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).]
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).]
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).]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think both Trump and Biden were showing dementia by the time that debate took place. For every "holy **** is that guy old and losing it" thing that's happened with Biden one of at least the same magnitude has happened with Trump. I made this point over and over during the election...neither of these addled old men are mentally fit to hold any position of power. That we keep electing damn-near-80-year-olds brimming with dementia to make our important decisions is astounding to me.
That being said...your list only really contains two items: The Hur Report -which was a purposefully political hit job- and Biden's debate performance, which showed he absolutely has periods of significant confusion and mental lapse. But you all aren't complaining that clear signs of dementia makes one unfit for President (otherwise the Trump support would be hard to explain) but rather that whichever age-addled lunatic we vote for be the one actually making decisions. And here it seems very much like we are stacking two competing narratives up: One -from the Hur Report- that Biden is a forgetful old man, and Two -from Johnson- who claims Biden wasn't authorizing the use of the Autopen because he had a lapse in memory about it. Pick a position please.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think this needs some Occam's Razor perspective here.
I agree with this.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: 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.
I agree with the first part of this, too. I'm not going to argue against Biden having mental decline...I've been saying that out loud since before he ran again. I was hoping they'd replace him with that moderate space-faring thumb from Arizona. However, if we KNOW FACTUALLY that Biden is suffering from dementia then we KNOW FACTUALLY that Trump is too; the evidence for each is both similar and overwhelming. That Trumpiseasytotakeadvantageof has been widely talked about for years, and it absolutely has to do with his dementia.
However, the only 'evidence' I've seen so far that Biden didn't know what he was signing was Johnson saying that, then walking it back immediately, and the Hur report seems to back up the explanation Biden offers Johnson. I may be alone in this, but I would far rather a professional staff of advisors be making decisions on behalf of a mentally incompetent President than be subjected to his insane whims. I'm actually almost as disgusted that Biden was making decisions as I am that Trump is.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: 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?
I am not arguing that. See above. I am saying that Johnson was using this as an attack platform without any real backing at the time. This is a politically charged, hyper-partisan politician talking **** about the opposition: He is not a good primary, much less sole, source on the matter. Would you accept Nancy Pelosi's assessment of Trump's mental state as being objective and absolute, or would Occam's Razor slice a different way then?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: 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
The Republican Party started what they knew was a legally baseless impeachment inquiry under Kevin McCarthy, and Johnson LED the push to continue it. He absolutely did not fight against the whole time...he gained a unanimous vote for it under his leadership, all while being open that there was no legal basis for it. He only let it go due to Biden's lagging poll numbers. The article says as much:
quote
But in this week’s private meeting with moderates, Johnson appeared to agree with Republican lawmakers who argued that since Biden’s polling numbers have been so weak, there is less of a political imperative to impeach him, according to Bacon and others who attended the meeting.
I think both Trump and Biden were showing dementia by the time that debate took place. For every "holy **** is that guy old and losing it" thing that's happened with Biden one of at least the same magnitude has happened with Trump. I made this point over and over during the election...neither of these addled old men are mentally fit to hold any position of power. That we keep electing damn-near-80-year-olds brimming with dementia to make our important decisions is astounding to me.
That being said...your list only really contains two items: The Hur Report -which was a purposefully political hit job- and Biden's debate performance, which showed he absolutely has periods of significant confusion and mental lapse. But you all aren't complaining that clear signs of dementia makes one unfit for President (otherwise the Trump support would be hard to explain) but rather that whichever age-addled lunatic we vote for be the one actually making decisions. And here it seems very much like we are stacking two competing narratives up: One -from the Hur Report- that Biden is a forgetful old man, and Two -from Johnson- who claims Biden wasn't authorizing the use of the Autopen because he had a lapse in memory about it. Pick a position please.
Ratcheting right over that fact that someone (who knows who) was authorizing the use of the "auto-pen" apparently without the authority. The holder of the auto-pen can't remember who gave her instructions..............
While I do see aging politicians as a recurring issue, I have to disagree on DJT showing signs of dementia. Although, I am not qualified to make such a judgement, in Biden's case, it was obvious even to the less than qualified layman.
I may not like all his programs and policies but, I like enough of them to continue supporting the vast majority of what he's trying to get done. Although I admit not liking to see the National Debt go up. IMHO, more cuts need to have been made.
Originally posted by blackrams: Ratcheting right over that fact that someone (who knows who) was authorizing the use of the "auto-pen" apparently without the authority. The holder of the auto-pen can't remember who gave her instructions..............
