Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., and
KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Crim. No. 17-201-01 (ABJ)

DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.’S OPPOSITION TO THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO REVOKE OR REVISE THE CURRENT ORDER OF
PRETRIAL RELEASE
Defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr., by and through counsel, hereby submits his opposition to
the Office of Special Counsel’s (the “Special Counsel”) motion to revoke or revise the current
order of pretrial release (Doc. 315). In his motion, the Special Counsel contrives dubious
allegations of witness tampering. From a scant record, the Special Counsel conjures a sinister plot
to “corruptly persuade” two of Mr. Manafort’s former business associates to perjure themselves at
the upcoming trial in September. However, exhibits attached to the Special Counsel’s filing
support the defendant’s position that the mission and work of the so-called Hapsburg Group was
European-focused and that the text messages cited by the Special Counsel do not establish any
witness tampering. Mr. Manafort’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury in this
district may have been irreparably damaged by the Special Counsel’s latest, very public and very
specious, filing of this motion. 1

1

The Special Counsel’s unsupported allegations, made through a bail submission, were clearly aimed at
generating widespread—and intensely negative—media coverage of Mr. Manafort. See, e.g., Former
Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort To Be Jailed For Stupidest Case Of Witness Tampering: Ex-DOJ
Official, Newsweek, June 6, 2018, available at http://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign-paulmanafort-jail-mueller-investigation-doj-official-961500 (last accessed June 7, 2018); Former US attorney
says Manafort will likely go to prison Friday, thehill.com, June 6, 2018, available at

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 2 of 9

BACKGROUND
The order of pretrial release in this case (Doc. 9 (the “Release Order”)) sets forth the
standard conditions of home confinement with additional conditions that allow Mr. Manafort to
visit with his attorneys, make court appearances, and leave his home in the case of a medical
emergency. Id. The Release Order requires that Mr. Manafort report to Pretrial Services each day
by telephone, and it precludes him from applying for a new passport. Id. Importantly, the Court’s
Release Order does not order Mr. Manafort to “stay away” from any individuals, nor is a “do not
contact” list attached to the Release Order, because there is no basis for imposing such conditions.
Id.
The Special Counsel creates an argument based on the thinnest of evidence; to wit, Mr.
Manafort violated the Release Order’s standard admonition that a defendant not commit an offense
while on release by allegedly attempting to tamper with trial witnesses. However, the scant proof
of this claim is an 84-second telephone call and a few text messages between Mr. Manafort (or an
associate referred to as “Person A”) and two former business associates (Doc. 315-2, Ex. N). These
brief text messages followed the filing of the Superseding Indictment on February 23, which was
the first time the Special Counsel raised any allegations about the mission and work of the
Hapsburg Group. (Doc. 202, ¶¶30, 31.) Closer scrutiny of this “evidence” reveals that the Special

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/391058-former-us-attorney-says-manafort-likely-to-goto-prison-friday (last accessed June 7, 2018); Mueller accuses Paul Manafort of witness tampering,
Washington Post, June 4, 2018, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/muelleraccuses-paul-manafort-of-witness-tampering/2018/06/04/df8fd2c4-685b-11e8-bf8cf9ed2e672adf story.html?utm term=.c2dc56f1fe08 (last accessed June 7, 2018); Judge orders Manafort
to respond to witness tampering claims, Politico, June 5, 2018, available at
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/05/manafort-witness-tampering-response-625164 (last accessed
June 7, 2018).

2

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 3 of 9

Counsel’s allegations are without merit because Mr. Manafort’s limited communications cannot
be fairly read, either factually or legally, to reflect an intent to corruptly influence a trial witness.
Indeed, the majority of the communications—which are identified in only one exhibit to
the motion—are irrelevant, innocuous and unsupportive of the conjured witness tampering claim.
For example, the first text message identified by the Special Counsel stated simply: “This is paul.”
(Doc. 315-2, ¶ 14.) Another communication—a telephone call between Mr. Manafort and the
recipient of the aforementioned text message—lasted only 84 seconds, and the Special Counsel
does not even identify (with a sworn affidavit or otherwise) the substance of what was discussed. 2
See id. The Special Counsel further points to four attempted phone calls in which Mr. Manafort
did not connect with anyone. (Doc. 315-2, Ex. N.) And, regarding Person A, the Special Counsel
relies on 13 text messages, only a handful of which contain something more than a greeting or a
request that the recipient help arrange further contact. Id.
Indeed, the crux of the Special Counsel’s motion is just two text communications from the
defendant and unfounded speculation. Although the agent cites “a series of messages” (Doc. 3152 at ¶ 17) sent by Mr. Manafort to an unidentified individual (“D1”), the two messages sent on
February 26 are the only messages that merit a response. The first only contained a link to a
publicly-available news report about certain alleged members of the Hapsburg Group; the second
text message, occurring one minute later, simply stated, “We should talk. I have made clear that

2

This is no small matter. It is clear from the Special Agent’s declaration that the agent spoke with the
person on the other end of the call (i.e., D1). (See Doc. 315-2, ¶¶ 19, 20). Instead of identifying what was
said exactly for purposes of this motion, however, the Special Counsel instead states what D1 “understood”
from Mr. Manafort’s brief text messages—not the telephone call that occurred. Id. at ¶19. The Special
Agent also states what D1 opines, i.e., what D1 believes Mr. Manafort knew. Id. Person D2, with whom
Mr. Manafort had no telephone conversations or text messages, states that D1 told him (D2) that he
“abruptly ended the call.” Id. at ¶ 20.

3

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 4 of 9

they worked in Europe.” Id. ¶ 15. 3 But these communications—which the Special Counsel
contends were made to improperly influence the recipients’ future trial testimony should they even
be called to testify—are entirely consistent with Mr. Manafort’s stated position and repeated
assertion of his innocence. 4
In fact, Mr. Manafort was presented with the idea for the European-focused “Project
Habsburg” by the very same individual (D1) that the Special Counsel’s Office now contends the
defendant sought to corruptly influence. (See Exhibit A, “Eyes Only Memo for Paul” from D1,
dated July 12, 2012.)

Reading this document (subject line: “Kick-Off Meeting of Project

Habsburg”) in conjunction with the Special Counsel’s June 2012 exhibit (Doc. 315-2, Ex. C)
outlining the group’s mission statement, clearly demonstrates the European focus of the group,
identifies Europeans as the group’s members, and shows that the conferences that were planned
were to occur in Europe. Id. The Special Counsel’s disagreement with Mr. Manafort’s view of
this case regarding the Hapsburg Group does not make it a crime for Mr. Manafort to communicate
his view to others, especially when he is not aware of who the Special Counsel may call as
witnesses. 5

3

The Special Counsel also references text messages sent by Person A, who advised another unidentified
individual (D2) that Mr. Manafort sought to provide D1 with a quick summary of his position, that
“basically” the Hapsburg Group did not engage in lobbying work in the United States and that it focused
on the European Union. (Doc. 315-2, ¶¶ 17).
4

See Doc. 315-5, reflecting the Hapsburg Group’s “Mission Statement: To take the direction from us
informally and via [redacted] to speak out in the European media and to write and publish occasional opeds and to appear at select conferences we stage in Rome, Berlin or Brussels before and after the election
of October, and if desired, to serve as a prestige international observer during the election. To essentially
promote the idea of a Ukraine that is closer to Europe than to Russia and to recognize its path toward
electoral and economic reforms. Perhaps to write and announce a report examining the Electoral Law in
terms of transparency, to emerge before or after the election this autumn.”

5

To the extent that the Special Counsel believes that Mr. Manafort’s (and/or Person A’s) use of “encrypted
messaging application[s]”, (see, e.g., Doc. 315 at 6), suggests illegal intent, Exhibit N to Doc. 315-2 reveals
that the text messages in question were sent using the WhatsApp or Telegram Messenger applications, both
of which are free, widely-used, social networking applications available at Apple’s App Store. This not-

4

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 5 of 9

ARGUMENT
Title 18, Section 1512(b)(1), makes it a crime to (1) knowingly (2) use intimidation, threats,
or corrupt persuasion or engage in misleading conduct toward another (3) with the intent to
influence, delay, or prevent the (4) testimony of that person in an official proceeding. 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(b)(1). As the Special Counsel obviously recognizes, the only way to establish a violation
of the statute in this case would be to convince the Court that there is probable cause to believe
that Mr. Manafort knowingly and intentionally engaged in corrupt persuasion to influence potential
trial witnesses. (Doc. 315 at 9-10.) While the Special Counsel’s motion generated enormous
negative media coverage against Mr. Manafort, the Special Counsel’s actual “proof” in the motion
is virtually nonexistent.
The type of evidence required to establish a violation of the witness tampering statute is
much more substantial than the Special Counsel’s speculation in his motion. In United States v.
Edlind, 887 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2018), the defendant’s witness tampering conviction was affirmed
because of the defendant’s repeated attempts to influence a witness’s testimony and avoid
government surveillance. Id. at 176. The charges in Edlind arose from a separate human
trafficking case involving a different defendant, who was a close friend of Edlind and incarcerated.

too-subtle attempt to poison the potential jury pool against Mr. Manafort through alleged and uncharged
“bad conduct” raised during the bail process has now become an undeniable pattern of heavy-handed tactics
employed by the Special Counsel. In the past, the Special Counsel has sought to portray the use of a
different telephone while traveling abroad to regions where communications are routinely hacked as worthy
of deep suspicion, even as major corporations (and the U.S. Government itself) preach caution in this regard.
(See Doc. 32 at 5-6). And Mr. Manafort’s passports (all in his own name) became clear evidence of
questionable conduct and demonstrated a severe risk of flight in the Special Counsel’s eyes, even though
minimal due diligence would have shown that Mr. Manafort’s permanent passport had been lost, replaced,
and subsequently recovered. Id. More recently, the Special Counsel’s unilateral contacts with a third party
that is not the subject of any allegations in the Superseding Indictment has clearly interfered with Mr.
Manafort’s private right of contract and has complicated and delayed the bond process for him.

5

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 6 of 9

Id. at 168. Edlind instructed other members of his friend’s support group that if any of them were
contacted by federal agents, they should state that they did not know anything. Id. at 169.
Several weeks prior to the trial, Edlind’s friend—who had been ordered to have no contact
with witnesses or potential witnesses—wrote him a letter from jail asking that Edlind meet with
two likely trial witnesses (who had been members of the support group) and impress upon one of
them that he should “clarify” statements he had made to federal agents. Id. at 168-70. Edlind told
the potential witnesses that they could not communicate over the phone and that, when they met,
they should leave their cell phones in their cars. Id. Edlind also tried to confuse one of the
witnesses as to whether, when the friend had made statements on prior occasions, he had been
making truthful statements or expressing an odd sense of humor. Id. at 170-71. Mr. Manafort
engaged in no such conduct based on the communications identified by the Special Counsel in his
motion.
The case law relied on by the Special Counsel confirms that a defendant must do much
more than communicate his views of a case and evidence to others to sustain an attempted witness
tampering charge. For example, in United States v. Gurr, 471 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2006), the
defendant attempted to have a witness sign a false affidavit. Id. at 154. In another case cited by
the Special Counsel, the defendant actually urged a witness to lie under oath at trial and falsely
state that the witness and the defendant had lived together for one year and that the witness babysat
the defendant’s children. See United States v. Morrison, 98 F.3d 619, 629 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In
United States v. LaShay, 417 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2005), the defendant attempted to influence a
witness’s testimony and “raised the subject daily for three days, stating that he wanted to make
sure [the witness] remembered” the defendant’s version of events. Id. at 717. The defendant in
United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2000), violated a release order that barred her

6

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 7 of 9

from communicating with potential trial witnesses and “reminded” one witness to state false
information concerning medical procedures. Id. at 128. In addition, during meetings with the
potential witness, the defendant “often treated [the witness’s] children to meals and gifts, which
was not [the defendant’s] previous custom.” Id. Lastly, in United States v. Cruzado-Laureano,
404 F.3d 470 (1st Cir. 2005), also cited by the Special Counsel, the defendant instructed witnesses
to mischaracterize payments made to the defendant as a loan or political contributions, and the
defendant made numerous calls to another witness to the extent that the witness hired counsel to
send the defendant a cease-and-desist letter. Id. at 487-88.
Finally, any determination would require evidence satisfying § 1512(b)’s mens rea
standard, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen, LLP v. United States: “Only
persons conscious of wrongdoing can be said to ‘knowingly . . . corruptly persuade.’ And limiting
criminality to persuaders conscious of their wrongdoing sensibly allows § 1512(b) to reach only
those with the level of ‘culpability . . . we usually require in order to impose criminal liability.’”
544 U.S. 696, 705-706 (2005) (citations omitted).
The communications and conduct alleged by the Special Counsel in this case come
nowhere near the conduct discussed in the cases supporting witness tampering charges. In fact,
nothing in the Release Order bars Mr. Manafort from communicating with others, whether those
individuals are possible witnesses at his trial or otherwise. 6 Mr. Manafort does not know the
individuals that the Special Counsel intends to call at his trial. The Special Counsel has not
provided Mr. Manafort with its witness list. Indeed, previously, Mr. Manafort had to move the

