Is Fauci's Pardon Legit If His Pardon Was by AutoPen? Kevin McCullough

[mystery-ak]

Is Fauci's Pardon Legit If His Pardon Was by AutoPen?
Kevin McCullough


Let's play a fun little game of "what does 'sign' actually mean," shall we? Because Dr. Anthony Fauci just spent a Senate hearing invoking the Fifth Amendment 111 times — one hundred and eleven, an Olympic gold medal in constitutional dodging — and buried underneath that spectacle is a question that's far more interesting than anything Fauci actually said, which was, of course, nothing. Was his blanket pardon from Joe Biden even valid in the first place? And if it wasn't, does the Fifth Amendment even apply to a man who might not be pardoned at all?

Here's the setup, delivered with all the drama it deserves. On his way out the door in January 2025, Biden issued Fauci a sweeping pardon covering any federal crime he might have committed going back to 2014, tied to his work running the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and steering the country's COVID response. Convenient timing, wouldn't you say? A decade of blanket coverage, delivered in the final hours, for a man who never stood trial for anything. It's the legal equivalent of buying insurance on a house that's already on fire and getting the claim approved anyway.

Except here's the wrinkle nobody in the mainstream press seems eager to chew on: there's a real, live dispute over whether Biden's autopen pardons — Fauci's very much included — actually count. President Trump and a chorus of House Republicans have argued that Biden's team ran the autopen on a batch of late-term pardons without clear evidence the man himself ever made the call to sign them. Not "did a machine sign it," mind you — that part, on its own, is boringly legal. Presidents from Lincoln forward have had subordinates put ink to paper for them, and a 2005 Justice Department opinion under George W. Bush blessed the practice for legislation, with the logic extending comfortably to pardons. A robot pen isn't the problem. Robots don't get indicted.

more
https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2026/08/05/is-faucis-pardon-legit-if-his-pardon-was-by-autopen-n2680725

[DefiantMassRINO]

Was anything signed with auto-pen legitimate?

Law and bureaucracy rely on authority, delegation, attribution, and accountability.

If we don't know who issued the auto-pen 'signature', how do we know that what it authorized was genuinely and authentically authorized by the President, and delegated to a person who had the authority so sign on behalf of the Office of the President of the United States.

How do we know that a janitor didn't walk up to an open computer desktop to issue a pardon for a relative or for a bribe?

Our Constitutional Federal Republic requires accountability to legitimately Govern the United States with the consent of its citizens.  If we cannot attribute the authorizer of an act of Government, there is nobody that the People can hold accountable for the consequences of that act.

[Cyber Liberty]

Simple answer:  We don't know, and probably never will, because nobody's willing to directly test it in Court.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Simple answer:  We don't know, and probably never will, because nobody's willing to directly test it in Court.

I don't want to wait that long as I want Fauci in jail now.

[roamer_1]

Simple answer:  We don't know, and probably never will, because nobody's willing to directly test it in Court.

Which means, probably yes.

[Cyber Liberty]

Which means, probably yes.

Yup.