Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and related matters has so far yielded a range of prosecutions and appellate litigation. Lawfare will be collecting significant documents from these lawsuits on this page as the investigation and litigation moves forward, along with documents related to the report.

Any queries or additional documents should be directed to Quinta Jurecic at [email protected].

This page was last updated on July 30, 2020.

Appointment Order and Related Documents

On May 17, 2017, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller III to serve as special counsel.

The Mueller Report and Related Correspondence

On April 18, 2019, the 448-page Mueller report was released in partially-redacted form.

Litigation Documents

U.S. v. Michael D. Cohen (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:18-cr-850)

Who is he? Michael Cohen was previously an employee of the Trump Organization, serving as executive vice president and special counsel from around 2007 to 2017, and President Trump's personal attorney. In August 2018, he pleaded guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud, and campaign finance violations in a separate case brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (1:18-cr-602).

What are the charges? On November 29, 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to Congress about the Trump Organization's efforts to construct a Trump Tower Moscow in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (a)(2) in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.

Where does this case stand? Cohen pleaded guilty to the charge and entered into a formal plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller on November 29, 2018. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison on the tax evasion, bank fraud, and campaign finance charges, with a 2-month sentence for the charges brought by the special counsel to run concurrently. He reported to federal prison to begin his sentence on May 6, 2019.

U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-232)

Who is he? Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.) served as National Security Advisor to President Trump from the president’s inauguration on Jan. 20 to Feb. 13, 2017. He stepped down after reports that he misled both the FBI and Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

What are the charges? The criminal information filed against Flynn charges him with making false statements to FBI agents about his communications with Kislyak. According to the document, Flynn initially claimed that he discussed neither U.S. sanctions against Russia nor a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements with Kislyak. However, the government states Flynn later admitted that he asked the Russian ambassador to moderate its response to President Obama’s Dec. 28, 2016 executive order implementing sanctions against Russia, and also tried to persuade Russia to vote against the UN resolution.

Where does the case stand? Flynn pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017 and proceeded to cooperate with the ongoing special counsel investigation. Sentencing had been scheduled for Dec. 18, 2018, but during the hearing, Flynn's lawyers requested that the court delay sentencing further.

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN:, REFERRAL TO PROBATION OFFICE for Presentence Investigation as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN.U.S. Probation Presentence Report due by 11/20/2018. Government Memorandum Of Law due by 12/4/2018. Defendant Memorandum Of Law due by 12/11/2018. Government's Reply due by 12/14/2018. Sentencing set for 12/18/2018 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Sentencing held on 12/18/2018 as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. Defendant Is Sworn And The Court Give Colloquy In Regards To Plea Of Guilty. The Court Accepts The Defendants' Guilty Plea. Sentencing Commences. Defense Request To Continue Sentencing Heard And Granted. Parties Will File To The Court A Status Report Due 3/13/2019 By 12:00PMBond Status of Defendant: PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE; Court Reporter: SCOTT WALLACE; Defense Attorney: ROBERT KELNER/ STEPHEN ANTHONY; US Attorney: BRANDON VAN GRACK/ZAINAB AHAMAD; Prob Officer: KELLY KRAEMER-SOARES/ RENEE MOSES-GREGORY; (mac) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-201)

Who is he? Richard W. Gates worked on the Trump campaign under Paul Manafort as a campaign adviser beginning in June 2016. He stayed on the campaign after Manafort left, and then served as deputy chairman of Donald Trump’s inaugural committee. Before his work with the Trump campaign, Gates worked alongside Manafort during the latter’s time in Ukraine as a lobbyist and political consultant to Viktor Yanukovych and the Party of Regions.

What are the charges? On Oct. 30, 2017, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia handed down an indictment charging both Manafort and Gates with conspiracy against the United States, including conspiracy to launder money, failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, making false and misleading FARA statements and making false statements to the Justice Department.

Where does the case stand? On Feb. 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charges, as well as to making a false statement to the special counsel’s office. He testified in Paul Manafort’s trial in the Eastern District of Virginia on Aug. 6, 2018. He also testified in Roger Stone’s trial in the D.C. District on Nov. 12, 2019. The latest status report indicated that sentencing may take place by mid-December 2019.

U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 1:18-cr-83; case dismissed)

Why are these charges separate from the charges against Gates in the Eastern District of Virginia? As with Manafort, the special counsel filed charges against Gates in both the District of Columbia as well as the Eastern District of Virginia. Gates pleaded guilty to the D.C. charges, and the Virginia charges were dismissed without prejudice. This case was closed on 3/1/2018.

U.S. v. Internet Research Agency LLC, et al (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; 1:18-cr-32)

Who are the defendants? The indictment names 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities. The first of these entities is the Internet Research Agency LLC, a Kremlin-backed troll farm based in St. Petersburg that has been active since at least 2013. The government alleges that the other two entities, Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering, are controlled by Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, a longtime associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Collectively referred to in court documents as “Concord,” these entities are accused of having a number of Russian government contracts and being the primary source of funding for the Internet Research Agency’s efforts.

What are the charges? The Feb. 16, 2018 indictment charges the individuals and entities with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The defendants allegedly posed as U.S. persons on social media and contacted real U.S. persons and organizations to coordinate political events and campaigns, with the goal of influencing U.S. politics in general and the 2016 presidential election in particular.

Where does the case stand? There is no indication that any of the defendants are in U.S. custody or the custody of other law enforcement entities. However, Concord Management and Consulting LLC have filed two motions to dismiss the case against them and the other alleged co-conspirators, both of which the district court has denied.

U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-201)

Who is he? Konstantin Kilimnik is a dual Ukrainian-Russian citizen who worked as Manafort’s translator and local contact in Ukraine. Though it has been reported that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, he has repeatedly denied those allegations. Kilimnik claims he stopped working for Manafort in 2014, but acknowledges that he met with Manafort at least two times while Manafort was working for the Trump campaign. The last publicly known communication between the two was in April 2018, according to court documents.

What are the charges? In a superseding indictment filed on June 8, 2018, the special counsel alleged that Kilimnik helped Manafort contact potential witnesses in Manafort’s upcoming trial to persuade them not to contradict Manafort’s testimony.

Where does the case stand? Kilimnik’s current whereabouts are unknown. While Manafort pleaded guilty to the witness tampering charges on Sept. 14, 2018, but no further action has been taken in Kilimnik’s case.

U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-201)

Why is this case separate from the charges against Manafort in the Eastern District of Virginia? The first indictment against Paul Manafort was returned by a grand jury in the District of Columbia in October 2017, months before the grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a separate indictment in February 2018. Manafort refused to waive venue for the Virginia charges, which would have allowed prosecutors to bring all charges in Washington, D.C., so both cases proceeded separately. The Virginia trial took place first, from July 31 through Aug. 21. The D.C. trial was scheduled to begin on Sept. 24. However, Manafort entered into a plea agreement on Sept. 14.

What are the charges? On Oct. 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed an indictment charging Manafort and his associate Rick Gates with conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, making false and misleading FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) statements and making false statements to the Department of Justice. The charges are related to Manafort’s lobbying and political consulting work in Ukraine.

On June 6, 2018, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Manafort and his associate Konstantin Kilimnik with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice for their alleged efforts to contact and influence potential witnesses.

Where does the case stand? Manafort was sentenced on Mar. 13 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson to 73 months in prison, with the first 30 months to run concurrently with his sentence in the Eastern District of Virginia. Between the two cases, Manafort was sentenced to a total of seven and a half years in prison.

U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 1:18-cr-83)

Who is he? Paul J. Manafort, Jr. served as the chairman for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from March 2016 through August 2016. He resigned after the New York Times reported that he had received “off-the-books” money from a Ukrainian political party with a pro-Russian tilt, known as the Party of Regions. Prior to his time on the Trump campaign, Manafort worked as a lobbyist in Ukraine from 2005 until 2014, largely as an advisor to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych as well as to the Party of Regions.

What are the charges? On Feb. 22, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Manafort with bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, filing false tax returns, aiding in the filing of false tax returns and failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts. The charges are related to his lobbying and political consulting work in Ukraine.

