Autopengate.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,433
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

The question is: are pardons legitimate if they were signed by autopen?
What if the president was out of the country when the documents were signed in DC via autopen?

What about legislation? Does the public have a right to demand presidents must physically have the document in front of them for examination as they sign it?
Is the inability to physically sign documents grounds for removal under the 25th amendment?

What is the legal procedure? How do we know the president activated the autopen?
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,521
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
This is simple. It should be signed by hand but won't judges literally just ask Biden if he signed it. If he is found to be competent to answer than what he says should be taken at face value if he is not found to be competent the Pardons should be thrown out
#3
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,521
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
*Approved of signing it
#4
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,656
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@WyIted
I think presidents, including Biden and Trump sign 'too 'many documents, to be able to remember each individual case.
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,763
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The question is: are pardons legitimate if they were signed by autopen?
What if the president was out of the country when the documents were signed in DC via autopen?

What about legislation? Does the public have a right to demand presidents must physically have the document in front of them for examination as they sign it?
Is the inability to physically sign documents grounds for removal under the 25th amendment?

What is the legal procedure? How do we know the president activated the autopen?
1. I say, no. How do we know with an autopen if the president, or someone else, activated the autosign? 
2. If signed by autopen, regardless of the president's whereabouts, even if in the White House, actionable documents like billls, pardons, and even EOs, need to be personally signed.
3. Yes, as in 2, above
4. Yes, since the president is an executive officer; in effect, the CEO, his inability to read, comprehend, and sign actionable documents as noted in 2, above, any disability to do so should cause a launch of the 25A by the VP or Cabinet. In both cases, those people have been derelict, themselves, the last 4 years. I find it curious that in the last 50 years, since launch of the 25A, Congress has not acted to include itself in raking action on the 25A, when the suggestion is in it for Congress.
5. I don't know the official autopen procedure, but I found the following:

"The state of the law surrounding proxy signatures has remained amazingly constant through both English and American history. The proxy and the principal [in this case, the autopen and the president] must be present together when a proxy signature is utilized for a high-value transaction. This was the rock-solid law when the constitution was written."

If that is still the law, why didn't Biden just sign the bloody papers, himself? I go to #4 above for disability.  An aurtopen [proxy] signature can always be identified by observing multiple documents. They will be identical signatures, whereas it is known that personal signatures vary from signing to signing. It is impossible to personally scribe identical signatures.  Close, but identifiably different.



#6
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,650
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
What is the legal procedure? How do we know the president activated the autopen?
How do we know the president's hand written signature wasn't forged? We can play this game all day long.

The pardon power is laid out entirely in the constitution, pretty sure it doesn't have an anti-auto pen clause.

Presidential pardons are definitely a problem in this country but this is a stupid angle for which to be addressing it. Legal documents are signed by auto pen all the time, but as usual, Trump comes along with his 78 IQ asking questions only a 10 year old would find thought provoking and now we as a nation have to debate whether the earth is round.

If you want to ask a legitimate question about the constitutionality of a pardon how about; is it constitutional for a president to pardon someone for any crime they may have committed before any criminal activity has even been investigated let alone charged? Or, is it constitutional for a president to pardon violators of a vaguely described activity within a vague location over a vague time period without even naming the individuals he pardoned?
Topic's author
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,433
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I'm talking about the duty required of a president to actually perform the action of signing and the 25th amendment.
#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,650
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
And as I already pointed out, the constitution says nothing about that. It simply gives the president the power to grant pardons, the idea that the wrong method of signing a document nullifies it is silly.

What is a perfectly reasonable requirement is that there is some documentation. It's insane that the same guy claiming Biden's pardons are null and void for using autopen is the same guy who argued for years that he can declassify documents with nothing more than his own mind. But that's Trump. No one cares because the absurdity and hypocrisy is just baked in with him, even while you guys complain about Biden or other democrats for things that pale in comparison.
Topic's author
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,433
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I suppose the SCOTUS will decide what the legal term "to sign something" means. The constitution gives the president the power to sign or not sign legislation. If the president was not in the same room as the autopen and the document, that raises serious 25th amendment concerns.
#10
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
And as I already pointed out, the constitution says nothing about that. It simply gives the president the power to grant pardons, the idea that the wrong method of signing a document nullifies it is silly.

