Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 73 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Crim. No. 17-201-1 (ABJ)
PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.,
Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT PAUL J.
MANAFORT, JR.’S MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
The United States of America, by and through Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III,
submits this response in opposition to defendant Manafort’s motion to modify bail conditions.
See ECF #66. Manafort’s counsel correctly represented in his November 30, 2017, submission
the government’s general consent to the bail package as of the time it was made to this Court.1
But as we promptly alerted the defense later that same day, the government learned facts that are
pertinent to the bail determination before the Court. We thus promptly made an application to this
Court to respond on December 4, 2017 to the Court’s Order (ECF #69). Because bail is
substantially about trust—in particular, whether the Court can trust that a defendant will abide by
the combination of conditions designed to assure his appearance as required, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(c)(1) and (f)— and because the newly discovered facts cast doubt on Manafort’s
willingness to comply with this Court’s Orders, Manafort’s proposed bail package does not
provide the reasonable assurance required by the Bail Reform Act.
Manafort Ghostwrites an Op-Ed to Influence Public Opinion
The government’s opposition to Manafort’s motion is based on facts that the government

1

The government, however, was planning to propose certain additional conditions to the
bail proposed by Manafort, noted below. See infra at 3 n.4.

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 73 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 4

learned late last week. Cf. United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1210 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (parties
may proceed by proffer in bail proceedings). As late as November 30, 2017, Manafort and a
colleague were ghostwriting an editorial in English regarding his political work for Ukraine.
Manafort worked on the draft with a long-time Russian colleague of Manafort’s, who is currently
based in Russia and assessed to have ties to a Russian intelligence service. 2
As the Court is aware, at the first appearance before this Court with Manafort present, the
Court admonished all of the parties not to try the case in the press. See Nov. 2, 2017 Tr. 6-8 (Court
explains that “this is a criminal trial, . . . not a public relations campaign”). At that time, Manafort
had through counsel made statements to the press after his initial appearance. The Court also gave
the parties an opportunity to object to a proposed court Order prohibiting such out-of-court
statements in order to protect the fairness of the upcoming trial. Id. at 7-8. No party objected, and
on November 8, 2017, the Court entered an unopposed Order pursuant to LCrR 57.7 that barred
the parties and counsel, among others, from making statements that could interfere with the fair
trial to which the government and the defense are entitled. See ECF#38 at 1-2 (ordering the parties
to “refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial
likelihood of material prejudice to this case”).
Even if the ghostwritten op-ed were entirely accurate, fair, and balanced, it would be a
violation of this Court’s November 8 Order if it had been published. 3 The editorial clearly was
undertaken to influence the public’s opinion of defendant Manafort, or else there would be no

2

The government separately has filed a motion seeking permission to submit documentary
evidence supporting this proffer under seal. We have not submitted it herein so as not to result in
the full draft op-ed thereby becoming public.
3
On the evening of November 30, the government alerted defense counsel to the
defendant’s efforts and were assured that steps would be taken to make sure it was no longer going
to be published.
2

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 73 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 4

reason to seek its publication (much less for Manafort and his long-time associate to ghostwrite it
in another’s name). It compounds the problem that the proposed piece is not a dispassionate
recitation of the facts.
The Court Should Deny Manafort’s Current Motion to Modify His Conditions of Release
Because Manafort has now taken actions that reflect an intention to violate or circumvent
the Court’s existing Orders, at a time one would expect particularly scrupulous adherence, the
government submits that the proposed bail package is insufficient reasonably to assure his
appearance as required. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c) and (f). The government’s prior general consent
to the bail package presupposed that Manafort was complying with the Court’s existing Orders.
The deficiencies in the proposed bail package, in light of this new information, warrant
such a finding. The proposed bail package does not provide for a surety who is not a close family
member. It does not provide for GPS monitoring. And it does not provide for a fully secured bond
of unencumbered real estate. The Bridgehampton property, which is the largest of the assets in the
proposed bail package, is already subject to forfeiture in the Indictment, and has a lis pendens filed
against it. 4
Although the Court could potentially address some of the deficiencies, the defendant has
now demonstrated that he is willing to violate a Court Order and the Pretrial Services admonitions

4

With respect to the proposed bail package, absent the new factual information, the
government was going to request that the Court also: (1) make the bond forfeitable upon a breach
of any condition of the defendant’s release, not just his failure to appear (a provision that is on the
Court’s standard form but is not checked off in the submission made by the defense), see, e.g.,
United States v. Gigante, 85 F.3d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam); and (2) order that, each week,
the defendant report to Pretrial Services where he will be located during the upcoming week,
including details of any planned travel and where he will be staying; and (3) provide
documentation as to the ownership of Summerbreeze LLC (the listed owner of the Bridgehampton
property) and Jesand LLC (the listed owner of the Baxter Street property) so that the Court can be
assured that all owners are consenting to the posting of the assets.
3

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 73 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 4

that are a part of pretrial process. Cf. United States v. Kerik, 419 F. App’x 10, 14 (2d Cir. 2011)
(unpublished) (noting that the defendant’s violation of a protective order “had caused the court to
take the extraordinary action of revoking bail for a former Police Commissioner of the City of
New York because it could no longer trust him to comply with court orders intended to ensure a
fair and impartial jury”).
Accordingly, while the government is not seeking remand, the government opposes
Manafort’s current motion to modify the conditions of his release. In the event the Court disagrees,
the government respectfully requests a fully secured bond, the posting of assets not subject to
forfeiture, full-time GPS monitoring, and the conditions noted in footnote 4.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT S. MUELLER III
Special Counsel
Dated: December 4, 2017

By:

__/s/__Andrew Weissmann___
Andrew Weissmann
Greg D. Andres (D.D.C. Bar No. 459221)
Kyle R. Freeny
U.S. Department of Justice
Special Counsel’s Office
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 616-0800
Attorneys for the United States of America

4