Biden AutoPen Signature scandal

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

You're jumping to conclusions, but what's new. I'd recommend to wait for the judicial process.

I may have got it wrong, but I don't remember you advising caution when it's some nothing accusation against Trump.

[placeholder]

It's clear that this story is a nothingburger. Readers should note that those who enthusiastically backed these allegations have now descended into irrelevancies.

[jerrymahoney]

Trump was only ‘begging the question’ that Biden’s autopen pardons may not be legal, White House says

Published March 17, 2025, 2:56 p.m. ET

 

WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that President Trump was “begging the question” when declaring former President Joe Biden’s apparently auto-penned pardons were “void, vacant, and of no further force of effect” — as the practical effect of the current commander in chief’s pronouncement remains in question.

 

Leavitt said that Trump — who wrote on Truth Social media early Monday that recipients were henceforth “subject to investigation” — was “raising the point” that the clemency might not be legal.

 

“The president was raising the point that, ‘Did the president even know about these pardons? Was his legal signature used without his consent or knowledge?'” Leavitt said at her regular briefing Monday.

 

https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/us-news/trump-was-begging-the-question-when-calling-bidens-autopen-pardons-void-white-house-says/

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump was only ‘begging the question’ that Biden’s autopen pardons may not be legal, White House says

Published March 17, 2025, 2:56 p.m. ET

 

WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that President Trump was “begging the question” when declaring former President Joe Biden’s apparently auto-penned pardons were “void, vacant, and of no further force of effect” — as the practical effect of the current commander in chief’s pronouncement remains in question.

 

Leavitt said that Trump — who wrote on Truth Social media early Monday that recipients were henceforth “subject to investigation” — was “raising the point” that the clemency might not be legal.

 

“The president was raising the point that, ‘Did the president even know about these pardons? Was his legal signature used without his consent or knowledge?'” Leavitt said at her regular briefing Monday.

 

https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/us-news/trump-was-begging-the-question-when-calling-bidens-autopen-pardons-void-white-house-says/

 

It's a good thing that this doesn't exist:

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/03/chrome-capture-2025-3-17.jpeg?w=601

https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/us-news/trump-says-bidens-autopen-pardons-are-now-void/

 

Because if it did, we would have reason to laugh at Leavitt's claim.

[TorquayFan]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

Thank god common sense voted out

the  they/ them trans mice people!

 

Riclag - you refer to the $8 million that DOGE/Trump claim had been spent on making mice transgender. That claim is just slimey self-serving nonsense. 

 

Bear in mind that $8 million is anyway, a paltrey sum in the USA budget.

 

Here are some of the Research projects included in that sum :-

 

e.g. the impact of hormone therapy and oestrogen supplements in respect of breast cancer.

 

e.g. the impact of hormone therapy and it's possible affect on an HIV vaccine development.

 

e.g. looking at the possible links between hormone therapy and asthma.

 

I don't have a background in medical science but evenso, it's evident that DOGE/Trump and the Trumptie Numpties have got this wrong.

 

Wilful and misleading nonsense - the hallmark of Chief Numptie, Trump !

 

Listen to this at 4 mins 50 secs in https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0028swz
 

(you may need to copy this link and search to make it work - good luck)

 

 

[Yagoda]

A pardon is a defense to a criminal charge.

 

The burden of proving a Pardon is on the defendant.

 

Indict one of the slimiest ones, like Schiff and then we can get to the bottom of the whole thing, under oath.

[Jingthing]

Nothing burger.

Next ...

[SiSePuede419]

10 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Tell me you are not familiar with Ashley's diary without telling me you are not familiar with Ashley's diary

Ashley's diary was NEVER published in full.

 

YOU HAVEN'T READ IT

 

You've only read supposedly excerpts taken out of context or just plain made up.

 

There is no verifiable evidence what was published was actually in the diary.

 

For all you know, the right wing criminals who published the excerpts changed them because they could.

 

You're bearing false witness. 

 

You're garbage. 🤣

 

There is no verified evidence that Ashley Biden’s diary contains allegations of sexual crimes committed by Joe Biden. While certain excerpts were published by right-wing outlets, the diary itself was stolen and later used in a political scheme. The FBI investigated the theft, and individuals involved pleaded guilty to federal charges.

 

Ashley Biden has not publicly confirmed any claims of wrongdoing against her father. The contents of the diary, as presented by some outlets, remain unverified and should be viewed with skepticism, especially given the political motivations behind its publication.

 

 

[SLOWHAND225]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

As I understand it, if the president says you're pardoned, your pardoned. 

 

In the same way that if the president says documents are declassified, they're declassed. 

 

The auto-pen is a nothing burger. That said, if it can be shown that stuff was being signed that Biden did not actually know about and or approve it could be a s-effing storm. 

 

All the yapping about the pardons is just a smoke screen, they're legit as you said.

The real problem for them is that a staffer was signing things for him and the concern is that he was signing things that Biden didn't know about.

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

A pardon is a defense to a criminal charge.

 

The burden of proving a Pardon is on the defendant.

 

Indict one of the slimiest ones, like Schiff and then we can get to the bottom of the whole thing, under oath.

Nonsense. A pardon is not a defense .A pardon is an absolution. Any prosecutor claiming that a signed pardon officially documented to exist need somehow to be proven would be laughed out of court.

[Yagoda]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. A pardon is not a defense .A pardon is an absolution. Any prosecutor claiming that a signed pardon officially documented to exist need somehow to be proven would be laughed out of court.

Before I throw some citations at you, do you want to just delete your post to prevent further embarrassment? AI is not alwys right.

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Before I throw some citations at you, do you want to just delete your post to prevent further embarrassment? AI is not alwys right.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/overview-of-pardon-power

 

The Constitution establishes the President’s authority to grant clemency, encompassing not only pardons of individuals but several other forms of relief from criminal punishment as well.¹ The power, which has historical roots in early English law,² has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.³

^{https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/}

[Yagoda]

Now you are off the subject totally since no one is is disputing pardon power.

 

Let me give you one more chance. 

 

You are disputing that a pardon is a defense to a subsequent criminal charge, right? Plus

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Any prosecutor claiming that a signed pardon officially documented to exist need somehow to be proven would be laughed out of court.

Thats your position, right. You want to think a bit more? Maybe take a crash course in Law?

 

Let me know, this is going to be fun!

[Yagoda]

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

A pardon is a defense to a criminal charge.

 

The burden of proving a Pardon is on the defendant.

 

Indict one of the slimiest ones, like Schiff and then we can get to the bottom of the whole thing, under oath.

I need to make a clarity correction, because a pardon would be a defense, the burden of production is on Defendant, the burden to prove otherwise shifts to the Gov.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Now you are off the subject totally since no one is is disputing pardon power.

 

Let me give you one more chance. 

 

You are disputing that a pardon is a defense to a subsequent criminal charge, right? Plus

Thats your position, right. You want to think a bit more? Maybe take a crash course in Law?

 

Let me know, this is going to be fun!

No. That's not what the Supreme court decision cited by me says Here it is again:

"In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.^3"

 

I have errands to run, so I'll dismember your reply later.

[Yagoda]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No. That's not what the Supreme court decision cited by me says Here it is again:

"In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.^3"

 

I have errands to run, so I'll dismember your reply later.

More meaningless stuff. Study up LOL

[placeholder]

Just now, Yagoda said:

More meaningless stuff. Study up LOL

As usual, you offer no analysis, just a dismissal. A dismissal of a Supreme Court decision, no less. Put up or ...

Gotta run.

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I may have got it wrong, but I don't remember you advising caution when it's some nothing accusation against Trump.

I was wrong in this case, seems to be not even enough for a weaponised DoJ to take it to court.

[worgeordie]

Move on Donald and the MAGAS , Biden is retired now, but you will

still blame him for YOUR mistakes ,get over it ,but you and your cult

cannot forget , remember you won ....get down the price of groceries , 

Groceries a lovely word ,a word not many people use  .....D J Trump.🤡

 

regards worgeordie

[Yagoda]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As usual, you offer no analysis, just a dismissal. A dismissal of a Supreme Court decision, no less. Put up or ...

Gotta run.

You arent even debating the right subject woooha! Fabulous!

 

We arent talking about Pardon Power. We are talking about the effect of a pardon.

 

Here let me guide you:

Need a pardon be in writing?

 

[Yagoda]

3 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Move on Donald and the MAGAS , Biden is retired now, but you will

still blame him for YOUR mistakes ,get over it ,but you and your cult

cannot forget , remember you won ....get down the price of groceries , 

Groceries a lovely word ,a word not many people use  .....D J Trump.🤡

 

regards worgeordie

Sounds like what you guys said when Biden was President. Bad news? trump!