Part 2 Title: Comer Says Pardons Should Be “Null and Void” as Witness Testimony and Legal Precedent Collide

Following the release of the Oversight Committee’s findings, Comer publicly expanded on his position during an appearance on Fox News. He argued that irregularities in the documentation process create uncertainty about whether Joe Biden personally approved clemency measures. Comer said Tuesday that “every pardon” signed during Biden’s presidency should be considered “null and void,” citing testimony that staff members could not confirm direct presidential involvement.

He told host Laura Ingraham, “Every person who we deposed had a different story on what the proper process was that they followed in using the autopen to sign a legal document.” Comer added that emails from the Department of Justice during Merrick Garland’s tenure raised internal concerns about the volume of autopen use. He claimed those communications led to shifting explanations from staff when pressed about authorization procedures.

The report also highlights testimony from former White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, who said Hunter Biden was present during discussions surrounding potential “preemptive pardons” for family members. Republicans say this involvement warrants closer review, although no formal accusations of misconduct have been substantiated.

Witness statements collected by the committee reflect what Comer described as a lack of clear communication with Biden during critical decision periods. He asserted that aides sometimes went “weeks, months and even years without communicating with Joe Biden,” and argued that the absence of meeting notes, sign-off logs, or direct orders leaves open questions about how executive actions were finalized.

However, legal precedent complicates the committee’s position. A Justice Department opinion issued in 2005 under President George W. Bush concluded that an autopen may be used to sign federal documents with presidential authorization. That ruling established that a sitting president can direct staff to apply his signature mechanically to official documents.

Republicans contend that the issue is not simply the device itself, but whether Biden personally reviewed and approved the decisions associated with his signature. The Justice Department has not announced whether it will open an investigation.

As debate continues, the conflict underscores a broader dispute over executive authority, health transparency, and how presidential intent should be documented for the historical and legal record.