Are all of Biden’s pardons that were autopenned signed INVALID?

[AsherN]

Or the stupid old piece of shit could have just signed the pardons with fucking ink.

And then you would have questioned them because the signatures are not all alike. Nobody signs the exact same way all the time.

 

[ColonelAngus]

And then you would have questioned them because the signatures are not all alike. Nobody signs the exact same way all the time.

This makes no sense.

Show us where his has happened with a POTUS signature.

You are dreaming shit up now.

 

[buckeye]

Not what I said. A pardon does not grant immunity.

I'm not saying it did. How did you get that from me pointing out that you made two errors in explaining what you know? You claim to be an expert and demand that I agree with you, yet you were wrong on two counts.

I guess I don't get your style.

What is your constitutional justification for the challenge? Please cite Article, section, or amendment. I won't hold my breath because you can't. It isn't there!

I never claimed to be an expert. I'm just a right wing person who pays close attention to the news and the surrounding politics, not an expert on pardons as you claim to be.

You show me where multiple presidents have granted blanket pardons before Biden did. And you already gave me Ford's pardon of Nixon, so don't repeat yourself.

Then show me the court cases that decided that blanket pardons by former presidents are legal.

You may object to me saying blanket pardons grant permanent immunity for a defined period in the past but that is exactly what they do.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That doesn’t make any sense. The crime doesn’t occur when it’s investigated. It occurs when it’s committed.

Never said it did. I said the pardon has to follow a crime, not before.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I agree too. Pardons can only cover things that already happened.

We all agree with that.

Biden’s pardons only covered things that happened before he issued the pardon

...which means a crime has to have occurred. You can't issue a pardon for something that didn't happen which means if biden issued a pardon then the J6 committee had to have committed federal crimes.

 

[SeaMajor7]

There are no grants of immunity by the President. That power is not in the Constitution. Have you read it yet?

That's exactly why Biden's pretend pardons are BUNK.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let me get this straight. You want to declare the pardon invalid because they didn’t commit any crimes.

No,...we dont know if they committed any crimes..that would be the purpose of the investigation...the pardon would be invalid because biden issued it as a way to ward off investigations of the J6 committee, which is not following the law of pardons. You can only issue a pardon after a crime has been committed. So either biden is saying they did commit crimes, or, he used the pardon power improperly.

Then you want to investigate, discover the crimes, and prosecute them.

If they Indeed committed federal crimes, should they not be prosecuted?

Wouldn’t that invalidate your attempt to invalidate the pardon?

No

You’re trying to have it both ways. Claim they didn’t commit a crime to make the pardon null, then claim they did commit a crime to find them guilty.

I'm not claiming they didn't commit a crime, I'm saying we don't know. I'm saying biden issued pardons without knowing if they committed any crimes....which means there is no pardon....or...he is aware that they committed crimes, which means the pardon is valid, and now we know the J6 committee are guilty of committing federal crimes.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Constitution doesn’t put any conditions on it, so SCOTUS really has no authority to say otherwise.

but the law you linked does.

 

[debbiedowner]

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/03/chrome-capture-2025-3-17.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all

How hilarious would this be?

Trump says Biden’s autopen pardons are ‘void, vacant and of no further force or effect,’ vows probe of Jan. 6 House select committee

President Trump claims pardons made by Biden in the last minutes of his presidency have been “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT” since the former commander-in-chief used “Autopen.”…

nypost.com

If none of the pardons of valid, some of these bad actors are in deep doody.

Adam Schiff? Hunter? Fauci?

BDS a terrible thing to have. Better see a shrink.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's exactly why Biden's pretend pardons are BUNK.

This is actually correct, issuing a pardon without even knowing if a crime has occurred, is, in fact, immunity. That would be protecting people from being charged with a crime that has yet to be discovered.

 

[Mac-7]

Trump writes an idiotic tweet and the Trumpist sheeple fall over themselves over baseless allegations.

One can’t express how sad and pathetic this is.

Trump raises a valid point

Libs are in trouble on this one

 

[Marener]

Never said it did. I said the pardon has to follow a crime, not before.

Then what does this mean?

you have already said that the biden pardon was preemptive to ward off trump going after them. If that is true, then the pardon didn't follow a crime...means it's invalid.

