On January 3, 2018, former Trump campaign manager and Washington lobbyist Paul Manafort—currently under federal indictment for multiple counts of money laundering, failure to register as a foreign lobbyist, and false statements—filed a civil lawsuit contesting the jurisdiction of Special Counsel Robert Muller for having filed a criminal action against him. More specifically, Manafort acknowledges that Special Counsel Mueller was appointed to investigate whether there were improper connections between Trump’s presidential campaign and the Russian efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, but Manafort contests the authority of Mueller to investigate his lobbying activities with Ukraine years earlier. Manafort’s civil action seeks for the court to declare Mueller’s appointment “invalid, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.” Also to set aside the indictment as improperly issued, and to enjoin Mueller from investigating him further.
Manafort’s lawsuit provoked swift response from attorneys across the political spectrum, and few were complimentary of Manafort’s counsel—Kevin Downing and Thomas Zehnle, experienced attorneys—for their action. To the contrary, knowledgeable commentators, not to mention common sense, raise many questions about this action, with the answers all suggesting why it should, and will, fail.
Manafort’s civil lawsuit offers no explanation of why such a unique action was taken. The lawsuit has been assigned to US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. The first question the civil action raises is why these issues are not being addressed in the motion filed in the criminal action against Manafort, which is currently pending before US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (The docket indicates that there was an effort by a third party to intervene in the criminal case, which was rejected by Judge Jackson. But the nature of the intervention—thus whether it addressed issues now raised by Manafort’s civil action—is not disclosed by the docket.)
Attorney, legal-writer, and senior fellow at American Progress Ian Millhiser points out in his essay, “4 fatal flaws in Paul Manafort’s lawsuit claiming Mueller can’t prosecute him,” that this “strange tactic” of filing a civil action “risks annoying the trial judge assigned to hear his criminal trial—judges typically don’t appreciate it when you go behind their back—and there are legal doctrines in place that normally prevent the same matter from being litigated simultaneously before different judges.” Millhiser also notes the fact that the Justice Department regulation Manafort’s action relies upon expressly states it “may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.” Appropriately, Millhiser takes issue with Manafort’s reading of the facts, and finally points out that all Mueller needs to do is consult with his superior—here Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him—to add to his jurisdiction, if that were necessary—which Millhiser does not believe to be the situation.
In fact, Neal Katyal, the former Justice Department attorney who wrote the special counsel regulations, explained on the Rachel Maddow Show that Rosenstein had already testified on December 13, 2017, before the House Judiciary Committee that Mueller had sought and received approval for expanding his inquiry to cover Manafort’s investigation, precisely as called for by the special counsel regulations. More specifically, as the CNN transcript for the hearings shows, Rosenstein had the following exchange with Congressman Lamar Smith of the committee:
SMITH: … My question was, has he [Special Counsel Mueller] asked you or consulted with you about a desire to expand the investigation beyond the original scope?
ROSENSTEIN: Well, the consultation, actually, is much more detailed than that. He consults with me, his office consults with me about their investigation, both within and without the scope. So, I know what they’re authorized to do.
SMITH: I know you know what they’re doing, but has he requested to expand the scope of the original—of the original jurisdiction?
ROSENSTEIN: The scope of the original jurisdiction, as you know, is publicly set forth…
ROSENSTEIN: … in that order. But the specific matters are not identified in the order. So, I discussed that with Director Mueller when he started, and we’ve had ongoing discussion about exactly what is within the scope of his investigation. And, to the extent there was any ambiguity about it, he’s received my permission to include those matters within his investigation.
Neal Katyal explained that Mueller had already done what was called for under the regulations, which is why he found the Manafort civil lawsuit not merely frivolous but “silly.”
Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern was even blunter: “Paul Manafort’s Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Robert Mueller Is a Pure Publicity Stunt,” his analysis concluded. Stern reviews the many reasons the civil lawsuit will fail, and then asked: Why file it? His answer strikes me as correct, but he is missing a key fact. Stern’s answer: “Most likely, the lawsuit constitutes a kind of publicity stunt designed to change the narrative around his prosecution. It allows Manafort to defend himself publicly—to reframe his indictment as an egregious abuse of Mueller’s power, and paint the investigation as a sweeping witch hunt. This spin may persuade his Republican sympathizers. But it will not hold much sway in the federal judiciary.”
To Stern’s conclusion I would add: The civil lawsuit gives Manafort’s lawyers a way to talk about his prosecution by the special counsel without violating the gag order imposed by Judge Amy Jackson on November 8, 2017. “In order to safeguard defendants’ rights to a fair trial, and to ensure that the court has the ability to seat a jury that has not been tainted by pretrial publicity, all interested participants in the matter, including the parties, any potential witnesses, and counsel for the parties and the witnesses, are hereby ordered to refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case,” the judge stated. Admonishing counsel, who had been giving press conferences on the courthouse steps, “This is a criminal trial. It is not a public relations campaign.”
Manafort’s lawsuit is so weak there is no other explanation, making this an effort to get around Judge Amy Jackson’s gag order to discuss the case. The lawsuit is an attack—not well founded but the partisans do not look at the law—on Special Counsel Mueller. Hopefully Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sees the civil action for what it is and dismisses the case soon rather than later. This strategy could also backfire on Manafort in the criminal trial, for it cannot please Judge Amy Jackson. It is highly unusual behavior for such seasoned attorneys, and one of the judges may ask them to explain themselves.
I am looking forward to Mr. Dean’s legal critique of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the Iran nuclear deal, Uranium One, and the Russian collusion by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to create the fake “dossier” regarding Donald Trump.
I am, sure you are, along with the crowd of other Trumpster dupes like you.
Don’t hold your breath.
Mr. Dean has had years to apply his skills to the many bad acts of the Obama administration, and has yet to do so.
Clearly you have not bothered to look at the backlist of what Mr. Dean actually has written, for instance “The New Republican Benghazi Inquiry Is All About Money”, “Will the Committee on Benghazi Find a Sense of Decency?”, “The Outrageously False Charges of Perjury Against Hillary Clinton”, “Seeking to Criminalize the Clinton Foundation—A Footnote” [how very timely again now!], or “‘Prison for Hillary’”.
> “… the Russian collusion by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to create the fake ‘dossier’ regarding Donald Trump.”
It’s just. too. bad., isn’t it, that transcript of sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee from back in August (which Chairman Grassley said he’d release, then refused to) just got released anyway, so everyone can see what you said is utterly false?
Go read it yourself!
Vague curiosity if this is an actual identity or just invisible Brett’s sock puppet. However good-bye is sufficient answer.
Follow the Money. Manafort’s Lawsuit is so obviously weak and counterproductive, why file it?
Even more curious, why pay for it? And most importantly, WHO paid for it? Manafort has limited assets and most seem to be frozen. So why spend money on this futile/stupid action?
So, FOLLOW THE MONEY.
John Dean is also a convicted felon.
Manafort isn’t Haldeman and Trump isn’t Nixon you pathetic loser! John Dean once applied for a Library Card in a new city and admitted he had NO friends for personal references! LOL
Mr. Dean, thank you for your analysis of the civil suit and its context to the gag order. My take on the suit is that it is frivolous and as such the Special Counsel could seek its dismissal and counter that it was known to be and could seek damages from Mr. Manafort were this a normal civil action. In my view the order of Judge Jackson is being circumvented; and it is a tactic that is too clever by half- I think that it reveals that Mr. Manaforts’ counsel do not think that they can defend their client in the criminal action with the facts and the truth of his actions demonstrating his innocence. It seems to me to be the old law school adage: “if you don’t have the facts, argue the law, if you don’t have the law, argue public policy- that is don’t do nothing, do something.”
“There are three reasons for speaking, come what may come: for instruction against ignorance, counsel against strife, and truth against harmful falsehood.” — Bardic Triad
« Qui ne gueule pas la vérité, quand il sait la vérité, se fait le complice des menteurs et des faussaires ! » [“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes
himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.”] — Charles Peguy, Lettre du Provincial, 21 Decembre 1899
“Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight.” — Proverbs 18:17 (The Living Bible)
Not clear, but I think you [Raven] are defending playing with trolls. Either that or you are a troll playing on the other side. In either case, you’re wasting your time, but it’s your time to waste.
To conserve MY time, which is MY choice, I’m going to take the obvious countermeasure. Good bye.
I made it as clear as I could that what I was defending was not “playing with”, but rebutting (or better yet refuting) the falsehoods posted by, trolls — not for the trolls’ sake, but for the sake of later readers exposed to those falsehoods, who should also get to see them exposed as such.
The alternative Shanen proposes is that all such lies be let spread unanswered, with an effective right-wing-radio-or-Fox-News-like monopoly, in blogs. That seems to me like advocating for the trolls.
Likewise, I suppose Shanen will not see this reply… but others will.
It’s not? Oh okay then (sarcasm).
My initial reaction to the dossier was suspicion. I thought it might be a setup for a Dan-Rathering of some gullible journalist. However, I’m increasingly convinced that most of it is valid.
However I had already concluded from other sources that Trump was recruited by the KGB decades ago, probably back when Putin was still a minor flunky spying in Germany. Trump went bankrupt and the Russians jumped on the chance to kill two birds, laundering some of their dirty money while putting the hook deep in Trump. I actually doubt that Putin ever sent much of his dirty money to the Trump laundry service. Why would he trust such a known fool?