Interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell is the Trump administration’s first big move to allay concerns about its hugely unpopular handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Friday wrapped up two days of interviews with Epstein’s convicted associate.
But there were already all kinds of reasons to be skeptical of this move and what it could produce, given the motivations of the two sides involved.
And President Donald Trump epitomized all of them in a major way on Friday.
While taking questions on his way to Scotland, Trump repeatedly held open the possibility of pardoning Maxwell for her crimes.
“Well, I don’t want to talk about that,” Trump said initially.
When pressed, he said, “It’s something I haven’t thought about,” while conspicuously adding, “I’m allowed to do it.”
This wouldn’t be the first time Trump has appeared to dangle a pardon over someone providing evidence that could impact him personally and politically. (In this case, he has demonstrated past personal ties to Epstein, and his administration is scrambling to clean up its botched handling of the Epstein files after previously promising to release them.)
A similar situation played out during the Russia investigation, when Trump repeatedly left open the possibility of pardoning key witnesses like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen. Critics alleged this amounted to obstruction of justice.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report didn’t draw conclusions on possible obstruction, but it did cite Trump’s pardon comments as “evidence” that Trump’s actions “had the potential to influence Manafort’s decision whether to cooperate with the government.”
Manafort indeed wound up being a decidedly uncooperative witness, with a bipartisan Senate report saying his repeated lies hamstrung its own investigation. And Trump later pardoned him in a move that could certainly be understood as a reward for his lack of cooperation.
That bit of history looms large here, given the parallels.
But Trump is really just exacerbating an already dubious situation. There were already plenty of reasons to be skeptical of this move to interview Maxwell, and nobody involved seems particularly bothered to address those problems or even combat the perception of them.
The first reason is the state of play in Maxwell’s criminal case.
It might seem far-fetched that Trump would ever pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker like Maxwell (even though he did “wish her well” after she was charged). But there are other things his administration could do to help her. Among them would be taking actions in her ongoing appeal of her 2021 conviction.
The Trump Justice Department has already taken highly suspect actions in another criminal case involving someone Trump wanted something politically from: New York Mayor Eric Adams. The administration earlier this year moved to dismiss the charges against Adams while suggestively citing its desire for the New York Democrat to assist in its crackdown on illegal immigration.
Multiple prosecutors resigned in protest, with one claiming it was a “quid pro quo” in her resignation letter. And the judge in the case appeared to sympathize.
“Everything here smacks of a bargain: Dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions,” the judge said.
Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus, has also been remarkably solicitous of Trump and the administration.
Last week he called Trump the “ultimate dealmaker” while claiming that the Justice Department had violated a deal with Maxwell. This week, he praised the Trump administration’s “commitment to uncovering the truth in this case” and said he and Maxwell were “grateful that the government is trying to uncover the truth.”
Markus on Friday also suggested an openness to a pardon.
“The president this morning said he had the power to do so,” Markus said, “and we hope he exercises that power in a right and just way.”
Indeed, also relevant here are the lawyers involved.
Critics have cried foul that the DOJ official interviewing Maxwell was Blanche, rather than a non-political prosecutor who has been involved in the case who would have much more expertise. Not only is Blanche a top political appointee of Trump’s; he’s also his formal personal lawyer.
“The conflict of interest is glaring,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday on X. “It stinks of high corruption.”
What’s more, Blanche appeared on a podcast last year with Markus and labeled him a “friend.”
“You are by far the best out there,” Blanche said.
But one of the biggest reasons to be skeptical is that Maxwell is someone the Trump Justice Department – the first one, at least – labeled a brazen liar.
Back in 2020, the DOJ charged Maxwell with two counts of perjury – on top of the more serious charges she faced – while citing a 2016 civil deposition she gave.
In the deposition, Maxwell claimed no knowledge of Epstein’s “scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages,” despite later being convicted of helping in the effort. She also claimed she didn’t know about Epstein possessing sex toys, which was contradicted by witnesses at her trial.
Maxwell’s lawyers at the time said “the questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed.”
She was never actually tried for perjury. After her conviction on the more serious charges, prosecutors agreed to dismiss the perjury charges if her conviction stood, citing a desire to avoid further emotional trauma for the victims.
But the Trump Justice Department in 2020 still called her credibility into question.
In a 2020 filing, it said Maxwell’s lies “should give the Court serious pause” about trusting her. It also said Maxwell’s “willingness to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct … strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable for her crimes.”
All of that would seem relevant to today, especially given Trump’s demonstrated willingness to wield his power to help people who help him – whether using pardons or anything else. Maxwell, who has years left in her 20-year prison sentence, clearly has motivation to say things Trump wants.
That doesn’t mean the interviews of Maxwell couldn’t glean something important. Even witnesses with credibility problems can provide important information, if it’s corroborated with other evidence.
But right now, Trump and Co. aren’t trying very hard to make this situation look kosher. And Trump’s pardon comments take that to another level.
