Neera Tanden and the Biden autopen: Probe progresses with help of Trump-centered poetic justice



Neera Tanden, a prominent fixture in the Democratic establishment who served as director of the Biden White House Domestic Policy Council, appeared before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday for hours-long, closed-door testimony concerning Biden's cognitive decline while in office, its cover-up, and its alleged exploitation behind the scenes.

Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, Tanden, a former Hillary Clinton aide, stuck with the narrative that Biden was mentally fit during his tenure, her opening statement showed. She also suggested that the controversial use of the autopen — a machine used to affix Biden's signature to a myriad of documents, which critics suspect was abused by unelected individuals to advance radical agendas and to circumvent the will of the American people — was above-board.

Tanden's spin notwithstanding, congressional investigators appear to have made headway on Tuesday thanks in part to some poetic justice.

Shield withdrawn

Despite protest from President Donald Trump and warnings from numerous critics about setting an undesirable precedent, Biden waived executive privilege in October 2021 and directed the National Archives to furnish congressional partisans with Trump-era White House records pertaining to the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol.

Biden's counsel noted in a letter that asserting executive privilege was "not in the best interests of the United States."

University of Virginia School of Law professor Saikrishna Prakash, among the legal scholars at the time who understood this move could come back to bite Biden and his advisers, told the Associated Press, "Every time a president does something controversial, it becomes a building block for future presidents."

Trump stacked on this building block this week in the interest of helping along the Oversight Committee's investigation into the autopen scandal.

RELATED: Oversight Project over target: Dems seethe as facade of autopen presidency comes crashing down

Photo by Evan Vucci-Pool/Getty Images

Gary Lawkowski, deputy counsel to Trump, noted in a letter Tuesday — which echoed the letter previously penned by Biden's counsel in 2021 — that in light of the "unique and extraordinary nature of the matters under investigation, President Trump has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the national interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to particular subjects within the purview of the House Oversight Committee."

After highlighting Tanden's assessment of Biden's mental fitness and her knowledge of who exercised executive powers during his tenure, Lawkowski stressed:

The extraordinary events in this matter constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an accommodation to Congress. Evidence that aides to former President Biden concealed information regarding his fitness to exercise the powers of the President — and may have unconstitutionally exercised those powers themselves to aid in their concealment — implicates both Congress' constitutional and legislative powers.

Blaze News reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Deprived of the shield of executive privilege and thus required to provide lawmakers with "unrestricted testimony," Tanden headed into what she later referred to as a "thorough process."

— (@)

Tanden's admission

The Oversight Project, a government watchdog, revealed in early March that Biden's signature on numerous pardons, executive orders, and other documents of national consequence was likely machine-generated.

The watchdog group also highlighted possible evidence that the autopen was used on some of these documents without Biden's knowledge and while he was absent.

Around the time of the Oversight Project's initial reporting on the autopen, former White House stenographer Mike McCormick told Blaze News that he felt Tanden was a person who could have potentially taken advantage of her position in the White House with regard to the autopen.

RELATED: Don’t let the Biden autopen scandal become just another lame hearing

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

McCormick, who neither worked in the White House with Biden after 2017 nor personally met Tanden, said she was often praised by the former president as a "super aggressive, very progressive" operative.

"She would be the person," the stenographer continued. "If she came into his White House knowing that [Biden] was debilitated, would she be the kind of person who would take advantage of that? I think she would."

While it remains unclear whether Tanden misused the autopen, McCormick was right on the money regarding her use of it.

After noting that she did not believe that the committee's investigation was a "worthy subject of oversight," Tanden told lawmakers in her opening statement that when serving as Biden's staff secretary, she was "responsible for handling the flow of documents to and from the president" and was "authorized to direct that autopen signatures be affixed to certain categories of documents."

McCormick was contacted for comment after news of the White House counsel's letter to Tanden broke. McCormick explained that Tanden's placement in the White House by Ron Klain, Biden's chief of staff from 2021 to 2023, was a grave mistake.

"[Klain's] decision to put Neera Tanden, an operative's operative, in charge the staff secretary's office is an extraordinary red flag that must be thoroughly investigated," McCormick told Blaze News.

'I think the American people want to know.'

When Ed Martin, the Department of Justice pardon attorney and director of the DOJ's Weaponization Working Group, announced his investigation last month into the questionable "autopen" pardons issued in the final days of the Biden White House, he indicated that a whistleblower had identified three people who controlled access to the autopen.

"They were making money off of it," Martin said.

Martin did not name the three suspects outright and made no reference to Tanden. He did, however, identify several "gatekeepers" who were "dominant characters in the White House," one of whom was Klain, whose office repeatedly hosted George Soros' son Alexander Soros and who returned to the fold last year amid Biden's debate preparation.

RELATED: Ed Martin floats names of 'gatekeepers' in Biden autopen controversy; Trump accuses exploiters of 'TREASON'

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Tanden told congressional investigators on Tuesday that as of May 2023, she no longer had "any responsibilities in connection with the use of the autopen."

Tanden further suggested that she had "no experience in the White House that would provide any reason to question [Biden's] command as president," adding that "he was in charge."

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the Oversight Committee, told the Washington Examiner that Tanden was "very forthcoming" and that the committee now has "a lot better understanding of how things worked in the Biden administration."

Next steps

Prior to the transcribed interview on Tuesday, Comer told reporters that Tanden's was the "first of many interviews with people that we believe were involved in the autopen scandal in the Biden administration. We have a lot of questions to ask each witness."

The transcripts will be released once all of the interviews are completed.

"I think the American people want to know. I think there is a huge level of curiosity in the press corps with respect to who was actually calling the shots in the Biden administration," said Comer.

Former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump and former Idaho Solicitor General Theodore Wold underscored the gravity of the matter in his testimony last week before the the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, noting that the "U.S. Constitution vests the executive power in a single person: the president."

Whether signing an executive order, issuing a pardon, or taking any other action permitted him by the Constitution, "the president's signature is itself the protection of democratic principles. When the president signs, he communicates his assent and endorsement of the action he takes," said Wold.

Wold noted that in numerous instances where the autopen was used, there was no indication "that anyone other than staff were making these decisions."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s war against the deep state starts with the courts



We are not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be.

For more than a generation, the right has either failed or refused to acknowledge this essential truth. Meanwhile, the left has embraced it with unwavering commitment. As a result, it was on the verge of fulfilling Antonio Gramsci’s vision of a “long march through the institutions” — until the 2024 election stopped the left just short of the goal line.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left’s misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader.

The good news is that after the 2024 election, we’re still in the fight. The bad news? We have 99 yards to march in the opposite direction. Here’s how we got here.

The left understands that politics is ultimately about power — acquiring it and using it — not about process. Leftists start with the policy outcome they want, no matter how extreme or destructive, and then fabricate a process to make it appear “legal.” That’s how judges, with no constitutional authority to do so, can decide that Venezuelan drug lords have a greater right to live in America than unborn babies have to be born.

Meanwhile, the right has typically responded by meticulously adhering to every subsection of every constitutional doctrine in its desperate, fleeting attempts to preserve what remains of sanity. And the right has done so at a glacial pace — while the left sprints toward Gomorrah.

Aggression on many fronts

Enter Donald Trump.

Unconventional quarterbacks rarely score 99-yard touchdowns, but they change the game. The right’s shift in leadership last decade introduced a wild card that made the left feel genuinely threatened for the first time. Instead of a predictable, by-the-book leader — akin to a classic drop-back passer — Trump operates best outside the pocket, forcing opponents to react to him.

His administration shattered the traditional “first 100 days” playbook, which typically focuses on one major campaign promise at a time. Instead, from day one, Trump aggressively took on the left across multiple fronts simultaneously.

This unpredictability has sent the left into a panic, driving leftists to act in ways previously confined to their most fevered fantasies. That’s why Trump faced two coup attempts in his first term. The Russian collusion hoax, orchestrated through the intelligence community, was nothing more than a psychological operation designed to nullify the 2016 election.

The second coup attempt came in the form of COVID-19 — a manufactured crisis weaponized by the bureaucratic swamp, with Anthony Fauci leading the charge. This psyop wasn’t about public health. It was designed to ensure Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.

When that failed, leftists tried to imprison him, hoping to prevent his return. When that, too, didn’t work, they even attempted to assassinate him. That, by sheer providence, also failed.

Now, with its back against the wall, the ruling class has deployed its ultimate weapon — the most powerful psyop of all. The one that, for decades, has made Republicans surrender without a fight the moment they hear four dreaded words: “The courts have spoken.”

Injunctions as weapons

Trump has served as president for just 18% of the 21st century, yet he has been the target of nearly 70% of all federal injunctions issued against a sitting president in that time. An overwhelming 92% of those rulings came from Democrat-appointed judges. In February alone, Trump faced more federal injunctions than Joe Biden has during his entire presidency.

The same Biden who opened the borders to drug cartels and human traffickers, mandated controversial COVID-19 vaccines as a condition for employment, and pressured Big Tech to suppress dissenting views. In a just and rational world, such corruption would be unthinkable — but it was where we lived until just a couple of months ago.

Trump has thrown the Democratic Party into chaos, but the swamp’s power structures remain intact. The intelligence community, the administrative state, and activist judges continue their work, shielding the establishment from accountability. Hardly a day passes without a leftist judge fabricating authority the Constitution never granted, imposing new “rights” and obligations as phony as a country called “Palestine.”

Just as the Russia collusion hoax and Fauci-funded COVID hysteria were used to derail Trump’s first term, the judiciary is now the left’s weapon of choice against his second. Leftists will not stop unless they are forced to stop.

Beat the system

The right has little experience — let alone success — challenging judicial supremacy. For too long, conservatives have played by the left’s rules, expecting fair outcomes in a system rigged against them.

But one example proves it can be done. I know it well because it wouldn’t have happened without me.

In 2010, Iowa made history as the first state to remove state supreme court justices through a retention election, holding them accountable for their rulings. I was one of the movement’s leaders. No one expected us to succeed. The Republican Party wanted no part of it. We had no support from GOP candidates for governor or Senate. Republican-aligned trial lawyers stayed out of it. We were an underdog coalition taking on a judicial leviathan.

On election night, we won by 10 points. All three justices we targeted received higher percentages of “no” votes than the Republican gubernatorial nominee — who had refused to support us.

We accomplished this with just $1 million, a small sum for a modern statewide campaign. Not only did we convince voters to take a stand, but we also got them to turn over their ballots and vote in a way they never had before.

For months, my three-hour radio show — broadcast on the state’s largest media platform — focused on the retention vote, providing invaluable in-kind support. After the victory, key backers of our campaign approached me with an offer to fund a national expansion of my show. They knew we wouldn’t have won without that messaging effort, and that’s how I ended up where I am today.

Opportunity of the century

That campaign taught us several lessons — lessons the Trump administration would do well to apply now.

First, this is not a debate over legal theory or constitutional interpretation. It’s a battle over authority — not just between branches of government but over whether we still have a government that operates with the consent of the governed. Who is truly sovereign in America? The people or the judges? No branch of government — especially an unelected one — should be above the will of the people.

Second, the foundation of this fight is the source of law itself. Democrat-appointed judges reject “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” acting as if they are a law unto themselves. They do not see themselves as just a Supreme Court but as supreme beings. Whatever they decree must be enforced, with no questions asked, despite their lack of any inherent enforcement power. This is the essence of dictatorship.

Third, exposing this reality is crucial. These judges must be drawn into open confrontation where they admit their unchecked power. Voters — particularly those even remotely sympathetic to us — will be infuriated by their smug entitlement.

Finally, the people need a galvanizing issue that forces them to reject the myth of judicial supremacy. Their current outrage over an urgent cause must outweigh their long-standing deference to the courts.

We haven’t had a president challenge judicial overreach since Abraham Lincoln defied the Supreme Court’s heinous Dred Scott decision by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote America’s mission statement, spent much of his public life warning about the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. He feared that if left unrestrained, corrupt judges would twist the Constitution into “a mere thing of wax.” He argued that the other branches must do their duty to prevent judicial usurpation.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left’s misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader. Now, he faces a moment that could define his presidency. Stripping illegitimate power from unelected judges and returning it to the people who rightfully govern stands as the ultimate act of populism.

For the last 50 years, the left has imposed its most destructive policies on the country by judicial fiat. If Trump takes bold action now, he has a chance to cement his place in history alongside Lincoln and Jefferson.

Leftist Wisconsin Senator Confuses ‘Coup’ With Will Of The People

Sen. Tammy Baldwin claims the opening weeks of President Trump's second term are looking more like a coup.' A duly elected coup?

FACT CHECK: No, Bashar al-Assad Did Not Announce He Is Starting His Own Podcast

A post on X claims that exiled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad announced the launch of his own podcast. Bashar al-Assad took to social media Wednesday evening to announce the launch of his own podcast. pic.twitter.com/OnOfnf56ks — RT America (@RTNewsAmerica) December 12, 2024 Verdict: False There are no official social media accounts attributed to al-Assad, announcing […]

Kamala Harris’ Unity Speech Was Riddled With Division, Delusion

As Harris again and again painted Trump as a tyrant, she insisted that it was 'time to stop pointing fingers ... and start locking arms.'

