If President Biden was Himself “Out to Lunch,” Then What are the Legal Consequences? By Chris Knight (Florida)
The article from PJ Media, authored by Matt Margolis and published on March 6, 2025:
presents a provocative claim based on an investigation by the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project. The central assertion is that nearly every official document bearing Joe Biden's signature during his presidency was signed using an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a person's signature—except for one key exception: his letter announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. This revelation, if substantiated, raises significant questions about the legitimacy of Biden's presidential actions, potentially rendering them "null and void" due to legal and constitutional implications.
The Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project reportedly analyzed a wide array of documents from Biden's tenure and found consistent use of the same autopen signature across all but the withdrawal letter. This exception is highlighted as particularly striking because it suggests Biden may have personally signed that document, while others were mechanically produced. The article implies that this pattern could indicate Biden was not directly involved in authorising many of his administration's actions, fuelling speculation about who was truly in charge. For instance, it references a prior incident where House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) noted Biden's apparent inability to recall signing an executive order halting LNG export, suggesting Biden's detachment from the process.
The piece also delves into historical context, noting that the use of autopens by U.S. presidents dates back to the 1950s, with legal debates surrounding its propriety. It cites Barack Obama's 2013 use of an autopen to sign a bill into law while vacationing in Hawaii, justified by a legal memo from George W. Bush's administration asserting that presidential presence isn't required if the signature is authorised. However, the article argues that Biden's case differs because it's unclear who operated the autopen or whether Biden knowingly approved its use for each document. This ambiguity is framed as a potential constitutional crisis, especially given concerns about Biden's cognitive decline, which Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has reportedly urged the Department of Justice to investigate.
The implications are dramatic: if Biden's signatures were not personally affixed or explicitly authorized, the article suggests that every executive order, pardon, and official action under his name could be legally challenged as invalid. This is underscored by posts on X from the Oversight Project, which stated, "WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY," amplifying the narrative of a presidency potentially run by unelected bureaucrats rather than Biden himself.
Supporting this account, the article leans on the Heritage Foundation's findings and the broader political context of Biden's presidency, including his withdrawal from the 2024 race and public perceptions of his mental fitness. It doesn't provide definitive proof—such as legal rulings or firsthand testimony—but constructs a compelling case by connecting these dots, urging readers to consider the possibility of a "greatest con job ever perpetrated on the American people." The call for investigation by figures like Bailey adds a layer of official scrutiny, suggesting that this could escalate beyond speculation into a formal legal challenge.
Comments