Manafort lawyers file motion to dismiss all charges citing lack of authority / jurisdiction

Manafort's lawyers submitted their motion to dismiss all actions from Mueller against him, citing several key areas that make Mueller's appointment, jurisdiction, grand jury and subsequent indictments invalid and in violation of several laws.

A quick break down -
Arguments by Manafort’s counsel:
* - (1) Rosenstein’s Order appointing the Special Counsel exceeds his authority.
* - (2) the superseding indictment “extends beyond the scope of jurisdiction that the [Order] purports to grant.”
* - (3) The Order grants “carte blanche to investigate and prosecute ‘any matters’ that might arise” from Trump/Russia investigation. “The Order thus permits the sort of unaccountable, ‘sprawl[ing]’ investigation the Special Counsel Regulations were designed to prevent."
* - (4) "Because the Acting Attorney General lacked authority to grant such broad prosecutorial powers in the Appointment Order, the Special Counsel lacks authority to wield them."
* - (5) Seeking dismissal under 6(d): "The Special Counsel was not permitted to appear before the grand jury that indicted Mr. Manafort" because he was not authorized to conduct proceedings for the matters in the superseding indictment.
* - (6) the indictments violate 7(c)'s requirement that they "be signed by an attorney for the gov't" because the Special Counsel is not an attorney for the gov't.
* - (7) the charges against Manafort do not “arise directly from” the Special Counsel’s investigation. Manafort’s crimes were investigated by the DOJ years before; thus the Special Counsel cannot claim that he discovered them “because of his original investigation.

Manafort's motion to dismiss ***PDF LINK***

The motion is 40 pages and goes in-depth for each point made, including citing case law as well as government admissions in Manafort's case, as well as others, that makes Manafort's case.

It is an interesting motion to be sure and the evidence provided is compelling. As I and others have stated the SC statute requires a specific crime to justify the appointment of a SC. Jurisdiction under the SC requires specificity as well in terms of what crime would fall under the SC investigation. Finally the "investigate any and all matters arising from" is to broad (it requires, again, specificity on crime) and violates several laws and legal rules. A prosecutor cannot go on a fishing expedition in hopes of finding a crime to justify it.

Finally all the financial crimes and failure to register under FARA is not a new crime and was not discovered during Mueller's investigation. Both crimes were investigated by the FBI years ago and the DOJ declined to prosecute. In the indictments Mueller stated the crimes were discovered through his SC investigation.

Mueller lied to the court by making that statement.

I think the motion has a decent chance of being successful.

It should be interesting.

ETA -









Additional resources -
28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established 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 prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, 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.

(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

The section above, the part that is bold, is the only jurisdiction granted to Mueller. To go beyond that jurisdiction into section B or C requires approval by the AG / DAG. This was never granted. The letter from DAG Rosenstein creating the SC specifically grants section A jurisdiction only.

Rosensteins Special Counsel appointment letter -

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

I see it going to an appeals court and most likely Scotus, regardless of who wins it. Given Mueller / his prosecutor lied to a grand jury and then a judge about how Manafort's crimes were discovered is also very problematic for Mueller.

I think Manafort's motion will be granted but like I said, both sides are going to appeal depending on which sides prevails in the motion. The fact Flynn's case took a downward turn for Mueller just lends more evidence to Manafort's argument.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

I've actually followed it and I think Manafort has a pretty good shot at a motion to dismiss.

Especially now that the SC is apparently just trying to keep something, ANYTHING going to provide talking points for the 18 elections.

Most Americans are tired of the show. It hasn't produced anything that it was put together to look for but... well, anything actually except... a few hundred Russian bots that were not tied to the campaign?

I mean, they are re-leaking their older leaks at this point to keep relevant.

Let's see where the IG report goes.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

If not federal, then the state AGs will get him. They are already sharing info.

Manafort is a bad guy. He should, and will go down.

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

I agree, just not tied to Trump, and the people behind this circus should also go down.

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

If not federal, then the state AGs will get him. They are already sharing info.

Manafort is a bad guy. He should, and will go down.

The problem here is the FBI already investigated the crimes Manafort is accused of and did so years ago. The DOJ opted not to prosecute.


ETA in general -
Also to address a question im sure people will have about the motion, specifically the part about Mueller lacking jurisdiction and authority to convene a grand jury for Manafort's crimes.

