By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department replaced pardons online that initially featured identical copies of President Trump’s signature, attributing the error to technical and staffing issues. Experts confirmed the signatures on the original documents were identical, raising questions about their authenticity. The administration insisted Trump signed all pardons personally and blamed the error on a “technical” problem, despite Trump’s criticism of his predecessor’s use of an autopen. Legal experts maintain the identical signatures do not affect the pardon’s validity.
Read the original article here
Justice Department quietly replaced ‘identical’ Trump signatures on recent pardons. This revelation, though seemingly a small procedural detail, opens a Pandora’s Box of questions and raises serious concerns about the integrity of the pardon process during the Trump administration. The fact that the Justice Department felt the need to replace these signatures, and did so “quietly,” is the most telling aspect of the whole affair. It hints at a problem they were trying to sweep under the rug, which, unfortunately, rarely stays hidden for long.
The core issue here is the alteration of official documents, specifically pardon documents, which bear the signature of the President of the United States. While the use of an autopen, or a machine that replicates a signature, has its own set of legal considerations, this is a different beast altogether. Replacing a signature, even with what might have been deemed an “identical” version, is a significant departure from established norms and possibly crosses into illegal territory, potentially invalidating the documents in question. This is especially true if someone other than the President, or someone legally authorized to act on his behalf, made the alteration.
The silence surrounding this replacement is deafening. Why would the Justice Department feel the need to change the signatures? Was there a problem with the original signatures? Were they not actually signed by the President, or were they signed by an autopen? If the signatures were deemed somehow inadequate, why not clarify the issue? The lack of transparency fuels speculation and breeds distrust. One can only wonder what the legal reasoning or justification the Justice Department used for this decision.
Adding to the intrigue is the context in which these pardons were issued. The Trump administration granted a large number of pardons during its final days, some of which were controversial, and raised questions about potential political favors or cronyism. This, understandably, makes the alteration of the signatures all the more suspicious. The possibility that the “identical” signatures were not, in fact, authentic, further complicates the situation.
The notion that someone in the White House was potentially handing out pardons, and that Trump may not have even been aware of it, adds another layer of speculation. Could it be that someone had access to his autopen and was using it to grant pardons without his explicit knowledge or approval? It’s a scenario that seems improbable, yet the circumstances certainly raise questions about the level of oversight and the security of the pardon process.
The responses of people to this revelation are not surprising. Many are already drawing parallels to other controversies and accusations involving the former president, pointing to a pattern of what they believe to be hypocrisy. The fact that he was so critical of others in the past, yet potentially engaged in activities like this himself, has led to further accusations of him being a Deep Throat, The Nodfather of the GOP, or a Babbu’s knob shiner. This highlights a familiar pattern: every accusation they make, they’re actually doing.
The lack of investigation or follow-up by the Justice Department on such a significant issue would be a huge misstep. It would further damage public trust and send a message that the administration is above the law. If it turns out that the alteration of these signatures was done without proper authorization, or with malicious intent, it could be considered forgery and is an obvious legal and political problem.
The potential for this scandal to impact future legal proceedings is also very real. Those who were pardoned under these potentially invalid signatures might find their pardons challenged in court. This, in turn, could lead to a legal quagmire, especially if those pardons were granted for politically charged crimes or involved individuals closely aligned with the former president.
Ultimately, the revelation that the Justice Department quietly replaced “identical” Trump signatures on recent pardons is not just a minor procedural issue. It’s a symptom of a larger problem: a lack of transparency, a potential disregard for established legal processes, and a willingness to operate in the shadows. It underscores the critical need for a thorough investigation to unravel the truth behind this affair and to hold those responsible accountable. The lack of explanation from the Justice Department only serves to intensify the questions and amplify the concerns surrounding this episode.