My Cart



Manafort EDVA & Leaks

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on May 01 2018


Paul Manafort EDVA filings.


I will admit, that I am not at all surprised, that this is Manafort’s play. It’s clear to me that Manafort’s strategy closely mirrors Trump’s public strategy. 


  • Attack the FBI and Senior FBI Leadership
  • Attack the actual appointment of a Special Counsel
  • Attack the Scope of the Special Counsel Authority
  • Attack the Media, the Leaks, the “improper disclosure”
  • Muddy the waters and present “alternative facts” which belie actual facts.
  • Wash. Rinse. Repeat


As previously discussed in this blog entry, here 

Doc # 44 Improper Disclosures, Leaks:

Manafort essentially argues the Government is leaking like my pasta colander. That Manafort and Trump are the victims of 16 months of a “deep state” leaking campaign,  thus there is no way Manafort can obtain a fair jury trial. Also what’s being overlooked by several media outlets is, in Manafort’s DDC Criminal Case the Judge granted a Protective Order for Discovery. Conversely the EDVA Judge declined the Special Counseo’s Motion for a Protective Order for Discovery Documents.

Always READ the footnotes;



Manafort further contends that the Special Counsel has also engaged in leaking of Grand Jury proceedings in an effort to taint witnesses and potential jurors. What Manafort FAILS to acknowledge  is: witnesses are not bound by the secrecy of the Grand Jury. Meaning once a witness gives testimony to the Grand Jury, he/she are free to publicly discuss their testimony.


The first inclination is to laugh & brush Manafort’s filing aside as laughable. DON’T. What Manafort asserts should be viewed as a precursor to what Trump will do, if he is indicted. With respect to Manafort’s Grand Jury Claims:


🚨 DDC Opinion on Manafort’s Real Estate Attorney & Grand Jury, here


🚨DDC Opinion in Manafort’s former Attorney & Grand Jury, this is the moment Special Counsel scored an early win. In the 37 page Opinion Judge Howell agreed with the Special Counsel, that Manafort’s former Attorney must provide Grand Jury Testimony and Attorney Client Privilege was waived because of the Crime/Fraud Exemption. Link here


In Manafort’s filing (Doc # 44):

“Such leaks impugn the character of the individual under investigation and substantially undermine a fundamental principle of our judicial system; i.e., the right of the defendant to have the case determined by an impartial jury on the facts,"


Link to Manafort’s Document # 44 filing here


Documents 45-48 are largely duplicative of previous filings.


  • Document # 45 Suppression of evidence from Storage Unit
  • Document # 46 Memo in Support of Suppression of Evidence
  • Document # 47 Motion to Suppress evidence Manafort’s home
  • Document #48 Memo in support to Suppress evidence from home



Regarding the evidenced seized during the execution of a Search Warrant on Manafort’s Storage Unit. Last month Manafort used the “a low level employee who lacked authorization to allow the FBI Agent into the storage unit.” As detailed in this April 10, 2018 Twitter Thread. Manafort’s argument had several fatal flaws.

Most notably the lease agreement of the storage unit, itself. Manafort designated as “Occupant’s Authorized Access Person” versus the “Occupant”



Document # 46 Motion to Suppress (storage unit):


..” pursuant to Rules 12(b)(3)(C) and 41(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to suppress evidence and all fruits thereof obtained by the government pursuant to a search warrant issued on May 27, 2017, for the storage unit located in Alexandria, Virginia (the “Search Warrant,” attached hereto as Exhibit A)


(1) the warrantless initial search of the storage unit for information that the FBI then used to obtain the Search Warrant violated the Fourth Amendment;

(2) the Search Warrant itself was unconstitutionally overbroad and allowed federal agents to seize property contained within the storage unit in violation of Mr. Manafort’s Fourth Amendment rights; and

(3) the agents who executed the search exceeded the warrant’s search parameters in violation of the Fourth Amendment.


“...evidence obtained from the government’s search of the storage unit should be suppressed....other search warrants later obtained by the government incorporated the fruits of the illegal search of the storage unit, all evidence obtained from those warrants must also be suppressed.” Link to Document 46, here (emphasis added)


Again Manafort’s argument that the Government “illegally” searched the Storage Unit is a nonsensical. Keep in mind the lease agreement was NOT in Manafort’s name. Further based on the Affidavits the FBI agent asked Manafort’s “low level employee” to “look inside the unit”. Said Manafort employee (who is party to the Storage Unit Lease) gave the agent “consent” and accompanied the FBI agent to the Storage Unit.


The FBI Agent’s Affidavit also states he merely observed what was in the unit. Clearly based on the Affidavit to obtain a search warrant this Government provided enough probable cause for a Judge to grant a search warrant.


Document # 48 - Manafort Residence:


Once again Manafort argues that the lawful search warrants:

(1) the Search Warrant was an overbroad general warrant in violation of Mr. Manafort’s Fourth Amendment rights;

(2) the agents who executed the search exceeded the Search Warrant’s parameters in violation of the Fourth Amendment;

(3) the Special Counsel did not have the authority or jurisdiction to apply for the Search Warrant

(4) the government has improperly retained everything it seized from the Manafort Home for nearly nine months and has failed to return all non-responsive material seized to Mr. Manafort.


“July 26, 2017, agents entered the Manafort’s home located in a condominium building. Once inside, the agents seized numerous documents and seized or imaged every electronic device and storage device in the home. These electronic devices included...”

see pages 2-3, again Manafort previously argued all of this in early April. Incidentally the list of what was seized by the Government is always worth a second or third look.  I seem to recall the “former” Manafort employee is cooperating with the Government. Link to Manafort’s filing regarding evidence from his home, here


Also Manafort filed (see Document 42) a Motion to Dismiss Count 11, Manafort’s failure to comply with Foreign Bank and Accounts  FBAR. Citing that the statute of limitations is 2 years, meaning the Statute ran out in 2012.  Link to filing here 


I checked the Manafort Docket...the New York Times Article was published shortly before 9PM on April 30, 2018




I triple checked the Manafort EDVA Case, the docket report shows Manafort filed some 356 pages via 8 separate filings. Which were all entered into the electronic court system between 10:47PM - 11:18PM. To me, even with the best team of attorneys, paralegals, legal secretaries, it’s potentially implausible to have written, tagged & bagged the exhibits all in under 2 hours. I guess you could argue the Motion to Suppress (Storage & Residence) were largely a regurgitation of what Manafort filed in early April. 


Base on my personal work experience the “improper disclosures” document # 44 is  12 pages long with 33 pages of Exhibits (various MSM articles) I guess it’s plausible Manafort’s defense team could have written, edited, Manafort had a chance to read and/or edit said filing, all within <2 hours. But I remain skeptical and I’m sticking to me previous assertion:


Manafort & Team Trump are working together and all signs from Camp Manafort indicate he’s not going to flip...perhaps it’s now time to indict Mrs. Manafort, his two daughters and former son in law on various financial crimes, like mortgage fraud, conspiracy to defraud the USA, bankruptcy fraud. Remember Manafort & his former SIL are actively involved in a bankruptcy case for Yohai’s ponzi-scheme.


Judge Ellis, EDVA previously scheduled Oral Arguments on Manafort’s Motion to Disiss for this Friday.

And just a reminder last Friday Judge Berman in Manafort’s DDC Case has yet to rule on Manafort’s Motion to Dismiss, conversely she DID rule on Manafort’s Civil Complaint and dismissed his civil suit.


- 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.



Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing