds made the decisions that appear in the words of the text. We may well suspect that law clerks wrote the some of the opinions and even that some of the judges don't understand "their" own opinions. But we accept that they are what they purport to be. Beyond that lies chaos.
ADDED: Here is Trump's post 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!
AND: Based on the text of that Truth Social post, I'd say Trump is, first, clearing the way for doing an investigation that will produce evidence of wrongdoing (if there was any and perhaps even if there wasn't) and that will feel deeply painful to the persons whose actions are targeted. He wants those people to "fully understand" what it's like to be subjected to a "Witch Hunt," as he believes he was. And, second, he wants to smoke out who took over and exercised the power of the presidency if/when Biden was incapacitated. He's already asserting that the people who received the pardons/"pardons" were "probably responsible" for manufacturing the fake/"fake" documents.
Posts
233 comments:
1 – 200 of 233 Newer› Newest»The NYT stirring up all the anti trump rhetoric about how he's making his own laws and going after his percieved enemies for revenge. NOTHING about whether the cabal that was apparently running things and forging Bidens signature was in the wrong. Trump is shedding light on the issue in his typical way. The pardons most likely will not be reversed. Still this brings forward an important issue around the autopen and whether or not it's a good or bad thing. Especially if the president is comatose.
You can clearly see right here where Biden autorized nuclear war on the red states. He signed the paperwork. There's no question! That's his signature.
"Baseless." "Anti-democratic." Was this on the Opinion page? It seems as if this reporter has a few.
"But Mr. Trump’s assertion, which embraced a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory about former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ...".
That would be, as opposed to, a well-founded right-wing conspiracy theory. Like, one where you could just compare a few readily-available images, and recognize that it must be true. Doo-dah! Doo-dah!
I think what matters is the evidence backing the notion of the “official document”. In a SCOTUS ruling, someone can ask Roberts or any Justice, “is this what you agreed”. Whether a signature or verbal authority, it is something that can be vetted. I suspect there are many official acts that only have a verbal authority, but can be vetted. I think this is an opening gambit to expose who was running the Biden White House.
Can the Biden White House provide evidence that Biden authorized these pardons, besides the auto pen signature? I think the simple solution is to get Biden to state he authorized his signature. Have Biden hold a press conference and say it on camera.
As for the NYT, Trump made the same argument they do about declassifying documents. What was the NYT stance then?
Only one way to find out: charge someone who received a preemptive pardon and see where it goes. Until then its a nice piece of red meat for the base...which I approve of.
"But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that."
They won't, not even under the most perfect circumstances.
"Even if a pardon can't be undone, how do we know it was ever done?"
Grandpa felonyfinger's fingers touched just about everything, a pen being least among them. Personally I consider the man's entire term to be null-and-void, but as alluded above the courts will never touch this.
Chris said, "NOTHING about whether the cabal that was apparently running things and forging Bidens signature was in the wrong."
The same people that 'ran' Biden are the same people that provide the perfectly timed and exactly worded messaging Xeeted by dem senators last week in unison. Everything is transparent - but simultaneously unacknowlegable - and it will remain so until proof so undeniably and earthshakingly massive drops that we receive justification sufficient to permit open civil warfare.
I hope the people who 'ran' biden stole enough to invest in top-notch bunkers. They're gonna need them.
Almost unthinkable that a court would adopt this theory. In practical terms, I think it's unlikely that any prosecutor is going to go after a pardoned individual in the hope that the pardon will be declared illegal, so it's not going to come up much. However, if a prosecutor is ever trying to compel testimony out of a pardoned individual and arguing that they cannot asset the 5th amendment because of their pardon, Trump's position is going to complicate that process.
I am breathlessly awaiting the response of the former president. I think a signed statement would be appropriate, don't you? Perhaps paired with a 47-second video with 15 jump-cuts.
Another losing topic for Democrats. Because every time this is brought up -- and the Democrats in the Media will bring it up a lot as they chortle that you can't undo a pardon -- the sane public will recall the Pardons of Biden's corrupt family and everyone else. Trump does this kind of thing well.
I agree with Chris @10:33am. Trump's purpose isn't to undo the pardons, but instead to keep the issue of who was the acting President during Biden's term in the forefront. It wasn't Joe.
Leland said...
"Can the Biden White House provide evidence that Biden authorized these pardons, besides the auto pen signature? I think the simple solution is to get Biden to state he authorized his signature. Have Biden hold a press conference and say it on camera."
If he had to do a formal deposition to attest to his knowledge, state of mind, and cognitive ability, it could be devastating.
The Democrats keep bringing casseroles to teh knife fights!
Make sure they’re piping hot, you sissies!
There apparently is proof that Biden never reviewed the Pardon Documents to begin with… It’s not just the questionable use of an auto pen…
Trump:
… 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.
The corrupt democrat party is above the law.
Right NYT?
"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."
All of them except the ones for members of his family. Hunter is "the smartest man he knows", so I'm sure Hunter showed his dear old dad where to sign.
Today it's a baseless, right wing conspiracy theory.
Tomorrow they'll tell us they were misled, but that's okay because the people who were right all along are icky.
I take this as a perfect example of the Left once again taking Trump literally but not seriously.
I don't think the goal here is to undo the pardons. I think Biden would simply offer an affadavit that he would have signed the documents himself and that he authorized the auto-pen signatures and that would be the end of any court case.
However, consider the possibility that Biden never authorized all the pardons or some of the other stuff that bears his auto-pen signature. Given Biden's obvious decrepitude and the lure of power and money, no reasonable person can completely discount that some of these were done without Biden's required authorization. It is something that needs to be answered.
President Trump also announced that he will only sign official documents in person in the presence of 2 witnesses.
I do not expect the president to write the documents he signs. Especially legal documents. But I do expect him to sign the documents. Are there really that many that his poor hands could not stand the strain?
If Biden did not authorize the signing by Autopen, doesn't that legally make it a "forgery" under law?
How would a forged pardon have any more validity than if I signed it? A pardon, to be valid, requires the president's signature, doesn't it?
Do these pardons have it?
More importantly, what about all the laws, treaties, EOs and other official documents that Biden didn't sign?
John Henry
Take it to the extreme: If someone used the autopen to grant a pardon that Biden, or any President, had no knowledge of, then that would be fraud and a invalid Pardon, wouldn't it?
More extreme: There is a break-in at the White House and the auto-pen is stolen!
Beyond that lies chaos.
Should we care?
Look, how do we know tha some White House aide didn’t accept a substantial bribe to gin up a fake pardon using the autopen? We don’t, do we? You may not care, Althouse, but it seems to me hat as a country we certainly should.
What if you had Biden autopen a check to you emptying his account
there is no exception to pardons signed by autopen
If you wanted to be a badass originalist...
you could argue that autopens didn't exist at the time of the framing
and the framers assumed we had ordered liberty, not a dystopia where we have so many laws no human can sign them all.
You could say that any law signed by autopen is presumptively invalid.
The Constitution envisions a society where the president signs the laws.
Autopens by their very nature undermine that society, and make us wonder if we even have a president.
We have no need for fake signatures and fake laws (nor fake media scandals)
This is why autopens have a three digit security number printed on the back.
I read a lawyer's post on X that said a SCOTUS case determined that the President must be present and sign the pardons. Until Obama the autopen had NEVER been used to sign a law (allegedly) and even that case required a detailed OLC opinion. Trump has a current OLC opinion that Biden was not present, in fact was in a different state, when the pardons were signed, making them null and void.
However I do love the NYT ability to continually sell the raging revenge theme. Kudos dead newsroom!
On the topic of pardons does everyone remember Alice Marie Johnson? She is the black woman pardoned by President Trump in her first term.
He just appointed her to be his Pardon Czar (per NPR) and review all requests for pardons. I assume she will work with lawyers on the legal issues involved.
Good on him.
I debated whether to mention that Johnson is black above. I decided that given the constant false allegations of President Trump's racism that it was important to point it out.
John Henry
rhhardin said, "This is why autopens have a three digit security number printed on the back."
Lol, unfortunately Hunter made a photocopy of the autopen when people weren't looking. It's why he forgot to come back for his booger-suger.
Let's litigate one, say Liz Cheney's, and see. We call Biden for a deposition to do proper discovery and ask him about his deliberations when it came to "signing" the pardon. Easy peasy!
If staffers ran the autopen, and never bothered Old Joe with any details nor asked for his approval, how could any document thus signed be legal? And if most or all of the entirety of the Biden administration was staffers and the autopen, how do the democrats and rinos justify it? Enquiring minds wish to know.
Biden is so out of it, and his short-term memory so bad, that it wouldn't shock me in the least if during a deposition he looked at one of his signatures and said "no! that's not mine!".
Put him on the record. Game. Set. Match.
A signature attests that you're taking responsibility for something. If taking responsibility isn't in question, autopen will do, or the /s/ convention. With Biden taking responsibility is what is obviously missing, so autopen does not work.
For the techies, how hard would it be to forge an autopen signature? The autopen draws the signature with a pen but so do desktop plotters available via the portal at Amazon.
Assuming that one was able to get a good scan of the signature, it seems like it would be trivial to plot a perfect copy.
What makes the Autopen so difficult to reproduce?
John Henry
"Implicit in his post was Mr. Trump’s belief that the nation’s laws should be whatever he decrees them to be."
You mean like how FJB insisted that he had the power to grant forgiveness for student loans?
"And it was a jolting reminder that his appetite for revenge has not been sated."
I'm heartened to hear it.
Mumble, stumble, mumble, Trump's Constitutional Crisis!
Plays to NYT's readers only.
Seems like it is directly out of the ACORN, (nee SDS), Playbook.
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/wade-rathke/
Bill Ayers smiles approvingly.
Mason G said...
"Implicit in his post was Mr. Trump’s belief that the nation’s laws should be whatever he decrees them to be."
You mean like how FJB insisted that he had the power to grant forgiveness for student loans?
-------------
Even better, declaring the ERA Constitutional Amendment passed and in full effect.
I guess we just have to get Joe on the record.
Our founders didn’t foresee a day when autopens would be available and ubiquitous, thus they could not have adequately described the law in our constitution regarding the use of autopens for pardons.
Prof: "We assume that the judicial opinions that emerge from the usual channels are signed/"signed" by the judges whose names appear on them and that the judges minds made the decisions that appear in the words of the text."
Assume? Or rebuttably presume? If you're representing a client whose case would be helped by showing some decision was technically invalid, aren't you bound by ethics to zealously bring that up? And if following that road takes you to a drooling incompetent judge being manipulated by his clerks in the Chambers of Bernie's, isn't counsel of the original parties ethically bound to bring that up?
I don't see how the pardon situation is that different. Maybe because our system is supposed to err on the side of mercy? And also because the Constitution doesn't mandate a specific clemency process? The President could just pardon in pectore, like the Pope makes secret cardinals? Or she could dictate pardons to a functionary who just made an official note of it, signed and sealed by the functionary as a witness?
But in both cases - court decisions and pardons - it's not really a process question. It's a question of whether the decider - the judge or the POTUS - actually decided. The procedural artifacts are helpful in making that determination, but in and of themselves they aren't dispositive.
JSM
Darkisland said...
For the techies, how hard would it be to forge an autopen signature?
Who knows what evil lurks? Alinsky does!
But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that.
I’m stunned at the bilge corrupt Hawaiian judges entertain. They have a terrible track record of basic judicial knowledge. Yet entertain them we do…
To paraphrase an oft-told tale:
The race was close and Trump was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumor campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows using an autopen.
“Christ, we can’t get away with calling him an autopen pig-fucker,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”
“I know,” Trump replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.”
Darkisland said...
For the techies, how hard would it be to forge an autopen signature?
Can I call Dan Rather as an expert witness?
The issue Trump is bringing up, is the fact that Biden had no idea where he was, who he was, or what he was doing.
As usual, this is on Congress, and, as usual, nothing will be done.
The Dems in Congress knew, and I'm sure most of the Republicans knew, yet they let that walking corpse continue for 4 years.
Seems like it should be a big deal- One of the most powerful countries in the world, secretly run by a cabal of people that none of us suckers would know.
And no, the courts won't touch this-just like they refused to consider the stolen election of 2020.
I disagree that chaos is the inevitable outcome of a challenge. Wills are contested in court u Dee the exact same theory; namely that the signer was mentally incompetent or the signature is not actually that of the alleged signed.
The scope here is narrow enough for the USSC to rule: does the President have to physically sign a pardon? Let’s fight it out and answer the question.
THere's zero reason to think the Leftwing judges would find any Biden pardon invalid. If it was Trump who signed with an autopen, it would be the opposite.
However, as stated by others, this autopen scandal provides an excuse to investigate how these Biden pardons were issued and who actually approved them. when Trump says "Biden knew nothing about them" - that could actually be the truth!
Per sources on the internet, autopen are usually not used on important documents like pardons but for routine POTUS correspodence, admin paperwork, and proclamations.
Chaos? Who the hell fears chaos anymore? Lefties are always saying the White House/Trump are in chaos. I'm immune to the term now. It's akin to their habit of attaching "far" to anyone they deem "right wing." Pffft. One man's chaos is another man's schedule before breakfast.
The question is really when and how did Biden approve these pardons. Did he read the cases and tell someone to pardon them? Did he read a list of proposed pardons, and say "OK, do it"? Or was he completely out of the loop at his beach house?
