And, while the debate rages on back and forth, there is an aspect of all these pardons (from both sides) that has been vastly overlooked.
Often during court testimony, questioning by authorities, or other investigations, a person to whom an inquiry is imposed may simply decline to answer asserting that it would violate their rights to not self-incriminate. You'll often see a co-defendant who is granted immunity by the prosecution so that they can then freely offer testimony against the remaining defendants.
With the pardons, it means that people like Liz Cheney can be drug before a committee, placed under oath, and fully questioned about her role on the J6 tv production. It means that Dr. Ouchi can be fully questioned about his funding and cover-up of the gain of function situation.
And here's the kicker: IF they lie while under oath about those things (and it can be proven), the pardons do not protect them. . . . .