There's nothing but cruel cynicism backing the Biden autopen investigation
Trump's obsession with the use of an autopen in Biden's White House stretches back months. He claimed in March that pardons Biden signed were supposedly void because of an autopen's use. Last month, he foreshadowed to reporters that his administration would 'start looking into this whole thing with who signed this legislation. Who signed legislation opening our border? I don't think he knew.'
It's a bonkers line of inquiry, not least because autopens aren't exactly a new thing for a chief executive to use. Presidents going back to Harry Truman have had them around to sign their name to personal documents and correspondence. It became a talking point for Republicans in 2011, though, when President Barack Obama became the first to use the machine to affix his signature to a law while he was overseas. He used the autopen again while in Hawaii in 2013 to sign legislation to prevent a government shutdown.
Even then, though, it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot, legally speaking at least. Before Obama even became president, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had determined under President George W. Bush that it was constitutionally kosher to use an autopen to sign legislation. 'We emphasize that we are not suggesting that the President may delegate the decision to approve and sign a bill,' wrote Deputy Attorney General Howard Nielson for the OLC, 'only that, having made this decision, he may direct a subordinate to affix the President's signature to the bill.' Not everyone has agreed with that assessment, but there were no legal challenges to its usage during the Obama era.
But now, this supposed secret autopen plot has gone from Truth Social posts to Justice Department investigations. Whatever probe Bondi conducts would theoretically hinge not on whether the White House autopen was used to sign official documents but on somehow proving that it was used without Biden's express authorization. Is there any evidence backing up Trump's allegation? Of course not, and Trump himself said as much in the Oval Office on Thursday.
But just because the investigation will likely go nowhere doesn't mean that there isn't ample reason for Republicans to lean into this fiction. The rush from Trump's allies to capitalize on the conspiracy theory was telling, as my colleague Steve Benen noted Thursday: 'With this in mind, the endgame is coming into focus: Trump and his party want to invalidate parts of Biden's presidency, clearing the way for, among other things, new partisan investigations into those whom Biden protected, further empowering the incumbent in the process.'
I'll add to that assessment that the focus on Biden's supposed actions — rather than on Biden himself — is cynically clever. It darkly mirrors the internal debate Democrats are still having over whether Biden's diminished capacity to run for re-election was at all purposefully hidden until it was too late. In going one step further, Trump's investigation adds an evidence-free motive to explain why Americans would be kept out of the loop. There's a thread to pull at there that might lure in some of the more disillusioned on the left who are eager to see shadowy puppet masters pulling the party's strings.
Again, none of this will amount to anything legally without concrete evidence that a law or other official document was falsely signed without Biden's consent. In both reality and the conspiracy theory being spun here, the autopen is merely a tool to be used. And in Trump's hands, it's gone from being a useful time-saver to a handy excuse to further politically persecute his predecessor's allies.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
a minute ago
- Chicago Tribune
Donald Trump's onetime friendship with Jeffrey Epstein is well-known — and also documented in records
WASHINGTON — The revelation that Attorney General Pam Bondi told President Donald Trump that his name was in the Jeffrey Epstein files has focused fresh attention on the president's relationship with the wealthy financier and the Justice Department's announcement this month that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the case. But at least some of the information in the briefing to Trump, which The Wall Street Journal said took place in May, should not have been a surprise. The president's association with Epstein is well-established and his name was included in records that his own Justice Department released back in February as part of an effort to satisfy public interest in information from the sex-trafficking investigation. Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and the mere inclusion of someone's name in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise. Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial, also had many prominent friends in political and celebrity circles besides Trump. It should have been no shock to Trump that his name would be found in records related to Epstein. The February document dump from the Justice Department included references to Trump in Epstein's phone book and his name was also mentioned in flight logs for Epstein's private plane. Over the years, thousands of pages of records have been released through lawsuits, Epstein's criminal dockets, public disclosures and Freedom of Information Act requests. In January 2024, a court unsealed the final batch of a trove of documents that had been collected as evidence in a lawsuit filed by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre. Records made public also include 2016 deposition in which an accuser recounted spending several hours with Epstein at Trump's Atlantic City casino but didn't say if she actually met Trump and did not accuse him of any wrongdoing. Trump has also said that he once thought Epstein was a 'terrific guy,' but that they later had a falling out. 'I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,' Trump said in 2019 when video footage unearthed by NBC News following Epstein's federal indictment showed the two chatting at a party at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in 1992, when the now president was newly divorced. 'He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling-out with him a long time ago. I don't think I've spoken to him for 15 years.' The Justice Department stunned conspiracy theorists, online sleuths and elements of Trump's base this month when it released a two-page letter saying that a so-called Epstein 'client list' that Bondi had once intimated was on her desk did not exist and that officials did not plan to release any additional documents from its investigation despite an earlier commitment to provide transparency. Justice Department will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's imprisoned girlfriendWhether Bondi's briefing to Trump in May influenced that decision is unclear. The Justice Department did not comment directly on her meeting with Trump but Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a joint statement that a review of the Epstein files showed that there was nothing warranting further investigation or prosecution. 'As part of our routine briefing,' the statement said, 'we made the President aware of our findings.'
