Should Biden Pardon Trump’s Critics? Former G.W. Bush Official Makes the Case

>> WELL, WHEN JANUARY 6th, SHOOK AMERICA.

FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIAL PAUL ROSENZWEIG SPOKE.

NOW, NEAR HE FOUR YEARS ON, TRUMP IS RETURNS TO THE WHITE HOUSE AS PRESIDENT.

AND HAS VOWED TO GO AFTER POLITICAL RIVALS.

THIS COULD INCLUDE THOSE WHO HAVE SPOKESSEN OUT AGAINST THEM.

AND ROSEN ZWEIG ARGUES.

HE JOINS MICHELLE MARTIN TO DISCUSS HIS CONCERNS.

>> THANKS, BIANNA.

PAUL ROSEN ZWEIG.

THANKS FOR COMING ON.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> YOU SAY BIDEN HAS ACCESS TO PARDONS AND SHOULD USE IT.

>> THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF 52EM WHO OPPOSE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION, AGAINST WHOM THE PRESIDENT-ELECT HAS THREATENED LEGAL VENGEANCE.

HE HAS THREATENED TO UNLEASH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE HIS ENEMIES.

HE'S ACCUSED SOME OF THEM OF TREASON.

HE'S ACCUSED MANY OF OTHERS OF BREAKING THE LAW.

AND EVEN THOUGH THOSE SORTS OF PROSECUTIONS ARE UNLIKELY IN THE LONG RUN TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE COURTS, THE EXPENSE AND PRESSURE OF BEING UNDER INVESTIGATION IS ITSELF A SIGNIFICANT COST.

AND SO PRESIDENT BIDEN OUGHT TO CONSIDER GRANTING PARDONS LIBERALLY TO THOSE OF HIS SUPPORTERS WHO ARE IN THE CROSS- HAIRS OF DONALD TRUMP'S VENGEANCE CAMPAIGN.

>> YOU SAID HE SHOULD PARDON ALL OF TRUMP'S MOST PROMINENT CRITICS?

YOU TALKING ABOUT LIZ CHENEY, THE FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN?

MILITARY LEADERS, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHN KELLY.

WRITERS, LIKE BILL CRYSTAL?

DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER IN MIND OF HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU THINK HE SHOULD CONSIDER?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S A HUGE NUMBER.

YOU'VE NAMED SOME OF THE MOST PROMINENT TRUMP CRITICS, WHO HE HAS EXPRESSLY THREATENED.

HE'S NEVER THREATENED ME, SO I DON'T THINK I NEED A PARDON, FOR EXAMPLE.

BUT I DO THINK THAT HE HAS EXPRESSED A WILLINGNESS TO USE THE LEGAL SYSTEM AGAINST NOT JUST REPUBLICANS BUT SOME OF HAS DEMOCRATIC OPPONENTS.

LIKE NANCY PELOSI AND ADAM SCHIFF.

WHOM HE HAS CALLED CRIMINALS AND HAS THREATENED TO BRING TO JUSTICE.

AND OBVIOUSLY, HIS NOMINATION OF MATT GAETZ AS THE ENFORCER AND CHIEF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

KIND OF GIVES THAT HE MEANS IT MOST SERIOUSLY.

>> SOME WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF HIS REALM, THEY TAKE HIM LITERALLY BUT NOT SERIOUSLY.

BUT YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN BOTH SERIOUSLY AND LITERALLY?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT DONALD TRUMP'S HISTORY OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS GIVES US EVIDENCE OF THAT.

THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SAID, DON'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY, SAID THAT ABOUT HIS CALLS ON JANUARY 6th, FOR WILD BEHAVIOR.

AND YET IT BECAME BOTH LITERAL AND SERIOUS AND AN ASSAULT ON THE CAPITOL.

WHEN HE SAID, I'M GOING TO GIVE RFK JR. CART BLANCHE OVER THE HEALTHCARE OF THE UNITED STATES, PEOPLE SAID, OH, THAT'S NOT SERIOUS, IT'S NOT LITERAL.

