The New York Times recently published an article attempting to recast the events of Jan. 6, 2021, through the lens of prosecutors who lost their jobs following President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office. The piece depicts these lawyers as martyrs in a political purge, forced to leave behind diplomas and personal items as though they were casualties of injustice.

Yet this framing fundamentally ignores the real devastation that flowed from the government's handling of January 6: families destroyed, children traumatized, and ordinary Americans subjected to years of aggressive and politicized prosecution.

Prosecutors were not martyrs. They were the instruments of a system that made martyrs out of ordinary citizens.

Those of us who have worked directly with these families have seen firsthand the long-term impact of the Department of Justice's unprecedented approach. History cannot be rewritten to cast prosecutors as victims while erasing the lives they targeted from public memory.

The forgotten victims

The most overlooked victims of January 6 have been the children of defendants. These young people endured traumatic government raids that remain etched into their memories. Many remember predawn operations when flash-bang devices exploded inside their homes.

They recall doors being battered down, glass shattering, and heavily armed agents entering their bedrooms. They watched their mothers cry, attempting to hold families together as fathers were taken away in handcuffs. In certain cases, both parents were removed, leaving children to wonder if they would ever see their families whole again.

This was not a foreign dictatorship. It happened in the United States. These tactics, carried out against families who posed no threat, inflicted deep and lasting harm on innocent children. Yet the prosecutors who initiated these cases are now presented as political casualties.

That is an inversion of reality. They were not martyrs. They were the instruments of a system that made martyrs out of ordinary citizens.

The tragedy of Matthew Perna

The case of Matthew Perna illustrates the human toll of this prosecutorial overreach. Perna entered the Capitol, recorded video, and left without committing violence or destruction. Nevertheless, prosecutors pursued severe charges against him, including the application of a "terrorism enhancement" that would have drastically increased his sentence. Media outlets amplified the narrative, branding him as a threat to the nation.

The weight of this combined persecution proved too much for Perna. Before sentencing, he took his own life. His story exposes both the cruelty of the government’s approach and the complicity of media institutions that reinforced it. Today, prosecutors involved in such cases seek sympathy for their professional losses, while families like Matthew's continue to grieve irreparable personal losses.

An egregious double standard

The broader context highlights a political double standard. Democrats describe January 6 as one of the darkest days in American history. Yet the riots of 2020 — federal courthouses attacked, businesses destroyed, police assaulted, communities set ablaze — are routinely called “mostly peaceful.”

The murder of retired police captain David Dorn, killed on livestream while defending his community, generated little lasting outrage. Entire cities endured months of chaos, but few faced consequences comparable to the sweeping prosecutions unleashed against January 6 participants. Where were the terrorism enhancements then? Where were the years-long investigations, the solitary confinement, the relentless media coverage?

The truth is straightforward: Unrest associated with the political left is minimized or excused. Protests involving Trump supporters are magnified into terrorism. This inconsistency erodes public trust in equal justice under the law.

A critical course correction

Against this backdrop, the decisions by Attorney General Pam Bondi and special prosecutor Ed Martin should be recognized for what they are: efforts to restore fairness to a corrupt system. Bondi took decisive action to remove prosecutors who had shown an inability to separate justice from politics.

Martin, who himself witnessed the events of January 6, understood that Americans cannot be criminalized simply for supporting a particular political movement. His leadership in ending the ongoing persecution of defendants brought accountability to those who had turned prosecutions into a political weapon.

The New York Times calls this a "purge." A more accurate description is a course correction — an attempt to re-establish integrity in the Department of Justice and reaffirm that justice must not serve partisan ends.

The true victims of January 6 were not federal prosecutors. They were the more than 1,500 Americans caught in the dragnet of politicized charges. They were the families left bankrupt and broken. They were the children who still wake with nightmares of flash-bangs and broken doors. They were people like Matthew Perna, who lost hope under the crushing weight of unjust treatment.

They were also President Trump, the first lady, their son Barron, and allies who endured years of politicized investigations, predawn raids, tanks in neighborhoods, and heavily armed SWAT teams at their doors. These were the consequences of a government determined to use its vast powers not against criminals, but against political opponents.

Setting history straight

We must ensure that these truths are not forgotten. We cannot allow prosecutors to rewrite history by presenting themselves as martyrs. We cannot permit the suffering of families, the cries of children separated from their parents, or the suicide of Matthew Perna to be erased from public consciousness.

Photo by Suspended Image via Getty Images

Justice in America must return to its foundational principle: fairness for all citizens, regardless of political affiliation. Until that principle is restored, we must continue to speak out and to stand with those whose lives were devastated by the misuse of government power.

This is not about revenge. It is about truth. It is not about politics. It is about families. And it is not about power. It is about ensuring that no American child ever again experiences the terror of waking to flash-bangs, shattered doors, and the loss of their parents over politics.

Biden freed killers with a pen he didn’t even hold

American politics still has the power to shock. Tuesday delivered one of those moments — the Oversight Project agreed with Joe Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice. That’s rarer than a blue lobster.

The issue is autopen pardons. Since March, we’ve exposed how Biden’s White House used an autopen — not the president himself — to issue thousands of pardons and commutations. The New York Times first dismissed the story as a “conspiracy theory,” only to later admit that Biden himself confirmed the scheme. Biden said he set “broad categories,” while staff picked names.

Trump has the chance to prove that the rule of law — not the autopen — governs the United States.

That delegation is flatly illegal. Only the president has the constitutional authority to grant clemency. Now we have proof that even inside Biden’s Justice Department, top officials knew it was illegal.

The smoking gun?

Ed Martin, head of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group and the Trump administration’s pardon attorney, unearthed an email from Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer dated January 18, 2025 — the morning after Biden’s clemency spree.

On January 17, Biden’s White House blasted out commutations for roughly 2,500 federal inmates. Biden bragged in a statement, “I have now issued more individual pardons and commutations than any president in U.S. history. I am proud of my record on clemency and will continue to review additional commutations and pardons.”

But he hadn’t personally reviewed a single case.

Weinsheimer warned his colleagues that the warrants didn’t describe specific offenses, which made them legally problematic. “Because no offenses have been described to the Department from the President, the commutations do not take effect,” he wrote, as one possible outcome of the problematic pardons. Without essential fixes, Weinsheimer advised, the pardons and commutations might not hold up. He also urged the White House to stop calling the inmates “non-violent drug offenders” because “it is untrue or at least misleading.”

He was right. These weren’t harmless marijuana cases. Biden’s “non-violent” list included cop-killers, witness-killers, crack kingpins who ordered shootings, and a man who torched an informant with a butane flame. One even shot a sleeping child. These are the criminals Biden’s autopen set loose.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Trump’s move

President Trump already declared these autopen pardons “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT.” He has cited them repeatedly, launched investigations, and signed an executive order. The Oversight Project has now handed him the easiest test case imaginable: Biden’s own DOJ admitted the warrants were defective.

Trump should order Attorney General Pam Bondi to rearrest the released criminals and restore the full sentences of those still in custody. The legal and moral case is open-and-shut.

Why it matters

The America First coalition came to Washington on two promises: mass deportations and real accountability. Ed Martin’s work has cracked open the door to deliver on the second. The longer the administration waits, the more it risks looking like Biden’s lawlessness will stand.

Biden abused the pardon power with a pen he didn’t even hold. Trump now has the chance to prove that the rule of law — not the autopen — governs the United States.

DOJ exposes 'black and white evidence' that Biden admin knew autopenned pardons were legally flawed

The Oversight Project obtained damning internal emails this week from the Justice Department revealing a high-level understanding in the Biden administration that the autopenned commutations issued on Jan. 17 in the former president's name were legally flawed.

In addition to showcasing former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer's legal concerns, the emails provided by U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin's office reveal that the Biden administration apparently misled the nation about the violent criminal nature of the individuals who received commutations.

'You should stop saying that because it is untrue or at least misleading.'

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told Blaze News, "This represents the first written black and white evidence of fundamental disagreement in the Biden camp as it relates to the pardon strategy writ large."

"Obviously, this is particularized to the warrants for the commutations of people they never should have let out of jail — but it's the senior-most career lawyer in the DOJ, like [Merrick] Garland's top guy, basically saying, 'WTF are you guys doing? This is illegal,'" said Howell.

Howell suggested further that the potentially unlawful nature of the commutations is cause to keep imprisoned those whose sentences were commuted and who are scheduled to be released.

For those felons who received clemency and are no longer behind bars, the Oversight Project president said, "They should rearrest them."

A Jan. 17, 2025, statement attributed to Biden characterizes the recipients of the commutations as felons "convicted of non-violent drug offenses."

The emails obtained by the Oversight Project reportedly show that Weinsheimer, a 34-year department veteran, took issue with this apparent lie, noting that "in the communications about the commutations, the White House has described those who received commutations as people of non-violent drug offenses. I think you should stop saying that because it is untrue or at least misleading."

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

"I do not think it is close to accurate to describe all the clemency recipients as those convicted of non-violent drug offenses," apparently added the former DOJ official.

'I have no idea if the President was aware of these backgrounds when making clemency decisions.'

The 2,490 federal inmates who received the commutations are a motley crew of thugs, including murderers and violent drug dealers.

Among them:

Terrence Richardson and Ferrone Claiborne, whose drug-trafficking offenses led to the death of a police officer;
Russell McIntosh, a thug who gunned down a woman who threatened to expose his drug enterprise along with her 2-year-old child;
Adrian Peeler, sentenced for conspiracy to commit murder involving the slaying of an 8-year-old witness and his mother; and
Plaze Anderson, a former high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples who was personally involved in two murders, an attempted murder and kidnapping, and obstruction of justice.

Weinsheimer added that based on limited review, the DOJ identified 19 inmates under consideration for clemency who were "highly problematic," as that list included "violent offenders, including those who committed acts of violence during the offense of conviction, or who otherwise have a history of violence such that it is misleading to suggest they are non-violent drug offenders," the email showed.

Sixteen of those 19 problematic felons received grants of clemency in Biden's name, and their commutations were characterized as "progress towards justice" by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I have no idea if the President was aware of these backgrounds when making clemency decisions," Weinsheimer wrote. "The Department was largely excluded from the process, which we otherwise opposed."

The emails revealed that not only were the commutations opposed internally and not as advertised — they were likely unlawful.

Blaze News has reached out to Weinsheimer and the ACLU for comment.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Three clemency warrants were apparently issued on Jan. 17. The second of the three warrants awarded clemency to criminals for "offenses described to the Department of Justice."

Weinsheimer and others at the DOJ seemingly had trouble making heads or tails of the warrant and its legality, as no offenses were actually described.

The emails show a fight to get a list of the criminals' offenses — specifically those for which they were receiving commutations — amid mounting questions from courts, congressional staff, and the criminals' families.

'Because no offenses have been described to the Department from the President, the commutations do not take effect.'

In a Jan. 18 email to his DOJ colleagues at the Pardon Attorney's Office as well as to the White House Counsel's Office, Weinsheimer noted, "I think the language 'offenses described to the Department of Justice' in the warrant is highly problematic and in order to resolve its meaning appropriately, and consistent with the President’s intent, we will need a statement or direction from the President as to how to interpret the language."

— (@)

Weinsheimer suggested that the "clearest and least problematic way" of curing the apparent legal error was for Biden to explain his meaning and to provide a "list as to each inmate listing the offenses that are covered by the commutation."

The DOJ official identified three other ways to deal with the apparent legal error.

The DOJ could interpret the warrant to apply to "all federal offenses for which the inmate is under sentence" — an interpretation the Bureau of Prisons was reportedly likely to use. Weinsheimer warned, however, that such an interpretation would likely result in the commutations of sentences for violent felons, which Biden may not have wanted, and would render the qualifying language "superfluous."

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Alternatively, the DOJ could interpret "offenses described to the Department" on the basis of "the U.S. Sentencing Commission Spreadsheets" — the nature and contents of which are presently unclear. According to the emails, Weinsheimer again expressed concern, suggesting that "it is a guess as to what is meant by the warrant language, and [that interpretation] goes beyond the four corners of the warrant, something we do not normally do."

The final way Weinsheimer identified was not to act on the commutations: "Because no offenses have been described to the Department from the President, the commutations do not take effect."

'It's time for legal action based on autopen.'

Weinsheimer noted further that "describing offenses to the Department is a condition precedent to the commutations being effective, and without description, they do not take effect. I have no idea what interpretation the incoming [Trump] Administration will give to the warrant, but they may find this interpretation attractive, as it gives effect to the language but does not go beyond the four corners of the warrant."

