U.S. judge issues gag order in Manafort case

[webfact]

U.S. judge issues gag order in Manafort case

By Karen Freifeld

 

Paul Manafort, former campaign manager for U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, U.S., November 6, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The judge presiding over the criminal case against President Donald Trump's former campaign manager issued a gag order on Wednesday barring anyone involved in the case from making public statements that might taint it.

 

Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates were arraigned in federal court in Washington last week on a 12-count indictment that accused them of conspiring to launder money, failing to disclose foreign bank accounts and failing to register as foreign agents of Ukraine's former pro-Russian government.

 

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said in her written order she wanted to make sure the trial was fair and that potential jurors were not influenced by pre-trial publicity.

 

She directed the defendants, all lawyers and any potential witnesses to "refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice" to the case.

 

Jackson had previously warned lawyers about discussing the case publicly after Manafort defence lawyer Kevin Downing made a defiant statement outside the courthouse following his client's arraignment on Monday.

 

"This is a criminal trial and not a public relations campaign," Jackson said in court last week.

 

Downing, appearing before television cameras on Monday, said the charges against Manafort were "ridiculous" and said the president was correct to insist there was "no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government."

 

The charges against Manafort and Gates stem from special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

 

Manafort and Gates have both pleaded not guilty.

 

The Kremlin has denied meddling in the election and Trump has denied any collusion took place.

 

Downing did not respond to a request for comment. Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, declined to comment.

 

Jackson had asked the parties last week if they had any objections to a gag order. None responded.

 

Downing's statements outside the courthouse had raised eyebrows among defence lawyers.

 

"Judge Jackson is a no-nonsense judge and he's clearly angered her to no purpose," said Eric Lewis, a longtime Washington trial lawyer.

 

But Los Angeles defence lawyer Mark Geragos said he thought Downing might indeed have had a purpose in mind: currying favour with Trump in the hopes of eventually securing Manafort a presidential pardon.

 

"The cynic in me would say that was exactly what was happening," said Geragos, "that there was an audience of one."

 

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Editing by Anthony Lin and Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-09

[zaphod reborn]

Although the judge used Manafort's attorney's out of court statements to justify the pretrial publicity ban, that ban is really directed at Trump and his ridiculous tweeting addiction.  If Trump weighs in on this case, the judge will point out that he is a potential witness and is included in the gag order.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Of course the twit will tweet about it. As soon as you tell the twit not to do something he will immediately do just that.

[Srikcir]

21 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

Although the judge used Manafort's attorney's out of court statements to justify the pretrial publicity ban, that ban is really directed at Trump and his ridiculous tweeting addiction.  If Trump weighs in on this case, the judge will point out that he is a potential witness and is included in the gag order.

With the gag order, if Trump continues to weigh in publicly (regardless how he delivers it) to Manafort's innocence, there might add further evidence of Trump's Obstruction of Justice.

Furthermore, if and when Manafort's case goes to a jury trial, should President Trump make public statements to Manafort's innocence or possible Presidential Pardon, it could be considered jury tampering - again potential Obstruction of Justice.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Srikcir
spelling

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

With the gag order, if Trump continues to weigh in publicly (regardless how he delivers it) to Manafort's innocence, there might add further evidence of Trump's Obstruction of Justice.

Furthermore, if and when Manafort's case goes to a jury trial, should President Trump make public statements to Manafort's innocence or possible Presidential Pardon, it could be considered jury tampering - again potential Obstruction of Justice.

Good point. Would leaks from the Special Counsels staff to media outlets also come under the authority of a gag order and what if anything might the consequences for leaking be?

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Good point. Would leaks from the Special Counsels staff to media outlets also come under the authority of a gag order and what if anything might the consequences for leaking be?

I would think so as contempt of court.

Consequences might depend on the seriousness of the leak relative to the defendant's right to a fair and speedy trial.

To date there has been no proven leaks by the Mueller team. The only "leaks" thus far have come from Manafort's attorneys; thus, the gag order. Seems unlike the White House Mueller runs a very professional and committed team of prosecutors. I hope that continues.

[boomerangutang]

Smart move, but it won't stop the country's biggest blabber-mouth from mouthing off. 

 

Trump makes a loose cannon look like its bolted to the deck.

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I would think so as contempt of court.

Consequences might depend on the seriousness of the leak relative to the defendant's right to a fair and speedy trial.

To date there has been no proven leaks by the Mueller team. The only "leaks" thus far have come from Manafort's attorneys; thus, the gag order. Seems unlike the White House Mueller runs a very professional and committed team of prosecutors. I hope that continues.

I think Manaforts lawyers were cited for making what the judge felt were prejudicial comments, thus the imposition of the gag order. If notice of the impending indictments didn't come from someone inside the Special Counsel's team where could it have possibly come from?

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Good point. Would leaks from the Special Counsels staff to media outlets also come under the authority of a gag order and what if anything might the consequences for leaking be?

The special counsel's team has been well disciplined re; leaks.  Nobody, other than the few  folks affected, knew of the guilty plea by a Trump associate from months ago, until it was published a few days ago.

 

It's the opposite of Trump, who can't keep his tweeting fingers still.  He's already guaranteed a lighter sentence for the recent NY murderer.  How will he next skew justice?  The mind reels.

[Srikcir]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

I think Manaforts lawyers were cited for making what the judge felt were prejudicial comments, thus the imposition of the gag order. If notice of the impending indictments didn't come from someone inside the Special Counsel's team where could it have possibly come from?

Manafort's lawyers, court personnel, janitor who cleans the court offices, the 400 pound fat man in bed hacking court records - who knows?

[boomerangutang]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I think Manaforts lawyers were cited for making what the judge felt were prejudicial comments, thus the imposition of the gag order. If notice of the impending indictments didn't come from someone inside the Special Counsel's team where could it have possibly come from?

What's wrong with mentioning impending indictments?   

Is it also wrong for a weatherman to mention an impending storm?

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

What's wrong with mentioning impending indictments?   

Is it also wrong for a weatherman to mention an impending storm?

They are called "sealed indictments" for a reason.

[Srikcir]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

They are called "sealed indictments" for a reason.

Trump’s real leak problem is not with Mueller’s team. It’s with his own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/31/trumps-real-leak-problem-is-not-with-muellers-team-its-with-his-own/?utm_term=.93c7f99982f6

 

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Trump’s real leak problem is not with Mueller’s team. It’s with his own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/31/trumps-real-leak-problem-is-not-with-muellers-team-its-with-his-own/?utm_term=.93c7f99982f6

 

There is no end to his problems.

[ilostmypassword]

46 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I think Manaforts lawyers were cited for making what the judge felt were prejudicial comments, thus the imposition of the gag order. If notice of the impending indictments didn't come from someone inside the Special Counsel's team where could it have possibly come from?

It could have come from witnesses who are not bound by gag orders or, as is often the case, from the lawyers of clients. Lawyers are often warned in advance that their client are under indictment or that they are about to be arrested.

Also there is some contention of whether justice dept. lawyers are bound to stay mum about the investigations as opposed to court proceedings.

Edited November 10, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[mrwebb8825]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I would think so as contempt of court.

Consequences might depend on the seriousness of the leak relative to the defendant's right to a fair and speedy trial.

To date there has been no proven leaks by the Mueller team. The only "leaks" thus far have come from Manafort's attorneys; thus, the gag order. Seems unlike the White House Mueller runs a very professional and committed team of prosecutors. I hope that continues.

Congressman and House Oversight Committee chair Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told “Fox News Sunday,” that Mueller’s team broke the law by leaking news of upcoming charges to CNN. Gowdy warned Mueller about leaking details of the investigation to the press.

 

Gowdy said, “In the only conversation I’ve had with Robert Mueller, I stressed to him the importance of cutting out the leaks with respect to serious investigations. It’s kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and the violations of the law would violate the law.”

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Friday warned that special counsel Robert Mueller, who is directing the Justice Department's investigation into Russian election meddling, will be held responsible for any leaks from his probe.