AND YET HE'S ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO NOMINATE RFK JR. TO BE HEAD OF HHS.

HERE'S ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO NOMINATE A NUMBER OF CABINET MEMBERS, NONE OF WHOM SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, EXCEPT THAT THEY WILL SERIOUSLY HAVE THESE RESPONSIBILITIES.

MATT GAETZ HAS SAID THAT HE INTENDS TO FIGURATIVELY BREAK HEADS, I THINK, WAS THE QUOTE, AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THAT'S --YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT WHAT TRUMP SAYS HE MEANS IS WHAT HE ACTUALLY INTENDS TO DO.

>> YOU SAY THAT DEMOCRATS IN IT BEING HAVE TREATED TRUMP AS, QUOTE, AN ABERRATION AND NOT A PHENOMENON?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS?

AND WHY YOU THINK THIS SHIFT OF THINKING NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE?

>> WELL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT TRUMP'S CRITICS, AND I INCLUDE MYSELF AMONGST THEM, HAVE MADE A STRATEGIC ERROR.

WHEN HE FIRST CAME ON THE SCENE.

HE THOUGHT HE WAS JUST AN ABERRATION.

THAT IS A BLACK SWAN PHENOMENA, THAT WOULD COME AND PASS AWAY.

AND IF YOU THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT SOMEBODY IS OR SOME PHENOMENA IS, THEN YOU DON'T CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR.

YOU THINK, THIS, TOO, SHALL PASS.

AND WE SHOULD MAINTAIN STANDARDS, MAINTAIN OUR FIDELITY TO NORMS OF BEHAVIOR.

THIS IS WHAT MICHELLE OBAMA MEANT WHEN SHE SAID, WHEN THEY GO LOW, WE GO HIGH.

WE'RE GOING TO STAY UP HERE AND TREAT AMERICA LIKE AMERICA.

BUT WHAT HAS BECOME CLEAR OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, TO ME, AT LEAST, AND MOST --SALIENTLY, OF COURSE, WITH TRUMP'S RE- ELECTION, EARLIER THIS MONTH.

IS THAT HE IS NOT AN ABERRATION.

HE'S A PHENOMENA.

HE'S A MOVEMENT.

AND HIS MOVEMENT ENGAGES IN NORM-BREAKING BEHAVIOR.

YOU KNOW, NOMINATING PEOPLE, MAN FIRSTLY UNQUALIFIED TO LEAD THE GOVERNMENT.

NOT BECAUSE HE REALLY WANTS THEM TO LEAD THE GOVERNMENT, BUT BECAUSE HE WANTS THEM TO BREAK THE GOVERNMENT.

AND IF YOU THINK THAT'S WHO HE IS.

IF YOU THINK THAT'S WHAT TRUMP IS ABOUT, THEN YOU HAVE TO CHANGE HOW YOU RESPOND IN KIND.

HAVE YOU TO START USING ALL OF YOUR COUNTER LEVERS OF POWER AS AGGRESSIVELY AS YOU REASONABLY CAN.

WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW.

EVEN IF IT IS NOT "NORMAL BEHAVIOR" AS WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT 10 YEARS AGO.

>> IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT BOLDER MEASURES ARE NEEDED TO COUNTERACT THIS PHENOMENON THAT MADE YOU THINK, WELL THIS IS IT?

>> FOR ME, IT WAS JANUARY 6th.

BEFORE THAT, I WAS OF THE VIEW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IT WAS REALLY A BAD IDEA, PRUDENTIALLY, TO PROSECUTE A FORMER PRESIDENT.

THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD DO SO, WE SHOULDN'T BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO BECOME LIKE OTHER COUNTRIES, WHERE EVERY TURN OF THE POLITICAL WHEEL RESULTED IN A PROSECUTION OF THE FORMER OFFICE FOLD.

JANUARY 6th MADE IT CLEAR TO ME, AND I THINK TO MUCH OF THE COUNTRY, THOUGH APPARENTLY NOT A MAJORITY, THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS INTENT UPON BREAKING THE SYSTEM, AS MUCH AS HE WAS ABOUT UPHOLDING IT.

AND THAT IF THE SYSTEM WAS GOING TO SUSTAIN ITSELF, IT HAD TO RESPOND IN KIND.

SO FOR ME, THAT MOMENT MADE ME CHANGE THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF MY BELIEF AND SUPPORT THE SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTIONS OF TRUMP, PARTICULARLY THE VIOLATIONS OF ACTIONS ON JANUARY 6th.

AND YEAH.

FOR OTHER PEOPLE, IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT AT TIMES.

BUT I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, A NUMBER OF MY FRIENDS, SEE HIS NOMINATION OF TULSI GABBARD, A RUSSIAN APOLOGIST, IF YOU WILL, TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, AS ONE OF THOSE BREAKING THE PARADIGM MOMENTS THAT CALLS FOR BREAKING YOUR OWN RESPONSE PARADIGM.

>> YOU'VE ALSO WRITTEN THAT IT HAS BECOME PAINFULLY SELF- EVIDENT THAT DEMOCRATIC SELF- RESTRAINT IS A FORM OF UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT.

CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT WHY YOU THINK THIS SELF RESTRAINT HAS HINDERED DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS WHO FIND TRUMP'S BEHAVIOR OBJECTIONABLE.

NOT JUST OBJECTIONABLE.

BUT DANGEROUS.

>> WELL, CONSIDER THE ARC OF THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY.

WHEN PRESIDENT BIDEN TOOK OFFICE.

HE HAD TWO PATHS HE COULD TAKE.

ONE WAS THE NORMAL PATH OF LEGISLATING AROUND TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES, EXPANDING HEALTHCARE, INFLATION REDUCTION ACTS.

THE BIPARTISAN ACT.

OR HE COULD HAVE TREATED THIS AS A CRITICAL MOMENT, IN WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY SHOULD HAVE --COULD HAVE BEEN STRENGTHENING THE ELECTRICAL GUARDRAILS AGAINST TRUMP'S STRENGTH.

LIMITING THE POSSIBILITIES FOR AN EXECUTIVE TO EXERCISE UNILATERAL POWER.

HE CHOSE THE FORMER OF THOSE PATHS.

AS DID THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THIS PRESIDENCY.

THAT WAS, IN LARGE PART, BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T BRING THEMSELVES TO BELIEVE.

AND IN FACT, NOR COULD I, COULDN'T BRING HIMSELF TO BELIEVE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD RETURN TO THE ABERRATION OF DONALD TRUMP AND MAKE HIM A PHENOMENON.

THEY DIDN'T DO THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE STRENGTHENED THEIR ABILITY TO RESIST TRUMPIAN EXCESS.

THINGS LIKE LIMITING MILITARY POWERS.

THINGS LIKE INSULATING AGAINST WHAT TRUMP HAS NOW PROPOSED, WHICH IS A WHOLESALE FIRING OF DISLOYAL GENERALS.

ADOPTING A LAW, PROPOSING TO BRING IN TWO MORE STATES THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM FOUR MORE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS.

ALL OF THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREME THINGS THAT WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT UNNECESSARY UP UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO.

BUT NOW, IN THE FACE OF DONALD TRUMP'S PROMISES, SEEM PAL POSSIBLY ESSENTIAL.

>> YOU SAY THAT DEMOCRATS NEED TO CONSIDER, UNPRECEDENTED LEGAL TACTICS AT THIS POINT.

SO THE TRAIN HAS LEFT THE STATION, WHEN IT IT COMES TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS HAD NOT ONLY THE WHITE HOUSE.

BUT THEY ALSO HAD THE SENATE.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE THINGS NOW.

SO NOW WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?

