Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has requested an investigation by the Department of Justice into claims that former President Joe Biden's staff took advantage of his alleged mental decline to pursue a host of far-left policies.

Bailey's call to examine a possible cover-up by White House personnel and claims about potential mental infirmity have sparked discussions about the legality of Biden’s actions during his time in office, as the Daily Caller reports.

Request for Investigation into Biden's Executive Actions

Bailey, in a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, expressed concerns that Biden may not have been fully aware of or consenting to some or all of the executive orders and documents signed during his presidency.

He suspects that some of Biden's directives could be nullified if it is proved that he did not knowingly approve them due to alleged cognitive decline.

Among the executive actions under scrutiny are clemency decisions. Bailey pointed out Biden’s commutations and clemency grants to individuals convicted of serious crimes, including violent and death row inmates.

The legality of these actions is questioned if it turns out Biden was unaware or incapable of granting informed consent.

Concerns Over Biden’s Mental Capacity Emerge

Bailey noted that questions about Biden's cognitive health had been circulating before his decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race. A report by then-special counsel Robert Hur characterized Biden as “an elderly man with a reduced memory capacity,” particularly criticizing his handling of sensitive documents.

The AG's letter also mentioned allegations that Biden signed an export moratorium affecting energy exports to Europe without prior knowledge. According to reports, Biden’s aides managed his daily schedule and activities, possibly limiting his understanding of policy decisions.

Final Acts of Clemency and Controversial Declarations Spur Concern

In his closing days in office, Biden’s pardons included high-profile individuals such as family members and Hunter Biden and political figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, and members involved with the Jan. 6 committee. Certain sentences were commuted, notably those involving drug offenses, even against Department of Justice recommendations.

Bailey argued that these actions might reflect external influences over Biden’s decisions. Furthermore, Biden's declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment was added to the Constitution also drew criticism since this stance conflicted with the National Archives' official position.

Bailey Issues Call for Clarity and Accountability

Bailey stated in his letter that Biden’s "famous" mental decline should have triggered considerations under the 25th Amendment regarding presidential succession. He expressed skepticism over who had real governing authority, casting doubts on the role of Biden’s staff and their potential political motives.

He emphasized the public’s right to know who was effectively running the government, describing Biden as possibly merely the nominal head, influenced by "far-left, unelected staffers." This raises broader ethical and constitutional questions about presidential competency and approval processes.

Examining Biden’s Presidential Responsibilites

Queries regarding oversight in Biden’s executive actions necessitate transparency, Bailey opined. Whether the presidential decisions reflect Biden's independent judgment or were orchestrated by his staff has become a point of contention.

With Republicans and other political figures potentially aligning with Bailey’s concerns, this matter could gain traction. The implications of this investigation could lead to significant political and legal consequences.

Responding to the gravity of Bailey's allegations will require careful examination of documentation, reports, and testimonies. There may also be calls to evaluate the protocols for determining a president’s decision-making capacity.

Potential Outcomes and Political Ramifications Unclear

The inquiry, if pursued, could have lasting effects on how presidential powers are construed, particularly in relation to cognitive health. The investigation could also impact future leadership evaluations.

Bailey’s insistence on accountability underscores the complexities of governance at the highest level. The political and public reactions in the upcoming weeks will likely illuminate the broader implications of these allegations.

Observers are anticipating whether this inquiry will result in reforms or policy changes concerning the oversight of presidential actions. As the situation unfolds, the demand for clarity and accountability in government decisions continues to be a national priority.