Ed Martin, the incoming pardon attorney at the Department of Justice and head of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, announced last week that he is investigating the questionable use of the presidential autopen for issuing pardons during the final days of the Biden administration.

However, Martin disclosed on Tuesday that his probe began weeks earlier, while he was still serving as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, The Blaze reports.

Martin confirmed that the investigation into the autopen’s use has been active for some time, that he has contacted members of the Biden family, that several individuals of interest have retained legal counsel, and that a whistleblower has already come forward with serious allegations.

“I had a whistleblower in my office 10 day ago — senior, senior Democrat — saying, ‘Look, it was these three people that controlled access, and they were making money off of it,’” Martin told journalist Mark Halperin on the “2WAY Tonight” show. “I don’t know if I believe it yet, but the point is, I think, we have to get to the bottom of it for the American people and to protect the process, and that’s what we’re doing.”

Martin stated that the whistleblower was closely involved with the 2020 Biden campaign.

The pardon attorney identified three individuals as key “gatekeepers”: Ron Klain, who served as President Biden’s White House chief of staff from 2021 to 2023 and returned last year to assist with debate preparations; former senior Biden adviser Anita Dunn; and Robert Bauer, former personal attorney to President Barack Obama.

Martin later added two more names to the list—Steve Ricchetti, former counselor to President Biden and chairman of his 2020 campaign, and “obviously Jill [Biden],” the First Lady.

He also told Halperin that he asked the whistleblower about the involvement of Susan Rice or others, but “they said, ‘No, these were the ones.’”

WATCH:

Video Player

A pro-energy group is renewing its call for an investigation into more than a half-dozen Biden administration executive actions related to climate that it believes should be declared null and void because they were signed by an autopen with no public comment from former President Joe Biden confirming his knowledge of them.

Power the Future, a nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs, reviewed eight Biden executive orders that it claims were significant shifts in domestic energy policy and discovered no evidence of the president discussing any of them publicly, raising concerns that the orders were signed by autopen and he was unaware of them.

“These are not obscure bureaucratic memos; these were foundational shifts in American energy policy, yet not once did Joe Biden speak about them publicly,” Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power The Future, told Fox News.

The executive orders examined by Power the Future include an Arctic drilling ban in 2023, a 2021 executive order committing the federal government to net-zero emissions by 2050, an executive order mandating “clean energy” AI centers, and an offshore drilling ban executive order issued shortly before leaving office in 2025.

Finding no evidence of Biden publicly discussing the climate executive orders, Power the Future sent letters this week to the DOJ, EPA, DOI, DOE, as well as the House and Senate Oversight Committees, requesting an investigation into who made the decisions, drafted the executive orders, and signed them.

“In light of the growing evidence that actions purportedly taken by the former president may not have been approved or signed by him, but instead promulgated by a small coterie of advisers in his name without his knowledge or over his signature using an ‘autopen,’ the need for congressional access to information has grown in importance with these revelations,” the letter to GOP House Oversight Chair James Comer states.

“Congress deserves to know how or whether these executive actions were authorized, and whether the former President was aware of such orders before they were implemented by the federal bureaucracy. Were these actions taken on behalf of the president and purporting to execute his authority undertaken with the president’s knowledge and approach? It appears incumbent upon Congress to inquire,