6

The Bail Reform Act, of course, contemplates this very issue and provides for such a “do not contact”
provision, an option that the Special Counsel has never sought. Specifically, the Court may in its discretion
order pretrial release subject to a condition that a defendant “avoid all contact … with a potential witness
who may testify concerning an offense[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(v). As noted, the Court did not
impose any such condition of release in this case.

7

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 8 of 9

Court for a Bill of Particulars requesting that the Special Counsel identify the “others” mentioned
in the Superseding Indictment precisely because the Special Counsel has refused to identify
relevant parties to the alleged charges. (Doc. 255 at 3.) That motion is pending, and Mr. Manafort
needs the information to identify potential witnesses and adequately prepare his defense.
Mr. Manafort asked no one to provide a false affidavit or false testimony at trial, or perjure
themselves, and he has not given—nor offered to give—any potential witness anything in
exchange for false testimony. At bottom, the Special Counsel contends that two brief text
messages to D1 concerning the Hapsburg Group’s activities (one which simply forwarded a press
article after the new allegations were made public in the February 2018 Superseding Indictment)
amounted to an effort to suborn perjury because the Special Counsel disagrees with the theory of
the defense. 7 In short, Mr. Manafort’s disagreement with the Special Counsel’s theory—and the
freedom that he, and any defendant in this country, has to express those views—does not provide
a basis to revoke or revise the current Release Order.
WHEREFORE, the Special Counsel’s motion to revoke or revise the current order of
pretrial release (Doc. 315) should be denied. The defendant requests the Court to accept the
recently submitted bail package as assuring his attendance as required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3142. In this regard, it must be reiterated that Mr. Manafort has been in full compliance with his
reporting obligations to Pretrial Services for almost eight months now, and he has secured
sufficient assets to support the current $10 million appearance bond. The new charge of witness
tampering made by the Special Counsel should be seen for what it is: an attempt to derail the

7

The Special Counsel’s argument improperly invites the Court to engage in unfounded speculation as to
how—based on the handful of communications set out in the Special Counsel’s motion—the potential
witness felt about the communications. The issue is not how the potential witness(es) perceived or felt
about Mr. Manafort’s alleged communications; rather, the focus is on whether Mr. Manafort had any
corrupt intent, and he plainly did not.

8

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319 Filed 06/08/18 Page 9 of 9

modified conditions of release at the eleventh hour. The Court should not condone such heavyhanded gamesmanship by the Special Counsel when there is no reason to believe that the latest
charge has somehow increased the risk of flight in this case.
Dated: June 8, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/____________________________
Kevin M. Downing
(D.C. Bar No. 1013984)
Law Office of Kevin M. Downing
601 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 754-1992
kevindowning@kdowninglaw.com

__/s/____________________________
Thomas E. Zehnle
(D.C. Bar No. 415556)
Law Office of Thomas E. Zehnle
601 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 368-4668
tezehnle@gmail.com

/s/
_________
Richard W. Westling
(D.C. Bar No. 990496)
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
1227 25th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: (202) 861-1868
Fax: (202) 296-2882
rwestling@ebglaw.com

9

 Case Document 319-1 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 3

Exhibit A

Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319-1 Filed 06/08/18 *Redaction
Page 2 ofKey*
3

