January 8, 2019

Paul Manafort’s Botched Redactions Reveal New Details on Trump-Russia Interactions

Here’s more info on his curious relationship with an alleged Russian intelligence associate.

Paul Manafort arrives for a court hearing on April 19, 2018, in Washington.Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Paul Manafort dropped a bombshell on himself Tuesday.

In sections of a court filing that lawyers for the imprisoned former Trump campaign boss unsuccessfully tried to redact, Manafort’s attorneys disclosed that during the 2016 campaign, Manafort gave polling data to a former business partner who is alleged to have Russian intelligence ties, and that Manafort also discussed with that onetime associate a Ukraine peace plan that could have included ending US sanctions on Russia.

The accidental admissions came in a court filing responding to special counsel Robert Mueller’s allegation that Manafort lied to Mueller’s team about several subjects after agreeing last year to cooperate with his investigation. In sections that were redacted in the filing—yet viewable when copied and pasted into a new document—Manafort’s lawyers revealed significant new information regarding his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort’s former Ukrainian business partner who prosecutors have said has active ties to Russian intelligence. The disclosures shed new light on interactions between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in 2016.

In one of those sections, Manafort’s lawyers reveal that Manafort shared “polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign.”

Previous reporting disclosed that Manafort, while working for Donald Trump’s presidential bid, used Kilimnik as a go-between to offer insider briefings on the Trump campaign to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and Putin confidant to whom Manafort owed millions of dollars. Manafort also met with Kilimnik in Manhattan on August 2016 to discuss so-far undisclosed matters that Deripaska asked Kilimnik to bring up with the Trump campaign chairman. (Manafort, Kilimnik, and Deripaska have claimed this conversation had nothing to do with Deripaska.)

Manafort’s sharing of polling data with Kilimnik suggests that his interactions with an alleged Russian intelligence contact (who apparently was in touch with Deripaska) went further than previously known. It also raises the question of why Manafort was providing polling information to Kilimnik, and whether Kilimnik was passing the data on to anyone else.

Another section in the Manafort filing that was meant to be redacted reveals that Manafort met Kilimnik in Madrid, Spain—a previously unrevealed sit-down—and allegedly lied to Mueller about the meeting. (A Manafort spokesman says this meeting occurred in early 2017.) And the filing discloses that at some point while Manafort was working for the Trump campaign, Manafort and Kilimnik “discussed or may have discussed a Ukraine peace plan.”

This, too, raises serious questions. In early 2017, Michael Cohen, then Trump’s lawyer, and Felix Sater, a Trump business associate, pushed a Kremlin-friendly peace plan for Ukraine advocated by Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii Artemenko. Under this proposal, the United States would drop sanctions it imposed on Russia after that country’s 2014 invasion of Crimea in exchange for minor Russia concessions. If Kilimnik and Manafort had discussed anything similar, it would mean that the head of Trump’s campaign was conveying to an alleged Russian intelligence associate that Trump was willing to drop sanctions against Russia—a key goal for Putin. It’s unclear from the filing when such a conversation might have happened, but the submission raises the prospect that Manafort signaled to Russia that Moscow could get a good deal out of Trump when the Kremlin was considering or mounting its attack on the 2016 US presidential election.

Manafort’s lawyers assert that Manafort merely forgot about his conversation with Kilimnik about this plan because he was too busy “managing a U.S. presidential campaign.” Mueller’s team contends that Manafort purposefully hid this from federal investigators.

The big screwup by Manafort’s legal team reveals that Mueller has unearthed hints of possibly untoward conversations between the Trump campaign and Russia. Manafort’s filing is not proof of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. But it strongly suggests that Manafort was game and that there’s more to the story than Mueller has so far revealed.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate