A recent report has shed light on the controversial pardons granted by former President Joe Biden to high-profile figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley.
These pardons, signed in a last-minute rush by an autopen, have sparked a flurry of debate and scrutiny. The pardons, which were examined by the New York Times through a comprehensive review of staff emails and a brief interview with Biden, include figures from the January 6th committee, some of Biden's family members, and other contentious individuals like Fauci and Milley.
Dr. Fauci, a central figure during the COVID-19 crisis, has been a magnet for criticism. Critics argue that he committed perjury during congressional testimony regarding statements on gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There are also claims that certain types of research related to COVID were funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under his leadership.
In his interview with the Times, Biden defended his pre-emptive pardons, particularly those for his family, as a necessary shield against a vengeful President Trump. "Everybody knows how vindictive he is. So we knew that theyd do what theyre doing now," Biden stated, adding, "I consciously made all those decisions, among others."
As reported by RedState, the "others" included Fauci, whose pardon was signed by an autopen and approved not directly by Biden, but in a "reply all" email from his chief of staff, Jeffrey Zients.
The House Oversight Committee has initiated an ongoing investigation into Biden's cognitive decline and his capacity to authorize the use of an autopen under such circumstances. Neera Tanden, a former Biden aide, confessed under oath to the Committee last month that she had controlled the former presidents autopen for nearly two years. However, she denied any manipulation or abuse, maintaining that she was following a system established by previous administrations.
The involvement of Zients introduces a new layer of complexity. The Times report indicates that while Biden was allegedly involved in late-night meetings to discuss the pre-emptive pardons, it was his chief of staff who gave the final approval.
The process and procedures suggest that Biden was involved in a late-night meeting that extended well past 10 pm on January 19th, his last night as President. However, there is skepticism surrounding this claim, given reports that White House staff maintained a strict work schedule for Biden to manage his stamina.
The chain of command from Biden to Zients for approval is notably intricate:
An aide to then-White House counsel, Ed Siskel, sent a draft summary of Bidens decisions at that meeting to an assistant to Zients, copying Siskel, at 10:03 p.m. The assistant forwarded it to Reed and Zients, asking for their approval, and then sent a final version to Feldman copying many meeting participants and aides at 10:28 p.m.
Within a mere three minutes, Zients approved the list, hitting "reply all" and stating, "I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons.
The President of the United States holds the unique power to issue pardons. However, in this case, the pardons had to pass through a series of assistants for approval and were eventually signed not by Biden's hand, but by an autopen.
Zients, who played a significant role in disseminating misinformation during the pandemic and advocated for mandatory vaccination, sent a message to those who had received their vaccines and boosters, commending them for having done the right thing, while simultaneously chastising those who refused as facing a dreaded winter of death.
In a press briefing in December 2021, Zients stated, We are intent on not letting (the variant of concern at the time) Omicron disrupt work and school for the vaccinated. Youve done the right thing, and we will get through this, and warned the unvaccinated of a winter of severe illness and death.
This rhetoric mirrored Dr. Fauci's heavy-handed approach to the pandemic. Therefore, it is not surprising that Zients would approve the pardon for Fauci, whose decisions during the COVID response have been criticized for causing harm and costing lives and livelihoods.
The New York Times report appears to be a desperate attempt to convince the American public that Biden was involved in the process of approving autopen signatures on the numerous pardons he granted in his final days in the Oval Office. However, it has raised more questions than it has answered.
Despite the Times' efforts, it is clear that the approval of the use of the autopen was not granted by Biden himself. Instead, in Fauci's case and many others, it had to receive the green light from Zients. It was a group of advisers controlling the autopen based on a "draft summary" of what the former President had said, which was then circulated through emails to several other individuals before it landed in Zients' inbox to be approved roughly two minutes later.
Public hearings on this matter should be expedited. The American people deserve transparency and accountability from their leaders, and this situation is no exception. The use of an autopen to sign pardons, especially those involving high-profile figures, is a matter of public interest and should be thoroughly investigated.
Login