Very Interesting: SWC--Autopen + DoJ Pardon Attorney Firing = Investigation

I’m sure readers have seen the stories over the past week or more about the discovery that virtually all White House docs were not signed by Zhou—they were signed by a machine, an autopen machine. Naturally that discovery has led to speculation about the validity of such “signatures,” the identity of the person(s) operating the machine, whether Zhou had knowledge of all, most, or only a few of the docs that were executed in this manner. There is one disturbing indication that all was not done according to Hoyle, and that’s the well known account of Speaker Mike Johnson, who has stated that Zhou actually denied signing an executive order that Johnson was questioning.

Shipwreckedcrew has written an article for Red State that raises a very specific issue with regard to the autopen ops, in combination with the final Zhou pardons. Of course, there’s the issue of whether pardons signed in this manner are even valid. However, a very recent firing raises that issue more sharply, and that is the firing of the DoJ Pardon Attorney, Liz Oyer, who was in charge of the pardon process. Specifically, the manner of the firing suggests that DoJ was anxious to prevent Oyer from destroying evidence, which would only be the case if there was an active investigation:

But there was a noteworthy aspect of her dismissal that was reported by the Wall Street Journal the day after her firing – she was immediately escorted from the building by security.

This is done when there is an ongoing investigation that the individual is likely unaware of, and those conducting the investigation want to preserve all electronic records that might be available on a computer and cell phone. Asking her to leave immediately prevents any attempt to delete such records.

What is being investigated? Shipwreckedcrew raises two categories of pardons that investigators might be looking at, possibly for discrete reasons. For example, quite a few pardons were quite controversial:

He gave a pardon to his son Hunter that covered any criminal activity over a 10-year (plus) period going back to 2014. He commuted the death sentences of all federal inmates on “Death Row” — except for three. He granted pardons/clemency in approximately 2,500 cases, including Leonard Peltier, convicted for the 1975 murder of two FBI Agents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

In this category of pardons, investigators might well be focusing on the issue of the autopen signatures—did Zhou actually authorize these pardons? Or was the operation of the autopen machine unauthorized in some or even many of these cases?

The other category of pardons are the preemptive pardons that Zhou allegedly granted on his very last day:

to other Biden family members, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Ret. Gen. Mark Milley, and the House members and staff who served on the January 6 Special Committee. President Trump had stated an intention during the campaign to look into the allegations of influence peddling by members of Biden’s family, some of whom had testified before the House Oversight Committee examining the foreign sources of income received by the family during his two terms as vice president.

This is the really interesting part. I would presume that, of all the pardons, these final ones were most likely to have been knowingly issued by Zhou. Normally, that would be the end of the story—pardons are “non-justiciable.” However, Shipwreckedcrew argues that these preemptive pardons—issued after Trump had expressed the intent to investigate criminal conduct on the part of the persons pardoned—could constitute obstruction of justice:

Normally, the issuance of a presidential pardon is a “non-justiciable” act. The power to issue pardons rests exclusively with the executive branch as set forth in the Constitution, Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 1. It is “non-justiciable” in the sense that Article III courts do not have jurisdiction to review a grant of a presidential pardon or another form of clemency, so there is no clear avenue through which to challenge the validity of a pardon.

Here we see why Oyer was fired in the specific manner described above, which indicated a strong concern to preserve records. In these cases what would be under investigation might not be the pardons per se (although the autopen issue could also arise), but rather the process and the persons involved in that process. Would actions intended to corrupt the pardon process—which has very specific rules and procedures—fall under obstruction of justice in these circumstances? If the pardons were issued in the light of impending investigations?

To the extent there were discussions that could be characterized as being in preparation to corrupt the pardon process for the benefit of select insiders who were already mentioned as possible targets of the incoming administration, could such actions fall within the scope of various “obstruction of justice” statutes? That would be a basis to open a grand jury investigation and begin gathering evidence with the tools that would provide. This investigation wouldn’t be about the pardons and the people who received them, as it would be about the process by which they were issued.

There’s more in the article. If this interests you, follow the link.