The reality is that Biden could be called and say "I don't recall" -- possibly truthfully -- and that would be that.
Chaos v. Non-chaos. LOL. District judges issuing injuctions and orders every other day to stop everything the POTUS does. Now, that's chaos. We also know TRump is running the white house. Who knows who was in charge of Biden's "Chaos"!
Andrew Stiles of the Free Beacon has a hilarious write-up parodying Take Fapper’s new book on Biden’s “decline”.
No, Biden has to show that he approved the pardons. He can't say "I dont recall". LOL
I'm wondering what information and records Trump's team already has about how the process worked? I also don't know what records are left behind in a White House, regarding past acts taken, procedures followed, etc.? Are the automatic approval routing systems, if such exist, (or are the filed and emails) all removed or deleted and thus outside of the new administration's reach?
when Trump says "Biden knew nothing about them" - that could actually be the truth!
Yes, House Speaker Johnson recounted a whole conversation with Biden like this on the subject of exporting LNG. Biden vehemently denied signing a bill that is indeed a law bearing his signature, and it prohibits exports of LNG. But there's an interesting detail: Biden insisted the law Johnson refers to was just a bill ordering the issue be studied, not a bill banning it.
Someone told Joe what to do and lied to him about it, and he didn't read it for himself.
I don't believe this is a trivial assertion at all. The authenticity of a signature is legitimately challenged in many kinds of legal cases, including check forgery and wills, which is a very close parallel (was it authentic, and was this person competent at the time).
But I do agree with those who say the real motivation for making the assertion is to smoke out those who were operating the auto-pen, not necessarily to revoke the pardons. The significance of the signature of the President is important enough that the access to that auto-pen must have been closely monitored and logged. I would also expect that some technical means would also confirm that it was in fact this particular auto-pen (by unique imprint code or ink) as opposed to some other device or means.
I look forward to seeing the names of all those people who had access to that auto-pen and the logged dates, times, and stated purposes of its use during the time in question. Kash Patel, our nation's eyes turn to you to ferret this information out.
https://surface.syr.edu/lawpub/83/
Biden stated in public that he would not pardon Hunter. Did he ever make a verbal statement saying he changed his mind?
It seems weird to me that any official document I process has to be witnessed and/or notarized but Biden could use an autopen, especially if he wasn't even in the same room (or state) as the document and it's all fine.
Was this supposedly from the “news” side of NYT, or an opinion piece?
Everything about these pardons, from the autopen signature to the ten plus year amnesty window for all variety of crimes, is a sham. Joe Biden can't afford to be dragged out of his hole to answer for such things in an investigation, especially not for pardons where he is at the center of the criminal conspiracy which necessitated them.
But then, the mere existence of the Biden regime justifies hard measures by the Trump administration to unravel the whole conspiracy.
However I do love the NYT ability to continually sell the raging revenge theme.
@Mike (MJB Wolf), it’s a little more subtle than that. The Times is okay with political revenge when done by Democrats. It’s only wrong when Republicans do it, and with Trump is wrong to even have the slightest hint of retribution.
If Althouse really cared about chaos she’d be in favor of Trump terrorizing his political opponents as he exacted political retribution. Might get rid of opposition purely for the sake of opposition.
His need to bluster is unfortunate. He warns his targets and their sleazy defense attorneys. A special prosecutor and grand jury (outside of DC) to investigate government activities related to J6 would be a good choice. Wholesale perjury would ensue. Start with witness Joe Biden to determine who he pardoned. LOL! Can you imagine?
@Tom T ... IANAL but I'm not quite sure how this would complicate the position of a prosecutor with regard to the 5th Amendment privileges of a pardoned person. If they want to assert their 5th Amendment right they have to repudiate the pardon and thus make themselves open to prosecution for the crimes. It doesn't seem to me to matter whether they argue that they don't need a pardon or that the pardon was invalid. Either way they have to testify if they have been pardoned or face prosecution if they haven't.
But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that.
That may be another aspect of Trump's strategy: highlight the contrast between how casually and frequently the courts are now interfering with his bona fide executive orders, ones that he provably signed.
Isn't everyone tired by now of the "baseless conspiracy theory" rhetoric? Were Biden's documents signed by autopen or not? Apparently they were, and if they were there was something like a "conspiracy" going on -- but that's something that the "newspaper of record ought to look into, rather than simply dismiss. Do the autopen signatures make the pardons invalid? Most likely not. There's some constitutional theory or legal theory involved but it's hardly a "conspiracy theory." Anyway, if it were a "baseless conspiracy theory," isn't that the sort of thing that journalists give each other awards for?
I don't see the "unsated appetite for revenge" either. If 1/6 committee encouraged perjury, they shouldn't get away with it (but most likely they will). BTW have we resolved whether "pre-emptive pardons" are even valid? Yes, there was Ford's pardon of Nixon. That was a special case, and some people still don't believe that it was a valid use of the pardoning power.
Comments to the NYT articles seem to be limited these days. The editors have likely become aware that the commenters are largely TDS loons impaired by years of NYT disinformation.
"Autopen" technology is trivial by today's stsndards. Any decent EE student could build one. I'd even include fake "heartbeats" for more authenticity.
Getting samples of the real signature to train with might be hard. Unless you had White House access...
Althouse writes:
"Consider the parallel problem in the exercise of power within the judicial branch. We assume that the judicial opinions that emerge from the usual channels are signed/"signed" by the judges whose names appear on them and that the judges minds made the decisions that appear in the words of the text. We may well suspect that law clerks wrote the some of the opinions and even that some of the judges don't understand "their" own opinions. But we accept that they are what they purport to be. Beyond that lies chaos."
Reminds me of the Federal Circuit's actions against Judge Newman. One of her clerks was deposed during those proceedings: "In her deposition, this clerk was asked to describe her 'role' and 'responsibilities.' Clerk Dep. 4:5–7 (attached to Report & Recommendation). She responded, 'I am going to invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.' Id. at 4:8–9. She proceeded to invoke the Fifth Amendment more than 50 times in response to questions about her role at the court and job responsibilities for Judge Newman. See generally Clerk Dep. It is unclear what this law clerk does, as she refused to answer any questions about her job responsibilities at her deposition..."
"There is no power in the Constitution or case law to undo a pardon, and there is no exception to pardons signed by autopen,"
Are these not the same people who incessantly bleet that the 2nd amendment does not protect owning an AR-15?
It's not a particularly smart attack, to choose Biden's pardons as the subject of the Auto-Pen debate. If there's one thing Biden would know about, it's getting his family and close friends off scot-free. Joe's never been stupid about shielding his crimes. Parsing the argument to say that he was only aware of some of the pardons, but not others, is similarly weak.
