Trump's Claims Against Biden's Pardons
President Donald Trump stirred controversy by asserting that the pardons issued by President Joe Biden are invalid. Why? Because they were signed using an autopen. Trump insists that this method indicates a lack of personal approval and questions Biden's cognitive ability in making these decisions.
The claim primarily targets the pardons granted on January 19 to members of the House January 6 committee and allies like Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired General Mark Milley, and even some members of the Biden family. These pardons were issued to protect them from potential prosecutions under Trump's administration.
Expert Opinions and Historical Context
Trump's assertion faces stiff opposition from legal experts and historical precedents. The U.S. Department of Justice's guidance from 2005 permits presidents to authorize the use of an autopen for official signatures. This practice isn't new; for example, former President Barack Obama signed the Patriot Act extension remotely using an autopen in 2011.
Constitutional scholars back up Biden's actions, noting that the Constitution does not specifically require handwritten signatures for pardons. Courts have upheld similar cases in the past, emphasizing the president's authority in clemency matters.
Amid this legal backdrop, the argument against Biden's pardons seems less about procedure and more about contesting Biden's mental capacity. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt supported Trump's narrative but failed to offer any hard evidence.
The pardons' validity is unlikely to be successfully challenged in court, given this legal context and the president's recognized authority. This whole scenario sheds light on the tensions surrounding executive power and the exercise of presidential clemency.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, a former committee chair, dismissed Trump’s claims as baseless. Others, like Rep. Liz Cheney, remain in Trump's crosshairs despite historical support for Biden's actions. This unfolding drama highlights the fierce political divides and the continuous scrutiny around executive decisions.
Write a comment