admin
Carl Higbie didn’t mince words on his show when he tore into the spectacle of Joe Biden’s alleged autopen signings, calling it emblematic of a presidency that too often looked like a staff-run puppet show. Higbie framed the autopen controversy not as a mere technicality but as a symptom of a broader collapse in accountability and respect for the office.
Republican investigators and prominent conservatives have taken those concerns seriously, arguing that if aides were routinely executing the mechanics of presidential power, Americans were robbed of transparency and responsibility. Even the White House’s handling of the narrative — evasive, fragmented, and defensive — has only fueled suspicion that the real decisions were being made behind closed doors.
Legalists will note, correctly, that autopens and signature devices have a long history in the presidency and that their use doesn’t automatically nullify official acts. But Higbie and others are not asking a narrow legal question; they are asking a moral and constitutional one: who was truly exercising the power, and why would a president allow that power to be hidden from view?
Republican voices on Higbie’s program pointed to troubling specifics — testimony gaps, inconsistent paper trails, and claims that high-profile pardons and documents may not have followed established protocols. Those are not idle barbs; they are concrete charges that demand answers if public trust in the Oval Office is to be restored.
The response from the other side — legal defenses, press smears about partisan witch-hunts, and appeals to procedural precedent — misses the point that the presidency requires both legality and legitimacy. When the public perceives secrecy and substitution, legitimacy erodes, and patriots of every stripe should worry about what that erosion means for liberty and order.
Higbie’s fury reflects a broader conservative insistence: oversight is not optional, and the American people deserve to know whether the person in the Oval Office was actually calling the shots. If investigators find autopen use was routine for major actions, that revelation would confirm what many feared — that the trappings of power masked a hollowed-out presidency.
At the end of the day, this isn’t just about signatures; it’s about preserving the dignity of the office and the rule of law. Conservatives who care about strong institutions should demand full transparency, unvarnished testimony, and reforms that ensure the next occupant of the White House cannot hide essential acts of governance behind machines and memos.