The Oversight Project noted that while "pardoning via category is already an illegal delegation of a nondelegable power," that Weinsheimer email "illustrates that the government officials charged with executing the president's delegated orders on January 17, 2025, Warrant 2 had no idea what the president actually ordered."

Howell told Blaze News that the revelations in the emails provide the administration and lawmakers with an "angle to attack."

Howell said that President Donald Trump, who has already declared all of the autopen pardons null and void, can now say, "We're not honoring these commutations. You know who agrees with us? Biden's DOJ."

"Again, for the first time, we have written evidence of the disagreement," said Howell. "So there's no reason to sit around and wait. It's time for legal action based on autopen."

Editor's note: Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.

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

Biden tried defending autopen use to the New York Times. He made it a whole lot worse.

The House Oversight Committee's investigation into former President Joe Biden's cognitive decline while in office, its cover-up, and its alleged exploitation behind the scenes appears to have struck a nerve, drawing Biden out and with him a baseline narrative that might trip up his handlers when they each testify in the weeks to come.

Mike Howell, the president of the Oversight Project — the government watchdog that revealed in early March that Biden's signature on numerous pardons, commutations, executive orders, and other documents of national consequence was machine-generated — told Blaze News, "We were right. Time for some real accountability."

'I made every single one of those.'

On Wednesday, former President Joe Biden's White House doctor, Kevin O'Connor, refused to answer the committee's questions, citing the Fifth Amendment and doctor-patient confidentiality.

The doctor's damning silence prompted Republicans on the committee to conclude that O'Connor "is trying to avoid criminal liability" and that the investigation was indeed dealing with a serious cover-up.

The next day, Biden spoke to the New York Times by phone in an apparent effort to get in front of the autopen scandal even though it left the station months ago. The roughly 10-minute interview didn't do him any favors.

Biden sent mixed signals to the Times about his supposed involvement in the issuance of a record number of pardons and commutations in the final days of his presidency.

Photo by Evan Vucci-Pool/Getty Images

"I made every single one of those," Biden said regarding the clemency decisions late in his term. "And — including the categories, when we set this up to begin with. And so — but I understand why Trump would think that, because obviously, I guess, he doesn't focus much. Anyway, so — yes, I made every decision."

Despite attributing the clemency decisions to himself, Biden also indicated that his fingerprints might not be on any of them.

In addition to telling the Times that he orally communicated his decisions to aides — a possible tell that there might be a lack of papered evidence showing that he directly approved the last-minute pardons — Biden noted both that the autopen was used liberally because there were "a whole lot of people" and that he did not personally approve every individual categorical clemency.

"Well, first of all, there's categories. So, you know, they aren't reading names off for the commutations for those who had been home confinements for, during the pandemic," said Biden. "So the only things that really we read off names for were, for example, you know, was I, what was I going to do about, for example, Mark Milley?"

"I told them I wanted to make sure he had a pardon because I knew exactly what Trump would do — without any merit, I might add," continued Biden. "And you know, you know, members of the Jan. 6 committee — it's just, there were no — I was deeply involved. I laid out a strategy how I want to go about these, dealing with pardons and commutations. I was — and I pulled the team in to say this is how I want to get it done generically and then specifically. And so, you know, that's just — this is how it worked."

Biden White House emails turned over to investigators by the National Archives and reviewed by the Times cast further doubt on the former president's claim of deep involvement in the pardon process.

'The truth will come out about who was, in fact, running the country.'

The emails indicate that Biden White House staff secretary Stefanie Feldman managed the use of the autopen.

Feldman, the national policy director for Biden's 2020 campaign, took over for Neera Tanden, who told Congress last month that she wielded the power of the autopen until May 2023 but suggested that she was authorized to do so.

According to the emails, Feldman sought written accounts confirming Biden's oral clemency instructions in "key meetings" with staffers. The trouble is that these accounts appear to have been secondhand and in some cases written up several days after the meetings.

Aides to senior Biden advisers who were present for the meetings apparently drafted the accounts confirming Biden's oral instructions. The two advisers named were Biden chief of staff Jeffrey Zients and then-White House counsel Ed Siskel.