Where does the case stand? On Mar. 8, 2019, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Manafort to 47 months in prison. Combined with the sentence in his D.C. case, Manafort's total sentence amounts to seven and a half years.

Paul J. Manafort, Jr v. U.S. Department of Justice (case dismissed)

What is the case? Facing criminal charges, Manafort filed a civil suit against the Justice Department, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, arguing that Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller stretched beyond the authority granted by the Justice Department’s special counsel regulations. The case was dismissed in August 2018, just as Manafort’s criminal trial in the Eastern District of Virginia was beginning.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:18-cv-00011)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-5193)

Andrew Miller v. U.S.

Who is he? Andrew Miller is a longtime associate of Roger Stone, himself an advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. The special counsel is reportedly investigating whether Stone had advance knowledge of the Wikileaks email releases.

What are the charges? While Miller agreed to be interviewed by federal investigators and cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation more broadly, he refused to testify before a grand jury even after twice being subpoenaed by Mueller’s office. Miller was held in civil contempt by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and unsuccessfully appealed the contempt order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Where does the case stand? In both the district and the circuit court, Miller has challenged the underlying authority of the special counsel by arguing that Mueller was unlawfully appointed. His challenge failed at the district level and he was held in contempt on Oct. 10, 2018 for refusing to appear before the grand jury. However, the district court stayed the order until Miller appealed the ruling.

After losing on appeal, Miller testified before a federal grand jury on May 31, 2019.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:18-gj-00034-BAH)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-3052)

U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cr-215)

Who are the defendants? The indictment names Viktor Borisovich Netyksho and another 11 individuals, all of whom allegedly work for Russia’s military intelligence agency, the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU).

What are the charges? On July 13, 2018, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging those 12 Russian intelligence officers with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to launder money. The charges are related to “large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” The government alleges that GRU officers hacked into the email accounts of individuals associated with the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee before releasing tens of thousands of those emails to the public in conjunction with Wikileaks.

Where does the case stand? There have been no further developments since the indictment was filed on July 13, 2018.

U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-00182)

Who is he? George Papadopoulos served on the foreign policy advisory panel for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign beginning in March 2016. According to court documents, he soon met Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, who touted his connections to the Russian government and told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” Papadopoulos allegedly sought to arrange a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin with Mifsud as the go-between, and kept senior campaign advisers up to date on his efforts.

What are the charges? On July 28, 2017, George Papadopoulos was charged with making false statements to federal agents about his foreign contacts and the nature of those communications. He was also charged with obstruction of justice for his attempts to delete Facebook communications with foreign contacts in order to hide them from federal investigators.

Where does the case stand? Papadopoulos pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2017 to making false statements. On Sept. 7, 2018, he was sentenced to 14 days in prison and 12 months of supervised release. Papadopoulos began his 14-day sentence on Nov. 26.

U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cr-24)

Who is he? According to the government, Richard Pinedo ran a California-based online service called Auction Essence that created and sold bank account numbers to anonymous online users. Individuals who bought the bank account numbers could then circumvent the security features on online payment companies such as Paypal.

What are the charges? Pinedo was charged with identity theft for creating around 200 bank accounts using stolen identities. He then allegedly sold these bank account numbers to unidentified users, some of whom had Russian ties. Prosecutors said that Pinedo helped link anonymous internet activity to the Russians named in the Internet Research Agency indictment, including Prigozhin.

Where does the case stand? Pinedo pleaded guilty on Feb. 12, 2018 to identity fraud. He was sentenced on Oct. 10, 2018 and is currently serving a 12-month prison term.

Sentencing held on 10/10/2018 as to RICHARD PINEDO. The defendant was sentenced to one (1) year of incarceration on Count 1, with six (6) months of that sentence to be served in the Bureau of Prisons, followed by a term of twenty-four (24) months of supervised release with six months of home detention as a special condition of the supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment. Defendant ORDERED to self-surrender on a date determined by the Bureau of Prisons and the US Probation Office. Bond Status of Defendant: Personal Recognizance; Court Reporter: Sara Wick; Defense Attorney: Jeremy Lessem; US Attorneys (DOJ Special Counsel): Jeannie Sclafani Rhee, Lawrence Atkinson, and Ryan Dickey; Prob Officer: Kelly Kramer-Soares. (jl) Modified on 10/10/2018 to reflect correct sentencing language.

