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.

THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

At least we hope they will, because that’s our approach to raising the $350,000 in online donations we need right now—during our high-stakes December fundraising push.

It’s the most important month of the year for our fundraising, with upward of 15 percent of our annual online total coming in during the final week—and there’s a lot to say about why Mother Jones’ journalism, and thus hitting that big number, matters tremendously right now.

But you told us fundraising is annoying—with the gimmicks, overwrought tone, manipulative language, and sheer volume of urgent URGENT URGENT!!! content we’re all bombarded with. It sure can be.

So we’re going to try making this as un-annoying as possible. In “Let the Facts Speak for Themselves” we give it our best shot, answering three questions that most any fundraising should try to speak to: Why us, why now, why does it matter?

The upshot? Mother Jones does journalism you don’t find elsewhere: in-depth, time-intensive, ahead-of-the-curve reporting on underreported beats. We operate on razor-thin margins in an unfathomably hard news business, and can’t afford to come up short on these online goals. And given everything, reporting like ours is vital right now.

If you can afford to part with a few bucks, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones with a much-needed year-end donation. And please do it now, while you’re thinking about it—with fewer people paying attention to the news like you are, we need everyone with us to get there.

payment methods

THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

At least we hope they will, because that’s our approach to raising the $350,000 in online donations we need right now—during our high-stakes December fundraising push.

It’s the most important month of the year for our fundraising, with upward of 15 percent of our annual online total coming in during the final week—and there’s a lot to say about why Mother Jones’ journalism, and thus hitting that big number, matters tremendously right now.

But you told us fundraising is annoying—with the gimmicks, overwrought tone, manipulative language, and sheer volume of urgent URGENT URGENT!!! content we’re all bombarded with. It sure can be.

So we’re going to try making this as un-annoying as possible. In “Let the Facts Speak for Themselves” we give it our best shot, answering three questions that most any fundraising should try to speak to: Why us, why now, why does it matter?

The upshot? Mother Jones does journalism you don’t find elsewhere: in-depth, time-intensive, ahead-of-the-curve reporting on underreported beats. We operate on razor-thin margins in an unfathomably hard news business, and can’t afford to come up short on these online goals. And given everything, reporting like ours is vital right now.

If you can afford to part with a few bucks, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones with a much-needed year-end donation. And please do it now, while you’re thinking about it—with fewer people paying attention to the news like you are, we need everyone with us to get there.

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