Joe Biden’s use of an autopen for issuing pardons has sparked a fierce debate about their validity. Critics are now calling for these actions to be declared null and void.
According to Breitbart, the controversy erupted on Newsmax TV’s "Finnerty," where Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow labeled the autopen pardons as "illegitimate." These pardons reportedly include figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley, Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, Adam Kinzinger, and even members of Biden’s own family, such as his sister Valerie and sister-in-law Sarah.
Host Rob Finnerty pointed out a glaring detail: the only pardon bearing Biden’s actual signature was for his son, Hunter Biden. This distinction has fueled suspicions about the authenticity and intent behind the other pardons.
Marlow didn’t hold back in his critique, zeroing in on the Hunter Biden pardon as a telling clue. He argued that Biden’s decision to personally sign that one document suggests he doubted the autopen’s reliability for such a sensitive matter.
“He knew that it would be too suspicious, it’d be too risky,” Marlow said on the show. But if a personal signature was needed to ensure Hunter’s pardon stuck, why trust a machine for others, especially when the stakes are just as high?
The implication here is hard to ignore. Relying on a device for something as weighty as a presidential pardon undermines the gravity of the act and opens the door to legal challenges.
Marlow further noted that this issue is untested in the legal system, admitting, “We’ve never tested something like this in terms of whether or not it’s illegal.” Yet he insisted that the autopen pardons should be deemed invalid and those pardoned held accountable in court.
This isn’t just a technical quibble; it’s a question of trust in our institutions. If a president can delegate something as sacred as clemency to a machine, what’s next for the integrity of executive power?
The path forward, as Marlow suggested, lies in the judiciary. These pardons will likely face scrutiny in court, where their legitimacy could be dismantled under the weight of precedent and principle.
The list of autopen pardons includes political figures who’ve been lightning rods for controversy. Names like Cheney, Schiff, and Kinzinger, alongside Biden family members, only amplify the perception of favoritism or political gamesmanship.
Using an autopen for such a roster smacks of expediency over responsibility. It’s not just about the tool; it’s about what this choice signals to Americans who expect accountability from their leaders.
This saga also highlights a deeper issue with how power is wielded in Washington. When convenience trumps tradition, it erodes the checks and balances we rely on to keep government in line.
As this controversy unfolds, the public deserves answers about why an autopen was deemed sufficient for such monumental decisions. If Biden felt compelled to sign Hunter’s pardon by hand, that same standard should apply across the board.
The push to nullify these pardons isn’t merely about technicalities; it’s about restoring faith in a system that often feels rigged. Those who received these questionable reprieves should face the same legal scrutiny as anyone else, without the shield of a mechanical signature.
Ultimately, this debate is a test of whether the rule of law still matters over political expedience. As the courts take up this unprecedented case, the outcome could set a vital precedent for how far a president’s pen, or lack thereof, can reach.
