Donald Trump’s recent suggestion, fueled by a report from Representative Barry Loudermilk, that Liz Cheney could face prosecution for her role in the January 6th investigation, should be viewed not as a genuine desire for legal action, but as a calculated maneuver towards a different objective: securing a pardon for Cheney and potentially others involved in the inquiry. This seemingly paradoxical strategy aligns with Trump’s historical approach, reminiscent of Roy Cohn’s tactics, of using aggressive posturing to mask underlying vulnerabilities and manipulate outcomes. While publicly portraying himself as a victim, Trump understands the considerable risk he faces if the January 6th events are subjected to renewed scrutiny through a trial.
Trump’s primary motivation for seeking a pardon for Cheney lies in his deep-seated aversion to relitigating the January 6th insurrection. A trial focusing on Cheney’s role in the investigation would inevitably refocus public attention on Trump’s own actions leading up to and during the Capitol attack. This would highlight his relentless dissemination of election lies, his encouragement of armed supporters, his pressure on Georgia election officials, his involvement in fake elector schemes, his numerous frivolous lawsuits aimed at overturning the election results, and his inaction during the Capitol breach. Such renewed scrutiny would jeopardize Trump’s carefully constructed narrative and potentially expose him to further legal and political consequences.
Furthermore, revisiting the January 6th events would disrupt Trump’s intended agenda for a potential second term. He and his allies have envisioned a “100-day chaos festival,” aimed at dismantling existing institutions and policies. A prolonged focus on the insurrection would derail this plan and consume valuable political capital. Trump is aware that while his constant stream of misinformation might sway his base, a high-profile trial focusing on the January 6th events could finally permeate the broader public consciousness and solidify the link between his actions and the resulting attack.
Despite the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of executive power under Trump, significant legal obstacles remain to prosecuting Cheney and other members of the January 6th Committee. The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides broad immunity for Congressional activities, effectively shielding lawmakers from legal repercussions for actions taken in their official capacity. This constitutional protection presents a major hurdle for any attempt to prosecute Cheney or other investigators for their work on the committee.
Trump’s pursuit of a pardon for Cheney is a calculated strategy to deflect responsibility and create a convenient scapegoat. By pardoning Cheney, Trump can feign outrage at the “Deep State” and claim vindication for his baseless accusations of wrongdoing. He could then present the pardons as proof of guilt, reinforcing his victim narrative while privately relishing the subversion of justice. This maneuver would allow Trump to avoid the risks of a trial, maintain his image as a fighter against a corrupt system, and further consolidate his control over his supporters.
The question of whether President Biden should preemptively pardon Cheney and others potentially targeted by Trump presents a complex dilemma. While a pardon could shield these individuals from politically motivated prosecutions and the financial and emotional burdens of a legal defense, it also carries the risk of appearing to validate Trump’s accusations. Such a pardon might be interpreted as an admission of guilt, which could damage the reputations of those involved. Moreover, accepting a pardon might be viewed as an act of submission to Trump’s intimidation tactics.
The individuals facing potential prosecution are in a precarious position. The threat of legal action, even if ultimately unfounded, carries significant personal and professional costs. Trump’s history of employing Nixonian tactics, including surveillance and IRS audits, adds another layer of concern. Furthermore, Trump’s campaign rhetoric has created an expectation of retribution among his supporters, putting pressure on him to pursue prosecutions, even if he personally recognizes the risks.
Ultimately, President Biden should engage in confidential discussions with those under threat, offering pardons as a protective measure. However, the decision to accept a pardon should rest solely with the individuals themselves. Those who choose to fight the potential charges, despite the personal risks, would demonstrate a commitment to truth and accountability that stands in stark contrast to the actions of their accusers. This underscores the fundamental conflict between upholding democratic principles and succumbing to political pressure.