I am not. There is nothing that says the ultimate user of the autopen has to get the order directly from the President. That he used an intermediary shouldn't create shock and disbelief, nor be taken as evidence that Biden wasn't controlling things. Unless you have some facts that I don't, there is nothing here that shows Biden was not the ultimate decision-maker.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: While I do see aging politicians as a recurring issue, I have to disagree on DJT showing signs of dementia. Although, I am not qualified to make such a judgement, in Biden's case, it was obvious even to the less than qualified layman.
I may not like all his programs and policies but, I like enough of them to continue supporting the vast majority of what he's trying to get done. Although I admit not liking to see the National Debt go up. IMHO, more cuts need to have been made.
Rams
As an equally unqualified layman I don't know how you can make the judgement of one and not the other. I expressly do not like Trump's policies but my opinion of his mental acuity is not rooted in that. Just like while I disagree with most of what Dianne Feinstein did in her career, my opposition to them rolling our her barely-functioning, comatose body to tell her how to vote wasn't based on her politics.
I disagree with a whole lot of what Obama did and how he handled things, but it's hard to argue he wasn't firing on all cylinders. Same with Bush, same with Clinton...But now we've come into an era where "at least a little addled" is the baseline.
Ok, so a few things. I really don't know why you'd bring up Trump in this case... it's not making sense to me the relevance here. Trump signs all his own executive orders... often to much fan-fare. I cannot fathom how you've come to the conclusion that Trump is senile or has dementia. There's nothing even remotely that suggests this is the case. You certainly don't have to like the guy, but he's sharp as a tack, and extremely intelligent too. That might make some people really mad to hear that... again, it doesn't mean you have to like the guy... but he is probably the furthest from being senile.
On this:
"I may be alone in this, but I would far rather a professional staff of advisors be making decisions on behalf of a mentally incompetent President than be subjected to his insane whims."
This is a personal opinion about your views on the executive order process. Personally, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the president the authority to draft executive orders, and it's only something that's come about in the last 150 years anyway. The only thing in the Constitution that kind of defines the President's authority is based on three words... "execute laws faithfully." But, regardless... this is something both presidents use, and it has not been challenged, and likely will not. All of that aside, you are saying you would much rather have a committee of unelected people signing executive orders, rather than the President. Your opinion is duly noted. I'm not trying to be mean by saying that, but it's to emphasize that this is your opinion. But, your opinion, if it's true that this is what has been happening, is effectively Constitutionally illegal. It doesn't say the "executive branch" must execute laws faithfully, it says the "president" must execute laws faithfully. These individuals are unelected, and based on Biden's mental state... likely weren't even picked by him either.
Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he interviewed people for years, starting almost immediately after he lost the election. Every cabinet, sub-cabinet, and nominations had met with Trump personally at Mar-A-Lago. I'm speculating, but that doesn't seem to be possible for Biden to have also done that for all of his cabinet.
Finally, for Speaker Johnson... I was there, I remember this. Speaker Johnson did NOT want to impeach Biden. Quite honestly... the reason is because they wanted Biden in office because they knew they could beat him. The last thing they wanted was for Biden to be impeached, and have it really, really hurt Biden's chances of running (and thus result in maybe someone better running in his place for 2024).
So, the point you're making there, again... not trying to be mean... it's misguided. Speaker Johnson was basically forced by Republicans to do "something" ... but he was on the record many times saying he didn't want to impeach Biden. He created an inquiry, which... as you know is not actually required to happen before an impeachment vote. He created the inquiry to just appease the Republicans, and even though they came up with several reasons why they felt he should be impeached, Speaker Johnson declined to move it forward. It was honestly the last thing he wanted to do. I don't quite remember what your point was with this... but I can assure you, Speaker Johnson did NOT want to impeach Biden, and was basically the one who prevented it from happening.
No point in arguing with someone who denies reality. Biden's mental deterioration is established fact. It became so painfully obvious that the Democrats had to replace him on the ballot.
No point in arguing with someone who denies reality. Biden's mental deterioration is established fact. It became so painfully obvious that the Democrats had to replace him on the ballot.
Go ahead, keep arguing that it didn't happen.
While I do whole heartedly agree that Ole Joe wasn't up to the task or job, a lot of Democrats also recognized it but, I also believe that polling is what made the big wigs in the party dump Ole Joe. I don't believe they would have dumped Joe had his polling been beating DJT. All they cared about was staying in power and they felt confident they could keep Biden out of the public view and still control the media and the Oval Office as they did during his first term.
As is obvious, I don't have a lot of respect for a lot of politicians. You are free to determine which side of the aisle that applies to. But there are some on the other side of the aisle that I also believe should be voted out of office, just not nearly as many.
