Posted on April 12 2018
Oh come on, what is it with Manafort”s late night filings. This is the fifth such filing after 10PM in so many days...(full disclosure I wrote the majority of this late last night but fell asleep as I was writing this entry)
DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.’S
REPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO
HIS MOTION TO DISMISS ONE OF TWO MULTIPLICITOUS COUNTS
Filed shortly after 10PM last night, Manafort filed the following, (also
Manafort’s Response to Govt’s Opposition to dismiss one of two👉🏻Link
Manafort Response to Dismiss Count Two & Forfiture 👉🏻Link
I still think that this multi-prong approach by Manafort is a defense strategy. Manafort refused to waive venue in the EDVA matter, he already had a criminal matter in DDC and then filed a civil matter. Meaning concurrently there are 3 separate active cases. Perhaps Manafort thinks this gives him the ability to muddy the waters and essentially create docket confusion. What I find problematic is the vast majority of Manafort’s filings are woefully deficient. But what’s most offensive is the overt cherry picking, if you’re going to recite a statute recite the whole statute not bits & pieces.
Now let’s dive into Manafort’s late night filing...
Page 1 and 2:
- “ government argues first that Counts Four and Five of the Superseding Indictment are not the same offense and therefore not multiplicitous“
“Counsel’s arguments are misplaced, and the Court should require the government to dismiss either Count Four or Count Five.“
- ..”government argues that because Section 1001 “applies to ‘nondisclosure of material facts’ only when the conduct amounts to concealment and is ‘accomplished in a particular way: by a ‘trick, scheme, or device”
- “This purported difference does not stand up to scrutiny. The purported FARA offense is the “lesser included” offense of the Section 1001 charge (the higher offense). “When the lesser offense is one defined by statute as committed”
- “Clearly, one of the alternative ways of committing a FARA violation is by making a materially false statement under Section 618(a)(2). Likewise, Section 1001(a)(2) criminalizes making materially false statements. The Special Counsel does not contest this.”
Spicy say what?
As I read Manafort’s response, I have President Clinton in my head “what is, is”...wait too soon? DUH..I sincerely apologize. Back to the subject at hand, here are a few takeaways.
- Manafort is threading the needle using FARA violations v 1001 (generally making false statements.)
- Manafort at no time owns the numerous in person interviews he “partcipated” presumably voluntarily. Nor does he make reference to his copious correspondence with investigators.
- Further Manafort fails to acklowledge, under 18 USC §1001 the target need not be under oath. If you lie or purposely mislead investigators, that’s a felony charge.
Manafort relies on this
- “Section 618(a)(2) with “omit[ing] a material fact necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in a document filed with and furnished to the Attorney General under the provisions of FARA.”
Here is the WHOLE §618 (a) (2), which reads in part:
- “willfully makes a false statement of a material fact or willfully omits any material fact required to be stated therein or willfully omits a material fact or a copy of a material document necessary to make the statements therein and the copies of documents furnished therewith not misleading...”
In my opinion it appears that Manafort has once again cherry picked certain recitations of statutes and purposefully leaves out the “full” context and content of numerous statutes.
In committing a crime such as 18 USC §1001 there are a few things to keep in mind (yes that’s a pun); ‘ actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
- you have the “act” itself, the lying and/or misleading statements
- the state of mind and/or intent
For example the United States Attorneys Manual CRM,👉🏻 908👈🏻 States the following.
Manafort is collectively facing >300 plus years in prison, if he’s found guilty of all counts in the EDVA & DDC cases. And you could argue Manafort is facing an monolithic uphill battle. So in some respects of course his various filings are predictable. In stead of arguing the merits of the case, it appears Manafort has zeroed in on DAG Rosenstein’s order, which appointed Special Counsel Mueller. I’m not saying that’s a smart strategy but it might be the only arrow Manafort has left in his quiver.
As previously discussed:
- 👉🏻 entry 👈🏻 regarding Manafort’s civil matter
- Motion(s) to Suppress evidence from Storage Locker & VA Home 👉🏻blog entry👈🏻
- Manafort’s Motion - Bill of Particulars, 4/6/18 👉🏻Entry👈🏻
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.