>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“Federal prosecutors in U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office are dropping a criminal probe into whether former President Joe Biden and his aides unlawfully used an autopen to issue pardons, a person briefed on the matter told CBS News.”
Two individuals with knowledge of the situation also confirmed the existence of the investigation. One of those sources told the outlet that prosecutors ultimately abandoned the effort because they were unable to establish a legal path that would justify continuing the case.
“Two sources confirmed the existence of the probe, with one telling CBS News that the matter has since been closed because prosecutors were never able to find a legal hook to be able to pursue the matter further. CBS News has not determined precisely when the case ended.”
The controversy originally gained traction after Donald Trump raised concerns about whether the Biden White House relied on an autopen to sign sensitive presidential documents—including pardons. Trump argued that such a practice could potentially undermine the legitimacy of executive decisions.
Last June, Trump directed officials to examine the issue more closely. In a memo, he instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House legal staff to investigate what he described as a troubling pattern involving automated presidential signatures.
In that directive, Trump alleged there may have been a coordinated effort within the Biden administration to misuse the technology.
He wrote that investigators should examine what he claimed was a “conspiracy” to “abuse the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline.”
The story gained further momentum after watchdog investigators uncovered what they believed to be unusual patterns in the way certain presidential actions were signed.
The conservative government watchdog group Oversight Project first brought widespread attention to the controversy. Their researchers claimed to have identified thousands of official actions—including clemency decisions—that appeared to carry a machine-generated signature instead of a traditional handwritten one.
Their findings quickly fueled debate across Washington about whether staff members may have exercised undue influence over decisions that constitutionally belong to the president.
The group later announced another discovery that added more intrigue to the story.
Last March, analysts with the Oversight Project said they identified not one—but two different autopen signatures appearing on Biden’s clemency paperwork. These were labeled internally as “Autopen A” and “Autopen B,” each showing subtle differences in the replicated signature.
Those variations raised further questions about how frequently the device was being used and who had access to it.
Even more curious, investigators later reported spotting a third version of Biden’s signature used in official proclamations early in his presidency. According to their findings, that third autopen pattern appeared during the very first week after Biden took office.
Despite these claims, the Justice Department ultimately determined there was not enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing to pursue charges.
Still, critics argue that the closure of the probe does not necessarily resolve the broader questions surrounding transparency and accountability.
Responding to reports that the investigation had been shelved, the Oversight Project indicated it intends to continue pushing for answers.
“We will wait for the facts to emerge, but accountability for the “scandal of the century” is desperately needed and deserved. We’ve laid out several ways to make that happen and will continue to push for results,” the group said in a statement.
While the DOJ’s decision appears to close the door on criminal proceedings, the political debate surrounding the autopen issue is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. For many observers in Washington, the episode raises deeper concerns about how presidential authority is exercised—and who may ultimately be responsible when critical decisions bear the president’s signature.