Senior Democrats told Politico last year that Siskel organized talks among Biden aides in the former president's absence on "whether to issue pre-emptive pardons to a range of current and former public officials who could be targeted with President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House."

Lists of meeting participants indicate that the aides who drafted the accounts of Biden's supposed clemency instructions were not themselves present when the instructions were given.

Rather, the emails reportedly imply that the aides simply wrote up whatever their bosses relayed to them, then circulated the drafts to Siskel, Zients, and other meeting participants before sending along the final versions to the master of the autopen.

In order of appearance: Ron Klain, Bruce Reed, Steve Ricchetti, and Anita Dunn. Photo (left): Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images; Photo (right) Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

As for the high-profile clemency decisions that came just before Biden left office, the final decision appears to have come from Zients.

Emails suggest that on Jan. 18 and Jan. 19, Biden had two meetings, the first with Zients, Siskel, and Bruce Reed — Axios indicated that Reed was sometimes referred to in the Biden White House as one of "the pooh-bahs" — and the second with Siskel, Reed, Anthony Bernal, Steve Ricchetti, and Annie Tomasini, all of whom are on congressional investigators' radar.

Bernal served as senior adviser to former first lady Jill Biden and was characterized as one of the most influential people in the White House and a key member of Biden's so-called politburo in Jake Tapper's and Axios correspondent Alex Thompson's new book, "Original Sin."

Ricchetti, former counselor to Biden, was among the names Department of Justice pardon attorney Ed Martin mentioned when announcing his investigation into the questionable "autopen" pardons issued in the final days of the Biden White House.

Tomasini was Biden's deputy chief of staff, who congressional investigators suspect may have been "involved in running interference on behalf of the former President and perhaps performing duties exclusively reserved for the President of the United States."

Biden supposedly kept his staffers until 10 p.m. at the Jan. 19 meeting where the pre-emptive pardons for Biden's family members were discussed. Three minutes after the meeting, Siskel sent a draft summary of the former president's alleged decision to Zients' assistant, who then forwarded it to Reed and Zients for approval. A final version went to Feldman minutes later, chased by a message from Zients apparently stating, "I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons."

When asked about evidence that Biden did not authorize the clemency actions, Trump White House spokesman Harrison Fields told the Times Sunday that Biden "should not be trusted" and that "the truth will come out about who was, in fact, running the country."

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

Headhunter federal prosecutors ruined my family to chase a fake win

Headline after headline has slammed President Donald Trump’s recent wave of pardons, claiming they prove America now operates under a two-tiered justice system. But the outrage is manufactured. These critics want you to forget that Trump was a target of the very system they now accuse him of controlling.

With these pardons, Trump isn’t abusing the justice system — he’s beginning to dismantle the weaponized bureaucracy within it. For years, a corrupt faction inside the Department of Justice has twisted its constitutional mandate to serve the personal and political agendas of activist attorneys and the operatives who influence them. Trump’s actions mark the start of holding that faction accountable.

Government lawyers and law enforcement officials have abused their power for personal ambition and gain. They don’t want the truth. They want trophies.

Don’t take Trump’s word for it. Or mine. Critics across the political spectrum have warned for decades about the potential for the weaponization of criminal law by overzealous prosecutors.

President Bill Clinton told the ladies of “The View” that former FBI Director James Comey used his power and “outside influence” to sway the outcome of the 2016 election.

Two-time Attorney General Bill Barr has warned that prosecutors often turn into “headhunters,” obsessed with taking down targets at any cost. That mindset, he said, leads the Justice Department away from its duty to administer justice fairly and according to clear, consistent legal standards.

Joe Biden himself allowed that his Justice Department “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted” individuals — choosing targets based on improper criteria and engaging in “selective prosecution.” He was referring, of course, to the federal case against his son Hunter.

This problem goes far beyond politics. Law enforcement, once politicized, can be turned against anyone. Prosecutors armed with the full force of the federal government can destroy individuals, families, businesses, and entire communities.

As Barr put it, the mere act of launching an investigation can be devastating: “People facing federal investigations incur ruinous legal costs and often see their lives reduced to rubble before a charge is even filed.”

Once you understand how the game works, turning your political or corporate rivals into criminal targets becomes easy.

LIgorko via iStock/Getty Images

In my family’s case, Amazon executives hired a former federal prosecutor to pressure his former colleagues at the Justice Department to go after my husband, a former Amazon employee. Their goal: bring federal charges over an obscure “process” crime — violating internal Amazon employment terms.

The Justice Department never filed charges. The investigation eventually closed. But for four excruciating years, prosecutors used civil forfeiture laws to seize every dollar in our bank accounts. FBI agents raided our home while our babies crawled on the floor in diapers. Prosecutors threatened our family members with criminal charges in a scheme to force my husband into pleading guilty to a lie.

We sold our house. We lost our jobs. We spent years in court just to “prove” what was always true: My husband had complied with his employment contract.

The Chrisley family knows this drill, too. After President Trump pardoned Todd Chrisley, his daughter, Savannah, revealed that law enforcement explicitly wrote that they needed a “big fish” — and the Chrisleys were the “biggest fish” in Atlanta. For many prosecutors, a high-profile conviction is just a stepping stone to a cushy law firm job and a seven-figure salary.

My family made it through. So did the Chrisleys. But plenty of Americans are still “in the hunt,” as prosecutors like to say.

Greg Lindberg is one of them. A self-made entrepreneur, Lindberg built a network of insurance companies that employed more than 7,000 people. His mistake? Supporting the wrong candidate for North Carolina insurance commissioner. After the election, the winning candidate got to work, with help from the FBI and Justice Department, setting a trap that would ensnare Lindberg in a manufactured bribery scheme.

Prosecutors took the Lindberg case to court on charges built on lies. As Barr warned, they became obsessed with “getting their guy.” Even after the Fourth Circuit vacated the bogus conviction, the U.S. attorney refused to back down. He threatened Lindberg with new charges and a staggering 540-month sentence, knowing Lindberg was financially drained and couldn’t afford to fight.

This wasn’t just a campaign to destroy one man. The fallout has devastated thousands of families across North Carolina. Lindberg’s insurance companies, once solvent, are now failing. People are out of work. Why? Because the same commissioner who targeted Lindberg handed control to a group of handpicked receivers — politically connected insiders with no accountability.

Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Those receivers didn’t just take over Lindberg’s insurance businesses. They seized more than 100 companies. They’ve collected tens of millions in fees while leaving policyholders in limbo and small businesses without payouts. The result? Lost jobs, ruined livelihoods, and a crisis that didn’t begin with Greg Lindberg — it began with the government.

Lindberg is still fighting to clear his name. So are others.

Decorated NYPD veteran and 9/11 hero Michael McMahon now faces prison on the bizarre charge that he spied for China — for $5,000. Trail runner Michael Sunseri could spend six months in jail for breaking a speed record in Grand Teton National Park, on a trail thousands have used before — except the government says it was “off-limits” in his case.

How is this justice?

Government lawyers and law enforcement officials have abused their power for personal ambition and gain. They don’t want the truth. They want trophies. And until that changes, President Trump should keep using his pardon power boldly, unapologetically, and often.

Because the real two-tiered justice system isn’t a myth. It’s the scoreboard — and it’s long past time to even it.

Who was president these last four years? We deserve an answer

The Biden years increasingly resemble a desperate effort to avoid invoking the 25th Amendment — no matter the cost.

That’s why the Oversight Project’s autopen investigation has captured the attention of the public, Congress, and, most importantly, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice.

President Trump didn’t hesitate: “THE AUTOPEN IS THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!” he declared on Truth Social. He offered one caveat — the 2020 election still ranks first. I agree, even with my own involvement in uncovering the autopen scandal.

Americans knew something was wrong with Joe Biden. Whether they admitted it or not, nearly everyone sensed it. Some underestimated the severity. Others preferred denial, choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But beneath that uneasy consensus lay a deeper question: Who was actually running the country?

Our early disclosures from the still-ongoing autopen investigation began to answer that. When we revealed that President Biden wasn’t personally signing documents that require a sitting president’s signature, the public understood the implications immediately.

'Who was president the last four years?' isn’t just a political talking point. It’s a matter of constitutional legitimacy.

This wasn’t just about procedural shortcuts. It revealed a White House operating without a fully functional commander in chief.

The damage done during the Biden years goes far beyond bad policy. His presidency humiliated the United States on the world stage — not just as a geopolitical power, but as a constitutional republic.