 

But while the charges remain sealed until Monday, one news organization had the scoop Friday night. 

CNN exclusively reported the major development Friday night, citing anonymous sources connected to the probe. 

The news channel reports: 

A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.

A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment.

[mrwebb8825]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

It could have come from witnesses who are not bound by gag orders or, as is often the case, from the lawyers of clients. Lawyers are often warned in advance that their client are under indictment or that they are about to be arrested.

Also there is some contention of whether justice dept. lawyers are bound to stay mum about the investigations as opposed to court proceedings.

She directed the defendants, all lawyers and any potential witnesses to "refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice" to the case.

[mrwebb8825]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

What's wrong with mentioning impending indictments?   

Is it also wrong for a weatherman to mention an impending storm?

**FACEPALM**  Only a Clinton supporter could have thought up that comparison.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, mrwebb8825 said:

She directed the defendants, all lawyers and any potential witnesses to "refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice" to the case.

And the gag order was issued when?

[mrwebb8825]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And the gag order was issued when?

Pass - 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Srikcir said:

With the gag order, if Trump continues to weigh in publicly (regardless how he delivers it) to Manafort's innocence, there might add further evidence of Trump's Obstruction of Justice.

Furthermore, if and when Manafort's case goes to a jury trial, should President Trump make public statements to Manafort's innocence or possible Presidential Pardon, it could be considered jury tampering - again potential Obstruction of Justice.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

23 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

They are called "sealed indictments" for a reason.

If you listened well to the news reports from Friday thru the weekend, you would have heard, "One or more indictments are coming by Monday or Tuesday."

 

No news organization had specific names.  They just said the word 'indictment(s).'

 

There is no law against reporting that indictments are imminent.  

 

As a prior poster mentioned, lawyers are usually among the first to get wind of indictments - and lawyers have big mouths. .....so it's not a stretch to imagine they would tell the world.  Similarly, there are witnesses, spouses, friends, and others, .....any of whom could spill the beans. 

 

All indications, thus far, show that Mueller's team are professional - and are leaking nothing.  Remember, these cases (there are many) are ballooning by the day.  Thousands of people involved.  

 

A Florida House of Reps man is now saying Mueller should step down because he has met Comey.  Of course they met.  They're both former FBI directors.  There are dozens of people on Mueller's team, and hundreds/thousands of people involved with the defendants.  Of course some of those people have interacted in the past - at parties, health clubs, whatever.   The Florida Rep is making an ass of himself (probably on Trump's orders) to try and throw a wrench into the spokes of Mueller's investigation.  It won't work.

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

If you listened well to the news reports from Friday thru the weekend, you would have heard, "One or more indictments are coming by Monday or Tuesday."

 

No news organization had specific names.  They just said the word 'indictment(s).'

 

There is no law against reporting that indictments are imminent.  

 

As a prior poster mentioned, lawyers are usually among the first to get wind of indictments - and lawyers have big mouths. .....so it's not a stretch to imagine they would tell the world.  Similarly, there are witnesses, spouses, friends, and others, .....any of whom could spill the beans. 

 

All indications, thus far, show that Mueller's team are professional - and are leaking nothing.  Remember, these cases (there are many) are ballooning by the day.  Thousands of people involved.  

 

I think you are correct that at the time of the leak it would not have been illegal for the accused, witnesses or the defense attorney to leak the information. It would be contempt of court if done by the government lawyers. In light of the subsequent gag order I'm inclined to think any future leaks could put any of those possible sources in contempt of court, but I'm no Philadelphia lawyer.

[mrwebb8825]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

As a prior poster mentioned, lawyers are usually among the first to get wind of indictments - and lawyers have big mouths. .....so it's not a stretch to imagine they would tell the world.  Similarly, there are witnesses, spouses, friends, and others, .....any of whom could spill the beans. 

Prosecutors present evidence to the grand jury ex parte, then they deliberate to see if an indictment is warranted, then they inform the prosecutor's team. From there, without naming names, it went to the press.