Mueller Is Not Out of Bounds, DC Judge Says in Upholding Manafort Charges
"The case did not arise in a vacuum, and the special counsel did not create his own job description," U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in a ruling that upheld the criminal charges against Paul Manafort, the former Donald Trump campaign chairman.
May 15, 2018 at 05:41 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/The National Law Journal
A Washington federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss the criminal charges against former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, ruling that the “indictment falls squarely within” the authority given to the special counsel for the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia rejected Manafort's argument that the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller's authority was overly broad. Manafort was indicted in October on charges of financial fraud and violating lobbying disclosure laws by failing to register his past work for the Russia-backed government of Ukraine.
“The case did not arise in a vacuum, and the special counsel did not create his own job description,” Jackson wrote. “He was appointed to take over an existing investigation, and it appears from the chronology and the written record that the matters contained in the superseding indictment were already a part of the ongoing inquiry that was lawfully transferred to the special counsel by the Department of Justice in May of 2017.”
Manafort's defense lawyer, former MIller & Chevalier partner Kevin Downing, has stressed that the alleged misconduct predated the 2016 presidential campaign and therefore was outside Mueller's authority. In his bid to dismiss the indictment, Downing took aim at a portion of an order establishing Mueller's office that gave the special counsel the power to probe “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
Jackson said the charges fell within even a separate portion of Mueller's authority that Manafort has found “unobjectionable: the order to investigate 'any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign.'”
Manafort, Jackson said, was not merely associated with President Donald Trump's campaign but served as its chairman for a time. And his past ties to Ukrainian and Russian figures was a matter of public record, she noted.
“It was logical and appropriate for investigators tasked with the investigation of 'any links' between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign to direct their attention to him,” Jackson wrote.
“Given what was being said publicly, the special counsel would have been remiss to ignore such an obvious potential link between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” Jackson said in the 37-page opinion. “Thus, the indictment falls well within the authority granted to the special counsel to conduct the ongoing investigation.”
Jackson said the case against Manafort should proceed even if scrutiny of his past activity came about not from the investigation of “links” to Russian but rather as a “matter that arose” from that probe. It appeared from the record, the judge said, that the conduct at issue in the indictment was already part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice inquiry that was transferred to the special counsel.
Jackson's ruling also offered support to the Justice Department regulations that gave rise to Mueller's appointment to lead the Russia investigation.
“When it promulgated the regulations, the department anticipated that a special counsel, like any other prosecutor, could become aware of, and could have legitimate reasons to explore, paths that branch out naturally from the original investigation, as well as entirely new and disconnected allegations,” Jackson wrote.
Those regulations, Jackson said, “place no boundaries on who can be investigated or what charges can be brought—what they address is who decides who the prosecutor will be.”
Manafort is facing separate fraud charges in Alexandria, Virginia, federal court. In that case, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia expressed skepticism earlier this month of the scope of Mueller's authority. Ellis has not yet ruled on Manafort's challenge to the indictment there.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson's ruling is posted below:
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
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