 |
| Pix credit here |
Much of the time after Mr. Trump's loss in the 2020 Presidential elections were spent by high level political cliques and public intellectuals in a significantly draining debate about which of the primary factions then in power in American politics was the largest or most significant betrayer of the "essence" of the American system of governance, of perhaps more crudely, about the corruption and overthrowing of the Republic as ideally constituted (as understood from age to age).
Former President Biden devoted a substantial amount of his discourse on the effort to characterize then Former President Trump as some sort of "great betrayer," criminal, and perhaps traitor, if not directly then indirectly--and key elements of the political apparatus devoted substantial resources to transforming those thoughts into legally consequential conclusions. At the same time, then Former President Trump and his allies devoted a substantial amount of resources to a rhetoric of corruption grounded in the sense that former President Biden's health made it impossible for him to effectively govern. As a consequence, it might have been teased out, the Republic was not governed by its elected leader but by someone else. That itself also pointed to the same sort of conclusions about betrayal, criminality, and the corruption of the Republic.
The election results of 2024 substantially weakened the institutional taste for pursing the implications of the rhetoric of the then party in power (though it hardly would have been expected to change minds). But it also had the opposite effect on President Trump's and his supporters, who now hold leading positions in the State apparatus. operationalizing what appeared to be the implications of their own discursive positions, on 4 June 2025, the President caused to be issued a Memorandum--Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions (the text of which follows below). It is supplemented by a Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Directs Review of Certain Presidential Action (the text of which also follows below).
The memorandum, Reviewing Certain Presidential Action, is directed to the US Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. It directs the Counsel to the President, "in consultation with the Attorney General and the head of any other relevant executive department or agency (agency), [to] investigate, to the extent permitted by law, whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President." (Reviewing Certain Presidential Action, § 2). The basis for this investigation is set out in §1 of the Memorandum. The Fact Sheet appears to try to make or at least describe, the basis for ordering the investigation.
Many people may be drawn to the salacious core driving the allegation--the stuff of movies. Beyond the object of scoring political points and perhaps making a
broader charge of systemic corruption (that will be hard), there are
some issues worth considering at greater length. Among these may be the operational issues underneath the sensationalism (and drama) that provides context: how is the State institutionally prepared (assuming it desires such preparation) to ensure that the person elected is the person acting, or at least to try to figure out how much of what a President does ought to be undertaken by the President. There are contemporary analogies to which those choices will have some influence--(1) ought legislators be penalized or impeached where they vote or act on a bill without having read it much less considered all of it in the process of passage (a sort of legislator duty of care); (2) to what extent ought judicial clerks to be involved in the process of judicial decision making, and related, to what extent ought their involvement in a case to be reported or described; and a bit off the wall but still within the range of analogous conceptual process (3) the extent to which may one call work one's own--everything from the determination of the meaning of "Made in America" (here) to decisions or actions that are approved by someone (with the responsibility for that decision) based on the work of others (not just plagiarism for example, but input, where the decision is one's own but the work on which it was based was not). The semiotic element of the exercise is lurking just beneath the surface of all of these relations--it touches on the identification of an object that is then given signification that in turns irritates the ecologies of signification of related object-concepts--in this case disturbing what had been assumed to be more or less settled first principles of other meta-objects--like rule of law.
In the U.S. the concept of justified or expected reliance on others (gatekeepers, experts, staff) has a long and venerable history in law and other social relations. Thus it may be that while one can make decisions guided by others (subject to the sometimes imposed duty of care) one can only engage in that sort of delegated decision responsibility where one is "of sound mind." And there is always the now recharged jurisprudence of intention that is tied to reliance and abuse, especially in its guide as retaliation (considered as a form of deception).
Oddly, the most interesting part of all of this was the window that it provided on President Trump's understanding of the theory of a unitary executive and its application to his own role in the State:
The President of the United States, as the unitary head of the executive branch, holds tremendous power and responsibility through his signature: words on paper can become the law of the land, individuals are appointed to some of the highest offices in Government, national policies can be created or eliminated, and prisoners can go free. In sum, the Nation is governed through Presidential signatures. (Reviewing Certain Presidential Action, § 2).
The most interesting bit is the notion that an administrative decision (the essence of an Executive Order one might think) is not just a decision permitted by law (that is, not not merely have legal effect), but is law. The rank of that law (if one embraces this approach) remains unclear--are these ranked the same as statutes or do they have a quality of sub-legislative rank like that of administrative regulations--it is not yet clear. The issue parallels a similar discussion about the effect of judicial proceedings--do court have legal consequences or are they law? In one narrow sense perhaps that are law--as the law of the case binding on the parties. Beyond that, opinions differ and those opinions have differed over time (an interesting discussion here). And thus a sort of larger irony (or joke)--the courts and the president find themselves in the same conceptual boat with respect to the effect and character of their own decisions. And it might be useful to think through both in tandem--though that is not fashionable at the moment.
Beyond that, the drama of both former President Biden's capacity, and its effect on decision making, along with the legal effect of those decisions, will provide those for whom this may may political consequences, lots of space to act--and lots a narratives to spin out to strategic effect.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby directed:
Section 1. Background. The President of the United States, as the unitary head of the executive branch, holds tremendous power and responsibility through his signature: words on paper can become the law of the land, individuals are appointed to some of the highest offices in Government, national policies can be created or eliminated, and prisoners can go free. In sum, the Nation is governed through Presidential signatures.
In recent months, it has become increasingly apparent that former President Biden’s aides abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline and assert Article II authority. This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history. The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden’s signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.
For years, President Biden suffered from serious cognitive decline. The Department of Justice, for example, concluded that, despite clear evidence that Biden had broken the law, he should not stand trial owing to his incompetent mental state. Biden’s cognitive issues and apparent mental decline during his Presidency were even “worse” in private, and those closest to him “tried to hide it” from the public. To do so, Biden’s advisors during his years in office severely restricted his news conferences and media appearances, and they scripted his conversations with lawmakers, government officials, and donors, all to cover up his inability to discharge his duties.
Notwithstanding these well-documented issues, the White House issued over 1,200 Presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the Federal bench, and issued more pardons and commutations than any administration in United States history. For instance, just 2 days before Christmas in 2024, the White House announced that Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 most vile and monstrous criminals on Federal death row, including several child killers and mass murderers.
Although the authority to take these executive actions, along with many others, is constitutionally committed to the President, there are serious doubts as to the decision making process and even the degree of Biden’s awareness of these actions being taken in his name.
The vast majority of Biden’s executive actions were signed using a mechanical signature pen, often called an autopen, as opposed to Biden’s own hand. This was especially true of actions taken during the second half of his Presidency, when his cognitive decline had apparently become even more clear to those working most closely with him.
Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden’s name.
Sec. 2. Investigation. (a) The Counsel to the President, in consultation with the Attorney General and the head of any other relevant executive department or agency (agency), shall investigate, to the extent permitted by law, whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President. This investigation shall address:
(i) any activity, coordinated or otherwise, to purposefully shield the public from information regarding Biden’s mental and physical health;
(ii) any agreements between Biden’s aides to cooperatively and falsely deem recorded videos of the President’s cognitive inability as fake;
(iii) any agreements between Biden’s aides to require false, public statements elevating the President’s capabilities; and
(iv) the purpose of these activities, including to assert the authorities of the President.
(b) The Counsel to the President shall also investigate, in consultation with the Attorney General and the head of any other relevant agency, the circumstances surrounding Biden’s supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office. This investigation shall address:
(i) the policy documents for which the autopen was used, including clemency grants, Executive Orders, Presidential memoranda, or other Presidential policy decisions; and
(ii) who directed that the President’s signature be affixed.
Sec. 3. General Provisions. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
INVESTIGATING EXECUTIVE ACTIONS UNDER BIDEN’S PRESIDENCY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing an investigation into who ran the United States while President Biden was in office.
- The Memorandum directs an investigation into whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.
- The Memorandum also mandates an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Biden’s purported execution of the numerous executive actions during his final years in office, examining policy documents signed with an autopen, who authorized its use, and the validity of the resulting Presidential policy decisions.
QUESTIONING WHO WIELDED THE EXECUTIVE POWER DURING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: The combined nature of Biden’s documented cognitive decline and the repeated use of an autopen raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of his actions.
- Reports indicate that, for years, Biden suffered from serious cognitive decline.
- For example, although the Department of Justice found that Biden had violated the law by willfully retaining and disclosing classified materials, it ultimately concluded that Biden was unfit to stand trial given his incompetent mental state.
- Biden’s cognitive issues and apparent mental decline were reportedly
even “worse” in private, with those closest to him attempting to
conceal it from the public.
- Biden’s advisors severely restricted his news conferences and media appearances, scripting his conversations with lawmakers, government officials, and donors.
- Despite Biden’s cognitive deficiencies, the White House issued over
1,200 Presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the Federal bench,
and issued more pardons and commutations than any Administration in
U.S. history.
- Just two days before Christmas in 2024, Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 most vile and monstrous criminals on Federal death row, including several child killers and mass murderers.
- The authority to take these executive actions is constitutionally reserved for the President, yet the Biden White House used an autopen to execute the vast majority of Biden’s executive actions, particularly during the second half of his Presidency.
RESTORING PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: President Trump believes Americans deserve answers as to whether President Biden signed these documents, and if not, who signed them, and under what circumstances.
- President Trump: “And you know what, they ought to find out who was using that autopen. Because whoever that person was, he or she was like the President of the United States … I think a President should sign it, not use an autopen. And we’re going to find out whether or not he knew what the hell he was doing. … So I think it’s something that we should really look at because that’s so important.”
- President Trump: “The real question – who ran the autopen, OK? Who ran the autopen? Because the things that were signed were signed illegally, in my opinion.”
- Since returning to office, President Trump has held numerous open-press signing events where the American public can witness President Trump’s signature and knowledge regarding the matters in question with their own eyes.
- Even the legacy media admits that President Trump is on track to becoming the most-accessible President in modern history.
No comments:
Post a Comment