But it's just rhetoric. How many people have explored how the Auto-Pen function is controlled? Is it just kept in a dusty drawer, free and clear for the cleaning lady to play with? Probably not, I would guess. I would imagine there's a secure register of its applications, with line entries for each time it is used - date, time, purpose, document control number. I would guess it is a highly-controlled process, as processes go, because of the power commanded by the signature. Which is not to say, it's a process that couldn't be abused, because it clearly was, and there's proof.
But let's not talk about those things - we might get to the bottom of something. Let's all scream and turn purple.
No, Biden has to show that he approved the pardons.
The DOJ didn't go along with Trump "approving" the declassification of documents when he left the White House.
Where's Joe?
The baddest@ss originalists reject everything that wasn't signed with a quill pen.
This whole scenario reminds me of the John Grisham novel The Runaway Autopen. Did they ever find it?
My U.S. citizen daughter intends to apply for dual citizenship in a European country. To evidence her ancestor's(s') citizenship in that country, she needs birth and marriage and death records that prove an ancestral thread from her, through me, to those European ancestors.
To be acceptable evidence thereof, the copy of each of those documents attached to her application must be authenticated by the original issuing authority, and apostilled/exemplified (https://legalclarity.org/what-is-an-exemplified-copy-and-when-do-you-need-one/).
Surely it would not be asking too much that presidential signatures (or autopen facsimile sig.), esp. for a pardon relating to criminal activity, carry some kind of similar proof of authenticity?
“His need to bluster is unfortunate. He warns his targets and their sleazy defense attorneys”
Doesn’t this move strengthen Trump’s argument that only the President is the sole interpreter of the execution of a President’s duty as defined by the constitution? If the courts rule that Biden as President decides a valid signature, then that strengthen’s Trump’s hand. Isn’t this heads I win, tails you lose?
Firstly, wtf is an autopen? I've found nothing on the innerwebs on a cursory look which indicates that it is a valid substitute for a legal document.
Are presidents signing so many documents that they need 'someone else' - and it is someone else - to sign a given document on their behalf?
Normally POTUS' use autopens for non-important paperwork, not to sign bills or pardons. The key trump assertion is that not only was an autopen used, Biden didn't approve the pardons or know anything about them.
Could be Trump is just smoking them out. Could be he knows the truth. But lets get Biden in front of Congress to talk about it.
First tip offs that the article is one more snow job/smear job aimed at people who already believe it anyway: "antidemocratic" and "baseless."
WisRich said...
"Even better, declaring the ERA Constitutional Amendment passed and in full effect."
That is an even better example. Thank you for pointing it out.
Autopen is a machine whereby they have software with your signature. You put in the paper, you press a button, and the machine signs the document. Imagine your secretary could forge your signature to perfection. You give her the paperwork and she forges your signature. Only the computer with the mechanical arm ( or digital pen) is the secretary.
They know who had access to the autopen, and probably who put the pardons in the machine and pressed the button. They don't know how or if Biden ever read the pardons or approved them.
If you personally sign a document - that's implied approval.
Considering his current condition having Biden "vetting" those pardons would be a joke. All it would take is the threat of taking away his ice cream and Biden would say anything he was told to say.
"which embraced a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory"
so?
that means, it will take, what? 4 months? before it is accepted fact?
Autopens are useful for 'feel good' documents. "Thank you for your service" retirement certificates, 'Happy Anniversary' letters, Christmas cards from the White House.
Anything important? Pardons, treaties, bills? Nah. Let's get a live signature on that puppy, not Autopen.
https://www.justice.gov/file/494411/dl?inline
@Aggie ... I won't say that Trump is playing 4D chess but attacking anything else Biden "signed" via Auto-pen is problematic in a number of ways. Nobody seriously thinks that any President, including Donald Trump, authors his own EOs or is even intimately aware of specific details in the language. Question Biden's understanding of his own EOs would call into question Trump's own actions. A lot of other signings of bills and such were done in public. No need to question those. I'm not sure about the claim that questioning some pardons is weak. I agree Joe probably could go on at length about pardons for his immediate family, and maybe even the J6 kangaroo kommittee members but what did he know about some of the other pardons done in his name, such as that blanket pardon that included some pretty heinous murders? Those are the most likely to have been done secretly in the middle of the night by people wanting to store up political favors.
President Biden pardoned me (gilbar), for ALL previous drug dealings that gilbar might (or might NOT) have committed..
I have a copy of this pardon.. and it CLEARLY has what sure looks like Joe Biden's signature..
Is that legal? Can THAT be "undone"?
Does the fact that NO ONE has EVER mentioned this pardon before make a difference?
MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY; can FORMER President Biden unjustly revoke my TOTALLY LEGAL pardon, by "claiming" that he'd never even hear of Me; let alone the pardon?
The lawyer who signed the OLC memo was made a federal judge by Trump.
As I see it this is kind of big deal because Biden obviously has dementia. Who was controlling him?
"District judges issuing injuctions and orders every other day to stop everything the POTUS does."
Number of injunctions according to Grok:
Obama: 12
Trump (1st term): 64
Biden: 14
Trump (2nd term so far): 15
I am not sure that he was all there at all, here is an interview he did with Lawrence O'Donnell where he seems to be saying that we had nuclear weapons in Ukraine which we then removed in an attempt to mollify Putin prior to the invasion.
Biden: HE[Putin] STARTED OFF ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS BY SAYING: "I KNOW YOU CAN TAKE ME OUT TOMORROW. I KNOW YOU CAN TAKE THEM OUT TOMORROW FROM UKRAINE."
YOU CAN STRIKE MOSCOW. YOU CAN STRIKE. I SAID, "THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM. WE’VE ALREADY TAKEN THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUT." SO I TOOK THEM ALL OUT.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT ANY BACK IN...
WTF? Either that guy was panning to nuke Moscow from Ukraine in a bid to preemptively win a nuclear war with a devastating first strike, or he was non compos mentis at the end of his presidency.
Here is the interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5RZ7_ROxFk&t=1302s
Nice to know that there was a senile old man playing dice games with all of our lives for four years.
Readering ... I've seen no dispute that, even if it is to a degree objectionable, the President can *authorize* his signature be affixed to a document via Auto-pen. The entire question is how to prove that Biden actually did willingly and knowledgably give his authorization for the apparently dozens of documents that bear his Auto-pen signature, rather than simply assuming or asserting he did it.
"But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that."
Are you suggesting there's an irrebuttable presumption that any instrument "signed" by the president with an autopen was duly authorized by him? What if it were shown that the president was in a coma when the document was signed?
This IS a serious issue that deserves serious consideration, and Trump is trying to do that -- but he's doing it in an extremely Trumpian way: by unilaterally declaring all of Biden's pardons void (which is clearly not warranted).
I suspect there is a process for delegation of authority by the President to the auto-pen operator.
There has to be. Was the process followed? Is there a paper trail to document that it was?
Let's find out.
It’s been twenty-five years since an actual, physical, wet-ink signature was required to sign legally binding documents. All it takes is a click after the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000.
The autopen thing is hilarious. Pure Trump. He tosses a shiny object at his enemies, and they will run around chasing it, highlighting the incompetence and senility of Biden while Trump goes on doing Trump things. Who cares if it will “work” or not? It has already worked by making it the issue of the day.
If the courts accept the invitation to start invalidating pardons, let’s put the J6 pardons next on the list to be invalidated. I’m sure there’s some b.s. theory that can be used for that purpose, that’s what creative lawyers do. What a glorious Brave New World our Dear Leader is leading us to.
I think it's time to release the audiotapes of Hur's investigation. I read the transcript and it was like torture but there are a lot of ellipses and the tapes must be a total trainwreck.
Will Biden exercise his Executive Privilege to restrain testimony by his subordinates? Or was that Privilege muted by rulings against Trump? I love when chickens come home to roost.
The easiest solution here is to ask Joe Biden under oath what who he pardoned and for what. Without notes.
"All it would take is the threat of taking away his ice cream and Biden would say anything he was told to say."
And that presumes that at this point in time, he's still able to say any coherent words, whatsoever. Dementia is a steadily degenerative form of illness, so whatever condition he is in, it's worse than the last time he was heard from in public.
Mike (MJB Wolf) - 10:53am:
Not just "in a different state". Pardons are always dated, and someone tweeted that Biden was out of the country on two specific dates on which multiple pardons were issued. In the Virgin Islands, specifically, on one of them - maybe both, I forget. Assuming the autopen machine is not portable and does not go on Air Force One with the president, that is absolute proof that he didn't sign those pardons.
So then we need to know (a) who signed them? (b) under what authority? If Biden called or e-mailed the White House and told them to sign pardons in his name, that might make the pardons valid, but we need the e-mails or recordings of the phone calls to prove it's true, and we need to know whom he called/e-mailed and who ran the autopen that day.
The next step is to see if that person ever added any names not specified by Biden to the pardon list, and if he or she (or a spouse) got any large deposits of money in his bank account around the same time. Even if everything was above board, we have a right to know who was doing it, and how.
Douglas B. Levene said, "What a glorious Brave New World our Dear Leader is leading us to."
We never could've done it without the "Big Guy's" help. THANKS JOE!
JAQ: Biden is clearly referencing the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 pursuant to which 3 former Soviet Republics gave up the nuclear weapons sited in their territories.
Follow the money from the people who got pardoned, or from the people that profited from the pardons, either directly or indirectly.
They really did run this as a news story, which amazes me. People really need to calm the F down.
I agree that this can of worms is very unlikely to ever be opened, and the only way it could be is if they charged a "pardoned" target (agree that Liz Cheney would be a great test case!), the target would raise the pardon as a defense, and then . . . well who knows?
P.S. The end of my first paragraph should have said "absolute proof that he didn't sign those pardons and wasn't even in the room when they were signed".
Cherry pick the pardons to find especially egregious examples. Pardons that Joe would be ashamed to be associated with. Get Joe to deny being aware of those particular pardons. Get the ball rolling, and Bob's your uncle.
Flood social media with the idea that evil people took advantage of decent, good guy Joe. Get Joey pissed off at the staff that made him look bad and incompetent.
Trump doing his darndest to made Biden look wise for issuing those pardons.
"If the courts accept the invitation to start invalidating pardons, let’s put the J6 pardons next on the list to be invalidated. I’m sure there’s some b.s. theory that can be used for that purpose"
The supposed claim here is that Biden did not sign (by hand or autopen) the pardons. Based on Biden's physical/mental condition, it is certainly plausible that the claim is accurate. What claim is being offered that Trump did not actually issue pardons for the J6 prisoners?
Readering: “Trump doing his darndest to made Biden look wise for issuing those pardons.”
Because Democrat corruption must be protected by any means possible. LOL!
Article 7 requires the President to “sign” every law he approves.
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections.”
While maybe not specific to pardons, it does specify signing, not a stamp or seal or printed name.
Trump darn wise to make Biden look foolish to have issued those “pardons.”
Hardly baseless. Whether or not anything can be done or should be done to reverse it is a different question.
“Happy St. Patrick’s Day!” ☘️
—— Pat Magroin
Eva Marie: “Isn’t this heads I win, tails you lose?”
Not if the goal is to hold them accountable for their crimes.
what is the evidence that Joe Biden knows he pardoned anyone in the waning days of his administration?
As usual, the media people are more upset about the guy bringing up the fact that the previous POTUS was not involved in any decisions than they are about the previous POTUS not being involved in any decisions.
The power that is in the Constitution is given to "The President," so, interpreting that clause, one might question whether his hand must do the signing... and whether his mind comprehended what he was doing.
This is a fight the GOP wins, no matter how it ends up.
Because the BEST things can go for the Left is they're all exposed for covering up Biden's mental decline and dementia
Beyond that lies chaos.
No, beyond that lies the beginning of returning to the rule of law. No more free passes, for ANYONE
I suspect that this is in response to the recent wave of federal judges striking down his execuitive orders. He's giving the higher courts an execuitive order that he knows will be struck down in the lower courts so people won't say that the higher courts are always on his side if they overturn a lot of what the lower courts are doing. (It's basically the flip side of what the Democrats are doing with the courts.)
But I do think that they should ban the use of the autopen when it comes to important things like this. It's just too easy to abuse this technology. (When I got solar on my house, they had me "sign" all the loan documents with a "digital signature" online. I remember thinking that this was so easy that anyone could take out a loan in my name and just digitally sign my name on the documents.)
Plus, we all know that Biden wasn't fully competent during the end of his presidency.
More extreme: There is a break-in at the White House and the auto-pen is stolen!
Sounds like the premise of a Nicolas Cage movie.
What is the evidence that Joe Biden knows he’s no longer POTUS?
We can have Fauci and Milley indicted, tried, convicted and executed by dinnertime.
Having no NYT account, I'm unable to determine if this was an opinion piece or a fake news story. Surely it is opinion.
Biden raided Mar-a-lago, but how dare Trump question an auto pen’s authenticity.
The President’s Men: What did the auto pen know and when did it know it.
Trump's allies were litigated into poverty and jail. Don't you think all the pardoned have racked up lawyer fees today in preparation for what is to come? I hope so, and think it's a start.
Readering, most of us know Biden was alluding to Ukraine giving up their nukes. However, it's not clear to me that Biden knew what he was saying. Further, was it proper for Biden to take credit for Ukraine's decision 30 years ago? Has he been using the Ukraine as his personal piggy bank for that long?
Follow the… bitcoins
Do’h!
The grammatical point of a signature is to say yes to what you have already said yes to. Saying yes to a yes. Autopen defeats that.
Biden was certified? Declared non compos mentis as Obama's VP removing classified documents and storing them in his unheated garage. This legalistic excuse set a precedent for nullification of his penned and autopenned signatures. Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?
I really don't appreciate how Althouse seems to suggest a can of worms is something other than an overdetermined nutritious nourishment.
Let the Dems make their case that every Biden signature by the autopen is valid, then have the autopen sign a confession.
"But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that."
They don't really have much choice. As others have pointed out, courts are regularly called upon to decide whether wills are valid. Certainly, a Joe Biden will signed by the autopilot machine while he was in the Virgin Islands would receive some scrutiny, not least from Hunter Biden. But more to the point, Trump doesn't need to go ask some judge to declare Biden's "signature" invalid. Just proceed as if it were, and let those who believe it protects them assert its validity. Meanwhile, if it can be shown that the thing was used without Biden's knowledge, all manner of consequences ensue, civil and criminal.
Sorry January 6ers
All of your 1500 + pardons were done with autopen.
I wonder if the court would avoid deciding by adopting something analogous to the enrolled bill doctrine and saying that if he White House and the President treated them as valid than the court need inquire no further as to how they were generated.
In Beverly Hills one can enjoy a fresh worm flown in from Japan. It's expensive, but you'll never go back to canned worms, they say.
"He's giving the higher courts an execuitive order that he knows will be struck down in the lower courts"
**********
Presidents don't have the power to issue EOs to the courts. Full stop.
What is more likely?
That the use of auto-pen was comparable to P Didi's baby oil at a freak off party?
Or that cocaine was found just outside the White House situation room?
#Asking the hard questions.
10% was plenty
For use of the "Big Guy's" autopen
Enough left for two scoops
All of your 1500 + pardons were done with autopen.
How do we know Musk hasn't fired Trump's autopen?
It's not like autopen can blow the whistle on its own behalf.
Earnest Prole said...
It’s been twenty-five years since an actual, physical, wet-ink signature was required to sign legally binding documents. All it takes is a click after the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000.
Are you suggesting there is an embedded cryptic code in the pardons that will link back to an user account and password authentication that only Joe Biden had complete control to use? If so, that would be better evidence that Joe Biden authorized the pardons than an auto pen signature. Does the auto pen software have that digital breadcrumb trail for evidence? That should be easy to prove in a court trial.
What profit a man?
His soul replaced with an autopen
For mint chocolate chips
Not That Rich here. As stated by Leland, in a thought echoed by others, "Our founders didn’t foresee a day when autopens would be available and ubiquitous, thus they could not have adequately described the law in our constitution regarding the use of autopens for pardons."
Based on my exhaustive three minutes of legal research, I can't find anything binding that says a pardon even has to be in writing at all in the first place, never mind autopens versus quill pens versus fountain pens. Article II, section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
They knew how to contemplate something "in writing" when they wanted to (e.g. President can require opinions "in writing" from cabinet members), but they just left it at "President can grant pardons" with no limits on how he goes about doing that.
I am very sympathetic to the notion that we need a way to confirm a pardon actually was issued, and that it was issued by the President or at least with his approval/knowledge. But I don't see anything that says it absolutely has to be in writing at all, much less signed by the President's own hand.
Apparently, we can roast autopen with everything on it.
But Trump wants to toast Biden's autopen with everything on it... retroactively... like the pardons it signed. "Everything on it" includes retroactivity.
This post is going to lose me money.
Based on my exhaustive three minutes of legal research, I can't find anything binding that says a pardon even has to be in writing at all in the first place, never mind autopens versus quill pens versus fountain pens.
If we can't impeach Autopen, we can't ask the Supremes to overturn Rouge Autopen, and we can't abolish Autopen's right to exist. It sounds like were in a full-blown fascist Autopen dictatorship.
Didn't Biden declare that the ERA had been ratified? Proof that his brain was liquid?
Earnest Prole said, "...by directing a subordinate..." is the operative phrase there prole. Lots of people commenting, myself included, don't think slow-Joe was directing a goddamn thing.
Reading this comment thread is like watching a bunch of 103-IQ high-school bros trying to prep for a test without having cracked open the study material. Seven seconds of googling will provide you with a thirty-page legal memorandum on this subject that I guarantee you will prevail in any court of law. Its summary:
US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It
Date of Issuance: July 7, 2005
The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the 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.
Fog lifts. Sunlight. Heat.
Flight of crows cast black shadows
on Joe's Legacy
to say that is to look past the question whether there was a pardon
For that matter, one might question whether all these hyper-pro-Trump posts are really authored by Ann Althouse, notorious liberal Democrat.
Lots of people commenting, myself included, don't think slow-Joe was directing a goddamn thing.
I was reliably told I don’t have to pay my 2024 taxes because Joe Biden wasn’t actually President, therefore anything he “signed” is not law.
Trump claims that they have evidence that Biden didn't even know about some of the last segment of pardons. We'll see. If he can make that case, then the pardons aren't valid. But this shouldn't go anywhere - if Biden says he told someone to autosign the pardon, it's valid.
And maybe Trump just wants Congressional hearings or some other venue in which the evidence could be publicized. I know that LE within the Biden admin was pretty upset by some of the last ones. The Friday 2,500 was pretty questionable - I would think it likely that they might be able to prove that Biden never had a chance to read the pardon document before it was executed.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/biden-lets-cop-killer-dangerous-criminals-walk-free-in-last-minute-clemency-action/ar-AA1xx55U
That was 2,500 pardons. There was a day in December with 1,500 pardons.
Aging man's bewilderment
A son's filial devotion abets saying
"Sign here dad"
hombre posted
“Not if the goal is to hold them accountable for their crimes.”
I value more that President Trump is able to use his presidential powers unimpeded by activist judges.
Fun fact: I have an original land grant from the 1860's, with Abraham Lincoln's signature. As it turns out, the distinctive signature was placed there by W. D. Stoddard, whose own signature also appears on the document. Apparently Congress specifically authorized the President to appoint a Secretary to sign the President's name on land grants, and Stoddard held that position.
Ernest wrote:
The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the 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.
That is DOJ policy, but not law. Furthermore. how do we know that a cognitively diminished POTUS actually directed a subordinate to autopen his signature?
I think Joe needs to be publicly examined on each autopen "signature" to see who he directed to sign it.
For all the "baseless," "conspiracy," or "without evidence" crap, has anyone in the Biden administration affirmatively stated that Biden hand-signed anything, or attested to Biden personally using the autopen (which is how it was done way back in the day of Jefferson - the signer manually signed a single document and a mechanical connection to one or more additional pens matched the signature in real time on additional copies*), or attested to Biden understanding the documents being autosigned and personally directing that they be autosigned?
*Since the '30's, the autopen can utilize an authentic signature cut into a plastic sheet to form a groove to create knock-offs of the authentic signature without the original signer being present or taking part in the actual operation of the machine.
More extreme: There is a break-in at the White House and the auto-pen is stolen!
Don't even need that - there are plenty of examples of a President's signature available on-line, just get your own autopen and trace the signature to create the autopen signature plate.
Trump obviously planted this 'autopen' seed knowing that the amount of fertilizer contributed by comment threads would provide enough nourishment to ensure its success in putting down deep roots and sprouting to the sky. Who's with him in climbing this beanstalk to Mars and the stars?
So much inspiration. So little effort. Tomorrow is another day.
Mark: "For that matter, one might question whether all these hyper-pro-Trump posts are really authored by Ann Althouse, notorious liberal Democrat."
Now that you mention it, Mark, I've been wondering exactly the same thing ever since Ann appeared to suddenly come to her senses with this election. Is that really possible for a "notorious liberal Democrat" (well, like you, for example). Don't you think it's suspicious that Meade has cleverly offered a few photos of Ann since the election, always from long distance vantage points, in some of the sunrise photos.
Meade, you evil genius you, fess up. Where is Ann? We want "proof of life" photos or we're calling Dateline.
It's interesting how much the Biden presidency has left us with maybe not a constitutional *crisis* but at the very least a constitutional hot mess.
Biden pardoned his family at the 11th hour - and the political left are fine with it.
going back to 2014. That's when Hunter was the family bag-man.
Peachy… you are as right as rain!
My first take on that non-binding Bush W OLC opinion referencing Article 1, sec. 7.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the 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.
HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel
Article 1 bestows congressional power. As far as the president, Art 1, sec 7, clause 2 simply outlines the "Role of the President." Specifically, what happens if the president does or does not sign a bill. The president cannot alter the bill.
A bill is a very different creature than a pardon. A Bill originates as an act of Congress exercising its Article 1 powers. There are clear procedural safeguards in place to make sure the document the president returns signed or unsigned (or does not return at all) is the same document reflecting congressional intent.
Importantly, the president's signature is not required for a bill to become law. He need not do anything, including not returning the bill to congress, for it to become law.
Notice, the OLC opinion letter does not reference a president's VETO, only signing a bill into law (which of course is the same outcome as the president not bothering at all to return the bill to congress).
The OLS opinion leaves unanswered the question whether a president can VETO a bill by autopen, much less issue an executive pardon.
A pardon originates with the president. The inter-branch procedural safeguards in place with respect to congressional bills are not present in the case of pardons. Accordingly, there is substantial daylight between a bill and a pardon with respect to constitutional authority and proving intent and authenticity.
A challenge to the Biden pardons should get Trump into court and all the way to the Supreme Court.
A pardon isn't even a pardon unless it is presented as a defense in a prosecution for the crime, at which point, when invoked, it is considered an admission of guilt to the offense. So bringing charges, and requiring the individuals to actually invoke the pardons, is a win-win.
Maynard is quite right @2:40pm.
Biden being non compos mentis puts this in a different category/context than Earnie would have us believe.
Isn't Jake Tapper releasing a whole book about the baseless idea that Joe Biden had advanced dementia by the end of his term.
If you’ve failed to catch the mood of the Supreme Court lately, it’s grown increasingly suspicious of second-guessing the Executive’s explicit Article II functions, which of course includes the power to pardon. The chances the Supreme Court will make a dramatic u-turn to satisfy Donald Trump’s one-weird-trick whims are zero.
Boy, the Biden "administration" really made a mess of everything, didn't they?
Meade is running the blog while Althouse is busy in the fruit cellar.
Where's Vera Miles when you need her?
“The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the 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.”
Not that the left really respects the OLC (which famously had determined that § 1001 perjury required materiality, which was ignored by the DOJ for LTG Flynn and the Mueller prosecutions). But, the OLC opinion requires approval “ by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill”, and that is precisely the issue here - was the minion utilizing the autopen being “directed” by the President?
a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory
Uh-huh. And just how many of those 'a baseless right-wing conspiracy theories' have turned out to be true?
Related to Prof. M. Drout's comment at 3:43pm.
Professional Engineers can't just sign drawings. We have to put our seal on the drawing as well. Mine is a crimping tool, but you are allowed to use a stamp. It isn't much different than what a public notary might use. When our seal is attached, we take full responsibility for the drawing under the assumption we caught some underlings mistakes and had them corrected before signing and affixing our seal to the drawings.
I own the Big Balls edition Autopen.
One of the infinitely variable settings I use is, “ejaculative speech, court admissible, Biden ultra.”
The court admissibility of this setting ends up proving my legal incompetence. Which is why I am confused that it has an additional separate setting for “senility maximus.”
“Senility maximus” only prompts an AI audio voice, indistinguishible from Biden’s real presidential voice, to tell me to imagine becoming Teri Gar and taking full responsibility for my own orgasm, including the euphoria of a full pardon, which was never real in the first place.
I haven’t tried the “launch codes” feature yet.
I've taken that argument to be that these things (art, opinions, books) were always collaborative things and so the auteur idea is the incorrect and a wrong way of looking a it.
Maybe that's self-serving bullshit, but then again, the idea that there is some value in being "authentic" and the sole originator of an idea/art/theory is also self-serving in some contexts.
Tie it to the Great Man/Historical materialism debate.
Earnest Prole said...
If you’ve failed to catch the mood of the Supreme Court lately..
Tony Montana said it best:
"I should know what? What should I know? Why do you have to talk to me like that all the time? Like I gotta know something."
If the courts accept the invitation to start invalidating pardons, let’s put the J6 pardons next on the list to be invalidated.
Did Trump sign those pardons with an auto-pen? Because that's what's being discussed here.
Strangers shout "President"
Jill says there's bingo tonight
WTF am I?
"The chances the Supreme Court will make a dramatic u-turn to satisfy Donald Trump’s one-weird-trick whims are zero."
Trump hasn't asked the Supreme Court to do anything. He may have asked Kash Patel and Pam Bondi to open some investigations. If so, I'm sure they will be happy to do so.
Trump is a one man Overton Window moving madman
Then there is the question of who operated the autopen. Presumably, the autopen does not operate itself. So, if it was operated, then someone should be ready to testify that he operated it, at the President's direction. If no one is willing to say that, the signature's provenance is dubious, at best. I doubt the Supreme Court will bestir itself to rescue some convicted criminal waving a forged autopen pardon.
