ShareThis Page
Analysis: Robert Mueller may have just eliminated one of Trump’s biggest complaints |

Analysis: Robert Mueller may have just eliminated one of Trump’s biggest complaints

This courtroom sketch depicts former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, center, and his defense lawyer Richard Westling, left, before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, seated upper right, at federal court in Washington, Friday, Sept. 14, 2018, as prosecutors Andrew Weissmann, bottom center, and Greg Andres watch. Manafort has pleaded guilty to two federal charges as part of a cooperation deal with prosecutors. The deal requires him to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. The charges against Manafort are related to his Ukrainian consulting work, not Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

WASHINGTON — It’s not just that the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller is, in President Trump’s estimation, a partisan “witch hunt.” No, that’s just one small aspect of why Trump is frustrated by Mueller’s work.

There’s Trump’s worry that the probe “endangers our country,” as he told reporters last week on Air Force One. Why? Because it is “hard for us to deal with other countries” because of it.

And then there’s the cost. On June 1, he took issue with the cost as reported by Mueller’s team, tweeting:

“A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!”

That figure came from documents filed by Mueller’s team with the Department of Justice.

When former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was sentenced to two weeks in prison last week for lying to federal investigators, Trump compared his sentence to a figure of $28 million, presumably also a reference to the probe’s cost.

Where that number came from, though, isn’t clear. If we assume the same cost-per-day for the investigation that was reported through March of this year, the probe has so far cost the government about $26 million. That’s the $17 million through March and another $9 million since.

But, as journalist Marcy Wheeler pointed out on her personal site, the Mueller probe may have just paid for itself.

Why? Because part of the plea agreement reached between Mueller and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort includes forfeiture of certain property to the government. While it’s unclear how much value will be extracted from that forfeiture, there’s reason to think it could more than pay for what Mueller’s incurred so far.

For example, five properties are being forfeited: Union Street, Brooklyn, $4.1 million; Howard Street, Manhattan, $3 million; Jobs Lane, Water Mill, $7.3 milllion; Baxter Street, Manhattan, $4.1 million; and Trump Tower, Manhattan, $3.7 million.

(The document filed Friday with the court identified four properties being forfeited. A later document detailing the plea agreement identified the Baxter Street and Trump Tower properties as being substituted in for a property in Arlington, Va., and for a Charles Schwab brokerage account.)

The combined value of those properties is about $22.2 million, according to estimates at and assigning the 2006 sale price to his Trump Tower property. If those were sold at the values identified above and the money returned to the government, that alone nearly covers our estimated costs of the investigation to date.

Jennifer Rodgers, executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School, explained in a phone call to The Post that unless Manafort owns the properties outright — that is, without a mortgage or co-owner — there will be an agreement on how to split assets from a sale.

“Sometimes if it’s joint ownership you do have to go through a process with the other owners, with the other parties,” Rodgers said. “The government will do that as part of the forfeiture process. You can seize them, but seizing them doesn’t mean it’s all said and done. … They do have to account for any other owners.”

If there’s a mortgage, “the bank is not going to be out because he is a criminal,” she said.

Those properties also aren’t the only items of value being forfeited. Manafort also has to give up his life insurance policy. It’s not clear what the value of the policy is, but when he was first indicted he presented the court with a life-insurance policy or policies that he valued at about $4.5 million. Prosecutors were skeptical that the policies were worth that much.

Then there are three bank accounts — two at Federal Savings Bank, one at Capital One — that Manafort is also forfeiting. None of the values of those accounts is clear.

But one, Wheeler notes, may be tied to a $16 million loan Manafort got from Federal Savings Bank. A bank executive testified in Manafort’s Virginia trial that the institution had written off $11.8 million it was still owed; it’s not clear if that value is tied up in property or in an account.

We’re left with a broad range, then. The government’s seizures from Manafort could be worth some $42 million, including the upper estimates of just the properties, Federal Savings Bank loan and insurance policies. And that doesn’t include the other accounts, which might contain some portion of the $30 million that Wheeler points to as having been identified by the government as ill-gotten gains. That’s enough to pay for the Mueller probe for some time to come.

What was seized could also be, and likely is, a much smaller amount. At the time that Manafort was first indicted, he claimed to be worth $28 million. That presumably includes the value of his properties, which would suggest very little cash on hand — even before he spent months defending himself in court. That claim, though, is worth taking with a grain of salt. We know that Manafort’s past assertions have proven to be inaccurate, to put it mildly.

The plea agreement spells out that there is no restitution mandated of Manafort. In other words, what the government gets from the bank accounts, insurance policy and sale of the properties is the extent of its compensation, that $30 million notwithstanding. Former Assistant United States Attorney Mimi Rocah, who spoke by phone with The Post, indicated that the lack of mandated restitution was unusual. Since the agreement is essentially a contract between Manafort and the government, though, that was likely a subject of the negotiations.

There have been rumors for some time that Trump might pardon Manafort. If he does so, both Rocah and Rodgers suggested, the government will probably get to keep what’s been seized anyway.

The plea agreement stipulates that Manafort “agrees to forfeit criminally and civilly the following properties.” That “civilly” is important.

“Civil forfeiture is separate and he stipulated to it, so it’s going to be done now,” Rodgers said. “A pardon wouldn’t affect that.”

“I would think it would be very hard for him to get his property back,” Rocah said. But “that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t try to pardon him.”

After all, Trump does have other concerns related to Manafort that a pardon might aid.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.