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Graham, Cornyn call for special counsel in Obama case
A pair of top Senate Republicans on Thursday called for a special counsel to be appointed to probe whether former President Obama aided an effort to undermine President Trump's 2016 White House bid. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) pressed for the appointment, saying they want answers about how Obama and his administration 'manipulated' matters in the hopes of a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016 'For the good of the country, Senator @JohnCornyn and I urge Attorney General Bondi to appoint a special counsel to investigate the extent to which former President Obama, his staff and administration officials manipulated the U.S. national security apparatus for a political outcome,' Graham posted on his X feed. The call came a day after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a new document casting doubts on Russian President Vladimir Putin's desire to aid Trump in the contest, though it backed up the argument that Russia wanted to interfere in the election writ large. The document was part of a House Intelligence Committee report stemming from when Republicans controlled the chamber and was classified until Gabbard released it. Although it does not dispute that Moscow interfered in the election, it sheds light on the Obama administration's handling of Russia's activity at the time. It was the second recent disclosure by Gabbard seeking to discredit the Obama administration. Last week, she released a report alleging Obama administration officials manipulated intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 election and accused former officials of engaging in a 'treasonous conspiracy.' A number of intelligence reviews determined that the Russians sought to influence the 2016 contest and that Putin wanted Trump to emerge victorious. 'As we have supported in the past, appointing an independent special counsel would do the country a tremendous service in this case,' Cornyn said in a statement. 'With every piece of information that gets released, it becomes more evident that the entire Russia collusion hoax was created by the Obama Administration to subvert the will of the American people.' 'Democrats and the liberal media have been out to get President Trump since 2016,' he continued. 'There must be an immediate investigation of what we believe to be an unprecedented and clear abuse of power by a U.S. presidential administration.' An Obama spokesperson issued a rare rebuke of Trump's claim that the ex-president committed 'treason,' and noted that the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 backed that the Russians attempted to sway votes but were not successful. The committee at the time also backed up the work of the intelligence community during that stretch. That panel was chaired by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who now leads the State Department. 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,' said Patrick Rodenbush, an Obama spokesperson. 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' The administration has released the documents as it tries to pivot away from Jeffrey Epstein while lawmakers issue subpoenas in search of answers on the case.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Most Americans support legal access to abortions in most cases: Survey
Most Americans still support legal abortions despite a wave of rollbacks following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the federal right to access the procedure over three years ago, a new survey shows. The AP-NORC Research Center poll, published Thursday, revealed that 64 percent of participants said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About 27 percent of people said the procedure should be illegal in most cases and 9 percent said it should be illegal in all cases. The results were split along party lines. A majority of Democrats, 85 percent, and independents, 67 percent, said they believe abortion should be lawfully permitted in cases of medically terminated pregnancies and use of an abortion pill. On the opposite side, 15 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents disagreed, according to the survey. More than half, 58 percent, of Republicans said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 41 percent of GOP respondents shared an opposite view. The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of respondents, regardless of their political party, said abortions should be allowed if the mother's health is at risk due to pregnancy or in the case of rape, incest or potential fetal abnormality. As states reflect on the impact of the 2022 Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health case — which overturned Roe v. Wade — the survey asked in which cases should medical abortions should be approved. Around 70 percent said abortions, which have increased since the landmark ruling, should be allowed in cases of maternal medical emergencies. A small majority, 56 percent, also said mothers should be permitted to travel to obtain an abortion in a different state if it's illegal where they reside. The AP-NORC poll was conducted from July 10-14 featuring 1,437 U.S. adults. The overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