We portray ourselves as the world’s most advanced democracy. We’ve even invaded other countries in the name of exporting that model. But what credibility do we have if we refuse to follow the most basic rule written into our own Constitution — namely, that we are governed by a single functioning individual known as the president?

Democrats warned that Donald Trump was an existential threat to democracy. In reality, the greater threat came from an incapacitated president being steered by unelected, unaccountable staffers behind the scenes.

After President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Congress responded with common sense. Lawmakers recognized the need for a clear constitutional process to handle death or incapacity in the executive branch. This wasn’t theoretical — America had already seen four assassinated presidents in less than a century. The system had failed under Garfield, who lingered for months after being shot, and under Wilson, who suffered a debilitating stroke while in office.

The result was the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967. It created a legal framework for what to do when a president dies, resigns, is removed, or becomes unable to perform the duties of the office. In the case of incapacity, the process requires the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to send Congress a written declaration stating that the president can no longer discharge the powers and duties of the office.

What the drafters likely didn’t imagine was that the vice president and Cabinet might choose to ignore that duty — out of cowardice, political calculation, or worse.

Why did Vice President Kamala Harris and Biden’s Cabinet spend four years sidestepping the exact constitutional process meant for this scenario? That question demands an answer.

Biden was so isolated that according to credible reports, even the secretary of the treasury couldn’t get access to him. How does a Cabinet secretary accept being blocked from seeing the president without sounding the alarm?

Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images

The first step to answering those questions is to ask them.

As investigations by Ed Martin, the House, and the Senate ramp up, they must put Kamala Harris and Biden’s Cabinet under oath. Those people need to explain, clearly and publicly, why they refused to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Congress has not only the authority but the duty to demand those answers. Its oversight power reaches its peak when the subject directly informs legislative action. And no legislation ranks higher than a constitutional amendment. If the 25th Amendment failed to prevent a four-year constitutional charade, then it needs to be amended. The drafters can’t be blamed for failing to imagine a real-life “Weekend at Bernie’s.” Sometimes the Constitution needs a second draft.

“Who was president the last four years?” isn’t just a political talking point. It’s a matter of constitutional legitimacy. That question now echoes across the world. It exposes a critical vulnerability in our system — and it demands accountability.

The only path forward involves full transparency. Absent a last-minute confession from those responsible, only the Trump administration, backed by Congress, can deliver that reckoning.

When the federal government functions for years in open defiance of its founding charter, it doesn’t just cause scandal. It destroys trust. And that erosion of trust rests atop an already collapsing foundation — widespread doubts about election integrity, mass illegal immigration encouraged by the state to engineer political and demographic outcomes, and a legal system increasingly unmoored from equal protection, openly experimenting with race- and sex-based favoritism in the name of “equity.”

All of that adds up to a constitutional crisis. And unless we confront it head-on, the result won’t just be distrust. It will be disaster.

The New York Times rewrites history while Jan. 6 families pay the price

The forgotten victims

The tragedy of Matthew Perna

An egregious double standard

A critical course correction

Setting history straight

Biden freed killers with a pen he didn’t even hold

The smoking gun?

Trump’s move

Why it matters

DOJ exposes 'black and white evidence' that Biden admin knew autopenned pardons were legally flawed

Biden Is Still Not In Control

Biden Was Never Fit For Office To Begin With

Biden tried defending autopen use to the New York Times. He made it a whole lot worse.

Headhunter federal prosecutors ruined my family to chase a fake win

Biden’s Doctor Gets Subpoena After Resisting Investigation Into His Personal Connection To Biden Family

Who was president these last four years? We deserve an answer

Propaganda Press Rediscovers Its Outrage Over Presidential Pardons

Charlie Kirk's Suspected Assassin Arrested, Identified as 22-Year-Old Utah Resident Tyler Robinson

Suspect In Custody Repeated Leftist Talking Points Calling Charlie Kirk ‘Fascist’

Biden appeals court torpedoes Obama judge's injunction, clears Trump administration to cut off Planned Parenthood

Special-ed school staffer, 24, sexually assaulted student, recorded sex with minor, wanted boy to impregnate her: Police

The forgotten victims

The tragedy of Matthew Perna

An egregious double standard

A critical course correction

Setting history straight

The smoking gun?

Trump’s move

Why it matters

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.