Earlier today, it was reported that Paul Manafort’s attorney appeared to miss a deadline for a filing in the special counsel’s case against their client.
Later, however, it was discovered that Manafort’s legal team did in fact file their response, but did so under seal so that it was unobtainable by the public.
Now, the response has been unsealed, but Manafort’s attorneys left a large part of it redacted. However, in redacting the document, they did not do it correctly, as the digital copy of the document, as seen below still contains the redacted document. If you simply highlight the blacked out portions of the text and then copy and paste it into another text file, you can see exactly what has been redacted.
Below is a copy of the redacted version and under it is the text that has been redacted. :Manafort-20190108-Dc
Redaction #1 (See, e.g., Doc. 460 at 5 (After being shown documents, Mr. Manafort “conceded” that he discussed or may have discussed a Ukraine peace plan with Mr. Kilimnik on more than one occasion); id. at 6 (After being told that Mr. Kilimnik had traveled to Madrid on the same day that Mr. Manafort was in Madrid, Mr. Manafort “acknowledged” that he and Mr. Kilimnik met while they were both in Madrid)).
Redaction #2 In fact, during a proffer meeting held with the Special Counsel on September 11, 2018, Mr. Manafort explained to the Government attorneys and investigators that he would have given the Ukrainian peace plan more thought, had the issue not been raised during the period he was engaged with work related to the presidential campaign. Issues and communications related to Ukrainian political events simply were not at the forefront of Mr. Manafort’s mind during the period at issue and it is not surprising at all that Mr. Manafort was unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed. The same is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6).
Redaction #3 The Government has indicated that Mr. Manafort’s statements about this payment are inconsistent with those of others, but the defense has not received any witness statements to support this contention.
Redaction #4 The first alleged misstatement identified in the Special Counsel’s submission (regarding a text exchange on May 26, 2018) related to a text message from a third-party asking permission to use Mr. Manafort’s name as an introduction in the event the third-party met the President. This does not constitute outreach by Mr. Manafort to the President. The second example identified by the Special Counsel is hearsay purportedly offered by an undisclosed third party and the defense has not been provided with the statement (or any witness statements that form the basis for alleging intentional falsehoods).