A bombshell report reveals that former President Joe Biden's chief of staff Jeff Zients played a pivotal role in one of the most controversial aspects of Biden's final days in office - the authorization of automated signatures for presidential pardons.
According to Fox News, Zients gave explicit approval for the use of an autopen to execute multiple high-profile pardons, including those for former chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci and former Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Mark Milley, on Biden's last day in the White House.
The revelation comes amid intense scrutiny of Biden's use of the automated signing device, with President Donald Trump claiming that thousands of pardons signed through this method should be considered void. This controversy has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of executive actions taken during Biden's final months in office.
The pardons in question were issued during a late-night meeting on January 19, Biden's final day as president, where discussions continued until nearly 10 p.m. The meeting focused on various preemptive pardons designed to protect certain officials from potential future prosecution.
Email records obtained by investigators show a rapid sequence of events, with draft summaries being sent to Zients's assistant at 10:03 p.m. Within 25 minutes, approval was sought from both Zients and White House deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed.
At 10:31 p.m., Zients responded with the crucial message: "I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons." This quick turnaround has raised concerns about the thoroughness of the review process.
President Trump has characterized the autopen controversy as "possibly one of the biggest scandals that we've had in 50 to 100 years." He has been vocal about his belief that Biden was unaware of what he was signing during this period.
The White House has responded forcefully to these allegations, with spokesperson Harrison Fields accusing the Biden administration of conducting "the most egregious cover-up scheme in American politics." This statement suggests a deepening political crisis over the legitimacy of these pardons.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has been directed to investigate whether the extensive use of the autopen was related to Biden's cognitive state. This investigation could have far-reaching implications for the validity of thousands of official documents.
Statistics from the Pew Research Center show that Biden granted 4,245 acts of clemency during his administration, with an astounding 96% of these being issued in just his final four months in office. This unprecedented surge in pardons has raised red flags among legal experts.
Trump's June memo to the Attorney General specifically called for an investigation into what he termed a "conspiracy" to conceal Biden's cognitive decline through the use of the autopen. The memo suggests this could be "one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history."
White House officials have defended their practices by pointing out that Trump himself uses an autopen for certain documents, though they maintain he personally signs all legally binding materials. This distinction has become a crucial point in the ongoing debate.
The controversy surrounding these final-day pardons has evolved into a complex legal and political battle that threatens to reshape understanding of executive authority. The role of Biden's chief of staff in authorizing these automated signatures has become a central focus of multiple investigations.
The implications of this scandal extend beyond just the pardons themselves, raising fundamental questions about transparency in executive decision-making and the proper use of automated signing technology in government operations. Constitutional scholars are closely watching how this might affect future presidential administrations.
This developing situation continues to generate intense debate about the limits of executive power and the proper protocols for presidential signatures, especially during transitions of power. As investigations proceed, the full scope of this controversy's impact on American governance remains to be seen.
