Autopen-gate 2.0: Staff, Not Biden, Pulled the Trigger on Pardons

It’s time for an Autopen-gate, sequel—and the plot gets darker. A new YouTube exposé, “How Staff Faked Biden’s Involvement in Pardons | Q&A,” peels back the layers of critical details that should unsettle every voter who believed “Biden made every decision.”

What the New Reporting Reveals

• Internal emails obtained and reported by Axios show high-ranking officials raising alarms over how pardons were handed out—often without meaningful vetting or oversight by the president (Axios).

• A dramatic late-night email from Chief of Staff Jeff Zients at 10:31 p.m. on January 19 (just hours before Biden left office) bluntly authorized use of the autopen for sweeping pardons—including family members and controversial clemencies (Axios).

• Staff secretary Stefanie Feldman was the autopen’s steward—working from “blurbs” that claimed Biden had approved each decision. In reality, many of those submitting blurbs had no firsthand knowledge (New York Post).

• Mass pardons—thousands granted in the final months—were signed via autopen. In one stroke, about 2,500 crack-cocaine sentences were commuted, not by Biden’s hand, but by the machinations of aides (B Times Online).

• Meanwhile, The New York Times confirms that Biden didn’t personally approve every name—only broad criteria. The final lists and signatures were entirely in staff hands (yourNEWS).

This wasn’t just delegation—it was delegation devoid of oversight. The president’s supposed involvement is increasingly appearing as a veneer.

Why This Matters—and What It Means for “Who’s In Charge?”

Your myopic embrace of “this is just how clemency works in a busy White House” hits a wall when oversight, accountability, and constitutional principle vanish in the name of convenience.

Bluntly put:

• Legality doesn’t equal legitimacy. Autopen use is legally permissible, yes—but only if directed by the president. When intermediaries control the process, constitutional safeguards start disintegrating.

• Surface-level denial doesn’t erase substance. Biden maintains, “I made every decision,” even as the evidence says otherwise. That discrepancy alone is worth a serious look (B Times Online).

• Accountability is evaporating. House Oversight, led by Rep. Comer, has launched probes and subpoenas. Key staffers are stonewalling or invoking the Fifth, refusing to own what just happened—or, more frighteningly, reveal how deep the breakdown went (Oversight Committee).

How This Fits Into the “Grappy’s Autopen-Gate Series”

If you’ve followed the earlier chapters on Grappy’s Soap Box, you'll remember the theme: transparency doesn’t happen by accident—it’s won or it’s surrendered. We questioned the president’s capacity, the erosion of trust, and what bad optics can mean for the next election. Now we have emails, memos, and a machine that looks like a handy tool—but acts more like a smokescreen.

Now is the moment to ask: Whose decisions went into those pardons? And more importantly, who will answer for them?

Here is the YouTube video that prompted this review.

Autopen-gate: Pardons In Peril

You know things are going off the rails when a pen becomes a national scandal. But here we are.

In what’s now being dubbed Autopen-gate, it turns out President Biden may have used an autopen—yes, a mechanical signature device—to issue presidential pardons. The kicker? He’s confessed he didn’t personally authorise each one.

This isn’t some ceremonial signing of Christmas cards or routine letters to diplomats. These were official presidential pardons, a power granted exclusively to the president by the Constitution. And now the FBI is reportedly opening a grand conspiracy probe into whether this was a case of executive overreach or plain old fraud.

The big legal question: Can a presidential pardon stand if the president never actually approved it himself? If not, every single one of those autopen pardons could be invalid—and we're talking real-world consequences for people who may have already been released, had charges dropped, or regained rights.

Let’s be clear. This isn’t a minor whoopsie. This is a serious constitutional mess. You can't just farm out your presidential powers to a staffer with a fancy pen. If the president didn’t personally make the decision, then who did? And who benefits?

At best, it’s sloppy and lazy. At worst, it’s deliberate abuse of power—a shadow presidency run by unelected bureaucrats who can rubber-stamp life-changing legal actions. And that, my friends, should worry everyone, no matter which side of the political fence you sit on.

This isn’t about party. It’s about accountability. And it’s about time someone asked the obvious question: If the President didn’t sign the pardon, does the pardon even exist?

Stay tuned. This story isn’t over. It’s just getting started.

Here is a recent Fox News discussion on this issue.

Autopen-gate scandal plot thickens

Biden's Autopens are multiplying. As Congress delves into the use, or likely abuse, of Biden's Autopen, we are learning more. Congressman Comer has reported that there was not a single Autopen but three. One of these was only discovered recently, and more importantly, that the 3rd Autopen had been used for signing 'hundreds of proclamations'.  We have also learned that four people were involved in using the Autopen, including Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco.  This is building the case for legal action against some of these for usurping the power of the President. 

It now seems that, due to cognitive issues, Joe Biden was not in control of his faculties throughout much of the later years of his presidency. His 'minders' should have reported his condition and had him replaced under the 25th Amendment. Instead, they lied about his condition and usurped his power, using the autopen to forge his authorisation.

If this can be proved, it will invalidate a large number of Autopen-authorised proclamations, executive orders, and pardons and launch a myriad of court cases and prison terms. Oh, 'tis a tangled web.

The media is starting to pick this one up, so many people are covering the Autopen-gate scandal.

Here is one from Fox News.

Autopen-gate is bigger than Watergate

Although the Watergate scandal is now some 50 years old, it has become the standard by which all more recent scandals have been judged. It is the scandal of all scandals, having taken the scalp of a US president together with a whole range of accomplices on the way, many having served jail sentences. A more recent scandal is threatening to take the mantle from Watergate. It is the Autopen scandal, henceforth Autopen-gate. The questions surrounding the unprecedented use of an Autopen by the Biden administration for multiple executive orders and pardons. 

Why is this a scandal? While the use of an autopen goes back to the very early years of the US. Thomas Jefferson had an early version of an autopen. So that is not an issue. While it has generally not been used for executive orders, only for routine correspondence, its use is legal whenever an Autopen is authorised by the POTUS. But there is the problem. Given Biden's now accepted cognitive issues, there is serious doubt as to his conscious authorisation of its use. Did he understand what the autopen was signing? Did he even authorise its use? If he did not authorise its use, on some pardon or executive orders, are those orders, or pardons valid? If used without authority, those who used it are guilty of serious crimes.

Autopen-gate has yet to play out. The Watergate scandal took years to run its full course, and Autopen-gate will also take some time. The potential for jail terms, cancelled pardons, and revoked executive orders is evident. At this stage, Congress and Trump have also raised the issue and are asking questions. 

If it is pursued, multiple court cases will likely end up in the Supreme Court. My guess is that the use of an Autopen on executive orders and pardons will be banned. 

Bill O'Reilly recently covered the Autopen scandal well in a recent video. Well worth a view.

https://youtu.be/ShRRlqwzm7U?si=L-ylW7RhSUtmEEu-