Kamala Harris Stands By Big Lie That Joe Biden Is ‘Capable’ Of The Presidency

'Joe Biden is an — extremely accomplished, experienced, and capable in every way that anyone would want if they’re president. Absolutely.'

Vice President Kamala Harris Did Nothing To ‘Earn’ The Democrat Nomination

The only thing Kamala Harris has ‘earned’ over her last four years in office is the ire of the American people.

Another friendly interview, another disaster: Harris marinates in failure and hypocrisy on '60 Minutes'



Kamala Harris sat down with Bill Whitaker of "60 Minutes" this week for another largely toothless interview with a sympathetic network.

Although she was primarily served softball questions, Harris once again demonstrated why her campaign has sought to minimize her encounters with the press and public.

Inside an hour, Harris claimed to have the same kind of firearm she has tried to ban; defended her abysmal record on the border; and talked around the question of whether democracy was best served by her making a mockery of it.

Home defense for me but not for thee

"You recently surprised people when you said that you are a gun owner, and that if someone came into your house —" said Whitaker.

Harris interrupted, shaking her head and smiling: "That was not the first time I've talked about it. That's not the first time I've talked about it."

'Look, Bill, my background is in law enforcement, and, um, so there you go.'

At her well-choreographed micro-rally hosted by Oprah Winfrey in Michigan last month, Harris attempted to paint herself as a supporter of the Second Amendment with the competence to shoot a home intruder.

"I'm a gun owner, too," said Harris. "If someone breaks in my house, they're getting shot."

"Some people have been pushing a real false choice — to suggest you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away," Harris told Oprah. "I'm in favor of the Second Amendment, and I'm in favor of assault-weapons bans, universal background checks, red-flag laws."

After Harris' interruption, Whitaker asked, "So what kind of gun do you own, and when and why did you get it?"

Harris responded, "I have a Glock, and, um, I've had it for quite some time, and um, I mean — look, Bill, my background is in law enforcement, and, um, so there you go."

"Have you ever fired it?" Whitaker asked.

"Yes," Harris said, laughing. "Of course I have. At a shooting range. Yes. Of course I have."

Blaze News previously reported that when serving as San Francisco's district attorney, Harris sponsored Proposition H — an ordinance that banned the manufacture, distribution, sale, and transfer of handguns in San Francisco. Law-abiding citizens would have been required to surrender their weapons without receiving compensation for doing so.

Although the proposition passed, the National Rifle Association and others filed a legal challenge, holding up its enforcement long enough for a Republican-appointed judge to kill the ban in June 2006, indicating that it was "invalid as pre-empted by state law."

The future Glock owner was undeterred and continued her crusade to disarm her fellow Americans.

A year after threatening to storm the homes of law-abiding Americans for surprise gun inspections, Harris joined other leftist district attorneys in signing a 2008 amici curiae brief in the Second Amendment case D.C. v. Heller, claiming that a total handgun ban was constitutional.

According to the brief bearing Harris' name, the Second Amendment does not secure an individual right but rather a "collective" or "militia-related" right.

Defending failure

In one of the confrontational moments in the interview, Whitaker said to Harris, "You recently visited the southern border and embraced President Biden's recent crackdown on asylum-seekers. And that crackdown produced an almost immediate and dramatic decrease in the number of border crossings. If that's the right answer now, why didn't your administration take those steps in 2021?"

Harris, who failed as border czar to prevent tens of millions of illegal aliens from stealing into the United States and has been accused of covering up the rise in terrorism-linked migrants, rejected Whitaker's premise.

'But the numbers did quadruple under your ... under your watch.'

The border czar once again suggested that the solution lies with Congress — despite President Donald Trump having provided evidence to the contrary — and touted the failed "bipartisan" border bill as a panacea, even though it would have been wholly ineffective against the illegal immigration crisis.

Whitaker pushed back, noting that while the border crisis did not start with the Biden-Harris administration, she helped make it worse than ever before.

"There was an historic flood of undocumented immigrants coming across the border the first three years of your administration," said Whitaker. "As a matter of fact, arrivals quadrupled from the last year of President Trump. Was it a mistake to loosen the immigration policies as much as you did?"

Harris dodged the question, claiming, "Solutions are at hand. And from day one, literally, we have been offering solutions."

