Fact check: Was the auto pen used by a staff member to pardon her boyfriend

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is no evidence supporting the claim that a staff member used an autopen to pardon her boyfriend. All nine sources analyzed focus exclusively on President Biden's use of an autopen for pardons and clemency actions during his final days in office ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}.

The sources reveal that Jeff Zients, Biden's chief of staff, gave final approval for the use of an autopen to sign pardons, including those for Dr. Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley ^[9]. However, this represents administrative oversight of presidential pardons, not a staff member independently pardoning anyone.

The analyses consistently show that the controversy centers around President Biden's use of autopen technology for official presidential actions, with Republican criticism focusing on questions about Biden's health and the legitimacy of autopen-signed documents ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the established presidential precedent for autopen use. Multiple sources indicate that many presidents have used autopens for decades ^{[6] [7]}, making this a standard administrative practice rather than an unusual occurrence.

The question also omits the political motivations behind the autopen controversy. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and President Donald Trump have criticized Biden's autopen use as part of broader investigations into Biden's health and fitness for office ^[5]. Trump has even attempted to declare Biden's autopen-signed pardons as "void" ^[8], suggesting political rather than procedural concerns drive this narrative.

Republican lawmakers would benefit from promoting suspicion about autopen use, as it supports their broader questioning of Biden's capacity and legitimacy of his final presidential actions ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears to contain significant misinformation by suggesting a scenario that has no basis in the available evidence. The question implies:

• A staff member independently exercised pardon power - which would be constitutionally impossible, as only the President holds this authority
• The use of autopen for personal benefit rather than official presidential business
• A romantic relationship influencing official pardons - a claim completely unsupported by any source

The phrasing suggests deliberate bias by framing the question around an unsubstantiated scandal rather than asking about the legitimate use of autopen technology in presidential operations. This type of loaded question appears designed to spread unfounded conspiracy theories rather than seek factual information about established presidential procedures.