Posted on August 29 2018
As not so widely reported late yesterday afternoon the Government, by way of Special Counsel Mueller’s Office (SCMO) filed a flurry of documents to the Paul Manafort DC Trial docket. This entry is a decent primer of what has been previously filed by way of a Joint Pretrial Statement, filed on August 24th, entry found here.
Paul Manafort DC Trial
As you may recall, similar to the run up to Manafort’s EDVA Trial the docket can and does run at breakneck speed, that it’s almost entirely impossible to keep up, almost. To that end, I’d like to, for once and for all settle the outstanding issue that has lingered over Manafort’s EDVA Trial.
Selective Prosecution Argument - EDVA
I know for many of my readers and twitter followers, my twitter threads & various blog entries dissecting the subsequent Court motions may be completely foreign to you and it may be slightly confusing. If you’re not accustomed to the Judicial Process, it can be vexing. Simplistically speaking, pretrial motions are essentially the “agreed upon” rules of engagement of terms and conditions (Ts&Cs), that both parties agree to before the trial starts, all of which needs to conform to the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure. Notwithstanding if a party deviates from the agreed upon Ts&Cs, that can cause Courtroom drama and potentially lead to a mistrial.
As such on June 22, 2018 SCMO filed the following (document no 89 on the Manafort EDVA docket):
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence and Argument by USA as to Paul J. Manafort, Jr (emphasis added)
🔥INCOMING— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) June 22, 2018
“Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 &
403, the Court should therefore preclude Manafort from raising these issues before the jury.”
“motion for “selective or vindictive prosecution”
serve primarily as a basis for jury nullification or otherwise confuse the jury pic.twitter.com/sWkDiMZr6r
And then came the August 15th, twitter beef. In general I don’t like getting into twitter fights, because arguing on twitter is largely counterproductive. Below is the exchange where a reporter who was in the Courtroom told me, that I was mistaken and the Washington Post “jumped the gun”. I attempted to bow out of that exchange in a graceful manner. Which ironic because I’m not a graceful person, at all. I’m a type-A personality, who’s hardwired to be a tenacious pit bull, I’m also pretty stubborn. But sometimes it is just better to let someone else have the last word.
This is the exchange I’m referring to— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) August 15, 2018
Did the Wash Post get it wrong or misinterpreted the exchange?
I’m not sure what we are arguing about.
It was Andres who said the audit (which touches on the civil audit pretrial motion would not be referenced)https://t.co/3PriLRcCOG pic.twitter.com/JnrOg2tLcW
It may come as a surprise to you, that yes, I actually read every document I tweet or blog about. From start to finish, I read it all. As such the downside is, it took me a few days to plow through the >1,286 pages uploaded to Manafort’s DC Docket. I’ve repeatedly said: always read the Exhbits and Transcripts.
Manafort DC Trial:
Buried in the SCMO’s August 24th filing in Manafort’s DC Trial, was the actual August 15th Transcript, detailing what appears to be a lengthy discussion between prosecutors, defense counsel and Judge Ellis.MFurthermore Document 381-1, Motion to Exclude Evidence, Link found here. The Government explicitly states that on August 15th, during Manafort’s EDVA Trial, Defense Counsel violated Judge Ellis’ Pretrial Order, which precluded all parties from arguing alleged “selective prosecution”. As detailed in yesterday’s twitter thread, the proof is in the actual Transcripts. That’s not Spicy’s Opinion, those are verifiable facts as detailed in the Courtroom Transcript, see blow:
At some point you’ll get it:— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) August 26, 2018
“believes that, given the defense’s prior violations of a court order barring arguments about alleged selective prosecution..be prepared to issue a stronger curative instruction to the jury should the defense ignore a similar order from this Court” pic.twitter.com/HaVHChrDXs
DC NEW Trial Date September 27th:
As previously discussed we are closing in on the start of Manafort’s DC Trial. His DC Trial was originally scheduled for September 17, 2018, late yesterday Judge Berman Jackson via a minute order, set a new trial date of September 21, 2018. See minute entry below
For you docket wonks (Doc # 389-5), yesterday SCMO filed multiple documents, personally speaking Exhibit E is my favorite, thus far. Previously the Government disclosed it had more than 1,000 pieces of evidence, but I don’t think any of us expected to see what was itemized in Exhibit E.
Oh🔥MY🔥GOD— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) August 28, 2018
An INSANE amount of Evidence, nearly 2,127 proposed exhibits.
Granted the parties will vociferously fight over what the DC-Manafort Jury can see.
Open Source Linkhttps://t.co/vTOt0hLAqn
cc @lauferlaw @TrueFactsStated @aliasvaughn @911CORLEBRA777 @ericgarland pic.twitter.com/iQ7pxnDXAL
Let’s go ahead and unpack Exhibit E, becuase there’s a lot of information in the public domain and I noticed yesterday some disinformation started rearing it’s ugly head.
Exhibits 5-8, detailed call reports, are what strongly appears to line up with SCMO’s June 2018 Revoke & Remand Motion, specifically Exhibit N, document no 315-16, see June 2018 Twitter thread below:
You IDIOT you used WhatsApp ‘gawd you deserve to be remanded just for that Paul...have you NOT looked at van der Zwaan or the DDC opinions on WhatsApp?— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) June 5, 2018
All of it, Mueller has ALL of IT pic.twitter.com/oF5A73bZSd
See Exhibit No 53 1/8/2015 Email- Subject: Re: Trump - UBS Mortgage
Well lucky for you, I had previously researched a LOT of Paul Manafort’s real estate portfolio. Specifically on November 2, 2006 Paul Manafort via his shell company: John Hannah LLC, purchase TRUMP TOWER, 721 FIFTH AVENUE, 43G for $3.675M (see NYC Property Records Document Number: 2006111301998002)
What many overlooked is in January of 2015 the Trump Tower Condo #43-G (remember Manafort paid CASH for this property in 2006) John Hannah LLC (Manafort’s shell company) transferred the Deed to Paul & Kathleen Manafort. See NYC Property Record, Documemt No: 2015022400401003:
According to NYC’s property tax records, on April 4, 2015, the Manafort’s obtained a $3M loan from USB for their Trump Tower Condo 43-G, as detailed in document number: 2015041400033001:
The USB Loan/Mortgage for Mr & Mrs Manafort’s Trump Tower Condo 43-G matures in 2040. Based on my limited research I can not determine if the Manaforts have defaulted on this mortgage.
Notwithstanding in February of 2018, while Manafort continued to struggle to come up with his $10M bond, the government filed a response to Manafort’s Motion for Reconsideration of Release. Document No 183-1, I refer you to pages 3-5, specifically Page 4, where the Government states that Manafort’s Trump Tower Condo No 43-G had a $3M mortgage with USB, See motion here.
For those of us who have tried to follow Manafort’s Criminal Trials, yesterday’s filing didn’t have a lot of surprises. I think what was astounding was the voluminous amount of exhibits. In Manafort’s EDVA Criminal Trial, the Government entered some 400+ exhibits. Last week many of us expected that the Government had a lot of evidence, based on the August 16, 2018 filing, this was the first clue just how much evidence the Government has amassed over the course of their investigation.
Manafort DC Trial— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) August 16, 2018
“..has provided counsel with well over
🚨1000 proposed exhibits🚨
most of which have not been a part of the [EDVA] trial ”
Paul you already received 1 delay now you want another?
That’s a LOT of Evidence
cc @TrueFactsStated @ericgarland @aliasvaughn pic.twitter.com/mfE6vxDA6q
I’ve taken the liberty of translating the various exhibits (emails) that use Cryillic in the subject line. Granted I used a Chrome translator, so the translations might be incorrect and I don’t have any Russian friends who could translate the email subject line for me.
What I did find interesting is, Manafort’s DC Criminal Trial, it certainly appears that FARA, FBAR and Manafort’s Foreign Lobbying work will take center stage. For your edification I’ve created a mini cheat sheet for you, along with the list of Lobbying firms, lobbyists and other interested parties that are detailed in SCMO’s proposed exhibits.
I have previously dissected Paul Manafort’s FARA Filing, entry found here. Shortly thereafter I created a secondary and deeper FARA dive. I also compared the Government’s June 2018 filing, which disclosed that (allegedly) Manafort by way of Konstantin Kilimnik attempted to tamper with a witness and thus landing Manafort in to custody, link to the follow up FARA entry can be found here.
Manafort’s FARA #6440
Podesta Group FARA # 5926, I’ve taken the liberty of exporting their FARA Filing, link to raw data found here. I isolated the timeframe to reflect the dates disclosed in the Government’s filing, RAW FARA data can be found here. You simply need to cut and paste the URL link in a web browser and it will take you to directly to the FARA Filing.
Mercury Public Affairs FARA # 6170: if you take the time to review the Government’s Exhbit E, you will see a name that repeatedly shows up Vin Weber. I now refer you to pages pages, 22-27, again here’s an open sorce link to Exhibit E, document no 398-5.
What you may NOT know is Vin Weber’s full name is: John Vincent Weber, as disclosed in 2013 FARA # 6170 filing for Government of Mauritius. I now refer you to pages 1,3 and 8 of the FARA Filing.
Wonder how much Ed Royce & Dana Rohrabacher are freaking out. As you probably noticed in the filing there are multiple entries for LDA, here’s the LDA Senate disclosures for both the Podesta Group & Mercury, both firms lobbied on behalf of: European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. Link found here. The interesting nugget I found was this particular 2012 LDA disclosure where then Congressman Vin Weber met with these firms. 2012 LDA link found here.
Also I would be remissed if I didn’t acknowledge that “project veritas” has 4 entries (Number 1350, 1371, 1395, 1407), for the love of ALL things holy, I seriously doubt this has anything to do with James O’Keefe’s project veritas. Why? Because if you have access to various databases, like Lexis Nexis, you can actually figure out what “project veritas” is in the Exhbit E. It’s NOT O’Keefe. Reasonable deduction coupled with actual research indicates in 2012-2014 there was a massive shipping law change that could greatly impact the Ukraine. Granted I could be wrong but mother of gawd stop trying to make “fetch happen”...
This is unequivocally FALSE that I am literally slamming my head on my desk.— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) August 29, 2018
1) look at the timeframe 2012-2013 UKRAINE
2) there was a massive shipping issue in Ukraine surrounding
3) Bureau Veritas is the “project”https://t.co/1uFGfVy9Ao https://t.co/p9VJqRcxWu
And lastly, earlier today Manafort filed a Motion to Change venues, asking the Court to move his trial to Roanoke VA. What I found interesting is in Manafort’s motion he acknowledges the EDVA Jury found him guilty of “multiple felonies” and then cited a tweet from Donald Trump...I’m not certain that is the best rationale. At all.
you tried this move in the EDVA case.— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) August 29, 2018
It was denied.
What makes you think Judge Berman Jackson would grant your request?
I’ll give you 1/2 a ⭐️ because DC did vote overwhelmingly for Sec Clinton
2016 DC results https://t.co/u5GoDUvuH9 pic.twitter.com/GCuZAz9cAZ
From time to time I may update this particular entry...-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.