The motion argues that Mueller was never granted jurisdiction to investigate anything unrelated to Russia-Trump. The fact Mueller went to a grand jury to get indictments on Manafort for the financial crimes / FARA created the problem. Because Mueller lacked jurisdiction to investigate Manafort's crimes he had no legal authority to convene a grand jury to indict Manafort.

Hence their argument in the motion.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

I agree, just not tied to Trump, and the people behind this circus should also go down.

Yup. Manafort did some evil stuff. We are better of with him in jail.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

If not federal, then the state AGs will get him. They are already sharing info.

Manafort is a bad guy. He should, and will go down.

The problem here is the FBI already investigated the crimes Manafort is accused of and did so years ago. The DOJ opted not to prosecute.


ETA in general -
Also to address a question im sure people will have about the motion, specifically the part about Mueller lacking jurisdiction and authority to convene a grand jury for Manafort's crimes.

The motion argues that Mueller was never granted jurisdiction to investigate anything unrelated to Russia-Trump. The fact Mueller went to a grand jury to get indictments on Manafort for the financial crimes / FARA created the problem. Because Mueller lacked jurisdiction to investigate Manafort's crimes he had no legal authority to convene a grand jury to indict Manafort.

Hence their argument in the motion.

Manafort laundered money, so the state of NY can get him. He is also involved in shady stuff in the Ukraine, where he is involved with the Russians and people getting sniped.

It will all come out. That is why he is under house arrest.

Don't know what Mueller is going to do, but this guy is bad news. I hope they put him away and that he does not get off on a technicality.

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Sure however you have to prove that he violated a state law. There is a reason money laundering is generally Federal considering what it deals with (transactions crossing state lines / international boundaries while using financial services / organized crime and corruption etc).

Also you are going to have to convince a judge the prosecution is not malicious since these crimes happened more than a decade ago. From my point of view going after Manafort, at both levels of government, is prosecutorial misconduct considering the time frame the authorities knew about the crimes and the fact they declined to prosecute.

His Ukraine issue ties into the financial crimes and is something New York would most likely not have any jurisdiction to investigate / prosecute (there are exceptions).

Finally if his motion to dismiss is granted one can argue that any future prosecutions are invalid since the evidence used is fruit of the poisonous tree. All evidence gathered by the FBI / DOJ / Manafort is tainted given the way the crimes were initially investigated with no prosecution and given the way the special counsel used the original investigations to claim he discovered the crimes themselves (he did not).

Also for clarification Federal prosecutors can only prosecute federal law violations and state prosecutors can only prosecute violations of state crimes. A state prosecutor cannot prosecute a person using a federal statute violation. If the state has no laws governing the violation they cant do anything about it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Sure however you have to prove that he violated a state law. There is a reason money laundering is generally Federal considering what it deals with (transactions crossing state lines / international boundaries while using financial services / organized crime and corruption etc).

Also you are going to have to convince a judge the prosecution is not malicious since these crimes happened more than a decade ago. From my point of view going after Manafort, at both levels of government, is prosecutorial misconduct considering the time frame the authorities knew about the crimes and the fact they declined to prosecute.

His Ukraine issue ties into the financial crimes and is something New York would most likely not have any jurisdiction to investigate / prosecute (there are exceptions).

Finally if his motion to dismiss is granted one can argue that any future prosecutions are invalid since the evidence used is fruit of the poisonous tree. All evidence gathered by the FBI / DOJ / Manafort is tainted given the way the crimes were initially investigated with no prosecution and given the way the special counsel used the original investigations to claim the discovered the crimes themselves.

Also for clarification Federal prosecutors can only prosecute federal law violations and state prosecutors can only prosecute violations of state crimes. A state prosecutor cannot prosecute a person using a federal statute violation. If the state has no laws governing the violation they cant do anything about it.

Nice run down of the case.I am not really following it too closely, but I did read about this guy in 2016, and it looks to me like he is a major crook, and even his daughter is worried that he gets folks killed.

Put these crooks in jail, is how I feel.

It seems like you are rooting for him. Why?

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

If not federal, then the state AGs will get him. They are already sharing info.

Manafort is a bad guy. He should, and will go down.

For what, something all ex politicos do?

Then get them all. Didn't he work for Podesta?

I agree, if you take him down but make sure you bring them ALL down.

You know, just to fair and all.

And I don't think states can charge you with a federal crime.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

If not federal, then the state AGs will get him. They are already sharing info.

