Now this is an ethics conflict.
It is increasingly clear that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney broke the law as well as several ethics rules while doing her utmost to incriminate President Trump during the all-Democrat/ Never-Trump Republican J-6 committee star chamber orchestrated by Nancy Pelosi. It is wrong to break the law. It is especially wrong to break the law when you are an elected official and law-maker. Such officials should not only be held to a higher standard, but should be role models for the public that elected them. It follows, then, that when they break the law—it seems that Cheney participated in the destruction of evidence as well as coaching a witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, to lie under oath while unethically meeting with her, a represented witness, without her lawyer being present—they should be treated like anyone else who breaks the law.
If elected officials are not prosecuted and held to account when they violate the law, it is the worst manifestation of the King’s Pass, the insidious and pervasive rationalization (#11 on the list) in which individuals who are famous, popular, powerful, accomplished, productive or successful are allowed to escape the earned consequences of their own misconduct when a less powerful or popular individual would face the full penalties of the law. Such episodes seriously erode public trust in our legal system and power structure. The cliche is “No one is above the law,” but except for the case of indisputable bribery or violent felonies, elected officials are seldom prosecuted, and sometimes not even for those crimes.
Conclusion 1: It is important in order to maintain the public trust and the integrity of the justice system that Liz Cheney, if she broke the law—and I think it is likely that she did and that it can be proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt—be subject to the full force of the justice system.
Yet there is an unwritten law in the United States, a tradition, a principle, one of those norms that Democrats extol while violating them themselves, that the United States of America, unlike totalitarian governments, the regimes of tin-pot dictators and corrupt democracies (like, say, Ukraine or Nigeria) does not engage in political trials or use the justice system as a weapon against its enemies. Arguably, this principle is even more important than the principle that everyone in the country must be subjected to the laws of the land with equal force.
Because President-Elect Trump, with his usual rhetorical excesses, announced that he believed Cheney deserved to be prosecuted and punished, and because he was a repeat victim of political prosecutions over the past year as the Democrats sought to neutralize him with a series of dubious charges and trials, any prosecution of Cheney (or others in her position) by Trump’s Justice Department will be regarded by the public as an act of retribution by Donald Trump and a political prosecution rather than a just one. That, in turn, will effectively shatter the United States’ ideal of not using the justice system as a tool of political harassment, repression, or intimidation. I fear it would do this for all time.
Conclusion 2: That would be disastrous. It would undermine the integrity of the political system and move the nation closer than it has ever been to government by totalitarian methods.
This is the essence of an ethical conflict, where two ethical principles, not abusing the justice system by making it a political weapon, and not allowing political figures to break laws with impunity, are in opposition and dictate different courses of action. It is also the essence of Ethics Zugzwang as defined by Ethics Alarms, where as long as the status quo can be frozen, no ethical transgression has taken place, but because it cannot be frozen indefinitely—a decision has to be made to either investigate Cheney’s conduct with the intent of determining whether criminal charges are required, or to decline to do so because the political implications and perceptions will be too damaging to the nation—either choice causes substantive and perhaps irreparable harm to the culture, public trust, national ideals, and democratic norms.
This situation could have been and should have been avoided. It could and should have been avoided by administrations not increasingly seeming to use real or perceived double standards when deciding whether to investigate or prosecute prominent political figures, political protests and demonstrations, by the impeachment process not being abused by both parties for political gain, by political figures like Donald Trump not alluding to “locking up” political adversaries, for the Democrats at the national and state level not resorting to so-called “lawfare” to try to derail Trump as a political opponent, and for President Biden not have pardoned his son. Good job, everybody.
On balance, the ethics verdict here is that it would be better for all concerned—not good, but better—if Republicans in Congress and the Trump Justice Department allow Liz Cheney to crawl back into the metaphorical hole from which she first emerged, and embrace the obscurity she so richly deserves.
Ethics Alarms 
Here’s an idea; how about President Trump issue a pardon for Liz Cheney for her actions on the January 6th Committee, that way she can’t plead the 5th when forced to testify before congress about what happened behind the scenes of the January 6th Committee. Then if she chooses to lie under oath in front of Congress, she can be then be held in contempt of Congress, prosecuted, and jailed for that.
How about a pre-emptive pardon for Cheney from Trump? If he “needed” to, he could use that to verbally bash her but no show trial would ensue. If he were a more nuanced communicator he could even take the rhetorical high road (a la Gerald Ford) “for the good of the country.”
Great point Steve. I hadn’t even considered the testimony / plead the 5th aspect of it. I was just thinking about a “fine line” approach to let Trump metaphorically dump on her while not escalating the lawfare!
I wouldn’t have known about this if it hadn’t been for Alan Dershowitz…
I like it, except for the obvious objection that the pardon becomes an implicit declaration of wrongdoing, and she’ll almost certainly reject it…if she can. That’s always been a question: I am of the opinion that the President’s power to pardon does not require the recipient’s consent.
Jack wrote, “…she’ll almost certainly reject it…if she can. That’s always been a question: I am of the opinion that the President’s power to pardon does not require the recipient’s consent.”
Alan Dershowitz has actually discussed that many times, and his legal opinion based on the Constitutional powers granted to the President for pardoning, a recipient can’t legally refuse a pardon, once it is issued by the President, it’s a done deal and nothing legally can be done to reject it. The recipient could state that they want to reject the pardon but legally they can’t, once issued, it’s done.
I’m guessing that this would have to be taken to the Supreme Court and short of a Constitutional Amendment limiting the power of Presidential pardons, the Supreme Court would have to uphold the pardon even if it’s rejected by the recipient.
Watch this…
All that said; I have never been a fan of pardons I think it undermines the justice system (commutations are different in my opinion); however, if a pardon is being used before trial or conviction to force the hidden truth out of witnesses that can’t otherwise be obtained because of the 5th Amendment, I’m ethically fine with it. In my opinion, this would not be undermining a conviction through our justice system.
And, of course, while the Left is extolling the virtues of a woman whose father they loathed and would have prosecuted at the drop of a hat if they’d been able to do so, the NeverTrump Republicans seem to have forgotten how fickle their new-found friends are.
People like Cheney and Mitt Romney, the McCains and the Bushes need to remember that they are “useful idiots” to the Left. Were it not for Donald Trump, we’d still be hearing about how Bush II and Dick Cheney are war criminals and that Mitt Romney’s religion is weird and frightening. Once Trump is no longer a threat to them, the Left will go right back to denigrating their Republican fellow travelers.
Good points, AM. I’d be fine with Liz being allowed to crawl back into the hole from which she emerged as Jack suggests, if she took all the Never Trumpers with her.
I guess the question becomes…
Do we really want a single-tiered justice system that treats all citizens the same, regardless of standing, position, or influence?
Or do we continuously use the notion (the rationalization?) of “maintaining order” and “not descending to banana-republic status” to continue our system of “everyone is equal under the law…except for the times some people aren’t?”
We need (lots) more people with (lots) more integrity in government.
We also, to a large degree, need to stop seeing political rivals as “enemies.” They aren’t enemies. They are citizens with whom we disagree because of ideological differences. But they are still citizens and should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. If they aren’t enemies, we aren’t using the justice system as a weapon against them. We are judging fellow citizens by the same standard with which we’ll be judged.
Cheney does deserve to be punished, and the sooner the full array of evidence against her and her fellow J6 conspirators is fully laid out for the public, the better. Then, and only then, will a decision not prosecute her or them be justifiable, along with a full pardon of any of those rioters who were non-violent participants in the faux “insurrection,” and the prosecution of Ashli Babbitt’s killer.Either our justice system applies to the political class, or it does not, but if not it is high time we stop pretending that it does. Kant said, “If the truth shall kill them, let them die.” Personally, I tend to be a “Speak the truth though the heavens fall!” kind of guy, too, but I get the whole “for the good of the country” thing. The alternative to a vigorous public prosecution of Cheney et al should include a thorough public humiliation and legal denunciation of their conduct, which would enhance their banishment into ignominy that they so richly deserve.
pardon and testify/depose to put the process on record. Criminal charges as appropriate to destroy the solidarity of the deep state.
Perhaps the ideal system would be to institute a Truth and Reconciliation Commission similar to that created by Mandella’s South African Government, but focussed only on the actions of the congress between 2015 and 2024. The original TRC was certainly inspired.
The biggest criticisms of the TRC were around reparations, or lack of them, and it would be wise to drop that aspect in the current circumstances. Anyone brought before the Commission is guaranteed immunity, in exchange for total openness, disclosure, and confession.
This would have the advantage of exposing the machinations to the world, without resorting to prosecution and the charge of victimization or revenge. It meets the requirement of not being a political trial or using the justice system as a weapon to punish Trumps enemies, without letting them off the hook.
