The Dims

Quote: GenoDRPh

If you are well aware, why do you complain only when a Democrat does it?

More evidence SooPoo doesn't believe in civil rights or due process. Any lawyer worth his salt will advise, when questioned by the government to (1) Get a lawyer and (2)STFU. Invoking the Fifth means you have a right to remain innocent, and not have the government twist your words into something most favorable to the government's efforts to prosecute.

That being said, it appears that rules and SOPs regarding the use of the autopen were kinda loose, and have been across several administrations. Maybe this and future administrations should tighten them up a bit? Define who can authorize the autopen for official government documents and keep some sort of log?

Would you like me to find you 100,000 examples of people who testified before Congress and did not need to invoke the 5th amendment? If Geno was called and asked about your defrauding the Medicare system, I’m guessing you’d be able to answer the questions truthfully and not need to invoke the 5th amendment.

There is always a balancing act to ‘protecting civil rights’ and ‘protecting society’. The murderer who is set free to murder again because the cop found his cache of guns during a technically illegal search is such an example. You want to always protect those individual’s rights. I want there to be reasonable discretion that a judge can exercise.

I agree with you on your autopen point.

As I’ve mentioned before, I used to do ‘lobbying’ for the NYSSA and ASA (anesthesiology societies). As such, I got to know many lawmakers. I can absolutely assure you that they routinely vote on bills they have not read. They all have staffs that try and give them the salient points. I’m sure there are many similar layers when it comes to the President signing a bill.

If you remember when the ACA passed they all admitted they didn’t even have time to read it.

Quote: SOOPOO

Would you like me to find you 100,000 examples of people who testified before Congress and did not need to invoke the 5th amendment? If Geno was called and asked about your defrauding the Medicare system, I’m guessing you’d be able to answer the questions truthfully and not need to invoke the 5th amendment.

Would you like me to find you 100,000 examples of people who testified before Congress and invoked the 5th Amendment?

If those people were in front of a congressional committee investigating a crime they were even remotely implicated in, they were morons to testify. And yes, I would invoke the fifth, just like the last time a cop came knocking on my door investigating a crime.

Quote:

There is always a balancing act to ‘protecting civil rights’ and ‘protecting society’. The murderer who is set free to murder again because the cop found his cache of guns during a technically illegal search is such an example. You want to always protect those individual’s rights. I want there to be reasonable discretion that a judge can exercise.

That reasonable discretion is found in the text of the 4th amendment, and any additional state protections. It already exists, and has existed since the amendment was ratified. What you want is for cops to have the power to kick in any door at any time, day or night, pull over any vehicle even if no crime is suspected or stop on pedestrian and be able to conduct a thorough and invasive search for evidence of a crime or contraband or a crime. ou want to eviscerate privacy rights. You want to ends to justify the means. You want totalitarianism.

Quote:

I agree with you on your autopen point.

Glad to hear it!

Quote:

As I’ve mentioned before, I used to do ‘lobbying’ for the NYSSA and ASA (anesthesiology societies). As such, I got to know many lawmakers. I can absolutely assure you that they routinely vote on bills they have not read. They all have staffs that try and give them the salient points. I’m sure there are many similar layers when it comes to the President signing a bill.

If you remember when the ACA passed they all admitted they didn’t even have time to read it.

So maybe, instead of rushing legislation through to satisfy some stupid made-up deadline, Congressional leaders should tell the White House, "You'll get your bill, but we have to read it first so it'll be ready when it's ready and not a moment before."

Quote: SOOPOO

Anthony Bernal, a White House aide for Biden, was called to testify about Biden and his Presidency by Congress. He answered no questions, invoking his 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. He was asked two questions…. about Biden’s mental competency, and did any non elected officials fulfill Presidential duties.

I think terapined often joked about ‘President Jill’.

Another stain on the Biden Presidency. So many stains it now lookalike modern art.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-deposed-ny-ag-civil-probe-business-practices-rcna42355

Can you point us to any public statement by you objecting to Donny pleading the 5th 450 times, and where you called it a stain on Trump or his Presidency?

An example of "rushing to pass it to please Trump" can be found in the seeming surprise of legislators at the provision changing how gamblers can offset winnings against losses: most if not all had no idea it was in there.

Makes one wonder just what other little time bombs were overlooked.

tick...tick...tick...

Quote: missedhervee

Why is there even an autopen, anyway?

Requiring ACTUAL signatures...wow, what a novel idea.

If Biden didn't really know what was going on, then it doesn't make any difference if he was actually there. "Scrawl here. sir."

So, the whole premise is bogus.

I doubt Uncle Joe was so daft that he couldn't read and understand things, but maybe so.

An autopen would seem to invite staff to use it in support of convenience if nothing else, but there could be something else, something...unscrupulous?

Whatever, the autopen should be shit-canned.

Quote: missedhervee

I doubt Uncle Joe was so daft that he couldn't read and understand things, but maybe so.

An autopen would seem to invite staff to use it in support of convenience if nothing else, but there could be something else, something...unscrupulous?

Whatever, the autopen should be shit-canned.

Even if Uncle Joe was a babbling, drooling dementia-filled old man at any time in his Presidency, so what? There is no mechanism for retroactively declaring a President's actions void. The time to do that is while he is in office, in real time and prospectively.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Even if Uncle Joe was a babbling, drooling dementia-filled old man at any time in his Presidency, so what? There is no mechanism for retroactively declaring a President's actions void. The time to do that is while he is in office, in real time and prospectively.

I'm not sure it's all required anyway. I check an x that verifies my signature on official electronic documents. The president has secure communication.

Probably just ceremonial at this point, or could likely be.

Quote: rxwine

I'm not sure it's all required anyway. I check an x that verifies my signature on official electronic documents. The president has secure communication.

Probably just ceremonial at this point, or could likely be.

For legislation, the Constitution requires, "if he approve(s) he shall sign it". In 1787, that probably meant in his own hand in wet ink. Although, a pantograph was in common use at the time (you can see Jefferson's at Monticello). Unless our laws are stuck in amber, signing legislation can also mean using the autopen with express approval of the President, as happened under Obama and such actions expressly approved earlier by Bush II justice department. For all other Presidential decisions, a verbal statement is sufficient. I mean, Kash Patel even defended the declassification of certain documents during Trump I, by saying he witnessed Donny saying "All this is declassified." Indeed, during Trump I the pardon attorney said no written document is necessary for a pardon, just some indication that President issued a pardon and the DOJ would record the act for the official record.

This whole witch hunt is smoke and mirrors.

Quote: missedhervee

Why is there even an autopen, anyway?

Requiring ACTUAL signatures...wow, what a novel idea.

Because too many things need signed. I remember a "scandal" in banking where the officers in a company were not reading and signing all the mortgage modifications. I worked in such a place, we had 50-100 people reviewing this stuff per one insider, who just signed or stamped. If they signed stuff all day all they would do was sign their name. Reality is you had systems to check that all the work was right and the insider supervised everyone.

In the WH you can be assured that all kinds of invitations and thank-yous go out "signed" but with an auto-pen. The people who get this kind of thing tend to treasure them, so lots are needed. A POTUS cannot sign them all.

That is why there is an auto-pen. But in the case of your boy Biden it got abused.