Is it possible that a president’s signature could undo his legacy? The House Oversight Committee, under Chairman James Comer, is digging into former President Joe Biden’s mental state during his time in office, questioning whether he even knew what he was signing with an autopen on critical documents like executive orders and pardons. This isn’t just a political jab—it’s a serious probe into the legality of actions that shaped policy and freed individuals.
According to Just The News, at the heart of this investigation is whether Biden’s apparent mental decline, spotlighted by a shaky debate performance in the summer of 2024, compromised the validity of his decisions as president.
Concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness aren’t new; for years, Republican voices have pointed to his limited public appearances and fumbling speech as red flags. The administration’s tight control over his press access only fueled suspicions of a cover-up. It’s hard not to wonder if the curtain was pulled too tightly around a struggling leader.
Then came the first presidential debate of the 2024 campaign season, where Biden’s halting delivery and disoriented demeanor stunned even neutral observers. He stumbled through remarks, mixed up words, and made glaring errors, like claiming no U.S. troops died under his watch this decade. As David Axelrod noted, “There was a sense of shock, actually, how he came out at the beginning of this debate.”
Axelrod’s observation of Biden seeming “a little disoriented” isn’t just commentary—it’s a crack in the facade that Democrats long maintained. If a seasoned political mind like Axelrod saw panic setting in, what were senior staffers seeing behind closed doors? That debate wasn’t just a bad night; it was a turning point.
Just a month after that debate disaster, Biden exited the presidential race, endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. The timing speaks volumes—did the debate expose a truth too big to ignore? This wasn’t just a campaign stumble; it was a public unraveling of confidence in his capacity.
Even before the debate, a Department of Justice Special Counsel report by Robert Hur in February raised eyebrows about Biden’s memory. Hur declined to charge Biden over alleged mishandling of classified documents from his vice presidency, partly citing his “poor memory,” including forgetting the years he served as VP or when his son Beau passed away. Hur’s words paint a troubling picture: “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury… as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
Hur’s assessment isn’t just a legal footnote—it’s a gut punch to the narrative of Biden as fully in command. If a Special Counsel hesitates to prosecute because of mental frailty, how can we trust the weight of executive decisions made under that same fog? This isn’t about cruelty; it’s about accountability for a nation’s highest office.
Post-presidency, Comer’s investigation shifted gears, focusing on whether senior officials hid Biden’s condition and how often an autopen was used in his final months. Comer told the New York Times, “The evidence, it shows at the least, that Joe Biden really didn’t know what was being done with those executive orders.” If a president isn’t fully aware of his own actions, what does that mean for their legitimacy?
The autopen issue isn’t a minor technicality—it’s a potential legal landmine. Comer questions its frequent use, especially after the debate, saying, “It’s questionable whether or not it’s legal to use an autopen on a legal document.” Legal expert Alan Dershowitz echoed this, noting that for bills, the Constitution demands a signature, not a machine stamp.
Dershowitz further warned about pardons, stating, “Did he actually pardon? Or did somebody else just write the signature without really getting approval from President Biden?” If staff were effectively acting as president, that’s not just a procedural glitch—it’s a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.
Testimony from Neera Tanden, former director of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, only muddies the waters. She admitted to directing autopen use but had little direct interaction with Biden, leaving unclear who truly approved signatures. Comer called her testimony a revelation of “who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House amid the president’s obvious decline.”
Comer’s efforts to get answers hit a wall with Biden’s inner circle, as key figures like White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor and former aides Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal invoked the Fifth Amendment. Comer found this damning, stating, “When you asked Dr. O’Connor… were you ever told to lie about President Joe Biden’s health? And he can’t answer that.”
Biden himself pushed back in a New York Times interview, insisting, “I made every decision.” Yet, he also admitted not personally reviewing all categorical pardons, delegating to staff—a contradiction that doesn’t inspire confidence. If the buck stops with the president, shouldn’t his hand be on the pen?
This investigation isn’t about personal vendettas; it’s about ensuring the integrity of executive power. Comer believes the evidence could challenge the validity of Biden’s orders and pardons, a fight that may end in court as Dershowitz predicts. For a nation built on checks and balances, ignoring these questions isn’t just negligence—it’s a betrayal of trust.