The biggest drawback is that at least a quarter of the population would regard them as heroes when their deeds were revealed and confessed!
Perhaps she should be investigated and indicted by the Trump DOJ, then pardoned by Trump.
That would be fun! I imagine the Left would self-immolate.
The thing is, at some point the tit-for-tat actions have to stop, if our system of government is to get back on track.
I think the GOP has to do it because the Democrats have demonstrated that they don’t know how. So, to coin a phrase, Trump and the Republicans have to be the adults in the room.
We faced a choice like this in 1865. Many, many nations who, having put down a rebellion, persecute, imprison, or execute as many of the defeated rebels as they can. Case study — Ireland.
The United States chose a different path, thanks to Lincoln, Grant, Lee, Sherman and others. It wasn’t that our rebels were any less serious and committed than another country’s. For us, over the course of a couple generations, it worked.
We identify far more as Americans than as, say, New Yorkers or Texans. We can perceive and acknowledge our regional differences and quirks, but to the rest of the world we are all Yankees or Americans — and, I think, justifiably so.
I used to think the Cheneys were good people. But Liz, especially, has turned to the dark side.
At some point, though, we have to say enough, no more. Give the Devil the benefit of law — for our own sake.
I have completely had it with the political left and the 8+ year propaganda war they have waged against the “We the People of the United States of America“.
Diego Garcia wrote, “The thing is, at some point the tit-for-tat actions have to stop, if our system of government is to get back on track.”
We can’t get back on track when there is a huge cultish swath of the population that has false opinions that are only supported by a foundation of lies. We need the truth to set us free.
Don’t you think that truthfully exposing what’s been going on behind the scenes to “We the People of the United States of America” should be a very high priority right now?
There is a huge cultish swath of “We the people” that blindly allowed themselves to be willfully duped and swallowed all the bull shit propaganda narratives that the political left fed them for eight straight years as they kowtowed with a “yes sir, may I have another…” like droning mantra. These people, aka sheeple, were viewed as gullible fools by the politically powerful in the political left. How will these sheeple be able to see the error of their ways and move forward if they are allowed to continue to hide behind all the lies? These people must be shown that they were powerless to the onslaught of immoral propaganda because of their bias before they can can begin to recover from their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). They have to take the truth and self-evaluate before they will be able to admit their errors and I only see one way to accomplish that.
If our system of government is really to get back on track and move forward, it cannot effectively do so without exposing the lingering lies that have been hidden by the left’s political elite and Pravda-USA media. The pardon I proposed with Liz Cheney in my earlier comment is a huge step in shutting down the tit-for-tat intentional outright abuse of power and it should be expanded broadly to get the actual truth to “We the People”. Give these pardons and then have fully open and televised congressional hearings to get the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No one will be able to claim the 5th and if witness state anything like “I don’t recall” they should immediately be held in contempt. The complete immunity pardons should be expanded and given to people like Rep. Nadler, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Pelosi, etc. and yes Trump should drop his defamation cases and extend pardons to media outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.. These people and entities MUST testify under oath in front of Congress.
The duped people, aka cultish sheeple, will never accept the facts unless the facts are presented to them in a manner in which they can’t deny and that’s being told by the ones that perpetrated the lies in the first place.
We can expose what’s happened over the last 8+ years and use it as a Civics instructional tool for the future, that’s how to move forward.
We never want what has happened over the last 8+ years to happen again.
Closing note: Now I’m going to admit right here and now that the likelihood of any of this actually happening is slim to none and for reasons like existing individual rights, freedom of speech of the media, and existing Congressional immunity, but if the USA is really to move on we must expose the the whole truth to everyone so we the people can all learn from it.
Joel, you captured my exact thinking on this issue. It just seems like a catch 22 trying to hold elected persons accountable. Preemptive pardons may get the truth known but who cares about truth if the rule breaker gets a pass simply by effectively pleading guilty.
Chris Marschner wrote, “It just seems like a catch 22 trying to hold elected persons accountable. Preemptive pardons may get the truth known but who cares about truth if the rule breaker gets a pass simply by effectively pleading guilty.”
Why not take a bold move to step beyond that kind of thinking and put the general welfare of the United States of America as a whole above everything else.
The truth will set us free.
Focus on how to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to “We the People”.
Ah, the good ole “Republicans better not rightly do what Democrats have been wrongly doing for decades because that will be bad for the system”.
How about we just prosecute miscreants when they deserve it and call out bad prosecutions when they deserve it?
Which, actually, strengthens the system.