The redacted parts of recent Manafort response to OSC
Document here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5677522-Response-to-Order-of-the-Court.html
Redaction 1. Page 5, second half of para. 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. Bottom of Page 5, continuing on to Page 6.
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. Manaforts 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 Governments 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. Bottom of Page 7
The
Government has indicated that Mr. Manaforts 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, Middle of Page 9
The first alleged misstatement identified in the Special Counsels submission
(regarding a text exchange on May 26, 2018) related to a text message from a third-party asking
permission to use Mr. Manaforts 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).