BOMBSHELL: Biden Tapes Expose Mental Decline During Critical Pardon Spree

Paul Riverbank, 5/19/2025Released Biden interview tapes raise concerns over mental fitness during controversial end-of-term pardons.

The Political Fallout of Biden's Hur Tapes: A Complex Legacy Under Scrutiny

The recent release of Special Counsel Robert Hur's interview tapes with Joe Biden has unleashed a political maelstrom that goes far beyond typical Washington controversy. I've spent decades covering presidential transitions, but the implications here are unprecedented.

Let me paint the scene: Fall 2023. A sitting president sits down with investigators, and what emerges isn't just about classified documents. The recordings, finally public after Congressional pressure, show Biden struggling with basic memories – most jarringly, the year his son Beau died. It's a moment that hits hard, both politically and personally.

But here's where things get really interesting. These tapes didn't surface in isolation – they've emerged alongside growing questions about Biden's final days in office, particularly a rush of eleventh-hour pardons that raise serious constitutional eyebrows.

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch didn't mince words when he told me the Justice Department "mollycoddled" Biden during these interviews. Having covered DOJ investigations since the Clinton era, I can say the kid-glove treatment here stands out.

The pardons themselves? They're a fascinating mix of the predictable and the provocative. Hunter Biden, family members, Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Fauci, January 6 committee members – it reads like a greatest hits list of conservative talking points. But what's truly unusual is their scope. These aren't typical pardons targeting specific charges; they're broad grants of immunity for undefined conduct.

House Oversight Chair James Comer has zeroed in on something that caught my attention too – the use of autopens for these pardons. In my years covering executive actions, I've never seen questions about presidential authorization quite like this.

The Democratic response has been telling. Party leaders are doing verbal gymnastics to avoid addressing Biden's cognitive state during those final months. It reminds me of the closing days of Reagan's presidency, though the circumstances differ significantly.

What fascinates me most is how this controversy bridges multiple critical issues: presidential capacity, executive power, family politics, and institutional oversight. The Heritage Foundation's findings about machine-produced signatures on crucial documents deserve serious attention, regardless of one's political leanings.

Former AG Merrick Garland's decision to keep these tapes under wraps for so long warrants its own investigation. Having covered Justice Department transparency issues for years, the timing here raises legitimate questions about public right-to-know versus political convenience.

We're watching history unfold in real time, and the precedents being set will echo through future administrations. As this story continues to develop, one thing is clear: the intersection of presidential capacity and executive authority needs a serious review. Our democratic institutions depend on it.

The Political Fallout of Biden's Hur Tapes: A Complex Legacy Under ScrutinyThe recent release of Special Counsel Robert Hur's interview tapes with Joe Biden has unleashed a political maelstrom that goes far beyond typical Washington controversy. I've spent decades covering presidential transitions, but the implications here are unprecedented.Let me paint the scene: Fall 2023. A sitting president sits down with investigators, and what emerges isn't just about classified documents. The recordings, finally public after Congressional pressure, show Biden struggling with basic memories – most jarringly, the year his son Beau died. It's a moment that hits hard, both politically and personally.But here's where things get really interesting. These tapes didn't surface in isolation – they've emerged alongside growing questions about Biden's final days in office, particularly a rush of eleventh-hour pardons that raise serious constitutional eyebrows.Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch didn't mince words when he told me the Justice Department "mollycoddled" Biden during these interviews. Having covered DOJ investigations since the Clinton era, I can say the kid-glove treatment here stands out.The pardons themselves? They're a fascinating mix of the predictable and the provocative. Hunter Biden, family members, Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Fauci, January 6 committee members – it reads like a greatest hits list of conservative talking points. But what's truly unusual is their scope. These aren't typical pardons targeting specific charges; they're broad grants of immunity for undefined conduct.House Oversight Chair James Comer has zeroed in on something that caught my attention too – the use of autopens for these pardons. In my years covering executive actions, I've never seen questions about presidential authorization quite like this.The Democratic response has been telling. Party leaders are doing verbal gymnastics to avoid addressing Biden's cognitive state during those final months. It reminds me of the closing days of Reagan's presidency, though the circumstances differ significantly.What fascinates me most is how this controversy bridges multiple critical issues: presidential capacity, executive power, family politics, and institutional oversight. The Heritage Foundation's findings about machine-produced signatures on crucial documents deserve serious attention, regardless of one's political leanings.Former AG Merrick Garland's decision to keep these tapes under wraps for so long warrants its own investigation. Having covered Justice Department transparency issues for years, the timing here raises legitimate questions about public right-to-know versus political convenience.We're watching history unfold in real time, and the precedents being set will echo through future administrations. As this story continues to develop, one thing is clear: the intersection of presidential capacity and executive authority needs a serious review. Our democratic institutions depend on it.