AND WHEN YOU SAY, "RESPONDING IN KIND," WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> THERE'S A HOST OF THINGS RANGING FROM LARGE TO SMALL.

A SMALL EXAMPLE.

I THINK THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN SHOULD CONSIDER NOT ATTENDING DONALD TRUMP'S INAUGURATION.

>> HMM.

>> BECAUSE DOING SO, SENDS A SYMBOLIC MESSAGE OF NORMALIZING TRUMP.

AND HE SHOULDN'T BE NORMALIZED.

THAT'S A SMALL THING.

IT'S A NORM-BREAKER, IT'S NOT A HUGE LIFT.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, AND THE TIME THAT IS LEFT TO IT, SHOULD CONSIDER DOING EVERYTHING IT POSSIBLY CANNING TO STRENGTHEN THE UKRAINIAN HAND.

BECAUSE WE KNOW THE FIRST THING THAT TRUMP WILL DO WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE, IS SELL THAT POOR COUNTRY OUT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN.

GOING FORWARD, I THINK THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE ALREADY STARTING TO SEE, LIKE WITH GOVERNOR NEWSOM AND GOVERNOR PRITZKER IN CALIFORNIA AND ILLINOIS.

STRENGTHENING STATE LAWS, AS RESISTERS TO FEDERAL ACTIVITY.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT SHOULD BE DONE.

THAT A STATE SHOULD PASS LAWS, RESISTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND TRYING TO UNDERMINE FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

BUT NOW, IT SEEMS A REASONABLE STEP TO TAKE, IN ORDER TO ERECT AS MANY BARRIERS AS POSSIBLE, TO, FOR EXAMPLE, TRUMP'S THREAT TO USE THE NATIONAL GUARD, TO DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

A STATE LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, PROHIBITING ANY STATE'S NATIONAL GUARD FROM BEING FEDERALIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE, WOULD BE AN EXTREME STEP.

BUT ONE THAT MAY VERY WELL BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY.

>> WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE THAT SAY, LOOK, IF THE DEMOCRATS AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZE DONALD TRUMP ENGAGED IN THAT CONDUCT, THEN OUR CIVIC SPACE IS FURTHER CORRUPTED, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> I SAY THEY'RE RIGHT.

AND I WAS WITH THEM AT THE START.

THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE I EVER WROTE ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, WAS ENTITLED, DEFENDING NORMS BY DEFENDING NORMS.

AND IT WAS ARGUING FOR THE STYLE OF THINKING THAT I'VE CHARACTERIZED AS THE ORIGINAL STRATEGIC ERROR.

AND I SAY THAT WE'RE RIGHT.

IF WE TRANSGRESS NORMS ON MY SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT.

THE WORLD --WE'RE GOING TO PORTION THE DEBATE.

BUT IT STRIKES ME AS HIGHLY LIKELY, THAT DONALD TRUMP IS TO BREAK THE SENATE.

AND IF THE SENATE DOESN'T FIGHT BACK AS MUCH AND AS STRONGLY AS IT CAN, IT WILL LOSE ITS POWER.

AND WE'LL BE AT A PLACE, IN TWO YEARS, WHERE IT'S JUST A RUBBER STAMP.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S A RISKY MOVE.

I ADMIT THAT COMPLETELY.

BUT IT SEEMS ALMOST ESSENTIAL AT THIS POINT.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO IT, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE WILL BURN DOWN.

>> YOU'VE POINTED TO GOING TO FORD'S PARDON.

AND CARTER'S PARDON OF PEOPLE WHO AVOIDED THE DRAFT.

THERE ARE THOSE WHO SEE IT AS A GESTURE TOWARD NATIONAL RECONCILIATION.

I WONDER IF YOU SEE YOUR ARGUMENT TO THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION THAT THEY SHOULD EMBRACE THIS.

DO YOU SEE IT IN THAT REALM OR AS SOMETHING ELSE?

>> WELL, I SEE IT PARTIALLY IN THAT REALM.

