Liz Cheney, a leading Republican critic of President Donald Trump, may soon find herself at the center of a new political and legal battle. The former Wyoming congresswoman, who served as vice chair of the original House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021, could be called to testify before a newly established House Republican subcommittee.
While congressional subpoenas and investigations are standard oversight tools, Cheney’s case is particularly notable given her recent pardon by former President Joe Biden. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced the formation of the subcommittee, which aims to reexamine the events leading up to and following January 6, as well as the conduct of the previous investigation.
In December 2024, the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, chaired by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), released a report recommending an investigation into Cheney for alleged witness tampering. The report accused Cheney of engaging in unethical communications with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson during the January 6 committee’s investigation. In response to these allegations, Cheney has defended her actions, asserting that the report “fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did.”
On January 20, just before leaving office, then-President Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons to members of the January 6th Committee, including Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Army Gen. Mark Milley, and Biden’s family, in an effort to shield them from potential political retribution by the incoming Trump administration. Biden stated that the pardons were not an admission of wrongdoing but rather a recognition of their service.
But journalist Matt Taibbi said during an interview with former Fox News star Tucker Carlson on his podcast earlier this week that former President Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons could wind up backfiring under certain circumstances. “The thing is, about these pardons, they’re a mistake. If you want to know what’s happening, they just made it a lot easier for us to find out,” Taibbi said regarding suspicions that the pardons were aimed at covering up some form of criminal activity.
After Carlson asked for an explanation, Taibbi said that according to legal experts he has spoken with, the pardons would not, for instance, allow the recipients to plead the Fifth Amendment if Congress called them to testify. “Now, once the pardon’s delivered, the person can’t plead the Fifth. If they are brought before a grand jury, they can’t take the Fifth anymore, or if they’re brought before a congressional committee, they can’t evoke their right against self-incrimination, so they have to say something,” the journalist explained.
“And this is what’s so interesting because I’ve been talking to criminal defense attorneys, people who are former Senate investigators, some current Senate investigators, and they all kind of said the same thing,” he said. “It’s so illogical to give somebody a pardon if you’re trying to cover up things that the only reason you would really do it is if there are very serious crimes involved, right?
“So that’s a red flag for us. When we see somebody getting a pardon, we think, well, why would they do that unless there’s something really bad there, right?” Taibbi said. “So either it’s a mistake where they just stupidly made It easier for everybody to investigate, or there’s something we don’t know about [and] that is interesting.”
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary.