THE COURT: All right. Thank you.The matter is before the Court today on yourmotion, Mr. Downing. So you may begin. I have someknowledge.Let me ask a few facts so that I can beclear. Let me ask the government -- or not thegovernment -- the special counsel a few questions,Mr. Dreeben.
MR. DREEBEN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The indictmentagainst Mr. Manafort was filed in February, but itactually was antedated by a filing in the District ofColumbia. These allegations of bank fraud, of falseincome tax returns, of failure to register or reportrather, failure to file reports of foreign bankaccounts, and bank fraud, these go back to 2005, 2007,and so forth. Clearly, this investigation ofMr. Manafort's bank loans and so forth antedated theappointment of any special prosecutor and, therefore,must've been underway in the Department of Justice forsome considerable period before the letter ofappointment, which is dated the 17th of May in 2017.Am I correct?
MR. DREEBEN: That is correct, Your Honor.THE COURT: All right. So when the specialprosecutor was appointed -- and I have the letter ofappointment in front of me -- what did they do? Turnover their file on their investigation of Mr. Manafortto you all?
MR. DREEBEN: Essentially, Your Honor,special counsel was appointed to conduct aninvestigation --
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Answer my question. Did you remember what my question was?
MR. DREEBEN: Yes, Your Honor, and I was attempting to answer your question. We did acquire the various investigatory threads that related to Mr. Manafort upon the appointment of the special counsel.
THE COURT: Apparently, if I look at the indictment, none of that information has anything to do with links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump. That seems to me to be obvious because they all long predate any contact or any affiliation of this defendant with the campaign. So I don't see what relation this indictment has with anything the special prosecutor is authorized to investigate.It looks to me instead that what is happening is that this investigation was underway. It had something. The special prosecutor took it, got indictments, and then in a time-honored practice which I'm fully familiar with -- it exists largely in the drug area. If you get somebody in a conspiracy and get something against them, you can then tighten the screws, and they will begin to provide information in what you're really interested in. That seems to me to be what is happening here. I'm not saying it's illegitimate, but I think we ought to be very clear about these facts and what is happening.Now, I think you've already conceded appropriately that this investigation that has led tothis indictment long antedated the appointment of a special prosecutor; that it doesn't have anything to do with Russia or the campaign; and that he's indicted;and it's useful, as in many cases by prosecutors, to exert leverage on a defendant so that the defendant will turn and provide information on what is really the focus of the special prosecutor.Where am I wrong in that regard?
MR. DREEBEN: The issue, I think, before you is whether Mr. Manafort can dismiss the indictment based on his claim.
THE COURT: Yes. Now I asked you: Where amI wrong about that?
MR. DREEBEN: Your Honor, our investigatory scope does cover the activities that led to the indictment in this case.
THE COURT: It covers bank fraud in 2005 and2007?
MR. DREEBEN: Yes, because --
THE COURT: Tell me how.
MR. DREEBEN: Your Honor, the authorization for the special counsel to investigate matters is described generally in the appointment order on May --
THE COURT: I have it right in front of me,and it won't surprise you to learn that I'm fully familiar with it. My question to you was, how does bank fraud and these other things that go back to 2005, 2007, how does that have anything to do with links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Trump?
MR. DREEBEN: So the authorization order permits investigation of two different things that are described in separate clauses. The first are links and coordination between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government's effort to influence the election. Mr. Manafort was a campaign official.
THE COURT: You're running away from my question again. You know, I'm focused on the indictment that is here.
MR. DREEBEN: Correct.
THE COURT: It involves facts and circumstances that go back as far as 2005 and come forward, Mr. Manafort's loans from several banks that you all claim he submitted fraudulent statements -- I'm asking you, and I've already established this investigation long predated the special prosecutor.And so what is really going on, it seems to me, is that this indictment is used as a means of exerting pressureon the defendant to give you information that really isin your appointment, but it itself has nothing whatever to do with it.
MR. DREEBEN: Well, Your Honor, I understand the question. I'm trying to explain why I think that it does have to do with our investigatory scope, and I think there are a couple of premises that may help illuminate what that investigatory scope is.The first one is that in examining an individual who was associated with the Trump campaign and did have Russian-affiliated connections, which Mr. Manafort did --
THE COURT: Are they Russian or Ukrainian?
MR. DREEBEN: Both. Mr. Manafort worked extensively in Ukraine, and he also has business connections and other connections to individuals associated with Russia.In following the leads from those things,investigators want to understand the full scope of his relationship, how he was paid, with whom he associated,what happened to the money, and that leads to the activities that are at issue in this indictment.
THE COURT: Well, it didn't lead to that.This was given to you by the Department of Justice.The investigation was already well underway going back to 2005. Am I correct?
MR. DREEBEN: Well, I think, Your Honor, the investigation has developed considerably with the special counsel.
THE COURT: Wasn't it already in existence in the Department of Justice, and they gave it to you when you all were appointed?
MR. DREEBEN: There were investigations that were in existence, yes, but those investigations were folded together with our overall examination of Mr. Manafort's conduct that fits within (b)(i).
THE COURT: All right. Do you have it in front of you?
MR. DREEBEN: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I think you would agree that the indictment that we have before the Court is not triggered by (i), which says, "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Bank fraud in 2005 and other things had nothing whatever to do with that. So then you go to number two. It says, "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Well, this indictment didn't arise from your investigation; it arose from a preexisting investigation even assuming that that (ii) is a valid delegation because it's open-ended.Go ahead, sir.
