How Much of Biden's Term Will Be Invalidated by the Autopen Scandal?

Inside the legality, precedent, and most importantly, intent, of the revelation that almost nothing of importance was signed by Joe Biden for four years.

Late last night, President Donald Trump went hot over the Biden autopen issue that has popped up this month.

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!

The subject piques my interest for more than one reason. I have a large collection of historical signed items, including from many all-time baseball greats and American icons like Ronald Reagan, Eddie Rickenbacker, and President Trump himself. A key checkpoint in the authentication process is to ensure items aren’t signed by a ghost signer (someone else signing the signature) or autopen. Modern autopens, mechanical devices replicating a signature, have been around since the 1930s, and their established use by some presidents clouds this issue more than you would think, and more than President Trump’s social media post lets on.

Other presidents have indeed used autopens, but typically for documents of minimal importance. To underscore my point, it wasn’t until 2011 that the legality of presidential autopens came under fire, because it was then that Barack Obama became the first president to have his signature affixed on a piece of legislation by one. Obama was in France, and an autopen was used to sign legislation extending the dreadful USA PATRIOT Act.

---

Legality

So, what happened after Obama’s autopen conundrum?

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in response to the upoar, reviewed the validity claims and determined that the signature was valid under the Constitution’s requirement for the president to “take care that laws be faithfully executed.” This provides major space for interpretation, presumably giving the president the ability to delegate tasks like affixing signatures on documents to someone else. The GAO, in Obama’s case, determined that signatures of this sort are valid so long as approved by the president whose signature is being affixed.

That ruling corroborated a 2005 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) called “Use of Autopen in Connection with Signing of Legislation,” which emphasized that a president’s intent is what counts, not the manner or means of affixing the signature. Examples from Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower were furnished as examples to support the context of the memo. George W. Bush, president at the time of the memo, did not use autopen to sign legislation.

---

So What is the Big Deal?

I doubt President Trump is basing his argument on the mechanical use of the autopen. After all, it has been generally accepted and corroborated in 2005 and 2011 that autopen usage is legal provided the signature is approved by the president whose name is affixed. Verification for important documents, such as landmark legislation or controversial pardons, is simple and could be obtained in a simple press release or question and answer session with the media.