HGM = Hapsburg Group Member
UO = Ukrainian Official

EYES ONLY MEMO FOR PAUL

Subject: Kick-Off Meeting of Project Habsburg
Date: July 12, 2012

1. D2
andD1 had a 5-hour meeting last night with Hapsburg Group Member and his
chief of staff. Yesterday morning, on July 11, 2012, he met in Brussels
together with Hapsburg Group Member and Hapsburg Group Member . Both have
accepted the offer, underground from now until December, and then as
public members from January 2013 of the new
. But even better…
Hapsburg Group Member
2.
, HGM and Hapsburg Group Member then also met yesterday in private with
European Official
in Brussels to discuss EU policy related to an
Hapsburg Group Member
issue on Khazakstan and WTO. Since
brought them on board for
European Official
our project before that meeting, they split the
meeting in half, and
shifted from Khazakstan to Ukraine.
3. Here is how HGM reported to us, in a summary of this heavyweight meeting
European Official
of himself and HGM and Hapsburg Group Member with
: “We compared Ukraine
to Khazakstan, saying that it was not in EU’s interest to lose either country to
the new Russian empire Putin is trying to build, but that Khazakstan has
already joined the Eurasian Union and Ukraine will not, provided Europe is
there for Ukraine. We told him Yanukovich is really committed to Europe,
European Official
and
said he knows that, and he agrees that Ukraine should not be
European Official
“lost” to EU and that he has talked a lot to Yanukovich (in fact,
said
Yanukovich is of the heads of state outside the EU he speaks to the most) and
he likes and respects Yanukovich and he wishes they could finalise and sign
the AA, but if he tried now while the Tymoshenko case is still big he would be
European Official
rejected by the European Parliament.
told us he is really frustrated
by the European Parliament. We mentioned that Ukraine are following EU
guidelines on judicial and election reform and the laws have been approved
by parliament but they really need help from EU to implement these things.
European Official
They need know how.
told us that “anything you can do to help to
assist them with reforms and these laws would be welcome because we
really want Ukraine with us and not with the Russians.” And he told HGM
and Hapsburg Group Member and HGM that if they can do something for Ukraine and
can help, “you will can have my support, to make things happen,” basically
European Official
urging them on. Hapsburg Group Member said: “Don’t push back Ukraine.”
replied: “The opposite. We need to embrace them.”
European Official
4. I asked HGM if he thought
would be open to exploring whether
some form of technical assistance from the European Commission could be
announced in connection with reforms and he said yes, and that he was
European Official
surprised how far they got
to go in their meeting yesterday. He said
European Official
if Paul wants he can and will go back to
for another meeting.
5. We discussed an idea, which HGM said he could discuss with Hapsburg Group Member ,
which was that
he
1

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 319-1 Filed 06/08/18 Page 3 of 3

could ask officially
to provide some “technical assistance from the
Commission” to help with judicial and electoral reforms, or at least the
former, which we could then repackage as a EU cooperation step with
Ukraine pre-election and Hapsburg Group Member could spin our way in public
statements with media.
6. We agreed on Vienna, Berlin, Rome and Paris conferences, starring HGM ,
Hapsburg Group Member
and HGM , with UO as featured Ukraine speaker. And media
around these.
7. We agreed that HGM would start lunching the OSCE
right away and
begin that “bridge.”
8. We agreed that HGM and Hapsburg Group Member and he would sign op-eds, be
available to speak for major newspaper interviews that Paul’s team and we
would recommend or fix, they would be willing to issue statements or a
report on free and fair elections in early October, plus plus… essentially
ready to do all, as long as Hapsburg Group Member ’s involvement is kept unofficial until
. And HGM and HGM stay under
radar as well until
emerges.
9. Next steps: HGM speaking to Hapsburg Group Member next few days, he asked me to
speak to HGM , and fix meeting for them as well, and he thinks European Official
would do it but he prefers a conservative (CDU) in Germany and tow ait on
European Official
. He is also exploring French.
10. Our judgement is that from now through December we have HGM , HGM ,
Hapsburg Group Member
and HGM , and we add a German and French sometime in
autumn or after election but use European Official meanwhile for Berlin
event too.
11. Timetable and Work Plan now being developed by us, for your review and
then to HGM for his review, but tentatively September 20/21 would suit
Hapsburg Group Member
for the Vienna conference.
12. Payments to each of the first three (HGM , HGM and Hapsburg Group Member ) are
requested to their companies in their own individual EU countries from
foreign company in places like Malta or Singapore, in HGM ’s case even
farther offshore if desired like BVI. He and HGM and Hapsburg Group Member are happy
if they get generic consulting contracts from private sector companies that do
not mention U, but they all intend to declare their income and pay taxes in
their countries so they want to issue invoices. They asked for first half to be
paid by August, and contracts in next 2 weeks. HGM may be more flexible.
European Official

2