Sealed v. Sealed (In re Grand Jury Subpoena)

What do we know about this case? Very little. The entire district court docket was sealed until a redacted version was released on Jan. 30, 2019. We know that a foreign company, called "Corporation from Country A" in the filings, moved to quash the subpoena, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After the firm failed to produce the subpoenaed records, it was held in contempt in Oct. 2018. The resulting publicly-available litigation has centered on the motion to quash and contempt charge.

How do we know this case involves the special counsel? As Josh Gerstein pointed out in Politico, the unsealed U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia docket showed that the government is being represented by Mueller attorneys Scott Meisler and Zainab Ahmad on behalf of the Special Counsel's Office.

Where does the case stand? The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 16, 2018, where Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled on Sept. 19. The case was appealed up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which ruled on Dec. 18, 2018. After further appeal, proceedings in the Supreme Court began in late Dec., 2018. On Mar. 25, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:18-gj-00041-BAH)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-3068)

Notice of Appeal Filed (09/24/2018)

Sealed Motion to Stay Underlying Order Filed by Appellant (09/27/2018)

Per Curiam Order Directing Response by Appellee to Motion to Stay Case (09/28/2018)

Sealed Response in Opposition (10/01/2018)

Sealed Reply Filed by Appellant (10/01/2018)

Per Curiam Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction (10/03/2018)

Sealed Petition for Rehearing, for Rehearing en banc filed by Appellant (10/05/2018)

Per Curiam Order Denying Petition for Rehearing (10/24/2018)

Per Curiam Order Denying Petition for Rehearing en banc (10/24/2018)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-3071)

U.S. Supreme Court

The full docket is available on the Supreme Court's website. Key documents are available below.

Related Documents

Opinion granting in part and denying in part motion to unseal material including the identity of the unnamed company (04/01/2019)

U.S. v. Roger J. Stone, Jr. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:19-cr-18)

Who is he?

Roger J. Stone, Jr. is a Republican political operative and long-time associate of President Trump. Stone began his political career working for Richard Nixon’s 1972 re-election bid, and later, the Nixon administration, and was a member of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign until his dismissal in Aug. 2015.

What are the charges?

On Jan. 24, 2019, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an seven-count indictment charging Stone with one count of obstruction of a proceeding, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

Where does the case stand?

A jury convicted Roger Stone in November 2019 on seven felonies, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced him in February 2020 to 40 months in prison. Stone's lawyers sought a new trial and alleged juror misconduct, but Judge Jackson refused the motion for new trial in April 2020. She ordered Stone to surrender to the federal Bureau of Prisons as soon as he is notified to do so.

Application of the Associated Press; Cable News Network, Inc.: The New York Times Co.: POLITICO LLC; and WP CO., LLC, d/b/a The Washington Post For Access to Certain Sealed Court Records (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:19-mc-29)

A coalition of news organizations sued the Justice Department to unseal search warrants and supporting affidavits from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, in particular those related to U.S. v. Roger J. Stone, Jr. (No. 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ). Following the conclusion of Roger Stone’s trial, the government agreed to release the warrant materials with redactions., and the media coalition indicated that it was satisfied with this proposal.

U.S. v. Alexander van der Zwaan (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cr-31)

Who is he? Alexander van der Zwaan, a Dutch citizen, was employed by the law firm Skadden Arps to work on a report commissioned by Paul Manafort on behalf of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2012. The report concerned the Ukrainian government’s prosecution of one of Yanukovych’s political rivals, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and was later criticized as an attempt to justify Tymoshenko’s wrongful imprisonment.

What are the charge? On Feb. 20, 2018, van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents during a Nov. 3, 2017 interview, regarding his communications with Rick Gates and Konstantin Kilimnik.

Where does the case stand? On April 3, 2018, Judge Amy Jackson Berman sentenced van der Zwaan to serve 30 days in prison and pay a $20,000 fine.