Republican lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee have dropped a bombshell report, zeroing in on former President Joe Biden's use of an autopen for signing official documents.
As reported by USA TODAY, the GOP-led committee released a report on Oct. 28, alleging that Biden's reliance on an autopen allowed White House staff to push policies without his direct consent, while questioning his mental capacity. The report, spearheaded by Chairman James Comer, calls on the Department of Justice to investigate all executive actions attributed to Biden for potential illegitimacy.
The accusations cut deep, suggesting a cover-up by aides to mask a supposed decline in Biden's cognitive state. Without fresh evidence, the report leans on the refusal of former staff to testify as proof of wrongdoing, a stance that smells more of political theater than legal substance.
Presidents have used autopens for decades to sign routine or less critical documents, a fact even acknowledged by President Donald Trump, who noted in March he used it for "only very unimportant papers." Yet, the GOP report insists Biden's use crossed a line, potentially rendering actions like pardons void, despite the committee lacking authority to nullify them.
This isn't about the tool itself but who wielded the power behind it. If staff could sign off on major decisions without Biden's direct input, as alleged, it raises serious questions about accountability in the executive branch.
Comer's team has gone as far as to urge the DOJ to scrutinize every executive move made under Biden's name. Their report declares, "The Committee finds numerous executive actions−particularly clemency actions−taken during the Biden Administration were illegitimate," a bold claim that seems more about scoring points than securing legal outcomes.
The report doesn't stop at Biden; it singles out senior aides Anthony Bernal and Annie Tomasini, along with physician Kevin O'Connor, for invoking the Fifth Amendment during questioning. Comer has also pressed the D.C. Board of Medicine to investigate O'Connor, layering on the pressure with a side of bureaucratic retribution.
Refusing to testify isn't a crime, but the GOP frames it as a damning admission of guilt. This tactic risks turning a procedural right into a political weapon, a move that could chill future cooperation with congressional inquiries.
Meanwhile, Comer’s letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Oct. 28 demands a full DOJ probe into Biden's executive actions for possible "criminal activity." It’s a heavy accusation, but without concrete evidence beyond silence, it’s hard to see this as more than a partisan jab at a former administration.
Biden himself has pushed back hard against the allegations, defending the autopen's legality in a July 13 interview with The New York Times. He stated, "The autopen is, you know, is legal. As you know, other presidents used it, including Trump," directly countering the GOP's narrative of abuse.
He didn’t stop there, accusing Republicans of dishonesty with a sharp, "They’re liars," when pressed on their claims of White House misconduct. Biden suggested this is just a distraction, a page from Trump’s playbook to shift focus from their own shortcomings.
There's truth in pointing out the hypocrisy; if Trump used the autopen without issue, why the sudden outrage now? This selective scrutiny feels less like a quest for justice and more like a grudge match against a political rival.
Past GOP reports, like the 2023 House Oversight document alleging corrupt business dealings by Biden and his family, were similarly dismissed by the administration as baseless and politically driven. This latest autopen probe fits a pattern of aggressive investigations that seem to prioritize headlines over hard evidence.
While accountability matters, the lack of new proof in this report undermines its weight. Taxpayers deserve oversight that uncovers truth, not just fuels endless partisan spats over tools as mundane as a signature machine.
Ultimately, the DOJ will decide whether to take up this cause, but the GOP’s push feels like a long shot without stronger footing. If the goal is to protect the integrity of executive power, the focus should be on clear violations, not speculative conspiracies about who signed what and when.
