ShareThis Page
Judge finds Paul Manafort lied to investigators in Russia probe | TribLIVE.com
Politics/Election

Judge finds Paul Manafort lied to investigators in Russia probe

Chad Day • Associated Press
| Wednesday, February 13, 2019 7:19 p.m
747478_web1_747478-f3800bd43f304f4ba6900f77bbdb94be
747478_web1_747478-8a4ae9bff8eb47c0afe9be5101e6555a
747478_web1_1129453808
Kevin Downing, attorney for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, leaves the U.S. District Courthouse following a closed hearing February 13, 2019 in Washington. Manafort was found guilty last year in a federal court in Virginia on eight counts of bank and tax fraud as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He is currently on trial in the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON — Paul Manafort intentionally lied to investigators and a federal grand jury in the special counsel in the Russia probe, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson was another loss for the former Trump campaign chairman, who faces years in prison in two separate criminal cases stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. It hurts Manafort’s chance of receiving a reduced sentence, though Jackson said she would decide the exact impact during his sentencing next month.

The four-page order resolves a dispute that had provided new insight into how Mueller views Manafort’s actions as part of his broader probe of Russian election interference and any possible coordination with associates of President Trump.

Jackson found there was sufficient evidence to say Manafort broke his plea agreement by lying about three of five matters that prosecutors had singled out. That included his misleading the FBI, prosecutors and a federal grand jury about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, his co-defendant who the FBI says has ties to Russian intelligence.

Prosecutors had accused Manafort of lying about his discussions with Kilimnik about a possible Ukrainian peace plan. During a sealed hearing, Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said one of the discussions — an Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Club cigar bar in New York — went to the “larger view of what we think is going on” and what “we think the motive here is.”

“This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the Special Counsel’s Office is investigating,” Weissmann said, adding: “That meeting and what happened at that meeting is of significance to the special counsel.”

The meeting occurred while Manafort was still in a high-ranking role in the Trump campaign. Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime deputy and also a Trump campaign aide, also attended.

Prosecutors also accused Manafort of lying about sharing polling data with Kilimnik during the 2016 presidential campaign, an allegation that became public accidentally when Manafort’s attorney flubbed redactions in a court filing.

Manafort’s attorneys had argued that he didn’t intentionally mislead investigators but rather forgot some details until his memory was refreshed. They also said the special counsel hadn’t shown that the topic at issue were material to the investigation.

In her ruling, Jackson said prosecutors did not sufficiently back up two allegations against Manafort, saying she could not find that he intentionally lied about Kilimnik’s role in witness tampering or what Manafort told investigators about his contacts with the Trump administration.

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.