Paul Manafort spokesman: "We filed our opposiition yesterday under seal".

[triron]

Link to tweet

[jberryhill]

1. Lol "just in"

Ummmm, yeah, that's what the docket says:

470

Jan 8, 2019

SEALED DOCUMENT (Response to the Special Counsel's Submission in Support of Its Breach Determination) as to PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (1). (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (zvt) (Entered: 01/08/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Jan 8, 2019

MINUTE ORDER granting 469 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal as to PAUL J. MANAFORT JR. (1). The Clerk of Court is directed to file under seal [469-1] Attachment A to the motion, the unredacted version of defendant's response to the government's submission in support of its breach determination. The Clerk of Court is also directed to unseal 469 the motion itself. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file on the public docket [469-2] Attachment B to the motion, the redacted version of his response. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/8/19. (DMK)

469

Jan 7, 2019

SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL as to PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A - SEALED Response, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B - REDACTED Response, # 3 Exhibit Attachment C - Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Westling, Richard) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

Main Doc­ument

----------------------

As I mentioned yesterday: (a) sealed filings appear on the docket, but (b) PACER is not necessarily updated in real time, and can significantly lag.

Behold:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_4.pdf

[bpositive]

2. hmmm, did I stumble upon something?

I copied and pasted the first redacted section into word and it became in-redacted.


Page 5 of 10 (first redacted)
The Government concludes from this that Mr. Manafort’s initial
responses to inquiries about his meetings and interactions with Mr. Kilimnik were lies to the OSC
attorneys and investigators.

This part.......
(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)).

It is not uncommon, however, for a witness to


Page 5 of 10 (second redacted)

and traveled frequently.

Then here....
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
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 471 Filed 01/08/19 Page 5 of 10
6
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). The simple

[erronis]

4. Maybe. You might have stumbled upon one of the worst ways to redact documents.

Get prepared to defend yourself against charges of seeing confidential information ---- kidding, I hope.

I remember getting a test with fill-in-the-blanks and the correct answers "hidden" by using white ink (on white background.) Just doing a mouse swipe disclosed it all. Also, beware that many document formats (Word) don't clear their internal blocks sufficiently and old edits can be extracted.

[bpositive]

3. and more unredacted

Page 7 of 10
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.

Page 9 of 10.
There is no support for the proposition that Mr. Manafort intentionally lied to the
Government.
Start here…
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).

Prior to and during his proffer meetings, Mr.
Manafort was well aware that the Special Counsel’s attorneys and investigators had scrutinized all
of his electronic communications.