Paul Manafort Lied About Contact with Trump Administration, Mueller Says
The former Trump campaign chairman told “multiple discernible lies,” according to a Friday court filing.
December 07, 2018 at 06:32 PM
5 minute read
Paul Manafort repeatedly lied to federal investigators about topics including his contact with the Trump administration and his interactions with a Russian associate accused of helping him tamper with witnesses, special counsel prosecutors said Friday, detailing for the first time their allegations the former Trump campaign chairman breached his plea agreement.
In court papers filed Friday evening, prosecutors said Manafort told “multiple discernible lies” that could not be considered “mere memory lapses.” Prosecutors appeared to welcome the opportunity to prove that Manafort lied after agreeing to cooperate with the special counsel probe.
“If [Manafort] contends the government has not acted in good faith, the government is available to prove the false statements at a hearing,” prosecutors wrote, saying they had “independent documentary and testimonial evidence, including Manafort's subsequent submissions.”
A spokesman for Manafort declined to comment. His attorneys have denied the special prosecutor's allegations.
Prosecutors said Manafort falsely denied having any contacts with Trump administration officials and said he never asked anyone to communicate with an administration official on his behalf. Manafort clonly communicated with officials before they joined the administration or after they left it, prosecutors said.
“The evidence demonstrates that Manafort lied about his contacts,” prosecutors said. “The evidence demonstrates that Manafort had contacts with administration officials. For instance, in a text exchange from May 26, 2018, Manafort authorized a person to speak with an administration official on Manafort's behalf.”
The filing was heavily blacked-out in the sections concerning Konstantin Kilimnik, an associate whom the special counsel accused of conspiring with Manafort to tamper with witnesses. Prosecutors claimed that Manafort, after signing the plea agreement, denied but later admitted that Kilimnik had conspired with him to tailor the testimony of two witnesses in order to “exculpate them” of a violation of the federal law requiring disclosure of lobbying work for foreign governments.
The 10-page document stated that Manafort met with the special counsel's office and federal investigators a dozen times, including before and after his September deal with prosecutors. They said he also was called to testify before a grand jury twice, on Oct. 26 and Nov. 2.
In those sessions with authorities, the special counsel's office also accused Manafort of making “several inconsistent statements” about a $125,000 payment to a firm with whom he had worked in the past.
They also stated that Manafort, before and after his September deal, had provided authorities information in connection to a separate investigation in another district.
After Manafort signed his plea agreement, prosecutors said, Manafort gave the government, including the Justice Department officials running that probe, “a different and exculpatory version of the events.” Prosecutors wrote that Manafort then adjusted the version he gave to “more closely conform to his earlier statements,” after his attorneys showed him notes that had been taken from an earlier proffer session.
At a hearing in Washington last week, lead special counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann did not rule out the possibility that Mueller's office would bring additional charges against Manafort related to his alleged lies. “That determination has not been made yet,” he said.
Regardless of whether added charges come, Manafort could face a heavier sentence as a result of the claims he violated his plea deal. The 69-year-old political operative, convicted in August by a Virginia jury on eight counts of financial fraud, already faces the specter of a substantial prison sentence.
A month after his conviction in Alexandria, Virginia, Manafort pleaded guilty in Washington to a pair of charges related to his failure to disclose past lobbying for Ukraine and efforts to hide his income from that work, along with a separate charge connected to witness-tampering allegations that landed him in jail this year.
Before his verdict in Virginia and subsequent guilty plea in Washington, Manafort—who was first indicted in D.C. in October 2017—had vowed to fight the charges against him at every turn, becoming the first defendant in a special counsel case to force prosecutors to trial.
In June, Manafort faced prosecutors' wrath when they accused him of attempting to tamper with potential witnesses while he was out on pretrial release. They hit Manafort and his longtime associate in Ukraine with new charges of obstructing and conspiring to obstruct justice.
Jackson, in a hearing that month, also ordered Manafort to jail while he awaited his September trial. It was not Manafort's first run-in with the court. Jackson had previously admonished him for helping ghost-write an op-ed for the English-language Ukrainian newspaper Kyiv Post, saying similar action in the future would be considered a violation of a gag order the court issued in November.
As the judge explained her decision to revoke bail, she told Manafort that he “abused the trust placed in you six months ago.”
Read the filing:
|Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250