Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. An accident in
Speaker 1: redacting a court filing by Paul Manafort's defense team has
Speaker 1: given an unintended glimpse at potentially damaging areas of Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the twenty
Speaker 1: six presidential election. The document shows that Trump's former campaign
Speaker 1: chair shared polling data on the election with an associate
Speaker 1: tied to Russian intelligence and lied about it. Joining me
Speaker 1: is Jimmy Grule, a professor at Notre Dame Law School.
Speaker 1: Jimmy tell us more about the information the redaction revealed. Well,
Speaker 1: revealed that that there was this meeting again, as you stated,
Speaker 1: between Paul Manafort, who was at the time the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign him and in an individual by the name of
Speaker 1: Constantine Clinic and Clinics, a very interesting individual. The U.
Speaker 1: S Intelligence community has reason to believe that he's connected
Speaker 1: to Russian intelligence and apparently the purpose of the meeting
Speaker 1: was for Manafort to share this internal polling data with Colinic,
Speaker 1: and so this raises a number of very serious and
Speaker 1: important questions. You know, first, why would the campaign chairman
Speaker 1: share this, this internal polling data with an individual connected
Speaker 1: to Russian intelligence? And I think the obvious reasonable explanation
Speaker 1: is that this would be information that would assist the Russians, again,
Speaker 1: if passed on by Clinic to to others in the
Speaker 1: Russian intelligence community to target to assist Trump and getting elected.
Speaker 1: That's the bottom line, to assist Trump in getting elected
Speaker 1: by enabling the Russians to better target their social media
Speaker 1: campaign to assist and motivate Trump voters and to suppress
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton voters. Is this the clearest evidence we have
Speaker 1: seen so far of collusion or what lawyers might call
Speaker 1: conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. I think there's
Speaker 1: no question that it is. It's clearly the most concrete,
Speaker 1: direct evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with Russian officials
Speaker 1: to aid Trump and getting elected. But despite all the
Speaker 1: information we've seen, there still is no connection to the president.
Speaker 1: Is that right? That's correct? So that that's the other
Speaker 1: important questions I raised. The first, you know, what was
Speaker 1: the purpose of the meeting? How did it benefit the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign? The next question, and again it's an open question,
Speaker 1: is was Trump aware? Was Trump aware Candidate Trump aware
Speaker 1: at that time that this meeting was taking place. Did
Speaker 1: he give his blessing? Did he encourage man of words
Speaker 1: to meet with Clinic? Was just something that Manafort did
Speaker 1: on his own, without the President's knowledge. So, Jimmy, most
Speaker 1: of the time when the FBI or prosecutors are questioning cooperators,
Speaker 1: they know the answers to the questions. Was this a
Speaker 1: case of Manafort saying something and then the prosecutors saying, oh,
Speaker 1: but we have this evidence, and then Manafort saying, I
Speaker 1: forgot that You're right? And is this what Mueller is
Speaker 1: calling lies by Manafort? Yeah, that's the issue. I mean.
Speaker 1: So again, the context in which this this new information
Speaker 1: was revealed wasn't a document that was filed by Manafort's
Speaker 1: attorneys with the court in Washington, d c. In an
Speaker 1: effort to contest allegations by by Mueller's lawyers that Manafort
Speaker 1: did not cooperate fully in the investigation, that he lied
Speaker 1: to Mueller's investigators. And basically, Manafort's lawyers are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: he he forgot you know that this is just something
Speaker 1: that that he didn't remember at the time. As you stated,
Speaker 1: the questioning by Mueller's lawyers of Manafort would be very
Speaker 1: very specific, and if he stated, oh, I don't recall
Speaker 1: or that may have happened, they would have probably followed
Speaker 1: up with very specific questions, what about this date, what
Speaker 1: about this time? And again, this would be based on
Speaker 1: on concrete evidence that they have to establish this particular
Speaker 1: connection and this meeting between Manafort and clinic. Manaport's defense
Speaker 1: attorneys aren't even seeking a hearing about Mueller pulling this
Speaker 1: plea agreement. Where does this leave Maniford as far as sentencing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, isn't it. So they're not requesting a hearing
Speaker 1: to contest Mueller's claims of breach of the plea agreement.
Speaker 1: You would think that if they truly believe that this
Speaker 1: was simply a memory oversight by Maniford, that they would
Speaker 1: want to have a hearing. Maybe they would want to
Speaker 1: introduce evidence, maybe witnesses, maybe called Manafort himself to explain
Speaker 1: this this oversight, But they're not requesting that. They're not
Speaker 1: requesting that, which is very curious in and of itself,
Speaker 1: and so I think at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the court is going to make a determination based on
Speaker 1: the pleadings that have been submitted regarding whether or not
Speaker 1: Manafort should receive any benefit for cooperating with an older investigation,
Speaker 1: and if not, then he's going to be sentenced to
Speaker 1: a substantial term of imprisonment. Another big reveal, also on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: is that the Russian lawyer who attended the norm Tower
Speaker 1: meeting in June between Manafort, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr.
Speaker 1: Has been indicted for obstruction of justice. How significant is that? Well,
Speaker 1: that's of significant development as well, because now the fact
Speaker 1: that Valisntskaya, this Russian lawyer, has been indict the government
Speaker 1: has leverage. They have leverage that they could exert against
Speaker 1: her in an effort to obtain her cooperation and in
Speaker 1: the Muller investigation. And so there's a real incentive now
Speaker 1: for her to cooperate in the investigation and disclose any relevant,
Speaker 1: credible information that she has that could assist Mueller in
Speaker 1: the Russia probe. This came out of the Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York, though the prosecutors there. Why do you
Speaker 1: think the Special Council gave it to them or handed
Speaker 1: it off. Yeah, because again, it doesn't fall clearly within
Speaker 1: the scope of the Special Council's mandate. And so the
Speaker 1: mandate of the Special Council is to again investigate collusion
Speaker 1: between the Trump campaign and Russians, and so this is
Speaker 1: kind of a side issue. It's it's a crime that
Speaker 1: maybe has some relevance, but it's certainly not central to
Speaker 1: the Muller investigation. And so they decided that it would
Speaker 1: be better for the Southern District of New York to
Speaker 1: handle the matter. Thanks Jimmy. That's Jimmy Garula, a professor
Speaker 1: at Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the
Speaker 1: show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com
Speaker 1: slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This is Bloomberg