ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) – Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked a federal judge Monday to deny Paul Manafort’s request for a hearing exploring “allegedly improper disclosures” made by the media, which the former Trump campaign chairman says ruined his chances for a fair trial.
Monday’s request came in a flurry of filings at the federal Virginia Court where Manafort faces trial on bank and tax fraud charges beginning July 10.
According a 19-page motion filed by Andrew Weissman, special assistant to special counsel Robert Mueller, Manafort’s claims of prejudice fall short since his “sampling of press reports” don’t point to specific information about his grand jury investigation last year.
“The government attorneys and agents involved in this case understand and respect their duty to preserve grand-jury secrecy as required by Rule 6(e) [of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] and to avoid public disclosures that could jeopardize a defendant’s right to a fair trial,” the motion states. “Manafort’s speculative claim of improper conduct falls far short of the showing necessary to warrant a hearing on potential violations of Rule 6e or of his constitutional rights.”
Any concerns of pretrial prejudice can be resolved during jury selection, Weissman wrote.
“A pretrial hearing on alleged government leaks, which would itself generate publicity on the very matters that Manafort finds prejudicial, is unwarranted,” the motion states.
A grand jury returned an indictment against Manafort in February, charging him on multiple counts including filing false tax returns, failure to report foreign bank accounts and bank fraud conspiracy.
This month, Manafort’s attorney Kevin Downing asked U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III to dismiss the indictment altogether due to multiple “leak-based” reports containing attributions from “numerous unidentified government officials.”
But a closer look at the news articles Downing cited unravel that argument, Weissman says.
The first article – an October 2016 NBC News story announcing the FBI’s preliminary inquiry into Manafort’s bank accounts – featured comments from “law enforcement and intelligence sources.”
It also states the inquiry had not yet “blossomed into a full-blown criminal investigation” and notes that the FBI did not comment.
“It does not mention the convening of, or proceedings, before any grand jury” Weissman writes.
A story in The New York Times quoted “four current and former American officials” with knowledge of “phone records and intercepted calls” showing members of Trump’s campaign team in frequent contact with senior Russian intelligence officials in 2015 also fails to mention anything about grand jury proceedings.
Three stories published by the Associated Press between March and April 2017 which described Manafort’s work in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign and his ties to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska didn’t prejudice Manafort either, Weissman said, since the sources were listed as “several people familiar with payments.”
Manafort is also described as being “part of a broad investigation to recover stolen Ukrainian assets” in the articles and it’s noted “that no criminal charges had been filed in the case,” the motion states.
Five more articles Manafort’s legal team cites postdate Mueller’s appointment to the Russia probe.