- 1 NYT additional says Paul Manafortin Lies For Him two and a half
- 2 Acknowledge how this doc matches into the sample
- 3 Construction and Content material of Earlier Archives
- 4 Construction of the Listening to Help
- 5 Validate the model
- 6 Processing New Info
- 7 NOW continues to tell Paul Manafort & Lies
- 8 Manafort does not need this publicity because he knows that it kills the opportunity for pardon
NYT additional says Paul Manafortin Lies For Him two and a half
day after I identified that one among their unnamed sources – which known as "a person who knows the situation" – complained NOW for the final month when he announced, that Paul Manafort and Rick Gates shared survey knowledge, most of which have been public, in the "spring" with Konstantin Kilimnik.
Each Manafort and Rick Gates, deputy head of the marketing campaign, transferred the knowledge Kilimnik led in the spring of 2016, when Mr. Trump met the candidate of the Republican presidential candidate in accordance to the state of affairs. A lot of the info was public, but some of it was developed by a personal voting firm that worked according to the campaign.
NYT has not corrected the error and recognized who turned them into vital propaganda.
As an alternative, two of the same distributors, akin to Scott Shane, wrote their story based mostly on "Closer to Transcript", which focuses on Ukrainian points that had already been revealed in detail final month.
That's the place they really acknowledge where the beginning of the conversation dialogue begins, but describe the lies that Manafort corrected – the same lie NOW continues to tell – the ultimate testimony of Manafort
. Manafort claims they only need public info. But Mr Weissmann advised the decide that the question of the "core" of the particular negotiation query related to the People, intentionally or unintentionally to the Russians who are absent from the elections
They don’t point out that Decide, Amy Berman Jackson, Andrew Weissmann and even Manafort Lawyer Richard Westling all admit that this was not just a public vote.
After which they present ABJ's commentary on the sharing of the Manafort vote and recommend (in a narrative about Ukraine's peace agreement) that it is often related to Manafort's comments on Kilimnik.
Decide Amy Berman Jackson appeared to agree with prosecutors about whether Mr. Manafort lied to his contacts with Kilimnik. saying at one level: "I am particularly concerned about the fact that alleged improper argument."
As a result of NOW is struggling a lot as a service to them (and hopes that they’ll expose them to the liar lied to them), I’ll give a premise on how to learn the modified paperwork, in order that they don't want to continue Paul Manafort's mouthpiece.
Acknowledge how this doc matches into the sample
We now have a variety of tools to learn the transcription of Manafort's violation, primarily because it’s part of a collection. As I stated, NOW says that NOW continues to inform, there are 4 earlier versions of this debate.
Consultation is a discussion of all of the arguments introduced in these earlier paperwork, particularly the last two, which signifies that you can think about them to perceive what we see in transcription.
All four talk about the identical 5 subjects. Though Decide Amy Berman Jackson says legal professionals have not been consistent within the order they are discussing. (Notice to Decide ABJ: I was additionally disturbed by this. Thanks for plundering them!)
This morning I will organize myself for things which were numbered within the unique announcement. It was great as a result of every numbered five numbers for every order. So I can't actually name them no 1 and quantity 2, nevertheless it's the mannequin I'm going to use. And what I'm going to do, I hear from all sides of every factor earlier than we transfer on to the subsequent problem.
Fortuitously, ABJ is extra useful to provide guides than legal professionals, however to make clear when ABJ says they use "original announcement", he refers to this FBI statement, not Mueller's unique breach. You can tell me that it’s because it’s referred to as a "message", and because it begins in the same method as ABJ, Manafort's lies concerning the cost.
Construction and Content material of Earlier Archives
Studying a Document within the Fifth Collection It’s useful to map its structure and understand how this structure compares to previous collection iterations.
I introduced the structure of ABJ's announcement, which he follows in the next activity. That is an updated model, which I’ve included a few of the earlier documents as evidence and timing.
I) Again / Rebuilding America Now (Collection zero Exhibits)
Company A Receives 6% Reward After Firm B (12/7)
after the break it turned clear that the government's details have been incorrect – the cost was 125 $ 000. (1/8 submitting)
Manafort defined that he was not clear about how his accountant recorded this cost, and he believed that the unique plan was to announce a mortgage, however that it was truly reported as revenue on his 2017 tax return. The federal government has announced that Manafort's statements on this charge are in battle with different fees, however the defense has not acquired any testimony to help this declare. (1/8 submitting)
Three false statements, first that different individuals had paid him, then contradictory statements from others (but Manafort data the cost as revenue); (1/15 archiving)
Three false statements, the final one talked about was a mortgage
II) Konstantin Kilimnik's position in witness abuse (100 collection exhibitions)
OSC October 16, 2018, Manafort admitted that he and Mr. Kilimnik agree to get to the witnesses. Manafort was asked to settle for that Kilimnik also had the required frame of mind to lawfully declare his guilt. Mr. Manafort stopped due to this description because he did not consider he might affirm what one other individual's inside thoughts or perceptions have been, in different words, the mind-set of one other individual. (1/Eight submitting)
Kilimnik did not consider that he had put strain on (1/15 archiving)
Manafort, who expressed Kilimnik's views (1/23)
III) Interactions with Kilimnik (200 collection exhibitions)
] a) Discussions on the peace treaty of Ukraine
Manafort admitted that he discussed or might have discussed the Ukrainian peace plan together with Kilimnik more than as soon as (1/8 archiving 12/7) 19659022] Questions and messages related to political occasions in Ukraine have been simply not Mr. In Manafort's thoughts, the forefront of that period, and it isn’t shocking that Manafort could not recall specific details before being reminded. (1/Eight filing)
2. From August to March 2018, Kilimnik and Manafort introduced Ukraine's peace plan. Three talks have been held personally (1/15 filing)
Manafort introduced a free meeting on August 2, not believing that one plan would work
1) Meeting on August 2
Manafort would have given Ukraine a extra peaceful thought that it will not have been raised on the time he labored with the president (1/8)
The meeting was held on 11 and 12 September, then in a big jury on 26 October, he admitted seeing an e mail (1/15 submitting)
2) December 2016 Assembly
Dialogue 11 September, 21 September, 26 October (1/15)
Three) Madrid Assembly
Proof Granted (12/7)
Having reported that Kilimnik had traveled to Madrid on the identical day that Manafort was in Madrid, Manafort stated he and Kilimnik both met in Madrid (1/Eight 12/7)
11. September, 12, 13 October, 26 October (1/15)
Manafort lied, argued that it was a enterprise then one thing was shown and then it was awarded (1/23)
four) 2018 proposal
Not talked about before GJ (1/23)
b) False statements by Manafort on the distribution of voting info
E-mail and evidence (12/7)
The same applies to [he needed his memory refreshed] given the federal government's claim that Manafort lied about sharing voting info with Kilimnik concerning the 2016 presidential election marketing campaign. ] Proof = Interviews (plural) and gates, Gates on his access, a number of emails, meeting morning (the place Gates came late) (1/15 filing, ¶¶53-36)
Has he informed anybody to do something, SCO trusts Gates Certificates (1/23)
IV) Second DOJ Research (Probably PsyGroup or Hush Funds) (Collection 300 Exhibits)
Second Circle (12/7)  Manafort Offered Government Info Associated to Research in another area earlier than making a plea. in this case, but in subsequent conferences with other non-OSC prosecutors, a special model of the identical occasions was organized. (1/8 archiving)
One version on September 13, the second of October 5, largely retired in the second version; SMS collection earlier than the campaign's departure (1/15)
Corrected in the same interview (1/23)
V) Manafort Hyperlink to Administration (400 Collection Exhibits)
Textual content Might 26, 2018 (12/7)  There isn’t any help for the declare that Manafort was intentionally suppressing the federal government. The primary assertion of objections, which has shown a special agent of opinion (in regards to the trade of textual content Might 26, 2018 interval) joined to a text message a third social gathering, with a request for permission to use the identify of Mr. Manafortin introduction within the event that a third get together met with the president. This is not Manafort's speech to the President. One other example recognized by a selected physician is proposed hear the unimaginable third social gathering obedience and protection has not given an opinion (or the testimonies, which type the idea of deliberate lies). (1/8 archiving)
Might 2018, Objectives (1/15)
Unclear Text Messages, Gates Claim (1/23)
By mapping what earlier variations of the collection appear to be, we can put this transcription in the ABJ construction.
Construction of the Listening to Help
Now we can determine the structure of this document that helps us to determine the restrict values between these elements of the dialogue
After legal discussions, ABJ taught Andrew Weissmann about utilizing a microphone after which Weissman's frame, why Manafort is a liar who is making an attempt to get mercy, however tries to get grace, however frankly, they made a honest effort to get him to work, a cloth discussion begins.
ABJ says he uses "the way they were numbered to the original announcement" and he hears from each side earlier than he strikes to the subsequent quantity
So here's how the construction of listening to the violation appears. Importantly, despite the fact that Weissmann discusses a number of issues initially (which are marked), in any other case the discussions could have a clear start and finish point, that is, we all know that the question between these initial and ultimate factors is said to the topic being mentioned.
Begin: Web page 25, line 18: "What is a $ 125,000 payment"
Finish: Web page 47, rows 6-9
THE COURT: Okay. I feel you made it clear. And I understand that I perceive everybody's viewpoint on this and what the evidence is. However there are some features of the evidence that I’ve to revise
Also on page 14-15, 20
II. Konstantin Kilimnik's Position in Witness Misuse
Start: Web page 47, rows 10-12
Good. So let's move on to what’s II, or another matter that the assertion deals with, what is Kilimnik's position in the impediment conspiracy.
End: Page 63, rows 3-5
THE COURT OF JUSTICE: All right. I don't assume I want more to tell me what it says because I'm going to read it once more.
Additionally pages 14, 20
III. Interactions with Kilimnik
Begin: Web page 63, rows 5-Eight
So we transfer to III, interacting with Kilimnik, which I feel I will break a little bit of Ukrainian stuff and
Begin: Web page 63, rows 9-10:
In this context, the primary subheading [redacted] Ukraine
Page 82, rows 9-13:
THE COURT: Right. Nevertheless, I consider that what provides them the rationale to be theoretical is that it is described in several methods in several conditions, and is described in contradiction with the communication between Kilimnik and Manafort and leads them to assume.
t rows 13-17:
THE COURT: Okay. I imply, once I requested you for those who needed to hear from him, you stated you needed to do one thing. I simply want to ensure you say we've achieved; when this document is completed, we now have made a report.
Also pages 18-19,
IV: Second DOJ Research
Begin: Page 110, rows 20-21:
Okay. I feel we can go to Class IV, another DOJ research.
End: Web page 121, Line 18:
THE COURT OF JUSTICE: Okay
A: Link to Manafort Administration
Begin: Web page 121, line 18-19:
Properly, it leads me to No. 5, connections to administration.
End: Page 132, Line 5-6:
THE COURT: Okay.
Validate the model
Now it helps to be sure that this model matches the previous mannequin.
Unfortunately, protecting NYT within the liars of Manafort – voting info – is one we don't have as many characters in earlier archives (because this conversation has been so closely reformed). However the important thing dispute is obvious from previous purposes. The government holds evidence of Gates' testimony and while Manafort hopes that ABJ believes the government will rely solely on Gates's testimony.
The same goes for [he needed his memory refreshed] The federal government's claim that Manafort lied about circulating knowledge with Kilimnik in reference to the presidential election campaign in 2016
Evidence = interviews (plural) by way of Gates, Gates, multiple emails, in the morning of the meeting (Gates came late) (1) / 15 archiving, ¶¶53-36)
Whether or not he informed anybody to do something, SCO trusts Gates's testimony (1/23)
Thankfully, that is where Weissmann's previous feedback give one other validation level. Initially, he used the voting knowledge for instance to contest the protection that they had taken into "Gotcha" with out giving them Gates' previous statements on the matter.
But I needed to cope with the fact that it isn’t – that is an unusual case. This is an uncommon case. Not as a result of we did it, it is an uncommon case, because the number of the defendant's proof was excessive. Because the Courtroom is aware of, pending within the japanese part of Virginia. And because the Courtroom is aware of, there was a discovery order in this case. There, the vast majority of the knowledge was obtainable to the respondent. And because one of many performances is said to the rescue circumstances and – or to the situation of the jail, which is a document that the respondent, on tape, in jail, says sure, he has gone by way of all this discovery. One example of that is that each one Gates 302s that have been in pressure final September have been one thing that was revealed to the respondent. The defendant was subsequently properly conscious of what Mr Gates had stated concerning the distribution of voting info and that it was not – not solely [redacted]. 
Within the related section, we see quite a few things that seem earlier: Manafort ordered Gates to do one thing, and dependence on Gates's testimony.
Manafort requested Mr. Gates
THE COURT: And since Mr. Manafort advised Gates to do it?
MR. WESTLING: So Gates says sure.
THE COURT OF JUSTICE: On the e-mail handle
MR. WESTLING: However I feel the e-mail says: Print this. That's all it says.
THE COURT: Does it say, deliver it to a gathering?
MR. Westling: I'm sorry?
THE COURT OF JUSTICE: Does it say, deliver it to a meeting?
MR. WESTLING: It says associated to the scheduling meeting. Not saying anything about assembly with Kilimnik, it doesn't say anything – just the identical day.
THE COURT: The only thing I stated confirmed his testimony about this matter was inside the e mail – which joined today. Is that right?
MR. GETTING STARTED: Yes.
THE COURT: And you say more precisely, Decide, because it doesn’t say [redacted] to the assembly. So I do it, however –
MR. GETTING STARTED: I do not say your honor –
THE COURT OF JUSTICE: – I consider it’s convincing.
Trust in Gates's testimony
they consider because Mr. Gates says so and since it is listed in Kilimnik's numerous e-mails
Several references to whether they have acquired these 302s
Kevin Downing's recurring try to give Gates credibility as a result of the jury did not discover him credible (though gently keep away from Gates's testimony to deny it.)
Weissmann's description of the previous 302s that they had in time for the EDVA experiment.
Processing New Info
After authorizing the discussion on sharing voting Info query, we can now turn to the new one we study from it.
Weissmann's description of Manafort tells the good jury that he understood that somebody was going to share info with an organization and a person and that he thought that win-win for himself (why I say Manafort bought Trump because he knew it might not help Trump he would nonetheless refuse to pay for his Ukrainian and Russian payers)
he said that it was [redacted] [redacted] and [redacted] each. That was his perspective – it was not a disadvantage – I parafrasoitu – it was sort of a win-win state of affairs. There was nothing – there have been no damaging
Is ABJ's question why pollster had paid a lot if this wasn't an enormous deal
And if it's true why [redacted] was paid so much
Westling responds by making an attempt to argue that it isn’t an enormous deal, because the small print are so detailed that it will be so incomprehensible
This can be a very detailed [redacted] degree that could be very targeted
Which ABJ says why question knowledge is so necessary .
THE COURT: But when I determine it was arrange on a document and in his statement – however it makes it vital and weird.
says that sharing info can be useful if it have been extra widespread, and it successfully overruled the declare that Manafort tried to make, which is a claim NOW refuses to right
if the goal was to assist Mr. Manafort's fortune type of [redacted] something more widespread,
Then, in an attempt to recommend that this was just the morning campaign meeting, Westling says this was the newest info.
it was the final we can tell, the newest
Then ABJ corrects Westling's timing claims and identified that Gates was specifically dedicated to the Havana Membership Assembly.
THE COURT: Didn't he say that it occurred at a meeting the place that they had to depart totally different doorways and every part? Doesn't he be a part of [redacted] and Havana Club and are available and go
Weissmann explicitly supports this timing later within the hearing (what seems to be an outline of Manafort walking to Kilimnik
And then Mr. Gates, – I referred you 236 on web page 3, Mr. Gates speaks in August, the second assembly and, in truth, Mr. Manafort walking on Mr. Kilimnik
. ] and in addition refer to the discussions [redacted] on the discussions held in August. I want to ask the particular council workplace one thing ex parte as a result of – and so I apologize, however I’ve to do it And it might be after I speak to them, they inform me that there isn’t a drawback sharing it with you.
This info appears to give ABJ extra confidence that the government is telling the reality here.
NOW continues to tell Paul Manafort & Lies
So far: each ABJ and Andrew Weissmann clarify that on August 2, 2016, Manafort advised Gates to print some question knowledge. Later that day, they met secretly with Konstantin Kilimnik, the place they mentioned and "peace" trade in Ukraine – Manafort admits that sanctions are and voting . Actually, Weissmann claims that Gates stated that Manafort walked with this man and was in touch with the same Russian intelligence service that had hacked Hillary Clinton, with very complicated and recent voting info.
And the fact that the info was so difficult that, according to ABJ, "what makes it significant and unusual." The truth is, even Manafort's own lawyer suggests that that is no public info, which is likely one of the issues he’s making an attempt to claim, Manafort did not attempt to benefit himself
When NYT says:
The transcript refers to it, Mr. Manafort claims to want only public info. However Mr Weissmann informed the decide that the question of whether an American, arduously or unintentionally involved with the Russians who are absent from the election, is at the core of the "Special Advisor Research".
They don't inform their readers that Richard Westling tried to defend Manafort very clearly that this was not public info.
And when NOW suggests that this remark relates to Manafort's interplay with Kilimnik generally,
Decide Amy Berman Jackson seemed to agree with prosecutors that Manafort lied about his contacts with Kilimnik, was necessary, saying at one point, " I am quite concerned about this particular alleged false declaration . "
acknowledges that the remark originates from the paragraph (web page 103, a piece devoted solely to the processing of voting knowledge), which focuses on defense efforts to check Gates voting knowledge on timony claiming that that they had not acquired the 302s of January 2018.
THE COURT: Okay . So, ought to we hear about this, as a result of I’m quite involved about this specific alleged false declaration . Nevertheless, I feel that we now have to ask ourselves what purposes, I’ve to ask to discover out if that is what the burden is. So you’re right to give it some thought, despite the fact that I don't assume this has come as a surprise that this was a query, because this was the only proof they showed as a result of the fact that this reality was improper was Mr. Gates's 302s and e mail
Manafort does not need this publicity because he knows that it kills the opportunity for pardon
That’s the reason only a lot time is wasted making an attempt to train NYT (except that NYT in all probability corrected the story, which was originally right, that this info was shared With Oleg Deripaska, which is clearer whenever you finish the lie that the knowledge is shared within the spring)  This is an space the place Weissmann proposes particularly that Manafort lay last fall so as to keep his probabilities of pardon.
Another motive that Mr Manafort might have acquired, that’s, a minimum of to improve his probabilities of pardon.
Paul Manafort does not want the general public to know that he gave very detailed voting info at a secret meeting of GRU-bound Russia, Konstantin Kilimnik, which he might fly house from Oleg Deripaska's aircraft. He does not need the public to comprehend it as a result of it kills his probabilities of pardon.
And a few unobtrusive causes, NOW doesn’t appear to want the public to comprehend it.
As I announced last July, I gave the FBI details about Mueller analysis points, so I'm going to embrace Mueller's investigative websites publishing statements any further. I also current whether or not the material shared with the FBI is.