Biden's Autopen.................. (Page 1/3)
blackrams JUN 25, 09:05 AM
Top Biden aide admits to Congress she directed autopen signatures without knowing who gave final approval

https://www.msn.com/en-us/n ...541c689b3a876f&ei=16


quote
A former top aide to President Joe Biden said she was authorized to direct autopen signatures but was unaware of who in the president's inner circle was giving her final clearance, according to a source familiar with the aide's closed-door testimony in front of Congress Tuesday.

Neera Tanden, the former director of Biden's Domestic Policy Council, testified for hours Tuesday during an interview in front of the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the former president's mental acuity and his use of an automatic signature tool that allowed aides to sign pardons, memos and other important documents on Biden's behalf.

During Tanden's interview before Congress, which lasted more than five hours, she told lawmakers that, in her role as staff secretary and senior advisor to the former president between 2021 and 2023, she was authorized to direct autopen signatures on behalf of Biden, an Oversight Committee official told Fox News. The system of approval used, according to Tanden's testimony relayed to Fox News, was inherited from previous administrations.



What a load of Crap! She's covering for someone and anyone that doesn't recognize that drank way too much of the Kool Aid.
More to the article if one wants to click on the link.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-25-2025).]

Doug85GT JUN 25, 02:00 PM
No matter what system is used, it comes down to did the president give explicit authorization for each use of the autopen. We know Biden was no aware of everything that was signed in his name. At this point it becomes very messy. What was actually authorized and what was not. On the things not authorized, who was the person(s) who fraudulently authorized Biden's signature?

edit:

The Constitution can be read to mean the President himself must sign laws.

Article I Section 7

quote
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,

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 06-25-2025).]

blackrams JUL 01, 08:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT:

No matter what system is used, it comes down to did the president give explicit authorization for each use of the autopen. We know Biden was no aware of everything that was signed in his name. At this point it becomes very messy. What was actually authorized and what was not. On the things not authorized, who was the person(s) who fraudulently authorized Biden's signature?

edit:

The Constitution can be read to mean the President himself must sign laws.

Article I Section 7




There is great doubt that Ole Joe even knew what was really going on or that he even cared.
The President's signature is ultimately the last straw on anything it's applied to. The holder of that signature/auto-pen should be charged and put in jail for allowing forgeries which is exactly what was done. Whoever authorized the auto-pen signatures needs to be hunted down and prosecuted also.
I'm assuming Biden's Chief of Staff is the guilty party or at least knowledgeable of who is guilty.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-01-2025).]

NewDustin JUL 02, 08:38 AM
What's with the intense scrutiny of something that, even if your best hopes here are confirmed, would be considered entirely legal for at least 20 years?:

quote
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.


Meanwhile Trump is over here selling influence over himself to anyone willing to let him grift them, making bribery great again, and forcing through a bill that walks back at least 3 significant campaign promises.

But yeah sure, let's obsess over a meaningless conspiracy theory.
blackrams JUL 02, 09:28 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

But yeah sure, let's obsess over a meaningless conspiracy theory.



My thoughts: Meaningless occurs when right and wrong no longer matter. Mass Pardons (even to those who have not been charged) is not simply a conspiracy theory but, perspective does make a huge difference.

Rams
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 02, 10:17 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

What's with the intense scrutiny of something that, even if your best hopes here are confirmed, would be considered entirely legal for at least 20 years?:
Meanwhile Trump is over here selling influence over himself to anyone willing to let him grift them, making bribery great again, and forcing through a bill that walks back at least 3 significant campaign promises.

But yeah sure, let's obsess over a meaningless conspiracy theory.




The problem is not that someone else did it for Biden, it's that Biden didn't actually authorize it. One of the examples I can give was the banning of natural gas exports: https://energycommerce.hous...den-s-lng-export-ban

... this is important because when Speaker Johnson talked to President Biden, he asked him why he signed an executive order banning LNG Exports. Biden was very confused and said he signed no such executive order: https://nypost.com/2025/01/...peaker-mike-johnson/


So it's not conspiracy... there's a very real chance that a lot of things were signed by Executive Order that Biden didn't actually personally authorize, even though his auto-pen signature is on it.
NewDustin JUL 02, 11:32 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

The problem is not that someone else did it for Biden, it's that Biden didn't actually authorize it. One of the examples I can give was the banning of natural gas exports: https://energycommerce.hous...den-s-lng-export-ban

... this is important because when Speaker Johnson talked to President Biden, he asked him why he signed an executive order banning LNG Exports. Biden was very confused and said he signed no such executive order: https://nypost.com/2025/01/...peaker-mike-johnson/


So it's not conspiracy... there's a very real chance that a lot of things were signed by Executive Order that Biden didn't actually personally authorize, even though his auto-pen signature is on it.



Is the sole piece of evidence the first-hand account of a politician who has a documented history of making questionable claims about Biden's mental acuity/performance, and led an admittedly legally baseless attempt to impeach him?

Even then...Johnson says that Biden remembered issuing the order to use the Autopen, but wasn't familiar with what was in it, and that disgusted him. Even if we take what he is claiming at it's face value (which I think is foolish given Johnson's deeply partisan-influenced history), you don't have anything illegal...you have a need to now look at a previous legal standard.
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 02, 12:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
Is the sole piece of evidence the first-hand account of a politician who has a documented history of making questionable claims about Biden's mental acuity/performance, and led an admittedly legally baseless attempt to impeach him?

Even then...Johnson says that Biden remembered issuing the order to use the Autopen, but wasn't familiar with what was in it, and that disgusted him. Even if we take what he is claiming at it's face value (which I think is foolish given Johnson's deeply partisan-influenced history), you don't have anything illegal...you have a need to now look at a previous legal standard.




I think this needs some Occam's Razor perspective here.

You've got a President that we KNOW FACTUALLY is senile and likely suffering from dementia... someone who can very easily be taken advantage of. Even in the early stages of interviewing the cabinet members, they all have basically admitted that they didn't get approval from Biden, but approval from someone else who supposedly got it from someone else.

The articles you posted... I'm really confused... because I am not getting from them what I think you're suggesting.


The one where you're saying he's making questionable claims about his mental acuity... are we really still arguing that? We all know now that Biden is senile. Are you still saying that's in question?

Second, Biden was never impeached, and if you read the article you linked to... the guy you're saying who led it, is literally the one who tried to stop impeachment the entire time, led an inquiry (which is not impeachment) and literally decided against not doing anything. He most certainly did not lead it.


I'm confused by your response.
The
Doug85GT JUL 02, 06:12 PM
The defenders of Biden staffers abusing the autopen want us to forget everything that has recently happened which indicate Biden's lack of mental acuity such as:

The Hur Report which said Biden could not be convicted based on his poor mental state
Biden's numerous mental lapses, trips, falls etc.
Biden's disastrous debate performance
Democrats so panicked by Biden's mental state that they forced him off of the ballot for the presidential election
After Biden stepped down, many celebrities, members of the press and other people said that they saw first hand Biden's poor mental state
Biden's advanced cancer diagnosis which means he was in late stage cancer for most if not all of his presidency


If you ignore all of that, you can say that everyone that said Biden had cognitive problems was lying.
blackrams JUL 02, 11:16 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I'm confused by your response.
The



Quite frankly, I'm surprised that anyone would accept a random authority authorizing the signature of the POTUS and not be concerned about it.

Rams