What is a perfectly reasonable requirement is that there is some documentation. It's insane that the same guy claiming Biden's pardons are null and void for using autopen is the same guy who argued for years that he can declassify documents with nothing more than his own mind. But that's Trump. No one cares because the absurdity and hypocrisy is just baked in with him, even while you guys complain about Biden or other democrats for things that pale in comparison.
Elections has consequences. Trump is hammering that point home.
#11
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 216
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@Lemming
I think presidents, including Biden and Trump sign 'too 'many documents, to be able to remember each individual case.
If I was president, I wouldnt sign anything.

#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,650
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The constitution gives the president the power to sign or not sign legislation. If the president was not in the same room as the autopen and the document, that raises serious 25th amendment concerns.
Yeah... *If*.

And *if* Trump is working for Vladimir Putin that would be treason.

We can play the what if game all day long. If you want to pretend to be engaging in reasonable speculation you need evidence. Trump has none, cause as usual it's just diarrhea of the mouth with him which the rest of the political right then feels the need to try and clean up.
Topic's author
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,433
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
so you agree. end rant then.

And *if* Trump is working for Vladimir Putin that would be treason.
Lol, Okay Al Green. Enjoy the disapproval I guess.
#14
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,835
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
What is the legal procedure? How do we know the president activated the autopen?
It is available to him in the White House.
Topic's author
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,433
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
And *if* Trump is working for Vladimir Putin that would be treason.
Oopsie, add another to the 30,000 misleading or false statements!


And also the baby brother AP news...more lies
#16
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,333
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Petty and contrived "scandal".

Does Trump really want to play this game? Once he's out of office, Democrats will be scrutinizing the breakfasts he had in the morning to find some bullcrap pseudolegal reason for why his presidential actions were invalid. And if they can get some wingnut lefty judge to sign off on this, it just might stick.
Gee, I wonder what this development will mean for rule of law in America. Only good things, surely. /s
#17
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 216
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Why is DOGE so slow in reducing costs, by the way?


Just 200 billion so far. With this speed, it wont save much money because US spending keeps increasing faster than DOGE reduces it.
#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,650
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
so you agree.
Not sure how you interpreted my pointing out why your question is silly as agreement. Perhaps you'd care to read it again and this time absorb the point.

And *if* Trump is working for Vladimir Putin that would be treason.
Lol, Okay Al Green. Enjoy the disapproval I guess.
What is wrong with you? Do you even understand the post?
Topic's author
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,433
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The president only has so much power with discretionary spending. The Congress is ultimately going to have to make the big sweeping changes to transition USA back to a smaller government that actually functions.
#20
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 216
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The Congress is ultimately going to have to make the big sweeping changes to transition USA back to a smaller government that actually functions.
Yeah, I would have many ideas of what to throw out of a budget, but lets face it, people dont have the courage. Its the standard trap of: "1. Government takes money from people to introduce programs. 2. As a result of 1, people become poorer. 3. Since people become poorer, governement introduces more programs to reduce people's poverty by taking away more money from people.". All this could be skipped if 1 wasnt done. There is a saying which goes "Governing a country is like frying a fish. You destroy it by frying(governing) too much."
#21
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,366
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Swagnarok
Petty and contrived "scandal".

Does Trump really want to play this game? Once he's out of office, Democrats will be scrutinizing the breakfasts he had in the morning to find some bullcrap pseudolegal reason for why his presidential actions were invalid. And if they can get some wingnut lefty judge to sign off on this, it just might stick.
Gee, I wonder what this development will mean for rule of law in America. Only good things, surely. /s
If it's a bluff it's a terrible idea. Maybe they found reason to believe Biden didn't actually know about the purported pardons.

If that's the case (and it's just a hypothetical), then saying these things is exactly the right way to exploit the information. Make a big deal about it, get a bunch of pundits invested, force it into court, win the argument.

That's a lot more political capital than simply showing the evidence.


#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,650
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Swagnarok
Once he's out of office, Democrats will be scrutinizing the breakfasts he had in the morning to find some bullcrap pseudolegal reason for why his presidential actions were invalid. And if they can get some wingnut lefty judge to sign off on this, it just might stick. 
Gee, I wonder what this development will mean for rule of law in America. Only good things, surely.
So you value the rule of law? Curious then to hear your thoughts on Trump picking the guy who published and enemies hitlist and stated publicly that he would use the justice department to go after Trump's political enemies as his FBI director. 
#23
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,333
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
Curious then to hear your thoughts on Trump picking the guy who published and enemies hitlist and stated publicly that he would use the justice department to go after Trump's political enemies as his FBI director. 
Citation, please.
#24
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,650
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Swagnarok
Are you serious? You really don't pay attention to anything going on, do you?

Here he is putting everyone "on notice" that he will be going after Trump's political foes "whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out":

And here is his enemies list from his book "government gangsters" (yes, he published this):

  • Michael Atkinson: former Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
  • Lloyd Austin: U.S. Secretary of Defense.
  • Brian Auten: FBI official who supervised the bureau's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
  • James Baker: the former general counsel of the FBI and former deputy general counsel at Twitter.
  • Bill Barr: attorney general under Trump.
  • John Bolton: Trump's one-time national security adviser.
  • Stephen Boyd: the former head of legislative affairs at the Justice Department.
  • Joe Biden: President of the United States.
  • John Brennan: former CIA director who served under President Barack Obama.
  • John Carlin: former acting deputy attorney general and the former head of the national security division at the Justice Department.
  • Eric Ciaramella: former Ukraine director of the National Security Council under Obama and former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council.
  • Pat Cipollone: former White House counsel under Trump.
  • James Clapper: former director of national intelligence during the Obama administration.
  • Hillary Clinton: former Secretary of State under Obama and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.
  • James Comey: former FBI director who was fired by Trump in 2017.
  • Elizabeth Dibble: former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London.
  • Mark Esper: Secretary of Defense under Trump.
  • Alyssa Farah Griffin: former director of strategic communications under Trump and former Pentagon spokesperson.
  • Evelyn Farkas: former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia during the Obama administration.
  • Merrick Garland: U.S. attorney general.
  • Stephanie Grisham: Trump's former press secretary and incoming First Lady Melania Trump's former chief of staff.
  • Kamala Harris: Vice President of the United States and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee.
  • Gina Haspel: former CIA director under Trump.
  • Fiona Hill: former National Security Council official under Trump specializing in Russia and Ukraine. Hill was one of the officials who testified at Trump's first impeachment proceeding.
  • Curtis Heide: FBI supervisory agent who was investigated for "not identifying exculpatory information as it pertained to one of the Crossfire Hurricane investigations," referring to the FBI's codename for the 2016 Russia inquiry.
  • Eric Holder: attorney general during the Obama administration.
  • Robert Her: Justice Department special counsel who investigated Joe Biden's handling of classified government documents.
  • Cassidy Hutchinson: former aide to Trump's ex-chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who testified to Congress' January 6 select committee about Trump's actions related to the Capitol riot.
  • Nina Jankowicz: former executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board during the Biden administration.
  • Lois Lerner: former director of the Internal Revenue Service under Obama.
  • Charles Kupperman: former deputy national security adviser during Trump's first term.
  • Kenneth Mackenzie: former head of the United States Central Command and retired Marine Corps General.
  • Andrew McCabe: former deputy FBI director during Trump's first term.
  • Ryan McCarthy: former secretary of the Army under Trump.
  • Mary McCord: the Justice Department's former acting assistant attorney general for national security during the Obama administration.
  • Denis McDonough: former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Obama's one-time chief of staff.
  • Mark Milley: former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who called Trump "fascist" and said he was "the most dangerous person to this country."
  • Lisa Monaco: deputy U.S. attorney general.
  • Sally Moyer: former supervisory lawyer at the FBI.
  • Robert Mueller: former FBI director and special counsel who investigated links between the Trump campaign and Russia-linked individuals.
  • Bruce Ohr: former associate deputy attorney general who was heavily criticized by Trump and his allies over his contact with the former British spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the so-called Steele dossier..
  • Nellie Ohr: Ohr's wife, a former CIA employee who later worked as an independent contractor for Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the Steele dossier.
  • Lisa Page: former FBI lawyer who criticized Trump in text messages with FBI official Peter Strzok.
  • Pat Philbin: former deputy White House counsel under Trump.
  • John Podesta: senior adviser to Biden, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff, former counselor to Obama, and the chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.
  • Samantha Power: administrator of the United States Agency for International Development under Biden and former ambassador to the United Nations under Obama.
  • Bill Priestap: former assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division.
  • Susan Rice: former national security adviser to Obama.
  • Rod Rosenstein: former deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller to oversee the Trump-Russia investigation.
  • Peter Strzok: former deputy assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division who criticized Trump in private texts with Lisa Page.
  • Jake Sullivan: Biden's national security adviser.
  • Michael Sussmann: former Democratic lawyer who was charged with lying to the FBI; Sussmann was acquitted in 2022.
  • Miles Taylor: former Department of Homeland Security official during the Trump administration who later wrote an anonymous opinion piece criticizing Trump. Taylor later admitted to writing the piece.
  • Timothy Thibault: former assistant special agent at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C.
  • Andrew Weissmann: former DOJ official and former assistant U.S. attorney who served as Mueller's second-in-command during the Russia probe.
  • Alexander Vindman: former Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council under Trump. Vindman testified against Trump during his first impeachment proceeding.
  • Christopher Wray: director of the FBI.
  • Sally Yates: former acting attorney general under Trump and former deputy attorney general under Obama. Trump fired Yates weeks into his first term after she refused to enforce his executive order instating an immigration ban on individuals coming from some Muslim-majority countries.

This looks like an opportunity for us to come together in bipartisan agreement - This is really, really bad... Right?

...

Right?
#25
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,333
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
This looks like an opportunity for us to come together in bipartisan agreement - This is really, really bad... Right?

...

Right?
Both the adjective "bad" and the qualifier "really, really" depends on: (1). The extent to which Patel was serious as opposed to this being campaign trash talk; (2). The extent to which he's still keen on carrying this out now that an enormous mantle of responsibility has been thrust on his shoulders; (3). The extent to which the named individuals are truly innocent of any crimes; (4). Patel's genuine belief, or absence thereof, in their guilt; (5). Patel's willingness to take illegal actions to go after said people beyond legal investigations of them; and (6). the degree to which he wouldn't actually be blocked from taking said illegal actions.

So far, all of these are largely unknowns. But assuming for the sake of argument that yes, Patel has the intent to knowingly and illegally target people who've done nothing wrong for political reasons, and the means to have this actually amount to something, then yes, this is bad. Politically motivated prosecutions are bad and have no rightful place in America.
#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,650
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Swagnarok
So far, all of these are largely unknowns. But assuming for the sake of argument that yes, Patel has the intent to knowingly and illegally target people who've done nothing wrong for political reasons, and the means to have this actually amount to something, then yes, this is bad. Politically motivated prosecutions are bad and have no rightful place in America.
It's great that you as someone who at least in my experience has been pro Trump and has presented as unmoved by most if not all of his acts thus far, can at least agree to this basic idea. But the degree to which you felt the need to expand on the reasons it might not be bad is still troubling and frankly infuriating.

Recall where this began; with you talking about the hypothetical abuses of power you believe democrats will engage in post Trump. The obvious premise being that these abuses are bad because the rule of law matters. I then challenged you to hold Trump to those the same standards and this is where you decided to land.

I get the caveat you offered; let's see what they actually do not just what they say, but certainly at this point it doesn't matter what they end up doing when it comes to recognizing that this is still really bad. You only need an ounce of critical thinking to recognize that a President who cares about the rule of law and intends to hold his administration to the highest standards on this principal (which we have come to expect from literally every president in or lifetimes before Trump) would never elevate someone to the top job in the FBI who publicly stated his intentions to weaponize the rule of law in this country. The fact that Kash Patel has no relevant qualifications for that job only make this that much more egregious.

That's a problem no matter what they actually do. "Campaign trash talk" is not an excuse.

Moreover, this administration is already demonstrating their contempt for the rule of law. They're already ignoring judge's orders arguing that federal judges don't have the authority to make them follow the law, they're already stripping away free speech rights from green card holders whose views they don't like, and they're already punishing law firms for legally representing Trump's legal advasaries. You probably don't see any of this because you don't seem to take any of their words seriously, but that is of course absurd. There is no other area in life where you would disregard someone's words in your attempts to understand their actions and intentions, especially if it were a politician you disagreed with. Apply that same standard to Trump.