Replies

Manafort's response to Mueller's determination that the plea agreement was breached
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-20190108-Dc.pdf

Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 471 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 10

DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT JR.’S RESPONSE TO THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ITS BREACH DETERMINATION

(pdf page 5)
D. The Areas Identified by the Government.

1. Mr. Manafort’s Interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik.

It is accurate that after the Special Counsel shared evidence regarding Mr. Manafort’s

meetings and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik with him, Mr. Manafort recalled that he

had – or may have had – some additional meetings or communications with Mr. Kilimnik that he

had not initially remembered. The Government concludes from this that Mr. Manafort’s initial

responses to inquiries about his meetings and interactions with Mr. Kilimnik were lies to the OSC

attorneys and investigators

(Redacted now un-redacted in bold & italics)
(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)).

(PDF end of page 5 and begin page six)
It is not uncommon, however, for a witness to have only a vague recollection about events

that occurred years prior and then to recall additional details about those events when his or her

recollection is refreshed with relevant documents or additional information. Similarly, cooperating

witnesses often fail to have complete and accurate recall of detailed facts regarding specific

meetings, email communications, travel itineraries, and other events. Such a failure is unsurprising

here, where these occurrences happened during a period when Mr. Manafort was managing a U.S.

presidential campaign and had countless meetings, email communications, and other interactions

with many different individuals, and traveled frequently

(Redacted now un-redacted in bold & italics)
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. Manafort’s 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 Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6)

(pdf end of page 7)
In a subsequent meeting, Mr. Manafort explained that it was unclear to him how this

payment was recorded by his accountants and he believed the original plan was to report the

payment as a loan, but that it had actually been reported as income on his 2017 tax return.

(Redacted now un-redacted in bold & italics)
The Government has indicated that Mr. Manafort’s statements about this payment are inconsistent with those of others, but the defense has not received any witness statements to support this contention.

(pdf page 9)
There is no support for the proposition that Mr. Manafort intentionally lied to the

Government.

(Redacted now un-redacted in bold & italics)
The first alleged misstatement identified in the Special Counsel’s submission (regarding a text exchange on May 26, 2018) related to a text message from a third-party asking permission to use Mr. Manafort’s 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)