Case 1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document 59 Filed 11/21/18 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Criminal No. 17-cr-182-RDM

v.
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS,
Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE BAIL
Defendant George Papadopoulos has moved to continue his bail pending the decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In Re: Grand Jury
Investigation, No. 18-3052. The motion should be denied. The defendant has no pending appeal,
his motion is made for purposes of delay, and he has not presented a substantial legal question that
is likely to result in reversal.
BACKGROUND
1.

On October 5, 2017, defendant Papadopoulos pleaded guilty before this Court to

making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1001. As detailed in the Statement of the Offense, the defendant lied to the FBI regarding his
interactions with a foreign professor whom he understood to have significant ties to the Russian
government, as well as a female Russian national. The defendant claimed his interactions with
these individuals were inconsequential and predated his time on the Trump Campaign. In truth
and fact, the defendant knew that the professor took an interest in him only after the professor
learned the defendant was affiliated with the Trump Campaign, and in late April 2016 after
returning from a trip to Moscow, the professor told the defendant that Russia possessed “dirt” on
Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails” while the defendant was affiliated with the Campaign.

 Case 1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document 59 Filed 11/21/18 Page 2 of 6

As part of his plea agreement, the defendant explicitly agreed to waive any motion brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), except to the extent such a motion was
based on newly discovered evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel. See Exh. A, at 7.
2.

The defendant’s sentencing was scheduled for September 7, 2016. In advance of

the defendant’s sentencing, there were numerous public reports that the defendant was considering
trying to withdraw his guilty plea. 1 Ten days prior to his sentencing, the defendant publicly
tweeted, “Been a hell of a year. Decisions.”
3.

On September 7, 2018, this Court held a sentencing proceeding where the defendant

stated that he had “lied to the FBI” and, “[t]hat was wrong, it was a crime.” (Tr. 33, 34). He said
that his parents raised him “with the principles of honesty and respect for the law,” and when he
lied to the FBI, he “cast aside those principles and compromised the person who [he is].” (Tr. 33).
The defendant further stated that, “standing here in front of the Court and you, your Honor, and
the public today signals to all future and current witnesses in this investigation that this
investigation has global implications and that the truth matters.” (Tr. 35). The defendant closed
by telling the Court that he had been “grateful for the opportunity [he] was given to assist in this
investigation” and he had “nothing but respect for the Court and the legal process.” Id. The Court
sentenced the defendant to fourteen days incarceration followed by twelve months of supervised
release and a fine of $9,500.
4.

Following the defendant’s sentencing, he made a variety of public statements that

appear to be inconsistent with his stated acceptance of responsibility at sentencing. For example,
on October 25, 2018, the defendant publicly tweeted that his prosecution constituted “the biggest

See, e.g. Matthew Mosk, Papadopoulos Could Decide to Withdraw Guilty Plea This Week, Wife Says, ABC News,
August 20, 2018, available at https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/papadopoulos-decide-withdraw-guilty-plea-weekwife.
1

2

 Case 1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document 59 Filed 11/21/18 Page 3 of 6

case of entrapment!” 2 Appearing on a national television show the next day, the defendant stated
that he was “considering withdrawing his agreement” because he should not “have to serve even
one day in jail for something that now it seems was completely orchestrated and I was framed[.]”
Several days later, the defendant publicly tweeted: “I have been sentenced to prison in our country
while having exculpatory evidence hidden from me. If I knew what I knew today, I would have
never plead guilty.” 3 On November 9, 2018, the defendant tweeted, “Biggest regret? Pleading
guilty[.]” 4
ARGUMENT
THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT JUSTIFY DELAYING THE DEFENDANT’S
REPORTING DATE
A.

There is No Appeal Pending in This Case

The defendant first argues that he should be “release[d] pending appeal.” Mtn at 1; See also
18 U.S.C. 3143(b) (“Release or detention pending appeal by the defendant”). However, there is
no pending appeal in this case. The defendant’s time to file any appeal expired on September 25,
2018, fourteen days after the entry of judgment. See Dkt. 50. Moreover, the defendant expressly
waived his rights to appeal a sentence within the statutory range, which he received. See Exh. A,
at 6.
B.

The Defendant Does Not Meet the Standards of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)

Even if an appeal were allowed in the face of the defendant’s express waiver and the
expiration of time to file, the defendant has failed to show that he meets the necessary criteria
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). First, the defendant’s public statements following his sentencing

This tweet has since been removed from the defendant’s public Twitter account.
This tweet has since been removed from the defendant’s public Twitter account.
4
This tweet has since been removed from the defendant’s public Twitter account.
2
3

3

 Case 1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document 59 Filed 11/21/18 Page 4 of 6

indicate that this motion is being made for the “purposes of delay,” 18 U.S.C. §3143(b)(1)(B). As
described above, the defendant has recently and publicly claimed that he should not serve “even
one day in jail” for his guilty plea. Moreover, the defendant’s newly raised argument has long
been available to him. The first Court opinion addressing the validity of the Special Counsel’s
appointment was publicly released on August 2, 2018, see In re Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F.
Supp. 3d 602 (D.D.C. 2018) (Howell, C.J.), well in advance of his sentencing, and the litigation
the defendant cites as his ostensible reason for delay has long been the subject of much public
commentary. C.f. Def. Mtn at 9 (claiming that the litigation constitutes “newly discovered
evidence.”).
Second, the defendant has failed to show that he raises a “substantial question . . . likely to
result in . . . reversal” with regard to his challenge to the authority of the Special Counsel. Two
judges of this Court have rejected the same argument, concluding that the appointment of the
Special Counsel is valid. See In Re Grand Jury Investigation, supra; United States v. Concord
Mgmt.&7 Consulting LLC, 317 F. Supp 3d 598 (D.D.C. 2018) (Friedrich, J.); see also United
States v. Manafort 2018 WL 3126380 (E.D. Va. June 26, 2018), at *3 n.5 (noting that, although
not briefed, an Appointments Clause “objection would likely fail”). Once the defendant pleaded
guilty “[t]he law has shifted from a presumption of release to a presumption of valid conviction,”
United States v. Perholtz, 836 F.2d 554, 556 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citation omitted), and the defendant
therefore bears the burden of rebutting this presumption and “demonstrat[ing] that he has a
substantial question to present [upon appeal] before he may be admitted to bail,” United States v.
Shoffner, 791 F.2d 586, 589 (7th Cir. 1986).

An issue is “substantial” within the meaning §

3143(b) only if it “is a close question or one that very well could have been decided the other way.”
Perholtz, 836 F.2d at 555 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted) (adopting the “more

4

 Case 1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document 59 Filed 11/21/18 Page 5 of 6

demanding” standard applied in the courts of appeals); see United States v. Libby, 498 F. Supp. 2d
1, 3 (D.D.C. 2007) (concluding that “the Appointments Clause issue raised by the defendant” – a
claim that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was a principal officer – “does not present ‘a
substantial question of law or fact likely to result in . . . reversal’”). The defendant has not
established that the issue he would raise is “close” or “very well could have been decided the other
way.” Nor has he established that he would be able to surmount the procedural hurdles of his
guilty plea, his plea-agreement waivers, and his failure to raise the issues in a timely manner, as
would be needed to show that the issue is likely to result in reversal.
The defendant argues, in the alternative, that he has made out “a clear case of hardship or
inequity in being required to go forward,” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Def.
Mtn at 2. But beginning to serve a sentence within his contemplated plea range while a legal issue
is pending on appeal in an unrelated case does not qualify as hardship or inequity. The defendant
cites no case so holding. And the statutory authority he cites explicitly refers to release pending
“appeal.” Here, as part of a favorable plea agreement, the defendant waived his appeal and did
not file a timely notice. The defendant received what he bargained for, and holding him to it is not
a hardship.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny the
defendant’s motion.

5

 Case 1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document 59 Filed 11/21/18 Page 6 of 6

Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
Special Counsel
Dated: November 21, 2018

By:

6

_____/s/_________________
Jeannie S. Rhee
Andrew D. Goldstein
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky
The Special Counsel’s Office

 Case Document 59-1 Filed 11/21/18 Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT A

Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 12 of
of 910

 Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 23 of
of 910

 Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 34 of
of 910

 Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 45 of
of 910

 Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 56 of
of 910

 Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 67 of
of 910

 Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 78 of
of 910

 Case
Case1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDM Document
Document59-1
18 Filed
Filed 10/05/17
11/21/18 Page
Page 89 of
of 910

 Case
Case
1:17-cr-00182-RDM
1:17-cr-00182-RDMDocument
Document
59-1
18 Filed
Filed 11/21/18
10/05/17 Page
Page 10
9 ofof910