The Biden administration finds itself entangled in yet another controversy, this time involving concerns over the president’s mental fitness and the unusual process surrounding his final pardons. Earlier today, revelations emerged involving Ian Sams, a senior advisor who frequently dismissed concerns about Biden’s cognitive health as conspiracy theories. In a striking twist, Sams admitted during a House Oversight Committee testimony that he met the president in person only twice during his two-year tenure. Now, isn’t that rich? A senior advisor who barely had a coffee with the man he’s supposed to be advising is the one assuring us of Biden’s sharp mental state. Someone get the popcorn.
Meanwhile, things are getting even murkier on the legal front pertaining to Biden’s last-minute pardons. A new report exposes significant apprehensions among Department of Justice officials over the legal integrity of these actions. According to the documents, Merrick Garland’s top prosecutor voiced concerns about the administration’s last-ditch pardon maneuvers being quite unorthodox and potentially illegal. These concerns apparently brought to light just two days before Biden’s departure from office only add to the colorful tapestry of questionable decisions painting Biden’s presidency.
The uproar doesn’t end there. The pardons, allegedly signed using an auto pen, delve deeper into controversy. Questions arise about the validity of such actions, as the New York Times reportedly indicated that Biden did not personally approve each pardon, raising eyebrows about his involvement. If a top DOJ lawyer believes this move is legally flawed, who could argue? Apparently, granting clemency to violent offenders through a mechanized signature is perfectly sound practice in this administration, or is it?
As one digs deeper, the air grows thicker with skepticism. The DOJ’s internal criticisms reveal layers of dysfunction, highlighting a disconnect between claimed intentions and executed actions. Factor in the use of an auto pen, and it’s a humorous, albeit concerning image—an entire nation’s legal system might be upended by the whims of an automated signature. Imagine those poor officials shaking their heads as paper after paper printed out with that telltale machine “signature.”
With so much unraveling, it raises the question of whether these pardons and commutations can withstand legal scrutiny. Isn’t it ironic that the oversight apparatus can barely keep pace with an administration championing “transparency”? As the debate continues, one thing becomes clear: maybe it’s time for the powers that be to hit pause on auto-pen antics and reconsider the importance of a hands-on approach. After all, a machine might save time, but the law is not quite ready to hand over its gavel to a robot.
