Thread by @jedshug

CORRECTION THREAD: I think we have a NY double jeopardy problem re: Manafort.
Let me first note that I have just spent 2 hours on a train comparing today's new @manhattanda indictment to the old Mueller indictment.
Problem 1: Today's indictment is badly written and confusing...

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1105911166579150849

2/ So here's the problem. In EDVA, Manafort was convicted of bank fraud in his application to Citizens Bank for a completed $3.4M loan on his 29 Howard St. property.
vox.com/2018/8/21/1769…

3/ Today's @manhattanda indictment is about Manafort defrauding two unnamed lenders, Lender 1 and Lender 2.
It seems clear now that Lender 1 in most of today's counts is Citizens Bank, and that alleged fraud is for the SAME LOAN in the federal conviction.

4/ So why do I think today's indictment is for the same bank fraud conviction?
Page 4 of today's indictment details the fraudulent 2016 loan application to Lender #1 for Manafort's Howard St. property. And today's Counts 1, 2, 3 say defendent "thereby received proceeds."

5/ Look, there was only one loan of $3.4 million in 2016 for Howard St. It's the same fraud from the federal conviction. And both this indictment and the federal indictment cited the same acts of fraud in Jan. and Feb. 2016. This is a double jeopardy problem

6/ Example 1 from today's indictment on p. 4:
Email from Manafort, Jan. 26, 2016:
“The appraiser for Howard St is calling to make an appointment to view the
condo....Remember, he believes that you and [Individual #3] are living there.”

7/ Compare that to the federal indictment, p. 22:
"On January 26, 2016, MANAFORT wrote to his son-in-law to advise
him that when the bank appraiser came to assess the condominium, his son-in-law should “[r]emember, he believes that you and [MANAFORT’s daughter] are living there.”

8/ Example #2: From p. 4 of today's indictment:
On..February 24, 2016, “Both issues were resolved today. [Individual #6] has informed [Individual #5] & will be forwarding her the appropriate documentation from the Insurance Company later today.” Compare that to the feds p. 23...

9/ Feds seemed to have cited same email:
"After GATES contacted the insurance broker and asked her to provide Lender B with false information, he updated MANAFORT by email on February 24, 2016. MANAFORT replied to GATES, on the same day: “good job on the insurance issues.”

10/ You might be saying, "But there were 16 counts today! That's just one, right?"
Nope. At least 9 and probably 12 of those 16 Counts all related to the fraud upon Citizens.
Only Counts 12, 13, 14, 15 are against Lender #2, and they are more minor charges.

11/ Here's the NY state law (40.20) on double jeopardy, much broader than the federal 5th Amendment. Read whole thing. Here are the basics:
"A person may not be separately prosecuted for two offenses based upon the same act or criminal transaction..."
nysenate.gov/legislation/la…

12/ "...unless:
(a) The offenses as defined have substantially different elements and the acts establishing one offense are in the main clearly distinguishable from those establishing the other...
These are not clearly distinguishable offenses. Same fraud.

13/ Or unless...
"b) Each of the offenses as defined contains an element which is not an element of the other, and the statutory provisions defining such offenses are designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil"
Sorry, these are very similar kinds of harms/evils.

14/ The other exceptions don't save @manhattanda either.
I'm honestly stunned how incompetent this is. Cy Vance had a year to get this right. If there is something I'm missing, why didn't Cy Vance write this indictment to clarify or address this problem?

15/ You might be wondering about NY changing this double jeopardy law soon to fix the "pardon loophole."
No way this applies retroactively to Manafort. Ex post facto law.
See Supreme Court case Stogner v. California.
Cy Vance has some explaining to do.

16/ What if "Lender #1" wasn't Citizens, but was a bank helping w/ the same loan. It's still the "same acts" and "same transaction."
Maybe Vance relies on this exception:
"40.20(e) Each offense involves death, injury, loss or other consequence to a different victim."
Skeptical.