Autopen pardons can’t possibly be constitutional.
Why not test the theory on a few high-profile malefactors?
Near the end of Joe Biden’s incompetence, corruption, and dementia extravaganza, thousands of pardons were issued — many for unstated crimes. Most weren’t done with a pen in a human hand, as our founders intended. They were done with an autopen — a machine that can imitate a human signature. Given Joey “SoftServe’s” mental state, there’s ample reason to question whether the machine-signed pardons were a valid reflection of the president’s will, such as it was.
On December 2, 2025, after the magnitude of the autopen signing frenzy became apparent, President Trump declared Biden’s autopen orders invalid — not because Biden lacked the authority to issue them, but because there was no evidence that he even ordered them, whether audio recordings, decision logs, or witness affidavits. All of those pardons may have actually been issued by faceless bureaucrats, whose only power was access to the machine that could hold a pen and imitate Joe Biden’s illegible scrawl.
The Hunter Biden pardon reinforces that theory. It was different from Joe’s other pardons because it was signed by the actual hand of the president — a strong indication that it actually represented the will of the Article II chief executive. Apparently, Joe cared more about the pardon of his son than the thousands of others issued by his office. Is that because he didn’t even know about many of the others?
So what changed after President Trump declared his predecessor’s pardons null and void? Nothing. None of the monsters released by Biden has been re-arrested. None of the Biden cronies who escaped justice has shown contrition, nor begged for forgiveness. It’s as if Trump’s order means nothing, because the matter hasn’t been adjudicated — yet.
That raises two constitutionally significant questions:
Did the Framers of our Constitution intend that Article II pardon authority could bestow total criminal immunity?
Is a pardon constitutional without evidence that it represents the will of the president — which a handwritten signature does nicely?
For presidential pardon authority to be accepted by “we the people,” the Supreme Court needs to answer those two questions. Fortunately, DNI Gabbard has handed our DoJ the perfect test case: Dr. “I am the science” Fauci.
We now know from Nick Shirley that on Gropey Joe’s last day in office, Anthony Fauci frantically lobbied the president’s office for a pardon. I suspect Fauci knew he’d gotten out over his skis (legally speaking) and suddenly realized that Merrick Garland wasn’t going to be around much longer to run interference for criminals with an allegiance to the Democrats.
Joe Biden’s office responded to Fauci’s plea with enthusiasm — a blanket autopen pardon (note the signature difference from the Hunter Biden pardon), for any criminal acts he might have committed during his last ten years as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). It was something the Framers of the Constitution never expected any president to issue: a “get out of jail free card”...for anything. Total criminal immunity. Apparently, some people are “above the law,” provided they have the right connections.
Well, Director Gabbard decided to leave office with a bang. On her last day in office, Tulsi released a treasure trove of documents that implicate Fauci in a possible criminal conspiracy. It appears that Fauci likely illegally funded gain-of-function research in numerous foreign labs, including Wuhan, where the COVID pandemic seems to have originated;
conspired with intelligence officials to hide the source of the COVID virus;
violated federal law by retaliating against whistleblowers; and
perjured himself during a congressional investigation of the pandemic.
Given all of that, Anthony Fauci could be culpable in the deaths of millions of people worldwide — not because of malice, but because of greed and reckless disregard for the law. Not being a “buck stops here” kind of guy, Fauci compounded his crime with an attempt to evade accountability — a cover-up.
Perhaps our DoJ should indict Fauci as a test case for the use of the autopen. That will undoubtedly trigger howls from the left and activism from the bench. Eventually, the Supreme Court will need to decide if someone who created a humanitarian crisis is above the law, simply because a clerk deep in the bowels of the White House pushed the right button on a machine with a pen.
Chief Justice Roberts will no doubt prefer to avoid the question entirely, choosing freed criminals over bad press from the propaganda media. Justice Jackson will defend Fauci’s pardon because she was probably appointed by autopen. Justice Sotomayor will side with Jackson, while complaining that her vacation plans are being disrupted by the court’s emergency docket. Justice Kagan will join her two liberal compatriots because she went to Harvard Law and probably doesn’t know any better. Justices Thomas and Alito will insist on striking down Fauci’s pardon because the thought of vesting constitutional power in a machine with a pen should terrify everyone. It’s anyone’s guess how the other three justices will decide.
If the Supremes ultimately decide that pre-emptive pardons are swell, and the power of the presidency is held by anyone who can sneak into the autopen room, perhaps a few other countries might disagree and like to have a few words with the good doctor. I understand that over 4,200 Salvadorans died from the virus created in the lab that Fauci funded — and El Salvador has an extradition treaty with the United States.
Do you suppose Dr. Fauci realizes that President Bukele isn’t constrained by a pardon issued by Gropey Joe, whether done by his hand or not?
No comments:
Post a Comment