I MEAN, THE IDEA OF PARDONS TO BRING NATIONAL PEACE HAS A LONG HISTORY.

WASHINGTON --GEORGE WASHINGTON PARDONED THE WHISKEY REBELS IN THE WHISKEY REBELLION.

IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CIVIL WAR, ANDREW JOHNSON PARDONED THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS.

NOT THE LEADERS.

HE EVEN PARDONED SAMUEL MUDD.

AFTER BOOTH ASSASSINATED LINCOLN.

SO TO SOME DEGREE, THIS IS AN EFFORT TO MAKE PEACE.

BUT TO ANOTHER DEGREE, I THINK IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.

IT'S THE PARDON TO DO JUSTICE IN RESPONSE TO UNJUST ACTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES.

RIGHT?

WE HAVE A HISTORY OF THAT AS WELL.

FOR EXAMPLE, JACK JOHNSON, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN BOXER, WAS PROSECUTED FOR THE MAN ACT, FOR PROSECUTING WHO HAPPENED TO BE HIS WIFE.

THIS WILL ALSO PARTAKE, I THINK, IF BIDEN DOES WHAT I RECOMMEND, WHICH I'M GUESSING HE WON'T DO, BUT WE'LL SEE.

BUT IF HE DOES WHAT I SAY, IF HAS THAT ASPECT OF PREVENTING WILLIE CONWAY, ADAM SCHIFF, NANCY PELOSI, FROM BEING IMPROPERLY AND UNJUSTLY TARGETED, WITH THE FULL MIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

>> YOU DON'T REALLY THINK HE'S GOING TO DO IT.

BUT YOU HAVE SAID, THIS IS THE NOT TIME TO HOLD BACK.

THIS IS THE TIME TO TAKE BOLD ACTION.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU FEEL AT ALL SURPRISED BY YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW ON THIS.

YOU WERE SPEAKING ABOUT YOUR OWN LAWYERLY RESTRAINT.

BUT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS, IN FACT, A VERY RADICAL THING.

FOR AT LEAST ESTABLISHMENT WASHINGTON.

IS THERE ANY PART OF YOU THAT IS SURPRISED BY THAT?

>> ALL OF IT.

ALL OF IT.

TIAM NOT ONLY A WASHINGTON LAWYER, AND TRADITIONAL LAWYER.

I AM A TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE WASHINGTON LAWYER.

I WORKED FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

IN 1983, I JOINED THE FED FEDERALIST SOCIETY.

THIS IS NOT WHO I CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE.

STILL.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT SEEMS TO ME, IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE FACTS ON THE GROUND CHANGED.

WE'RE NOT ARGUING ABOUT, YEAH, WHAT THE RIGHT TAX POLICY IS.

OVER WHETHER THE EPA REGULATES BENZENE.

OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ANYMORE.

WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS --YEAH, FRANKLY, THE SAME THING THAT BECAME CLEAR TO PEOPLE LIKE ME, LIKE LIZ CHENEY, THAT DONALD TRUMP IS TRANSGRESSIVE.

IN HIS NATURE.

HE IS A MOLD BREAKER.

AND IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO SEE HIM AS WHAT HE TRULY IS.

AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRACY.

NOW, PEOPLE WILL SAY, THAT'S EXTREME.

AND I HOPE, LIKE HECK, THAT I AM OVERSTATING IT, OVERSTATING THE THREAT.

BUT I THINK OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST EIGHT YEARS SAYS NOT.

AND THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO WEEKS, SUPER SAYS NOT.

AS TRUMP BEGINS TO ROLL OUT HIS INITIATIVES FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION.

AND WITH THAT IN MIND, IF YOU THINK THAT DEMOCRACY IS IMPORTANT, YOU HAVE TO STAND UP AND DEFEND IT.

YOU CAN'T OBEY IN ADVANCE.

YOU HAVE TO STAND UP AND STAND OUT.

>> PAUL ROSENZWEIG, THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON.