I'll bet Manafort's lawyers are kicking themselves in ass all up & down the block tonight.

[catbyte]

What a thing to fail to redact. That their client met with a Russian intel agent in Madrid to share polling data. NOBODY shares polling data with anybody unless they're ratfucking. Wow. Mueller probably isn't too thrilled either, knowing how tight-lipped he is about everything.

Link to tweet

Failed redactions in a court filing show that Paul Manafort met with suspected Russian intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik in Madrid. https://twitter.com/i/events/1082727515423010816 …

3:47 PM - Jan 8, 2019

[SoCalNative]

1. Or they're setting up the appeal

based on ineffective counsel

[jberryhill]

3. The redaction error would have nothing to do with that

The redaction error does not harm Manafort.

It harms MUELLER by disclosing information that the prosecutor was trying to keep a lid on.

[catbyte]

6. How in the world would this help Manafort outside of the ineffective counsel excuse?

Granted, I'm not the sharpest legal knife in the drawer, but I can't see how disclosing that their client met with a foreign agent in an attempt to sway the election helps in any way. Besides, POtuS surely knew about the meeting and that Mueller most likely knew, too. That's why he's melting down and trying to discredit Mueller with everything he's got.

[jberryhill]

10. The error doesn't help him with an "ineffective counsel" excuse

First of all, the document is not "disclosing that their client met with a foreign agent in an attempt to sway the election". That's already been known to both sides.

The claim here is that Manafort LIED about the meeting. The fact of the meeting is a given. The argument going on, at this point in this proceeding, is about the claim that Manafort has been less than cooperative. Manafort's position is that they've asked him to remember a whole lot of detailed stuff which he did not always have at the tips of his fingers until they refreshed his memory about stuff.

What would most "help Manafort" here is getting a pardon. The best way to do that is to make sure that team Trump knows what the redacted portions of the arguments in this proceeding are about.

Remember, part of the hot water which Manafort is in here, is that even after he was indicted and confined to home he was trying to coordinate his story with other witnesses.

But saying that this is at all helpful to an ineffective counsel claim is.... hard for me to politely characterize without taking a deep breath. The redacted stuff was not a secret to the judge or the prosecutor. It's part of what they are arguing about in the case. It is the PROSECUTION which defines what needs to be redacted in this case, in order to protect information that is CONFIDENTIAL TO THE PROSECUTION OF OTHER CASES.

Who benefits from the disclosure of previously-redacted facts in this proceeding? THE OTHER POTENTIAL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS YET TO BE INDICTED.

That argument, and the facts in it, would be before this court anyway, because the actual PARTICIPANTS in the proceedings are all working from unredacted material in the first place. Whether anyone OUTSIDE of the proceeding knows whats in the redacted stuff has utterly NOTHING too do with whether he is being competently represented in this proceeding.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. will Manafort be sanctioned?

I thought those kinds of redaction errors went away a couple of decades ago.

If this risks interfering with Mueller's investigations or prosecutions, can Manafort's lawyers be sanctioned for it by the court?

[jberryhill]

19. See my further comments downthread

The way this was filed, it would be hard to say that they intended for this information to be leaked

[Blue_true]

18. Wow, thanks for the explanation. nt

[jberryhill]

2. No they aren't

Not only do they not care, and I really can't fathom why anyone thinks they do, but Manafort is happy about this, since he got to send information to team Trump about what Mueller has, which Trump may not have known.

This is a score for Manafort. It doesn't hurt him one iota.

The only reason to have redacted the material in the first place was that the Special Counsel did not want it disclosed.

That was also the reason it was filed under seal AND redacted, with the "excess of caution" about potential redaction errors.

[Mr. Ected]

8. Do you think this was done intentionally?

Would there be any penalties to counsel if it can be shown that it WAS done in order to "obstruct" or contradict the Special Counsel's or Court's wishes?

[jberryhill]

11. If it was done intentionally

Then Manafort's counsel would be in a shedload of trouble.

Intent is often difficult to prove.

In fact, when this document was filed, and it helps to read them all, Manafort's lawyers filed the entire thing under seal. They did this even though they had filed documents under seal which were redacted, because they wanted to make sure that they had not inadvertently failed to redact something which should be redacted.

After inspection of the documents, and what was redacted, the court unsealed the documents.

So, you see, it could not possibly have been done intentionally, because, after all, they went through the extra hoop of filing it under seal, and then letting the court unseal it, just to make sure they hadn't forgotten to redact anything.

You see how that works? It's a good thing they took that extra precaution, because otherwise someone might think they did it on purpose.

[Mr. Ected]

13. Ah, I see. The court 'sanitized' the filing in effect

So in this case, any finger-pointing would be fruitless. The defense has a strong defense.

[jberryhill]

15. Yeah. Lucky break, eh?

It’s like those dice from which Big Julie from Chicago had the spots removed for luck.

[still_one]

4. why? Are they not getting paid?

[Xolodno]

5. In otherwords...

Dear her' de Trump,

They have this information, I respectably request a pardon.

[Sneederbunk]

7. A secretary just lost job.

[monmouth4]

9. GMTA, was just going to post that. Poor girl. n/t

[jberryhill]

12. No

Any attorney who holds a secretary responsible for an error in work that goes out over that attorney's name is a loser.

It does not matter who, specifically, on an attorney's staff makes an error. The rules hold the attorney responsible for the work. The attorney is responsible for the work. Period. End of story.

You hire people you trust, and you take responsibility for the work of your office.

Been there. Done that. Have the bullet marks to prove it. Sometimes shit happens and you have to take that bullet. You take that bullet and you do not blame others. Ever.

[Glimmer of Hope]

14. Secretaries never do this type of work. Usually a brief is reviewed at least 3-4 times

before it is filed so this mistake is very embarrassing if not intentional. The attorney who signed off is responsible.

[jberryhill]

16. Yep

Any attorney who does not own errors and blames a secretary is a low class scumbag.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. Probably a para-legal.

They do most of the writing for the lawyer. Secretaries type it up and it is probably checked by the para but it is the lawyer's responsibility to read the thing before it is filed.