I think the only pardon they’ve confirmed or seemingly confirmed was signed by Joe himself was for a Sun Hunter. Everything else was auto-penned. One of the big issues, as I said out there, that the left media doesn’t want to talk about is the pardon scandal related to Joe Biden. Now, as you may remember, he pardoned lots of people, including his family members, including Dr. Fauci, including General Milley, including the January 6 hoaxers on the January 6 committee, like the shifts of the world, etc. And I’ll talk more about shift later. And some of those pardons are, in my view, null and void because they’re pardons about nothing.

They don’t reference any crimes. They just talk about a time frame and then the individuals getting the pardons being given pardons for anything they may have done in the last 10 years or so. Well, that’s not appropriate. And it’s not a legitimate pardon. It provides no guidance for anyone trying to enforce a rule of law. It provides no guidance for judges. And if I were President Trump, I would direct the Justice Department or whoever he has investigating these scandals to proceed as if the pardons are null and void and let the defendants, if the defendants in the end of any investigation happen to be beneficiaries of such a pardon, let them raise it in the court.

But it can’t stop Trump from enforcing the rule of law. And there have been more stories. The New York Times put a story out this week trying to, essentially it was a leak from the Biden gang, trying to get ahead of the confirmation because you’ve heard about the auto-pen scandal. The scandal uncovered by our friends at the for significant, let’s put it this way, I think the only pardon they’ve confirmed or seemingly confirmed was signed by Joe himself was for his son Hunter. Everything else was auto-penned. Now there are other executive actions he took that were auto-penned as well.

And an auto-pen isn’t necessarily illegal in terms of its use. But it would be inappropriate and unarguably in violation of the law for an individual to use the auto-pen, affixing Joe Biden’s signature without sufficient authorization or permission. And that’s what was confirmed in terms of the pardons in large measure by this New York Times piece. Let’s go to that, that PDF. It’s a big, big, long story. I guess the PDF I have is 14 pages, so it’s a long story. Now Biden interviewed the New York Times and he says, oh, I did all the pardons.

Of course Biden is an incredible witness, isn’t a credible witness because the story himself confirmed that at best he was willing to say, not under oath, that he told his people that he was agreeable to the pardons that were being talked about. But there’s no record of his authorizing the pardon. He didn’t sign off. He didn’t send an email. All it is is secondhand information from his top staff. Joe authorizes the pardon. And that ain’t good enough as far as I’m concerned. He says, I made every decision, but there’s no sufficient record he made the decision.

The Times has reviewed several dozen emails, of course, which haven’t been made public yet, which discuss each of the major grants of clemency that were recorded by an auto-pen near the end of Mr. Biden’s term. And they haven’t seen everything, of course, because it was a modified limited hangout by the Biden gang. But those that were reviewed by the Times show that the Biden White House had a process to establish that Biden had orally made decisions in meetings before the staff secretary, Stephanie Feldman, who managed use of the auto-pen, would have clemency records put through the signing device.

They really didn’t have a process. It was, hey, I talked to the boss. He said, we can pardon someone. So I don’t know why they think that’s a process. That’s not a process. And on one of the significant areas, where one of the significant group of pardons, Biden had a late night meeting. And this is how it’s described. Emails show that Mr. Biden added the preemptive pardons for his family at a January 19th meeting. They also suggest that he changed some of his thinking. The summary of the first meeting said Mr. Biden had decided to grant a pardon to Don Singleman, a former Democratic governor of Alabama, who was convicted in 2006 of federal corruption charges.

The summary of the second said the president decided to rescind his approval, and then he changed his mind after he was lobbied for James Clyburn, who was a friend of his from South Carolina. Biden kept his aides until nearly 10 p.m. to talk through such decisions, according to people familiar with the matter. And by the way, simultaneously with these stories coming out, the Biden gang is taking the Fifth Amendment up on the Hill that’s investigating issues like this, specifically the use of the autopen. The emails show that an aid to Mr.

Siskel sent a draft summary of Mr. Biden’s decisions at that meeting to an assistant to Mr. Zions, who was the chief of staff. You don’t know who the chief of staff was to Biden. If you want to know what’s so corrupt about this city, you know who the chief of staff is to Trump, don’t you? Suzy Wiles, everyone knows it. Did you know who the chief of staff to Biden was? I barely knew his name, Jeff Zions, Z-I-E-N-T-S. Did you know it? My guess is many of you never heard his name before.

One of the most important people in the federal government, the media protected him from having to answer any questions, practically speaking, about the crazed Biden administration. The assistant forwarded to Mr. Reed and Mr. Zions, who was another official, asking for their approval, and then sent a final version of Ms. Feldman, copying many meeting participants and aides at 1028. Three minutes later, Zions hit reply all and wrote, I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all the following pardons. So that’s how people like Fauci, Milley, etc. were pardoned by his chief of staff.

He approved it. Not he, the big guy, he, the big guy’s chief of staff. So it’s really quite incredible, and it further suggests the pardons are null and void. I mean, the challenge for those of us concerned about this process is that my general understanding is the courts have said that you don’t need to have even a pardon signed in order for it to be valid. And other parts of the story reference that he pardoned entire groups of people, subject to particular sentencing laws, that he wanted them to be waived, he wanted to commute their sentences or otherwise protect them from having to serve crime.

And it was a big list of names, and he didn’t, A, he didn’t sign off on the names. Even after he authorized the so-called list of names, it was, they were, the lists were expanded and changed without Biden’s knowledge. So, you know, it seems to me that all of those issues should be subject to litigation, if I was a Justice Department. Now, the kind of the worst pardons was for Hunter. Hunter’s pardon, in part, was okay, because he was pardoned for specific crimes that he had been convicted of or pled guilty to.

But he also had a part of the pardon that applied to anything else he may have done since, I think, 2004 or 2014. Yeah, 2014. You know, and that’s the part that’s invalid. So Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit for the Hunter Biden pardon records from the Justice Department just the other day. Judicial Watch choose Justice Department for Hunter Biden pardon records, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit just, I guess it was about a week ago, for records and communications of the offices of Attorney General, Deputy General, Attorney General, and or Associate Attorney General, or their designated representatives about the pardoning of Robert Hunter Biden by his father, President Joe Biden.

Of course, you know, who was running the Justice Department at the time was Merrick Arlen. So we want to know who knew what and when over at the Justice Department about the Biden pardon. Now, typically, you can’t see the White House under FOIA. So we have to try to get these records a separate way. These records typically wouldn’t be made available for some time as their presidential record. So there’s a process in place that’s going to prevent them being released publicly for some time unless the Trump administration starts releasing records pursuant to subpoenas from or just on their own to educate the public about what went on here, which we would encourage them to do.

So it’s up to Judicial Watch to try to figure out what we can get under law about this major scandal. I mean, there hasn’t been pardons like this really ever in the United States history in terms of the scope and wide-scale nature of the abuse. And on top of it, you’ve got the and it’s never happened before. Legitimate questions about the authorization to make the pardons at all. Did Biden authorize the pardons? The New York Times story further confirms there’s no record of that happening. There’s a record of his chief of staff authorizing the pardons, but not of Joe himself.

So that’s a big deal. And Judicial Watch, once again, is in the middle of this big deal, you know, and we’re not stopping with just the pardons. We’ve got multiple federal lawsuits on Joe Biden’s family corruption. I mean, we just had a lawsuit last week about the National Archives, records about Joe Biden’s crime family activities when he was vice president, which of course led through the Trump administration because remember, Trump was impeached for blowing the whistle on Joe Biden’s corruption as vice president with Ukraine. We have records, a lawsuit about the IRS investigation of Hunter Biden.

And then, of course, we exposed how the CIA helped rig the 2020 election by helping those 51 intelligence advisors or officials, former, all of whom I think had national security clearances, try to mask the Hunter Biden laptop by calling it a likely Russia disinformation campaign. And the CIA rushed through approval of that in a way that was inappropriate and without much precedent. And Judicial Watch has the detail of that through our Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. So I appreciate that Congress is looking into things. And the great news is that your Judicial Watch is looking into things as well.

And we’re not. And of course, we started this years ago. Congress is just starting it basically two months ago. I don’t understand why they didn’t investigate Joe Biden’s mental capacities when he was the president. I was calling on them to do it. The 25th Amendment and all that. But they were afraid. They were afraid. Now he’s out of office. They’re not afraid. And look, I support more information generally, but I got to call it as I see it. You can always count on Congress to be a daylight and a dollar short on most investigations.

And we’re seeing that with the pardon investigations and the use of the auto pen issue. I mean, the auto pen issue is kind of like a stalking horse for his mental capacities and capabilities. That issue should have been investigated while he was president in order to protect the darn country. And it wasn’t. So I suspect more lawsuits are coming from Judicial Watch. And I have good reason to suspect it because I’m president of Judicial Watch and I kind of know what’s in the hopper. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.