There’s No Point in Pardoning Paul Manafort

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Everyone is talking about whether Donald Trump will pardon Paul Manafort. Today, for example, the New York Times reports that Trump has discussed the idea with his lawyers:

Mr. Giuliani had said in an interview on Wednesday that he and Mr. Trump had discussed the political fallout should the president grant a pardon to Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman who was convicted of financial fraud this week, adding that one was not under consideration. Mr. Giuliani told The Washington Post earlier on Thursday that the president had asked his lawyers for their advice on pardoning Mr. Manafort, though Mr. Giuliani characterized the discussions to The New York Times as instigated by the lawyers, not the president.

I don’t get this.  My understanding is that if Manafort is pardoned, he no longer has a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. After all, he can’t be convicted of anything no matter what he says. This means he can be questioned under oath and he has to answer.

Isn’t this the worst possible position for Trump to be in? Either Manafort sings like a canary or else he risks lying, in which case he gets a brand new indictment for making false statements—which isn’t covered by the pardon. In one case, Trump is toast, and in the other the pardon did no good.

What am I getting wrong here?


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend