I think I read it on X. I just asked GROK and it looks like its a misinterpretation most likely.
Apparently this is the source for the opinion: https://www.justice.gov/file/494411/dl Its a 30 page PDF on the matter. It specifically talks about bills but not pardons.
>There seems to be some confusion about what the Justice Department said in 2005 regarding autopen signatures. The 2005 memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel actually addressed the use of an autopen for signing legislation, not pardons specifically. It concluded that a president does not need to personally affix their signature to a bill for it to become law, and they can direct a subordinate to use an autopen to sign on their behalf, as long as the president has made the decision to approve it. This opinion is based on Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which governs the process of signing bills into law. When it comes to pardons, the Constitution (Article II, Section 2) grants the president broad authority to issue pardons without specifying that a physical signature is required. Legal precedent and historical practice suggest that the use of an autopen does not inherently invalidate a pardon, provided the president authorized it. For example, other presidents, like Barack Obama, have used an autopen for official documents, including pardons, without legal challenges overturning them. The 2005 opinion doesn’t explicitly say autopen signatures are invalid for pardons—rather, it supports their use for legislation when directed by the president, and this logic has been extended to other executive actions by experts.
This is excellent, thank you.
The key issue remains - did Biden authorize the use of the autopen to sign the pardons and/or was he even aware that they were issuing pardons in his name?
That is a very good and valid question. They say he was not "competent enough" to stand trial for his stolen documents... How could he be competent enough to use or authorize the use of the auto-pen?
I think that is the real point. He was a puppet just allowing others to do whatever the fuck they wanted. I assume the use of it is tied to a CAC or at least it was when I was in gov (nowhere near something like this, if you had to signed a doc inside the gov you needed your CAC and PIN to sign it).
So.... Did he have a cac/pin and did he give the cac/pin to someone else to "do his job for him"? (taken from him to be used for whatever the fuck they wanted)? I find that to be very likely.
Also, why the fuck has no one brought up the CAC yet?
Oh, and technically if he authorized someone else, their CAC should also have been used at the same time. It should be embedded in the "document".
My money is on Jill Biden, Susan Rice, and Victoria Nuland taking turns signing things with the autopen.
(post is archived)