Manafort Charges Survive Bid for Dismissal in Virginia
Tuesday's decision from U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III moves the case against the former Trump campaign chairman closer to trial in July.
June 26, 2018 at 06:10 PM
3 minute read
Paul Manafort leaves the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after a status conference on Nov. 2, 2017. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi /ALM. A federal judge in Virginia is allowing special counsel Robert Mueller's bank fraud and tax case against Paul Manafort to proceed, with a trial set to begin in July. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia denied on Tuesday a bid by Manafort's lawyers to dismiss a superseding indictment against the former Trump campaign chairman. Manafort's lawyers have argued Mueller overstepped his authority as special counsel by pursuing charges against Manafort for acts that pre-dated Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Ellis caught national media attention earlier this year after he grilled Mueller's prosecutors on how the Manafort charges fit within the scope of the special counsel's investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller special counsel in May 2017. Rosenstein, who began overseeing the probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigating matters related to the 2016 election, authorized the former FBI director to investigate links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and other matters that arose from that inquiry. “You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud,” Ellis told U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben. “What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment." The president later seized on those comments, during a National Rifle Association speech in Dallas. “I've been saying that for a long time. It's a witch hunt,” Trump said. In Tuesday's ruling, Ellis re-aired his concerns and took shots at the special counsel. “[E]ven a blind person can see that the true target of the Special Counsel's investigation is President Trump, not defendant, and that defendant's prosecution is part of that larger plan,” he wrote. The judge said Mueller's charges against Manafort were part of a plan “to induce defendant to cooperate. Although these kinds of high-pressure prosecutorial tactics are neither uncommon nor illegal, they are distasteful,” he said. Manafort, 68, was first indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia in February. The longtime lobbyist also faces a separate set of charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, including charges of fraud, conspiracy, and failing to disclose work as a foreign agent. Manafort's lawyers had asked Judge Amy Berman Jackson to dismiss those charges in the district court, but she declined to do so, finding that “indictment falls squarely within” Mueller's authority. A trial for those charges is set for September. Read more: Paul Manafort to Appeal Judge's Decision Placing Him in Jail Reed Smith Bolsters Readiness in Russia Case, Adding Appellate Duo Paul Manafort's Losing Streak Deepens in Washington Court Judge Orders Paul Manafort to Jail in Wake of Witness Tampering Claims
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 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