Mueller's Appellate Specialists Make Debut, Defending Manafort Charges in Trial Court
Michael Dreeben and Elizabeth Prelogar, both from the U.S. Solicitor General's Office, teamed up with Adam Jed, another Justice Department appellate specialist, to defend the criminal charges against Paul Manafort at a hearing Thursday in Washington's federal trial court.
April 19, 2018 at 02:20 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Paul Manafort. Photo Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
Three appellate specialists working on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election made their argument debuts Thursday, defending the criminal charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in Washington's federal trial court.
As Manafort has fought against accusations anchored in Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the task of arguing in court generally has fallen to just a few lawyers between the two sides: defense lawyer Kevin Downing for Manafort and, from the special counsel's prosecution team, Andrew Weissmann and Greg Andres.
That changed on Thursday. During a hearing before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, two attorneys on detail from the U.S. Solicitor General's Office—Michael Dreeben and Elizabeth Prelogar—defended the criminal charges. Additionally, Adam Jed, who joined Mueller's team from the civil appellate staff, made his argument appearance.
Dreeben, a top criminal law expert at the U.S. Department of Justice who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, joined the special counsel's office shortly after U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Mueller to lead the investigation. But it was only two weeks ago, on April 6, that Dreeben entered a formal appearance in the special counsel's case against Manafort, who has been charged with money laundering and failing to register as a lobbyist for the Ukrainian government.
On Thursday, Dreeben argued against Manafort's position that the special counsel's office was given too broad a jurisdiction and that it has exceeded that expansive authority in the prosecution of Manafort.
Downing, a former partner at Miller & Chevalier, has repeatedly pointed out that Manafort's alleged misconduct is entirely unrelated to the 2016 presidential campaign. Also, he has taken aim at language in Mueller's appointment order that allows the special counsel to investigate matters that “arise directly from” the investigation into Russia's election interference.
Dreeben on Thursday defended that language in the original appointment order, saying it was meant “to reflect the fact that investigations are naturally going to move forward.”
Dreeben later said the special counsel's authority was confirmed by an Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein, which specifically stated that Mueller's team could charge Manafort with crimes connected to his work for the Ukrainian government. Manafort's connections to Ukraine, Dreeben said, fell within the special counsel's mandate because they could have conceivably been used as back channels to Russia.
“Investigators will naturally look at those things,” he said.
Jackson heard argument for more than two hours on Thursday but did not immediately rule.
Manafort was in court with Downing and his two other defense lawyers, Thomas Zehnle and Richard Westling, a litigation and health care partner at Epstein Becker & Green, joined the defense team in March.
Westling's argument Thursday focused on the special counsel's allegation that Manafort violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a 1938 law that requires lobbyists for foreign governments and other entities to disclose their work to the Justice Department. The new focus on that law caused “sleepless nights” among members of Washington's influence market.
Manafort has a separate civil case, also in front of Jackson, that challenges the scope of Mueller's authority.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250