President Trump receives terrible news from attorney

alan dershowitz

Donald Trump was worried this would happen. He’s being challenged in the courts once more.

And now President Trump has received terrible news from an attorney.

Alan Dershowitz Pours Cold Water On Trump’s Claims About Biden’s Pardons

Attorney Alan Dershowitz raised an intriguing constitutional question on Monday about the validity of pardons issued by former President Joe Biden, suggesting that the American public might never uncover the truth due to the use of an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a stored signature—to sign them. The issue gained traction after President Donald Trump took to Truth Social early Monday morning, asserting that pardons granted by Biden to members of the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot were invalid for this very reason.

Speaking on his program “The Dershow,” Dershowitz pointed to a potential legal distinction between documents like bills and pardons. He argued that the Constitution imposes a clear requirement for presidential signatures on legislation. “I haven’t heard anybody mention this point, but it’s in the Constitution, so I am going to mention it. There’s a difference among documents that are signed or have to be signed by the president. Let’s say, for example, a bill. We remember all from civics one, yeah, a bill becomes law,” Dershowitz said. “When does a bill become law? When the president signs it or the president doesn’t sign it and vetoes it, when the veto is overcome by the votes, this, that, the other.”

Delving into the text of the Constitution, Dershowitz emphasized the specific wording regarding bills. “OK, what does the Constitution say?” he asked. “The Constitution is very clear that if the president approves the bill, quote ‘He shall sign it.’ He shall sign it, not an autopen, he shall sign it. That seems to strongly suggest he has to pick up a pen. There has to be a document. He has to put pen on paper and sign.” This interpretation, he suggested, could render a law invalid if signed by an autopen rather than the president’s own hand.

In contrast, Dershowitz noted that the Constitution treats pardons differently. During a Monday interview on CNN’s “The Arena,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller claimed that Trump personally signed “every single executive order” during his tenure. Dershowitz, however, pointed out that no equivalent mandate exists for pardons. “Here’s what it says in the Constitution: [The] president shall have the power to grant… reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. He shall have the power, and so there is an argument, don’t know whether it’s a valid one, but it’s an argument I’m certain has never been made before that could say that a president can exercise the power of granting a pardon without even writing anything,” he explained.

Dershowitz elaborated on this possibility, suggesting that a pardon might not require a physical signature at all. “All he can say is I hereby pardon you and, according to the Constitution, at least, if there’s a witness or if there’s this evidence of it, and the pardon is valid, but it still raises the question: He has the power to pardon. He has the power to pardon, not somebody else, and so he shall have the power to grant,” he said.

“So the question is: Did Biden actually exercise that power, or did somebody exercise it on his behalf? So that’s a valid question, aside from the auto pen, which I don’t think applies necessarily to the issue of pardons, because there’s no obligation, no requirement in the Constitution of signing anything, but he shall have the power, and so if it can be demonstrated that it wasn’t you who exercised that power, obviously it was you [who] exercised the power to pardon his son. We know that, but did he exercise the power to pardon all the January 6 congressional committee members, or was that somebody on his staff?”

Despite the potential ambiguity, Dershowitz acknowledged a significant hurdle to resolving the matter: legal standing. He argued that challenging the use of an autopen—whether for a bill or a pardon—requires a plaintiff with the proper authority to sue. “Bottom line: If somebody challenges a law, a bill that was signed by an autopen, it’s a significant chance it might be validated. Of course, you have to have standing to challenge,” Dershowitz said.

“The same thing, by the way, is true for a pardon. Who would have standing to challenge? Let’s assume the pardon was unlawful, is illegal. [The] person getting the pardon wouldn’t wanna challenge. Who would have standing to challenge an unlawful pardon? That’s a hard question. We don’t know the answer to that, and I suspect we will never know the answer to that.”

The debate over autopen signatures thus raises unresolved questions about presidential authority and constitutional interpretation. While Trump’s claims on Truth Social sparked the discussion, Dershowitz’s analysis points to a nuanced distinction between the signing of bills and the granting of pardons—one that may remain unanswered absent a legal challenge with a clear claimant. For now, the validity of Biden’s pardons hangs in a constitutional gray area.

The Federalist Wire will keep you updated on any major developments in the Biden autopen controversy.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR