Rep. Bennie Thompson Indicates Willingness for a Preemptive Pardon in Light of Political Strains
In a quickly changing political environment, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) mentioned in a recent CNN interview that he might be open to accepting a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden if it was needed to protect members of the January 6 House Select Committee from possible retaliatory measures. Thompson’s comments follow a surge in tensions related to the committee’s work, which was established to look into the events that led to and included the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Thompson played a crucial role in the committee. He led the panel, which consisted of eight members and was influenced by Democrats, assigned to investigate former President Donald Trump’s actions and the wider issues surrounding security failures and political strategies linked to the Capitol breach. Throughout its work, the committee spoke with numerous witnesses, gathered a wealth of documents, and shared its conclusions in prominent hearings. Supporters contended that the committee’s efforts highlighted attempts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, whereas critics asserted that it functioned with partisan motives and selectively disclosed evidence to influence the public narrative.
During his recent appearance on CNN, Thompson spoke about the increasing worries that if Trump were to make a comeback to the White House or gain considerable sway over federal authorities, those who served on the January 6 committee might find themselves facing investigations or legal repercussions as retaliation for their efforts in examining the former president. Trump has often claimed that the committee members should be “behind bars,” which has sparked concerns about potential politically motivated retaliation.
“Trump is suggesting that you ought to go to jail,” CNN’s Jim Acosta remarked to Thompson during the interview. “Are you concerned about him or the FBI pursuing you?” The congressman from Mississippi pointed out that he and his fellow lawmakers operated within their legislative responsibilities, following the specific laws that safeguard their efforts. He shared his hope that President Biden would take their situation into account if it ever reached that stage. Thompson expressed his belief that the committee acted appropriately and within the law, but he also recognized the unpredictable nature of the political landscape.
Acosta continued to dig deeper, pointing out that conversations happening within the administration—while not officially acknowledged—reportedly included the idea of preemptive pardons to protect against potential partisan backlash. Biden has repeatedly expressed that he isn’t particularly keen on granting widespread pardons, yet the mere discussion of it highlights the anxiety permeating the political landscape. The feeling of discomfort grows stronger with Trump’s public remarks and the looming possibility of him regaining power or exerting significant influence over federal agencies, which might be used to address personal grievances.
When asked directly about accepting a pardon, Thompson replied that, although it was ultimately up to the president, he would accept it if it were offered to him. He suggested that any possible pardon should also include the staffers and witnesses who played a role in the committee’s findings—many of whom were Republicans or long-serving officials giving their testimony under oath. Thompson commended them for their honesty and unwavering nature, highlighting that their testimonies had remained unchallenged and accurate. He insisted that everyone involved in the committee’s work had not committed perjury or any other criminal acts.
Thompson’s trust in the committee’s integrity is now facing new hurdles. After gaining the House majority in the 2022 midterm elections, Republican lawmakers have initiated their own inquiries into the methods used by the January 6 panel. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Administration Committee, put out an initial investigative report earlier this year. In it, he accused the January 6 committee of deleting records and withholding evidence. Loudermilk’s findings reveal that the previous committee did not hand over video recordings of witness interviews used in televised hearings. Additionally, it’s claimed that some files were either deleted or locked with passwords just days before the Republicans assumed control of the House.
If these allegations are accurate, they raise questions about Thompson’s claim that nothing inappropriate took place. Loudermilk’s report claims that the committee “deleted records and hid evidence,” which makes the historical record of the investigation more complicated. The subcommittee asserts that it has retrieved hundreds of files, including some that were deleted at a notably late point during the transition of House power, which could lead to concerns regarding transparency and the standards of record-keeping.
Trump has taken hold of these assertions. He took to Truth Social, his go-to social media platform, to accuse the committee, particularly former Vice Chair Liz Cheney, of obliterating vital evidence that could support his legal defense. In a post from January 2024, Trump claimed that the committee’s supposed actions rendered it “impossible” for his lawyers to adequately prepare for the ongoing legal battles, particularly those concerning January 6. He pointedly named Cheney and others, alleging that they were behind the removal of materials that contained evidence of his purported offer to send thousands of National Guard troops to secure the Capitol just days before the riot. Even though the committee’s final report mostly brushed aside Trump’s narrative, other accounts have surfaced indicating that there were indeed talks about bringing in extra security forces, though there were disagreements about the timing and manner of these communications.
Loudermilk’s office has now made public transcripts of what it refers to as “withheld” interviews, including a significant one with Anthony Ornato, who served as a deputy chief of staff in the Trump White House. Republican investigators have indicated that Ornato’s testimony, along with other evidence gathered, points to the conclusion that Trump’s White House did indeed ask for stronger security measures, such as National Guard support, which goes against some of the main assertions made by the original committee narrative.
Investigators uncovered another piece of hidden evidence showing that Trump explicitly instructed military leaders to “do whatever it takes” to secure the Capitol three days prior to the riot. Even with this directive in place, Christopher Miller, who was the acting Defense Secretary at the time, told the Defense Department inspector general during a March 2021 interview that he had no plans to deploy U.S. military forces to the Capitol that day. Miller’s supposed refusal highlights the continuing arguments about who is accountable for the security lapses that enabled rioters to invade the Capitol complex.
At the same time, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi called in thousands of armed National Guard troops to the Capitol and its nearby areas following the events of January 6. The strong security presence that has been in place for months following President Biden’s inauguration continues to be a contentious issue in the ongoing political debate about how the tragedy occurred and who is responsible
The discussion surrounding the January 6 committee’s efforts, how it managed evidence, and the truthfulness of its findings has turned into a highly divisive political conflict. Thompson, who previously led a process that many Democrats praised as essential for safeguarding democracy, now finds himself on the defensive, confronted with claims that the process he managed lacked full transparency and integrity.
Thompson’s willingness to accept a preemptive pardon from President Biden highlights the tense and uncertain nature of Washington’s political landscape right now. Once reserved for those who had clearly committed crimes or were facing legal trouble, the concept of pardon talk now reaches lawmakers themselves, who are increasingly worried about potential political prosecutions in future administrations. While there hasn’t been any official request or confirmation of a pardon, the idea that well-known politicians could need presidential clemency to protect themselves from backlash highlights the significant trust issues and doubts that exist in today’s government.
This complicated story is hard for the public to understand. A lot of Americans tuned in to the televised hearings of the January 6 committee, listened to chosen witnesses, and caught up on news articles that highlighted the panel’s findings. Some people took the committee’s story at face value, seeing it as mostly true, while others pushed back, arguing that it was edited in a biased way and driven by political agendas. The recent allegations from Republican investigators, along with the potential for Democrats on the committee to pursue pardons, only complicate an already tangled narrative.
With the upcoming political cycle on the horizon, it’s uncertain if Biden or any future president will think about granting pardons to lawmakers regarding the ongoing debate surrounding deleted files and the differing stories that have emerged. Thompson’s remarks on CNN underscore the seriousness with which some Democrats view Trump’s calls for retribution and the lengths they may go to protect themselves from a looming legal and political storm
Some might brush off Thompson’s comments as just speculation or a bit too early to take seriously, but they highlight a growing concern: as partisan divides widen, even those in Congress are starting to doubt whether their efforts, carried out under established legal frameworks, will shield them from targeted probes or prosecutions if the political landscape shifts. The very idea of preemptive pardons for lawmakers is a shocking indicator of our current reality—yet another reminder that the consequences of January 6 are still affecting the political landscape, reshaping norms and challenging the limits of what is deemed acceptable in American public life.
Summarized:
Rep. Bennie Thompson has indicated that he would be open to receiving a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden if it becomes necessary to safeguard members of the January 6 House Select Committee from possible retaliatory measures. Thompson played a crucial role in the committee, leading the eight-member group that looked into former President Donald Trump’s actions and the security lapses surrounding the Capitol breach. The committee spoke with numerous witnesses, gathered extensive documents, and shared its conclusions during prominent hearings. Supporters contended that the committee’s efforts highlighted attempts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, whereas critics asserted that it functioned with partisan motives and selectively disclosed evidence to influence the public narrative.
During a recent interview with CNN, Thompson spoke about the rising worries that those on the January 6 committee might find themselves under investigation or facing legal repercussions as retaliation for their efforts in examining the former president. Trump has often claimed that the committee members should be “behind bars,” which has sparked concerns about potential politically motivated retaliation. Thompson shared their hope that President Biden would take their situation into account if it ever reached that stage.
There have been talks among the administration about the potential for preemptive pardons to protect against partisan backlash. Biden has repeatedly expressed that he isn’t particularly keen on granting widespread pardons, yet the mere discussion of it highlights the palpable anxiety within the political sphere. Thompson mentioned that although the final call rests with the president, he would be open to accepting a pardon if it were extended to him. He also emphasized that any pardon should include the staffers and witnesses who played a role in the committee’s conclusions.
Republican lawmakers, who regained the House majority following the 2022 midterm elections, are once again questioning the methods used by the January 6 panel. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, who chairs the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Administration Committee, has put out an initial investigative report that claims the committee deleted records and withheld evidence. Loudermilk’s findings indicate that the earlier committee did not provide video recordings of witness interviews that were part of the televised hearings. Additionally, it appears that some files were either deleted or secured with passwords just days before the Republicans assumed control of the House. The allegations raise questions about Thompson’s claim that nothing wrong took place. Loudermilk’s report claims that the committee “deleted records and hid evidence,” making the historical record of the investigation more complicated.
Trump has jumped on these allegations, sharing on Truth Social and accusing the committee, particularly former Vice Chair Liz Cheney, of obliterating vital evidence that could support his legal case. Trump claimed that the committee’s supposed actions rendered it “impossible” for his lawyers to adequately prepare for the ongoing legal battles, particularly those concerning January 6. Nonetheless, different accounts have surfaced indicating that there were indeed talks about deploying extra security forces, though there are disagreements regarding the timing and manner of these communications.
Loudermilk’s office has now made public transcripts of what it refers to as “withheld” interviews, particularly highlighting one with Anthony Ornato, who served as a deputy chief of staff under Trump in the White House. Republican investigators have indicated that Ornato’s testimony, along with other evidence gathered, points to a request from Trump’s White House for stronger security measures, such as National Guard support, which goes against some of the main assertions made by the original committee narrative.
In a surprising turn of events, investigators uncovered that Trump had directly instructed military leaders to “do whatever it takes” to ensure the Capitol’s security a full three days prior to the riot. Even with this directive in place, Christopher Miller, who was the acting Defense Secretary at the time, told the Defense Department inspector general during a March 2021 interview that he had no plans to deploy U.S. military forces to the Capitol that day.
The discussion surrounding the January 6 committee’s efforts, how it managed evidence, and the truthfulness of its findings has turned into a highly divisive issue. Thompson’s willingness to accept a preemptive pardon from President Biden highlights the growing tension and unpredictability in Washington’s political landscape. With the upcoming political cycle on the horizon, it’s uncertain if Biden or any future president might think about granting pardons to lawmakers regarding the still-debated story of deleted files and differing narratives.