Shortly after taking power, the Biden-Harris administration halted the flow of government funds toward the construction of the border wall — which Harris previously campaigned against — and in subsequent months took additional steps to axe construction contracts. Extra to ending Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy, the Biden-Harris administration has also challenged virtually every effort by Texas and other states to stem the flow of illegal aliens into the country and to oust criminal noncitizens.

Whitaker tried one last time to see whether Harris would admit fault or regret, asking, "Was it a mistake to allow that flood to happen in the first place?"

"I think the policies that we have been proposing are about fixing a problem, not promoting a problem, OK?" said Harris.

"But the numbers did quadruple under your ... under your watch?" Whitaker struggled to say between interruptions.

Harris claimed she cut the flow of illegal immigration by half, then doubled down on her previous suggestion that "we need Congress to be able to act to actually fix the problem."

Sidestepping democracy for democracy

"Was democracy best served by sidestepping the traditional primary process?" Whitaker asked Harris, referring to what some have called a "coup."

Harris told the "60 Minutes" interviewer that she "earned" the delegates who were yanked from Biden as he was kicked to the curb.

'Everyone knows that there was no real primary this year.'

Biden was ejected from the race after his disastrous debate with Trump in late June, even though he secured a sweeping majority of the 3,933 pledged delegates available during the primary process — delegates who in most cases were elected in primaries because they had pledged to vote for Biden.

Inside 32 hours, Harris snatched up her boss' hard-won delegates because of a loophole in Rule 13J of the delegate selection rules. Not only were the Democratic primaries rendered utterly meaningless since Harris did not net a single primary vote, but she was spared from having to compete against other prospects in an open Democratic National Convention.

Referring to the 2020 election, Trump said during a September town hall, "She ran against [Biden] in the primary. She got no votes, and she was the first to leave. ... He got 14 million votes [in 2024], and they threw him out."

"It was really a coup when you think about it," continued Trump. "And the woman who came in last, the person who came in last [became the nominee]."

Even leftist publications acknowledged that Harris was "an Undemocratic Candidate."

Slate, for instance, noted that "everyone knows that there was no real primary this year. Democratic voters did not have a chance to say at the ballot box who their ideal nominee in 2024 should be. It's the first time since 1968 that delegates rather than voters decided the candidate."

Harris told Whitaker, "I am proud to have earned the support of the vast majority of delegates and to have been elected the Democratic nominee."

Extra to putting a gloss over how she came to become the Democratic candidate, Harris suggested she is now a champion for democracy.

"I am honored to have received the endorsement of leaders around this country from every background and walk of life, to fight in this election over the next month for our democracy," said the vice president.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

RFK Jr. Eviscerates Democratic Party For ‘Palace Coup’ Harris Nomination

"How are people to choose when they don't know whom they are choosing? And how can this look to the rest of the world?" Kennedy asked.

Glenn Beck recaps the MOST INSANE month in US political history



It’s been a long, treacherous month — especially if you love your country.

To kick it off, President Joe Biden shocked half of the nation at the presidential debate by confirming what the other half — conservatives — have been saying all along. That of course is that his apparent mental decline.

“It was a frightening moment for many Americans. Not because ‘Oh my gosh he’s going to lose to Donald Trump’ but because that guy is the guy who’s running the country,” Glenn Beck says.

Shortly after, former President Donald Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

“So we don’t know who’s in charge, and then a week later the guy running against him is gunned down on live television, and we really don’t know what happened,” Glenn continues, noting that we then were faced with the realization that the Secret Service director was a DEI hire.

“The head of security of the Security Service, we all figured out and found out, was hired by the first lady. Not the president. The first lady was the one who pushed for her DEI hire at the Secret Service. And she was protecting PepsiCo and now the most important leaders of the world,” Glenn says in disbelief.

When the now-former Secret Service director — who just resigned — gave her testimony on what happened on July 13, her lack of ability to answer questions had Americans everywhere asking a new question.

“Wait a minute, was this a setup?” Glenn asks, recalling the testimony. “What are they covering up? If they’re not covering something up, why wouldn’t they just be honest and open and transparent?”

And of course, there’s Biden’s resignation from the 2024 presidential race.

“I think he should have resigned, not just from the candidacy but from the presidency of the United States,” Glenn says. “He’s not okay to run a campaign, but he’s okay to run the country?”

Then Vice President Kamala Harris stepped in to replace him as the Democratic candidate for 2024.

“The party elites picked her, and then they had a coup and picked her again,” Glenn says.

“I just want you to recognize why you might be on edge. Why you might be so tired right now. A lot has happened to your country that you love.”

“Your country has taken a beating over just the last three weeks,” he adds.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.