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:
Trump Watch: Barr Is Raised | A Guide to Mueller's Filing Friday
Mueller Trumpets Michael Flynn's Help, Says Don't Lock Him Up
Manafort Plea Deal Clash to Escalate as Tentative Sentencing Set
Special Counsel Accuses Manafort of Breaking Plea Deal, Calls for Sentencing
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
© 2025 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 AllBankruptcy Judge Clears Path for Recovery in High-Profile Crypto Failure
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Face Reassignment, Rescinded Job Offers in First Days of Trump Administration
4 minute readDC Judge Chutkan Allows Jenner's $8M Unpaid Legal Fees Lawsuit to Proceed Against Sierra Leone
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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