🚫 The Empty Chair Indictment: Hawley Accuses Democrats of Lying America into a ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Senator Josh Hawley Attacks Absent Colleagues for Fleeing Accountability on Biden’s Fitness and Autopen Use

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Senate hearing room became a theater of political combat, not for what was said by the witnesses, but for the glaring absence of key Democratic figures. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) seized upon the empty seats, launching a searing, unrestrained critique that accused his colleagues of lying to the nation for years and then attempting to evade accountability for the resulting “constitutional crisis.”

Hawley’s focus was dual: the dramatic reversal of Democratic lawmakers regarding President Biden’s mental acuity following the Special Counsel’s report, and the unanswered questions surrounding the use of the presidential autopen for signing official documents.

The Lying Accusation and the Empty Seats

Hawley opened by addressing the vacant chairs left by several Democratic senators.

“They lied to us for four years and we know they lied. They know they lied. It’s why they’re not here,” Hawley thundered. “They can’t bear to show their faces in public.”

He argued that the Democrats had sold the country a “bill of goods,” walking the nation “right into one of the greatest constitutional crises of our history.” To Hawley, the absence of his opponents was an admission of guilt, a recognition that their previous public statements could not withstand scrutiny.

“These are people and this is a party that cannot be trusted with power. That cannot be trusted to tell the truth. The most basic truth.”

.

.

.

The Great Reversal: From ‘Sharp’ to ‘Unfit’

The core of Hawley’s attack detailed the dramatic shift in Democratic rhetoric after the Department of Justice Special Counsel report concluded that President Biden could not form the requisite mental state to stand trial—a finding that effectively deemed him too mentally impaired for criminal prosecution.

Hawley then methodically read aloud quotes from Democratic leaders defending the President’s mental state, often just weeks or months before the report became public:

Vice President Kamala Harris: Characterization of the President was “so wrong. The president’s demeanor is totally fine.”

Senator Tina Smith (D-MN): What the report said about the President not remembering his son’s death was “so unfair.”

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR, February 2024): Found the President to be “sharp, focused, impressive, formidable, and effective.”

Hawley contrasted these quotes with the current political silence, claiming the Democrats had only changed their tune after the President’s televised debate performance, which he suggested made the President’s condition visible to the entire world.

“Where are they now? They don’t want to answer for any of those quotes now,” Hawley challenged. He concluded the segment by stating that running the President again was a “form of elder abuse,” emphasizing the political opportunism he saw in the abrupt policy shift.

The Autopen Crisis: Demand for Documents

Hawley transitioned his argument from mental fitness to official executive action, focusing on the use of the presidential autopen—a mechanical signature device—to sign significant documents, including pardons and clemencies.

Hawley cited the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion, which mandates that the autopen can only be used when the President “specifically directs it and it is under his direct authority.”

Pressing a legal expert witness, Hawley established the requirement for strict record-keeping: for every document signed via autopen, there should be a corresponding record, such as a cover memo or briefing book, indicating the President’s personal consent and signature authorization.

“None of that has come forward,” Hawley noted, suggesting a significant failure in White House record-keeping regarding presidential actions. He demanded that those documents be produced immediately:

“I think the answer is we need to get those documents. And I just say to our friends in the media over here, you guys need to be asking for those documents and we need to be asking for them… We need to see those documents.”

Hawley’s demand successfully pivoted the debate from a subjective argument about memory to an objective issue of documented legal compliance, raising serious questions about the validity of executive actions.

Conclusion: A Challenge to Accountability

Senator Hawley’s monologue was less about scoring political points and more about delivering a stark, uncomfortable message: the abandonment of fundamental truth by key congressional leaders is a threat to the nation’s constitutional framework.

By focusing on the empty seats and the silence, Hawley framed the issue as a crisis of accountability, not just policy. He refused to let the lies stand, demanding transparency on two critical fronts: the true state of the President’s mental fitness and the legal compliance surrounding his official acts. Hawley’s firm insistence on dragging the truth into the light, even in the face of political evasion, underscored his role as a relentless challenger to the political establishment. His message was clear: The American people deserve honesty, and the silence of his colleagues only amplified the urgency of his demand.