Let’s get back to first principles. And maybe pretend that this is a law school test (ignoring that the question crosses subject matter boundaries).
The Executive Branch is massive, employing maybe 2% of the public, including the military and civilian sectors. Art II § 1 ¶ 1 gives the entirety of the Executive power to the President. And the Executive Branch operates on his delegated authority. Has to be that way with so many employees. Much of that delegation is formal, often even statutory. But some is implicit. Granting of pardons remains a core Art II power, and before now, has never really been delegated (similar to signing laws into effect). When the President says to auto sign a bill, it is considered effectively signed by him. Likely similar to issuing pardons.
What we have there is a combination of delegation and consent. The President has consented to the legislation, and delegated the signing to another. The delegation can be by implication, and in terms of autopen signatures often is. Which leaves consent. Did Biden give knowing consent to those pardons?
Think of it as a contract between the President and the People, because that is essentially what our Constitution is (in part). Thus, the validity of these actions should be viewed under Contract Law, which, by its very nature, revolves around Consent and its requirement in forming an Agreement - consent. Absent Consent by the President, there is no contract between the US government and the objects of a Pardon.
So, did Biden consent to the pardons? There is a presumption of regularity. If you see someone’s signature on a contract, he is presumed to have signed it. Of course, if it’s an autopen signature, he didn’t sign it himself, but presumably authorized someone else to sign for him. This authorization is viewed as consent, if it is explicit.
But it’s a rebuttable presumption. As others have noted above, consent is routinely challenged in the case of wills and estates. Was the decedent of sound mind when he signed the new will, because if he wasn’t, then there was no meaningful consent. Extrinsic evidence is typically admissible in order to rebut the presumption of regularity, that the consent was knowing and voluntary.
Here there is extrinsic evidence that bills signed into law by autopen were not understood as such by Biden, and public statements by him that he opposed the issuing of pardons to certain classes of (potential) felons. In a dispute about a will, this would probably be sufficient to rebut the presumption, and the opposing party might need to introduce more evidence to prove his case. I would suggest that it should also be sufficient to rebut the presumption that Biden consented to the pardons. Not saying that he didn’t, but rather, that we probably shouldn’t PRESUME that he did.
Hmm ... if the president directs that a document be signed, the document is considered signed. But how do we know that Biden actually directed that all these documents be signed? The answer is that most likely we'll never know. Therefore, one can't prove that these pardons are illegitimate.
We also can't really say whether anything coming out of the White House is legitimate. Isn't that a little scary? Are we a bit like a late-stage empire where orders come out of the palace and have to be obeyed, even if they only come from the lowliest eunuch or courtesan or legionary.
As a note - if a pardon is a contract, then it’s apparently a unilateral contract. Unilateral contracts are those where one side makes a binding offer, but the other party does not have to accept the offer. Thus, it turns out that a Presidential Pardon is a unilateral offer of a bardon, but doesn’t actually become one if and until accepted by the other party.
Jim at said...
"If the courts accept the invitation to start invalidating pardons, let’s put the J6 pardons next on the list to be invalidated.
Did Trump sign those pardons with an auto-pen? Because that's what's being discussed here."
No, Jim. What's being discussed here is whether Biden knew that the "Auto-Pen was being used in his name. Big difference.
“ Hmm ... if the president directs that a document be signed, the document is considered signed. But how do we know that Biden actually directed that all these documents be signed? The answer is that most likely we'll never know. Therefore, one can't prove that these pardons are illegitimate.”
See my post covering the (rebuttable) presumption of regularity - that a document autosigned by the President was consented to, and the signing delegated by, him. Arguably, the public evidence, so far, is sufficient to rebut that presumption. If that is the case, then the prrson attempting to enforce the pardon would probably have burden of moving forward. This might be extrinsic evidence of conversations with Biden, etc. It might not require a lot of evidence, but at least some (in legal speak - at least a scintilla of evidence).
"But we accept that they are what they purport to be."
UNTIL CONTRARY EVIDENCE, AS HERE, IS OFFERED!
Ah, yes; "Reports suggest Neera Tanden, Biden's former White House Staff Secretary, may have used the autopen to sign pardons while President Biden was golfing in St. Croix in December 2022."
“Did Trump sign those pardons with an auto-pen? Because that's what's being discussed here."
Likely, they weren’t signed by autopen. Trump likes to sign things. A lot. He’s been a celebrity for a long time, and that’s part of building a brand.
My partner picked up a pair of Trump (45) sneakers in the Trump store where we live when in LV. And I know a guy there who has a white/gold MAGA hat personally signed by him (for a $300 donation to a charity). He signed a card, that was in the box with the sneakers, when he was talking to someone working in the store, right before closing.
@lazarus;"Therefore, one can't prove that these pardons are illegitimate." Yes, it's a murky situation, isn't it. But that is a two-way street. Fortunately, I, personally, don't feel any need to prove that these pardons are illegitimate. But there may be some people who wish to assert that the pardons are legitimate. The burden of proof would then fall upon them.
I would rather see litigated the question of whether the president’s power to pardon includes grants of immunity from prosecution, which is what these “pardons” really were. They don’t seem to be in accord with the language in the Constitution. I don’t see the autopen issue as having much traction.
Why fuk around, just send Pam or Cash out to arrest Hunter on pardoned charges and have it go to the crooks in SCOTUS see what you get ,no more conspiracies or red meat ,get a decision and deal with it..If they refuse it there ya go thats your answer...Is that hard ?> cmon man be a little more creative instead of living and dying with conspiracy running your brains..expoding heads all over the place..
"Reading this comment thread is like watching a bunch of 103-IQ high-school bros..."
Says EP, who then goes on to miss the point entirely.
"I would rather see litigated the question of whether the president’s power to pardon includes grants of immunity from prosecution, which is what these “pardons” really were."
Me, too. I'd really like to see this tested by starting a prosecution of one of those scoundrels. I'm thinking Fauci.
Jim said...
Did Trump sign those pardons with an auto-pen? Because that's what's being discussed here.
Rusty said...
No, Jim. What's being discussed here is whether Biden knew that the Auto-Pen was being used in his name. Big difference.
A hand signature by Trump largely obviates the issue of intent and delegation of authority associated with an autopen, so I agree with Jim that an actual signature should be dispositive of the issue.
And as I point out above, the autopen issue is hardly closed by analogy when applied to a pardon. Even as far as the OLC opinion is concerned, signing a bill into law with an autopen is NOT the same as issuing a veto of that same legislation -- or, as I would argue by extension, granting a pardon.
Maybe the point is to get the pardon question into court because it will bring along with it the so far unadjudicated question of preemptive pardons.
Arguments for it aren't extremely strong.
I'd be sweating if I were on the list.
An invalidation would also bring the pleasure, for some, of peeing on Nixon's grave.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.