Biden’s Autopen Scandal Uncovered: Oversight Project Slams Justice Department
The Oversight Project, a dedicated entity, has voiced harsh criticisms against the former Trump administration’s Justice Department for allegedly hindering the public release of information concerning ex-President Joe Biden and his speculated reliance on an autopen. The Department’s sluggish pace in dealing with this information was attributed to heightened Freedom of Information Act applications. The Oversight Project lamented this sluggish response, highlighting the painful irony of former President Trump’s vigorous callouts about the supposed ‘autopen scandal’ and his own Justice Department adopting an entirely dismissive approach.
The President of the Oversight Project poignantly stated, ‘Their actions stand in stark contrast to the urgency we’re told this matter holds. While they boast about their efficient workflow, they are ironically squandering invaluable legal resources without a second thought.’ He made the tedious process seem ridiculously straightforward – ‘All it takes is a click.’
A sentiment of discontent was echoed when referring to the Attorney General’s procrastination over streamlining the department, particularly on an issue of such high importance. The Oversight Project voiced its disgrace over the matter, stating, ‘In an attempt to ignore our demands, Trump’s Justice Department has resorted to using clichéd excuses for the delay.’
Amid a sea of words and debates, the craving for unfiltered information grows profoundly among the American public. Cronies and high-ranking officials alike can spew blatant excuses, while the ravenous need for transparency continues to escalate. In an initiative to implement the Freedom of Information Act, the Oversight Project took a bold step and have proceeded with filing a lawsuit.
The Oversight Project oscillates between expressing indignation and demanding action as it remarks, ‘133 days is simply too long,’ referencing the considerable amount of time since they first submitted their FOIA application. With the Justice Department claiming efficient work progress, the Oversight Project allowed public attention to converge on Biden’s alleged autopen usage, especially towards his presidency’s conclusion.
Last year, the undercurrents of his health issues nudged Biden into withdrawing from the presidential race. The entire situation intensified when he addressed this issue publicly, maintaining it was his call on whom to pardon. However, he also accepted that his staff used the autopen for the pardons ‘because they all categorically fell under a single policy.’ But can such a defense stand strong against observational scrutiny?
The authenticity of his executive decisions has since been questioned by many. It was reported that Biden’s Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients, served as the approving authority for pardons on his behalf. The Oversight Project presented this situation with a bitter aftertaste in a memo published in March, stating that if Biden allowed others to carry out his presidential duties, the legitimacy of those decisions could be compromised.
The memo glaringly stated, ‘If President Biden’s non-delegable official actions were not his own, then they are invalid,’ touching a raw nerve concerning Biden’s autopen usage. It spurred a considerable shift in public opinion with its puritanical stance: ‘Begin with the Constitution. Numerous Constitutional provisions, such as the power of pardon, are vested exclusively in the president. As such, the president’s signature is the execution of these powers.’
Drawing from this, statements made by Biden alleging his exclusive decision-making authority over pardons, executive order enactments, legislation and proclamations, begin to hold less water. He defiantly termed any contradictions as being ‘utterly absurd and false.’, but this defence does little to quell the flurry of questions encircling his presidency.
During June, Trump took a position contrary to the defense provided by Biden and directed his White House counsel to conduct an investigation ‘to the extent permitted by law, whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unlawfully exercise presidential authority and duties.’ Accusations of this magnitude, regardless of their veracity, pose serious questions about the integrity of past presidential actions.
The skepticism about Biden’s administrative actions, compounded significantly by the autopen scandal, has led to the Senate Judiciary Committee holding a hearing. Roles have reversed and former loyalist turned critics, accuse Biden of dictatorial tendencies. The House Oversight Chair has taken extreme steps to subpoena multiple members of Biden’s staff to address this issue.
The ongoing investigation has already seen three former Biden officials invoking their constitutional rights. Biden’s personal physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, former Jill Biden’s top aide Anthony Bernal, and ex-deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini, all chose to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights to refuse answering questions about Biden’s health and supposed autopen dependence. This reluctance of individuals once closely associated with Biden, further fuels speculation about the truth behind the autopen controversy.