- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can any decent attorney (not AggieHank or SFP) give opinion on autopen
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:59 pm to moneyg
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:59 pm to moneyg
quote:
The issue is going to be whether Biden actually “signed” the orders.
Then we can trot Dementia joe out, and ask him, individually about each signature and why he did, or did not sign them.
0
Posted on 3/10/25 at 2:05 pm to AggieHank86
The stationery utilized is the least concerning aspect of this story.
No one is asking him to have used the FauxTUS paper stock. At the time and now, it serves as a gigantic breadcrumb as to the fact that something is off in a big way about the whole story.
This is doubly so when viewed through the lens of the discovery that all of the Autopen signatures bear the same signature, despite anecdotal accounts in this very thread attesting to it requiring renewal of the signature after brief periods of time.
Even if it only required a new signature entry once a year, you should have 4 distinct samples that are indicative of each year of the illegitimate criminal regime, yet the Heritage Oversight group research indicates they're the same across the entire FauxTUS term.
No one is asking him to have used the FauxTUS paper stock. At the time and now, it serves as a gigantic breadcrumb as to the fact that something is off in a big way about the whole story.
This is doubly so when viewed through the lens of the discovery that all of the Autopen signatures bear the same signature, despite anecdotal accounts in this very thread attesting to it requiring renewal of the signature after brief periods of time.
Even if it only required a new signature entry once a year, you should have 4 distinct samples that are indicative of each year of the illegitimate criminal regime, yet the Heritage Oversight group research indicates they're the same across the entire FauxTUS term.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 2:14 pm to AnotherWin4LSU
I saw an interview earlier with Judge Joe Brown and he basically shot it down, made sense what he said. Fast forward to 21:25. Youtube
Eta I see your question was more to autopen but I think what the judge said means its not going anywhere anyway.
Eta I see your question was more to autopen but I think what the judge said means its not going anywhere anyway.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 2:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but legal secretaries and paralegals "click the button" quite routinely, as far as I know.
right, but "clicking" the button for the PRESIDENT?
that's unheard of
Posted on 3/10/25 at 2:28 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
but most things can be electronically signed these days.
I cannot imagine a pardon or an executive order wouldn't have to be wet and notarized (minimum)
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The allegations are he didn't know this due to...incompetency.
Which allegations? Are you saying this is the sum total if allegations?
It seems like you want to define the argument to be specific to incompetency. Many smart people, right or wrong, think the power of the presidency was usurped by his administration.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And you're kind of making that argument here.
I’m not. I’m suggesting he doesn’t know because he wasn’t involved.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:28 pm to moneyg
quote:
I’m suggesting he doesn’t know because he wasn’t involved.
Speaker Mike Johnson would agree with you.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:28 pm to moneyg
quote:
I’m suggesting he doesn’t know because he wasn’t involved.
These things are public. How wouldn't he know once they were done?
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These things are public. How wouldn't he know once they were done?
He did not know about shutting down LG exports when confronted by Mike Johnson about them....?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:35 pm to Warboo
quote:
He did not know about shutting down LG exports when confronted by Mike Johnson about them....?
And, thus, we seem to be drifting back into the "incompetency" argument.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:36 pm to AnotherWin4LSU
quote:
SlowMoBlow
Shut up, fggot.
OP, in many cases, yes. however, it is illegal as hell to take the signature of some incapacitated, doddering old fool and sign his name to a bunch of stuff.
Hope that clears it up for ya.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And, thus, we seem to be drifting back into the "incompetency" argument.
Either incompetent or negligent to the fact that his handlers were signing EO's with or without his approval. Either way, laws were broken it appears.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:51 pm to Warboo
quote:
Either way, laws were broken it appears.
Way too early to talk about this, especially with the whole Constitutional issue looming.
Like I was discussing with BBonds yesterday, the way we analyze laws with normal people aren't likely specifically applicable here. This is a Constitutional question with a discussion about the requirements of actions by an office, not specifically a person.
The best comp I've thought of so far is the criminal immunity the USSC granted the President (without textual support, mind you). As long as the President is acting within his duties, he's immune from any prosecution. We cannot apply the criminals laws to the office as we would the person (outside of the office).
Outside of the incompetency, if this hypothetical occurred where a staffer went rogue and signed documents that weren't the will of the office, Biden had recourse while in his role as the President to correct these rogue actions. Outside of that reversal, it's hard to argue the will of the office was not done. That's why that argument is difficult to make that the incompetency becomes the focus.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:53 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Oof. They aren't sending their best, these days.
This coming from you? I hope your insane, mouth breathing arse always believes that of me.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 3:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Outside of the incompetency, if this hypothetical occurred where a staffer went rogue and signed documents that weren't the will of the office, Biden had recourse while in his role as the President to correct these rogue actions. Outside of that reversal, it's hard to argue the will of the office was not done. That's why that argument is difficult to make that the incompetency becomes the focus.
For once, I agree with you. Not sure how you would ever prove any of this other than claiming incompetency. I do believe that someone else was calling the shots and signing the EO's. Does not matter what I believe unfortunately.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 4:02 pm to AnotherWin4LSU
I'm not a lawyer but any good lawyer could get around docusign.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 4:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These things are public. How wouldn't he know once they were done?
You love to move the goalposts.
Who said he didn't know once they were done? Did I say that?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 4:17 pm to moneyg
quote:
Who said he didn't know once they were done
I see you added a "once they were done" qualifier
So if he knows, what's the big deal, exactly? The will of the office was done (see above post).
Posted on 3/10/25 at 4:26 pm to AnotherWin4LSU
I have never encountered so many SFP & Hank postings in one thread.
Kudos I guess…
Kudos I guess…
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News