Chaired by Kentucky Republican James Comer, the House Oversight Committee released a 100-page report entitled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.” It did not speak well of Joe Biden’s mental acuity toward the end of his presidency.

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released its long-anticipated investigative report on former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s cognitive condition, accusing his inner circle of concealing a mental decline and claiming, without evidence, that he was so impaired that he could not make his own decisions.

The 100-page report, entitled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House,” concludes that many of the executive actions Mr. Biden took, including pardons of his family, should be considered “void” because there is no record that he made the decisions himself.

The issuance of pardons is one of the preclusive acts of the presidency. For better or worse, the Constitution gives the president the sole power to grant pardons as he sees fit.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

To date, this power has never been challenged, no matter how poorly or inappropriately the pardon power has been exercised. It is, to the extent possible, sacrosanct. At least it was until now.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky and chairman of the Oversight Committee, requested an investigation into all executive actions taken during the Biden presidency, to see if they were “duly authorized” by Mr. Biden. The letter suggested that the report was intended to be used as grounds for a future prosecution by the Justice Department.

That the autopen was used is neither unusual nor improper per se. Indeed, it’s extremely likely that the autopen was used in granting pardons to the January 6th insurrectionists, it being quite burdensome to sign off on more than a thousand pardons on Day 1. And if the president authorized the pardons, and the use of the autopen to sign the grants of pardon, then it’s every bit as valid as if the president signed the pardons by hand.

But the question raised by the Comer report is whether Biden authorized the pardons, or whether the pardons were “granted” by his staff and signed with the autopen without Biden’s knowledge or authorization. This crosses a line that has never before been crossed.

Unauthorized use of the auto pen, a device that has long been used by presidents of both parties to sign legislation and other presidential orders, has been a long-running preoccupation for President Trump.

To add insult to injury, gilded (because of course the were gilded) framed portraits of president along the White House colonnade included an image of the autopen in place of President Biden. Trump is such a card. But this is no joke. Comer has called upon Bondi to “investigate” whether the pardons were authorized or could be voided based upon Biden’s deteriorating condition, which it argues was bolstered and concealed by staff.

In outlining what it describes as a coordinated “cover-up” by his staff of the former president’s decline, the report revisits some anecdotes that by now are familiar to anyone who followed the Biden presidency. It details how aides looked for ways for Mr. Biden to avoid using stairs, walking long distances, or giving unscripted remarks, even in front of small groups, often citing real-time reporting as its source.

What the report does not provide is any basis to believe that Biden did not know and authorize the pardons. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that requires a president to create a record that he made the decision to exercise the pardon power, or even what such a record would involve.

In a statement, Representative Robert E. Garcia of California, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, dismissed the report as the product of a “sham investigation.”

“Every White House official testified President Biden fully executed his duties as president of the United States,” Mr. Garcia said. “ The testimonies also make it clear the former president authorized every executive order, pardon, and use of the auto pen.”

While Biden may well have been in declining health toward the end of his presidency, that does not mean he didn’t know about and authorize the pardons or the use of the autopen to sign them. The presumption of regularity places the burden of proving that it was unauthorized on those challenging the actions. Raising doubts by extrapolating from evidence of decline falls far short of affirmatively proving that the president was incompetent to perform the duties of his office or failed to do so, leaving staff to perform them in his stead.

Despite many former top advisers admitting in testimony that they were aware of signs of aging evident in Mr. Biden’s memory and speech, including the return of his childhood stutter, they also said they never believed it was a serious problem that would prevent him from acting as commander in chief. The report calls that disconnect “delusional.”

But who will defend the Biden pardons?

Still, top officials at the Justice Department appear eager to pursue legal action related to Mr. Biden’s use of the auto pen. In an email to Mr. Comer on Monday obtained by The New York Times, Ed Martin, the department’s pardon attorney, wrote that he would not defend the Biden pardons in court, citing his own investigation of the matter that he said had revealed “disturbing” information.

Is anyone shocked to learn that Ed Martin, one of Trump’s most rabid (if too incompetent to be confirmed by the Senate) sycophants, won’t defend the pardons?

Should presidential pardons be on the political chopping block, it raises a vast array of possibilities to undermine the exercise of the pardon power. Did Trump know the name, details and crimes of those he pardoned for J6, or did he authorize the sign off en masse without any actual knowledge? Was there corruption in decision, whether it was Marc Rich or Changpeng Zhao? Are corruptly purchased pardons valid? If pardons can be voided after the fact, based upon supposition, is any pardon safe? And if pardons, an exclusively presidential prerogative, are subject to review and challenge, is any presidential act as set forth in the Constitution safe?