3 Main Takeaways From NY Times’ Bombshell Flynn, Manafort Pardon Report

Wednesday’s report by the Times, hinging on information from “three people with knowledge of the [pardon] discussions,” raises questions as to the real reason behind Trump cutting ties with his lead attorney on the Russia probe.

Dowd, however, said there never were any such discussions with Flynn and Manafort lawyers.

“There were no discussions. Period,” he said. “As far as I know, no discussions.”

2) Other Trump lawyers said there were no pardon discussions, but Flynn and Manafort’s lawyers declined to comment

Trump lawyers Jay Sekulow and Ty Cobb squashed the story, saying that there have been no pardon discussions.

“Never during the course of my representation of the president have I had any discussions of pardons of any individual involved in this inquiry,” Sekulow said.

Cobb said that only the press has asked about pardons.

“I have only been asked about pardons by the press and have routinely responded on the record that no pardons are under discussion or under consideration at the White House,” he said.

Flynn’s lawyer Robert Kelner and Manafort’s lawyer Reginald Brown did not comment.

3) Legal experts do not agree on whether a pardon offer amounts to obstruction of justice

As the Times said, people in the legal world are not all in agreement on pardons adding up to obstruction of justice since the president of the United States has power through the Constitution to pardon those charged or convicted federally.

While Duke University Law Prof. Samuel Buell said that Mueller might be able to argue a conspiracy was afoot and that Dowd’s alleged conversations could be included to prove that, Harvard University Law Prof. Jack Goldsmith said that “It would be very difficult to look at the president’s motives in issuing a pardon to make an obstruction case.”