Joe
Biden
could
forestall
Trump’s
efforts
at
retribution
by
pardoning
the
people
that
Trump
says
he’s
likely
to
prosecute.
Those
people
might
include,
for
example,
Adam
Schiff,
a
vocal
Trump
opponent
in
Congress.
Or
Liz
Cheney
and
Adam
Kinzinger,
the
Republicans
on
the
January
6
Committee.
Or
Anthony
Fauci,
loathed
by
MAGA
for
his
role
in
the
COVID
response.
Or
Mark
Milley,
the
former
chairman
of
the
Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff,
who
supposedly
committed
“treason”
near
the
end
of
Trump’s
first
term
in
office.
Jack
Smith,
the
special
counsel
who
prosecuted
Trump,
and
Smith’s
staff
are
probably
safe.
Federal
prosecutors
have
broad
immunity
for
actions
taken
in
their
prosecutorial
roles.
And
I
assume
that
Alvin
Bragg,
the
New
York
state
prosecutor,
and
Fani
Willis,
the
Georgia
prosecutor,
are
also
safe.
But
Biden
might
choose
to
pardon
these
people
anyway.
These
folks
can’t
be
charged
for
anything
having
to
do
with
their
prosecutions
of
Trump
but,
in
the
words
of
Stalin’s
head
of
the
secret
police,
“Show
me
the
man,
and
I’ll
show
you
the
crime.”
Who
knows
what
a
politicized
FBI
and
Department
of
Justice
intent
on
prosecuting
people
might
dig
up
as
alleged
crimes
committed
by
Smith
and
the
others?
Pardons
would
avoid
that
possibility.
Even
beyond
that,
there
are
plenty
of
other
possible
targets
for
Trump.
Couldn’t
the
Department
of
Justice
gin
up
charges
against
E.
Jean
Carroll,
who
sued
Trump
twice
for
defamation
and
has
recovered
judgments
worth
a
little
more
than
$88
million
(plus
interest)?
Or
Joe
Scarborough?
Or
Mika
Brzezinski?
Or
hundreds
of
other
folks
who
have
said
nasty
things
about
Trump?
For
purposes
of
this
column,
the
question
is
whether
Biden
should
pardon
Rachel
Maddow.
That’s
just
an
example,
of
course.
The
real
question
is
whether
Biden
should
pardon
any,
or
all,
of
the
folks
at
risk
of
Trump’s
retribution.
When
I
say
retribution,
I
mean
that
Trump,
who
will
be
at
the
helm
of
the
Department
of
Justice
on
January
20,
could
order
the
DOJ
to
investigate
and
file
criminal
charges
against
people.
Trump
could
also
do
lesser
things,
such
as
ordering
the
IRS
to
audit
his
political
enemies,
but
let’s
focus
on
the
big
one
—
criminal
charges.
Maddow
(and
the
like)
have
of
course
done
nothing
criminal.
Maddow’s
well
within
her
rights
to
criticize
Trump;
many
would
say
that
Maddow’s
criticisms
are
correct,
and
Trump
merits
criticism.
But
that’s
really
beside
the
point.
If
the
DOJ
were
simply
to
open
an
investigation
of
Maddow,
issuing
a
subpoena
compelling
Maddow
to
appear
before
a
grand
jury,
Maddow
would
incur
expenses.
If
Trump
were
to
convince
the
DOJ
to
commence
a
criminal
case
against
Maddow,
she
would
be
forced
to
spend
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
defending
herself,
even
if
she
were
able
to
get
the
case
dismissed
at
an
early
stage.
And
if
Trump
ordered
the
DOJ
to
file
the
case
against
Maddow
in
a
deep
red
state,
with
many
Trump
appointees
serving
as
judges,
a
judge
might
not
dismiss
the
charges
at
an
early
stage,
which
would
force
Maddow
to
spend
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
defending
herself
at
trial,
despite
the
case
being
ridiculous
from
the
start.
Lastly,
of
course,
once
a
case
goes
to
trial,
there’s
always
a
chance
that
a
red-state
jury
might
convict,
no
matter
how
silly
the
charges.
Maddow
is
worth
a
lot
of
money,
so
she
could
afford
to
defend
herself.
But
Cheney,
or
Schiff,
or
Milley
don’t
have
that
kind
of
money.
Trump’s
decision
simply
to
start
an
investigation
of
those
people
would
be
burdensome.
The
DOJ’s
pursuit
of
a
criminal
case
could
bankrupt
these
folks.
And
Biden
could
preempt
all
these
things,
simply
by
granting
pardons.
Should
he?
This
is
actually
a
pretty
tough
question.
On
the
one
hand,
Biden
could
pardon
Maddow
(and
the
like).
Maddow
would
have
the
right
to
decline
the
pardon,
leaving
herself
at
risk.
Or
she
could
accept
the
pardon,
avoiding
the
possibility
that
she
would
be
investigated
or
charged.
If
Maddow
(and
the
like)
accepted
a
pardon,
the
right-wing
media
would
immediately
have
a
field
day:
“Maddow
(and
Cheney,
and
Milley,
and
the
like)
is
obviously
guilty
as
sin!
Think
what
she
must
have
done
to
have
Biden
issue,
and
then
have
Maddow
accept,
a
pardon!
Criminality
among
these
radical
left
lunatics
is
rampant!
The
only
way
they
could
avoid
jail
is
by
having
the
president
issue
pardons!
Maddow
belongs
in
jail!
The
pardon
proves
it!
Scum.”
Hmmm.
That’s
not
so
good.
So
Biden
could
do
the
opposite:
He
could
choose
not
to
issue
pardons.
That
would
avoid
having
the
right-wing
media
scream
that
folks
on
the
left
had
plainly
committed
crimes.
And
if
Trump
is
just
bluffing,
and
doesn’t
actually
seek
retribution
against
his
political
enemies,
there
will
be
no
criticism
of
anyone.
The
problem
will
have
disappeared.
But
it
could
turn
out
that
Trump
is
not
bluffing.
He
might
actually
order
the
DOJ
to
investigate,
and
charge,
hundreds
of
his
political
enemies.
Those
folks
would
incur
the
huge
expense
and
risk
that
I’ve
just
outlined,
even
though
they
had
done
nothing
wrong.
Pundits
on
the
left
would
criticize
Biden
mercilessly
for
his
choice
not
to
issue
pardons:
“How
could
Biden
have
been
such
a
fool?
Trump
announced
in
advance
that
he
was
out
for
retribution.
He
appointed
loyalists
to
every
key
position
in
the
Department
of
Justice.
Biden
knew
full
well
that
all
these
people
were
going
to
be
prosecuted.
He
had
the
power
to
forestall
this,
simply
by
issuing
pardons.
And
he
didn’t
do
it!
What
a
fool!
The
guy
must
be
senile,
after
all!”
Biden
has
a
choice
to
make.
It
is
not
at
all
an
easy
choice.
He’ll
be
criticized
either
way
—
unless
Biden
chooses
not
to
pardon,
and
Trump
then
chooses
not
to
pursue
his
enemies,
which
is
a
huge
gamble
for
Biden
to
take.
By
January,
we’ll
know
which
route
Biden
chose.
If
he
issues
pardons,
the
reaction
on
the
right
will
be
immediate
and
loud.
If
he
doesn’t
issue
pardons,
and
Trump
in
fact
orders
the
DOJ
to
investigate
and
prosecute,
the
response
will
start
once
the
fact
of
the
investigations
become
public.
The
response
from
the
left
will
thus
come
a
little
bit
later,
but
it
will
nonetheless
be
fierce.
Whichever
way
it
plays
out,
you
can
watch
with
both
interest
and
dread,
because
you
saw
it
coming.
Mark Herrmann
spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of
The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].