What does a preemptive pardon to ward off an investigation and prosecution mean the pardon didn’t follow a crime?

 

[SeaMajor7]

This is actually correct, issuing a pardon without even knowing if a crime has occurred, is, in fact, immunity. That would be protecting people from being charged with a crime that has yet to be discovered.

IMO, those that accepted their "pre-pardon" have in fact implicated themselves as having committed crime(s) against the United States.

 

[Marener]

but the law you linked does.

I didn’t link a law. There aren’t laws that constrain pardons. There can’t be.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I didn’t link a law. There aren’t laws that constrain pardons. There can’t be.

The Constitution of the United States certainly DOES!!!!!

 

[playtime]

no.

WHAT IS AN AUTOPEN?​

An autopen is a mechanical device that is used to replicate a person’s authentic signature. A pen or other writing implement is held by an arm of the machine, which reproduces a signature after a writing sample has been fed to it. Presidents, including Trump, have used them for decades. Autopens aren’t the same as an old-fashioned ink pad and rubber stamp or the electronic signatures used on PDF documents.

WHY IS IT SUDDENLY AN ISSUE?​

The Oversight Project at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank recently said its analysis of thousands of pages of documents bearing Biden’s signature found that most were by autopen, including pardons. Conservative media have amplified the claims, which have been picked up by Trump. He has commented for several days running about Biden’s autopen use.

Mike Howell, the project’s executive director, said in an interview that his team is scrutinizing Biden’s pardons because that power lies only with the president under the Constitution and can’t be delegated to another person or a machine. Howell said some of Biden’s pardon papers also specify they were signed in Washington on days when he was elsewhere.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?​

There is no law governing a president’s use of an autopen.

A 2005 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department said an autopen can be used to sign legislation. Barack Obama became the first president to do so in May 2011 when he signed an extension of the Patriot Act. Obama was in France on official business and, with time running out before the law expired, he authorized use of the autopen to sign it into law.

Much earlier guidance on pardons was sent in 1929 from the solicitor general — the attorney who argues for the United States before the Supreme Court — to the attorney general. It says “neither the Constitution nor any statute prescribes the method by which executive clemency shall be exercised or evidenced.”

Presidents have used autopens for decades. Now Trump objects to Biden's use of one

 

[Marener]

No,...we dont know if they committed any crimes..that would be the purpose of the investigation...the pardon would be invalid because biden issued it as a way to ward off investigations of the J6 committee, which is not following the law of pardons. You can only issue a pardon after a crime has been committed. So either biden is saying they did commit crimes, or, he used the pardon power improperly.

There is no law on pardons that says any such thing. Go ahead and investigate if you so wish. If you investigate and find a crime, all you've done is determine that the pardon is in fac valid.

If they Indeed committed federal crimes, should they not be prosecuted?

No, because they've been pardoned.

No

If a pardon is only valid if it follows a crime, and you find a crime committed before the pardon, then all you've done is determined your reason for invalidating the pardon was fraudulent.

I'm not claiming they didn't commit a crime, I'm saying we don't know. I'm saying biden issued pardons without knowing if they committed any crimes....which means there is no pardon....or...he is aware that they committed crimes, which means the pardon is valid, and now we know the J6 committee are guilty of committing federal crimes.

Under no law is the president required to determine if they have indeed committed a crime. Certainly we could never expect the president to determine guilt. That's not their job.

 

[Marener]

Trump raises a valid point

Libs are on trouble on this one

You think the president can declare Biden’s pardons invalid by tweet? He thinks he can. If that’s the case, we can declare his pardons invalid after he leaves office.

 

[Mac-7]

You think the president can declare Biden’s pardons invalid by tweet? He thinks he can. If that’s the case, we can declare his pardons invalid after he leaves office.

No

But the DOJ can challenge them in court as invalid

Maybe even find a sympathetic lower court judge to agree with trump

And trump will have a good case against Old Joe

 

[Marener]

No

But the DOJ can challenge them in court as invalid

Maybe even find a sympathetic lower court judge to agree with trump

And trump will have a good case against Old Joe

So Trump is mentally unstable and the evidence is that he declared them invalid by tweet?

It’s amazing how often you guys think something is a “good case” just because Trump says so.