If the Government Obtains the Full Manafort Forfeiture, the Mueller Investigation Will Have Netted Almost $21 Million

The Special Counsel’s Office has released their latest expenditures report.

Thus far, here’s how the SCO spending breaks down (as the reports make clear, SCO is not legally obligated to track the indirect expenses that DOJ would spend otherwise, but they have been asked to do so).





May 17, 2017 to September 30, 2017




October 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018




April 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018









As a reminder, as part of his plea deal, Paul Manafort has to forfeit as much of the $46 million he can scrape together of the ill-gotten gains he earned from his crimes.

Unsurprisingly, there are a number of entities — most amazingly Steven Calk’s bank — contesting Manafort’s claims to actually own a number of the financial and real estate holdings that he said he did.

Still, if the US government can find enough assets to squeeze out of Manafort, the Mueller investigation will have — through October 1 — netted $20,784,148 million for the US Treasury. And that’s before the $500,000 Michael Cohen will have to pay, as well as any forfeiture Sam Patten will pay when he is sentenced for his sleazy influence peddling, in cases referred by Mueller to other US Attorney’s offices.

46 replies
  1. Eureka says:

    I wonder how many more “helpful” twitter drive-bys ew will get from the non-math-(or non-accounting-) adept, “reminding” that it is 46 million.

  2. Robert Littlejohn says:

    The scandals are multiplying at a terrific rate.   The latest on the inaugural is incredible.    This is the biggest scandal in American history.

    When they finish popping this boil, there’s going  to be a mess all over the place.

    We need an army of Marcys to keep track.

    • oldoilfieldhand says:

      Catch up RJ. Marcy is an army! Everyone who reads history (in the making) knows that an army marches on its stomach. Feed the support tab.

  3. Geoff says:

    It’s really quite astonishing. The $175k a day rate or that ballroom was the rate they agreed to AFTER Ivanka tried to get way more. That is scary stuff.

  4. punaise says:

    Well, Orlando is probably close to tony Mar al Lago, and it’s getaway Friday. So to the tune of Tie a Yellow Ribbon:

    Meuller’s Complaint

    I’m comin’ at you, homey, I’ve done my work
    Now you know I know what is and isn’t, jerk
    If you received my subpoena saying soon you’ll be un-free
    Then you’ll know just what to do
    If you still haunt me, if you still haunt me

    Whoa, tie a yellow gibbon from the ole oak tree
    It’s been two long years, is he still guilty?
    If I don’t see a gibbon from the ole oak tree
    I’ll throw you under the bus, forget about U.S., put the blame on me
    If I don’t see a yellow gibbon from the ole oak tree

  5. punaise says:

    @ Eureka says:
    December 14, 2018 at 8:32 pm
    (reply not working):

    oh, you don’t know the half of it. might even have to quit my day job…to go on the lam, that is. :~)

  6. Peterr says:

    SCO is not legally obligated to track the indirect expenses that DOJ would spend otherwise, but they have been asked to do so.

    By whom? The AG? WH? Congress? CNN?

  7. Rugger9 says:

    Of course we have the usual grumblings of concern and being troubled from the GOP leadership breathlessly reported by the press as being news.  It’s merely self-serving blather even though Kaiser Quisling’s ability to help their agenda is waning fast.  I’ll be impressed when they vote down his judges.

    This “signaling” is really BS Kremlinology.


    • Wotadog says:

      I know you are right but it’s Christmas time and it’s good to have a bit of fun reading such articles. God only knows it’s been a long haul and not finished yet. I hope when this (con-fraud-US and all related) is over that there is some sort of honour role for all those decent men and women defending democracy who have been attacked/derided/abused by don-the-con. There’s many honourable mentions on this NYT list:
      “The 550 People, Places and Things DonaldTrump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List”

    • oldoilfiledhand says:

      I think O’Brien was onto something when he first called Trump on his inflated claims of wealth. Smoke (from a silver Cadillac limo), mirrors and calls from John Barron do not a fortune make. The Presindebt is a shell company masquerading as a Fortune 500 wannabe.

      Trump can’t remember from one day to the next how rich he brags about being. The value he assigns to the Trump Organization has increased as fast as the phantom jobs number that he pulls out of his ass shilling for Saudi Arabia’s arms purchases. If Trump really had the money he brags about, he would publish his taxes as a Sunday insert in the New York Times.

  8. Rusharuse says:

    Ode to Mikey –

    I never been to Prague

    Least that’s wot he said

    But if he said


    I been to Prague

    He’d be already dead



  9. vertalio says:

    (Never mind the Bollocks…)

    Don came from Queens, from good fascist genes

    Attractive to morons, and suckers for cons

    Don came from Queens, he ain’t no human being

    and there’s no future, the Founders were dreamin’.

    Fox is tellin’ you what you want and Fox is tellin’ you what you need

    There’s no future, no future, no future for you

    Don came from Queens with little hands

    We love our Queen.  God saves!

  10. Michael says:

    We have Despicable In Chief operating the Oval Office as a personal business. Why not an SCO who tops up the treasury while disrupting said despicable?

    • bmaz says:

      Think there is a pretty big difference between the dreaded civil forfeiture before any charges much less conviction, as opposed to where it is stipulated to in criminal plea agreements.

      • Alan says:

        Agreed, especially where the forfeiture is the proceeds of a crime, not property allegedly used in the commission of a crime but has many other every day uses, like a home or a car.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          Please allow me to make a minor correction: “Agreed, especially where the forfeiture is the “proceeds” of a crime…”

          We don’t know whether the money/house/car is the “proceeds” of the crime until it’s been proved in court.

          • Alan says:

            No correction needed, because that is the proposition to which I agreed–and more–I was agreeing that it should be proven criminally, not just civilly.

          • bmaz says:

            Troutwater – See, that is the problem, Manafort stipulated in his still enforceable plea to the forfeiture in a lump sum cash amount; the assets pledged were just initial sources for recovery. So the issue of whether any particular item constitutes “proceeds” is irrelevant.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Whether assets are proceeds of crime relates to a different, general forfeiture rule. As bmaz has explained, a different rule binds Manafort, obligating him to come up with an amount certain regardless of the assets he uses to find it.

            The feds will, of course, still pursue whether Paulie lied about having other undisclosed assets, but that’s a different matter.  If they find them, Paulie would stay in hot water long after the other lobsters have turned red and been eaten, and he’ll have less than nothing to leave to anyone he cares about.

  11. BobCon says:

    “Mr. Mulvaney, the President is on Line 1, something about getting Hunt’s Ketchup instead of Heinz.”

    “Sir, the Secret Service is on Line 2, they say 20 Uzbeks are at the gate who are insisting Jared gave them an appointment with the President and they won’t go through the metal detector.”

    “Sir, sorry to bother you, but now the Education Secretary is on Line 3, and she says she hopes you can help her meet her monthly stretch goal by moving a few more boxes of her skin care product.”

    “Yes, I know you’re busy, but Congressman King is on Line 4 and he’s screaming something about how the President flubbed the white power hand signal in the White House Christmas card that they had agreed to.”

    “Sir, Callista is on Line 5. She wants to know if Newt and Hope were really holding hands.”

    “Um, Mr. Mulvaney, the President is still screaming on Line 1 about his ketchup.”

    “Sir, the cleaning staff found more dead kittens in Stephen Miller’s trash can.”

    “This call on Line 6 can probably wait for a while. Ivanka hasn’t stopped sobbing.”

    “Line 7 is Viktor Veselberg, and he just says he hopes you enjoy the new cufflinks you see on your shirt but you have no idea how they got there.” “No, I don’t know how he knows this.” “He also says those are in fact real diamonds, worth $20,000, and it would be a shame if the Washington Post saw the photos he just took of them on your shirt, and next time you really should be more careful updating your phone.”

    “You really need to pick up Line 1.”

  12. Eslinger says:

    If Manafort forfeits assets as a consequence of his crimes, will he be able to recover those assets if, at some point, Trump pardons him?

    From what I’ve read, a presidential pardon doesn’t erase a criminal record, but can excuse someone from punishment.

      • Eslinger says:

        Thanks bmaz – I needed to drill down into what a civil judgment is and how it can originate from a criminal case, yet remain separate (my interpretation). More reading remains before I fully comprehend this, but you pointed me in the right direction and I learned some new things.

  13. Thomas says:

    So, despite frothy right wing bitching about the cost, Mueller is reducing the total cost so far by over 80%

Comments are closed.