Posted on April 12 2018
Paul. Stop. Just. Stop.
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT 4/12/2018
Before we jump into Manafort’s response. Here’s a refresher course, this is the Original May 17, 2017 👉🏻Order.
As you can see, there’s a factual statement, regulations and defined scope.
In Manafort’s filing, he once again tries to conflate 28 CFR §600 et seq, see GPO 👉🏻link👈🏻 Specifically zeroing in on: §600.4 Jurisdiction. The statute is clear, upon appointment the Special Counsel IS granted Original Jurisdiction. Further: (b) Additional jurisdiction AND (c) Civil and Administration jurisdiction, *may* be granted, provided the Special Counsel:
”he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.”.
This is applicable to both Additional & Civil Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 CFR §600.4 (a), (b) and (c)
- (a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be es- tablished by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and pros- ecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investiga- tion, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and in- timidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
Which makes Manafort’s argument (pages 8 & 9 of 31) nonsensical. In one sentence there’s an acknowledgment that Original Jurisdiction is granted but then Manafort goes on to argue Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein should have “ordered” a separate order granting the Special Counsel Jurisdiction.
- If the Acting Attorney General did not want to include certain information in the Appointment Order, he could have issued a separate, confidential grant of “original” jurisdiction with the requisite specific factual statement; or he could later have issued a confidential order granting “additional” jurisdiction over specified matters. See 28 C.F.R. § 600.4.
- ..” nothing in the Special Counsel Regulations authorizes vague grants of “and anything else” authority as part of original jurisdiction, followed by a “clarification” of included matters nearly three months into the Special Counsel’s investigation...”
- “The Special Counsel Regulations authorize grants of original jurisdiction that are limited to a “specific factual statement”; they do not authorize unbounded grants followed by after-the-fact clarifications”
As previously discussed on April 3 via this entry ( link) the DAG Rosenstein August 2, 2017 additional memo. Granting Special Counsel Mueller “additional jurisdiction” pursuant to 28 CFR §600.4 (a) (b) (c) ...I didn’t catch it the first time. But of you look closely you will see what I mean.
With zero doubt there are OTHER DAG Rosenstein memos/orders. And here’s my proof in concept. Re-read the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph. The redactions also imply that information might be related to other parts of this wide ranging investigation. I suppose that’s what Manafort’s legal team also caught which might explain the linguistic gymnastics going on in today’s filing.
Which may, in some respect explains Manafort’s “clairifcation...jurisdiction and specific facts” argument. My guess (so take that with a grain of salt) is Manafort’s sole purpose is to have the Count find the “Appointment & Order & Scope” of the Special Counsel is unlawful, therefore any indictments should be dismissed because Manafort’s position is: “the Special Counsel is unchecked and he had cashed this blank check over and over”.
I could go into the gritty details, paragraph by paragraph that would be painful, given my proclivity of typos and grammatical errors.
Here’s an open source 👉🏻link👈🏻 to Manafort’s 31 page filing
But I surmise Manafort really has a few goals in mind:
- Question the authority and scope of the Appointment of a Special Counsel
- Force Mueller’s hand to disclose evidence of investigation(s) unrelated to Manafort but may in fact touch Trump, Trump’s Family, Trump Staffers and most importantly Kushner.
- Manafort proving his “loyalty” to not only his Ukrainian/Russian “partners” but also to Trump.
Which makes me ask, yet again...does Manafort have a cooperating defense agreement in place with Trump or Trump surrogates. And my parting thoughts, this Washington Post Clip from last month. -Spicy Out
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.