By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department has closed an investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen. This probe, initiated by former “weaponization” czar Ed Martin and concluded under Trump ally Jeanine Pirro, never progressed to a grand jury. The difficulty in identifying a clear criminal statute made prosecution unlikely. This investigation occurred amid calls from Donald Trump for inquiries into Biden and his administration, fueled by claims that autopen signatures concealed cognitive decline.
Read the original article here
It seems the Department of Justice has decided to put the brakes on its investigation into President Biden’s use of an autopen, primarily because they couldn’t find a specific law that Biden might have broken. This, in essence, means the probe has fizzled out because the legal grounds just weren’t there. It’s been suggested that this whole affair was more about generating headlines and creating a narrative of outrage rather than pursuing a legitimate legal case. The feeling is that the investigation was never meant to go anywhere substantial, serving more as a distraction or a way to rile up a particular base.
The core of the issue seems to be the very nature of the autopen itself, which many believe is a perfectly legal and long-standing practice for presidents. The argument is that delegating signature authority, especially for routine matters or when a president is unable to sign personally, has historical precedent. In fact, it’s been pointed out that presidents throughout history have used assistants to sign documents when they were traveling or otherwise unavailable, a practice that predates modern technology. This historical context makes the focus on Biden’s autopen use seem somewhat misguided, especially when compared to the routine nature of such actions.
Furthermore, there’s a sentiment that this entire investigation was driven by political motivations rather than a genuine concern for legal wrongdoing. The idea is that the DOJ, or perhaps those pushing for the investigation, may have been more interested in creating a scandal for political gain. The lack of a clear statutory violation further supports the notion that this was a manufactured issue, designed to cast doubt or create controversy. It’s almost as if the search for a crime was happening in reverse, trying to fit a situation into a legal framework that simply didn’t apply.
The discussion also touches on the possibility that this investigation was a deliberate attempt to sow discord and distract from other matters. The ease with which such a topic can generate buzz, especially in a polarized political climate, makes it an attractive tool for those looking to manipulate public attention. The speed at which the investigation seems to have come to a halt, coupled with the absence of a clear legal path, suggests that the initial momentum was more about the performance of investigation than the actual pursuit of justice.
There’s also a cynical view that this is a recurring pattern. The suggestion is that political factions, particularly those associated with former President Trump, often engage in similar tactics: manufacturing accusations, pursuing investigations that lack substance, and then moving on to the next perceived outrage. This approach, it’s argued, benefits from the media cycle and keeps supporters engaged, even if the underlying claims are weak or easily disproven. The autopen probe, from this perspective, is just another iteration of this strategy.
The financial aspect of such investigations also comes into play. The idea of taxpayer money being spent on probes that lack a solid legal foundation is a point of contention. When the investigation ultimately shelves itself due to a lack of a relevant statute, it raises questions about accountability and the responsible use of public resources. The cost of lawyers and personnel involved in these efforts, which ultimately lead nowhere legally, is seen as a waste.
Ultimately, the shelving of the Biden autopen probe highlights a perceived failure in the investigative process itself. When the primary obstacle is the inability to identify a crime, it suggests that the initial impetus for the investigation might have been flawed. This outcome reinforces the idea that the autopen, in the context of presidential actions, is not an inherently illegal act and that this particular line of inquiry was likely a non-starter from a legal standpoint, regardless of the political noise it generated.