Manafort is a bad guy. He should, and will go down.

For what, something all ex politicos do?

Then get them all. Didn't he work for Podesta?

I agree, if you take him down but make sure you bring them ALL down.

You know, just to fair and all.

And I don't think states can charge you with a federal crime.

He is done. Too many crimes. I like fairness, so sure.

Really bad guy and I suspect he will go to jail soon.

I might be wrong.

I can wait and see.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

I've actually followed it and I think Manafort has a pretty good shot at a motion to dismiss.

Especially now that the SC is apparently just trying to keep something, ANYTHING going to provide talking points for the 18 elections.

Most Americans are tired of the show. It hasn't produced anything that it was put together to look for but... well, anything actually except... a few hundred Russian bots that were not tied to the campaign?

I mean, they are re-leaking their older leaks at this point to keep relevant.

Let's see where the IG report goes.

Oh no....your post just made me think.....do you think they are going to hold off on releasing the IG report until after the 2018 elections?? With the crap we've found out about all of these assholes this year, I would not be surprised in the SLIGHTEST if that's what happens. Have we heard any talk about the IG report lately? Seems mention of it has gone quiet. Uh oh.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

Just like his first one right? Was going to be shot down right out of the gate.

Well, that actually didn't happen though. It was granted and transferred to the initial court if I remember right.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for this thread, your excellent summary of the situation and the links and documents!

This is my theory, which is completely ignorant probably and superficial: I think they went after Manafort so that they could have something to "associate" with Trump, something clearly illegal and bad. They did it to taint Trump, or try to.

I say this because this Manafort is a devil of a guy and is as Deep State as they come. And as you said: they investigated him YEARS ago and decided against pressing charges. Why didn't they press charges years ago? Because he's Deep State and they are all in bed with each other.

Why did they pull the trigger on him now? To hurt Trump. Someone had to go down it seems, since all their investigation into Trump was finding was the little Russian bots and the Russian catering company or whatever it was that was tricking both sides into political rallies running up to the election.

Naive, probably ignorant theory but it makes as much sense as anything else these days.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

Just like his first one right? Was going to be shot down right out of the gate.

Well, that actually didn't happen though. It was granted and transferred to the initial court if I remember right.

Prosecutors with grand juries tend to get convictions. Mueller has a 95% conviction rate.

Anyone want to bet ?

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

And people with millions of dollars tend to hire lawyers that know what they are doing.

Flynn wasn't rich, he had to concede.

Don't get me wrong, Manafort is scum and should go down, but legally. His lawyers have a major case for dismissal, possibly with prejudice.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well make your bets now.

I'll bite.

My Prediction: This will fail.

I've actually followed it and I think Manafort has a pretty good shot at a motion to dismiss.

Especially now that the SC is apparently just trying to keep something, ANYTHING going to provide talking points for the 18 elections.

Most Americans are tired of the show. It hasn't produced anything that it was put together to look for but... well, anything actually except... a few hundred Russian bots that were not tied to the campaign?

I mean, they are re-leaking their older leaks at this point to keep relevant.

Let's see where the IG report goes.

Oh no....your post just made me think.....do you think they are going to hold off on releasing the IG report until after the 2018 elections?? With the crap we've found out about all of these assholes this year, I would not be surprised in the SLIGHTEST if that's what happens. Have we heard any talk about the IG report lately? Seems mention of it has gone quiet. Uh oh.

They were about to release, then went aback and are re-questioning some witnesses to tie up some loose ends, the story is.

I doubt it will be much longer.

After all, the Repubs need that second SC going before the primaries...

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

It seems like you are rooting for him. Why?

Not so much for Manafort but the rule of law and equality under the law. If a prosecutor has a criminal case then file charges and go from there. You dont decline to prosecute only to change your mind decades later because its politically convenient.

Law Enforcement and Prosecutors (at all levels of government) have powerful tools they can use to investigate and prosecute. When those tools are abused I would rather see a criminal walk free than set a dangerous precedent that violating someones constitutional rights, federal law and FBI/DOJ procedures is ok because we "think" the suspect is guilty.

I have no tolerance for criminals however I have even less for government agencies / departments who violate the very laws they are entrusted to enforce and prosecute. In those situations my general default position is to error on the sides of the suspect.

Do your job right and you make a good case that is prosecutable.

It is as simple as that. The Constitution comes first.