49

Andrew Napolitano just said this on Fox News regarding the trial of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort:

Here’s Manafort’s defense: I was investigated for all this by the government 8 years ago and I was exonerated, and I’m going to put on the witness stand as my first witness the young lawyer who exonerated me. Do you know who that young lawyer is? Rod Rosenstein.

Is Napolitano right that Manafort was exonerated by the government 8 years ago for the crimes he’s now been charged with by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?

Zaki Aziz
  • 101
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 4,229
  • 4
  • 17
  • 36

1 Answers1

109

No, that's chronologically impossible, because some of the alleged crimes were committed less than 8 years ago.

The charges against Manafort are specified in this indictment. Many of the charges relate to actions allegedly taken by Manafort after 2010, so he couldn't possibly have been exonerated of those charges 8 years ago. In particular, Counts Four through Seven (false statements and obstruction of justice) relate to Manafort's allegedly false statements to investigators starting in 2016, and attempts to influence witnesses in that investigation.

It's true that some of the charges relate to patterns of conduct that started around 2008 and continued beyond 2010. If in fact Manafort was "exonerated" for those actions around 2010 (which I haven't verified), then one might guess that similar actions after 2010 weren't illegal either. But that isn't the situation for all the charges against him ("all this").

Nate Eldredge
  • 9,275
  • 5
  • 46
  • 48
  • 8
    mind that indictment is NOT charged. It's merely an intent to pursue charges. – jwenting Aug 02 '18 at 11:24
  • 12
    @jwenting: Maybe it's a semantic argument, but I think an indictment is exactly what most people mean when they say "charged", in the sense of "formally accused". Keep in mind that this indictment has been approved by a grand jury. The [DoJ](https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging) speaks of this process as the grand jury "voting to *charge* an individual with a crime". The indictment forced Manafort to either plead guilty or stand trial. Also, several dictionaries I checked give "indict" as a synonym of "charge". – Nate Eldredge Aug 02 '18 at 14:40
  • 6
    I believe, rather than an exoneration, it was a decision to not move forward with the case. – Michael Richardson Aug 02 '18 at 14:42
  • Re "patterns of conduct", suppose young Joe Punk robs a liquor store in '09. Witnesses are rather shaky, there's no physical evidence, so the prosecution decides they can't win a case. Encouraged by this, he goes on robbing liquor stores for the next few years. Now the prosecutors have got lots of witnesses, some physical evidence, and a long pattern of conduct, which means a good chance of winning the case. – jamesqf Aug 02 '18 at 16:12
  • 20
    Technically in the US legal system "exonerated" means the person was a) **Convicted** of a crime and b) A **judge** decides to reverse the conviction. Its not an activity within the power of a "young lawyer". – T.E.D. Aug 02 '18 at 16:16
  • 1
    @T.E.D. However, in common parlance in the US "exonerated" often means (read: is used to mean) "found not guilty". – TylerH Aug 02 '18 at 16:16
  • 24
    @TylerH - "found not guilty" is **also** a technical legal term, and it requires either a Judge or a Jury. Another thing a "young lawyer" cannot do. But more importantly, this use of what is in fact a criminal justice term for something having to do with the criminal justice process looks a lot like a purposeful attempt to convince people that something legally binding has happened that has not in fact happened. – T.E.D. Aug 02 '18 at 16:20
  • 1
    @T.E.D. - "Another thing a "young lawyer" cannot do. ..." I'm unfamiliar with Manafort's situation 8 years ago, so without commenting on whether it will work as a strategy, I think it's appropriate to talk about a "young lawyer who participated in the process and was instrumental in securing the ***exoneration***" as someone that could be put on the witness stand to testify about the situation, process, and outcome. In other words, to say "my lawyer exonerated me" does not mean the lawyer was fully and solely, officially responsible for making the decision to exonerate. – Kevin Fegan Aug 04 '18 at 19:40
  • @KevinFegan - But again, there was never any exoneration. Claiming there was one is (being generous) very misleading. And frankly, I'm not too sure why we have to be generous about such things. – T.E.D. Aug 05 '18 at 19:28
  • 1
    He was not exonerated, he was simply not charged due to lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Exoneration is commonly used as "found not guilty" and that's not what happened in 2008. – ventsyv Aug 06 '18 at 20:07
  • 1
    Perhaps someone would like to post an answer addressing the point of whether he was "exonerated" of anything at all. That way everyone can vote and comment on it directly. – Nate Eldredge Aug 06 '18 at 21:22
  • @NateEldredge - I didn't post it as an answer, because I knew any such answer would inevitably engage me in several annoying rounds of "well what he *meant* was..." with political supporters, and I was kind of hoping to see it somewhat edited into this (already superior) answer. Since the former seems to have happened anyway, and the latter really didn't, I guess you're correct that I should have made it an answer. I just don't like posting "addendum" answers. – T.E.D. Aug 07 '18 at 16:08